Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the East Allen Township Planning Commission meeting for September 3rd, 2026 to order. Please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance is to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please.

Chamberlain? Here. Mr. Hemmings?

Here.

Mr. Mills?

Here. Let the record reflect. Three members, two members absent. Before we move on, I would like to offer some suggestions for tonight's meeting. I would prefer to move item B, which is the Seamsville Road lot consolidation up to the first item. and move the Jacksonville Road minor subdivision to the second item for discussion, simply because I would expect it to be very quick on the scene, Phil, and the other one is going to be a little bit more lengthier discussion. Is there any objections? Thank you. And our solicitor wasn't able to make the meeting tonight, so if there's any legal aspects of our discussion, that may have to be tabled until the next meeting. So, I want to make sure everybody's aware of that. All right, moving on. Item number two, public comment. We'd appreciate it if you limit your time to three minutes on individual agenda items only. All right, let the record reflect there's no public comments. Moving on to item three, the approval of meeting minutes from July 2nd. I have no comments. Oh, not on July 2nd. That's the one we brought back last night. Right. Yeah. So do I have any comments or questions? No.

Okay. Would that be the Green Meadow Estates? Or is that... No, you're not taking no questions.

This is just strictly a review of things that were dealt with that day on that meeting in particular. I don't know if the Green Meadow Estates were on that or not. Yeah, it was. Okay.

Not on July 2nd. They were on the August 6th. The next one. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, the next one. Okay. Recommendation to approve or accept?

So moved. Second.

A motion by Art, second by Marty. Roll call, please.

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

Yes. Let the record reflect. Motion passed. Three votes to none. Moving on to the second item is the approval of the August 6th meeting minutes. I have one comment on item 11 page. It's item 11. You called it a riparian buffet. It should be a riparian buffer. Just a spelling correction. I missed that one.

The buffet sounds much better to me. What's that? The buffet sounds much better to me. Well, you know, you've got to know what riparian is first. Exactly.

That's the only comment I had. The only thing I had was the attendance for the commissioners. The attendance wasn't listed out.

Brent Hivey removed them.

Oh, okay. So we're no longer going to show who was present? going forward?

He took them out.

He took them out?

Yeah.

Okay.

So we can see if they have them back in.

Right. Well, if he has a reason.

Yeah.

Right.

So what we'll do for that one, we'll carry that forward until the next meeting, and until the next meeting we'll get an answer as to why Brent wants to remove them, and if it makes sense, we'll move forward in that direction.

I think it was at the top originally, but I don't think he ever put them back in Originally, is this the top of the meeting?

I mean, we can conditionally approve based on them being listed again, so we don't have to come back next time.

I mean, that's basically what we've done. Essentially, that's what we've done. But we're not going to officially approve. Okay, so moving on to the business before the Planning Commission, as I indicated, we'll move forward first with the SALDO 2026-009 ARDL 7584 single road lot consolidation plan. What's been submitted has been deemed to be administratively correct and thorough, complete, I should say not correct, but complete for submission. So the question is, I need a motion to accept the plan.

I'll move.

I have just one. We will discuss it after we accept it. I'll second that. We have a motion by Marty, a second by Art. Roll call, please.

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

Yes. Let the record reflect the motion passed. Are there representatives of the applicant here who would like to come forward? Please state your names and addresses for the record.

Ken and Laurel Arnold, 7584 Seamsville Road, Novanta.

Okay.

Question? You might want to let your engineer know that on the location map, he's got Sylvan Drive misspelled and it's pointing to the wrong spot. That's very minor, but, you know, I just noticed that.

We just had our will redone recently, too, and they misspelled our last names on the will. They got the kids' names all correct, but ours were spelled wrong, so we're used to those little things.

So, I'm sorry, you said it was Sylvan Drive was misspelled, and what else was wrong?

It's pointing to the wrong street. It's this little location map right here. Oh, gotcha. When you look at it, you'll see it right away.

Any other questions or comments? No, I have no questions. Applicant? Jill, if I could comment about that. Since they're doing a lot of consolidation, do they not need to show a secondary septic field on here?

I can talk to the Township SEO about that, but generally I think not. But I'll confirm. Because they're not doing a subdivision.

They're actually consolidating. Okay. Yeah. That was the one comment that came to my mind when I looked at everything. I actually drove by the property and it makes all the sense in the world.

For a long time it just cost a little bit of money.

The deeds actually kind of have them intertwined anyway, but we're just finally making it legal.

Do you have any questions for us? Not that I know of. This is our first venture into doing something like this and it was way more than I thought it was going to involve, but We've wanted to put them together forever. We've lived there for 37 years now, so we wanted to put them together forever instead of having to. We even had a situation where we had the mortgage company that we had at the time. They buy and sell mortgages often, and they didn't pay the taxes on the one lot. It ended up going to illegal, and I'm like, wait a minute. You guys pay the taxes. What do you mean? It just makes it complicated when you have... two lots indeed and all that stuff is ridiculous.

We're actually starting to get tired of people calling us wanting to buy that lot so they can build on it.

They can't subdivide anyway as far as I was concerned. I thought it had to be. I didn't think the zoning even allowed for it. We never planned on it. We just want it to be one lot.

Well, we look forward to future discussions and you should be getting some kind of a letter from Hanover Engineering at some point.

Yeah, so you'll be officially on the agenda for the October Planning Commission meeting, and you'll have the official review letter from us.

So we need to be there in the October meeting, and that's when we get the final approval or not approval?

Yeah, well, about a week before, I'll generally get out the review letters, and then you'll be at the Planning Commission meeting, and depending on the comments, the Planning Commission would either make a recommendation to... to the board to approve the plan, or they may table it so your engineer could go back, maybe make some changes to the plans that may be necessary, come back for approval then.

Like what type of changes, other than I can tell them about the things that are on there now?

Yeah, we would have to look at the plan and make sure everything is shown correctly. You know, like your bearings distances, areas are correct. For lot consolidations, it's generally a more simplified review because there's not a lot to review. I will double check with the township SEO and make sure but I'm fairly certain but we'll ask and if that's the case if replacement testing would be required we would let you know.

Replacement testing for?

For an alternate system.

Oh.

Yeah. So generally lots should have their primary location and then they should have testing for an alternate location just in case your septic system fails. If you were doing a subdivision plan, you definitely would have to do it. Because you're not and you're consolidating, I'm pretty sure that testing for the alternate system is not required. Basically, just making sure you're showing everything correctly on the plan.

And then after the October 3rd meeting, my understanding was there was 90 days that for it all to be approved.

Yeah, so October they would be making a recommendation either to table it if they feel that, you know, more comments have to be addressed and it's not quite ready to go to the Board of Supervisors. Generally, the Board of Supervisors like a clean plan. So if that's the case, your engineer would take our letter, revise the plan, and then resubmit to Planning Commission. Right. If they would give the recommendation, then it's going to go to the Board of Supervisors, and then the Board of Supervisors would generally grant conditional plan approval. In the meantime, you know, you're still going to have, your engineer would still have to address any of the comments on the plan before it would get recorded. But 90 days, and I think you're, in the letters now, I'm putting that time frame, where your expiration of the 90 days in the letter. So your letter is... Expiration December 2nd. So if by the November Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors the plan has not been approved, then they would be asking, the Township would be requesting a time extension. In this case, I would hope that we could get everything in place within the 90 days, but if something would happen that it didn't, then a time extension.

Okay. Does that happen often?

Almost every time. Really?

Almost every time? Even for something simple like this?

We don't get very simple ones.

Yeah, not a lot of consolidations. We have plans that are out there for several years, actually. Not for things like this.

Not for like this. Don't take that the wrong way. No, no, no. Yeah, not for this. This is like the simplest one we've ever had. Well, yeah. It looks like it. Yeah.

So as long as your bearings and distances in your law areas match and everything closes, you know, we should be okay. You're showing the right-of-way where it's supposed to be. That's really anything I could think of with a law consolidation.

All right.

Anything else for us? No, that's it. We look forward to seeing you again next week. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Where's Norm tonight? moving on she was my boss oh okay to the next item saldo 2025-005 6780 jackville road minor subdivision plan expires september 30th 2026

Good evening. Bill Urban with Keystone Consulting Engineers. To my left is Gary Aceto, the developer, and to his left is Victor Scamelio, who is his attorney. As I go to the planning commission, I'd like to just go through a couple of the comments, but let me just start by saying, for the most part, we'll comply with the comments. There's a number of comments asking for notes and clarifications and things like that. I actually had shared some information with Jill earlier today in that regard, but For the most part, we will comply. The other thing I would point out is, with the exception of some notes and a couple minor additions, this plan will look exactly the same when we address these comments. Nothing is going to change for the most part.

So I have a quick question. So did the... I'll call it late, just late in terms of this meeting. Did the late-arriving item that I just saw mailed out the... letter from you today.

It looked like comments.

I didn't get a chance to really read it. Was that just comments on the review letter? Comments on the comments, yes. So you can represent those here tonight, probably.

But the one document that was there was a revision to the waiver deferral request letter based on something I'll discuss in a couple minutes.

A revision to your letter.

No, to the waiver request letter that was sent. Which is in here.

I do.

Do you guys want hard copies?

It came like 2.30. I was busy.

I did make copies just in case that happens. I appreciate it.

I have more if you need them. I can speak. Double-sided efficiency.

Are you going to go through this?

Yes. Okay. Let me just give a couple of updates on a few things. First and foremost, the planning module. All the testing was done on one of the alternate sites. One of the six percols failed. Those tests are going to be completed tomorrow. There's no indication it won't be a problem. So we're anticipating the planning module will be submitted to the township probably sometime next week. and all the testing, even for the stormwater that's going to be done in the future, all the testing was successful and everything is okay in that regard. As far as the easements are concerned, we now have a copy of the recorded county easement. That was actually the action of the county was included in the submission. We now have a copy of the recorded easement, and as requested, that information will be added to the plan. With respect to the HOA easement, Suffice it to say there's been a lot of back and forth on that, and just earlier today.

Yeah, I can address that.

Yeah, if you want to address that. Victor can address that in terms of the latest stats.

Victor Scamiglio here on behalf of the developer. I've been in contact with the HOA's attorney, Ed Hoffman, and we are finalizing the language, indemnification, some legal language in the easement, and hopefully we'll have that finalized and recorded in short term. The location and placement of it was discussed between the developer and the HOA, and they're okay with accepting the location. It's just some technicalities and the language itself, and then it will be done.

This is for lot number two? Yes. Okay. And so lot number one, you have the... Yes.

So the process that went through, because it was with the county, it had to go through an ordinance process. The ordinance was approved by county council in its entirety. It was then recorded in the reporter deed's office as well.

Actually, there were three easements required for that other access, but as of this one, they're now all in hand. Okay. Okay, let me start with the deferral waiver since that was a question that came up earlier. Which one? It would be the first one. Can you give the subsection? Subsection starts with 212.35, 212.49A, 53A1, 53A3. What was added to that was one additional subsection dealing with storm drainage, which was not in there. In addition to which, There's now a waiver request on the second page with respect to the stormwater management ordinance. Now, the intent from the very beginning, as we discussed, was to defer the storm drainage until the site plan stage. It's just that when citing these, those subsections were not missed. So the intent of the deferral, if you will, has not changed. It's just that there were a couple subsections missed from the actual waiver request.

So I have a question regarding... the 53A8 waiver. Why is that a waiver and not a deferral like the others? We're not there yet. Which one are you on?

Bill? Okay. Do you have the waiver letter in front of you?

Yes.

Okay, the very first item under subdivision land development orders.

Okay, so... Before we go any further, I'm just going to make this statement as a general statement. We'll continue with this, but this is a general statement that we're going to follow. Every time we have come to do waivers or deferrals, our solicitor has mandated that we do them individually and separately. Okay. Not as a block group like this. In other words, we will not say we're going to offer this waiver deferral for this whole list. They're going to need to be identified as individual single waivers or referrals on a separate sheet, right? Sure. So we're all understanding that from the beginning. It's nice that it groups them together here, but when it comes to time for approval and whatnot, that's what we're going to need to do. Okay.

And just to add to that, I think each one of those are asking for potentially different things. And I think each one of those sections have to be addressed and discussed on an individual basis. And I think, too, like some of the comments, I think maybe some of them were maybe misunderstood as being we're requiring you to – construct the improvements at this time as opposed to just showing the design of the improvements or location of improvements. So that's why I think, you know, if we're going to have a discussion on these, we should go section by section and then have further explanation and further questions on. And some of them could be partial waivers because some section, and if you're taking the whole section in the comment, the Township Planning Commission may be willing to make a recommendation on it. Partial things, but not everything in that section.

Okay. I don't recall that any of these relate to the construction of the improvements. I think it all relates to either showing information on the plan or design of improvements or something like that. I don't have the specific subsection in front of me.

So it said, like, therefore we request a deferral requirement to design and complete the required improvements. So when you're saying complete the required improvements, I'm thinking you're saying we're telling you you have to construct certain things at this point.

Complete with respect to the need to secure them is the intent.

Okay.

That was the intent of that. They would not be secured at this stage.

Okay.

Say that again?

When I was reading their deferral and they said we request a deferral of the requirement to design and complete the required improvements, I thought they were misunderstanding and they thought we were saying they had to actually construct the improvements as part of this and secure them and construct them. Because that would go along with the same thing. If you're securing them, that means the developer of this has to construct them.

Right. But the intent was to not secure them at this point and deal with it. At the stage of a site plan.

Right. We want to make sure they're designed, right? But they're not building them.

Yeah, and that's why I think we should just go through each one individually to see exactly what's being requested.

But we're asking for a deferral to design.

I don't know. Okay. I'm not sure that we'll be comfortable with that situation, but we'll go on a case-by-case basis and see where it goes.

Okay. My recollection from prior discussions is the whole idea was particularly as it relates to storm drainage. That's the biggest one. At this point, we don't have specific information on, for example, the house and driveway and stuff like that. The impervious cover is very significant to those calculations. So the request, which I think we discussed previously, was the idea, at least storm drainage being the biggest one, is to defer that to the site plan, at which point there will be detailed information. Impervious cover can be taken off. And actually the engineer raised the point in the latest review that that there's credit for facilities that were on the property prior to 1998. We're going to incorporate that into it. But we'd like to do all that at the time we have detailed plans for the house and driveway and everything else.

That's what I'm saying. I don't think my comments in 106A and 106D imply that you have to design and construct them. It was basically to put notes on the plan. Why don't we go through each one individually?

Yes, and we want to go through the review letter, individual. Item by item. Yes, where you want the deferrals and the waivers, yes.

Oh, okay, okay. Let's jump to that issue. That would be like page three. Well, let's go in order, if we can.

Through the letter.

When you said this one. Page three.

Yes, I'm there.

You're talking about the engineer's review letter?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah.

It's the one you started in your letter here, Bill. 12-35.

Mm-hmm. No, that's the waiver request letter. I'm hearing them say they want to go through the engineer's review letter.

The first item for waiver or deferral is item 8 on page 3 of the engineer's letter. Oh, okay, yeah, okay.

Right. That's what we want to do.

Right. So all the others that you're okay with, we're okay with.

Okay.

So, yeah, if we just start at number 8, the 35, so that is where you were talking about. The comment is to complete the requirements or do the developer's improvement agreement. So just starting off with the driveway apron curb sidewalk replacement road restoration. Okay. So that was mentioned because that was work within the public right of way. And if it was the township felt that that should be constructed or secured, my thoughts are right now the driveway locations are set. You have easements, and if you're saying you've secured both easements, there's no other place those driveways can be.

Well, I will say with respect to the one that's within the 50-foot easement, that could move slightly depending on the final design. Okay. We have a location depicted on there. Right. But quite frankly, we just put it right in the center of the easement. That's not to say when the time comes to design it, the driveway could be shifted slightly off. That's one of the reasons I wanted to stay away from the driveway issue too.

Okay. And I'll say I'll agree with that. So for Lot 1, there's a depressed curve there now. Right. There's really nothing to do besides maybe paving the driveway or whatever is going to be required. For lot two, there is going to be curb and sidewalk and a driveway apron. What I'll suggest is not requiring that to be secured, not the developer's responsibility, but if you can put, I still think we should show, like this plan doesn't indicate Glenmore Road. It just says like a dash 50 foot right away, almost like it doesn't exist. But at minimum, if you can show that Glenmore Road has a curb, concrete curb, specifically in the area the driveway's gonna go, and show that there's an existing sidewalk, and maybe put the detail for the concrete driveway apron

Just to the right of it.

Yeah, just show it that somebody knows who's buying lot two, that there's curb, there's sidewalk, there's going to have to be a concrete apron. It's not going to be, you know, what would be a typical simple driveway that's just going to be a concrete road. Yeah, so if we can just put a detail on alerting them that that's going to be required. Maybe the road restoration detail. And that's what I was going to say. Even though, and I agree with you, it implied that you had to secure it. re-looking at it just if we are putting details to alert the property owner.

And you're saying possibly I can have that done without securing it? Yeah, you would not have to secure those.

Just show it on the plan so it alerts the buyer that it's needed.

What happened to us in the past is we've had people, we've deferred sidewalks, for instance. We haven't had to have them on the plan. Then somebody came in while they were doing their work and they decided they were going to put them in. Well, they got put in below grade. Now we're going to put curbing in so they're out of place. So what we're trying to do now is make sure that when something like this is deferred, we get to put on the plan what's going to need to be done. That way we guarantee that it can physically be done and it gives the person what's going to be required so it can be code when it is completed.

Also known as no amnesia.

Right.

Yeah, exactly. So, like, and just use even the PennDOT RC standards for the driveway apron and just, like, the sidewalk. If you can't get the 2% in the slope, then it's going to have to be either side. So I would use just the typical PennDOT. And then just do your road restoration.

And you may need American Disabilities there, too.

Well, the PennDOT driveway aprons do take that into account.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. And then, so the only thing we're really looking at now, since we got that, is the monumentation. So generally, if there's monumentation required, that's with the minor subdivision plan. So if, and I don't know, if there's monument that, concrete monuments that are required or pins that need to be set, that should be.

And the pins haven't been set. Yes. That's why we want the full 50 foot, because of the ADA, we need to go wider and things. But we're not doing a 50-foot-wide drive. Yeah, right, right. So I understand.

Yep, and so the monuments, like, and I don't remember if everything you found, monumentations at all the locations or iron pins need to be set, but that's one thing that typically I say secure, but the developer will go and do those before the plans are ready for recording and show everything being set, correct?

And they are done when we were evaluating moving. What was shown from 25 years ago further east by 135.

Yeah, my recollection is that all the pins slash monuments either were existing or have been set. I don't think there's anything else.

Okay, so if that's the case, then we're not. And the only other question was I didn't know the fire hydrant. I was confused where you're showing a fire hydrant on Lot 2.

The fire chief over the past year and a half, he said it's possible I don't even need one for the Lot 2 home because he feels that there is a hybrid close enough to get there, but he wants to revisit it. But he said Lot 1, there's absolutely no questions. Okay. Not doing it. But I'm leaning towards doing a hybrid anyway for my own insurance purposes, but it would be a private hybrid. Private hybrid. But how would you connect it to the public water? Through the Eastman. Line running up through the Eastman.

Okay, so you're going to have to show that on the plan.

Right.

Okay, so the question becomes whose responsibility is it to go into the Township Road, connect, do a wet tap, Put the line in and put a fire hydrant in.

That would be me. Whoever develops the lot.

Okay, so the property owner, it's not being required, and we can talk to the township fire chief, but you're going to put that responsibility on somebody who purchases lot two?

Actually, it's going to be Gary because he's going to be putting a house on that lot.

Okay, but what if the plan gets recorded and for some reason you decide you're not going to, then that responsibility... Well, I'm agreeable to putting that in no matter what. Okay, do you want to proceed with that? I mean, that's one thing that could potentially need to be secured. Unless you're going to do it before we record the plan.

I'm almost certain... the fire marshal chief, because he said it's not that far. We possibly could run even through easements between houses to get to a hydrant. But I said, I don't want to really go there. And he said, no, because in the wintertime, if there's a lot of snow, that makes it a little harder, too. He goes, if you don't have a problem, you can put one hydrant in. And I said, well, that hydrant, actually, if you'd have to run a line from a hybrid over to lot one, you could do it from that one hybrid too. He goes, well, that's okay too, but I'm not requiring two hybrids.

So I'll just say generally, we don't really see hydrants on private properties like this. And I don't know who would own it. Generally, the city of Bethlehem, I believe, owns hydrants if it's right away.

The developer has to pay for them, and it has to go a couple of years. And then they take it over. You pay the hydrant assessment.

So have you discussed this with the city of Bethlehem? In that case, the fire hydrant would need to be in an easement, I think, too.

Well, it would be at the very end of the easement. Probably just as it enters in the lot.

Yeah, so that's not where it's shown on the plan. So my question is, yeah, there's a fire hydrant without a lateral that doesn't show. So really now you're showing the existing, you should show the existing water line in Glenmar Road. You should show the wet tap and then you should show the easement.

But the reason it's not there yet is we don't have the easement yet. Yeah.

Yeah. But you have to show the fire hydrant in the easement, though, just so you know.

Oh, okay, and then that's fine? Right, so even if you extend the easement.

Right at the end of the easement? Yeah, so your fire hydrant has to be, or you're extending the easement on Lot 2 for the placement of the fire hydrant.

Right. Okay. But I would probably not extend it. I probably would go right as if it was a township road, which was originally going to be there. Okay. And we might still be going back to the one from 25 years ago that was shown on the DeLuca plan, but we're hoping that we move it to the north a little because it's better for everybody. The fire hydrant, if absolutely required, I'm willing to do that, you know, before anyone's done. But we don't have the design yet because we don't have the right, we don't have the easement yet. Right.

Okay, and then we would just need some type of letter or confirmation from the city about that? Sure. Okay.

And they already gave us sizing, so...

Okay, yeah, I was not aware of it. Yeah, there was no information except for a lonely fire hydrant on the lot, so I was kind of confused.

All right. So given all that discussion, a quick question. So the way I'm reading this, tell me if I'm wrong, is... You don't need a deferral on this. It's really about representing the items that you talked about on the plan. So they're there for the next year. So you're not looking, are you still looking for something, some action on that one?

So I'm thinking I'm going to do the driveway.

Right, right. So the driveway detail where it enters, Gwidmar Road, and then do your fire hygiene. Right, in the right-of-way. Yep. Right, so this one we don't need 11.

Yeah, and then we'll figure out the fire hydrant, and if there has to be a developer's agreement to secure that so you can record the plan, we'll address that at that time.

Right. So no action is going to be needed on that one?

Yes. That's correct. So we're crossing off 212.35. 212.35 is off. Yep. Okay.

Next one is number 9. 212.49A. Proposed driveway-specific construction details. I'm sure adequate easement has been accessed. The applicant has requested a deferral. Recommends all existing features that may potentially impact the location and construction of the driveways be shown on the plan at this time with the approval of the subdivision plan. Saying a deferral may not be needed. This is a similar discussion because we still don't know which easement it's going to be. Gary has the right with the original easement, which he can push if he has to, but he thought he was doing them a favor. and it was beneficial to him and beneficial to the HOA to have it at the other location, but that still hasn't been nailed down. That's one of the reasons why we're kind of hoping to keep that issue open.

I think before we approve a plan, we need to know that you have an easement.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not questioning that. I'm saying that, as we said, we don't have that easement. But the plan will not get recorded without it.

Right. So I don't think a deferral is necessary, once again, because all we're saying, once again, is the same conversation we had. Show your driveway location, where you have to do your apron, curb. Just show the fact that there's existing curb, existing sidewalk. Just show representation of driveway apron to be constructed and details.

Well, we have it nailed down. It's the one last remaining.

Yeah, and then the only other thing is that all existing features in those areas we're saying really should be shown so that if they're, and there's pipe, going back to the as-built plans for Valley View, there's one manhole, like for your proposed, it comes down, there's another manhole right at the intersection, and then it goes across. So there's physical features that are either adjacent areas or within that easement.

And it's been researched. So that's what we're saying.

We should show that. Like if there's any street trees in the area that may impact the construction of that driveway, hose bit, anything.

It's within the easement, but the driveway is not even going to impact the tree.

So you're agreeing that you're going to go back and show all existing features that are in the vicinity of the two driveways? Yes.

The only question I would have on 31249A, it says stormwater facilities.

Well, stormwater facilities, when I said that, it's that pipe that's going there. It's the manhole.

You're talking existing and not proposed? Yes, existing.

Right, because the proposed is going to be based on the actual house design, the amount of impervious coverage, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah, the only reason I say that is the beginning of the sentence says the location of proposed, and then it puts a series of items.

So location of proposed driveways, comma, then the location of existing utilities, stormwater facilities. The existing utilities meant with existing stormwater facilities, injection wells, mailboxes, trees. So the only thing proposed was the driveway. Everything else is referring to existing.

So here's a question. So you're saying you still don't know if you're going to have the easement to do with the driveway as you have it on your plan or the way it was originally designed back with the valley view, right?

All indications are it's going to be as per the plan. Okay. Because the latest exchange that Victor had with their attorney, it's down to I dot T cross stuff, so we're confident. Good. It's not in hand, but we're 99% sure we're going to get it.

Yeah.

Excellent.

If not, it goes back to the 24-year-old.

In which case, the design you create for where you want to put it just shifts up to where you're going to cut the curb into other locations. So that little template design detail either is there or it's going to be over there. Correct.

Which then may impact where you did testing, just like plumbering testing for your stormwater facility.

All right.

So I think, though, Once again, even that easement, even though it was shown on Valley View, we had this discussion before, I don't think it was ever recorded as an act. So either way, you're going to have to record it for that or your new location. Right.

Well, if the new one's recorded, it would also include elimination of the previous one. Right.

But I'm saying either way, you're going to have to provide a recorded, yeah. Right.

The intent is to get those documents to you, get that information on the plan prior to it being recorded. That's never been a question there. So we've concluded on 49A that deferral is not needed. Correct. Because it only addresses existing features to be shown. That's correct.

Okay.

Minimum lot width for 21251B. No problem with that one?

No, obviously the zoning hearing board gave a waiver.

Okay.

Okay.

Variant solid, so 51C would be the same thing. There would also be a debris deferral. Okay. Now, the next one is probably the biggest one that I was focused on, storm drainage facilities.

So that's just a general note on the plan. So once again, that's what I was going to say. We're not asking you to design those facilities. And you went and did testing, so you're showing that there is places where a basin infiltration can be. Really what I'm saying is that you just have a general site plan note that kind of just says they have to do a site plan. What we're saying is if you can put specific notes saying for storm drainage facilities need to be designed and conveyed, just putting that note on the plan.

Yeah, well, that's what the correction was to the thing I just sent you today, but I apologize it was very late in the process. But that brought that into the request to say that all the detailed information is there.

Yeah.

And that will appear on the plan eventually. Right. Hopefully the next time we see it.

So I guess we don't, so we're saying we don't need a deferral for 53A1. Right. You're going to put the note on the plan just saying. Just the note on the plan. Yeah, exactly.

That's what I'm hearing. Yep. Okay, so the note trumps the design.

Yeah, that was just, once again, just the note saying that just, you know, so when property owners are looking at their site plan, they have to do everything in accordance with that Section 35, and these are the things in particular that we're going to be looking for so they're aware of those things. Same, and I'll just say same as 53A3. Okay. Really, when we're talking, if you are putting this obligation on the person who's purchasing the lot, and they're going to have to provide the site plan, and they're going to have to show all this stuff, it's just things that we pointed out that we're going to be looking for. So if you can just put a note on the plan. you know, just indicating that, you know, when they're doing their design for the light and submitting their site plan, they should be aware, you know, and not, you know, do their layouts or if they have to provide a swale just to prevent that cross-block drainage.

Okay, so 53A would also not require, would go away.

Right, right. And the concern is where everything is going to be located, driveways, the vicinity to people's homes that are already there, like your driveway that you're going to be going through, you know. If you need to put a swale to get it out to the street, you know, be aware of that rather than having that, you know, drain onto somebody else's. Even lot two, assuming the grading is going that way and maybe it's going the opposite way. But, yeah, just putting a note on the plan just, yeah, in general.

So between what's depicted on the plan and a qualifying note, it should be very clear to a buyer of that lot exactly what they have to do, and that's your call.

Correct. Correct.

So that's number 13 on the list, right?

Yep.

So we're taking off 53A3.

Correct. 53A8 is requiring a drainage easement around the periphery of the property. As I believe I said in the very first request letter, it's still there. Very large properties, fully developed, completely around it. I mean, what purpose would those easements be? Typically they're put in there for future improvements, but everything's basically improved. And as we discussed earlier, the only thing Gary's building on the one lot is a house, and the other one's going to have a house on it.

Right. So I have just one question about that was, if we're talking about needing to represent that whoever develops this lot is going to potentially need to have a 15-foot easement,

We talked about this at length with the Planning Commission from day one, even in pre-meetings before I bought the property. And it was such a large property with such a small amount of impervious that a take of 2.6 acres of land through an easement is just not feasible. I can see if it was an eighth acre lot or a quarter acre in a little subdivision with houses all on top. This was a 130-year-old farm. I'm building a farm-type house on it on a large tract to preserve a den.

We wouldn't be taking it. I mean, it would be your land. It would just be if the township would need a drainage easement or utility easement for anything.

It's still an easement, which is technically... The same as a conveyance of property. Well, it's within, so I'm going to say... And it's waivable.

Yeah, it's within the side yard, rear yard setbacks, so you're not necessarily going to be able to put anything with the setbacks, and this would be fit in with that, so is there... That begs the question, then, what's the purpose of the easement if it's already setback? Well, the easement is if the township needed to put something in there. If they needed to put some type of utility, maybe something's going on and they're going to be putting drainage pipe.

Well, that's a take of the land.

So your setback is different from a drainage easement. Yeah, that's correct. The drainage easement allows the township to do something, or a utility. It could be a utility company coming in and, you know, using that for electric or communication or anything.

Well, they normally would have to get an easement from the line owner. Mm-hmm. I can see if it was a little HOA lot or something. That's different. This is a farmer farm.

So this is a general requirement in our ordinance for any type of lot. But it's waivable. It's a general, but yeah, agreeable.

I'm just trying to ascertain, why would you not be willing to note a proportion? Because, Marty... A proposed... Let me finish. Go ahead. A proposed possible requirement for a 15-foot drainage easement, not utility easement, not anything like that.

Because in commercial development, okay, when you give an easement that's the same as giving a conveyance, you no longer technically own it.

But you've got to be sure... We're not asking for the easement. Back to the point about representing on the plan to a potential buyer what they may be responsible to implement, essentially. So I'm not saying you need to grant that easement.

But that's where there's a question with the language in the letter. That's why I'm asking. Yeah, when you look at the letter, it says a 15-foot-wide drainage easement shall be provided adjacent to...

And what I... Side property lines.

If it's depicted for potential, that's a different request.

And that's consistent with the spirit of the previous ones we talked about where the language of the letter may not have been so clear.

Well, what I'm going to say is I think this language is from the ordinance. Like, the ordinance requires 15-foot-wide drainage adjustments adjacent to side property lines, rear lines, stuff. So this is from the ordinance.

That's word for word from the ordinance. Is that correct? Yeah.

So... I mean, if the board, I mean, the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation and say, yeah, you know, we don't think that, you know, there's really any possibility of ever needing a drainage easement for this then.

And in April? Okay, but in April?

No, that's okay. So it's basically up to the Planning Commission and then ultimately the Board of Supervisors whether they feel that it's really necessary and if it would ever be a benefit to the township for it.

And what Mr. Rossetto was saying is that the last time we were here, this was a discussion with Mr. Piperotto, and he did not see a problem with the waiver of this requirement.

Nor was it with Jim Barack when he was here. Mr. Green when he was here. This is prior to me buying the property. And when I came up and they said, well, it's such a large property, and it sounded okay, and they were happy just to know that one house is going to be there. When was that? Not... 40 townhouses.

I mean, when the first submission came in, that waiver request was in there. I'm trying to remember when you bought the property.

When was that?

I bought the property in May of 2024.

The only comment I would make on it for myself, this is my personal comment on it, if I was not going to waive this or if I did a partial waiver of this particular requirement, I might want to see the 15-foot easement on the south side where the existing homes are, along that property line, only because of the potential for water running off. It is a large lot, I understand that. But if I was going to want to see something, that might be where I would want to see it, would be along the existing...

Correct me if I'm wrong. You could also divert... stormwater onto my property to correct deficiencies from DeLuca Homes' original design and implementation of that community, which you all know was poorly, poorly executed. And then I become the sponge for everybody else because you don't want them to have to tear up their lawns to do it correctly pursuant to the drawing that was approved by Ann Arbor Township and reviewed by Your engineering comes back in.

Fair enough. So say, for instance, water today is draining off of there, but you don't know it yet.

Oh, I know. I know where it is.

Is it draining off onto your property?

They still have a silt fence up that they never took down for 24 years. Even the repairs they just did lately. There's debris all over my property. I took seven tons of scrap steel out of that property. So I'm just saying, I'm not going to be the cleanup man just because I'm the last guy doing preservation.

I'm not asking you to be the cleanup guy, but you wouldn't want water coming onto your property as much as you wouldn't want water coming off of your property, in either direction. You wouldn't want it going either way, right?

If a neighbor was in a reasonable request to me, said, Gary? Rather than me tearing up because of what this developer did to us 24 years ago, subsequent, and then I probably would say, okay, what's your idea? I don't have a problem. But again, I could drop dead tomorrow too.

Okay. Well, so this one here, we haven't made a decision on yet.

And a partial, I mean, come up with another idea of a partial. Maybe a partial with a reasonable amount, like if my estate would want to sell the property. That's a major negative. In commercial stuff, they deduct for that.

Hugely. But we're talking residential, not commercial.

Either or. It's a take of land without compensation. And whether it's in your ordinance or not, the legality of that, technically I think, but I don't want to be denied. But on the other hand, if I decide not to do anything on the property and just go valid in a different way, then the alternative is not going to be anywhere near as desirable, especially for valid U.S. states.

How about if we continue? We'll come back to this one. Okay. In order to keep things moving, and we've got several more to address, we'll work through the list and then we'll see where we're at.

Can I make a suggestion that might make it even quicker? Why don't we table this specific item just for now until we do have our solicitor present. I'm sorry he's not here today. Because we're talking legal and ordinance. I'm feeling uncomfortable about making a decision on this without advice.

Well, and especially if he made a recommendation that you... And I hear you. I hear you, Mr. Sutter. I hear you.

They all agree.

I hear you. I do hear you. I'm uncomfortable making a decision.

How about if his attorney talks to Joe Pepparato and they resolve it? That's okay with me. That's okay with Blank.

I'll just say Jim Malott was not because he's the one who did this letter, and I questioned him on it, and he said that he thought it would be in the township's best interest.

Oh, sure it would be.

But I'm saying Jim wasn't in favor of granting the waiver, but that was just his opinion.

Believe me, at that time, they all didn't see a problem with that, and it was... said it was a waivable issue, and they thought it could be done. So we have people forgetting things. I didn't want to record the thing. I don't want to detract people.

If that approach is okay, then Victor can get in touch with Joe and at least resolve the legal side of it for our recommendations. Hold it up.

Well, that would be good. That's a fair request. Thanks.

Okay, so continuing with waivers, I think based on our discussion so far, 212-57D goes away? 57D. 57D, there's a deferral, the deferral goes away.

Right, based on doing the design for the entrance, that gets included into that design, so yes, the deferral goes away.

That one goes away.

Okay. Rachel? Yep. Don't overstep my bounds.

Yeah, and then just showing the safe site distances and the clear site triangles with it.

Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. Now, the waiver request letter, and I apologize for the lateness, but if you look on the second page, you'll see it refers to 106A and 106D in the stormwater ordinance.

Okay. Okay. Did we skip, though, 54C2A?

I was going through the letter, didn't I? If I'm going through the letter, that comes before storm water. Sorry, I missed it.

So comment number 16 before we get to the storm water.

Yes.

So I didn't really know. So basically you're showing your testing location for your on-lot septic systems. I don't think that's a question. We're saying showing bearings and distances on it.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, so I think maybe your deferral, and correct me if I'm wrong, maybe just for marking with permanent stakes in the field because maybe it's being farmed? Or what's your deferral for this?

For 15 and 16, 54A and 54C2A, we're not asking for deferrals for either of them, no. The one is planning module, and we're going to submit that. The next one... So if you look in your...

Unless I'm wrong, in your deferral letter, the next after section 53A3 that we just crossed off, the next one is 21254C2A, and that's what we're talking about. That's the section for number 16.

Yeah, that would be your first paragraph.

Right, that would be page 416 of the engineer's letter.

Oh, it's in that section. Okay. Sorry about that. It was captured in the very first one. So if it goes away, it comes out of that one. And let me see.

54C. 54C2A is prior to final plan submission, the developer shall test and locate, show bearings and distances on each slot. Suitable primary and secondary absorption areas. That's for your sewage facility planning. And then it says these areas shall be marked with a permanent stake in the field and protected until such time as the systems are constructed and final grading completed on the lot. No sewage permit will be issued or final plans approved until site is adequately marked.

Yeah, that one can be stricken from that first.

Okay, so you didn't want to ask for it. That's where you want the protocols all GPSed in. where you know exactly where they're going?

Well, you have to show them on the plans, but then you also have to, your area, because you're going to be doing designs of those, so you have to do a meets and bounds to establish the exact location of those. Right. But then the last part says, and this is part of our ordinance, and the township SEO has always asked me to make sure I put this in, is that you mark them in the field, and that way... If you're constructing and stuff, it's already marked, and there's no chance of it being disturbed unintentionally.

Right. Stake it off. Stake and fence it off. Yeah.

I thought maybe you were saying, hey, this is being farmed. Like, we can't put these stakes in.

Okay. But we still have to cut the weeds.

Okay.

But that's amazing. You can cut around it.

Okay. So if you're not asking, if you're agreeing to all those conditions, including staking it, then we'll cross it off as deferral. Is that all right?

Yes. Just go down Steuben Road where they did a lot down there, and the weeds are overgrown, the stakes and the fencing for those locations. That's unbelievable. Yep. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Okay, now I think we're in the stormwater.

Yeah, okay. We addressed 212-5070, number 17, right? That's applicable, right? Right.

Yeah, we jumped down to that. That was all right. Great. Okay, 106A and 106D from the stormwater ordinance, those deferrals are still requested. As I indicated, it's all related to the storm drainage design, which really can't be finalized.

Yeah, it's not really. So what we're saying is, based on the ordinance, every lot, the parent track gets 10,000 square feet of new impervious coverage. And then when you do a subdivision, it still maintains the parent track gets 10,000 square feet of impervious. So what this is saying is that you can take credit for anything that was existing prior to the adoption of the ordinance, which we're saying is 1998. Correct. So if you have existing impervious, it's to your best interest to note that. because you get credit for it. So that's already existing, and if you demolish it, you still get credit for it.

Yeah, that's in the works.

What I'm recommending is put a note that, you know, there was this much existing impervious, you're grandfathered in. After that, you're allowed to put 10,000 square foot more, but it has to be divided between the two lots. So generally in this case, you know, would I recommend saying then, you know, each lot can do 5,000 more impervious blocks? they can develop those lots, each of them 5,000 square feet, and they still don't have to do stormwater. If one of those lots then, they put a house, a long driveway, then they're putting a pool in, once they reach 5,000 square feet, then they have to do the stormwater management. So in my mind, that's the easiest. When you're dividing lots, divide it equally, each person gets, or it could be whatever, but the note should be put on the plan. And that way, when they're coming and developing and they're coming for their... Permits for their house will say, hey, are you over 5,000? No, you're only at 4,000. You don't have to do stormwater.

Even though I'm doing the calculations now for two hypothetical impervious footprints, and you're saying I might not even need it.

So you did the testing to show that there was areas that could be used. It's phenomenal soil.

Right.

Yeah.

So let me understand.

So we're not telling you to design anything. I'm just saying put a note if you're agreeing and if you want to even, you know, this is impervious. It's already grandfathered in. Each of them gets $5,000. If neither lot exceeds $5,000, stormwater does not have to be done.

But if we split it 10-5 each, is it $5,000 plus? PREEXISTING IMPERVIOUS.

IF ALL THE IMPERVIOUSES ON LOT ONE GIVE LOT ONE THAT BENEFIT AND EACH OF THEM GET 5,000 OR IF YOU SAY THAT AND YOU WANT TO GIVE LOT TWO MORE, I'M NOT TELLING YOU HAVE TO DO 5,000. I JUST THINK IT'S FAIR THAT WAY. IF SOMEONE FOR LOT TWO GOES AND BUILDS 9,000, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEONE COMES IN AND NOW THEY HAVE TO DO, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO STORMWATER FOR THAT LOT. And their lot. Right. And it's not feasible. They can't collect your stormwater, so this is the most...

Okay. Thank you for that.

Okay. So no stormwater. We're not telling you to construct anything. And the same thing with 6D. So we don't need a deferral. Yeah. What this is saying is even if you're not exempt for doing stuff, it doesn't mean that you can just have water going onto somebody else's property. Right. So once again, just a note on the plan says adequate safe conveyance and stuff.

So basically, if I recall correctly, this is the first mistake I made tonight, we only have one issue on the table, which is the one that we passed over earlier. Can I ask a quick question? All the rest of the deferrals are gone. That's what I heard.

And then your waivers are okay for your lots, configurations?

Yeah, those are okay, right. But the one open one, is the one we talked about with respect to the easement around the property.

Right.

That one's still in limbo. The rest either run away or they're okay. Right.

Okay. I have a quick question addressed to basically Jill and the attorney. The driveway that's in the easement, does that count against your impervious coverage?

Which driveway are we talking about?

The proposed driveway. To lot number two.

Well, that's a very good question. But the only thing I'll say is that that lot is actually owned by the Homeowners Association and it's a stormwater management lot. So that could be something that would be negotiated in the language of the agreement. But it might not, it might be a non-issue because I don't think that they're ever going to develop anything on it.

It can't be developed.

Yeah, and they're never going to have more than 10,000 required stormwater.

But good question because if it was something else... And the driver is only going to be... Yeah.

If it was somebody else's property and that would be, then it would be more of a concern. But it should be something that could potentially be addressed in that easement agreement. But I don't think that the homeowners association is going to be... We're talking about what, I don't even know, 1,000 square feet? No, I mean like your impervious coverage for that driveway.

Square footage of that driveway across their property. I don't know.

Yeah, and they're not going to be using it for anything that I could foresee. But it could be something that the homeowners association could put in that.

I'd leave that one off the table because it's been complicated enough. It seems every time something simple gets back on the table, it takes forever to get a feedback.

But I would say, yeah, since it's on that property, that would not be applied to stormwater.

It's never going to be sore. So I have a question about the driveway access for lot one. I'm comfortable to know what we're doing with the lot two. Now, when I looked at Google, maps uh the live picture of this thing and i saw where matter of fact it's funny there's a car coming right off of this this access point onto the deep ender for tract for the gardens that are there yeah they're they're going right through right so i Is this plan going to create a design for that access entry into that property like it is for the lot two? Because what I see, when I saw that, I thought, I can see where the people wanting to access the Deepender for Tract are going to want to do what they've been doing for years and years and years. And then somebody's going to buy lot one and they're going to say, hey, you can't go across. That's my driveway.

Well, we have an Eastman ball in there. Oh, Northampton County was...

So it's defined. Oh, yes.

Is there going to be a curb or something there that's going to say? I'd have to say it was the other one.

Well, but remember.

Joe's looking for the details.

And remember, in the Deluca approved subdivision, that's why it was paid for. They have the binder now. They never did the top. That was supposed to be there. That was the old Jacksonville Road. Right, right. People used it, and it was a slip-up that the deep endurfer track They never did an ALTA survey or would have caught on that. Okay. But that's a very good question because right now you could have people, I can tell you right now the construction people are all parking on that beautiful paved area. Right, right. There's an accident at that intersection. Right. Where I think people are meeting, I'll meet you at Hanerville Road and, well, it's still Jacksonville. Yeah, right. So- And then also, back 24 years ago, DeLuca was supposed to put up a sign, private drive. And that's still on the recorded plan. So there was a lot of things that slipped through the cracks, especially the little, and Ms. Smith knows this, with the John Schwartz track, where it was a little sliver that was outside of your road right away. and I had to get what was it 48 42 square feet so that was another easement so I'm just cleaning up the act along with the 7 tons of straw so Bill I think what I think would be very beneficial since there's so much going on in that little corner maybe you can just do like a blow up I would think we'd have to do a blow up and show this is the easement you're getting and just so we can distinguish a little too small to put it on well actually if you would In our easement, we always come back to what the township mandates to us. And if you would say, well, we would like you to pave that area with finished paving like it was supposed to be. Before they were granted?

Well, when we're saying driveways, that is a requirement as far as paving driveways. So when we're saying in accordance and we're saying putting details on, you should be putting that detail on for the driveway paving.

The one issue is with the county property, that easement over the county property. The county required that it be stone and gravel.

Okay, so if that's a requirement, then you need to let us know, and if you need a waiver because you can't pave it, then you should... Well, that's what I had said.

Or just noting on the plan. Do we have it in there that the township, if they require it? Because I'd rather pave it.

So there's... We have it here as constructed as approved by the township. Here we are.

So, you know what? Please... Please order.

Yeah. The county has that in there, but then we said that we were going to be subject to the township requirements where there's a service plan paragraph.

I don't think, we don't think there will be a problem. And frankly, I don't like getting stones in my tires.

Yeah.

And then they kick out and break one ship. Yeah. So I am more than willing to have that noted on the plan. I had thought that was a requirement to pay the driver. It is 20 feet off the...

I was going to say, sometimes it's only so far back.

Yeah, I'll have to look for residential. I'll check it, too. It might be a little different, but I think definitely to the building restriction line or 20 feet.

And then if that comes all the way out, I can stripe it correctly. But we don't want to park a lot there.

Yeah, and that's why we like to see those details, so we know what you want to do. We can say, yeah, we agree with it.

Maybe the township should put no parking there.

So it was shown on the plan as part of the township ordinance requirements.

No, that doesn't...

document from the county says that's permitted if the township requires it and we're not looking to get a waiver therefore as far as I'm concerned it's required.

And then where the curvature is... And that was on the Diefendorfer's plan? Diefendorfer's plan? No, they donated... Oh, Valley View Estates?

They donated it to the county. That happened, but prior to that, Marty, 24 years ago is when DeLuca was doing all this, but they farming family that owned this farm for many, many years, dating back to 1893 or whatever, they had the right to use that road all along. It used to be Jacksonville Road. It went all the way down and came out at Locust years ago. It's very old and historic in a lot of ways. But I would like to clean up the act at the entrance there, even as a desirable property to build a very, you know, 6.8 acres to build a nice house here, I would like to have a little better thing there.

Yeah, I didn't know like why that depressed curb was so long and if that was supposed to be for like a snow plow easement and stuff, and I didn't have a chance to...

It was for them to come in at an angle to go into the...

Okay, so it was purposely put that long, depressed curbs for access.

Yeah, it was because of farming equipment.

So Jill, a couple of things we talked about. You were talking about them showing that path Oh, yeah, so I circled that to go back to.

Yeah, I was going to do something. You were talking about B4, the last paragraph of B4. Yeah. It talks about extending the easement across Lot 2.

Yeah, because I did remember that when we skipped over that. But, yeah, so Valley View does have, and they actually constructed it, a pathway.

A dead end pathway.

Yeah, so the thought was at one point that Hanover Township and East Allen, because I just learned this too, were trying to get a pathway that extends under Airport Road, where the underpass is. So I think Hanover Township wanted this to be constructed so their people could get to the trail. And East Allen was interested in it so people could get to the other way, like the community park. So what we're looking at is if you're willing to, because really on this plan, you probably should be showing that easement. There's a waterline easement.

We could show the easement.

And then there's just that slight little piece that's really not usable for you to go into.

It's very usable for me. It's very usable. I own both lots.

Well, if you're willing to, and the township I think is going to be interested in now, UGI kind of put a damper on it, but it doesn't mean that in the future things could happen. So that little, I think it's what, probably 20 feet that connects through there to get to the UGI.

But my talk with UGI at length, And in commercial development, I know this isn't commercial, but I bought Buckeye pipelines. I've done UGI work, and I've dealt with them. They're up in Wilkes-Barre. There is absolutely no way that as long as that's an operating gas line that that will ever be allowed. That is a high transmission line in service all the time. Yeah, in the future maybe or whatever. And all I would say there is that I would give consideration. to granting an easement if and when a formal plan ever came out. Now, remember, and you all know this, you all have the ability to condemn.

Well, the township would prefer not to.

And I would prefer not to either.

This is the opportunity, since we're looking at this plan and we're going through all these things, if you were willing to show that easement, it would be a benefit to the township. Not that it would ever happen, but as you said, some point in the future, maybe. I don't think we can force you to, but it was just a talking point. Yeah.

Does agreement to do that have anything to do with the other one? Could there be a trade-off for that?

You're saying? Or I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know the drainage easement, like how, like, you know, if you guys are really insistent on this.

I don't know that. It's worth asking. Yeah, I don't think that doesn't feel right.

You're not touching it. Yeah, the township, as I said, it's just an opportunity while we're looking at this plan. If you're willing to, it just checks that box for the future, if ever.

Okay, and at this time, I'm not willing to at this time. Okay. And I would definitely give consideration to that as somebody who's lived around here my whole life. I'm buying this because I've known this property since the early 60s when I came. came here as a young guy. I don't have a reason not to do that or include that in my will. I'm not selling these properties. I'm developing for myself and a family caretaker. And if something happens to me, I don't have children. Okay. And it can easily be put into my will. But I don't want to have any gun to my head. Just like nobody up there. You all don't want to be told how to donate

No, we're just – it was a talking point, yeah, while we're looking at this plan.

Yeah, I, at this time, would like not that to be as a condition.

Suggestion, Victor, you talked to Gerald about that one, too.

What about it?

Just the extension this evening.

Yeah, I mean, honestly, right now it's not going anywhere.

I don't think the tension – The peripheral review discussion? Yeah. This one, it's not a request. It's just a talking point that Joe's been saying. There's no discussion need to have with Joe. He doesn't want to put it on right now.

So because as you say, you may be willing to because you've lived here to do that. Somebody else buys it. They may say no. So like if you were willing to do it at this point and you were willing to put it on the plan to kind of reserve that for the township, that would be nice. If you don't want to, you know, and as I said, the good possibility is never going anywhere with DJI.

And there are, you know, once you talk about walking paths and things like that, there are variables that would need to be discussed. So the idea of an easement sounds great. The granular details of it become the complications when you have the public on private lands.

Sure. Right. And that's fine. As I said, it was just something to consider that we could maybe take care of something.

If not, we totally understand. And the other thing you're saying, major danger. You don't know what's going to be walking down there. Frankly, there's bears now walking down there. But I don't think I'm going to be able to live in one house on eight and a half acres, and you don't know what's walking around there at night. I just got a call from the president of the HOA. I was out of town last week. And he goes, he emailed me. He didn't know he was out town. He goes, there's somebody walking around out here by the barn and all. And we don't know what he's doing or this or that.

All that just invites a lot of... Yeah, well, we're not asking to construct it at this point, so it would look the same as it does now, just on paper it would reserve the township to write. Yeah, but no, Gary's made it sound clear.

First right of refusal or something.

Yeah, that's fine.

I appreciate you considering it, though.

Okay, yeah, so I guess what's left are the two waivers, which are granted variances. We're going to waive them, obviously. And a new waiver deferral letter, right? Identify just those two items. Much shorter. And then we're going to have a discussion with Joe, and then we'll make a decision on that one as well. Yeah. And then that's pretty much it. Okay. And obviously there's quite a few details on the plan that are going to need to get updated, and hopefully that will be next time.

Confirm the easement so we all know going into it.

Okay. Okay. All right. All right. Great discussion. thanks for coming. Too many clients don't come with their attorneys and wonder why stuff doesn't get done.

When somebody says, well, when was the last time anything got done in 90 days?

You want to know something? A lot of it depends on how well the engineering teams do what they're told. Because everything they need to know is out there. They just have to do it.

It's a lot of interpretation.

Pick up the phone and ask. Right? But just doing what you think, submitting it, and hoping it's right, that doesn't work.

Working together works much better. After 50-some years, I can tell you it's a lot more complicated than it ever was. I can remember decades ago, 90 days was plenty of time.

It won't get any easier.

Take care of it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Have a great evening. Good night, Angela.

Good night.

Take care.

All right. Okay. So, oh, yeah, by the way, their thing expires by the end of the month, so they need to have a... Yeah, I asked Bill earlier that one, and also... We're getting there.

He's going to be setting that tomorrow.

You guys, I know because I just walked out, I mean, do you want to make the motion you usually do, knowing that it won't be... We should.

I don't think so, just because we didn't get it yet.

Recommend to reject the plan unless they provide a time extension by next Board of Supervisors meeting.

Motion to reject the plan, Saldo 2025-005, 6784, 6784? 6780. 6780, Jackville Road, minor subdivision, if we do not receive a Extension by September 30th. So moved. Motion. Second. Second. Motion by Bob. Second by Art. I'm Marty. I'm Marty. Yeah. Well, you didn't make the motion. Oh, I seconded it. Yeah.

Oh, you seconded it. Okay. Well, you made the motion. Yeah. I made the motion. You made the motion. You confused us. Yeah, I know. Okay. It's Bob and Art.

We're just confused. Yeah. You're right. Okay.

All right. All right. All right. Aye. Roll call, please.

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

Yes. It's a red reflection. Why don't you pass the vote to that?

And then we're going to have to do the same thing with Noel Wood.

We're getting there. All right. Business being carried. Saldo 2023-000. Noel Wood major subdivision plan expires September 30, 2026. Let's go back to normal. Okay. Who's going to make the motion?

Make a motion that we reject this plan unless we receive an extension. Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to reject the plan. Okay. Second. If we don't receive an extension.

Motion by Hart, second by Marty. Roll call, please. Yep.

Mr. Chamberlain?

Yes.

Mr. Hemming?

Sure.

Mr. Mills?

You betcha. Next item, salary. 2025-0060, salary, convenience store. Fueling station. Plan expires 10-31-2026. No action required by the Planning Commission. And finally, Salvo 2024, DiGiorgio IV, Sheila Gidd, Minor Subdivision. Plan expires December 31, 2026. No actions required by the Board of Planning Commission. Public comment. Let's reflect that we've been so boring that the entire public left. And there's nobody to comment.

All one of them.

Well, your husband even got bored, I guess, and he left too.

Yeah, he was hungry. He didn't eat dinner.

So, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. A motion by Howard. Second by Morty. All in favor say aye. Aye. Let the record reflect the motion passed. Three votes to none. We lost another one. Oh jeez. They're falling out of these chairs all over the place. Oh nice.