Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

behalf of the bureau, please be advised the bureau does not have any objection to the continuence request schedule for this. First, I'd like to welcome everybody and uh just like to uh call the East Allen Township Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, December 4th to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I saw that I got you.

What do you need, buddy? Pen. All right. Tissues. All right. Here you go. Uh, first item on the agenda is roll call, please. Mr. Daniel here. Mr. Chamberlain here. Mr. Long here. Mr. Heming here. Mr. Mills

here. Next item on the agenda is public comment limited to three minutes on individual agenda items only. Please state your name and your address for the record. Chuck Waldhouser 6829 Spruce Lane Bath. Actually, I just need clarification. Will we be allowed to ask questions at the end of each item or not? Just is this our only opportunity? We typically will entertain questions or concerns as we move along through the process. I expect some of my questions would be answered by the presentation. So, I just assume wait till after the presentation. Sure. Thank you.

And if I can add there there is time at the end of the meeting for general questions including on the topics, right? if you don't ask right after. Right. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Moving on. Um approval of the minutes from the um November 6th meeting, planning commission meeting. Any questions or comments, gentlemen? None here. Excuse me. I move the minutes be approved. Motion on the floor by by Norm. I'll second that. Second by Tom. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I.

Mr. Long, yes. Mr. Chamberlain, abstain. I was not at the meeting. Mr. Heming, yes. Mr. Mills, yes. Let the record reflect the motion pass four votes to none with one abstension. All right, moving on to the next item. Business before the planning commission. And the first item on the agenda, disciple Samuels Jagger Hopper minor subdivision salo 2025-001. Do we have a microphone

either way, but we should have one there. Thank you. Jonathan Chop, surveyor for the project cycle subdivision. Jill, you just want to do we want to go through comments one by one or how do you Um, I don't know if we have to go through comments. Um, unless the planning commission has any questions. Maybe just the waiver request. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant surveyor? Engineer. I don't either. Um, so we can go through the waiver letter dated 912 item by item and then either we recommend or whatever the case may be.

Yeah. And I think we've we've kind of discussed these already at previous meetings, but you never took official action on any of them. Yes, we have. Actually, you are correct. Assuming we're not doing this one. No, that's the one that was changed when I commented that it wasn't up to date with all the deferrals. All right. Um, item number one, are there any questions or comments on this particular waiver request? And I would think that we should make a recommendation on each individual waiver, Joe, or or on them in total.

Uh, I would do them individually. I know it takes time, but I would do that individually. Very good. All right.

I'm okay with number one. Are you making a motion to recommend? As long as I see some other Um, I move that we uh wave um grant the waiver for section 212, 1983, 19c1, and 191 um for um the Cyple Samuels Jaggerhopper request for preliminary final plan submission. Preliminary final plan submission. Yes. combined. Thank you, Joe. I'll second. Have a motion on the floor by Tom, second by Marty. Roll call, please.

Mr. Daniel, I Yes. Mr. Long, yes. Mr. Heming, yes. Mr. Mills, yes. Let the record reflect motion pass. Five votes to none. Item number two,

I'll make a motion uh that we recommend approval. Um if you just want to go through the general summary of it, like the modification to show no modification requested for showing a proposed dwelling, no new construction proposed at this time. I'll second I have a motion on the floor by Marty, second by Tom. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. Mr. Long? Yes. Mr. Heming? Yes. Mr. Mills?

Yes. Let the record reflect. The motion pass. Five votes to none. Item number three. I'll move that we uh grant the waiver uh using a 3.11 um depth to width ratio. Pretty good. I'll second. Have a motion on the floor by Tom, second by Art. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Mr. Long, yes. Mr. Henning, yes. Mr. Mills,

yes. Let the record reflect the motion pass. Five votes to none. Item number four. I move we recommend approval for the uh waiver request related to sidelines of lots being shallow butt and be right angles to straight streets. We have a motion by Marty. I have a second by Art. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Mr. Long. Yes. Mr. H. Yes.

Mr. Mill. Yes. Let the record reflect. Motion pass. Five votes to none. I have no problems if you want to take five through nine. Those are typical deferrals that you grant. If you'd like to take them collectively, you can. If there's not an issue with any of the planning commission members. I mean, if anybody doesn't feel good about all of them, then we can do them individually. 5 through eight. We mean uh 5 through eight. Yes. Okay, I'll make a motion that we defer curbs and gutters and/or drainage swailes, sidewalks or pathways, street lights, and shade trees until uh new construction um is proposed. I'll second.

Have a motion by Tom, second by Norm. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamber, yes. Mr. Long, yes. Mr. Heming. Yes. Mr. Mill. Yes. That the record reflect the motion pass. Five votes to none.

I like that. We've had a lot of talk a few times. Yeah. Um I would just have a few questions on for Jill unless you guys have anything else about the plan. We spoke on the phone a few weeks ago about a few things and I think you were going to ask the attorney for the township about the rightway being dedicated or not dedicated. Um I thought we resolved that on the phone.

Well, your your question was the property line goes down the center line of the road. So they if the proper line goes down the center line of the road they would have to dedicate this would be on green metal road lot one dedicate just to 16 1/2 ft because of the aggies. Is that where we left it? Um what I had said it's up to you how you want to handle it. Regardless the lot area would be to the legal rightway. Um issue is they're showing the property line to the center line of the road. Um, Green Meadow is a township road. Uh, I think the the um the go through the rightway to the legal to the legal. Yep.

So, they're going to put a note on the plan that they cannot offer the ultimate right away for dedication. That's acceptable. But do we still need Okay, I remember. Do we still need them to dedicate the legal right away from the center from center line? Okay. Okay. Sorry, I forgot. Yeah, that's fine. Was that easy? Um, and then the only other question I had, Jill, was the site uh comment 17. Are you just talking about the the other ends of the triangles having dimensions on them? Yeah, just fully dimension your the triangle. Yeah, the triangle. Yep.

Okay. Uh, that's all I have. So then all we have left then is just doing a dedication map for Green Meadow Drive on not one and the sight triangle. So we would be asking for conditional approval. Good. So do we have a motion to provide conditional approval provided the do the site triangles? I would say just base it off of Jill's letter subject to the November 4th, 2025 handover engineering letter. Y is that fair enough?

Move. I have a motion on the floor by Art. A second. Have a second by Tom. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. Mr. Long? Yes. Mr. Heming? Yes. Mr. Mill? Yes. Let the record reflect the motion pass. Five votes to none. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jill. That resubmitt to the township or just emailed to you? Um, you could just send it to me. Okay. All right. So, uh, yeah, we'll work out as far as when we're on the agenda for the board. send it to you if someone can just Yeah, but if you just send that document so then we'll review it and once approval we'll send it

Yeah, it is. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. All right. All right. Moving on. Next item on the agenda. That's why. There you go. All right. Uh item B is a waiver request from Delo Capital LLC 6583 Rook Road. How you doing? Very good. Yourself?

Pretty good. Um, my name is Dave Wallace Savage. I was at the last planning commission meeting. Um Um, thanks. Um, our client um was not available last month, but they are here today so I can answer any questions the board has. Um, at the last meeting, if you remember, um, a lot of questions regarding zoning, parking, operations, things like that. I noticed on the agenda,

I did submit zoning search and some information. I'm not sure if your zoning officer did any background search as well or gave you any information. I provided her some information. I don't see it hyperl to, so I don't know if you got it in your packet, the information that I did provide that if I should go through it so you guys are aware of what I found when I looked. in general is the nature of the information. Well, if most of it is zoning, I know Jill was talking about the zoning, the use um previous um approvals and things like previous documentation. Yeah. So, so you want to just go through then you guys didn't get any that information? No.

Okay, fair enough. Um so one of the first items I looked at um I guess you know I just to clear up the the nature of what we're proposing um um some of the townships I used to work in and some of them specifically add additions to the land development um language they um update MPC to put it in their definition. This is going to be addition. I don't know if that matters in the that is not a building as per the definition of land development in your ordinance. It's an improvement under the MPC. So, in my opinion, it would be considered.

We do grant an exemption for additions up to a certain amount of square footage. It's either 2500 or 3,000 square feet. Anything beyond that would warrant then land development from just from that standpoint. Yeah. No, like I said, I previously worked for townships and have we presented many townships and some of them if they don't specifically add that to their language, they let you do an addition without formal land development. Understood.

So that was our first question that I found in the zoning. Um the next thing is um the plan um in October 17th of 1997 there was a land development plan for this property. Um at that time it was a proposed two-story building. um and use at that time on the plan was labeled as warehouse and there's a land development um agreement in place that called it warehouse at that time which was the use I know that was a question what the use was so previously was called a warehouse it had a parking tabulation and on that plan it also had a future expansion in the location of where they're proposing the new addition so as far as just the plan previously had future expansion of 8,000 f feet. The the new building will be addition of 7200 ft². So, it was originally planned to be do what they're doing now. It's just, you know, 20 some years later that they're expanding the building. So, that was the use at the time. Um, the next question I believe was the operations going on there now in 20 I forget the date. I have a zoning permit in um 2021. Um our the current owners were approached by a different company and you got and the the township um approved the zoning um change of use for a portion of their building. At that time the change of use was to permitted use of um the wording of your it's called motor freight terminal office. So at that time it was a change of use. They came in and that is who currently is dol logistics who is doing the Amazon operations.

So motor freight terminal office

that was that's the that's the way you guys phrase it I believe. Yes. So that's what Amazon got a change of use for to do in 2021. And that is the current use that is parking all the vans in the location of this building. So, I know there was concern about the noise and amount of traffic. As we mentioned before, this new building will go in the location where all those vans are parked. They will no longer be on site and be off the site. So, that will clean up that additional traffic and noise that there was concern about. So, that was that. So, this new use will I mean this will basically get rid of that pre this use that's currently being there. Um, what was the other thing? Another thing was trees. Just sorry to interrupt you.

Yep. One quick question. Looking at the proposed use letter that you submitted, it seems to contradict what you just said about the addition. Well, no, sorry. You said in or it was said in the in the letter that um the proposed building will limit the number of vans at Blue Line will be able to park and they'll need to find a new location for most of their vans. You seem to indicate that they will not be parking vans. Correct. Yeah, we we wrote that in October, which is fine. The owners are here. They can touch on that. I'll let I'll let them touch on that now. Or Well, I'm just curious. Is it Are they still going to operate there? They're not going to They won't be able to operate. Okay. So, all right.

Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, we wrote down October. He wasn't here last meeting. I I I don't believe you were here either. Sorry. I was not. So, I wasn't I was not as sure. So, that business is moving out of the building. It would if we got this approved. It wouldn't be well I mean I don't know that's not going to be approved is whether you have to do salo or or not. Right. So but but in any case it gets approved they're going to be moving out of the out of the building. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Um sorry.

No. Hey no problem. And um I think the last thing I do remember was the tree um tree um discussion. Um we did a site visit with the property owners. It appears the pine trees along the back of the property are still there. All the trees still are located on their property and the buffer seems adequate at the time. Um, like I mentioned before, we pulled a land development improvement agreement, actual species and trees, a type of buffer were not in there. So, it's not we could say they're not there anymore or they didn't plant this. And I I think you could ask them, they will plant anything that is needed. If more trees are needed, if there's a gap in some location that somebody has an issue with and the only operations that they know of of cutting trees was PPL has some of the utility easements and they come and trim at certain times. That's the only tree tree clearing they know since they own the building.

Um what what you're saying is that the buffer is still there.

Correct. Yeah. I mean and and and like like I said when I sent the stuff to Maggie there was a couple pictures showing the pines big like I said white pines probably big huge pines and then there was some like we're you don't we don't know what it is some kind of planting they can plant some better but I mean there is enough coverage that most of it is evergreen so there's still still in the winter still um with that I believe if I remember those were the questions you guys had at that time and you would like. Um, Blaze Dair Code owner could speak on what they do there, their operations, you know, how many vehicles they going to have there, how they operate the trucks because right now there's a lot of vans moving and he can tell you what he's forecast for, what delivers, and what they ship out. If you guys want to hear about that.

My um I my my initial thoughts are um you mentioned a 1997 um approval and what you're doing is consistent with what was Oh, yeah. approved in 1997. And if that's the case, I'm not so sure we have to go through Salo, but you have to go through all the other permits. Well, the problem, Tom, just if I could interject, is that the the MPC only protects you for a period of 5 years after that plan is approved, and any new enacted newly enacted ordinances that apply after that 5-year period would be applicable if they never drew a permit to build the addition at that time.

So, again, you have the right to wave that, okay? I'm not saying you should or you should not. I just want us to be aware that the MPC does indicate that after a period of 5 years, any newly enacted ordinances would apply. So if we have new storm water oranges, new salo ordinance, etc. that would apply to this project, you would either have to wave those or they would have to go through that process. Thank you. Yeah, we're aware that we Joe spoke last week, but a letter of the law of your ordinance, you can treat it as land development, but that's why we're here for labor. Obviously, and um the fact that

just to the point is we wanted to see what parking was, what was there. I'm like, oh my god, this building was already there. So it's kind of like almost planned, right? And land and develop land develop for the property. Same entrance, same storm, same sewer, water, lights, you know, it's not like we're starting over. No, you know, so so we agree more information on the site plan, zoning, if there's new storm water ordinances to upgrade things. We don't disagree. We'll have to do that, but to go through the land development, we can still do that with a site plan or storm review or however else you guys do it. I mean, my primary Go ahead. No, go ahead.

My primary concern, it's it's less a concern and more of a clarification. Um, is in in the previous letter, and maybe it's changed since then, um, it was said that the area that'll be covered by the addition is currently gravel. Therefore, there wouldn't be any increase in um impervious is how I'm reading it. Is gravel not is gravel impervious? It's considered impervious. It's considered impervious, but you have absorption through

impervious unless they can prove that it infiltrates. That's the current definition infiltrates. But yeah. So and and really that that concern I have a couple other ones just related to you know the reason we do land land development process is to make sure that things like that are accounted for and and the current regulations are met and all that kind of stuff. Um so I anyway so I you clear it up for me. So it it it could be considered impervious if it's impervious. Can can you just what is your proposed use

or what's the what is the current use of the property besides the Amazon current? Yeah. So the current use for our company is storage of we manufacture medical devices braces back braces knee braces overseas. We bring them in and then we distribute them throughout the country. Um, is this your only location? This is We have a location in Texas. Okay. So then do you have any employees here or We have six that work in that building sales reps throughout the country. And what do the six do? Are they just handling the goods or it's your office?

There there's three four that work in the warehouse. One does a hybrid like he's processing orders. Um the others are yes out in the warehouse packing boxes doing all that stuff. Um and then one's like marketing. Okay. And then me and boys. So you're So you're not manufacturing, assembling, everything comes in complete. Finished good. Finished goods. Finished goods goes on a shelf.

Yep. It's on pallet racks. We take off a case. Sometimes we ship the case. Um sometimes you have to break them up. Some quarter too. Um we have We get a UPS FedEx delivery. They come in every morning, drop small packs off. They come pick it up at the end of the day. So there's those four trucks. Other than that, maybe every two weeks we get like a big container from all the stuff from overseas that gets dropped off. So do you have like a loading dock and a forklift that you use? We have a loading dock. We don't use a forklift. Okay. Um just Okay. This one. So all their deliveries are through Yeah.

Right. You don't you don't you don't warehouse and have your own trucks running the equipment. You just use the reg regular mail. Correct. Yeah. It's really I mean I guess the the concern or the thing that we're looking at is this really in a warehouse or is this some other use that storage is the accessory used to? And that's where I think we just need clarification on what you're doing. So, how we can handle that and look at the use because if you call it a warehouse, it's going to require more additional things that you may not be doing. Um, but the terminology is wrong for warehouse and and and that's I don't know what what what use that's why motor freight, they're not doing that. I don't think it's No, I don't

there was no there's nothing really that jumped out that is not a warehouse with accessories a manufacturing store. Yeah, I I understand what you're saying. So, the addition that you're proposing is basically just large. It's going to match the same height of the building and it's just going to be large storage space. So, there's no offices or anything. Are you adding employees at all? No, we might have to add because looking at our and we went through this prior we were kind of trying to review our parking changes depending on the use.

So, if it's an office, it goes by number of employees. If it's a warehouse, it goes by square footage. So, there's a whole bunch of different just zoning aspects that kick in. Um, that really, this one is a hard one to dissect of what it actually is. If it was a newer plan, a newer building um that we could make sure it conformed to all the requirements. Yeah. And the plan I sent to Maggie, we did do um a parking cabination as per your current or determination

and their your um definition of warehouse parking is you know employees on our largest shift. So you can give them eight people, six people that covers them and then we broke down the occupied space. They have a gym. If you got three people there, they got a gym. They got a conver like what they're using for the office space. So we didn't take all the corridors and the bathrooms. We took office space. So is it occupied part of the business or is it a separate? No, just for so it's it's basically I I remember having this conversation in 2021 about it and I I thought it was part of whatever you were doing but it wasn't a business aspect because it came up then

so so in theory there'll be six employees there. Yes. And and and with occupied space because they're office buildings um that adds 31 spaces which they don't even have those 31 spaces. However, they still are providing 42 and two handicap. So, they have adequate case this blue logistics. They sell it to somebody else and they have 12 I don't know what office people doing something different. Not shipping, you know what I mean? If they if they rent it or lease it to somebody else. Yeah. So, for office space and the amount of warehouse people they have, the parking is current with your um ordinance. That's them.

So if you're eliminating the Amazon, they operate on the second floor. Yeah, they have office.

Is the whole second floor? Does the whole building have a second floor? Yeah. No. No. 4000 the existing building the building's 8,000 4,000 is office with first and second floor the other 4000 the warehouse is two stories when you bought the building was it set up for warehousing or was it more of an office building they had 4,000 as warehouse on that lower

yeah broken up there's like someone else And obviously if they converted the second floor into more warehouse space, you know, and didn't have that there and just ran the office from the first floor half or whatever, you know, you'd buy yourself. I think it's just the the dimensions of the proposed and reviewing it for parking, storm water. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think the issue for the planning commission is that is whether you know what's the level of review based on what you're hearing that you believe the plan should go through.

Do you believe the level of review is a site plan review? Do you believe the level reviews is consistent with the land development plan? So that's I think what the what the issue is here based on some of the information that you're receiving from the applicant tonight that you didn't have last month. Can I just clarify something? Did you say that the office space is 4,000 square feet?

All right. And um you know my issue is in and I'm not here to talk about the use because if the use is technically a warehouse which frankly I don't think it meets that definition in our ordinance. Uh second that's a conditional use which would require you know additional approvals that are associated with this. If this primary use is an office and that is that's a business office that sells you know widgets or whatever it may be and the storage area is accessory to that that's completely different than a warehouse. Uh but again, I don't think we're here. I think we're here because you're asking for relief from the land development process. Uh I don't know how important tonight it is to determine what the use is, but certainly the zoning officer, if she has not made a determination, should make a determination as to what the use is. Have Have you spoken to Maggie about that?

Well, I I tried I tried to call when she was sick, she just came back today and I got an email late in the day, but you know, just long because the original thing said warehouse and everybody's calling it warehouse. That's why it was called that. But I'm I'm looking at a term here. I don't know if this were It says light assembly of pre-manufactured components. But they're not assembling. They're not doing any assembly on site. Put them together, man. Currency up. That's what I'm saying.

Probably a warehouse, which which you're good no matter what with what you currently have. The problem is that when you do an expansion, and now it's a permitted use by condition. Now, because of the expansion, you have to go through a conditional use hearing in front of both the planning commission and the board of supervisors. If you're not that and you're in a a permitted use in that zoning district, which if an office with accessory storage is a permitted use, you wouldn't have to do that for an expansion. The problem is that anytime somebody comes in for an expansion of a particular use, we have to review that again to see what now the new ordinance requires and that requires a conditional use approval. And I'm not so sure you want to go through that entire process because you're here trying to avoid the land development process. Yeah. No, we know we got to go to supervisors for approval. But yeah,

if it's just, you know, the nature of it is the site plan and some storm water, you know, and some, you know, um buffers or any kind of conditions with buffers or landscaping distribution center, right? Okay. That's exactly what it is. They bring product in, they ship product out. That's a distribution center. So, what's our definition of that? Well, so let's not get into the use. I mean, the use was basically just to guide, right, the intensity of what's going to occur here, especially with an expansion and whether it warrants land development review for the criteria of the current ordinances. Yes.

Or if you wanted to wave it and allow a site plan or you could wave it alto together and require neither. Well, I would not. Well, we need to do something because it's obviously been a bit of time since the last set of plans were up. We could have we could have put a plan together. Let's face it,

just down the road from you, I can tell you right now, I I drove in there one day and somebody was with a a Bobcat ripping out gravel parking area. I came by today when I went by to look at your facility just to get boots on the ground. And that same location where they were ripping out the gravel parking lot now asphalted and it's probably 50 feet by or 100 feet by 100 feet. Guarantee you they probably didn't come in for permits for it. So the point is people change their properties, do things to them, and you don't always know, they don't always keep track of them. And part of this process is for us to gain that knowledge going forward so that we know what we have in case there's other issues or something comes up. That's part of the process. Um, all right.

You look Well, I I have a concern. Speak up. We're talking about fairly large building up a lot of square footage. And grant you, it's a gravel quote unquote impervious. Um Jill, what if that turned out to be a not an impervious but it was actually filtering water? Um now we have more runoff generate more runoff that we would have to look at as far as increasing storm water. Yeah. So that would have to be

Yeah. I mean it's things we do every day. Every building we do, we put dry wells in, we put depend basins in that's what we do. But that would have to be handled outside the land development process. We don't go through the development. No, I mean I mean does that does that create not saying every township's different? But yeah, every town is kind of like we would work with the township engineer and the zoning officer with storm water review, you know. So one thing I don't want to have is is that gentleman come back talking about the buffer saying now his backyard's flooded. Oh yeah. storm water. Yeah, we could. Yeah, for storm water management, we do have a standalone storm water that they have to handle, right?

That is a little different than the requirements of Salo um and how it's dealing with it. And it's probably not as stringent. Well, it's it's stringent, but I think we're really looking at water quality more than actually it would it would be the same review whether we're reviewing it for the land development process or we're reviewing it as a site plan review or we're reviewing it as a standalone storm water ordinance, I mean storm water review. It's still the same requirements. What land development does is it puts them all together instead of individually bifurcating out what they are. Excuse me.

Tough the tough thing when you're doing with a developed land like this, you know how your gentleman, we don't want to be coming here and getting 15 waivers of stuff that's already not there, you know, like the curbing the side, you know, I mean, it's already developed. the propertyy's already developed to a point that we'd be just going back and forth getting waiverss and dot eyes crossing tees and we'd end up with the same building and still matter that we could do with jail and the site. Wait, did I hear you um that there would be excess parking if the there would be parking in excess of the requirement? Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. How much excess?

Well, like I well by the amount of people that work there or amount by by your ordinance. If this building was built, they'd have eight people in that whole building and there's 42 spots. But if you by the letter, if you call the office spaces, the occupying spaces, that adds 31 spots that they really don't need that because they only have six people. You know what I mean? The reason but it's available if they do lease it to somebody. Yes. The reason I bring it up is if there is storm water concerns Oh, yeah. We could we could get rid of some absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Put in some uh we just native grass. We're just working with with the not turf grass, native grasses. Okay. Yeah.

I mean, you're still going to have an office space upstairs. You're still going to have parking that you could rent out a lease for another business. Yeah. You want you want to make sure you ripping it up and put it back in there. But there is there I mean just if you want me to look real quick. So, so Joe, the question becomes set aside whether we wave or don't wave Salo right now.

If we Well, you're not you're not waving salo. What you what you're doing is you're looking at two different procedurals procedures that the plan would go through. Now, just real real quick. Yeah. If you look at section 25035 of our ordinance, and I know you don't have in front of you, it talks about the scope and the procedure for a site plan review. And there are 18 requirements that the site plan must contain.

So the question again is is really the level of review that the plan goes through. Right? The plan as a site plan is still going to go through a fair amount of review. It'll never go, from my understanding, it never goes to the board of supervisors. So it's an application through the zoning officer. The zoning officer submits copies to the planning commission. the planning commission does its review and makes its recommendation. I'm assuming it's the zoning officer who makes a determination as to whether or not the site plan contains sufficient information uh that's required by the code by the ordinance to be submitted with the site plan. So, um you know that that's a different procedure than coming to you you making a recommendation to the board of supervisors have them taking a look at it if it's only in development and then making a determination.

Right. I guess my what what I was trying to get to was so technically we don't have a use to find right for this building. So if we went one direction and then the zoning officer came back and said, "Well, you know what? It's a warehouse, right?" Well, I I think I think I think there is I think there currently if there if there's a permit in place, no matter how old that permit is, that permit will define what the use is. Okay. If the use has changed over the years and and I think you indicated in 2021 they call it a motor freight whatever it is. Yeah. So so I wrote that down. So it's now cons now Yeah. It's now called some different animal. I think it has two different dual occupancies. It changed to a motor freight terminal office.

Correct. Yeah. Not a terminal but a terminal office. It's a terminal and an office is separate because of the blue line logistics, but it never replaced the use of I don't know if they came in at that point when they applied or the previous the initial use to the building, right? But I don't think it's a freight terminal. No. No. Well, no, it's not a freight terminal. No.

So, you know, my my thought is this and the plan commission recommendation. My thought is that if if you're inclined to not require the applicant to go through the land development process at a minimum, there ought to be compliance with the site plan process. And I believe the zoning officer should make a determination based on the information provided in the site plan application as to what the use is. If that use requires, you know, additional, you know, zoning approvals, I mean, then so be it. But I think, you know, at this point in time, you would want it classified for what you're actually doing out there, not what somebody else was doing years ago as as a freight terminal, right?

Um, and again, if it's classified as a warehouse, if it's classified as an office with accessory storage, that's not for us to decide. That's for the zoning officer to decide, right? So, so does that decision have an impact to drive the site plan versus I don't think it does because I think the proposal is still the same on paper no matter what we call it. Okay. No matter what term we put to this animal, the the actual plan is the same. We meet those 18 bullet points you just brought up of the site plan. Say that again. Whatever the the requirements for the site plan, we still got to meet those 18. Yeah, you still have to submit which is speak differently.

Well, somebody want to make a motion. Do we have any other comments or questions from the from the commission, the engineering? Anybody? Well, what we're trying to do here is send it on to the zoning officer. Well, you're you're you're making a determination as to the process the plan would have to go through. If if you if you wave land development and consider this a site plan, then it goes through the zoning officer first. It'll come back to you for a review, you will make recommendations and then after that, the zoning officer will determine based on your recommendations whether to issue a zoning permit for them to move forward with it.

Uh versus the normal process where you get to do your review and uh as a land development plan and then you know make a recommendation to the board of supervisors. They put eyes on it and then they make a determination. So that that's what you're deciding this evening or you're deciding as a recommendation to the board of supervisors. Yes. So your recommendation is going to be going to the board. That that is true. Tonight is not the ultimate determination. We should go to the board of supervisors with your recommendation based on based on the planning commissions if they recommend it. Right. Right. You were I thought you were going to say something. No. No. Why all of a sudden are you quiet up there? Decision time.

Yes. Uh I I don't know how to word a motion for and this is probably bad to use site plan instead of so the recommendation would be to the to the board of supervisor would be to wave the requirement of a land development plan and submit a site plan under section 250 hyphen 35 of the zoning ordinance and comply with the requirements of that section. Could I say so? You may adopt that. Thank you. I would like to have a motion on the board by Tom. Have a second. I'll second.

Have a second by Marty. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel. Pass. Mr. Chamberlain. Pass. That means you come back to me. Yes, Mr. Long. Yes, Mr. Heming. Yes, Mr. Mills. No. Back to me. No. Mr. Daniel, no. No.

Let the motion reflect that the vote passed. Three votes for, two votes against to recommend approval to the board of supervisors to go to site plan. Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to the next item. JLF Sumner LLC special exception appeal application for 8465 Airport Road Parcel K512-8A requesting a special exception for non-conforming use to operate a commercial flooring company at the said address. Do we have an applicant?

I'd have to say the applicant not present in which case we can reject this.

Uh it's going to be a recommendation to the zoning hearing board. So this is a non-conforming use changing to a lesser non-conforming use which requires a site plan review under our ordinance. Um they are aware of it because they submitted a site plan after being requested to. Um so you could make no recommendation or you could make a recommendation that because of an insufficient presentation and lack of appearance from the applicant, we offer no comments. If there's any concerns you have on the question on the the application you have um obviously nobody's here to ask them. I I think the hearing is actually scheduled for next week. Um but that would be then presented to the zoning hearing board.

But didn't didn't the application state that they had to pro they had to be in front of the planning commission prior to going to the zoning hearing board? your actual zoning ordinance requires that you know special any application instructions on the back to if you're coming I read through the instructions then on it stated that so if they don't if they're not here before us tonight then they can't go before the zoning hearing board well they can they absolutely can but you can make a recommendation one way or the other they have the right to move they have they have the right to move forward right um they they have to be in person at a zoning hearing board meeting because that's a quasi judicial function but um you you have the right to make your recommendation to the zoning hearing board known for that hearing. Right.

So, if I were to move if I move I'm sorry. If I were to move that um we recommend the zoning hearing board deny this request a lesson until the applicant appears before the commission. Well, you can't require them to come before the commission, but you can certainly make a negative recommendation if you choose to do that or no comment. It would be deny the request based on an insufficient presentation due to the the applicant's lack of attendance at the required meeting. That would be appropriate. Oh yeah, the motion. So who's going to make the motion? Was that a motion that you made or I didn't make it. Somebody just started Tom. Somebody just has to adopt Say it again. Just say just adopt Brent's comment.

So moved. No. Um um I'll I'll make a motion that the uh planning commission um deny recommend that the zoning hearing board deny the request uh because the applicant did not appear before the um planning commission and you did not have an adequate opportunity to review it, right? Did not have an adequate opportunity to review it. All right, we have a motion on the floor by Tom. Second. Second by Marty. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamberlain, I. Mr. Long, yes. Mr. Heming, yes. Mr. Mills,

yes. Let the record reflect the motion pass. Five votes to none. Moving on to the next item. Questions. Keystone Cement land development waiver request. Keystone is requesting a waiver from land development plan approval for two minor improvements to the existing facility at 6507 Norvath Boulevard. Please state your name and address for the record. Sure. My name's David Shy. I'm with Trout and Pepper Lock at 100 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Good evening. My name is Chris Madden, the environmental compliance manager here at Keystone Cement at 337 Munk Street in Nazareth. Uh good evening. Uh uh we're here this evening. We uh submitted a letter on November 4th uh requesting waiver from uh land development plan approval under your salo. Uh uh Keystone Cement Company operates a uh cement manufacturing facility uh approximately 37 acres currently uh is being used at the facility. Uh two two minor uh improvements are being planned. One is a secondary containment uh facility for six storage tanks and that measures approximately less than 3500 square ft. and then also a rail car unloading station with a secondary containment end uh that measures about 2500 square ft. Overall that is uh less than 0.15% of the existing uh fac of of the size of the existing facility. Uh the uh uh Keystone has worked with uh the county conservation district and it's been determined that they've not they continue use uh with the same MPDS permit uh just uh uh submitting an erosion sediment control plan uh for the construction and uh we just see that this does not create any issues that are typically dealt with uh through land development such as storm water management. uh this storm water created by by these uh any additional storm water created by these uh improvements is being managed by the existing stormwater facilities at the uh

at the plant and uh and it does not increase traffic uh or anything else in there in the center of the facility. So it would not affect other properties. So, we're requesting a waiver of land development plan approval.

Okay. Well, I grew up fishing the stream right next to the Keystone. I fished in the reservoir and I fished in the quaries that were open when I was just a young boy. Unfortunately, what I will tell you is this is a very charged topic because your letter, you know, I understand what your letter is saying. This is a charge topic and the fact that this is going to allow you to bring in hazardous material for fuel to burn in the kil in the in the kils, right? That that's the purpose of this upgrade. And I can tell you that I was at one of the presentations where you guys were looking to accept or get your permit renewed. I guess it was down at Mitchman High School, I believe it was. Um, and I can tell you that the audience, it was unbelievably charged with the potential for a hazardous waste spill or containment of the monocray of the surrounding properties, the residents that live there. Personally, I would believe that it would be remiss of us if we didn't follow through the salo requirements simply because it's such a publicly charged topic. I know why you guys want to do what you want to do, but if we don't keep this out in the open or don't or we give perception that we're giving you a waiver, I don't know that that's that would be appropriate for us because of the particular topic that we're dealing with and the m in the fact that there's going to be hazardous material on the rail cars going to the facility. That's my personal opinion as as a member of this municipality and at the planning commission. I'll open it up, gentlemen. you guys want to talk, discuss, whatever, please do.

I have I did read through the materials. Um, one question. Um, so maybe more than one. How how are fuels currently being delivered to the site? Uh, they're being delivered by uh over the road trucks and they're an unloading pad which unloads to the currently existing tanks. Okay. And the nature of that fuel is uh a variety. Some of it is uh waste oil, some of it is uh spent industrial solvents. Um that's generally most of them where most of them come from. Okay.

And I'm not sure how you measure it, but on an annual basis, how much of those fuels combined get delivered? Uh whatever measurement you want to use. 7 million gallonsish. Um, so with the new facility, the proposed facility, what's the nature, what are how is the nature of that those fuels changing as a result of this project? As far as the quantity or or

both both the nature of the fuels and the quantity and fix I'll say okay the nature will remain the same uh we still have to follow our resource recovery act uh permit initi by D so we're still limited to cons certain concentrations of uh certain analytes so measuring certain metals uh pH um as well as uh adhering to certain waste codes that restrict what we're allowed to bring in that is remaining the same despite what infrastructure we have

okay so if I can paraphrase just that the nature of the change is your current permits covered. Correct. Yes. Okay. Um and in terms of quantity but before we move off the nature of it, regardless of what the permits currently cover in terms of practically between what is delivered today and what will be delivered once this project goes into place, what is what are the differences in terms of what you're now able to use at the plant? So

for a lay person sure so the rate at which we burn uh is still limited the same the amount that we can store will increase. So when you get deliveries today yeah I'm not I'm not asking the question correctly. Where do they go like obviously I see there's an existing storage tank system.

Yes. And there's a there's a offloading for trucks that is nearby there around the back of We have we receive approximation between 7 to 12 trucks per day of this. has 5,000 and we receive multiple there is the red car that I think was the most concern about and there is the tank farm that is basically replacing all all four things so for this project is more like a we're going to have more storage capacity and give us more flexibility to borrow. We we run out of material Saturday and Sunday. So basically we just multip and storage tank is just going to give us more capacity and we're going to decommission in the old ones. Basically we are putting just new equipment in a new brand new path and part of the the area that we're going to use already have concrete already have is industrial area. The second one is the rail and The rail is going to reduce the amount of structure we receive because now you can bring material by by rail.

And don't get me wrong, do I think bringing it in by rail is safer than bringing it in by a tracker trailer truck? Probably. But again, this is a very charged topic with the public. I mean it it it's it's been in the newspapers, it's been on TV, it's been on the radio, and that's where the problem comes for us. We have to be um transparent, you know, we can't be perceived as giving somebody a favoritism to to do something, right? So, so we need to be trans again transparent to the public who we serve who put us you know in this position.

What about and just suggest I'm not special in these topics but what about if we separate the two topics that we have here and we wave the tank farm because the tank farm is just to replace the four old things that we have and basically put a new a six new ones and no way the rail and then you follow the process for the railation because that was the one that more Oh yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

I know none of you were was the existing tanks part of the 2008 modernization of the plant. Did that occur with that? Because I think we did review land development at that time. I just don't know what was reviewed as part of that because there was some area where like the sediment to the east there's burming and other things that came in because of that. Um

the the same tanks or the original to when you got the permit in the 80s they replaced two of the tanks with the same size in the same place that time but as far as uh the infrastructure around the fuels receiving that that did not change through that modernization. So obviously are you going to go 100% to rail or are you still going to have trucks? It looks like you're modifying it and you're doing both.

You wouldn't have the capability like I say if the rail is a rail is a topic that is complicated, right? At least we can separate the the the two construction even because they are going to be they are going to happen in different time frames and we can maybe wave the tanks because basically just new set of six tanks doing basically the same the old ones are doing and we can so the tanks are they permitted by D? Yes. Do you have the permits already for the tanks? Yes. Yeah. He says

I mean they would be the jurisdiction. We we have some limited things that go in. The only question I have and I was curious about this is in your statement somewhere you wrote or it was written since the engineering drawings reflect slight changes to the design previously approved by the PAP uh incorporation of railcar scale reconfigured secondary containment straining these modified plans have yet to be approved. So the coming back to the rail that what I'm trying to Yeah. Right. separate the original brown have a for the rail

and the rail company didn't like it and they want to straight out the the railroad and because of that we should make a new uh okay class A modification okay class one class one modification and it need to be it's a minor modification but it need to be approved well personally I I would tend to think that that would be an appropriate solution ution separating the two projects because you know that way you can get moved forward on your tanks.

I mean you you're you could bifrocate. I mean whatever the plan I mean you could grant and impart and deny in part. You can deny it all. You could grant it all. So yes, you could you could grant and deny part of the the application. Jill, I see a little conration. If you're going through land develop, if we're going to say you're going through land development, does it really matter if we're not including the tanks? Like, they're going to have to show the tanks anyway and go through

when they come in for the railroad. They're going to have to show it. And and I guess we're not looking at it from a zoning review because obviously there's no property boundaries we're looking at. Um maybe storm water but I I don't know like I I guess the question is and you had mentioned that storm water facilities on site. I know you have a D permit for that storm water management but I don't know if that meets today's standards for the proposed impervious. Yeah. So I heard there was an land development in 2008. There was something in 2008. I just don't know the extent.

Yeah. So I don't know, you know, and I know you have some stormwater facilities which may meet D requirements. The question is is does it meet township requirements in the county act 167? So if you went through all that and you have a detention base and you're showing you're meeting all those requirements and that this little bit, you know, can fit in and it's still going to operate and meet your release rates, then that's fine. But we would need to see that. But if it's only the farm tank water, storm water doesn't go to the any place. Yeah. We put into the process.

Yeah. And that's something with like Yeah. With So you're burning it off with overflow access. All the storm water collecting the farm tank is through the don't go through any place. Yeah. But then you still have some additional storm water and I realize it's small. Like I think you're talking about maybe uh 2,450 potentially. That's for the rail car. Yeah. Okay. But that doesn't include the paved areas for staging of trucks or does it because there's a couple areas on I think it's your plan out area the figure four.

I don't know if Are those new? No, those are existing. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. The only the only two improvements is the uh is the uh roof for the rail and the uh and the and the six tanks. Back here is the rail station. Is there an existing pipe from the rail siding to the tank farm? That's part of what you're do. When when we do the rail station, it's going to have piping to the tank. But now we could just do the things using the same system that we have replacing things.

So it's not just the rail siding. There's also a pipeline that be showing overhead overhead. Yeah, it's right here showing and how how much um didn't you guys just like buy a lot of commitments for natural gas? Aren't you switching over to a lot of natural gas instead of other fuels?

So we use coal, we use gas and we use the solid. Basically every cement plant where every cement plant is trying to look for alternative fuse to reduce the fuel poses and CO2 reduction and environmental friendly. If we don't use this solvent, that's always going to be burning someplace else. Maybe just burner doing emission without any benefit. We use that sol industry to create cement like are doing a second purpose for that material. So many cement plants are doing that burning pipes burning waste burning

but and I think the natural gas the expansion of that was basically to eliminate some of the fly ash and coal that was coming in reducing truck trips. Yeah. to take it off of those types of operations and more. Yeah. They actually ran a line that runs up along Humicker's property. Yeah. Along the run, right? Well, um

we still use gas and this is going to farm the gas. So, if we don't have solvent, we need to increase the use of gas. But that's not environmental friendly. Well, I um regarding the rail siding, I think that's a matter that the um elected board of supervisors needs to be involved in. I think the tank farm is something I think can be separated. Joe, I see consternation.

Well, I just think, you know, that there's maybe members of the public on this one that you might want to be heard, you know, after the planning commission is done asking all your questions and stuff like that. But yeah, I mean it's it's again I I I don't know, you know, I I know the use is very important in this aspect, but but again we're looking for a a determination in terms of, you know, what's the normal procedure and what's the level of review going to be? Right. You you know, you have to make that determination regarding if it's just partially the tank project. Is there anything in that that portion of the project that you believe requires the more intensive review of a land development or not? I guess and I think we all agree that the second step does um

All right. Um that is the you mind if we ask the public for any input at this point? Go right ahead. Is there anybody from the audience who'd like to comment on any of this discussion that we've been having? Sure. I'm curious, but I'd like to ask Chuckhouser 6829 Spruce Lane Beth. What's the useful life of the tanks that exist and are you approaching that the end of that useful life? So, we have four four things. Can we Can I ask you to maybe move over to or you can just hold the mic? Take it off the stand. You can hold it. All right. You can pull it right out.

So, we we have four tanks. Two of them are in at all and kind of at the end of life. Two of them are new. And the life expectation for ducks it should be something about I don't know 15 20 years but they they have a rigorous testing and every every year you need to do NDT and thickness testing and pressure testing that system if one day you goes there is it's a lot of regulation for that system so we need engineers reviewing the ba in the uh routine basis checking checking p checking tank check taking the electrician are simulating temperature simulating pressure to be sure that all the interlocks work and is is a system they full of protection so yeah

so you might more so with the federal government rather than for example I have been working in in cement plant for 26 years in this plant we have every kind of regulation that we normally don't having other cement plants just because that system there. Yeah. We receive a lot of visiting, a lot of document and testing and engineering to to check that everything is in compliance. Yeah.

All right. Any other questions or comments from anyone? All right. So we need to make a recommendation to the board of supervisors on whether to grant the waiver for the whole facility, grant a partial waiver or or require the make a recommendation for following sub development orders.

Normally been pretty quiet over there. I guess just one question as far as um have you had other expansions over the years or increased your impervious surface over the years? The big one would have been the one mentioned. I think it's hard because of it being a quarry like I I think we really want to look at circulation areas and if anything has changed. Yeah. Like I Yeah. have parking or anything as far as roadways been installed that may have not come through the township um that was just done on site.

And I guess and and what I'm getting at is I think regardless of what the decision is, if it's a land development or if you're saying site plan or some type of review, maybe there needs to be at least a review for storm water. Not that you may have to do something but just maybe documenting and then if you have calculations and I'm not sure the township if you've been doing all your storm water through your NPDS permit um maybe just having that information provided to the township to do a review just to make sure that you're meeting the population of the was in 2009 2008 something like that. Yeah. Nothing have been added since then. Okay.

Like They say the quarter is growing every time we blast. Yeah, I think it's more the employee parking. Yeah, I think we're really looking at the side of the actual plant. But I think none of us have been here since that 2008 2009 modernization. So, if we came up with a base plan or could find the record plan that was done, maybe we can come up with a baseline of, okay, now this is where we're increased or where we're going to be going in the future just so it's easier on everybody's and not that we're looking at

I mean, I how how big is the plant side? 37 acres is the permit size. So it's pretty substantial, but I I don't know if you have any records from when they did the land that everything that is new at the front it was in 2008 and n and everything else all all the other buildings around and from the beginning 19 something so nothing new having buildings since

it's something that we can look through records and if you can look through records but the other thing if depending on their decision if you can provide us some of the the testing or the the permit for the tanks just for our records because I don't think we've received anything from D on that. We usually get for the air quality and some of the other stuff that you guys do. So that'll be helpful. Like a copy of the just said electronically of the the tank permit. Okay, good. Thank you. Um, I don't know if it's been pointed out here, but the where the tank farm is going now, the majority of that the new tanks, majority of that is currently paved as it as it is next to next to the old tanks. So, only a small segment is going be the new uh newly paved.

Yeah, I think we're just concerned really around the area of the offices and the shop on your plant. Kind of that northern side of where the plant is. You mean the

in the plan itself, not the offices across the street at the quarry. The where the conveyor comes in across 329 comes into that truck pile. The building's right next to it. I think your employee parking's in the front there. Okay. So, Somebody going to make a motion. Um recommendation for the board of supervisors. Um I would think appropriate a site plan for the tank farm and a following salo for the rail spur. But you know that's those are the options on the table or waving it all or requiring salo for it all.

Okay. Um, excuse me, Bob. We we we've talked in the past briefly, but um the chairman is permitted to make motions. So, if you wish to make a motion, you are you are allowed to. Yeah, there's nothing that prohibits the chair from making a motion. Okay. Well, then I'll make a motion. See how you like it? This is Maybe you'll be the chairman next year. Well, sure. Um,

so yeah, exactly. So I would make a motion that we require or write re recommend to the board of supervisors that a site plan requirement be or site plan be required for the tank farm. And then we have the subdivision land development requirements uh needed for the rail the additional rail act. The addition of the rail uh unloading area and the supporting and the supporting piping going back and forth to between the rail car and the the the tank farm.

I'll second. We have a motion by Bob and we have a second by Marty. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, I. Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. Mr. Long? No. Mr. Heming? Yes. Mr. Mills? Yes. Let the record reflect the motion pass four votes to one. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much. You reject it. It's not fun. I never said it was fun. You did very well. We didn't We didn't volunteer for fun, did we?

No, we did not. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the villages of East Allen conditional use application 7-Eleven Beth Bath Pike, AR Raetball LP. proposing villages of East Valent Township a mixeduse townhouse commercial development on their property on Beth Bad Pike State Room State Route 512. Gentlemen, good evening.

Good evening. Bill Ergman here on behalf of Arra Development along with Chris Reese, the design engineer. We're basically here to ask for conditional use approval um with the idea that we can move forward. You've seen you've seen this plan in sketch form from what Chris told me about two years ago. We had some general discussion about the plan. We took the comments under advisement. We have incorporated those changes into the current plan that's been presented. Um might be a good idea at this point for Chris to just do a quick overview of what's proposed on the property. Right. So just to you know refresh your memory for those that are Did you say who you are and where you're from? Chris Rice.

Chris Rice from TN Associates. So I was the design engineer um on these plans. So this project is proposing um a commercial area in the front portion of the site and then a town homes in the rear portion of this. So it's going to be a mixeduse development. The front portion has basically four different four different areas. One is a retail area with two buildings. Um then there's two medical office buildings and then a proposed restaurant. And in the rear portion there are 10 six unit town home portions. Just for one second, Angela,

is it possible to bring that plan up for the room to see because I don't think the public can see it. Is that hard? You can bring it up, but we can't zoom in. I don't I can put it down. Put it to the side. Yeah, there it is. Yeah, there it is. And that's good. That's okay, too. I mean, we have it. We have it in front of us.

Right. So, as we mentioned, um, we were here a couple years ago a couple times with a sketch plan proposal, and we've refined the drawing a lot, you know, since that time, but this hasn't changed very much since the last time we were here. I think a couple things we did, uh, you know, we brought the driveway entrance further back from 512 because before we had the, you know, side entrances to the commercial areas closer to 512. So, we've moved that back um to to meet the ordinance requirements. Um, and I think we have Yeah, I think that was probably one of the bigger changes we had. and then splitting the retail up into two different buildings because originally we had one larger building which was too large to for the conditional use requirements. So we did take all the comments that we received into account and and updated the plan and now after after sitting on the back burner for a little bit we're back with the conditional use plans to start moving forward. So um as part of this submission we did do a project narrative and we kind of we went through all the different standards from the ordinance the general standards and then also specific standards for the commercial and residential and um we can go through through that in more detail or just hit um you know the bullet points uh you know more important items and answer any questions that you might have. And we're really here, you know, for conditional use before we get into land development to get any conditions that we have to consider during land development because we know, you know, the traffic, the intersection with 512 and then our, you know, connecting to public water and sewer are some of the the bigger items that we are working on.

Okay. So, have you discussed this with handover for public water and sewage?

Yeah. Yes. the the the public water is not going to be a problem. I've been in touch with the city about them. There's no problem at all. The public sewer, I will tell you, is a challenge. There's no question about that because Hanover Township made it very clear that they were not going to provide additional capacity. So, we recognize that's one of the issues. The second one is the access out onto the main road. There have been some discussions in the past. I believe if I remember correctly, another engineer handled it. There was a scoping meeting seven or eight years ago on one of the earlier plans. And one of the issues that has to be addressed is access into the property whether it's going to be right in right out that it's going to be strictened in some way shape or form. So we recognize among the many conditions and I should point out that in the narrative each of the individual items both general and specific are all addressed but there's no doubt about the fact that the access and the public sewer which is required for the conditional use are going to be the challenges but we don't want to be in a catch 22. that we're trying to make sure we know the entire landscape of what's needed so as we move forward we can address everything.

Okay. But we know we have to address those. No question about it. Well, I would also think that you have to have an alternative access and egress point to the property. You can't rely on a sole single point of in and out right off of 512. Okay. But you if you need if that if there's an accident right at that intersection and you've got a fire, you've got somebody that needs ambulance, you need some reason to get in and off the property and that that's blocked shut for whatever reason. You got to have some other way of getting in and out of the property. Now, I see that you show a potential easement off of that first lane into Stuben, but that's you don't have that yet, right?

No, we don't. And that's why challenge. Yeah, that's why I'm saying that's a challenge because that's obviously something that has to be there. I mean, because if that's not there, then you've got to have some other way of getting off and on the property for at least emergency vehicles. And and that so in the in the way of getting to student, I'll put it that way. Um you've got property owned, I believe, by Jandel. Yes. And I think you also have a piece of property owned by the development to the south. Is that true?

The only thing The only thing that precludes uh the connection to get to the intersection down below would be that short piece of easement which is controlled by Mr. Jandville. Once you get through that, then you're on to a road system where you can get in and out. But that's that's where that's where the challenges. I thought that the development to the south actually owned a strip along. They may own a strip, but it's not blocking that access. Yeah. Well, anyway, you take look into that because Yeah. No, I I looked at Northampton County's property records seem to have that strip owned by the Just say the name of it. The Regency

Regency. Yeah. But again, that doesn't it's that strip that narrow strip that's shown below that's in gray. No, he's But that next strip down to the to the south. So if you scroll down to get to okay there's a strip here actually owned by I was going to say this property I don't believe but student so I think there's a small piece of land there that's owned by someone else it might be local look into that.

My recollection is it does channel strip does affect student right away. Okay. Because we looked at that probably you'll figure that out. Yeah. We have that doesn't that doesn't affect us today tonight. Yeah. You were just asking about what challenges you might face. Right. That's the case. You just have someone else unit you need to get from. Right. And as to the dual access, that's that's exactly why that's critical because irrespective of any concerns of the township, just from the practicality of being able to utilize that property, that's reasonable. There needs to be alternate access points, especially if it's a left, you know, right in, right out because now you've got a limited movement into the front. You have to have an alternate access. Sure. Sure.

I don't think there's too much doubt at some point Steen Road, uh, it's going to have a traffic signal there. I think that was right looked at preliminarily when the previous project came in. I don't think it met Lawrence, but I think at some point that's going to have to because General Land Company owns quite a bit of land to the west of this that's going to be accessing the same thing. So there's a number of players involved. My understanding in talking about this some years ago is the concept which I think is a great idea was to create a parallel service road running from Stuben all the way up to the next public road. Can

you just turn that mic? was to run a parallel service road from Stuben all the way up to the next public road so that connecting between these various properties including a property Mr. Bartalace owns on the other side could all be accessed from these central connection points we made some attempt early on to to talk to Mr. part of Lachi to try to bring them into that conversation. It wasn't successful, but we do know we have to address that. That's that's probably the simplest way to answer it that we know we have to address that. And without that access, we've got some significant problems.

Okay. And I think I think we could handle we could add a second access out to out to 512 for fire trucks. You know, just a a paver access something. I know we can't get a full access through Penn, but having something there grass I've heard that term. So I don't think that's something like that. So there's there's alternatives, right? I don't have any. Yeah, I think that should be an issue.

I just had a question on one of the conditions is the commercial development basically precluding the residential portion at least 50% of it. Do you see any issue with that um with like tenants? I know the uses. This isn't the first time this has come in. So there's has there been tenants or anything that shows that you can meet that condition? No. Um are you saying they need Yeah. So the commercial aspect you can only do 50% of the residential. You can't do 100% until you have 40% commercial.

I think like during construction that be part of the it would have to be phased that way. Yeah, it would be. I just wasn't sure if you had tenants up front to to accelerate that. Not that we're stuck with the units. And there have been inquiries on the property, quite a few of them over over the number of years. But um once we can start to move formally, I think it'll be easier to solidify those. But that would become part of the planning to say that the phasing of the project would have to be such that that would occur in order to allow the commercial to go in. Of course,

one obvious thing to me with this plan when I look at it and maybe I'm out to lunch, but I I I have a hard time seeing emergency vehicles making some of these radius turns. Um they just don't seem large enough for like a full scale fire truck kind of scenario, large fire trucks. Um, has this plan been drawn based on our fire truck, our emergency of vehicle equipment lengths? We we did draw this based on, you know, standard fire trucks. We could definitely take a look at that. Is our foot ladder truck in that? Yeah, these are

probably not. Yeah. Well, I think these are some some part of this might be that the scale of the drawing because there the roads are 30 feet wide, the driveways and that center island was going to be a flush island, you know, a concrete island there. So, it's going to be a circle, but it's going to be traversible by emergency vehicles. Okay, that was the intent. Okay. That's something we can definitely provide a a circulation plan showing fire truck circulation. Part of the land development process would include obviously those details. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Y

Well, I mean it looks to be the same plan that was here several months ago, whatever it was. And some of these comments were brought up and and it doesn't seem as if there were any real changes to the plan. I know Norm had brought up a point about access to the rear of these apartment buildings for emergency services kind of thing. It didn't appear as if there's any kind of additional access there. Um again, I'm going back recollection from the last time when it was here. I I think that was several years ago and I think that's when they were looking at the age qualified they were coming in for elderly housing. It wasn't part of the mixeduse proposal. Right.

That when I recall the comments that were were made for that. I I don't think you actually ever came to us physically to do a presentation. I think we just did review letters because it was timing with weather and other things. Okay. And these were were town homes. So we kind of envisioned having rear yards, right?

Um I think before we came in originally with more apartment style buildings and that wasn't applicable in this. But prior to that, there was a plan that Bill was involved with with Joel Weiner at the time, and they were looking at extending the age qualified as long as it was in this in a certain distance and it had certain acreage requirements and access to all of the criteria, but that was not relative to any of the sketch plans. I don't think I I I don't believe we actually met face to face on a presentation for this project, which that it's a sketch plan. It Yeah, you're right. It was very informal discussion but but there was extensive discussions because we talked about burming and buffering and then access potentially with heights of the buildings being proposed.

Um there were several concerns with that proposal but as to the concern and the turning radiuses as Chris said there were some turning radiuses run but we'd have to satisfy the fire company which is typically you know the fire chief can you get in there what do we need to do and you know so that's a pretty standard process as you go through plans if I could just take one moment to clarify something. Sure. This is our property down here. This is showing the actual future rightway connection. This is the piece which gets you to

right. So this is the only concern right here. This is on our property. This is the piece right here. So I guess the question was maybe is Stuben Road rightway right up against the Jandle or is there potentially a sliver between the jam property? I think it's probably part of the future dedication of Stuben Road and because that was never formally recorded. Maybe there's a portion that's at showing ownership because we did not call that the township is actually dedicated that road yet. was saying exactly right. There is a timing issue that Yeah, I think that's what's showing up right now is

and I thought maybe it was you have that one gray line and then you have the dark line that may be the right Yeah, I have the subdivision plan right here too, but you Well, I'm the president of the association, but so I can tell you that we went just went to a tax area and the parcel that Mr. chamber described is a parcel that we were taxed on and there the county records still show Stuben Road, but we're getting taxed for that strip that is between Stuben Road and the Janu property. So clearly and it runs the whole line and clearly it'll have to cross that piece. So that piece I can give you the parcel number if you need it

but uh not tonight. I can send it to you. It's a separate parcel from from the main the strip that strip. Oh, well, but another wrinkle in the connection process. What's that? I said another wrinkle in the connection. Yes, another spanner. The only comment I would make about connection is I don't know if you can put a second a second connection out onto Stuben, but if if that could be fit in there somehow that might be worthwhile considering looking at.

Um I know you've got it's kind of tight. you've got a lot in that small space, but if you, as you said, have a right in right out on 512 and then you're relying on that as being your primary essentially coming off a stubin and that's going to put a lot of traffic through that one outlet there. Um, a secondary outlet onto Stuben might be valid if it can be fitted. Okay. My only other suggestion is that parcel the L61581K is the future dedication of the right of way that has not been accepted yet. Right. That's why it's still in the name of the HOA. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. There's a timing issue with that.

Correct. Correct. We weren't going to accept a road that wasn't still right away. So the concept as I said earlier the whole idea was to follow that original service road concept to channel all the traffic along this parallel road to provide an access here at Stuben as well as one further north that may ultimately be signalized too in the future. Sure.

And I'll just say the development of the south is fairly large and um depending on how good the restaurant is that you is one of the commercial properties. Um, it would provide walking uh access to folks that live in that neighborhood. So, make sure it's a good restaurant. With a bar. Jill, you have any other questions or comments? Is that one of the conditions? Got to be restaurant. A good restaurant with a good We do have Speaking of that sidewalk interconnecting everything on the site, including up to our property line. We're proposing that.

Yeah. I would the fire chief look particularly the town houses up where there's the lawn and then there's the driveway so it's up to the north with that long parking lot with not an access loop thing. I mean if they're coming in they're it looks like they're going to have to back all the way out and if they're going to have able to back out far enough that they can turn down the other access road. Yeah, I think we had a couple spots that especially like at the just at the top of the plan where yeah, the truck could, you know, turn around, but um we can reach out to the fire chief and make sure we have the current specifications and make sure we put that on our plan.

I think just in general too for the develop just snow removal areas and handover engineering has a specifications for the area. Yeah, but we we didn't review this because this is the use. So, but it it's something that could be a condition of the plan. It most certainly will be. So, yeah, we the developer needs to do that. I mean, and it really should come from the township, the standards to the developer because there have the plans and they can do the turning radiuses, right? But yeah, so we have the specifications, but the township should just be providing specifications. when we can provide that and maybe that's an exhibit that you want to have

as part of your conditional use application. I think honestly if you reach out to Jim a lot he should have the turning templates for that. So it sounds like that is a recommendation that you want to add potentially. What's that? Uh adequate access and maneuverability for emergency vehicles. Yeah, actually I wrote that one down. Yeah. So, it's just the specification so they know that they can create their own turning radiuses. So, the only other comment I have is like looking at this plan again and I know we had mentioned before the um requirement for the 100 foot buffer. Yes.

And you do have it along the southern property line and then you have it along a portion of the northern property line. But potentially, I'm looking at this and thinking the 100 foot buffer would have to go all the way across the commercial property to the residential because the PC2 is next to it and the way the section is written, Buffer Yards along continuous property zoned to allow residential use. So PC2 actually does allow residential use. That was the issue with the amendment that was proposed because it would impose a residential property next to a current commercial and then they would have to put a 100 foot setback on their property.

Correct. So I think she's getting that it needs to be accounted for on your side so that the adjoining property owner is not forced where those uses wouldn't be compatible with the special buffer requirement or special BM requirements. So you might have to recess it in. So at the top portion if you can scroll down a little bit. Yeah. Because we do show it like like we were saying where it's against the uh at the corner. It's a different zone at that front property, but then it is the PC2. So you're thinking you're saying it would apply on the northern property line as well

to your area where you have the buffer between your commercial and your residential. So you wouldn't have it where you have your residential, but you're showing that yeah buffer line there from that all the way to 512 should be the 100 foot buffer. Oh yeah, I missed the I I was thinking this 30 foot here and this being here. No. Um, no. I'm talking about the 100 foot buffer. That's along in between this. No, that's the long That's our base perpendicular. Yeah. Yeah. No, then.

So, we're Yeah. So, you're providing the 100 foot buffer in the front portion of it to to the east where that existing house is. So with the expectation that that will become residential at some point, it could potentially because it talks about anything residential any residential use of the property. So if it's permitted in that district, then it's considered to be a res potential residential use. And yes, it's something we talked about in it may come up as an opposition like similar to the so just as a

so it would be a com if we were into plan review for land development it would be a comment that we would be making in our opinion that 100 foot buffer has to go along the northern property line for the full length of your commercial area. I mean, I think you have plenty of room to rework the structures in a manner that they're still kind of consistent with your design and accommodate that. You might also be able to incorporate the turning movements too depending on what you come up with. Well, and that's exactly right in the circulation within the site. Yeah.

I I know there are some constraints on that portion with remediation and other things, but We'll look into that. But I know that was something that was previously concerned by the township as well because we have strenuous buffering requirements that if not then imposed on anybody else by not their own doing.

All right. Any other questions or comments? Does some would someone like to make a recommendation for conditional use? Well, I guess before we get into the recommendation, the last conditional use review we did, are there any recommendations or items of concern that you want to discuss before you make it to incorporate in a motion or do you have them all or are you fine with nothing? Not that you're just coming up with them in the motion making process. Does anybody have any concerns or items? Well, I guess my my I mean my concerns are based on the plan as it sits here.

So So I don't know if this is the right way to think about it, but specific concerns I have are things that would need to be addressed as part of land development. Um like emergency access and this is this is not a plan set in stone. Um you can make a recommendation to the board to impose reasonable conditions related to ensure emergency access. You you can do that if there's something that you can identify, right? But this plan is malleable, too. It's not like this is the land development plan, right? Well, and that's that's the quandry I'm in. Well, that's

like we'll we'll put some conditions out or recommendations for conditions, but but as part of land development, all that stuff gets fleshed out anyway, but that wrong. But if you put conditions out and we can't meet some of the conditions, our conditional use approval is void. Right, Joe? Right. Yes. And and you know, display whatever the recommendation is tonight, I would say that when you appear before the board of supervisors with your conditional use approval, you know, it's a formal public hearing,

right? Um, there's some recent appellet case law that says, you know, and I'm on that side a lot, as you well know, you we just can't show up and say we'll comply. So, I know there's some things in your in your response letter. It says we'll comply. You just need to provide a little bit more definitive information at the public hearing that allows, you know, the legislative body to make a determination that you most likely could satisfy that condition. So, just be aware about that. As a matter of fact, we just did a municipal law seminar in Northampton County with, you know, all the municipal development attorneys and and that's there's some recent Commonwealth court cases that say, you know, back in the day, we would show up and say we'll comply and and we just can't do that anymore. So, just be aware of that, you know, each of the specific criteria I'm referring to, not necessarily general, but the specific criteria, you might have to have, you know, a little bit more in terms of a presentation that assures the board that you can meet the conditions. And that's what I was thinking. So between the planning commission and the supervisors, we can do the homework.

You can do it. Provide the formal response saying, "Yeah, I just didn't want you to be blindsided." You know, if that would have happened at the planning at the board of supervisors meeting. Well, so so I got emergency uh conditions related to emergency vehicle access. Mhm. I got conditions related to buffering based on potential residential use in the PC2 100 on the northern boundary. Well, that's the buffering, but I mean that's it's it's as it's codified in our ordinances for residential use relief. Well, right. It's in a commercial area next to residential. Yeah.

Public before you vote. What? Public before you vote. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're not there yet. I didn't think so. And I knew you knew. I just always What did I What did I miss, guys? Okay, so we have the turning radius for emergency vehicles within the property. Well, that's it's it's emergency. No, no, there's difference. There's emergency vehicle access. Okay. That gets them on the property. Maneuverability and then you have the maneuverability within the property, right? Jill mentioned Jill mentioned sanitary sewer. All roads must be readressed and widened. You got a 25 foot width road there. I think the requirement is a 24 foot.

Well, I don't care what the requirement is. You can't get a fire truck around that area. But the turning radiuses, the width of the road's one thing, but they do have I agree a lot of um tight turning radiuses. So that's what we're going to be having to look at and they're going to have to show they can get the trucks around those and that's going to that's going to drive wider roads and it potentially could right turning radius because some of those are such short turns. If you make those big enough to make your your turning radius for a truck, it's going to make it have to be wider, right? They make wider roads now and the tractor trailer still can't get around it.

So how do you feel about that, Norm? Um, okay. Um, let's see. I got turning radius, emergency access, access access, uh, and water. You said water sewer, public water. Yep. Which the water shouldn't be a problem per se. Um, same. Right. Right. I think those are the ones that I have. I mean, I I can't I I can't really make it a condition, but having an alternative access would be, I think, good thing. I should point out that public water and sewer is already a condition. It is. So you don't have to list that separately. It's it's in writing. Right. Without a variance, you wouldn't be able to if you didn't have it. You project's dead.

Exactly. That's a specific criteria that they would have to meet. Okay. Now, are there any other comments from the board? Public? Anybody from the public like to comment on any of these items, topics?

Chuck Alhouser again, 6829 Spruce Bath. Um, I guess we have a number of questions. Are there any plans, definite plans related to the forest land that is currently existing? Is that going to all be removed or just portions of it? And would some of it remain in the buffer area to the north end on the north end of the boundary? North south, pardon me, south end, excuse me, south end. Well, with the buffer area between the re that is would involve putting a burm. That's part of the the requirements is you have to have a high bur and it's going to be vegetated. It's got to be screen trees. And

so what you see with your development be removed. So what you see with your current development along 512 and to the south of your Regency as well as the other, we require 100 foot wide buffer with a 14 foot high variable BM with shrubs and bushes planted. That would be required along any adjacent non-residential area. So virtually all the existing forest would be removed then for this project that area. Yeah. But the farm recognized gives you an immediate understanding the existing vegetation and the rear portion was going to remain as open space.

And did you have any specific plans relative to the type of uh occupancy that will take place? Will be rental or will be a long-term lease or sale? What does intend? 10 is the condos, the condo ownership for condo ownership. And then the, you know, the open space land and the parking lots would be under an association. The north exit shown just north of where you have it, your stupid road exit. Do you have any plans relative to where that would go? No. Um that is there in case for future development of that lot on that side. So that was something that was discussed with the planning commission um previously just to make sure that could be extended to provide a connection in the future.

Is there any uh recreational facilities intended in the common areas such as pool or playground, anything of that nature? Do you know? Is that too too early? It might be too early, but yeah, right now there's there's nothing planned, but and traffic obviously will come through your development assessment, I suppose. It would require traffic not only a township but would have Thank you.

Good evening. Steve Elier 7024 Oak Lane in Bath. Uh couple questions. The commercial piece of this uh how many businesses total? I see two medical and a restaurant and so if you were to say how many businesses would that entail 10 20 30 um I guess the with the retail it would be up to who's going to be moving in. There might be you know four or five in each building or one larger one there might be one or two. That has not been formalized yet at this point. So, how many total? It could possibly worst case

this would be ballpark, but I mean it could be 10. Um, okay. Yeah, because I don't think the medical office buildings, you know, it could be several different doctor's offices in those. So, there could be or it could be one um one network that does buildings themselves. Okay. So, and it's a little hard for me to tell on the plan. It it looks like there's a lot of parking. Is there enough parking for these commercial buildings?

Yeah. And this is one of the things we we did is um it all meets all the the zoning requirements for the number of parking spaces. And one of the one of the comments was to make sure um we have enough at each building to address that use. So I think one of the earlier plans we kind of grouped it all together, but this plan here has parking specifically for that use around those individual buildings. Okay. Yes.

And maybe uh consideration for the uh for the board. Uh I'm sure I don't need to tell you that housing brings traffic and high density housing brings a lot of traffic. So, uh this will totally change the traffic. Stuben on the 512. Uh going north on 512, south on 512. uh 60 town homes, potentially 120 more cars using that intersection. And unfortunately, and I don't know, and I guess this would be a pendot thing, that's where 512 goes to two lanes from four lanes. Uh and potential traffic light and all that. So, it's just totally going to change the the vibe, the environment of of that area and the traffic on 512 with that highdensity housing. And the only other thing I want to say is uh I'm somewhat familiar with this concept uh down in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. They build a town center. I don't know if you've ever been there. And it's a mix uh like this of town houses, rental properties. Toll Brothers actually built town houses in there. There's a lot of commercial buildings, restaurants, shops, things like that. It's a hot mess. I can just tell you it's a hot mess getting in and out, parking, the whole bit. It doesn't look like this would be to that extreme, but uh maybe on a smaller scale. Thank you.

Good evening. Larry Ely, uh 6831 Spruce and Bath. Uh the question I had or the comment or concern is the traffic as well. if the main entrance off of 512 is a right in right out. Okay, that that gets people in or out. Um, and if they are successful in getting the easement to Stuben, then there would definitely need to be a light at Stuben for left-hand turns. And it's already uh difficult at certain times of the day to to make a left out of there, you know, or or cut AC or go uh go across. So now if they put a if they put a a light at their main entrance, that will uh really impact Stuben even more because when the lights red, it's going to back up and you'll never be able to make a left out of there. So if they put a light at that intersection, they almost need a light at Stuben as well that are synchronized so that everybody goes at the same time, that type of thing. So traffic is traffic sucks right there if you're familiar with it. And if uh that should be taken into consideration um you know the traffic flow very much and that's all. Thank you.

Well there there will have to be a traffic impact study done and and that will certainly define what requirements will need to be done with regards to lighting and whatnot. I can tell you they're going to replace the bridge on 512 the over the minoxy creek. 10,000 vehicles a day use that road. Yeah. So, anything is going to make it a problem unless it's properly managed and properly dealt with with regards to traffic studies.

And if that warehouse right there at the brick just past the railroad goes in, worse So, but um yeah, thank you for the the consideration on that. Oh, there was one other question. Originally in 21, you guys were talking about the 55 plus. is 55 plus or age limited dead or are these going to be any age group? These are going to be any age group as far as I know. Right. That's my understand Oh, great. Thank you. Pot determines whether there's traffic or

Yeah. And the only comment I would make is it'd be highly unlikely they would permit one on our entrance because generally they want to have a certain minimum distance between them. If Stuben gets signalized, which makes more sense because of the channel holdings to beyond this, that's not going to get a signal because it's way too close. But you're right, that's controlled by Pendot. Okay. Can I ask one more question? If that's controlled by PENDOT, would that impact the approval or would your final approval have to wait for PennDOT's approval?

It would have to wait for PennDOT's approval because we're accessing Pendot's road. So without the PennDOT permit necessary to do that, let me just clarify to to construct it, it could impact it. This municipality is not permitted to deny a land development plan for a PENDOT related issue and the MPC is very clear about that. So, we can for other issues, but I just wanted to make sure if let's assume they satisfy all their other conditions, but they don't have their HOP yet, we cannot deny their plan because they don't have the HOP. Understood. Now, to construct it, that's another story. They don't get a CO or they don't get a building permit or anything like that until until that that permit is issued. Understood.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I'm glad you clarified that, Joe. There's some fairly recent legislation. Yes. Case law on that. Recent case law. Yep. I've been around too long. Me, too. Trust me. The only other question I have, it's that strip of land that's owned by Regency on the north side of Stuben, right? Did you say that that gets dedicated? So when the property was subdivided as part of the minor subdivision before the major was done, they carved out everything that would be sold to Toll Brothers. Yep.

As part of that, Toll Brothers has carved out and then transferred, not fully yet. I don't believe to the HOA for dedication but it comes up as a parcel owned by the HOA for common space right but it ultimately is part of the dedication of right of way now we have deed of dedications for every road every open common area everything is part of this development the only thing we have accepted is the easement for the sub pump station and a landscape buffer that is along that pump that basically is to be maintained by the HOA. Um, other than that,

so what Bren's saying is that once the deed of dedication is accepted and filed at the courthouse, the county is going to revise its records to indicate that that strip is now a public road. Correct. And then the deed basic, the parcel would go away, but the township has full access and rights to that parcel of land through the current dedication. We have just not formally accepted it. The area between that parcel is an easement that is depicted on a plan but was not formally offered for dedication to the township and there is no description or plot plan that shows and that's going to be a private dispute between the land owners. Yes. Correct. So that's another condition that needs to be on there condition is you got to have access through there.

Well either way they could they could get access secondary access out to 512 similar to what the development for the south did. where there's a there's a there's another the access issue is going to be up to pend dot. No, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying is emergency vehicle access can come off of that 512. That's not that's understood. But they can't build this without having another access for vehicles coming into this facil into this property. In other words, that access that goes out to Steven, if that's not there, I would never approve this thing to be built. That would be ludicrous. That's insane because you got to have two access routes in and out.

Well, I understand. So, let me ask a question. If that came down and took a hard right as we're sitting out to 512 on their property before that buffer, let's say they made a secondary entrance to 512 just like Regency at Creekide has. So, because would that not satisfy that? Because of the classification of roadway, it will be extremely difficult to get access from that'll be two HOA impose a condition. You could say that the developer would make a reasonable effort or some sort of tangible effort,

but I don't know if I would fully condition it because I don't know how realistic it is. I mean, this has been an issue since 2014 and it has not changed and that's why it's only shown on a plan and nothing has been offered. Now, I don't know if any conversations has been made, but in some municipalities when you want something done like a turn lane, you make them show a reasonable effort that the board can quantify and say, "Okay, they've sent so many letters, they've offered this amount, they've paying for the improvements, and the owner still will not comply." because you're holding them to a standard for an improvement offsite that they they probably cannot control in any way. So, it's not it's a reasonable thing, but to hold up the whole conditional use, I I don't know. Basically, what PennDOT has done too, and I think to kind of explain the 512 corridor, they really don't want to see any more access points on 512 other than Stuben,

right? So this may very well be the principal access point as part of the land development plans and what they show may be just an auxiliary and it may not be a formal entrance like it is today. So so when the applicant appears before the board of supervisors that is a that is a public meeting and all of the evidence and documentation that is submitted at that conditional use hearing becomes part of the record. If that is the plan that is submitted as part of the record for the conditional use approval, then that developer must provide that access.

If they do not, then they haven't compl complied with the the plans that were approved for the conditional use approval and it's also going to go through land development approval. So, I guess the point I'm saying is you certainly have all the right in the world to make it a specific addition if you want to, but at the end of the day, if that's the plan that's submitted to the board of supervisors, that's the plan they have to build. They have to come back for additional approvals because the additional it's it's a formal hearing and it's based on the evidence in the record that's created at that hearing and the plans that are submitted to the to to you and the board of supervisors. And to be honest with you, we're hoping between the township and Pendot, we can bring a certain amount of pressure to implement what was originally the concept when that was first approved because that concept was to have a continuous parallel road which Pendot would like to see and I suspect the township would like to see. The only problem is that dedication of that strip never occurred. So, it's now in the control of private property owner. But I understand what Joe is saying and as a practical matter I think the reasonable development of the property makes sense to connect to Stuben because that's logically where a traffic signal should be located.

Sure. Of course to my point earlier which is there should be another one out of there on the Stuben as well but that's that's beside the point. Well that one would be further. There's I can't remember the name but if you go far north I'm talking south to the north there's another public road. I know there is but you're never going to get there we not but doesn't matter. All right. I'll take it from that is to list developer making reasonable effort to provide second or provide primary access to the site from student. Y that's adequate. All right. Is that that's adequate? You want to make a motion?

Sure. Why not? So the motion would be to grant recommendation of the conditional use based on the testimony presented today and meeting the fire department's emergency access and maneuverability. Providing the buffer yard along all residential and non-residential areas of the development. Road widening as necessary through the development to accommodate reasonable maneuverability and access. Y

and sanitary sewer connection and primary access shall be sought for the development through Stuben Road. A developer will make a reasonable effort to to make that happen. Yeah. So the buffer yard would only be along the northern property line within the commercial just commercial as is in our ordinance for potential residential use in a PC2. Yeah. So that's the motion.

Let me just make sure I didn't miss any. Yeah. Yep. And oh, and also I did note they should pay attention to traffic increases at Stuben and 512. That's a that's a pin. So we don't need that. All right. We have a motion on the floor by Marty. Do we have second? Pardon? I'll second. We have a second by Tom. Roll call, please. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Mr. Long, yes. Mr. Daniel, yes. Mr. Heming,

yes. Mr. Mills, yes. Let the record reflect the motion pass. Five votes to none. Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone. Great. Moving on to business being carried. Sheila gave minor subdivision plan expires 331 2026. No action is required. We're interrupting if you can.

Are you finished? Done. Okay. Just making sure.

All right. Uh the next item is East Allen Convenience Store Fueling at 6500 Handoverville Road Plan Shallo 2025006. Plan expires 53126. No action required by the board. The next item is 6780 Jacksonville Road, minor subdivision, salo 2025-005. Plan expires 22826. No actions required by the board. Next item is Nwood major subdivision preliminary plan Salo 2023-0000. Plan expires 3312026. No actions required. Uh, next item is 6893 Stuben Road, lot line adjustment, salo 2024-005. Plan expires January 31st, 2026. No action required. And finally, 6821 Steven Road, Minor Subdivision, Salo, 2025- Z003. Plan expires January 31st, 2026. No action required by the board. Any discussions? Any comments? Uh, did we need to talk about the January meeting?

Um, it's the 15th. Yeah, the meeting will be the 15th of January instead of your normal because of the holiday being the first Thursday, right? And we need to get the calendars. Only question that would be for your board. Do you want to consider there was previous discussion about moving it sooner than seven like at moving to 6:30? Oh, so I this probably would be the time before we advertise. That's a good question. We talked about having it potentially earlier. Joe Jill, feel free to chime in. Good either way. Fine. If you do it, we serve as the pleasure of the board.

Ecstatic. Maybe we can finally get Jim to get get us next door. Yeah, I'll I'll vote no on it. I can't be trusted. 6:30 is that you guys want it. Just was a thought for it. Well, yeah, we talked about it before for specifically for I don't like it. Well, that would be I like it, but I'll go along with it. Okay, so we have one. Maybe I just may not be here all the time. How about 6:45? Do we want to change it? All in favor of 6:30 say I. I.

Sounds like 7 o'clock. It is. Oh, well. All right. Brent, why is our meeting not the 8th? Because we have a supervisor's meeting that night. Potent. Well, potentially if we have the second Tuesday or second Thursday. Okay. So, planning is on the 15th. Yeah. Yep. Are you good for that date? We might not have any a twice continued zoning meeting in Allen Township. Specifically picked that day, the 15th of January, because I had no East Allen meetings. Well, next week we'll know if we have any submissions. Yeah, there's not a problem. We'll figure it out one way or the other. Always. So, you're saying we could move it to the ETH? No, the supervisors are the ETH. Oh, I thought you were saying that they might not. We may not have a

Well, they may not have a meeting, but Okay. All right. All right. Um, frankly, I'm okay with January 1st. All right. I have no problem with that either. All right. Brent Brent brings the alcohol. Any questions or comments from the public? All right. Um, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Do I have to do everything? No. I move I move we adjourn. We have a motion on the floor to We have multiple seconds.

All in favor say I. I record reflect the motion pass by none. I think there was a three-way tie on the second. Not that anyone's act.