Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

isn't really close. Hello. How are you?

I'm doing well. What does it I don't know.

Thank you very much. I'm just gonna shut this. Do we know whose it is?

I'm just going to leave it like that. She's sitting here. You Same here.

It's chilly up here. Hey, how is everybody? How was everybody's holiday? Good. Back today. Good. Nice and quiet. Carl came back from the the in the past. I heard

the past

Thank you. Yeah. What's that? Check up the car. All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to meeting of the East and Planning Commission here on December 3rd in city council chambers. Uh we'll begin with a roll call.

Miss Wagner, Mr. Etches here. Dr. Green here. I did have to turn it on. Mr. Graiano here. Mr. Shipman here. Okay, we do have a quorum.

Um move to approval of the agenda. Uh I know there was a change submitted on the uh planning commission meeting schedule to change the uh April what would have been the April 1st meeting which is the first Wednesday of the month to the third Wednesday of the month on April 15th. We have also u move we also are going to suggest moving our start times back to six o'clock to be in line with most of the other commissions uh and and city council etc. Uh so that change is noted. Uh are there any other changes to the agenda? No. Okay. Um motion to approve. So moved. Second. I'll second that. All in favor?

I opposed.

Okay. Go to the minutes of uh the November 5th meeting which were distributed with the packet. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? had a question in the rebuttal section for the Wood Avenue application. Third bullet point, there's a sentence in the center, I'm not sure if it's written correctly, which would include inter additional internal trailing movements and security checks at guard houses. I don't recall there being a guard house included in the modeling that was discussed. There wasn't uh as I recall and uh I believe but I believe the testimony from that person was that typically guard houses would be found. Maybe maybe that's why it was

Yeah, but the the sentence is misleading in that way. Okay. Security checks. Oh, it does say not shown in plans but typical for warehouse the part afterwards. Does that make it right or Let me read it again. It felt as though the discussion sounded like the guard house had been included in the experts testimony. I I believe it was included in his testimony. He did mention it as being not shown in the plans, but typical for warehouses of this kind.

No, I don't disagree with that. My concern is the noise study did not include incremental noise that would occur from a guard house. Right. Oh, I see what you're saying because this the statement is saying that he noted what the noise study's focus was. I see what you're saying. There you see focus on peak road actual

I remember asking the question which got the re the reply of guard houses being typical. Um weird for me to ask the question if it had been included. Should um should we could we do it by putting a period after the word movements and then a parenthesis there. He also mentioned security checks at courouses. That would do it for me.

Okay. So period after movements parentheses E mentioned security checks at guard houses remove the other parenthesis not shown in plans but typical for warehouses. Okay. Any others? Okay. Hearing none. And with that uh with that correction do have a motion to approve the minutes and a second. Second.

All in favor. Any opposed? Okay. We now move to privilege of the floor. This is the opportunity for anyone in the audience to address the commission on any item or anything that is not on the agenda. If you'd like to do so, we'd ask you to step to the microphone, state your name and address, and please share with us any thoughts you have. All right. Seeing none, we will move to uh the first item of the agenda. Um, I'll I'll read the rest of the agenda in a moment, but the first item I I'll read them all. Um, is the 2026 commission meeting schedule and time resolution, a special exception for offense at 277 to 79 West Nesquon Street, a special exception for a community service at 11 North 13th Street. Special exception for a retail specialty at 158 to 160 South 3rd Street. Land development for a six-story mixeduse building from 509 to 519 Northampton Street. Land development for a three-story addition at at 1022 Northampton Street and deliberation uh on the application for 1525 Wood Avenue. Um so we'll start with uh the commission meeting schedule and time resolution. Um, as we mentioned in the opening, uh, the plan continues to be and the, um, schedule would be the first Wednesday of each month with the exception of April 15th at 6 o'clock p.m. Um, and meetings would be held here. Any discussion on that?

So that would be starting in January. That would be starting in January, next month. Yes. Yep. Reminder in your in your phone. Yes. Okay. All right. Um not you make a motion. Go ahead. I know. I saw that cuz that's why I There it is. You're a So you're amending it to six. Six o'clock. Okay. To a six o'clock start. So we need to vote on that amendment to the resolution then. Right. Because the resolution says 6:30. Yes. And he and he made the motion with a change to Oh, I'm sorry. I he changed it. Yep. No problem.

All right. Mr. Shipman has made a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Take a a roll call on that. Mr. Shipman, yes. Mr. Etches? Yes. Mr. Graziano? Yes. Miss Wagner? Yes. And I will vote yes as well. So that is implemented for next time. You good there? Okay. Very good. All right. We'll move to uh the next item is a special exception for a fence at 277 to 279 West Nesquoning Street.

The applicant Jessica Romel desires to install a 6ft stone wall on their sideyard at 2779 West Escraone Street for the zoning code 59514F13E. Walls which are used as landscaping features shall be considered fences and shall be subject to the same height limitations. Since the stone wall is in a sideyard and over 4 ft in height, a special exception is required for 59514F13F1. This property is located in the southside zoning district block C. The zoning administrator has determined no variances are required with this application. The proposed six foot stonewall is appropriate for this location since it will not impair the vision of motorists. The proposed use is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and city codes. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the zoning hearing board to grant the special exception request to Jessica Romel for a 6 foot stone wall located in the sideyard at 2779 West Honey Street. Okay.

Is the applicant here? Um, is there anything that you'd like to add to what the staff has said with regard? Okay, we may have a few questions. Would you mind coming up to answer them? Great.

Thank you very much. Yep. Um, Mr. Shipman, do you have any questions? I do. Just one, I think. Um, it's a wall. I assume the wall is going to be the same gray stone or whatever it is that's in the front in the back of the building. The front of the building now is is ornate tin. Um, oh, it has like some features in it. But on my foundation on the sideyard, I have I have a stone foundation there and I want to match that. Okay, that's the stone I was looking at. Didn't I see some trees? I don't have any trees on my propert. No, but I assume sorry I assume that the trees were your neighbors and

that's actually the water department. Oh, can you get the wall in there without any problem? This the the stone wall is going to go on the other side. Oh, okay. Where there's there's a 4ft chain length fence there now. So, I just want to put a six foot stone wall just for security. My question. So you'll be able to walk straight from the sidewalk in to the building. Yeah. You still Yeah. There's nothing. So the front of the building is basically at the sidewalk. Yeah. But the side where the driveway comes down to the side of the building, there's a 4ft fence there with a gate. Now that's where I want to put the six foot wall. That's all I have.

Thanks, Mr. Graziana. I have no questions on this. Mr. Um unlike a chain link fence, uh stonewall is very hard to move. So, um I would encourage you to be sure that you've got your survey markers well identified so there isn't any issue once it's up. Understood. I have no questions.

Okay. Um, my only question was with regard to the exact sighting of the wall. Is this running the entire side length of the property from from front to back? No. So, front to back is like 140 ft, I want to say, something like that. Where I want to put it is next to the building um on Nescooning Street. So, my building goes from Nescooning, the property goes from Nescooning back to Hole. Yep. But in the front where the driveway comes all the way to the sidewalk, there's it's only like a 12 foot section that I want to put the wall up. I see. Gate in it. I see. And so and and that's nearer to the front of the property? Yes.

Got it. Okay. Understood. Any other any other questions? Wait, I'm confused. So, is this running down the side of the property or in the front of the property? The front, but it doesn't go in front of the house, if that makes sense. Still down. comes out to the sidewalk and there's an area from the from the front of the house to my property line that's only like I said I think it's roughly 15 feet right and that's where I want to put the the wall where there's a fence there now and there's a asphalt pad behind it yeah it goes from Nescooning all the way to so you're not using that as a parking pad

it is it's my driveway So, I have no grass. So, you're gonna put the six foot fence across the front of that pad. Correct. Where there's a fence now. And then the chain link fence that goes between you and your neighbor is going to stay in place. For now, until I get, you know, I'm going to put a six foot fence there, you know, down the line. I didn't apply for that yet. Understand? Okay. So, it'll be it'll be a stone wall in the front and then it'll probably most likely a vinyl fence down the side just because, you know, obviously a stone wall's costly and I don't want to do it 140 ft. I'm going to do it the 15 and heavy.

That's Yeah, and that's why I asked the question. I was just curious about Okay, very good. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we have a uh is there anyone from the uh audience who would like to speak to this application? Seeing none, um we have a uh draft resolution uh from the staff uh proposing that u the commission uh recommend to the zoning hearing board that this request for special exception be granted. Would anyone like to make that motion or any other? I'll make the motion to accept staff's resolution.

Any further discussion? Any roll call? Mr. Mr. Graciano, yes. Mr. Shipman, yes. Mr. Etches, yes. Miss Wagner, yes. And I will vote yes as well. So, good luck to you. Uh, good luck with your uh with the special exception with the zoning hearing board. Thank you.

All right. You're welcome. Uh, next on the agenda is a special exception for a community service at 11 North 13th Street. The applicant, Miss Diggs Jackson, is proposing to open and operate a youth lounge at 11 North 13th Street. This space will serve as a safe structured environment exclusively for youth enrolled in our active programs. It is not a public drop off drop-in center, but rather a designated program area that operates under staff supervision during set hours. While our or organization serves youth ages 5 to 21, this space is primarily geared towards teens ages 12 to 17, providing them with a supervised and structured environment that encourages confidence, leadership, and personal growth. The youth lounge will function as a positive development focused space where youth can engage in supervised recreation, mentorship, and social connection. The lounge will feature comfortable seating, televisions, and consoles for gaming and areas designated for workshops, small groups discussions, and planning meetings. A key component of this initiative is our youth council, a group of young young leaders within the organization who assists with planning activities, providing peer leadership, and ensuring all lounge operations run smoothly. The youth council will also use the space for regular meetings to coordinate community projects, youth events, and leadership initiatives. The primary goal of the youth lounge is to offer a safe, welcoming setting for youth to relax, learn, and grow while fostering teamwork, leadership, and responsibility. All activities are supervised by trained staff to maintain order and safety. Outsiders Youth Association believes this space will provide a meaningful benefit to the eastern community, giving local youth a consistent and uplifting environment that promotes social connection and a sense of belonging. This property is

located in the West Lord Street Quarter zoning district block class B where the proposed community service use is permitted by special exception per 59525C. Uh no variances are required with this application. The proposed community service use is permitted by special exception in the street quarter zoning district. This proposed use is generally consistent in comprehensive plan as city codes. Staff feels this will be a great addition for the use in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the zoning hearing board for granting the special exception request to Miss Dicks Jackson for a community service use at 11 North 13th Street.

Thank you. Uh is the applicant here? Oh, great. Uh, anything that else that you would like to add to what's been said? Um, would you mind coming up so we could ask a couple questions if if we have questions? By the way, as you're doing so, um, we we rarely get as uh thoroughly descriptive a picture of a proposal as that was. So, if if that was as a result of your work, thank you very much. No problem. Okay. Uh, I'll start down at this end. Miss Wagner, do you have any questions? I do not. Mr. Etches,

I love this idea. I'm a little confused, though, because there are several addresses at the building in question. So, is the intent to take over the totality of the building for this project? No, it's just the bottom unit. It's like two sides. One is occupied and then the other one is empty. That's the one I'm occupying. All right. So, there'll be limited amounts of reconfiguration you're going to have to do to get all these wonderful things to happen in there. I wouldn't say no. I wouldn't say I mean the layout is Yeah, the layout is perfect. There's not a lot of You're not going to have construction.

Oh, no. Okay. No, that was my question. I have nothing further, Mr. Graziano. Um, well, I agree with Mr. Hutchinson. This is a great proposal. I'm glad you brought it forward. Um, just a couple questions. So, is it basically a drop in center? Correct. Yeah, you can you can say that. Yes. Okay. Is it going to be a nonprofit or is there going to be a fee or how's how does No, there will be no fee. Uh, we're not officially nonprofit yet. Okay. Um, but there will be no fee. The children don't have to worry about anything. They could just come in, use whatever equipment we have as the police. Great. Great. Best of luck. Thank you, Mr. Shippen.

No, I have no I have I don't have any questions. Uh, you said that you were in there. Um, is is there a current use? Is some is somebody else using that portion of the building? No, it's empty. It's empty. Okay. And you mentioned not doing any construction um to the the interior. Um, can you just describe a little the interior layout? Is it cut up into rooms? Is this a bigger open space? So, it's a open space, but it's split between a wall. So, it is a wall divided in like two big rooms. Okay. Oh, two big rooms. Okay, great. And this is the This is the back half of the building, if you will. It's not the It's not the part that faces out to Northampton Street.

Uh, no, I think it is. It's the part that I think that is Northampton Street. It's the front half. It's the front half. It is the front half. Okay, got it. All right. Because And that's that. entrance is kind of on a on a angle. Yeah. Yes. Okay. I know what you're talking about. Great. All right. Uh I don't have any other questions. Um thank you very much. Thank you.

Um any member of the audience who would like to speak to this uh applicant uh application? Seeing none, um we do have a staff recommendation uh by resolution for the commission to recommend that the request for special exception be approved um to be recommended to the zoning hearing board for approval. Does anyone like would like to make that or any other motion? I will make that motion. Second. I'll second that. Sorry. Any further discussion? We'll go to a roll call. Mr. Etches, yes. Mr. Graciano, yes. Miss Wagner, yes. Mr. Schiffman,

yes. I will vote yes as well. So, you have our recommendation. Good luck at the next step. And again, a great great project. We thank you so much for doing that. Thank you.

Uh, next is um special exception for a retail specialty 158 to 160 South 3rd Street. The applicant, Prince Patel, desires to change their existing convenience store to a retail specialty use so they can sell alcohol within the store. The current gas station and other commodities to the store that the store provides will not change with the addition of adding alcohol for sale. This property is located in the downtown street quarter zoning district block class B where the proposed retail specialty use is permitted by special exception per 59525C7. The zoning administrator has determined a variance is required for the retail specialty use being located within thousand feet of another retail specialty use. The existing retail specialty is located at 350 Larry Homes Drive which is approximately 700 ft away. The proposed use will not cause overcrowding of the land on which it would normally be expected from the proposed use. No outside additions are being proposed to this building. The use will not impair the supply of light on adjacent properties. It will not burden the water, sewer, school, or other public facilities. The proposed use will not substantially change the character of the Charlotte neighborhood. It will not cause congestion of public streets. The proposed use may cause a hazard to the public's health and safety. The proposed use is not suitable to the site since it is located approximately 700 ft from another retail specialty use. The proposed retail specialty use is permitted by special exception. Since the proposed us is within a thousand feet of another retail specialty establish establishment and requires a variance for this, it is not generally consistent with comprehensive plan and city codes. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the zoning hearing board for denying the special exception request to Principle for a retail specialty use at 15860 South 3rd Street.

Is the applicant here? I see that the applicant is not here. Um, I don't know if we have uh questions u from the commission, maybe to staff members. I don't know if we have any. Mr. Shipman, do you have any questions to the staff regarding this?

Is this because a neighbor has already done this? Is that the is that the problem? Well, it's it's within another uh retail specialty. It's within 1,000 ft of another retail specialty establishment. And that other place, what kind of a So that's the that's the smoke shop over here in the the strip mall by Wawa. Correct. Okay. No, that's your only question. Mr. Mr. Graiana. Um, I had questions for the applicant, but they're not here. So, I don't think you're going to be able to answer what type of alcohol they plan on selling, you know, in what amounts, different types of those things, right? Yeah. So, that's Okay.

Excuse me. I I assume they they're not limited to beer. I don't know what type of liquor license it is. I think it was a restaurant liquor license that they have. So, you answer my question. I'm not positive on what they're going to sell. So, I would leave that up to the applicant. Okay. Mr. Hutcherson, all my questions would be for the applicant. So, here we go. Miss Wagner. Wait. Same.

Okay. Um, my only question was that you read in the criteria that the proposed use may cause a hazard to the public health and safety. Um, that wasn't enumerated in the recommendation. Is there a specific reason why concern for a hazard? you know, just drink it on the property. You know, you can buy it as long as you get out of the building, you can drink. So, it just may, you know, could cause some problems. Okay. That's how we thought about it.

All right. Great. Um, is there any member of the audience who would like to speak to this application? Seeing none, um we have a staff uh recommendation that the planning commission make a recommendation to the zoning hearing board to deny the special exception request for this retail specialty use. So somebody would like to make that recommendation or any other. I'll make the motion to accept staff's recommendation to deny. It's a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? Mr. Graziano, yes. Mr. Etches, yes. Miss Wagner, yes. Mr. Shipman,

yes. And I will vote yes as well. So, we'll send that uh recommendation to to deny the exception.

Next, we have a uh land development uh for a six-story mixeduse building at 509 to 519 Northampton Street. The applicant, John Ksaurus, has submitted land development lot consolidation plans that proposes to construct a six-story mixeduse building with 50 dwelling units on vacant parcels located at 509 to 511, 513 to 515, and 517 to 519 Northampton Street. The combined lot will be 10,990 square ft and the building will encompass the entire lot. The height of the building will be 75 ft. The 45 one-bedroom units will be between 540 to 730 ft and the five two-bedroom units will be 1,000 square ft. The commercial space on the first floor will be 790 ft. 20 off streetet parking spaces will be located on the first floor underneath the building and will be accessed from Northampton Street. The applicant als has also entered into an lease agreement for 10 additional off- streetet parking spaces located on Church Street. The property is in the downtown street quarter enhancement zoning district block class B where the proposed mixed use is permitted per 59520B. The zoning administrator has determined variances are required for the proposed building footprint being greater than 15% of the footprint of principal structures on the joining properties and for no public plaza common area being proposed. Also HDC approval for the concept of the building is required. The plans were submitted to Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for review. The plans uh LVPC responded. The proposal supports a core strategy of the regional plan to increase density in urban areas using infield development. The proposed development supports efforts to alleviate the regional housing shortage. Eastston is projected

to add over 3,600 people by the year 2050 and is now the fastest growing city in the Lehigh Valley with an anticipated 13% projected population increase. According to the Lehigh Valley housing dashboard, Eastston is experiencing a shortage of 413 housing units today and an additional 2726 units are needed by the year 2050 to keep up with the city's anticipated population growth. The proposal helps meet the city's housing demand while increasing it attainable housing opportunities. The proposed mixeduse building is permitted within the downtown zoning district. This proposal is appropriate for this location considering the area is both residential and commercial in nature. The proposal meets objective 1.3A of the city's comprehensive plan. The uh prioritizing development of vacant lots. Therefore, the submitted plans titled 519 Northampton Street appear complete enough to support conditional preliminary plan approval with conditions

conditions of which you've cited on the the draft resolution. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Is the applicant here?

Sure. If uh I just want to put them on the top table right right up here and then we can uh we can pass them along. If you don't, we can pass them. Okay. I don't need one. Just five. Yep. That's good. Thank you.

I'll speak over your shoulder

there. I'm gonna put this in here. Good evening. Excuse me. My name is John Ksurus. I am representing the applicant today. I am a vice president at Carol Engineering. I am a I'm professional engineer in the state of Pennsylvania and I have over 23 years of experience. Um I am the engineer of record on this project. And uh given this long list of applications you guys have tonight, I'm going to be very brief, especially since Carl kind of ran through everything. Um, as stated, we are offering a six-story multi-use mixeduse building, 50 residential dwelling units, and 790 square foot first floor commercial space. Um, 20 off streetet parking will be also on that first floor. So, most of our parking is there. Um, we're required 23 spaces. So, 20 of the 23 are there. And as mentioned, 10 additional spaces are offsite under lease. Um, I have also the comments here. I don't know how in depth you guys want to go. Do you want to run through some of these comments or do you want to just go to questions? Uh we any anything that you feel you would like to add beyond what the staff told us? You're you're welcome to add or we will likely have questions.

Sure. Yeah. So, let's just run through the plan really quick. As you can see, this is a free lot consolidation. So, that's part of the reason why we have that first variance for the over 50% of our neighbors. Um this is pretty much maximizing the site. As you can see, I'll try to zoom in a little bit. Our property line runs along here um along the back of the building along the sides here. For requirements, we are meeting the front. Um we'll have our retail spaces on this side with the front door here. This is the door to the apartment complex. On which side? Well, I can't see the cursor.

You can't see the cursor? I can't really come back. So the far right side we have existing street tree um which we plan to move because it's within the site triangle of the parking garage. And then we are proposing a second street tree on the right hand side of our site.

Throwing up the lock consolidation just to show you all what the existing bots are. No signal. Hold on one second if you would. Y is there a source button through HDMI? It should be the HDMI. Let's go. We'll turn

Wait a minute. I think Knock over. There it is. Good. Thank you. All right. No problem. So, can you guys see Hersa then at that point? Yes. So, I can kind of point this way. Yeah.

Um, as you can see, these are the three lots that are being consolidated into our one lot. I'll go to existing features plans just to kind of clean that up a little bit. So, as you can see, there's some existing concrete on the site, but this is a mostly vacant site. Um, we have some intrusions from neighboring sites that we're working through as we speak. And that's that's pretty much the mo the most of it. Um, we do have the facade. So, this is how the building is currently projected to look. Um, and it kind of points out a little bit better. So, you can see on the right hand side is the retail, the center door for the apartments, the rollup parking garage, and then the man door on the left hand side of the parking garage. Um, we did receive comments from the city. Um, most of these comments were um the fire department didn't have any comments. Atlanta stated that they did not have any comments. Um the forester we're working through as apparently there was a newly or recently planted sweet gum tree um that is in our city triangle for our parking garage. So we are going to work through that issue with them and hopefully relocate that tree andor plant a new tree in its place. So we will meet those requirements. Um the planning is in process with the historical district commission. So, we're working through that and uh the engineering review. The first comment they speak about coordinating lot consolidation as a previous development had slightly different numbers for some of the meets and bounds. We performed our own survey. We certify our own survey. So, we can't speak to what the existing site plan came through. Um I know there was an existing plan that came through. I don't know if you all remember, but there were only two lots that were being consolidated. Now, we have three. So, we came through and did a brand new survey since we were certifying that. Um, our

planning in progress. Um, I'm sorry. Our utility plan, we changed to a 6-in lateral for our sanitary line instead of 4 in on the plan. We've already resubmitted that and we've received our well serve ladder. So, we've gotten past that. Again, they reconfirm us working with the city forester about the existing tree and um there's a statement about existing uh the city reserving rights for existing comments once uh plans get revised. I have nothing further at this time and I'm ready for questions comments. Great. Thank you, Miss Wagner. I have no questions. It's very nice. Mr. Herson.

Uh, as you'd mentioned, we'd seen some plans for this particular site previously, and I had expressed concerns at that time regarding emergency vehicle access to the back of the building. I noticed that on the plans, you're showing an existing alleyway behind the building, which doesn't exist. So, it's it's an existing paper street at this point.

Yeah. There's no there's no curb cut, nothing to get into any pre-existing it's an almost impassible green patch of weeds at this point. My point being, uh, I drive a small car. I drive a Mini Cooper. Uh, I drove around the side to see if I was remembering the access not being there that it's a paper street. There's not an actual street that runs up between the church and and the site where you're proposing it. And so I was like, "All right, well, maybe you're just being silly. Let's go around and see if we can get in the back way." So I went around to the back and there's a telephone pole that barely let my mini squeeze into the alleyway that goes in there. So, I continue to have concerns about uh fire truck access to the rear of the building. Um, and I would encourage you to have a cogent discussion with the fire department representative about that specific question because because it' be a good idea.

Okay. Well, the fire department did complete a review and they had no comments, but we will bring that back up with them again. I I would I feel so strongly about it. I'm almost wanting to make it a condition for approval if we get to that point. That a subsequent conversation be had with the fire department representative specific to access to the rear of the building. Uh can't fault you on the parking because that's not your fault. Um, uh, are these going to be rental units or condos? I believe they're rentals, but are Yes, the rental units.

Rental units. My clients are here in case other questions that I can't answer, but yes, they are. In the past when we've had rental units, particularly when they had leased spaces associated with them, we've added a condition. Joel's not here. Uh we've had a condition uh whereby on the annual renewal that uh pro be shown of the lease spaces would you be amanable to that being a condition of approval?

Don't be shy. We don't bite. Yeah. We have a lease in place now. So no. And I appreciate that. the the thinking is is that on an ongoing basis that lease really goes to the quality of life for the residents in the building. So the idea would be that as your annual please help me out here guys business license. Yeah. Time every time that they uh submit their rental license they're supposed to submit as well if they have a lease agreement for parking. Okay.

So so because of that they don't need to add we don't need to add that as a condition. Uh, typically no. Uh, because if it's on there, so it's already in the zoning application that he has a lease for 10 spots. That's what requires him. He he meets the the parking requirement. Now, if that went away, he would have to come back for a variance. So, say if he lost them spaces, he would have to come back and either find lease spaces somewhere else or seek a variance for not having spaces. But because it's in the application, we don't need to add it as a condition. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. Okay. Very good. And then of course, me being me, um there are no overhanging trees. Have you considered uh adding solar panels to the top of the building to help reduce the cost and impact on our grid?

Probably not. Um a lot of people have a lot of issues with solar panels. From my understanding, it's not good for the roof. And I don't know if the cost actually, you know, benefits from what I've been told in the research I've done. I would encourage you to have a brief conversation with uh Bob Freeman who can give you some insights in terms of um the advantages or requirements and the grant programs that for some reason still exist. Okay. To uh to help with the installation of solar panels. Is he with the city or he is your state representative.

Okay. and he has an office on Northampton Street between third and sorry, second and third and he's nice. That's all I have. Okay, Mr. Graiano, I think you mentioned a little bit, but um on our packet has the overhead Google uh Earth view on it. And on the back side on the uh the northwestern sign, it looks like you're protruding right into the neighbor's um yard. I don't know what that is back there. Is that what What is that in the back? You talking about back in this this portion of the lot? Yeah, where it kind of juts out in the back.

So that's that's part of our property. There is an an old existing neighboring deck back there um that we're working with the neighbor I told to resolve but so it's it's your it's your space but our property correct so what's the plan there just we're working through it and then also um the garage entrance opens directly on Northampton Street

um in the LPC LBPC review they recommend um uh strategies ensure safety and accessibility of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders on the site, particularly to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the garage entrance. Is it are you going to do anything with that? I didn't see that. Was that recent? The LBC letter. I read it on the portal or Yeah, the LBPC letter.

I haven't seen that yet. So, we will consider that for sure. We take all the comments very seriously. Is there current there's no plan whatsoever there though right now as far as the entrance goes? Not that I'm aware of.

Previously this plan was approved with the two lots. It was a very similar setup. Um so we we kind of followed what the previous lots were approved for. which part of it um is the new addition which wasn't originally it was two it was just two lots so the left side and the middle section but I can't tell you exactly but because it might one might you know straddle both lots now going into the third but originally it was just two lots um it's hard to tell it was it was just the two left lots it was a two left lots there and they had u on the left they had the garage there so we kind of just mimic what was what was approved first

and just built on top Yeah. And then obviously by adding the the third lot, it it it gets the kind of the density where the project can kind of actually be done. So that's why we went to, you know, once we purchased the two lots, we went purchased the third lot. Okay. Uh what is uh what are the projected rents on these units? I I don't know offhand. Um, it's definitely going I mean it's going to be market rate rents, but they're going, you know, it's not going to be like an amenity driven building like a lot of the stuff that's been built down here. So, it's going to be more probably more of like a workforce housing type type building. Uh, the rents will be under what the amenity driven buildings were.

So, will it be workforce apartments or will it be market rate? It's it's going to be market rate, but it's it's not going to be like the triple class A, as you might want to call it, for these buildings with swimming pools and gymnasiums and pet washes. We we're going more for somebody who's, you know, working in in the city, wants a smaller apartment. They're going to be smaller in size as well compared the other ones. Okay. And then questions about the parking as well. Um, so you'll have 20 spots on site, correct? Correct. And will they be just for tenants or will they be for employees as well or just just for tenants?

Okay. And how does that work? Will it just be you assign them? Is it free free rain parking whoever gets there? How's that? We're going to have to figure We haven't like worked that through. It'll probably have to be, you know, potentially paid for because like we have to make it fair for like who gets it. Um, there are 10 spots also offsite that we we pay for as well. So, we haven't ironed out the plan of how we're going to do that, but Okay. It is gonna have to be some type of And where exactly is that off-site parking area? It is a stone throw. So, if you go uh north on Northampton Street, you make your first right. If you know where the ballet studio is, that parking lot. Okay.

It's literally I can't tell how you can tell exactly, but very very close. Is that right here? I didn't even know it was there till I started looking for park. I think Yeah, I think it's very very very close. I mean, they still can park in the garage on Fourth Street, but that's a it's that's slightly outside of your like 600 foot limit. And it, you know, I think some people will still choose to park there because it's definitely walkable, but we wanted to provide something very close. And I think that that parking that we reserve does.

Yeah, for sure. Uh the only other question I have about that parking is on the back of uh the rental agreement it says the parking is limited to compact cars only. Is it's not there's other cars that park in there. It was a lease that he had and we just Are they smaller spaces? Are they No, they're normalized spaces. He just wanted he his main concern was he doesn't want somebody parking there that has like a conversion van or a big work van. Um he doesn't want that type of parking. So that's why he brought that up. Trucks and stuff are fine, but he doesn't want some extended cab big, you know, cement truck type thing parking in his lot.

I just want to make sure with Dwayne Dwayne for the supplemental parking that they're using with the parking lot. It does say compact spaces on here. Is that is that accepted by Yeah, that's fine. Well, because I I think they're only missing two spaces. Three. Yeah. Or three spaces for what they proposed. So that that Okay. That's all I have. And we'll take more parking from him if you give them to us, but that was what he was comfortable with. We took as many as we could get. Mr. Shipman, the uh perhaps Mr. Richardson was questioning this. How is the fire truck going to get to the back end of the building?

I mean, we we had a technical review with the fire department and explained everything about the project and asked if they had any concerns. Uh the I don't know I can't remember the guy's name who was here but he was you know from the fire department if it was it was Chad. Chad. Yeah it was Chad and uh he was fine with it. I mean as I said this project was previously approved with the same design just not a third lot. All right. I understand that. But what I'm I guess what I'm driving at is this you fill up your you're filling up your building print here. Correct. There's no space.

Correct. But it looks like if the if a fire truck had to get into the back of the building, it looks like there's an alley there. Am I correct about that? It's a paper alley. So on paper, yes, it could be a street, but technically, yeah, as pointed out, it's it's not Well, how are you going to know that nobody's going to build back in behind you and that there's not going to be any way a truck can get back there? Because it's not owned by anybody. It's not owned by anybody. Currently, it's a paper street, which means the city owns. It's what? It's owned by the city. Paper street, which means it's owned by the city. What what's marked as an alley is a is a paper street. Correct. All right.

So, if the if the city were to vacate it, then each property on each side would be half of that. I understand that. Yeah, I understand that. Uh the the facade, you have it in front of me. It's lighted. It's red. What is that going to be? What What are you gonna put on the front? The front is it? You know, we still have to meet with HARB. So, you know, this is kind of what meets the current city requirements, but we haven't met with HARB yet. So, when we meet with HARB, this could slightly change, but it's going to be brick on the front. Okay, that answers my question. Yeah.

And the retail sales, is that going to be a is that going to be a grocery? Have you are you going to do it yourselves? Are you going to recruit somebody? Don't know yet. So, we don't have a tenant for that yet. So, once we haven't even marketed for a tenant, so we'll see what comes and we'll cross that bridge for whatever works best for the for the building and the public. If you put retail in there, are you going to need additional parking? It's in uh whatever is going to be required is in parking that we already have. All right. At what stage do we get to see the exterior? When when do we At what stage? Uh during the HTC meeting. During what?

The historic district commission meeting. Y and then we'll see what's going to go in the exert. Yep. All right. Thank you. It's definitely going to be brick though. That's okay. That's not the question. You've you've referenced um a couple of times to the previous application. Yes. And uh I was here. I I I recall that. Uh you were not the previous applicant though. No. Correct. I remembered somebody else. Correct. Okay. We purchased it from that applicant. From that applicant. Okay. Yes. Um as as I have have you uh met with the neighbors at 521, the owners of that building to the left. Yes. Up further up Northampton

where they have another development project. That one. Yes. Um I have not met with them. I'm aware of their project, but I have not met with them. But there's currently a building. There's currently a building that sits there. There's a building next to us, and then there's a lot next to that that is post I think that they're taking through, right? And I'm I'm referring to the building that's directly next to your lot. No. No. Yeah. That was purchased by a new owner. We we have not talked to them. Okay. So, I I I asked the question because the previous owner of that building had some concerns. Yeah. She's not the owner anymore. They sold it. Okay. So, you have not had conversation with that person? No.

Okay. I I recall the the concerns being regarding uh windows and air access on the building. Yeah. What what what do you have to say about what what if they came and raised concerns about that? What what would your response be? I mean, they haven't or they would have, but I think that we're meeting all the code requirements that we need to meet. So, I don't think that there's really anything that they could could come up with. Now, that wasn't the case a couple of years ago. Yeah. That there that there were concerns raised and there were u we actually put conditions on the approval to address that.

Would you be opposed to conditions on the approval to address any air issues with the building next door to you? Uh that I don't know. That's a broad statement. So, it's kind of hard to say, you know, what exactly you guys would want. Well, they had they had windows that were accessing air to the building and those would be covered up by your building and so there wouldn't be access. I don't know exactly where the window lies if it'll be covered up or not. If you look at the well, you don't see this building, but to get apartments in the interior, we need to make kind of use um against it's kind of like imagine like an H. We have to do that. So that their windows may very well be in the same space as

our windows. Well, they very well may be, but they may well be not be. Yeah. I I don't know. And I don't know if they I mean, I guess I'd have to defer to our attorney, but I don't think that they like can exist essentially like that we can I think we can put it how it is from what I understand from previous approval. Okay. Well, I may consider a condition uh with regard to that. There's also a um as I recall I didn't drive up past it again, but having seen it and remembering back, isn't there a sort of large rock formation on that five 19? There's definitely there's definitely rock there.

Yeah. What What is your plan for that? Is that being incorporated into the building or is it being removed? It'll be removed. Is there any con concern I'm asking this to the architect. Um, is there any concern from your perspective or an engineering perspective about the impact on the building next to you by dealing with that rock at this point? No. I mean, we obviously have to get Geotech involved and make sure everything's safe, but at this point, we don't have any concern. And and that's and that's one of the conditions that's already here to the staff. Is that correct? that that's already part of the conditions is that the geotech piece be Yeah, it'll be it's addressed.

Yeah, he's working with Mark uh our city engineer. Okay. All right. I kind of wanted to get back to the the window and the potential conditions. I mean, is it possible? Is it even allowed to to have a condition like that if it's by right? If this is a by use, can you have that condition? especially considering we have we have no idea at this point and this is preliminary, right? So, we still have to go through finals. So, we'll have to come back here again when things are a little more ironed out. So, I' I'd appreciate if it's possible not to put a condition at this point and let it play out and then if we have to going final then maybe reconsider.

Uh I'd be willing to consider a condition that you have a conversation and that conversation be addressed directly with the city that we ensure that that's not a problem. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, anybody else have questions? I have a quick followup if I could. Um,

uh, many moons ago before I saw the light, I lived in New York City and, uh, uh, if there was a garage rollup garage scenario, uh, where pedestrians were crossing, there would be a flashing light that would come up, uh, automatically when the garage door was starting to lift. So, I give you that as a suggestion. U part and parcel of that though is how do people get in there? I mean there's no door man to open it. There's no garage attendant to open it. Is it going to be a remote access scenario? How are you envisioning that working?

It'll be an automatic rollup door similar to the other buildings kind of that have been built here. So they'll probably have a key fob or some type of remote or some type of access point that lets the door come up. Okay. And you talked about the rock because I was Yeah. Well, they said it's already part of the geotech review. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any member of the audience who would like to address the commission on this uh proposal? We have one here. Do you want to come up? Sorry guys. Looks like I'm locked out. There we go. Thank you. Yes. Your your name and address. Hello. Uh Bruno do Santos. We live at 516 Church Street. The property that has been mentioned a few times during um your review here is our property in the back there where there is a backyard that these plans go right over. Um yours yours is then the deck that they were referring to. Yes. Okay.

And it is um it is not a deck actually. There is a um 8 foot stone wall potentially higher uh stone wall that has stood there for over 40 years now that uh is serves as our fence. That uh stone wall then has a patio with a pergola that the property uh drawings are directly building over with this building coming right up to our actual deck uh the whole six feet of it. So, we are currently in litigation for this uh for this matter and are hoping that we can delay any decisions until litigation is done because this wall has stood for over 40 years. This has been the um known the accepted property lines since then. Um and that paper alley is listed in our deed as part of our access. We have access to seven feet of it as does the church next door to us. So they have access to seven feet of it. We have access to seven feet of it in our deed. There's a lot of uh litigation currently happening to figure out how and where the property boundaries actually will lie for this.

So are you saying you didn't know where that property boundary was prior to when this proposal went through? Correct. We were we purchased the house last February and were under the assumption based on how it was presented and based on how the deed was written that our property line went back to that wall. I'm having trouble picturing this because there's a very tall fence in the parking lot. Oh, we're talking beyond that fence. That is our fence. Okay. And

if you stand on Northampton Street and look up past all the overgrown uh the overgrown property that this uh building is being built on, you can see our back uh concrete wall there as well as a fence. If you still have the plan, then I can show you. But um so does this jut out uh what would that be? East of the of the the building wall itself, this area that you're talking about. I'm unsure. Am I allowed to pull up Google Maps? I can. Yes. Thank you. That'd be helpful.

You can if you want. Thank you. She's up here, too. Okay, I have the property that he is discussing now up here. Okay.

So, if we are looking at this, our backyard is here. Right here, we have a grass or a turf area here. A stone patio with a pergola here. This picture, I believe, may have been taken prior to our purchase, but um a stone patio with a pergola, a large deck, and a concrete patio here. And then this is the alleyway. That is a question. The property line as drawn or sorry the property blueprint as drawn and footprint goes up to here right up but being against our current deck

and the stone wall you were referring to. This is what you see here as this. Okay. So then in So on the the lower left hand corner of that between that and the building to the left of the property we're talking about is the wooden fence that I was talking about. Yes, I believe there is a fence there. Wooden fence. We have a wooden fence over here. Were the roofs changed from red to black? Is that your property?

Um, no. The church's property goes up to right here. And then this uh gray box here is our garage. It is attached to the church. Our house is the old parsonage building. I understand. So, we have some funny Yep. Yep. So, if I may, uh, some of this is outside of the jurisdiction of the plan. Yeah. Mhm. You know, this is a uh you know, if there's currently litigation pending in court, you could certainly put a condition that that litigation must be resolved, but but whether or not this property is owned by the applicant or or the resident speaking here is not a matter that's that's appropriate for this panel to decide. I'm not taking sides.

Of course, and that was our request. It was just that any decisions wait or are pending at least litigation. Yeah, I I that would be certainly at this stage that would be an appropriate condition would be that that this litigation and the property line dispute would have to be resolved. But beyond that, I don't think we should get too far into the weeds here. Swag. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you have another question? No, I'm sorry. We were with you, weren't we? No, I already did. You already did. We were kind of freewheing. So, yeah. Did M. Swagger, did you have any? No. All right. Thank you very much. I think our Hold on. Are you

Okay, if you would come up to the microphone, that would be helpful. I I asked because we just had questions here. I didn't know if anybody else had questions. I want to make sure. Yeah. I think our our ask was just to table um the approval even with conditionality um until so that whether it's approved or denied um that that cannot be used as part of the litigation. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. Hello. Good evening. Um we my wife and I we are the property owners to the the building to the left. You were referencing it earlier. Okay.

The current owners 521. Yes. Well the mailing address is different but yes 521. Yeah. Uh our concern is it's a it's over 200 years old and the foundation is riding that rock wall going up and we would need that you know taken care of as they build and you know at our expense. Right. So Right. Okay. uh question. Um since I brought up the issue about the existing windows, is that any of any concern to you at this point?

Well, I mean I don't want to stop progress. I understand that the you know there is two windows uh if they can if we can discuss maybe just an air handler to help with the the movement of air. Okay. So the the comment I made before about a potential condition being a conversation with you as the owner and to resolve that so the city's aware of the resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Uh good evening. Uh Brett Weber, um 120 Morrison Avenue. Um my concern about this project, I want to say certainly um support infill development. Um I know that the planning commission is well aware that this is a a block within the historic district and um I think one of the things that we might gloss over is the sort of relevance of the comprehensive plan and um you know neighborhood conservation. I think you know the problem is that can't necessarily be um litigated here but we are seeing development proposals that deny the sort of rhythm of the street with retail fronts and and public access to those fronts. You know the historic um building model along Northampton um in that block and all the way to center square is retail frontage. It's not parking garages. It's not parking access. um uh you know twothirds of this facade is blank. There are other proposals that have been coming through the planning commission and they're killing the streets and killing the historic nature of Easton um from the livelihood of the street. You know, less than 30% of that facade is retail and a very small aperture. So, it has to go to HDC for review. But I think one of the things I just wanted to share was um from neighborhood conservation in the comprehensive plan. The key to neighborhood conservation is not to prohibit new development or increase development density, but to shape new development in a way that is compatible with existing vernacular building typologies. This elevation doesn't show that it sits um one door away from the historic Hooper House, which the city is desperate to restore. This is a historic block. Rock Church is just to the north of it. Um, it's an important block for redevelopment. Um, but I don't think that the current design is really adhering to the the design objectives of the comprehensive plan for street development. The other thing I'd point

out is that I'm assuming that that parking garage is mechanically ventilated because it's not open. um you know that we're we're packing things into these um u building projects which you know require some uh sensitivity to but I think it's the the street frontage. I would also say that that elevation I think is probably a little deceiving because Northampton doesn't stop sloping across its length uh from center square. So there is quite a lot of slope and the transition for parking is a concern um and access um for for pedestrians. It's a steep sidewalk there. Um so it' be helpful also for for planning commission to be asking to see these things in context if the comprehensive plan is asking for that planning to to um address these things in design. So I realize this is preliminary so you'll be seeing it again but u those are my concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, um we have a draft resolution uh from uh the staff that uh would grant conditional preliminary preliminary approval of the submitted plans subject to the receipt of final plans and meeting the following criteria. I normally ask if uh anyone would like to make that motion. Uh I would like to add before a motion's made that uh there be two additional conditions which have been uh cited already. And that will be a con conversation with the owner of 521 Northampton Street regarding air access from the existing windows on that building that is conveyed to staff with satisfactory mutual resolution and a second one a resolution to the litigation with the owners of 516 Church Street on uh on those issues. Uh and I will make that motion. We're we're we're in the we're in the fa we're we're in this part.

If I if I could could I ask you to modify that condition slightly just just to delete because I think it could cause problems later. I think at this point you can require a conversation. I don't think you require satisfactory mutual approval. Uh but whatever the issue is would have to be addressed at subsequent planning commission. Let's say they come to a loggerhead, it would have to then they present that later, but I I don't want to require approval between the two parties at the stage. That's fine. Since it's going to come back to us, um we certainly want to see it resolved by then. Okay. So, I'll amend that to the conversation and the resolution to the litigation as the two conditions. And I make that motion.

If I may, asking for a second. before you ask for a second. Yeah. Um, is there an opportunity I don't understand the motion. I'll uh I'll I'll make it again. Is there an opportunity for us to insert a condition for a deeper view of the issues of addressing the rear of the building and fire department access? Okay. So, let's let's stop there. The normal procedure would be once a motion's made to get a second and then discussion and ask the motioner for approval to that. So,

so to your to your question about the motion, it's the motion that the staff has presented here with conditions as are stated and I've added two conditions. a conversation with the owner of 521 Northampton Street regarding air access from existing windows on that building and a resolution to the litigation about the boundary in the back from uh 516 Church Street. So I'm asking for a second on that motion. I'll second that. Mr. Graziano second now. Now uh now discussion Mr.

Yeah. My concern continues to be access to the rear of the building by emergency vehicles or lack thereof. Recognizing that the fire department has given its approval, I'm sensitive to the paper street giving a perception of access that is not there. And so my my if I had my way, we would have some opportunity for confirmation that emergency access is available to the rear of the building to satisfaction of the fire department.

So we have we have preliminary uh well not preliminary we have uh that that they have looked that over and their blessings. Is is is that an appropriate condition, Mr. Clark? I think you could you could request additional specific review by the fire department and maybe something specific addressed that that that the uh that could be presented to the planning commission at the next date either, you know, by Dwayne or whoever's here or or the fire department themselves if they so choose. But if the fire department says it's okay, then then they say it's okay. But I think we could ask for another another look at that. That's that's a fine condition.

So, um, that we have additional review by the fire department on rear access. Confirming rear access. Confirming rear access of emergency vehicles or we're just we're just stating that they don't believe it's necessary. You know, if that's an issue or not. I don't know. Okay. We'll have it as as that. Uh, I'm I'm amanable to adding that condition. Appreciate that, M. Mr. Graziano. Are you okay? second to end with that. Okay. So, we have a a first and a second. Any further discussion on your motion on your amendments?

Correct. With the the entire resolution with those three additional conditions. I'm going to vote against it. I need to tell you why. because I think we're asking the this kind of this kind of difference in has to be adjusted by the courts, not by us. And if if if these people have title to land and they think that the way that the building is going threatens their ownership or their propriety to that land, then they have to take action with the courts, not come here. We don't have the power of court. We can't compel them to have conversations.

Well, Mr. Sh with a neighbor. It's my understanding that that a case is filed in the court. So we have a condition that nothing can proceed pending the resolution of that court case.

Well, I mean, your your motions would require a property owner to go have conversations with neighboring property owners. I don't think that's part of what we what we do and what we should be doing. So, all right, you got the motion, Jeremy. If you think that's fine, you're you're our council today. But I'm not going to vote on that. I think that's I think I don't think it's improp I think it's improper. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call. Uh I will vote yes. Mr. Graziano. Yes. Mr. Shipman. I abstain. Mr. Etches? Yes. Miss Wagner?

Yes. Okay. Um, so you have our conditional preliminary approval with those conditions and uh good luck with the rest and moving that all forward and we look forward to seeing you again. Thank you.

Uh, next we have a land development uh for a three-story addition at 1022 Northampton Street. The applicant Eastn Housing Authority has proposed to consolidate 11 parcels into one parcel at 1022 North Hampton Street and consolidate four additional parcels to form one parcel at 40 South Warren Street. The applicant is proposing to construct a 9800 square foot threetory residential apartment building with 27 one-bedroom affordable dwelling units at 1022 Northampton Street. and that will be attached to the existing vacant eastn home building which is 19,940 square feet. The applicant is going to create 18 one-bedroom affordable dwelling units in the existing vacant building for a total of 45 dwelling units. A new 37 space parking lot is also being proposed and to be located on the western portion of the existing building. The existing parking lot on this site is being reconfigured for six off- streetet parking spaces. A new parking lot with 20 spaces is being proposed on the 40 South Street parcels. In total, there will be 63 off- streetet parking spaces proposed with this application. The proposed improvements for 1022 North Hampton Street are located in the West Street corridor zoning district block class B where the proposed mixed juice is permitted for 59525B. The proposed parking lot at 40 South Orange Street is located in the westward zoning district where parking lots are not permitted per 59515B. The proposed improvements for 1022 North Hampton Street again are located in the westward zoning district. The zoning hearing board granted variances at their March 17, 2025 meeting for 1022

Northampton Street for the driveways on 10th Street and Pine Street exceeding 10 ft in width. The proposed building being greater than 15% of the footprint of principal structures on adjoining properties, building footprint larger than the maximum 12,000 square feet, and shade trees not meeting the requirements of the parking. The zoning hearing board also granted variances for 40 South Warren Street for the use variance for the parking lot. The variances granted are noted on the plants. a lot.

Um, LVPC reviewed these uh plans and they responded. This proposal supports infill, which is a core strategy of future LV, the regional plan to increase density in urban areas using infill development. The proposed development supports efforts to alleviate the regional housing shortage. Um, the submitted plans indicate a proposed addition to the current vacant east home for affordable housing units located at 1022 North Hampton Street, which is appropriate for this location. The comprehensive plan supports the prioritization prioritizing development of vacant lots and rehabilitation of vacant buildings which is objective 1.3A. The comprehensive plan also encourages more opportunities for affordable housing which is 1.3C. Therefore, the submitted plans titled Eastn Homes appear complete enough to support conditional final plan approval with conditions.

Okay. The applicant here. Yep. And Jackie Lopez from the East Housing Authority is here tonight as well. So hopefully can answer all your questions. Great.

So I can give a quick presentation uh just to kind of describe the project. Um you're probably familiar with the site 1022 Northampton Street. Uh currently there's an existing Eastn Home building on the property. That building is going to remain. It's going to be renovated as part of this project. Um so we showed the existing property on the existing features plan. Um part of this project is to build new parking lots on the site and also across Pine Street. They have a property um 40 South Warren Street that's going to have a park.

Can you pause? Can you pause just for a moment? Can we remove the uh pictures up there? Thank you. Just don't want to be distracted. I think it was a Google map. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, sure.

Um, so the proposed project is proposing a new addition to that building, a threetory, close to 9,800 footprint and then three stories. Um, but the existing building, like I mentioned, is also going to be renovated. uh parking is going to be provided on the site and also on the adjacent lot as I mentioned um to provide all the parking that's required for this use and to meet the zoning requirements. Um, so we're currently going through, you know, permitting processes through the city, through the conservation district and DP. It does require an MPDS permit. So, we are going through that um process as well, addressing their comments. Um, so that's a a quick summary of this. I can go into more detail or answer any questions. Um, I'm not Whatever you prefer.

Great. Thank you. Uh, I don't remember where we went. Mr. Shipman, do you have uh questions? No, I don't Mr. Graiana. Uh, yeah. So, on the surface on the sides of there where it's currently nothing on it to the west is going to be a parking lot. Correct. Is that what it was? Correct. Um, so there's a lot of uh surface indentations and depressions in that area. There's limestone underneath. Um, what is the potential for sink holes on site and what are you doing to address that?

Right. And and you're right, this is a site that has a lot of historical fill. There used to be a building in that location years ago. Uh we had a geotech on site and did testing throughout the site. Um and there's definitely limes underneath there, too.

So the geotech was out there, did all the testing. Um so the building design is going to be based on on those results. For our storm water, um we are not doing infiltration. It's going to be an MRC system. So, it's going to be a slow release system from the from the storm water systems. And we actually have a mix of underground systems underneath the parking lot and also a couple above ground rain gardens that'll be vegetated. They're also going to be lined so they won't have any infiltration come out of those systems that could get into the limestone and create sink holes. The basins will be lined. The basins are going to have an impervious liner. Yes.

And then the other thing was the um the act 167 drainage review. Can you go over that? I can. Yep. And that is something um I can go in detail. There's I mean there was a number of comments. It was found not not consistent with the uh requirements. Right. And that's one thing.

Yeah. Yeah. Um it was found non-consistent. And when we we resubmitted to the conservation district this week for the MPDS permit and address the LVPC comments with that resubmission, uh we do need to submit it back to the LBPC. Um but that is something that we will be doing to get their get their approval. Um so there was a number of these comments. Um I'll start. You want me to go through each one? Well, I mean you can just address it. I mean there's seven that were marked not consistent with the ordinance

and this ordinance is required by our salo to you know approve this. So

yeah so the routings we had done routings for the 10 and 25 year storm we just did not have them in in the report. So they will be there you know they are going to be in the current report. Um the pre and post development acreage were reviewed and uh that's they now match. Um the drainage area boundaries were confirmed as part of that making sure that all the drainage areas were the same using the line weights and shading to uh you know clarify things. We we are doing that. Um time and concentration for the impervious area should be the same as the previous area. We have done that. um off-site contours. Our survey ended at the property line, but we have drainage coming in offsite. So, we show that based on lighter topography and we take that into account. Um driveway improvements are included in both the pre and post development. The drainage areas between rain garden one and the storm water control measure 4 has been clarified. Uh that was just a note depressed curbing to show that water will be draining past that curve in that area. Um we are now using soil group B instead of soil group C. Um based on the soils we are now using a six minute time of concentration. Um we are showing the roof leaders on the revised plans. uh the basin one topic great elevation was reviewed and that now matches the freeboard requirements for the spillways we don't we don't the rain garden so they have drainage areas of less than a quarter acre so that is one thing we are providing the one like the freeboard would be for like a large basin you have a foot of freeboard under your storm because these drainage areas are so small and the systems are small we have an inlet that's getting all the water from that so just demonstrating that that inlet can handle the 100year storm

without over topping the rain garden. Uh we have additional information on the crosssections of our underground basins including just the elevation that they're asking for here. Um I think that that is that will be resubmitted. Yeah, I believe you. I do. But um we you know we need that approval. That's part of the entire process. So that's you know I have an issue with that. That's all I have. Okay, Mr. Ederson, these are affordable housing units. What will they be classified as? Um, is there like a separate classification for affordable housing units?

I mean, are they section 8? Are they just basically affordable based upon price price point? How they're going to be classified? Um, I don't think I know the answer. Jack, you might know the answer right here from the from the housing authority. So, the plan is to to actually replace the units from Walter House because if you if you're aware, Walter House is our problem area. And so, we're going to try and all the units. We're going to replace 45 units from Walter House, make 45 units here, and move everyone over so that we can start the process of dealing with Walter House. Can you just speak to because there's people out in the hallway that's Oh, yeah. Sorry. Um,

okay. Similar classification. It So, is it similar classification then to So, it'll be public housing. Okay. Thank you. Um, is there any consideration being given? I realize that uh budgets are tight, but is there cons consideration being given to solar panels on the top of uh this because there are no obstructions from trees at this time. So I do believe that for the new construction they are talking about what was it green community right they're they're meeting some green community standards um but I don't believe solar panels is something that they're listening to.

Is there a reason for that? I think a lot of it just the cost benefit. Most recently, the cost benefit of solar panels has come down quite a bit, particularly in the last 18 months. I'd encourage you to look at that again. We can discuss that with the architect. That'd be excellent. I have the nothing. Okay, Miss Wagner. I don't have any questions. Okay.

Nor do I. Thank you. Thank you very much. any member of the audience who has u would like to speak to this application. Okay, seeing none, uh we have a resolution um being recommended uh by the staff that the planning commission grant conditional final approval uh of the submitted plans here um subject to the following the criteria that are listed here regarding additional comments, concerns, and uh staff analysis. Anybody like to make that motion or any other Uh the issue I'm having right now is the um they're not in compliance with the drainage plan.

Would you like to add that as a condition? Um yeah, we can put that on conditional approval that um that that has to be accepted first. PC the approval of the drainage plan and all ordinances marked no need to be resolved yeah will be that okay so if we add that as a condition do we now have a motion

I'll make a motion to uh for conditional final approval Is there a second? Second, Mr. Shippen. Any further discussion? Okay. On a roll call, um, I will vote yes. Mr. Shipman, yes. Mr. Graciano, yes. Mr. Etches? Yes. Swagner? Yes. Okay. So, you have that conditional uh final approval and you have things that you have to take care of. Thank you very much. take a break. Okay. Yeah.

Um I'm just going to take a five minute break here for restroom and we shall return. Actually, I was actually ask

Would you like a kiss, Mr. Ship? I would like a kiss, but I'd rather have Oh, I think the big one. Is it here? I think I think the guys were mentioning

Yeah. What was what were the taglines? Experience, tough Yeah. All those things. How are you, sir?

Good. How are you? get colder. You're retired, aren't you? administration leadership.

How was originally a teacher? long enough to Right. Amen. Oh my goodness.

and then some. Yeah, I'll wait. are.

Oh, okay.

Okay. It's always Yeah,

No worries.

Where's you right here? Hey, we return from our uh our pause and we will continue on with the deliberation commission's deliberation um and vote on 1525 Wood Avenue application. Um to start as we commissioners undertake deliberations on the presentations, testimony and documentation that we have received from the applicant and many others who have commented upon the application. I want to note the lengths which have been undertaken by this commission to prepare to make a decision. In connection with this application, the commission has received for review more than 150 documents containing over,200 pages, held hearings at six separate meetings over a 16-month period, including on September 4th, 2024, May 7th, 2025, September 3rd, 2025, October 15, 2025, November 5th, 2025, and this evening. We've listened to an estimated 16 hours of testimony from the applicant and from the public, including the applicant's responses to dozens of questions from commissioners. And we have recently received statements from the applicant and an attorney uh representing objectors with what we might call closing remarks. To say that these proceedings have been thorough is an understatement. I offer this as evidence of what volunteer public servants continue to add to the vitality, the integrity, and the interests of this city. I want to thank those members of the public who have attended these meetings regularly, voiced their earnest thoughts, and provided compelling evidence to confirm those thoughts. Your

participation is a key bedrock that makes our local government work at its best. I also want to thank the applicant for the thoroughess of their preparation, their efforts to provide local, state, and federal officials with necessary documentation of process and product and their determination to see this proposal through to a commission decision. Tonight, we have reached that time from the applicant statement uh recent statement which was entitled a proposed findings of fact, legal analysis and conclusion of law. I wanted to highlight two important assertions that were made in support of the application. Namely, that the proposed redevelopment complies in all respects with the applicable provisions of East zoning and subdivision and land development ordinances and that a land development plan must be approved if it meets all specific objective requirements under a subdivision and land development ordinance. While I agree with the latter statement and that the applicant has fulfilled many of the specific objective requirements of East and Salo, I disagree with the first assertion that the requirements have been fulfill fulfilled entirely. To that end, I offer the following. There's four points that I'd like to make. in the Salo section 520 uh 520 uh-34 pre-application requirements that prior to the formal submission of subdivision or land development plans, each land developer subdivider shall present following information. This is one of those items. In order to determine the impact of the proposed subdivision or development on the city and on nearby municipalities, an analysis of its potential effects upon such facilities as and several are enumerated

um including roadway systems shall be required in accordance with article 5. Also, a comparison of the cost to the city versus the revenues to the city generated by the proposal should be included. Uh my my response there is that other than a traffic impact study, no preliminary analysis was provided to the planning commission on either the potential physical effects upon the roadways, the roadway systems of such traffic or a comparison of the cost to the city of Easton for roadway upgrades versus the revenues to the city generated by the proposal. Second from 520-38. This is supporting data to accompany a subdivision or land development plan that is required that approved copies of all required permits and approvals be provided. And I'm paraphrasing here. Reply. My reply is that the applicant has not produced an approved special exception under section 298-13A2 of the Eastn Flood plane management ordinance to alter or relocate a water course in the flood plane and section 298-13 A6 for a roadway and a retention basin in the flood plane from the city of East zoning hearing board. The third and fourth items come from 520-40 and the submission requirements requirements for an impact assessment report which needs to provide many different things but one of them is an identification of the relationship of the transportation and circulation system needs of the proposed project to the existing network. A discussion should be a narrative form including methods to be used for traffic control etc. In addition, there should be a discussion of the physical condition of existing streets that will service the proposed project and what park what improvements are proposed.

Uh my response there is that the applicant did produce a traffic impact study chose to base its methodology on a nonsortable high cube fulfillment center that projected 232 truck trips. Applicant would not only not rule out the building's use as a sortable facility. It did not consider this use in its study and I have some supporting case law for that. In the case of a sortable high cube fulfillment center, the estimate could jump to some 348 truck trips based on the need for more manual labor with potentially three shifts running as many as 24 hours a day. Since the highway occupancy permit, which has not yet been received, and other approvals rely on choices made by the applicant when designing the traffic impact study, violation of those permits and other approvals may become an issue if the actual use is inconsistent with those choices. Again, as stated before, applicant produced no assessment report addressing the impact on the physical condition of existing streets and the burden of accommodating as many as 348 truck trips per day on narrow access roads which were not designed for heavy volumes of tractor trailers. The Lehi Valley Pl Regional Planning Commission concluded in its review letter of June 7, 2024, quote, "Roadways in the vicinity were not built to withstand the impacts of such a high volume of tractor trailers and are currently inadequate to accommodate the proposal. As proposed, the development does not align with future LB, the regional plan, because it does not match the development intensity with sustainable transportation infrastructure capacity. The applicant's engineer responded to LVPC in its letter of September 13, 2024 in part, quote, "The project site is zoned for industrial use and is within less than one quarter mile to a major arterial interchange. The intensity is

appropriate to the location." End quote. But applicant did not address the essence of LVPC's response on development intensity. Specifically, the impact of a high volume of tractor trailers from over 1 million square feet of warehouse on roadways not built to support that intensity of use. Applicant has maintained throughout the process that the application deserves approval simply because the property is zoned for industrial use and warehouses, fulfillment centers are an acceptable use. However, all industrial uses do not have equivalent impacts. For example, the previous use of the property as a pigment production facility, even at a size of 500,000 square feet, would generate an estimated maximum of 80 to 100 truck trips per day, about a third of what could uh be brought here. And the last point also with 520-40 and submission requirements, the impact assessment report also uh shall be prepared to address alternatives to the proposed project. To indicate such alternatives, the applicant shall submit exhibits or diagrams which will depict the types of alternatives and shall comment on how alternatives such as redesign, layout or sighting of buildings, streets and other structures, reduction in the size of proposed buildings and structures, reduction in the number of buildings, reduction in density and intensity would preclude, reduce or lessen potential adverse impact. In that same review letter of June 7th, 2024 that I cited earlier, LVPC PC stated, quote, "Redevelopment of the site has the potential to align with future LV the regional plan if scaled appropriately and by taking steps to mitigate

environmental and transportation impacts. However, the size of the proposed building at more than 1 million square feet greatly surpasses the scale of surrounding developments. The September 13, 2024 letter from applicant's engineer did not respond to this comment. Not only does the size at more than a million square feet greatly surpass the scale of surrounding developments, it also greatly exceeds the dimensions of same use facilities constructed throughout the region. High cube fulfillment centers are defined as those with a minimum of 200,000 square feet of floor space. A brief internet search of high cube fulfillment centers built recently in the Lehi Valley showed that while most are similarly 40 to 60 feet in height to accommodate three mezzanines of storage, nine of the 13 have a floor size of between 250,000 and 500,000 square feet, about 50 to 75% smaller than this proposed facility. The applicant has presented no alternatives to this project that would appropriately reduce the size and scale of the proposed building to mitigate the environmental transportation safety and other regional impacts. So I offer those as my uh my comments with regard to um where where we stand and I would ask anybody else who would like to deliberate by sharing any comments uh step forth and do so. I I have some comments. When this project started, we were faced with a building that was going to be over a million square feet. It was going to sit up on a hill, which uh by itself is beautiful, was going to overlook

a trout stream that is graded as excellent in the Commonwealth. and it was going to replace a factory operation that literally boiled metal and left all kinds of things in the ground. So I don't think there was any member of this committee who wasn't pleased to hear that that was a project that could produce for our economy. When the plan was initially submitted to the Joint Planning Commission, the applicant said, "We want to put a warehouse in and we must have access to limited highways if because we're going to we're going to be moving We're going to be moving our freight by truck. The plans were submitted to the Lehi Planning Commission and they responded to the initial plan as proposed. The development does not match development intensity with sustainable transportation. infrastructure capacity. Now, what they were saying about that in that language, which didn't change, it never changed, was anybody putting a warehouse facility on

that location, as nice as it is and as pretty as it could be maintained, nevertheless had to get truck traffic in and out. The closest way to reach a high access highway was at 25th Street to the to the west and the only other way was at 13th Street in the city of East. Our uh our our experts here in the uh our own Carl and your predecessor, the first thing they said when they responded to the uh to the county or to the Lehigh Valley plan was there's no access except 25th Street because nobody even considered that we could use 13th Street. So that meant that in the city of Easton, there was no access to uh a high-speed roadway needed for transportation, especially truck traffic. And that's the way it started. That's the way it started. We sat here how many times and we never heard an expert get on the stand and tell us how the truck traffic was going to leave that site and get either to the east or to the west. They never described how the truck traffic was going to get to Route 22. The closest it came

was when they knew they meaning the warehouse people, the applicant knew that he was going to have to get highway permits from the Commonwealth. That's the first time that I read anything about 13th Street. And then they brought out a map that was as big as this table that showed coming out of Wood Avenue into third into the 13th Street, there were going to be highways and there were already highways, but now they were showing a highway that was going to be changed so that W2 something W239. I don't I didn't even know what it was. It was a tractor trailer could make that term. That was the next first time I heard about that when I looked at those those maps. And then I thought, well, how where is that how is that going to fit? Well, they they're going to take then I saw I looked more carefully and then I saw that the plan is that they're going to have a driveway leaving the proposed warehouse on Hackett Avenue, which will allow trucks to come out of Hackett and hopefully go west. and they were going to have a high a roadway at the bottom of the development so that those trucks could go east. Where are those trucks going east going to go? They're going to go into the

the interchange, I'm going to call it for about for a better lack of a better word at 13th Street. and they're going to enter where there are three lanes tractor trailers now coming off off of the uh off of the from the warehouse. They're going to enter three lanes. One of which is coming off of 22. One of which is coming from Wood Avenue and one of which is coming from traffic that's been traveling east on on 22 and has come up and out and wants to go down Packet Avenue. That's the three lanes of traffic that they're going to that that tractor trailer is going to come into. And then they're going to have According to the uh Commonwealth plans, they're going to have to have a a banked turn with a separation for the tractor trailer to make the turn to go down and get on the a lane to go east. That's how we were going to go east. First of all, the the entryway is narrow or as short as it is to go east and it didn't make sense to me that trail was going to be able to do this and it doesn't make sense now. What I'm suggesting is that the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission said the the traffic has to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and

to ensure the lowest impact and most sustainable site design in the fiscal interest of the developer, the burough, city, and the town. So that's how they were going to handle going to handle the traffic. Picture this truck traffic one coming down Wood Avenue entering that grid up there 13th Street. making the turn, getting on to 22 and one tractor trailer going west, leaving the same the same site going on Hackett Avenue to 25th Street and getting a route west. It seems to me, just common sense, that with all of this travel up there, it should be going to 25th Street, which is ready, already equipped to handle truck traffic on and off. 13th Street is not ready now and will not be without a great deal of money being spent to fix change that current access and ex access and entrance to 22. What does the applicant say about that? Don't worry. If that happens, we'll give you $250,000. That's what they put in their in their application. We'll give you $250,000 city and and you fix you fix that 13th Street access excess. If you don't spend it all on that, you

keep it, use it however you want. I think that's I've never ever seen an application to a zoning hearing board or a planning commission phased in that way to 2. They're going to give the city of East $250,000 and and that's going to that's going to solve the problem. First of all, even if it's enough to solve the problem, which I seriously doubt, when they come into this city and they get a plan approved, by law, they have to go, they have to have a fund that's guaranteed that all the money goes in there to be needed. They can't give us $250,000. If they had the money, they have to put it in the the plan and guarantee it. That's where it should have been. The the $250,000 is a is a is an admission on their part that the changes at 13th Street are going to be enormous and they may not work. They don't have the the the certificate that they need, the highway permit I guess it is yet. They haven't lodged that. They can't go forward with this plan until they do. I don't know where where that why that hasn't been filed if if this is a problem that can be solved. I think it I think it can be solved to put a an an entrance to 22. I just don't think it could be solved or the one that's there can be improved, but I I don't think it can be improved enough to take uh truck traffic

and it's going to leave the city of East with a disaster. 13th Street will be a disaster up there. Uh just too much traffic and and not not a way to handle it. I'm I'm and I think you'll all get my I I hope you all understand that the uh 22 is the answer to the warehouse, but it's not you can't get it at 13th Street. And I the mayor a long time ago wrote a letter and he opposing this project and he said the Lehi Valley Planning Commission previously identified multiple issues with the proposed plan including inadequate infrastructure. structure and insufficient environmental safeguards. I urge the planning commission to follow Lehigh Valley Planning Commission's guidance and consider alternate sustainable and productive uses for this land. While economic development is important, it must not come at the cost of public health, safety, and the character of the community. I respectfully request the eastern planning commission reject the current proposal and consider a plan that is more consistent generational growth principles keeping the environment responsibility at the forefront. This plan has a this this warehouse has a place here,

but it's got to go to 25th Street. It can't go out. It can't go out 13th Street. And it would not be a difficult matter. And I have had no explanation as to why when our own staff said from the very beginning we don't have we don't have uh any in the city of east we don't have entrance and exits to 22 and they understood in the sense that it was needed that that project could go into order with trucks coming out of the out of the uh warehouse house going west on Hacket Avenue and entering 22 on in 25th 25th Street. They don't want to do that. If they don't don't want to do that, they want to give us $250,000 to let us try to fix we can't fix it at 13th Street. So, this plan has to be rejected. Thank you. Um, anyone else who'd like to make some remarks?

Sure, Mr. Yes. Hold on.

All right. Um, so this has been a very, very, very long process. Um, it's almost hard to believe we're here at a final vote. I think a lot of us thought this would never happen, honestly. Um uh for me from day one my position on this matter as a lifelong resident of the city of East has been the same. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And I think anyone who's lived here for any amount of time, whether short or long, knows they know a million square foot warehouse has no place whatsoever on this site. Um, now from a planet commission perspective, the attorney is correct about one thing. We cannot vote no on this because we don't like it. Our job is to determine whether it complies with salo or not. And uh, based on the record before us, I personally do not believe it does. So, for the following reasons, I will be voting no tonight. Uh, number one, required special exemption not granted. The proposed development requires a special exception for the zoning from the zoning hearing board for construction and grading activities within the flood plane conservation district including the proposed water course relocation identified by the city planning department. As of this application, no special exception approval from the zoning board has been submitted. The absence of a granted special exception means the application does not demonstrate compliance with the zoning requirements incorporated into SO 52034C nor does it meet 52038F which requires submission at of all necessary zoning approvals. Two ho ho not approved and access design unresolved. The applicant has not obtained the required PENDOT highway

occupancy permit for the access driveways and roadway connections serving the development. PENDOT's most recent correspondence for HOP application number 320663 cycle 8 return the application for revisions and identified multiple unresolved deficiencies including required driveway application proof of property ownership required property owner notification lighting plan requirements geometric safety demonstrations and outstanding TSNL submission no document in the record shows that these deficiencies have been corrected or that PENDOT has approved or issued the HOP without a final HOP. The applicant has not satisfied salo 52038F requiring all necessary permits and approvals. Number three, noise study incomplete and non-compliant. The applicant has not submitted a complete noise impact study as required by Salo. The report The report contains no ambient noise measurements, does not use final HVAC equipment specifications, does not evaluate noise using confirmed operational characteristics of an identified end user, and does not provide any demonstration of compliance with EN's 52 DBA nighttime residential limit. Testimony at the November hearing also confirmed that the study understates expected on-site activity by evaluating only a small number of off- peak truck trips and omitting typical warehouse operations such as inner trailer movements and guard house activity. At the hearing, the attorney stated that if the noise impact occurs after construction, the operator could make corrections at that time. Salo Salo does not allow post construction mitigation. Noise impact and mitigation must be identified as part of the submitted impact assessment. A study that defers correction is incomplete under 52038F and prevents a finding of land suits um

excuse me and prevents a finding of land suitability under 52020. The noise analysis relies on assumed HBAC units and generic truck noise levels from other facilities rather than the sight specific data because no end user has been identified. Central operating information such as actual truck volumes, nighttime activities, and loading behavior is unknown and was not evaluated. Testimony testimony also identified issues regarding terrain effects, impulsive noise, and proximity of predicted sound levels to regulatory limits, further preventing a reliable f finding at compliance. No mitigation measures were proposed because the noise impact study lacks required measurements, uses assumptions instead of confirmed data, and does not demonstrate compliance with city noise standards. The submission is incomplete and does not meet 52020, 34 C, 38F, and 4812. Number four, transportation impact study and deficiencies and feasible mitigation. The applicant's TIS relies on traffic data collected on a single weekday in February with no seasonal or multi-day adjustments. A one-day sample does not represent typical or peak conditions on Wood Avenue or North 13th Street. The study shows that the southbound 13th Street right turn movement at Wood Avenue currently operates at a level of service F and that the development traffic increases daily for that failing movement. The applicant has stated that no feasible improvement will be provided to rest the to address the worsening level of service F condition at Hackett Avenue or Wood Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes separating the southbound Hacket approach into left and right lanes. Even with this mitigation, the movement

remains at level of service E during the PM peak hour 2030 horizon here indic indicating borderline failing conditions. The applicant also states that signalization is not currently warranted and proposes to re-evaluate the need for a traffic signal 6 months after the facility opens. Saddle requires mitigation to be identified if feasible at the time of application and mitigation that depends on future studies does not satisfy this requirement. PENDOT's most recent review confirms that related roadway improvements remain under revision and have not been accepted and therefore the study does not present a complete or prude mitigation package. Testimony at the previous hearing also showed that the study understates truck activity by emitting routine internal truck movements guardhouse activity and on-site trailer repositioning that would affect turning movements cues and overall traffic volumes. Because the TIS relies on limited unjusted data under stage truck activity and does not provide feasible mitigation for failing or borderline failing movements. The application does not meet sal 524 A10 520 and 52035B. Take a little sip here. Um next submitted plans and supporting maps do not match. Exhibit A5, the overall plan and exhibit A7 stream location plan show different alignments and geometries and tie-in points for the relocated tributary and associated flood plane areas. The environmental and cleanup maps in exhibit A16 identified contamination areas, soil, and ground groundwater impact zones, and required cut and fill for institutional control areas that do not align with the development footprint or stream corridors shown on A5 or 7. Testimony at a previous meeting showed an

independently prepared 3D model was introduced to illustrate discrepancies between the applicant's renderings of the submitted plans and to show significant elevation changes and topography based on the applicant's own data. This testimony further demonstrates that the submission does not present a consistent or accurate depict um excuse me of the existing site conditions because salon 2035 and 38F require submitted plans and supported documents to be coordinated and internally consistent. These conflicting exhibits mean the application does not present a single unified depiction or of site conditions or the proposed development geology, land suitability, environmental conditions and plan inconsistencies. The applicant did not submit the land suitability report required to evaluate soy soil stability, groundwater conditions, blasting, deep fill, or overall geotechnical stability. The plans submitted are not consistent. Exhibit A16 contains cleanup, redevelopment, environmental investigation diagrams that depict site elevations, fill areas, and altered ground conditions. These diagrams do not match the official engineering plans, including the grading plan that was submitted as part of exhibit A5. elevations, field depths, and sight conditions shown at A16 conflict with what is shown on the engineered plans in exhibit AO5. Because of these discrepancies, the commission cannot determine which documents accurately represent the proposed development. Testimony at the November hearing also showed that an independently prepared 3D model highlighted the severity of site elevation changes and illustrated discrepancies between the applicant's renderings and submitted plans. This further indicates that applicant has not

provided a single consistent or reliable um example of existing topography and or proposed grading conditions. Exhibit A16 also shows remaining soil and groundwater impacts and a cleanup approach that depends on major grading and fill placement, but no geotechnical analysis has been provided to show the proposed fill and building paths are stable. The submission is incomplete. It cannot be reviewed under salad because it does not provide a single accurate or consistent uh consistent uh depiction. I don't know how that work of the site unsafe and unmitigated truck routing into residential neighborhoods. The application does not demonstrate how truck traffic from the proposed warehouse will avoid traveling through nearby residential neighborhoods. The street network adjoining the site allows tracks to bypass Route 22 by traveling on Hackett Avenue past the city's youth athletic fields located directly along the roadway and continued onto Tatam Road towards the warehouse districts in Palmer and Tatami Burough creating a predictable industrial cut through route through residential blocks. Exhibit A5 shows that the only access points trucks the only access points directs trucks immediately onto local roads that serve home, school areas, and residential intersections. And the sub the submission provides no physical, operational, or enforceable measures preventing truck measurements movements on 13th Street, Hackett Avenue, Wood Avenue, through the West Ward, or the Hackett Academy corridor. Under 520, land may not be developed in a manner that creates unsafe or hazardous conditions or where surrounding conditions make the proposed use unsuitable. Routing heavy industrial tracks through trucks through

residential neighborhoods, school area streets, and streets serving city recreational parks and baseball fields creates an unsafe and unsuitable condition because 52035B 412 and 15 requires submissions to reflect existing street existing street conditions, neighborhood context, and public street impacts. And because article five requires a complete analysis of neighborhood and cross municipal impacts, the absence of any routing assessment, truck restriction measures, signage, or enforceable controls prevents trucks from entering residential streets fails to meet salar requirements. I got one more. Speculative use and unknown end user results in unreliable impact studies. The applicant has not identified an end user for the proposed warehouse and testimony confirmed that the operating characteristics of the future use are not known because no tenant no known tenants tenant or tenants exist. The applicant cannot define an actual hours of operation, truck volumes, equipment types, shift schedule, or other operational features needed to evaluate the impact of the use. The noise expert testified that he relied on the assumed warehouse type and activity levels used in the traffic study because no end user had been identified and that his model represents a general umbrella approach rather than a defined set of enforcable operational conditions. Testimony at the November hearing also established that the TR TIS relies on limited operational assumption assumptions and admits routine truck movements such as guard house activity, internal trailer repositioning, and on-site circulation that cannot be evaluated accurately without a known operator. These emissions further demonstrate the studies do not reflect actual operating conditions. All submitted impact studies including

including the noise analysis, the traffic impact study, trip generation assumptions, and truck routing projections rely on a placeholder estimates rather than verified operating characteristics. Our soldout requires applicants to provide an accurate, complete, and reliable information describing the proposed use and its impacts. Supporting materials based on assumed operations do not satisfy 52035B or the requirement under 52038 38F that supporting documents be complete. Because these studies cannot be tied to a defined tenant or to an enforcable operating condition, they do not allow the city to evaluate whether the development will comply with performance standards. The absence is identified operational characteristics also prevents the city from determining land suitability under 52020. That's it.

Thank you, Mr. Graian.

Other comments. The submission is procedurally incomplete and fails to meet the city of Eastston's standards for land development review. The plans and supporting documents are missing critical elements required by ordinance, including a full inventory of natural features and required engineering certifi certifications and a valid impact and mitigation analysis. Without these, the application cannot proceed. I believe variances are required and approval um does not satisfy the standards for completeness under 520-35C. I want to point out some inconsistencies that um made some of my review a little difficult. Exhibit A1, this exhibit is only highlighting nine parcels and the site plan identifies 12. Exhibit two. This um identifies 12 parcels. Um a comment on the FEMA firm from exhibit A. Two firms would need to be submitted because this firm does not show the entire parcel. Um exhibit A6. Nothing it it he calls it the it's called the existing conditions and natural resource plan. And nothing on this plan delineates natural resources as the exhibit title suggests. Although this is a requirement of 507-20e1 and two. I'm trying to skip over some stuff

that's duplicated here. um on the municipal notification and for um 13 parcels are listed on the application, 12 parcels are listed on the notice and 14 parcels are on the lot consolidation plan. I have a question about um some of the the permits that have been obtained for the channel change within an 85 ft segment. Um if you do when I look at it, it looks like there's like 1,800 feet is the is the entire length. So, I just don't understand how that's half um skipping over a few that's been duplicated here for the um joint water obstruction permit at the in on this paper. It says, "Please be advised that that you do not have your federal authorizations." Exhibit A, this is addressed to Wilson Burrow and it identifies 14 parcels. Um, exhibit nine says that we received architectural drawings and we did not. The letter from Met Ed is not a PUC document. 99 um doesn't meet the 99 requirements. The developers must submit load calculations to the utilities prior to planning commission approvals. and 520-35B says no plan submission shall be considered complete without such letters. Um lot consolidation plan list 14

parcels and I'm just going to note here that like the deed pages on are not correct. Um on the cover page for the plans it says um with the original plans we received that listed for 13 parcels. It said 61.36 acres in Wilson. Same acreage as the permit letter dated September 2025 for the act 537 um waiver. And then it listed 4.67 acres in East and the 10 in Palmer and this total is 106.9 acres total. Now the updated current plans list 13 parcels. The 106.9 acres stayed the same. Now Eastston on the plans it has 1,273 441 square feet that you have to convert to acres. So Wilson's acreage stayed the same. Easton's was 34.67. 67 and now it's only 29.24. That's a 5.42 acre discrepancy and Palmer's 10 acres stayed the same. So, um I looked up the acreage on the deeds and added all that up. It seems like Wilson could have 75 46 acres and East could East could have 36.8 acres. So, um, seems like there could be 122 acres in total and I think that that could be like up to a seven acre discrepancy possibly, you know, in the flood plan.

Um, existing drainage and easement. There is um an existing drainage easement identified on the deeds and it kind of looks like it's almost the entirety of parcel L961. I'm going to pass this down in case anybody wants to take a look. Uh, and that's the location of one of the basins and um possibly part of the building if you if I try to like overlay it, but I it's not to scale. Missing permits. We need a conditional letter of map revision from FEMA, highway occupancy permit, the document 99 um investigate investigation letters, a blasting activity for permit, an air quality permit. It's unclear if they have the federal section 404, 401 permits. Um the site plans say there's a well on site. it that needs to be located onto the plans and they need a well decommissioning permit. The act 537 a waiver from a different municipality is not valid in our jurisdiction. So the planning module would be required. The NPDES permit would also be required to have an additional storm pollution prevention plan part of the clean water act that we do not have. and the state 401 um water quality certification and the federal coastal zone management area permit application statuses are still unclear and the documentation is outstanding. Um

all of the certificates that were provided to us need to be corrected to include a property owner's name and information. and they'll just say, "I, my client, if we picked it up off the ground, we wouldn't you wouldn't be able to put it into anybody's folder because it doesn't list any parcels or people." Um, the ES plans state that there are no known ge geology formation soils condition that may have the potential to cause pollution. Um at the zoning hearing board meeting the other day, a professor from Lafayette College did testify that the Franklin marble in this area is known to contained the naturally occurring asbestous. Um the geotechnical report confirms that extensive blasting is required for site preparation raising significant air quality and health concerns. Blasting through asbestous bearing rock would require an air quality permit and strict controls. The ES plans have a generic disclaimer that appears designed to shift a liability for asbestous related during blasting. There are notes referencing asbestous removal per D, but it's unclear whether these are referring to the demolition of buildings or to the risk of blasting the bedrock. One report confirms that asbestous was found in a building that is already removed, but the documentation is ambiguous. Um, it does not address the risk from blasting, subsurface blasting. Incomplete engineering and geotechnical documentation. The geotechnical report itself says additional engineering

analysis is required and that no portion of the site would be considered suitable for construction without further geotechn technical evaluation and slope stabilization. Several mitigation options were presented but they are explicitly labeled as preliminary and not for construction. Some retaining walls do not currently have forings completed for them due to lack of access during exploration and late changes to the grading plan. Large areas including the vicinity of the the existing quarry which is not identified on the plans um had not had any bearing capacity testing, laboratory analysis or evaluation for the proposed tall retaining wall near the trail. Um the retaining wall notes on the site plan note number six state that the contractor must at their own expense provide third-party inspection testing and services to perform the minimum quality control testing required for the retaining wall and design specifications. This includes soil and back filling testing to verify the soil types and compact and compaction to ensure that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the design and plan specification. That sounds nice. However, the entire project hinges on the conceptual design located in the riparian buffer requiring a global stabilization analysis per the geotechnical report, not just a simple little soils bearing capacity test that the the plan states. Full engineering is required prior to approval to ensure the site is safe and suitable, especially given the contamination risks. There is no clear explanation of how these walls are supposed to drain safely, which is a major concern for

both stability and iron environmental protection. Um, our zoning, we don't permit walls over 10 feet per design requirements in 595-22F, 7B, 7, and D. I'm skipping over the carbonate bedrock because um that was already covered, but that also leads to like the water quality that we have protected under chapter 444. and um clear cutting with these buffers with within the buffers 595-29C3B. Um I'll provide my my list surface waters. Um I don't know if anybody's covered that, but it they we need to have things like delineated on the plans properly showing like the wetlands, the buffers, the riparian zones with the tables. Um because we require like strict stricts compliance. Um the figure it out later approach is grounds for denial. Easton's ordinance mirrors the anti-degration principle in the Pennsylvania high quality waters and uh riparian buffers and they must be preserved. Any disturbance requires vigorous evidence and permitting. Um the site plan says potential thermal impacts to surface water and our ordinance says that any addition of heat of artificial ordin origin I'm going to skip over some stuff here. Um,

and cumulatively speaking, the building itself will essentially be a heat island 59529B. No use or activity established after the effective date of this chapter shall direct or reflect heat. Um, excessive cut and fill. Section 531 of the geotechnical report says that the current layout shows maximum cut depths in excess of approximately 120 ft and a maximum fill dep fill depths in excess of approximately 95 ft. This scale of earth work is extraordinary and triggers additional review under the city of Easton's ordinance on cut and fill provisions which generally restricts finish sto slopes to be no steeper than 3 to one unless the applicant can demonstrate adequate stabilization by engineering analysis. I'm just going to throw this out here like Don Haw is um a landscape architect. I'm not sure if he's the one that ended up signing the plans, but he's not qualified to sign a great portion of these plans. We need an engineer to be doing some of uh some of this. The pro the plans propose one to one slopes. That's 100% which are three times steeper than the baseline thresholds and require robust sightspecific and certified engineering justification. No such justification or certified analysis has been provided. Um the geotechnical report states that the area should be examined for um the limits and extent of overblast and a representative should be on site to oversee over otherwise over excavation and stabilization of such areas will be required. The subgrade

must be evaluated to determine if the material has been overblasted. Any loose or unstable material due to overblast will require over excavation and replacement. So that um means that all the depths and measurements that I just mentioned are even getting larger. Um, and any of the areas shown on the plans as steep slopes that look like they're currently being undisturbed are most likely going to be disturbed based on um possible overlasting the imperous surface calculations that are on on the plans. Um, I have some concerns, you know, about that. Wilson's are now removed from the current plans and we're are we're just showing that it's 21% it it we would need to know the entire impervious surface of the of the site. I don't think that should be removed from from the plans. Um I just want to say the incomplete the illeible and uncoordinated plans the many of the plan sheets are not clear and legible. The fonts are too wide or too small requiring excessive zooming or a 10-ft table to you know you need to have the plans that table plans if anybody opened them up you need a 10-ft table to match the line sets. Um, there's no uniform legend or table. There's inconsistent symbols and line types across sheets. Some symbols do not match the line the the legend. Key notes are intentionally placed on different pages, making it nearly impossible to follow or verify compliance. Early plan or um iterations depicted gentle slopes and emitted steep slope triggers. As the plans evolved, it became became clear

that steep co slope conservation applies and a variances is required. A variance evaluation criteria include aesthetics and compatibility with the land which have not been addressed. Plans must be clear and legible. instead um details with details not pertinent to plan review overlaid um fonts are not legible colors line types like everything's they it's intersecting I have I took a lot of pictures of all of these examples that I can send in um and I'm not the only person complaint in deficiency letters from both the D and the Northampton County Conservation District they they um they have made the same same notes and it seems like only a few of the ES and PSCM pages, you know, made it past what they needed to review. But with everything layered, all the clutter um symbols put on top of stuff like it's impossible impossible to read. Like there's some pages and if we're doing reviews online, there's some pages that will have a note here that you'll have to on to a different page over here. And you're not able to do that on, you know, on a computer screen. And then um it would have been nice with the paper plans except as large as what they were, the font was still reduced, so they were useless. Um prohibited blasting and aesthetic impacts. The city of eastern ordinance 595-09D specifically prohibits the use of explosives to alter grade or reshape the natural land form. The proposed blasting is not permitted and directly conflicts

with this um prohibition. The plans also fail to address the requirement that new development be evaluated for aesthetics and compatibility with the natural terrain. Pennsylvania regulations under 25PA code chapter 77 and 211 and title 73 PS1 180 govern blasting near sensitive um bodies of water. A blasting activity permit is mandatory for any non-mining blasting air stream. And then there's a whole bunch here about blasting and high quality water scream. I I'll I'll just skip over. I mean, it's all all important stuff. The storm water of course. Um it's all related to the site's suitability and the um deficiencies and the pre-application requirements, the qualified meaningful reporting for the pre-application, a lot of the things that um Dr. Green has said and the traffic impact study deficiencies the same same as everybody has said um you know that it was done in February in the middle of three municipal parks um that's you know very not very good and then just someone the comments for like the unmitigated questions and here's another thing like we are all under the impression that the you know for the amount of traffic that um we've been told. But the permit says that the anticipated daily truck traffic um for the proposed access is 232 single units trucks and combinations on Wood Avenue and 80 single truck units

and combinations on Hackett Avenue. And that totals 312 trucks per day. not the lower amount that we've been told. Um WB67 is the Pennsylvania's design vehicle size. And if you look at the plans, like the WB62, a smaller designed vehicle, doesn't look like it even fits into the into that opening. We we don't have the HOP permit. I'm skipping over some more of the the traffic and then the rest is just more comments on um submission requirements. The same with the streets, um the rightaways, the easements, the utilities, um subsurface conditions of the tract, zoning district boundaries, the deed restrictions, the drainage easement, and um there's also um concerns regarding the clear title for lot 9 L961B that I just um like all over the it's refers to Excalibur and it was looks like it was um transferred without a clear title. And then to the design standards of the and buffering requirements for the street corridor overlay, we've skipped over like a buffer C that's required. Um chain link fencing is not permitted. We need a chain link we need a fencing plan. um just all the the design standards for the adaptive reuse in the street um corridor overlay zone hotspot land uses. This um has to do with the water quality

permit that that I don't believe that they have yet for post construction under 507-14. It relates to noniltration detenture ponds on bedrock in flood paint areas. Um and then just all the requirements with that I have listed um all the design standards and then 520-6 the content of regulations. This is pretty much our table of contents for Eastston's regulatory framework definitions, design standards, plan requirements, plan processing procedures, improvement, construction improvements. Um, an F8 warehouse and storage is classified under light industrial and agricultural growth agricultural um uses group. This ordinance defines a warehouse as a facility primary used for storage. However, the definition does not distinguish between small low volume traffic warehouse and a high volume distribution center. A 1 million square foot warehouse, especially a high cube cross stockcking fulfillment center, is generally not considered a light industrial use. Facilities of this scale um fall into the category of heavy industrial or largecale logistics due to their operational intensity, infrastructure demands and environmental impact. By design, these facilities generate high volumes of traffic, require extensive loading infrastructure, and operate at a scale that exceeds the low impact storage oriented uses contemplated by the or ordinance. Their intensity of use, especially when paired with the na the nature and purpose of cross stocking,

goes beyond the definition of warehouse, prim primarily to be used for storage and they do not conform to the intent of the light industrial zoning development of regional significance and impact. In a letter dated June 7th from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, they stated that this project constitutes as a development of regional significance and impact. This is defined in our ordinance as any land development that because of its character, magnitude or location will have a substantial effect upon the health, safety or welfare of citizens in more than one municipality. for intensive industrial uses such as a development of regional significance and impact. Eston relies on use regulations, environmental controls and protections to ensure that such projects are compatible with the city's goals and regulatory standards strictly prohibited environmental protection framework. And I'm going to, you know, reference the the green amendment and mention how like our ordinance ties to that. Our SAO the purpose it establishes the process and standards for safe environmental sound development making environmental and public health protections the baseline for every submission and also in our zoning ordinance. The purpose sets the location and use rules to protect uses community welfare ensuring land is used in ways that preserve environmental values and prevent incompatible development. It enforces the municipality as trustee duty by restricting harmful uses and directing growth to appropriate uses. Together, Eastn Sao and zoning ordinance are the tools that enforce the ERRA's

constitutional promise at the municipal level through subdivision design, infrastructure coordination, and land use restrictions that safeguard the community today and for future generations. EN's vision for a safe, suitable, and well planned development that connects with existing streets, parks, neighborhoods, and provides open space for traffic, recreation, light, and air, and follows the city's comprehensive plan. Applications that fail to comply with 595 OD prohibited activities and uses are inconsistent with this purpose. And I list all of the prohibitive impacts that again that I have already um mentioned. And then 595-29 environmental controls. The intent of 529A, environmental controls and protection standards authorized by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Code are established to safeguard public health, safety, welfare by minimizing adverse environmental impacts, promoting preservation of sensitive areas and natural re sources through zoning ordinances, and defining resource protection standards to reduce the environmental impact of proposed uses within the And I list all of them are environmental controls and the um specific pro you know everything that we um prohibit here. And it says that, you know, we we prohibit endangering critical environmental features through p pl pollutants and degrading degradation and violating land noise, water, air quality standards, causing electromagnetic interference beyond the property lines, directing or reflecting

heat glare beyond the property, producing um vibration beyond the property, and altering grades or mult A thousandware square foot warehouse is a text textbook example of how these controls can be violated. Pollutants, noise, air, electromagnetic interference, heat glare, vi vibration, the alter grades, the runoff. A 1 million square foot warehouse fails every environmental control in 595-29B. And um section 5 20 595-29C establishes re source. I'm just gonna start skipping over 59509 prohibited activities and uses. It says prohibited activities and uses given the predominantly residential character of the city of Easton in its unique natural setting and its intent to preserve and enhance the quality of its air land water. Certain uses in activity are hereby recognized and generally known to give off noxious odors, disturb the tranquility in large area by making loud noises have the obvious potential of poisoning the air or water of the area and similar similarly having clear um effects upon the general public and are otherwise detrimental to the health welfare of the public and such uses are specifically prohibited from all areas of the city. And I think I've made my point,

right? Um, we'll uh thank you. Thank you, Miss Wagner. Uh, Mr. Etches, do you have any comments you'd like to share?

Sure. I feel like I've brought a potato light bulb to a science fair. Um, without tearing through the details of uh uh my opinion of this application, uh I'm just going to point out the the reasons I and uh the reasons I'm I'm going to vote to reject. Uh this project is not uh of an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. Doesn't match the character of the neighborhood. The landscaping plan was inadequate. Didn't represent both existing um tree structure as well as any plan for the replacement of uh trees that would be eliminated during the course of construction. The noise study lacked both credibility as well as realworld realism. Wow, I said that without messing it up. uh there were no construction phases that were really presented. Uh so how can we know how this is going to come together? One of the things that we need to be able to understand is what the real impact is. The environmental information that was listed was a historical review. It was not an impact plan. Uh the traffic study was inadequate and was the foundation of several elements of the project. Uh there's a lack of transparency for any deed restrictions. Um utility line supply detail was also missing and no alternative building plans were submitted. The applicant was provided extensive leeway in terms of due process and presenting their case. So too the applicant often refused to provide clear answers to questions posed by the planning commission members. placing aside any acrimony. Um, my review focuses on the information that was or was not presented and the requirements

of the salad and provides remedies uh for these issues and deficiencies where possible. Um, and I have a 13 pages of goodness to go along with that. Um, so on a personal note, it's nice to finally be able to talk about how we feel. Um, uh, to, uh, to be working through this and trying to remain objective along the way has been um, a good test of character and I think every member of this commission um, has tried to give every element of this a fair shake. So, um, very happy that we've gotten to this point. Um, and, uh, very proud of all the work that all the commissioners have put into, um, their opinions and their expressions. That's all I have.

Thank you. At uh at this time we have a resolution before us uh that has been recommended by the staff that the East Planning Commission grant conditional final approval of the submitted plans titled East Commerce Park subject to the receipt of final plans which meet criteria. There anyone who'd like to make that motion or any other motion? I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Graziano? Sure. I'd like to make a motion to deny the land development application for 1525 Wood Avenue based on the filing deficiencies identified. Number one, required special exception not granted. Number two, HOP not approved and access design. Can you Can you slow down slightly?

I'll give it to you, too.

Number two, HOP not approved and access design unresolved. Number three, noise study incomplete and non-compliant. Number four, transportation impact study deficiencies and infeasible mitigation. Number five, submitted plans and supporting maps do not match. Number six, geology, land suitability, and environmental remediation incomplete. Number seven, unsafe and unmitigated truck routing into residential neighborhoods. Number eight, speculative use and unknown end users result in unreliable impact studies.

Okay. So, for those reasons, uh motion. Uh do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. Mr. Etcherson, your uh your reasons that you provided and will provide in writing are are they to be added to this? Yes.

So I I think for for the sake of making this a little bit clearer, the commission members obviously uh are or are voting on the the motion that was made by Mr. Graciano. And I think that rather than reiterating everything that everyone has already stated, you can highlight some of your points but then make reference to your prior deliberation statements. uh previously in today's meeting. So we to rehash everything, hit some of the highlights you think that are that are informing your decision, but then otherwise incorporate your prior comments would would probably be sufficient.

Thank you, Mr. Echerson. Do you want to share some highlights? I believe Mr. I hit most of the ones that were of major concern for me. Okay. Um, as I understand it, we'll have to give a written report in terms of any rejection and that report will have the opportunity to incorporate all of the comments that have been made here today. Am I am I correct in that, Mr. Chairman?

Uh, that's what I understand Mr. Clark said. Um, he also wanted to potentially hear if there were anything different that you wanted to add to the reasons. You said you, you know, most of them were covered by Mr. Graiano. had any additional brief ones that you wanted to share that would be fine. No, I think I'm good. I just, you know, you don't have to write the report. That'll be Mr. Shear and I get that joy. Yeah. Joy. So, um, we have a a motion and a second. Um, and I would ask if there's any discussion. Um, I will add to the discussion because I want to add the points that I made. I made four four specific

points. Um uh first that there was no uh analysis provided upon the uh physical effects of roadway systems. Second that there was no approved special exception um for relocating water course and the flood plane and so forth that would go would be approved by the zoning hearing board. Third, that on submission requirements that um I I noted that um the applicant did not adequately respond to Lehi Valley Planning Commission's uh concerns about uh sustainable transportation infrastructure capacity. And then fourth that alternatives to the proposed project including um a appropriately sized and scoped project as outlined in the LBPC letter were also not uh included. So those were the other contributions that I would make.

Mr. Shipman, anything to add your fine? Um um Wagner, you want you can summar I know you had lengthy testimony, but if you if you can summarize like big picture ones, I think that that would be helpful for Mr. Clark. 595 09D1 that's pertaining to blasting.

59 530e that's pertaining to um like the aesthetics and delineating a lot of the the plans. um 59530 um E7 I believe that's towards the keeping the natural terrain um and then 5959D of the zoning or ordinance that's the environmental rights amendment those are the only ones that I can see that I might not be duplicating I got too many pages through.

Okay. Um, Mr. Graziano, you made the original motion. Would you agree to amend the motion to include the reasons that have been enumerated and will be submitted uh as were discussed in the deliberation? I do. Mr. Etches, would you uh agree to that as a second? Yes, I would. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, we'll take a roll call vote on the motion by Mr. Graziano to deny uh to deny granting uh conditional final approval on the motion to deny. Mr. Graciano, you vote yes. Mr. Etches, yes. Miss Wagner, yes. Mr. Shipman,

and I will vote yes as well. Uh matter is resolved and uh you should provide your comments in writing and if you have them via electronic communication to Mr. Clark and uh to Mr. Shear please to assist them to assist them in their in their process. These are at this point I'll take a motion to adjurnn. So move and second Mr. Graciano. All in favor? Motion was approved. Oh, you don't think so? Okay. Yeah, folks. Thank Thank you for staying thank you for staying with us. Enjoy your holiday.

Yeah, I will email Thank you folks. En enjoy your holiday and be safe. Look, I don't have I'm an early morning guy and early guy,

right? I cross out a lot of stuff. I'll send you um I think you said that already. I really I Okay, I sure did. But I sure did.

Okay. It's good thing I don't know. Yeah.

Um the main question we had there was one day. So because the warehouse is important. Yes, I would say I believe.

Yeah. It was really nice to meet you finally. Absolutely. I know I bugged you. Oh, have you?

Yeah. Yeah. Let me write it down. You can get online very detailed

email. All right.

My last question I had, did the planning commission discussions?

We have We have discussed what would Does it matter?

I would say is there anything else that we should know as far as One of the biggest charges we look at very frustrated. going for members. So Texas No, they're not solving. for sure. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Have a nice night. Right. I got to