Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

What's our time?

I just want to make sure. Okay.

Oh, you got five 32 at five 33. We'll call the meeting to order the approval of the minutes meeting minutes from September the second 2026.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from 2020 I'm sorry September 3rd 2026 second I'll second

have a motion on the floor for approval of the minutes for september the 2nd 2026 and also a second um ready for the question all in favor let it known by saying aye aye aye aye aye aye opposed hearing none eyes habit motion carried number three subdivision and land development a final land development for 216 greenfield road

Good evening. Cheryl Love with the LA Group, Jeff Sterla with Wilson, and Bernadette Hohenadl this evening. Our plans were, our preliminary plans were approved July 1st. Um, they're essentially, uh, unchanged. Uh, we have addressed our sourdough comments, um, and we've worked with city staff. Um, so we, we believe we are, uh, ready and prepared for. seeking a final plan approval this evening. And we're certainly open to any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Otherwise, we feel that our plan is prepared and has addressed everything.

Any comments? Planning commissions? Any public comments?

Tony D'Astra is 700 block of New Holland Avenue, but I got to just say right now, I've been to a lot of planning commission meetings. I've never seen no discussion at all and then voting being put on the table. Like, that's confusing. That's concerning. So I was writing comments because I was going to watch what I assume would be the presentation on meeting the conditions of approval because that's kind of on par with my experience in Planning Commission is that the developer tends to go through some of this in a more forthright and transparent manner and It just goes to highlight why I am disturbed that I came here two weeks ago asking about when this would be up so I can continue to have conversations with the public. No expectation of it being on the agenda. And had it not been for LMP giving me a call, I am shocked that this has come on the agenda so fast. That was not the vibes communicated at the last meeting. And I'm dumbfounded. So since I'm dumbfounded, I'll just acknowledge something that happened outside because I think this is complicated and I think it goes to speak to where I, as a member of the public, have all these various frustrations that this is not gonna be the last avenue I speak to them. And you deserve to know why I responded so coldly outside, Mr. Albert. So I know that there is not a legal requirement for – I want to be clear. I'm trying to say this respectful, but anybody would probably feel weird about what I'm about to say. I don't like reviewing the mayor's campaign finance records and finding out that the special counsel was a donor to the mayor's campaign. I think we as the public generally are a little unnerved by the amount of donations. And you didn't do anything illegal. You didn't do anything wrong. I want to be clear about that. I'm not accusing you of breaking any crimes, none of that. But the fact that I only found out about that when going through to look for other information, I was like, I feel like this is at least pertinent to the public discourse. Maybe I'm wrong in saying that I don't really get a lot of money when I run for office. Um, so just, your donation was substantial enough that I'm like, okay, not breaking the law, but maybe this is why Lancaster city has an ethics commission and going forward, we need to have these open conversations as a public because I respect you. Um, that was why I had that moment of internal conflict outside. Cause I really do respect you, but I'm having trouble living in a city that I feel is not being forthright with the public. So off of that subject, I've come to find out that after I was here last time, there were conversations about me and me being wrong about my assertions about needing zoning approvals. Those were not reflected in the video, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary, so I'm not going to bother to pursue anything about the idea of deliberations outside of the context of a public meeting, but to find that out, And those answers are not being put in writing to be provided to the commission. Because I'm asking a legitimate question here, guys. And it's really not hard. And I'm asking the question because the public is seeking legal avenues at the moment. And we need this information to understand what our actual mechanisms as the public are. Whether we win or lose is a whole different thing. but we at least deserve to understand what process we need to take, right? Because the process is how it all works. So many struggles have been fought, and when you don't do them the right way, people get upset with you. Then when you do them the right way, you get stonewalled. I'm just trying to seek a point of information. When was the zoning approval, determination rather, the technical language, when was the zoning determination made for this project? And I got two different answers. I'm not asking this to be a dialogue. Honestly, it shouldn't have been any sort of dialogue. I'm talking to the commission. But I got two different answers on this side of the dais that I wasn't expecting and further sent red flags up in my head because it seemed at first like there was a narrative that we made an approval when I was still on this commission body, that I had all the documents that you guys had been provided with. And that is true. From my time in October to December, I would have seen everything that you guys saw. I saw nothing that told me that there was a zoning determination made. And we had the court case in December which said there was no zoning determination made by the zoning officer writing the letters which were then validated by the city and the CBA to be advisory opinions. So it puts wrenches in all these gears because who makes the determination depends or varies the process the public needs to take. Because if it's you, then we have to take it through the county court immediately. But if it happens somewhere else, then yeah, the zoning hearing board is the appropriate venue. And I'll stop the, I know Ralph has some comments, and I'll walk him up here for that, but like, While I go do that, it'd be great to get an answer of when the heck the zoning determination was made, and the commission can ask it of the developers or staff, whatever, but part of why I came here recording is because I don't feel like we're getting a transparent and engaged government right now, and it's even more freaky that I came here and just tried to seek information. But no, it's because I'm trying to go viral or something. Long form videos don't go viral. It's not how the algorithm works. It was for the record.

Thank you. Can we get Ralph one of the wireless microphones? Would that be okay?

Ralph Mann.

Yes.

You want to make some public comments? Yes.

My name is Ralph. I lived here all my life, and it's like, I might be blind, but I can see, but it's bad for our community. I would like to see things change a bit, change.

Anything else you want to say, Bob?

I'd just like to see it happen.

Okay, thank you. Any further public comment?

I'm Em Funk. I've been living in Lancaster since 2020. I come from a clinical psychologist background. It is very disturbing that I'm echoing Tony's questions that there wasn't really any rebuttals or deeper dives in because there's not a lot of information really out there. And I'm also concerned in terms of just living classes. I've been living here since 2020. I documented that my electricity went up 30 percent despite us using half amount. Also with that air quality, there are so many pollutants. As somebody who suffers from mass cell activation syndrome, this is going to physically affect my health. This is going to make Lancaster something, a place that is so beautiful, so rich with history and culture. Do we really want this to be a staple with data centers and moving forward because Again, I look at the sycamore trees that literally Alexander Hamilton used to stand under at Millersville campus. We look at that. We look at the plaques. There is so much history here. And it's just very disturbing that the public information is not very clear. So I'm hoping for some future transparency, because I also understand sometimes we overlook that. We have a lot on our plates. But the pace that this is moving at is a little disturbing, because we do not know the full ramifications. In fact, a study from Connecticut University highlights the growing concerns of facilities consuming massive amount of energy and just the general air pollutants. And there is no transparency in regards of how this is going to impact our community really. And I would really, I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this. I want my family to be safe. I want to live here and grow a life. I fell in love with Lancaster City for the way that the community is. I love walking downtown to my job. I love seeing the people day to day and having conversations because there is so many, whether they come from which background, We're all just people but realistically it is very disturbing Just how fast this is moving without the clarity of information and the further ramifications I appreciate all your time and hearing us out Thank you Any further public comment

Ms. Lynn, is there any comment?

We have no comment.

No comment.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a movement to approve the final land development for 216 Greenfield Road under the following conditions, the following six conditions. I'm going to read them all so we have them in writing. Number one, satisfy all outstanding plan comments noted in the August 27th, 2026 C.S. Davidson Review Letter that was provided to ELA Group. Number two, satisfy any additional technical comments that arise as a consequence of plan revisions prior to recording. Number three, submit financial guarantee in accordance with the approved opinion of probable cause prior to final plan recording. Number four, enter into a final plan developer's agreement with the city that is satisfactory to city staff. The developer's plan shall include language and fee amount pertaining to alternate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along Pitney Road as agreed by the city engineer. Number five, all easements and agreements shall be submitted for review by the city and record as part of the plan recordation including but not limited to the stormwater O&M access easement agreement as shown on the plan. And number six, to provide HOP approval.

so we have motion on the floor second we have a motion on the floor and also a second subdivision and land development final land development for

218 greenfield road mr polite prior to us um entering into the final approval of this project i do want to just ask one quick question and i believe this might be for um for you over there um how Governor Shapiro recently issued an executive order on data centers and I know certain requirements were environmental impacts and environmental enhancements were included within that executive order along with a number of other things. Energy consumption, heat sources, or heat monitoring I should say and I just would like to have a better understanding of how that if that executive order can impact some of the requirements of this particular project and how does the current plan align with those new requirements that were in his executive order

So I've had extensive conversations with the governor's office and the author of the executive order. We meet all the requirements currently. The executive order does not impact us because we have all of our DEP regulations already. That executive order, if you hadn't started the DEP process previously, then there are other things that come into play with regards to the requirements of that executive order that would It's just a timing thing. It really isn't anything to do with the requirements. We meet from an air quality standpoint. We meet all the requirements. We have a minor air permit from DEP. We meet all of the other water requirements. We're a closed loop. So all of the things that they're looking for is encompassed in our plan already. So that Executive order in our conversations with them.

They felt we already met it Sorry that's my understanding in the situation as well that this this is not influenced the executive order does not have an impact on this application I

So is it my understanding and is it correct to assume that the current plan in fact meets and or exceeds the requirements that were noted within his executive order? Is that what you're saying?

There are some nuances of the new executive order which pushes the production of electricity off the grid if you don't have your DEP approvals already and you don't have a contract with PPL. We already have a contract with PPL to provide the power that's coming there. Some of the concerns that I have with the executive order that I expressed was that if you were going behind the grid, Most of that generation is gas-powered generation, which has other environmental impacts. So it's sort of, to be honest with you, this is one of the best of both worlds as far as that's concerned.

And not necessarily completely relevant but just curious, I know DEP is challenging to get through in a timely basis. So could you just explain a little bit of that timeline and how that, when did that process start and how did you receive approvals? It seems quick.

That process, well, that process started back when we put in the preliminary land plan originally with the Planning Commission. So we submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Lancaster County Conservation District, which is the arm of the DEP that works on what you all look at, the stormwater portion of it. So that all started, that clock started at the same time we received DEP. That was a year ago.

A year ago.

Approximately a year ago. And we received the RNPDS permit and the clean letter from the Lancashire County Conservation District in July, on July 1st, in advance of this. The air quality permit was received i would have to go back and look exactly what time but it's relatively that that was about a year-long process as well that was actually started a little bit a little bit earlier than than the land plan process was simply because we needed to identify those generators and the fact that we weren't running those generators to produce any power we were they were simply an emergency situation great thank you

And Mr. Polite, my motion is still on the floor. Right. Any further discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor let it known by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Hearing none, ayes have it, motion carried.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, B. 180 Greenfield Road, sketch plan.

So I will just make a note here, because this is a little bit of an unusual circumstance. Generally speaking, sketch plans do not come before the Planning Commission for action. Sometimes they'll come before the Planning Commission just as a presentation format to make you aware of something that's coming down the pike as a land development. In this particular instance, because of where this parcel is located, the city is considering a deferment of land development and this will all be explained to you why in the presentation, but Our preference is to have the approval of the Planning Commission before granting a deferment and so we wanted to make sure that you understood the the plan and we're comfortable with the plan and if you're not now it's the time to ask questions or What have you?

just to confirm you want us to conditionally hypothetically speaking we would conditionally approve this plan and then it would it nope it's either it's either you approve of um supporting the deferral of land development or you do not approve oh okay thank you i thought there was a sketch plan portion of that too

Thank you. I'm here with Ivan Yost and Jeff Milan. They're with Greenfield LLC, the owners of the property, as well as Steve Albrandt from McNeese Wallace in New York. Ivan and Jeff own 180 Greenfield Road, which is a 17-acre parcel, predominantly in East Lampeter Township. It has frontage onto Greenfield Road, has an existing commercial building and associated parking on it. There's a small portion of this site, however, to the west that's located within Lancaster City in the suburban zoning district. And Lauren, do you mind flipping to the aerial image? That might help set the context a little bit better. Perfect. Yeah. So that area that you can see on the screen, the green areas in East Lampeter Township to General Industrial District and then the small piece to the west is a little bit over two acres and that's within the city of Lancaster. So what we're proposing, maybe you can go back to the sketch plan again, Lauren, thank you, is to do like an industrial building on the site. Are you able to go back to the sketch plan? to do an industrial building and associated parking and loading areas on the site. That's the area of the darker gray building and a building addition onto the existing building. The access drive with Greenfield Road would be slightly aligned to align with LaSalle Avenue across the street. We've had preliminary discussions with the East Lampeter Township. Their zoning supports this application and the subsequent land development plan that would follow through with that. And the portion in the city, it's in a different zoning district, and it's oddly configured. It narrows and tapers down. We're proposing to use that area for stormwater management for the proposed site, in addition to some areas on our own property. To the southeast of the building, there's also going to be a stormwater management basin But a lot of the stormwater would be in the Lancaster City portion of the site. So with that said, because there's no buildings, there's no sewer or water, no traffic impacts to city streets, we're requesting a deferral from the Planning Commission in the city for the land development plan to be processed through East Lampeter Township. And we've done this in other projects where The property crosses municipal lines and most of the work is being done in that municipality but maybe some stormwater features or open space features are in the city. So in this case with this deferral request we want to be clear we're asking for the city to defer the land development plan to East Lampeter Township. But we understand because we are putting stormwater facilities in the city portion of the property and stormwater is important to the city and they have their own requirements, we fully expect a stormwater management review from city staff and we'll address those comments the same as we will with the East Lampeter Township staff comments. So we're asking for a waiver of land development planning and processing, but not a waiver of the stormwater. So just to make that clear with the commission. So what we're here to to discuss is in addition to the deferment. There's been conversations with city staff and the shade tree commission about tree replacement and removal on the site. And that's that's the bulk of what we'd like to talk to you about this evening. So in the letter that we had submitted we're asking for a waiver of doing tree replacement and to give some more context for that one if you could scroll over we have. There's a historic photo that might be helpful to see. Keep going. Do you have anything else loaded by chance with the aerial image? It was part of our application. If not, I have handouts I can share. Can you go back once? Sorry. I don't see it. I'll tell you what. I do have handouts for the Planning Commission. That might be helpful. These are 11 by 17s.

Are you referring to the 1999 historic photo? Yeah, that's where I'd like to start. Second page.

The second page, the 1999 aerial imagery. This shows what the site looked like about 26, 27 years ago. So clearly there was a lot of earth disturbance on the site. It's sandwiched between the two railroad areas. And it was basically a fill area for large boulders and things like that. The other thing that I'd like to pass out, this might be helpful. I think I brought enough. We have some, maybe I didn't bring them. It's photographs of the trees that are on the site and the site, but basically it's really large boulders on the site with a very, very thin layer of soil mantle on the property. So what's occurred over the years is it's grown up with vegetation, I would say, kind of scrub vegetation, a lot of black walnut, box elder, things like that, like opportunistic species that can grow in these kind of climates and areas, but they're really not of high quality or high value. It's basically a scrub area. There's no understory to speak of below, just scrub vegetation. The ordinance as you have it defined defines in the subdivision land development landmark trees and we'll get into that a little bit further but basically defines a landmark tree as a six inch tree caliper greater diameter breast height that's not considered an invasive or non-native species. So When Ivan and Jeff purchased the property and we started looking into this, we had a tree inventory summary done by a certified arborist. They prepared a report. And because of the area on the site, it's 2.1 acres, there are quite a few trees that meet that criteria. So black cherry, it's a native species. It's technically not considered like an invasive or non-native species. So technically, in some respects, that meets the intent or the strict definition of the ordinance for a landmark tree to be replaced. In this case, what we're proposing to do is to remove the vegetation in the city portion of the property and construct stormwater management infiltration in basin facilities. So we had a geologist go out and investigate the site and we did test probes and essentially because of the rock that's on the site and the existing conditions, It's not feasible to do traditional stormwater infiltration methodology here. So what we're proposing to do is what's called a managed release concept for stormwater. And you may have come across this, maybe you haven't in some of the city projects, but basically it's an alternative method that the DEP allows where instead of infiltrating stormwater completely, you would have a line facility with an amended soil mixture and plant materials that would provide water quality and a reduced release rate. to meet those criteria. In this case, because of the infrastructure on the property adjacent with the railroad tracks, the high potential for sinkholes, the recommendation for these facilities is to line them with a clay or other impermeable liner to prevent stormwater from infiltrating into the ground. It'll still be treated and managed. It'll just be released at a slow rate and filtered to provide water quality. That being said, we can provide a lot of vegetation within those basin areas in the form of shrubs, plugs, smaller shrubs with lower root structures, but we can't plant trees in the basin. It would be detrimental to the clay lining that's going to be proposed. So that's the approach for the stormwater. The plan that we have shown there, and again it's conceptual, but we have trees shown where we can have them around the perimeter and then a lot of shrubs and other plugs and other materials that would be carefully selected and planted to provide water quality benefits. In addition to the water quality benefits, what we would argue is that this proposed planting setup, this proposed stormwater setup would provide better stormwater quality, but also better habitat for wildlife, et cetera. Currently, it's kind of a monoculture on the site. There are a number of trees on the site, but the vast majority of single species. There's no understory. I would say it has a very low ecological habitat. The way it currently sits so we would we would propose that once this is constructed This is going to have a lot of benefits for city for stormwater management freeze East Lampeter Township, etc. This will be a superior solution We had shared this with the shade tree Commission back in November just to have a discussion with them about this and get their thoughts and I think one of the shade tree Commission members he works for land studies and he drew a pretty good analogy where And you're probably familiar with this too a lot of times municipalities wanted to take stream bank restoration projects where they'll go in and they'll restore floodplains and restore habitat and what they'll do the first thing they'll do is they'll clear all the vegetation on the site and that might be kind of counter counterintuitive but really to create a better more ecologically diverse habitat get the right species in there and to manage stormwater manage flooding clearing the existing vegetation is the first step and that's what we would propose to do with this project The reason we're having this discussion is because the landmark tree ordinance is in your stormwater management ordinance. It's defined again as six inches diameter breast height. The way that the ordinance is written is that those trees would be replaced on a one-to-one basis. So for example, if you took down a 10 inch diameter tree, you would have to plant four two and a half inch diameter trees to replace those or pay a fee in lieu of. Mike, who's here this evening, had calculated a fee in lieu of several months ago. And that number, based on the number of trees, was well in excess of $500,000. It was like $540,000. That's when we had some more conversations with city staff. We went to the shade tree commission to have that discussion. We've had subsequent discussions with city legal counsel and things like that and staff. And really, because the landmark tree provision is in the subdivision and land development ordinance, that's why we're here. So the request that we're making is to defer the land development process to East Lampeter Township with the exclusion of the stormwater management, which you would review. In our mind that that would also exclude us from complying with the subdivision and land development requirements of the city because you've deferred it. The city staff review letter said the comment from city staff was that we should comply with that section of the ordinance specific to the landmark tree ordinance. If that's the commission's recommendation is that we comply with that section, then we would ask for a modification not to pay the fee in lieu of the tree replacement in this case, based on the circumstances of this site. We feel that the value, although it's a standard value assigned to tree replacement in the city's formula, it really doesn't reflect the true value of these trees, which is basically scrub vegetation and not of high quality. And it's just important that one other thing I'd like to note is that this section of the ordinance the landmark trees is in the shade or the street tree section of the subdivision land development ordinance. So it's in there I think technically these count as landmark trees but in my mind the way I read it if it's in the street tree ordinance maybe the original intent of that was to protect the public right-of-way. Aesthetics, shade, and the right-of-way things that would affect the general public. In this case these trees are set well back from any roadways. They're not near adjacent to any public rights of ways it's really far back into the site so that's a lot of information but we wanted to have this conversation with the board so again just to reiterate we're asking for either a full deferral excluding the stormwater which would in turn exclude this section of the ordinance or a modification to not pay the fee in lieu of the tree replacement for what would be considered the landmark trees.

Mr. Gergely, if I understand your position, the tree aspect of this is nested within the stormwater aspect of this.

Well, you mean the reason for the tree removal?

Yeah. Yes, that's the reason for the removal. Yes. So if this board were to grant a deferral with the condition that the stormwater be complied with, That still leaves the tree aspect of this in play to be decided at a later date? Or are you asking for a decision right now on the tree side?

Well, our original application was to ask for a deferral. And then city staff comments seem to agree with that. It's broken up into the different departments. And I don't want to speak for Mike or city staff, but they're suggesting that they review the stormwater, which we agree with. There's no water. There's no sewer. I think those deferrals are also being recommended for approval. But the urban foresters comment was that that section of the subdivision and land development ordinance should be complied with. And that's that's what we're asking for either modification of that section or just to ask that you grant our original deferral request to exclude the subdivision land development ordinance. so you are asking this board to decide that aspect of the case as part of the deferral request okay thank you i understand it now whatever form that takes but we just the point that we're trying to make to the board is that we don't feel that the fee in lieu of tree replacement is appropriate here and then what we're going to propose is going to be a much better product for everybody

You said you had an arborist come out Assess the trees that are there and so on. Do you know how many? Landmark trees there were and or do you have the arborists like?

Report yeah, we submitted that with our application. I'm not sure if that made it to you guys But that was part of our sketch plan application But I think they identified I'm going to say it's 318, something like that, is the number of trees. And that's the number of trees. And then those are different calipers in size. The other thing to mention, too, there's a separate tree ordinance, which you're probably aware of. And there's, Mike, you can help me with the correct terminology. It's trees over 24 inches diameter have a special designation. protected trees that's not in dispute there are five protected trees on the site that would be over 24 inches that would be a fee in lieu of that that's not in dispute at all that's separate from the subdivision and land development ordinance that's regulated through the tree ordinance so there are five protected trees and about 318 landmark trees and again you said over 24 inches we say protected trees are over 24 inches. Yeah landmark trees are over six inches Exactly exactly No dispute with that what is the fee in lieu of for those Five protected trees $2,500

I'm sorry I am a little bit confused as to this process it's unique I don't I mean I understand the municipality sharing of approvals and I understand your request regarding deferring certain things to East Lampeter Township what I don't understand is I guess, so you're gonna coordinate with Lancaster City staff and meet Lancaster City stormwater requirements as stated in the saldo in the stormwater management plan.

It's stated in the stormwater management ordinance, which is a separate ordinance. Yeah, sorry, stormwater management ordinance.

But then from an approval standpoint, as far as the trees are concerned, If we defer to East Lampeter Township, are their tree requirements different?

Much different, yeah. They don't have the same requirements.

So... Um, the fee in lieu of goes to support new planting of trees within the city. Is there a compromise that we could come up with? Um, that isn't $500,000 because I understand that that is, um, not a realistic dollar amount as far as trees are concerned and probably prohibits, you know, a positive performer as far as the project is concerned. Um, but is there a simpler solution that could, um, be achieved that we could still have not all 500,000 of them, but certain dollars in order to allow new trees to be planted in the city, which is needed. But again, I'm not suggesting that that has to be a $500,000 number. I understand why that's a lot to ask for. And so when you're asking for a modification... Well, I guess I'm just asking if it's even a possibility to consider, you know, I mean, the trees in the city and greenery around our community is important. Shade is important to reduce, you know, your heat island effects. I know that that's not necessarily the case in this particular area where we're talking about these trees, but I do know that trees are essential to the health and wellness of our community. So... I'm not suggesting that a $500,000 fee in lieu of is a requirement, but is there some form of fee in lieu of that way, can we come up with a number that maybe, I don't know what the fee in lieu of per tree is, but if it's $100, can you pay for 20 trees and go from there? significantly reducing the number of trees that are outlined in the tree ordinance to allow you to garner the approval process but we're kind of winning in both ways so give it and taking a little bit you're asking for something in between the 20 like maybe half I'm just asking if a consideration of a fee in lieu of four trees to an order to continue to have trees available to be planted within our community is the solution that we could come up with this after this evening.

This is something we are allowed to ask for.

Oh good question.

Well just just in some more context. So after we had the shade tree commission meeting Ivan and Jeff had offered a reduced fee of like I think twenty five thousand dollars to the city. To be used however they see fit, whether that's planting new trees, doing the education outreach, something presumably with environmental benefits, but they made an offer to that. to that effect previously. City staff looked at that and the offer, the counteroffer that we received was a reduction in the tree fee by 25%. So it still was, the still number was like over $400,000, which is still not really feasible for this project to move forward. So an offer was made before. I think Jeff and Ivan, the 25,000 would still be acceptable, again, like to plant other trees, use it however the city sees fit, presumably, again, for ecological purposes. Similar type benefits.

I know this might be famous last words out of our purview a little bit, but What would the options be if you had all the stormwater management done on the other side of our? property line Mayor Mrakas, Of the boundaries and you had them do it with that cost you more than $500,000 to say put stormwater management facilities underneath all the parking lots. Mayor Mrakas, Certainly, the five trees and the little bit around that retention base and wouldn't be enough so taken advantage of this little corner of land that Lancaster has two acres. compared to working with the remaining 15 acres that is entirely built up, I would think $500,000 seems like a really good deal compared to the expense of engineering stormwater management for $169,000 square foot building. I would just. $169,000 square foot building. I think it's a bargain.

We do have some experts from the city here to give us some informed discussion as well.

Yeah, I have a feeling I did that.

Can you all hear, is this? I've never used this one, I can't use them. Yeah I think that's right. OK. Hi good evening. Molly Dagger I'm one of the deputy directors of public works. I oversee the sustainability and environment division. So that's the stormwater bureau the urban forestry as well as implementing the city's climate action plan. I just wanted to thank everyone for their discussion so far. I think these are really great questions. Clarify just a few things here. We have been coordinating, understanding the unique complexity of this project with the engineer and the team here. However, until the sketch plan, nothing had actually been submitted. And so any sort of discussion regarding Fee and Lou was just consideration as a comparison with how this the press the precedent that had been set through you know the last few years of land development in the City of Lancaster appreciating that this is a unique situation I can certainly understand wanting to get some of these items taken care of as soon as possible but the reality is we are at just a sketch plan here so I just I want to consider another option as well and something that I You do have in your packet a memo that we provided to you as well I we tried to keep it as short as possible and I apologize that's hard to do with something like this but as Some of you have noted, you know tree preservation has been identified in both the city's comprehensive plan as well as the trees for people action plan as you know real dollar value in in terms of the ecological value that that brings to the city, as well as stated, urban heat island, air quality filtration. And so while, yes, this is a unique situation, this is still in the city boundary, and it's something that I don't think that we should take lightly. And so at the same time, I don't believe that there needs to be a decision made on what the fee should be tonight. Our suggestion, in collaboration with the Planning Bureau, was that as a condition of deferment that this continued to be something that has worked through during the land development process. Similarly, we will, as stated, be taking a look at the project stormwater management design as well. We do think there is still opportunity to push at least some of the stormwater management onto the East Lampeter side, and as you suggested, maybe there can be a cost comparison done there as well. I actually wanted to clarify, we may actually not review it and approve it per the city stormwater management ordinance. Just acknowledging that the flow and the basins being on city property and then discharging onto city property will end up then becoming under our obligation through some of our Our permits and our regulatory requirements that we hold with the state and so it we need to put in our due diligence to understand What the systems design would be what the proposed discharges onto the city? Property would be and so we do expect at a minimum at a minimum to be copied on correspondence if deferment if deferred to East Lampeter Township and on the reviews to be able to take a look at what what is being proposed on the city property and So that's a lot of information. I just wanted to clarify that I do think that there is a possibility that an actual fee wouldn't need to be determined as this still is in sketch plan and there There may be, hopefully could be possibility for less tree disturbance. One other thing, and this is clarified in your memo as well, while we do appreciate and acknowledge that these are not trees that have been around since the time of William Penn, we have the fee in lieu requirement as it has been established by precedent before. Did eliminate any non native and invasive trees from that calculation? So that really high dollar figure and I do appreciate that that's high is looking at the native species that are on the site today Which we do know provides even more ecological value to our plant and wildlife community If there are any other questions, I also have our urban forester who would be happy to talk about trees all night, but I know you all are busy and we just wanted to kind of chime in and let you know that we're here if you have any other questions.

I have a question to try and clarify this in a way that would in the form of a motion the board could act on. The sense of what you're suggesting is that you have no objection to the deferral, which the facts are the facts, but that the amount of any fee in lieu would be a matter, there would be a condition imposed that the amount of any fee in lieu would be determined based on a, a joint recommendation of the applicant and the Department of Public Works at a later date by this body. Is that the sense of what you're looking towards? think so and if the Planning Commission would like to be part of that discussion at a later date as well you know we'd be happy to do that I think this is one of those technical things that staff works out very well and then comes to mature you know recommendations to to the the overall body at a later date yeah that that my own bias in the situation but yeah

So if staff is going to continue to work on this project, respond to comments, provide feedback, why don't we just require them to go through the normal land development process through the City of Lancaster as well?

Well, the answer to that is that the deferral request, if there weren't trees, The deferral request is almost a no brainer because there's no buildings being built on this. The 99% of this project is happening on another municipality and it's only incidental. And in theory, this could be done in a way where you didn't have to touch the little bit in the city of Lancaster. I mean, the whole center of gravity of this project is way over in East Lampeter Township. That's the traditional reason for granting a deferral. And whether the commission wants to go on that or not, my own view is it's a kind of circumstance where deferrals are routinely granted.

So follow up to that from a deferral standpoint, I guess would the developing team be responsible Let me start over. The city of Lancaster is under a DEP mandate and has higher standards of stormwater management controls than what I believe East Lampeter Township has. So how do we ensure that even though this is a small portion of the site that the tree requirements are a tree requirement solution is come to that not only benefits the developer but also benefits the development itself and the community as a whole. And then how do we ensure that those stormwater management systems are set up? And I guess what I'm confused on is if we have city staff making recommendations, are those recommendations that the city staff would be making a requirement for this team to implement for the approval of their final plan when they're ready to go to that route?

Well, there'd be two ways of doing that one would be to deny or you know or just table the request for deferral in which case they have Literally everything is still in play even though even though the reasons are are But if it's the pleasure of the Commission that they want to be robustly involved in it, you would deny or at least postpone action on the deferral. The other way would be the imposing of conditions that would make it very clear that final plans could not be recorded without the final approval of the Planning Commission here. It could be done either way and how it's the it's a policy decision on the board's part of how Strongly you want to be involved in that aspect of this It almost puts us in a very interesting place because if we didn't have that two acres to look at and we said I

sorry, figure it out on the 15 acre side. That's a whole mess you're looking at. Um, if we asked our friends who understand a lot more about trees, if the two acre improvements you're doing are better than what's currently there with or without money, I'm not interested in the money part. I'm interested in what makes the most sense and what's the best for the environment and That's that would be a whole nother question, which I'm not even in a place where I can formulate as a really good question But it seems like if Lancaster wasn't even in the picture period this two acres didn't exist That would be a huge burden for the developer to put on the 15 acres of property, but fortunately we're here So we do have a big decision. I know it's kind of repeating what everyone else said but

Am at a little bit of a loss and I would like a little more guidance as well Okay, so just also to be clear it is one parcel so While the separation there is a municipal separation. It is still their property Okay, and so just wanted to make sure that that was clear and so what the memo that you were provided proposed was adding in addition adding a condition to the deferral and the condition the condition suggests that the city continue to have oversight of the land development and play an active role in the land development now as far as you want to go in terms of what that means um And or if you wanted to, you know, again, to Miss Dagger's point, this is only in a sketch plan right now, right? So this hasn't even been submitted as a land development plan. So there's, as you all know, there's a lot that can change, right? So stormwater management can move around. We don't know all of that yet. And so as a condition of the deferral, you can keep um you can keep the city involved um for review and more decisions will be made going forward and also as miss dagger said we can also keep you involved in that decision because you've been part of this decision so those are all options for you and those are all conditions that you can put onto the deferral

regarding the deferral is there an opportunity sketch plans are you noted it miss Finn just a moment ago that sketch plans can change dramatically from the first time we see them to the last time we see them so is it premature to grant this deferral and do we wait until the development process gets a little bit further along you have a more solid plan and defined and then come back and ask us for the referral. Deferral, excuse me.

The problem is that they would have to submit land development to us as well. And so if we don't defer now, then when they submit to East Lampeter, they also have to submit to us. And so the decision does have to be made. Whether or not to defer, the decision does need to be made or tabled.

I will say, too, things may change with the sketch plan or the land development plan, but nothing else is going to change in Lancaster City portion of the project other than that's going to be a stormwater management area. There's not going to be any building. There's not going to be any paving, no water, no sewer, no driveway. So really, the exact final configuration of the stormwater facilities is the only thing that would change within the city limits.

Is the city arborist? You want to weigh in on this, please? I've never been accused of being quiet.

Uh, it's hard for me. Uh, yeah. So, um, the, you know, the trees on site counted in, uh, table one of the memo provided, uh, uh, that, that goes into, you know, it's, they're all the natives. They're there. It is predominantly black locusts. Um, it is a site that has been undeveloped, uh, since the latest, uh, nineties, um, And so, unsurprisingly, we have had, you know, this growth that is there. And to Molly's point from earlier, you know, we are going along with the precedent that has been set. So, like, this is what, how things were calculated. And the amount of ecosystem services that the city you know benefits from this is you know even if it is scrub it is still there it has been established for you know a quarter of a century um so like there's gonna be some benefits even if like we're not talking it's like a national park or you know old growth forest or something there um so uh you know we are just trying to make sure that we don't lose those benefits you know to the community as again The impacts of the basins and everything are going to go on to within our municipal boundary and stuff. So we're just trying to make sure we have our due diligence on that. Any other tree questions?

You said black walnut?

Black locusts. Locusts, locusts, locusts.

Then the five trees that are above 24 in diameter are what in particular? Do you know what they are?

We do have a chart up here.

Yeah, so some of them are, I mean, statistically, I think most are black locusts just because there's so many of them on the property. I believe...

Mike if I can there's three black locusts and two box elders. OK.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify kind of tying up some points that have been made. I do think Mr. Whalen you made a good point earlier. It is possible that a cost comparison of either understanding that there could be let me rephrase that there will be significant financial impact if that forest is removed that impact will either be on development team or on the city for having to then create that similar benefit in accordance with some of our approved plans as I mentioned the comprehensive plan and trees for people plan so there is opportunity I believe that could be explored for minimizing the amount of stormwater management that is on the city portion that could be considered

I think going back to Mr. Whalen's earlier discussion point, could this project be pulled back? Could we do more stormwater on the East Lampeter side? Maybe. I mean, the building would reduce. We couldn't do anything underground because it doesn't support it. It has to be above ground basins. I guess I would ask the city to consider, if we just pulled it back and we didn't do anything in the city, we just left that there as it is, the ecological value of that, which is not nothing, it's something, versus replacing that with more native species and shrubs and trees and plugs, Working functional stormwater management system that supports wildlife and a more mature habitat Is that a greater value than leaving it as it is and that that's really that's really our point is that? Replacing this with something better something that's going to get approved by the city by the East Lampeter Township By the conservation district and DEP through the NPDES permit That end product is going to be much better than if we just left that portion of the city out of the development project I mean that's an option for the developers to just leave it, but it really doesn't do What's going to be proposed is going to be a much greater benefit, I would argue, than just leaving it as it is. It's just not set up with the condition it is. It would take decades and centuries. If you walk the site, it's just a very thin soil mantle over large boulders and these trees. No understory. It's not a high-value habitat. And I don't think that's really in dispute. I think what we're going to do here is going to be a better product when it's finished. along with that I guess maybe what I'm hearing you say is also what I'm thinking like how much water can be managed with what you're proposing versus what is currently there is that kind of like let's say exactly hundreds of thousands of gallons versus it's exactly right so right now it's just boulders it's rock you walk around the rock there's rubble there's debris there's not much stormwater infiltration going on there there's no impervious surface either so it's probably just more or less self-contained but it could provide a much better benefit then so right now that water hits like a very thin soil mantle there's a little bit of root uptake and then it basically just goes through the rocks and that's it like that that's that's there we've done enough investigations to know that if there was um you know 12 to 24 inches of amended soils over a clay liner with other species and shrubs and things like that that's going to be much much much better stormwater benefit

I think there's also air quality which I think would be is probably better with the trees that are there I don't you know like there are other factors that I'm thinking about too but I see what you're saying

Any further discussion with the commission? Any further public discussion? Yes.

I'm turning this thing off. That's why you get confused. You just leave it on. Maybe I turned it off. I forget. Tony Dash is 700 block of New Holland Avenue. Steve, I love you, man. Don't call a black walnut tree a scrub tree. You're trying to hurt my feelings now. Black walnut trees are awesome. Black walnut trees, fun fact, produce a chemical called jugulone, which kills most other plant species around it. It makes it a more challenging environment. It's part of why they thrive. but i would appreciate it if the commission did take more of a pause here with this because i'm so i'm glad that mrs sufert brought up the tree thing um when i look at that list and i see the red oaks oak trees can foster homes for Hundreds of species of moths and caterpillars which end up producing a large food source for birds Which ties to some other conversations that have happened in this room Whereas a tulip poplar can only host I think it's like six species of moths and caterpillars So not as productive for like the bird populations I do think there is a significant amount of nuance to be had in this conversation I do think the city needs to keep its teeth in it because when I just hear a number like, hey, $500,000 fee in lieu of, I do have like two worlds of thought. One is like, okay, well, what can be done here? But simultaneously, I'm like, hmm, Tree wells and all that are the responsibility of private property owners in the city. Maybe we could leverage that to build some better tree wells to get some red oaks in city limits because oaks are pretty hard to have in a cityscape with their size. I do think there's a way that the developers in the city can come to the table on this and get a win-win um but I do think despite how scrubby it may appear out there there are some ecological values being provided that we don't necessarily see directly but when we see more birds in our area and bird species are on the decline um we see it in the long term uh you can't undo 25 years of time um So there is a value to some of these older trees, especially if they're good hosts for other insect species to support the food web. And I would maybe just for some light reading, like honestly, for recreation, I would encourage anybody in this room to read Nature's Best Hope by Doug Tallamy. Thanks. I'm going to go home now.

Thank you. Mr. Gergely, you've been very involved, I'm sure, in the conversations that have been going on on this matter about the tree side of this. is their merit to the idea of continuing this for a month to see whether both sides could come back with a considered uh... recommendation to uh... the commission to at that time because this this is looking like a little like it's still a moving target and uh... i think the commit if i understand the commission's view here i think they're concerned about being asked to make a decision on some very technical matters you know, in this context. Is there a merit in that suggestion?

Yeah, we can agree to that, yeah.

to table this for a month and come back after we have some more conversations with staff and maybe come back with a number that maybe both sides would agree on.

Well, not only just a number, just a plan that both sides, that's a reflection of the overall plan. But yeah, I think that's, I see the city's representative nodding over here, so I think there's some sense that the staff on both sides here are comfortable with that idea, Mr. Chairman.

I support that idea. My recommendation was going to be to table this until we could get some more information collected on both sides so we could make a better educated decision because right now I just don't feel like I'm confident in making any form of decision which I don't think is going to go the way that you want it to go. So let's get some more details and come back.

And again, the reason we're here, and I think we stated this before, is this is a really big decision point for these folks, for Jeff and Ivan to move forward. So this is really important.

So I think another- Ms. Zuffer, can you make that into a formal motion?

Are we tabling until next meeting?

Yeah, but there's gonna be a motion to table.

I would like to make a motion to table, I think it's 180 Greenfield Road. Deferral.

Let me see that again.

Yeah, I don't have the agenda right in front of me. I would like to make a motion to table the 180 Greenfield Road planning deferral, planning review and approval, or deferral of the planning review and approval to East Lampeter Township. Did I get that correct? Yep, you're perfect. Okay.

I will second.

We have a motion on the floor and also a second from 180 Greenfield Road to defer the plan. Any further discussion? All in favor let it known by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Hearing none, ayes have it. Motion carried.

Thanks for your time. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Other business? Sorry.

I'm going to stop really quick. No, I was just gonna add to that for a second. That's fine.

None?

Okay, I didn't see you.

Okay, staff report.

I did include this time in your packets the update on all of the land development plans I can share with you that we are coming up to a bunch of plans getting recorded so so things that have kind of been lingering in my office are are finally getting out the door from what you have seen for example the 221 and 227 north prince they had to get yes they had to go through city council because of their sidewalk so that went through city council and was approved And so they just picked up their plans for recording today. So that work can begin. There's another this one would be a minor one, but one that you'll be interested in on Pearl Street where they're redeveloping some housing. And there's so there'll be some new while they're not. Quote-unquote affordable they are You know much more more moderate much more middle-income priced homes over on Pearl Street and so that's That's great We have a few others that are coming in the 132 134 South Prince, which is the homeless hub, is getting ready to come in for recording. They're at the tail end of their work. So we definitely have a bunch that are getting ready to get started on their work. All that in preparation for ready to have some new ones come in the door.

Okay.

Thank you. Any public comment?

Oh, wait. Betsy has an update also. Do you have? Oh, you don't? Okay. I just keep it on there.

Okay. Hearing none, I have a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Motion to adjourn. My paper listened to me.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. Thank you for the discussion. All in favor, let it known by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed, hearing none, ayes have it. Motion carried, meeting complete. Adjourned. Thank you for your time and patience.