Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and justice for all. Roll call, please. Are we Mr. Daniel? Here, Mr. Chamberlain here. Mr. Longson, Mr. Heming here, Mr. Mills

here. First, I'd like to thank every everybody for coming. And uh next item on the agenda is public comment. Three limited three minutes per person on agenda items only. We have the public comment for the microphone. The microphone your name and address for the record.

My name is Bart Wagner, 6057 Snider's Church Road, Bath, Pennsylvania. And I'd like to comment on Item number C, which is the orchard expansion of the orchard home park. Um, I have a number of concerns about this. For one, you know, what they're trying to do is expand to 61 homes on 28 acres, which, you know, is currently twice as much as what is allowed under the ordinance that we're trying to change or add on to. And um we have concerns about our wells and septic, you know, and we have concerns about water runoff, concerns about um you know, impervious coverage flooding, you know, flooding of our yards. And so, you know, we uh would like to make the statement that we do not agree with it. We oppose it. You know, for concerns with not only, you know, my property, but all of my neighbors properties. We've had a number of properties in the area that have had issues with well drying drying up. And we also have a number of properties in the area that had to go to sand mounds when they sold the because the drain fields have gone bad. So, um you know, doubling the number of homes in that area does not make any sense. So, that's my comment about that. I'll let the next person comment. Anyone else like to comment on the agenda items? Please step to the podium. For the record,

Dale King, 6077 church road back. I also have questions along the same line as Spart does. Some of our wells went dry last summer. We had to water in. I didn't, but my next door neighbor did. And there's also a whole lot of sulfur in veins along the street. Some of these people can't get good water now. So my concern is the hydraology of the whole area. I think there ought to be a environmental impact study as to what's going to happen to the neighboring wells.

Very good. Thank you. Comments again for the record. Pardon? 888 church road living on that street for as long as I have on 30 years and seeing it me adding this many homes and the traffic is ridiculous. You have a 35 mph speed limit on our road which is as anybody here knows east township is just going to have a sun. It's 55 miles hour easily. Cars go by. You're adding. You want to add all this. Okay. Just say 36 homes. One car, let alone probably mostly two. 72 more cars going in and out of airport road out of Snider's Church Road. Anybody that lives in here knows that Snider's Church Road and Airport Road is a disaster waiting to happen. If there are not at least one or two accidents there every few months serious accidents for an entrance or exit onto airport road up from Snider Church Road I think we increased the accidents at least probably by another 10 to 15%. I mean the sight the line of sight the way people come flying down airport road the speeds are unreal. There is no traffic control on Snider's church and road. So I I really think that uh adding more homes that can enter and exit with more. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments to agenda item? Lisa Kim. I actually am a magic burrow person, but my daughter is just bought her house on Snider's Church Road and it's beautiful. 6097 Snider's Church Road and we were so excited for her and Brandon to be in this home. So beautiful area. It's quiet except for the woodpecker, you know, that's really loud. It's quiet. It's and to to find out that there's going to be something behind their house. Um it's awfully, you know, sad. And unfortunately, she could they're out of town. I'm sorry. That's why I'm here on their behalf. Um but I just wanted to say that, you know, my daughter and Brandon, they both oppose this as well.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right. reflect. There are no additional comments. We will be moving on with the agenda items. First item on the agenda is the review of use application 2600145 road.

Thank you. microphone.

I don't think Is it on? I don't think it is. Pull it closer. Yeah, it's on. It's on. All right. So, my name is uh attorney Roco Belrami. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for this conditional use, which is Dutch Holding Company. the record owner of property located at 6945 Weaversville Road.

The applicant submitted a zoning permit to replace an existing mobile home located in the rear of the property. That permit was denied based on the fact that the mobile home sought to be replaced or the replacement mobile home is slightly larger about u 1.3 feet wider and two feet longer than the existing mobile home which technically constitutes an enlargement of a non-conforming use requiring conditional use approval from your supervisors. Yes. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions. As you know, this is an advisory review for the purpose of rendering a recommendation for the supervisors.

That is correct. So, I drove out to the property today and I could not find the mobile home that was there. Is it there? I'm not certain of that, but I believe it should be. Um, it was deteriorating. I know the condition of it was deteriorating. That's the purpose for replacing it. I'm not certain if it has been removed yet or not.

Okay. Um I drove into three different lanes there. I tried to get out and look at the various properties so I could be on the ground kind of look at what's going on and I did not see it there. I'm just curious if it's something that's been gone for a while or not. Um, it looked to me when I looked at the line that maybe I mistook it, but it looked like the property line in East and Allen Township actually ran through that mobile home. I believe it's an error with the county GIS. I think there's a small section that may go through, but if you look at the county tax parcel. I think it's incorrect. They do have a survey that was prepared by Le Engineering for the plan and that was included in it shows I think the proposed location or the existing it shows both. It just wouldn't make sense to me if you were going to it's not there or even if it is there and it's being removed in that you would not want to have across both municipalities I would think for Were you looking at this line?

Yeah, the trailer's back here. Uh, when I looked at the GIS, the tax parcel map viewer on the county website, it appeared that it ran through the trailer. I I believe it is a totally incorrect depiction of the boundary and there's actually two different lines on the GIS but it doesn't show up properly. Right.

So that property and the adjacent property to the north are in East Allen Township. The next property from the this where the site is is actually an Allen Township home. But the home across the street on the corner there's an old stone home at Walnut. that house is all in East Allen and then it's kind of angled and joggled, but the county maps are not accurate for municipal boundaries. So, do not rely on that as a right ultimate line. Now, is this is this trailer going to be as a residence or is it going to be used as a rental as well as the apartments on the front of the property?

I believe it would be a rental residence. So, rented the same as the apartments in the front of the property. Okay. Again, when I drove by, I saw a sign for rent on the front of the large building in the front. Another rental all the rentals rented. You have any questions or comments for the applicant? I need so I think we need some clarification. Is the building there or is it there? And what are the actual property lines? It's a little vague what we've got here. Well, they're only here for conditional use recommendation.

And so they're obligation is to satisfy or at least demonstrate uh compliance with section D of the conditional use application process. Those are the general criteria that essentially the law states that the applicant essentially meets those criteria unless there's specific criteria for them to meet also. So unless it's injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare, um you know, this is we're not here on a land development plan. We're not here to determine where the property line is. We're here to determine whether or not they satisfy the requirements of the conditional use section of the ordinance. Personally, I don't I don't see a need to deny this conditional to deny the use application for the size of the trailer and and I actually did spend some time looking at trailer manufactur manufacturers sizes of what they're producing and seem consistent with what was provided to us as far as information. So going back and having one custom built for this dimension I I don't know if they can based on what the guidelines are now for construction purposes even if they could or wanted to but doesn't seem to make sense to try to have make a custom buildation. The only other comment I would make about this is if it's too close to the property line it needs to be moved away set back from the property line the appropriate amount of business. That would be the only other thing about this that needs to be taken care of. But as far as I'm concerned I would recommendation motion that we approve or make a recommendation board for

septic. Oh, do we? The only question we have is as far as assuring that there's adequate capacity in the existing septic or whatever they're using for sewage. And I believe that would be during the building permit stage if not or the z review that but it's something that needs to be to be done. Yeah, I think because it the main principal building is an apartment complex and you have a trailer in the back. So I think that was just a concern that there's adequate area that we're not interfering in any way

with the disposal and putting ourselves in a situation where they have a holding tank or no ability to have a lot system. Make a motion. I'll make a motion that uh we recommend approval of the conditional use. Um the notes that uh placement of the replacement trailer needs to be within the property boundaries. Um setbacks uh and that part of the building permit process that sewage issues get looked at.

Jill, all those items are part of your letter. I don't know. All right, we have a motion on the floor. Second and a second by roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, yes. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Mr. Mr. Heming, yes. Mr. Mills, yes. Let the record pass. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time this evening. You're welcome.

All right, moving on to item B269 airport lands July 1st 2026. Good evening. Kevin Fencemocker, 17 country road. My name's Roderick Trumbolo. I'm the engineer for the project. I work with RMC Civil Engineering. All right. So, we have a project at 1699 Airport Road. Uh it's a 5.57 acre track of land on the western side of Airport Road. Um over a little little over a mile northeast of the airport. 5.19 acre tract uh I'm sorry 5.19 acres of the parcel is in East Allen Township and there's 38 acres in Hanover Township which is adjacent to airport road. It's a flag uh flag lot essentially. Um the existing site has a 5,000 foot storage building with a gravel driveway and gravel area surrounding the building. Uh the gravel driveway is also used by two residential lots adjacent to the property. The existing impervious cover is about 28,000 29,000 square feet. Uh the applicant proposes to add two 6,000 square foot storage buildings um one-story storage buildings uh for the purpose of storing construction equipment for their uh companies. They're proposing to widen the driveway

and add parking areas in front of the buildings even though there will be little or no vehicles parked there regularly. Uh there's two uh proposed septic fields, a primary and a secondary uh that were tested and passed uh posly uh for the two new buildings and the existing building. And there's two proposed storm water underground storm water infiltration beds um that were tested and passed for infiltration. The applicants also submitted uh applications to Lehigh Valley Planning Commission and Northampton County Conservation District for an NPDS permit and to Pendot for a highway occupancy permit for driveway on Airport Road. While those applications are pending, um there's a 100 foot wide ppl ement traversing a lot. Um I've been in in contact with PPL and uh there we comply with their checklist at this point. We're not building any we're not putting any structures in their easement. We're just putting driveway and I think one of our infiltration beds is partially in that. Um and we'll coordinate with PPL to get their approval prior final approval here. That's about it. I think since our meeting in April here, we I discovered that there's no easements for the shared driveway. So, we'll have to create that under this application. It's not currently shown on the plans right now. And then we discussed whether the driveways we were proposing for them to be gravel but according to the zoning ordinance they need to be needs to be paid. So change that in the plan as well. And that drive is going back to the res

all of them. All

All of the driveways are going to be Yes. Okay. I was talking about the sharing part going back ement I wanted to make sure I fully understood okay there's a property there's a property to the south residential property to the south that also is a shared driveway

my my understanding then is you're going to be paving all of this you have on the plan your proposed gravel driveway that's going to change as What are you going to do with the um existing gravel driveway that is currently serving the building and then the storage gravel storage area behind it for parking? That's proposed to remain. Okay. And then are you paving that also? Yes, if you have to. Yes.

Right now the subbase is just like a highway. You know, you have your number fours concrete and then you have your milling on top. So right now driving on it. It's it's packing down like Millings is asphalt just ground up. So, you know, right now it's like turning into an asphalt driveway itself, but that's the intention. That would be a good solid drive for sure. Okay. Um

we received the letter from Engineering on May 5th. um 12 page review letter. Uh I went through the letter. Uh I don't have any problem with really anything in the letter. It's all pretty much well complied. Okay. Um so I was looking at you want to discuss the waver. The first one is to uh submitted as a preliminary final plan. Obviously, the letter that engineering submitted to you guys was not based on it being a final preliminary plan. So, that will have to be

Oh, sorry. I did. Oh, you did? Yes.

Yeah. So when they did, we discussed it at the last planning commission with the completeness letter and I think generally you were okay with primary final but they were supposed to um submit the waiver request and then we did get it Friday. So I did change my letter but in the top in the I see that I just put plumary plan. Um but I did say later on in that it is part uh it has been reviewed plumary final and the only difference is agreements and the cost estimate requirement developers improvement agreement. So those are really the things that changed. So that was yeah so I didn't change it in regarding but I did change like my comment number one indicates that it was submitted and that we did review it as a primary final

so we're going to tackle each one of these requests individually right? Yeah. Okay. So uh I'll make a motion that we We recommend approval of the waiver requested for salvo section 212-24.8.1 for filing as preliminary final development second. I'll second call please. Mr. Daniels, yes. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Mr. Heming, yes.

Mr. Yes. Motion pass. Next item is waver section 2123 scale. typically approve. Are there any technical issues with that schedule? Uh, no. It's actually better than what's in our ordinance.

I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of the waiver for Salo section 212-25. B3 and 212-29. B3. Uh, drawing scale motion by Marty. Second second second by art call please. Mr. Daniel yes Mr. Chamberlain yes Mr. Heming yes

Mr. Yes. 2123 landscaping for land development project related to that. Um, so it looks like on the south, east, and the north sides of the lot, you've got residential properties, residential properties. Um, you're tripling the amount of storage space. There's going to be some increase in traffic and some increase in noise. I presume you can't triple your capacity without some of that. Um is the buffering going to be they're part particularly entrance of the driveway to the north of the entrance at airport road. Just looking at aerial photos it didn't look like there's a whole lot of buffering between that and that drive. Um the the north side didn't look like there was a whole lot of overs on the north side's going to be for that property. I mean it's it's subjective, right? So just looking at it um I think we want to look at whatever proposed buffering and setback you have plan and I don't know if I'm okay with just a waiver of that. without

I'd have to agree that residential locations uh for the house that I I don't know that we should wave landscaping requirements again without seeing some type of final plan um as it pertains to the residential locations that found boundaries of property.

Personally, I think Mike and I agree that that multiple properties that we want to shield from what we're doing here because we're having some sort of an issue there with uh you know dogs coming onto our property acting like their backyards our backyard. So we would totally be in agreeance with that. I think part of whatever plan you're going to do I think consider that and at this point I wouldn't make a recommendation.

I'm going to also add that this requirement is in zoning same. So whatever waiver you may or may not be granting, they're going to have to get a variance for zoning for the same. And Joe, since this is on the way, do we need to make a recommendation to deny this waiver? No, I I think I mean my my understanding is they'll come back with a plan for you to consider at that time. So I think we're just going to continue the the consideration of that waiver until they submit something that's acceptable for your review and then you can either grant or deny at that time. Or if you guys want to make I think they're okay with withdrawing it at this point at that point.

Okay. So you're going you're going to withdraw the waiver request. All right. So we'll make note of that on the record that you've done that. Thank you. All right. One more item I'd like to discuss while we're talking about waivers. Um and I'm not sure if we need to request one or not. Um, in Jill's letter on page five at the top, number 25 talks about proposed sidewalks or pedestrian paths shall be provided on the plan.

I just threw that in. I know not knowing and I still am not 100% clear on what the use is going to be because I'm hearing storage, but I also saw somewhere that it referred to office space. So from a parking standpoint, from a from a sewage facility standpoint, it's going to be important to actually confirm what the buildings are going to be used for. So if there's going to be office space, you know, inside these, that has to be noted and designated on the plan. And if there's going to be outside storage, you know, you're going to have to kind of show, you know, the extent of outside storage and what type and making sure it's in the or I that you know you are based on outdoor storage meeting the requirements of salad though for that um plus that you're not you know proving that you're not going to be creating any nuisances noise you know light vibration whatever so we're definitely going to need additional information you know regarding exactly what's going to happen on the site

okay including the existing building I mean I don't I'm not sure what's happening in the existing building I Okay. What's that? I occupy that building and then what is there an office space in there and is there bathrooms or it's just basically but you're Yeah, because there is a water line that has been I constructed according to your plan to the existing building but there's no septic system there. Not yet. Okay. So now I the plan shows two proposed septic systems for the new buildings and it doesn't show any type of septic system for the existing building but there's water going to it.

Well there's proposed water line there's there's curve stop on airport road but no water line oh so you didn't construct it yet because your plan showed prop yeah and the legend and that the legend showed existing water line and proposed and there was lines that were And I think the line to the existing building was shown as an existing 2 in line and then the proposed were coming off that line to the proposed building. That's the plan. Yeah. Okay. But the plan says that that that line was existing. Yes. Okay. Okay. So if you didn't put the and it showed the water line that was supposed shown as existing from airport road on somebody else's property that's shown in the wrong spot.

Okay. It is on our property. So where the city tapped into it and there's a curb so you're just and is that in line with your driveway? Okay, so that answers that question. Okay, so clear I think we should clear up but I guess it goes back to the question if you're proposing water to the existing building. You have not done testing for an on lot septic system at the existing building. Are your septics fields for all three buildings? Yes. So there's all So there's one the one at each building. So for the existing building is going to be connected to the septic system at one of the proposed buildings.

Yeah. So two of them are going to be together, one going to be separate to my knowledge. Okay. And those are the septics on the north side. Correct.

So as for the use, you want to explain are there going to be office space? Is it going to be storage? go through that one more time. So basically the train of thought for putting bathrooms is there's so many times that you know leaving the house morning coffee I have to eliminate by the time I get to the building. So you know rather than going outside that's the reason you know it happens more so than you know what you think. So I I know we tossed it around in the beginning but you know we came to a conclusion that's necessary. But as far as office space and like my office is at home, I'm basically utilizing the building for my storage for all my equipment, material.

Okay. And then any of these existing building or the proposed building, is there anybody else coming to that site besides the owner? Do you have employees that are coming and parking there and taking company vehicles? And do you have company vehicles? Because that's what we're going to need to know also for parking. And if you have employees, you're still going to need to provide that information to the township SEO because that's how we're determining, you know, your capacity because you have a bathroom. So, I'm sure same thing's going to happen. Employees are going to come get their car, decide before they go out they're going to use the facilities. So, additional information I think we uh addressed that on one of the papers that we you know four or five trucks,

you know, parking. Yeah, I didn't see that information and it definitely wasn't under on the plan where it said parking requirements. It just said I can add that I can add that information to the plan for sure. And then there is one more. I'm not sure if we need to add a waiver. So going back to the along the street is usually where you'll have sidewalk. Um yeah. And I don't know. We have the flag log situation where

Yeah. And that Okay. So I'm trying to just make sure. So this project that's in Hover Township. So, it's not a East Allen issue. It's a handover township issue. So, they're going to have to address. I just threw that in there in case like you have the buildings if you were thinking about putting some pathways or anything connecting the buildings. But if you aren't, then that just answers that. But the issue about sidewalk would be a handover issue. typically deferred the rest of the connections get in this particular case is actually right that is in township.

So I kind of I in my review I kind of forgot the fact that that some of it was in handover. So the ultimate rightaway I added handover township and where the engineers for handover township. So I kind of did most of their review for them in the ultimate right away and the setbacks and that but that will have to plans have to be submitted to handover. It will have to be you know going in front of them planning commission and they'll have to make those type of decisions but I think pretty much all the comments regarding right away and area and stuff are going to be similar to what I have in the letter.

One thing I noted on the plan for the existing res has septic lid identified location, but then underneath it, it says drain field unknown. Um, if we're doing this work here, would it be something that we would want to have them identify in the plan or not?

That's one of the comments is they are required to show um all man-made facility um all man-made um items and then on the lot and within 100 ft. So that would be septic system. And is this is that lot connected to public water that's going? Yes. Okay. The one that we own.

Yeah. So show that lateral and show it. It is because the location of your on lot septic and any wells in the area definitely have to be shown in order to make sure that we have the proper setbacks for your on lot septics and for your storm water facilities infiltration. So it is important to try to identify those even on adjacent properties that includes your the lot that's shown um you know on and it says existing lot too and but the other so I think that yeah so that's just that's another lot that's not part of the

subdivision. So you would do that but that would include anything to the north. Now if you say you've identified and there's nothing else to north or any of them just say like you know there's no other features um you know that are shown or no other wells if you can certify that there no other wells or septic areas on adjacent um within 100 ft. You can do it by note. Gentlemen, any other questions or comments for the applicant?

I have one more item I'd like to talk about for waivers possibly is number 53 on page seven of Jill's letter. Um, storm water control basin shall be lined with an impervious liner. The proposed two subsurface infiltration beds. The applicant shall formally request a wire since they're infiltration. We can't have perable line or something. That's a standard one. So, we updated our storm water management, but when they codified it, they didn't repeal that section that's in conflict. So, that one that we typically grant anything for liners with impervious. So, just include it with your next wa request.

And you know what the reason why that showed up is that's under our carbon geology section. Yeah. And The storm water ordinance did not appeal that our geologist we have the clause in there to repeal everything. It's inconsistent. When they codified it, that's true. They didn't find that that was inconsistent. So the next round that we go through, we have to pull that. It's just a note that we have.

Any other questions? That's all we have. Very well. Thank you very much for your time.

To the next item on the agenda. Item CO26 Expansive orchard mobile home orchard mobile home park sketch. This is

Good evening. Uh my name is Ryan Durkin. I am council for Miller's manufactured home community and I'm here with Paul Susk from Benchmark Engineering who's the engineer who will speak to uh questions regarding certain specifics of the property. Uh before I start there were some comments at the outset. I'd like to address those in conjunction with my colleagues here. Uh the first is this is not a 61 home development. There are already a number of homes there. We've already got approval for 14. This is going to involve putting in 24 homes. Uh the homes, the exit is going to be onto Airport Road. So the Snersville Road concern respectfully we do not believe is going to be relevant. Uh as far as whether uh you're going to be able to see the homes if you have an adjacent property, uh there is a significant buffer. I believe it's in excess of 100 ft. and we're going to be preserving uh the um the uh the trees in the area. Um uh which is referenced also in the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission's letter supporting this. Uh their comments uh speak for themselves, so I'm not going to verbalize them again here. uh as to the uh the water concerns and the traffic concerns, we're prepared to submit a traffic study to allay any concerns about that. And as far as the uh the water that's going to be handled in the land development process, so we're going to have to have something that addresses any of the concerns regarding the possibility of people going dry as a result of our development. regarding the condition of the uh of the current water systems. I'll uh I'll leave uh Eric Miller to speak to that because he can explain uh how this is

actually going to improve his ability to upgrade the water system. Eric, you want to take the wheel there? Um, as far as one of the upgrades we're going to be doing is, you know, we have to get everything above ground and we're going to have the storage, um, you know, retention and everything else that's required by DP. Um, and, you know, like, you know, the concerns, you know, we a lot of people have been dewatered and, you know, it's a concern that we have and this will alleviate, you know, a lot of the residents in our area that we service that, you know, we'll make sure because we're going to have the above ground retention tanks and everything else. Um, and that way if it ever does happen, we can get the bottle of water pump right easily and everything. So, with that preface, we'll get into the main uh the main presentation, which is we're here today because the board of supervisors saw us on an application to amend the zoning ordinance, and uh it was to include uh three uh three changes to allow the development to be uh placed in an SR district. and um the uh an additional request to create an overlay district. And in concert, these will create a development of what are high-end manufactured homes. These are all one-story homes. You won't see them above tree lines. And they are uh they're going to be not cheap. They're going to have uh twocar parking capacity. That's a requirement. They're going to have double wide lots. They're going to be double width homes. They're going to approximate what uh

some folks call a Florida uh manufactured home community, which is a really nice like retirement community that people move into. Um and They're going to also have common facilities which are, you know, pickle ball courts. They put basketball courts in. That's going to be, you know, part of the final plan which I'll let Mr. Susach speak to. Um, and all of this is captured right now. I shared this uh and unfortunately I was unable to share with your solicitor until very late in the day because it got stuck in my spam folder. Yeah, I mean I tried to read it on my phone about a half hour ago, but

I apologize. He Paul sent it to me earlier and it wound up in the spam folder, but I'll I'll give you the copies like we'll share somehow. Go ahead. It's important for the plan members to have That's fine.

So, what you have there is a proposed ordinance. This is not a final by any means. This is just something for consideration and it speaks to the limitations of what's being done here effectively uh with the development of the overlay in concert with these amendments. You're not going to you're not going to face anybody else doing what Mr. Miller is doing in the SR district. The board of supervisors had raised some concerns about the ability of others to to mimic this or to you know blight the area with you know uh I think what they used was the term mobile home communities. Um this prevents that to a significant extent because the conditions are very ownorous and uh the overlay district is tailored to uh to address Mr. Mr. Miller's specific development very tightly and um as you can see in it, it speaks to the length, the height, the setbacks, the acreage, which is significant here. This has got to in order to have a mobile home community, you're going to be required to have in excess of 25 acres. Mr. Miller happens to just own a very large piece of property which makes this work. But unless you have a significant piece of property, you can't do what he does and preserve the character of the community and frankly put in nice homes like he is intending to. And uh so what we're effectively doing here is giving and again this is this is a proposed amendment and proposed overlay district.

Uh this can be added to additional conditions can be put on this uh by the board supervisors but Mr. Miller is coming today effectively allowing himself to be put in handcuffs is how he does this development. And um I think the conditions you know largely speak for themselves. We've done this in a manner that uh before the board of supervisors where they raise concerns about preservation of forests or I'm sorry the trees and you know traffic avoidance and things like that. We've tried to touch every single one of these. And it's going to go through a land development process. And in that process, it's either going to be doable or it's not going to be doable. It's going to have to meet with DP's requirements. It's going to have to meet with, you know, the requirements of, you know, the the zoning. So, I don't think you're going to see anyone propose a use for this property, which by the way is contiguous to a number of other mobile homes that have been there for a long time. We're not changing anything. This isn't going to be a mobile home community that sits in the immediate vicinity. When I say immediate, like next door to you, uh it it's going to be its own thing in the midst of other manufactured homes. I could walk through each one of the conditions if you'd like. I don't know if you'd just like to read them, but uh it's going to have uh shared facilities under administration of a single development community. It's going to be an owner uh an owner only location. There's not going to be renters in this.

What? There's not going to be renters in this. This is going to be owner occupied. They're going to sell the properties to the individual owners of the homes. That's how they currently are. You don't own this. You don't charge rent. You don't charge anything with these. I own the land. They own their own homes. Yeah. That's an owner. That's an owner occupied. So, you have two different kinds of typically how typically, but that's generally practice. Well, some parks will allow you to have they'll allow people to lease the homes.

Yeah. So, and under act 261, we're going to write it up so that you can't lease the homes. Uh, in so it's going to follow 261 um and all the covenants. Uh, the maximum total density is going to be 2.5 dwelling units per total acre. Um, the uh it'll only be um uh the new homes will be uh double width. Um, but the manufactured home community would only be allowed to hold single width manufactured homes already located in the MC MHC overlay district because it includes the homes that are already there, some of which are single width. uh and they can be replaced with single width manufactured homes because you know as a pre-existing use that would be a normal thing and uh the newly constructed ones will have to be replaced with similar ones which are double width and large lot um one story height maximum building coverage 3% maximum impous coverage 8% 30 foot separation of dwellings at a minimum set back of 30 ft from all public street rightways and 30 feet from exterior property lines of the development. Common use buildings with a setback of 5t from the cartway of all private streets. Minimum total track size of 25 acres and parking at a ratio of two driveway spaces per dwelling unit and four parking spaces for each common use building. The amendments are tailored to, you know, address something like this. And they are, you

know, section 2518 be modified to state that a mobile home park uh can be a use as of right on parcel in excess of 25 acres, including attached garages utilizing on onlot sewage disposal systems compliant with township and state regulations. And then we would uh replace the definition of mobile home park with a mobile home park is a parcel of land under single ownership which has been planned and approved for the placement of two or more mobile homes for non-transient use per HUD code uh standards and add an additional clause which states that uh mobile home parks with preliminary plans deemed complete prior to any zoning change including adoption of the river central multi-municipal plan shall remain permitted uses in the ordinance. Without repeating myself too many times here, we think it it ties them up pretty tightly and creates what we hope is a community that would actually be a benefit to the area, which is currently just land. Um, as to the specifics of the plan, uh, I will let Mr. Susach speak to that.

Before we So, prior to you going through this. Um, you mentioned some roughly some provisions you'd think of that would alleviate some of the concerns that were brought up. This document is I think it's fair to say pretty light in discussing any of those over assuming this would go forward. Where do those concerns above ground septic storage what would be the vehicleuring those provisions whatever they end up

they would have to be inserted again this is a draft they would have to be inserted I'm just pointing out something missing which is oh yeah sort of important in your land I'm sorry it's in your land development so basically entire use can be zoning has to go through the land development land development of course addresses all of those concerns it necessarily will address all of those concerns. I just have a question that was was handed out by you or No, that was handed to the board of supervisors previously.

That's what was submitted I believe with a sketch plan. No, this isn't even the sketch plan because it does differ drastically from the sketch plan. They were both submitted with the sketch plan though. Okay. Yeah, it wasn't pulled from the original from the supervisor. The submission that we had had both the colored coded map as well as the site plan that Yeah, this is a lot larger expansion. It just appears to have a lot more mobile homes than what the full size plan shows. Yeah, they definitely don't match.

Excu Excuse me. Um, well, the uh one of the ones we're looking at is a proposed full buildout plan, which is last updated, 5423. I think that's the one that depicts the 23 units on it. The confusion is that the colored plan depicts more than the 23 units, like 28 to 30. So, I guess we're simply asking which one would apply based on the revisions that you're proposing to the ordinance. Do you know which plan would be in compliance with what you're suggesting? The black and white is more closely aligned with with some of the units on being on the inside of the of the network road network as well. Okay. Just so that the board members understand that.

Basically, what happens is when you do that, we can pull further away from the existing houses. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, because this has the house is very very eliminating. Yeah, that you could just throw that out. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we're all looking at the same. That's the one. Yeah, you could trash the trash that way. We'll go to black. Well, a little bit of concern when you were stated here. Was it more closely resembles what the plan is? Um, is is this the plan or is it not? Yes, that one.

When I say closely resembles, it's not an engineer document. So, when you get in there and do the surveys, do all the grading and all that, does it are you going to be able to lay that drawing on top of this one? Probably not. But the black and white version will closely align with black. So, so, so to give the planning commission some level of comfort when you uh when you apply your proposed 2.5 maximum 2.5 units, dwelling units per acre, um can you inform the board members as to what you know what that number could be so that they can understand when evaluating it may not be this plan. It could be either more or less than those units. No, I don't think we've ever I think we're stating it's 20 it's 24

I'll call it double Y for you know understood on that loop okay on the loop the previous a previous zoning amendment gave them 14 understood okay and then obviously whatever is existing existing thank you when I talk about configuration here and on the 24.

All right. Can I just ask the question? I'll just put it out there. So plan was submitted for 14 and maybe 13 with one being re relocated as a conditional use because it had to go through conditional use for expansion and you were allowed 50% expansion of this lot which we're saying is the western lot. So the township So you're able to do that, but it was granted with the condition that there shall be no further expansion of the mobile home park on this lot. And then it was um and then second was approval was limited to the 13 new units with the one relocated unit to be placed that was I think close to airport road to be in the new section. And then it was also to preserve the woodlands. And we sat there and drew the woodlands that should have been preserved per your conditional use. And it seems like this plan is basically not in compliance with any of the conditions for the expansion. And then a variance was submitted to enable instead of expanding on the eastern portion, you wanted to do whatever the required expan allowed expansion. 50% on the eastern portion which I think if I remember correctly was 18 units to rather than expand it on the eastern section to put it on the western section similar to what you're shown here and that was denied by the zoning hearing board. So, I guess my question is is now this is like the third time we're looking at a proposal to do exactly the same thing that the township basically through the conditional use says you can't do and the zoning hearing board denied you.

I would say that that's not well that it's a correct presentation of the history. What we're doing today has an overlay district built onto it.

Again, to come back to the analogy I used, this is handcuffs. what was proposed earlier did not have the restrictions that are now being laid upon Mr. Miller. So, you know, this is this is a different animal. The when we went in front of the board of supervisors, they had a concern about replication of this project elsewhere. And you know, we we respectfully believe that we have something that this is just a unique plot, right? So, um you can't really do this elsewhere. But if your if your real concern is that you know you you want to avoid that and you also want to make sure that it keeps the character of the area and these are expensive houses. Let's put all these conditions on it that we previously hadn't put on it and let's do it by an amendment to the zoning code that allows this to happen with the overlay district so that we don't you know so that we're not in violation of uh of the provision of the of the prior conditions. Um it's legal the we're doing it. It's also it's navigating appropriately the procedural necessities. It's the only way we can do it at this juncture. Um and you know whatever was submitted before didn't include the the strictctures that are in this overlay district. So you know we're coming you know hands out saying the restrictions that you want to put on us. We're giving you everything we think we need. Uh the chairman made a good point which is I'm sorry. Yes. made a good point which was why don't you put the uh why don't you address these other issues that may be of concern and we're we're happy to do that as well. This is a vehicle to do that when you have an overlay.

I simply ask where would those positions end up where would those provisions end up I think you're mischaracterizing the question a little bit. I think I'm giving you a little bit more. Well, so let me let me let me just go back to the procedural aspect of it. So we know why we're here tonight. Okay, that's that's my job is to always go back to why we're here, right?

So the the applicant absolutely availed themselves of various opportunities that are provided in the ordinances prior to tonight. One was obviously the expansion of a non-conforming use which required conditional use approval. The board uh you know ultimately at some point did uh grant that and there were restrictions in that conditional use approval. applicant then had the legal right to pursue the avenue for a variance through the zoning hearing board. That's another legal avenue by which a land owner can take advantage of and they and they did that. Now the applicant is before you on a landowner request for a reasonzoning which is permissible. It's it's provided for in the for you to do. Now my opinion has been that if the board of supervisors ultimately determines that that this is somewhere where they want to go with this ordinance. I believe at the same time simultaneously they would have to mend their conditional use approval because their conditional use approval did say that there would be no further development of the property. I think you can accomplish that through this methodology of coming for a a text amendment to the zoning ordinance and proposing an overlay. But the board of supervisors will know that and I'll give them the same advice at that time. So right now you have no there is no guidance in the municipality's planning code for a municipality to determine whether or not they want to accept a landowner's proposal for a zoning ordinance amendment. So they have to come before you for a recommendation to the board of supervisors. board of supervisors has to determine whether or not they ultimately want to hold a public meeting so that all the people in the audience can come before them to provide them with feedback. Now, as you know, our board has that two-step process. One is, do we even want to consider having a hearing? And then if they do consider having a hearing, then you have a public hearing where everybody gets to participate and provide that information. So, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I understand that there were conditions imposed during the

conditional use process and the board will consider that I think if it ever gets to that level, but they have the right to be here tonight to say, "Hey, look, would you consider this ordinance?" Right. Well, I'll make a couple comments if you don't mind.

I know you keep talking about this being tight fit for this particular scenario situation. To me, that's a red flag. I'm sorry, but red flag and that red flag is spot zone. You start doing this kind of thing and then you have a whole slew of people coming in and want to spot zone different areas their property and treat them fairly etc. So that's a concern of mine right now based on your testimony whatever you want to call it about this thing being so tightly fit for this particular situation application. The other thing that I I must say I have a concern with and that is I'm the signed document that you signed that said we will not destroy this forest. We will leave this forest intact. I mean I look at this plan here and I see where you've got this 100 foot wide buffer here that you show to keep distance. It's going to be and it says that be left alone undisturbed and yet we have that already you know so you bring into question some things by doing what you've done here about what you're doing. So, I don't know. I am concerned about spot for sure.

Well, if I may, it's this isn't I I don't think that this is spot zoning. I think this is designed to simply address the concerns that the board supervisors have regarding having people just put willy-nilly through. But we have to worry about spot zoning. The planning commission has to worry about spot zoning. It's not spot zoning. Where can we apply it throughout the township. If we can't apply it anywhere else within township, it's spot zoning. You no more comments. I'm done.

You have any questions? Bill, any additional questions or comments? No, I think Joe addressed the concerns that the board had in kind of recommending they have a sketch plan here. They're seeking your comments. Um there's there's nothing that I have to add additionally to this. This is a voluntary process for a landowner amendment. You can either like the merits of it, you can not like the merits of it, you can say we want to tweak it and go through what we do in sometimes other cases where we spend a couple times going through it with the developer. The The choice is really up to you guys as an advisory board to advise the board of supervisors on a recommendation um beyond just the sketch plan that's here today as a concept but also as a zoning amendment to the overall land use of the township

and we would be amendable to that process. I mean that's this is designed if you concern regardless of what we decide or what what decision we make recommendation we make you you're going to go to the board of supervisors anyway we would rather go through the advisory process however I mean right but I mean if we recommend yeah whatever your recommendation is whether it's a thumbs up or thumbs down being an advisory board they certainly have the right that if you decide that you don't like the the application then they still have the right to go to the board of supervisors make their case, right? I mean,

the the municipalities planning code and just so that the audience understands that whatever action that the planning commission takes tonight, even if it's what they call a negative recommendation, we're just an advisory board here. We make that advice, you know, we make that recommendation to the board of supervisors and then the board ultimately makes the determination as to whether or not it would move forward or not. Just so and you're welcome to come to those meetings as well. So I guess for the sake of simplifying this for everybody, is there any comments on the sketch plan that we have before we get into what your recommendation ultimately will be for any zoning amendment at this time? Because I think we're kind of going back and forth between them to keep it cleaner for

the people in public and the applicant themselves. questions. Considering that this is a sketch plan, um you know, we're going to have to consider if it goes forward, turning radius and fire access and all of that as well being the fact that these are going to be double wise. These are going to be big homes. Um so we have to worry about uh fire. There's not going to be any fire hydrants here. If I recall correctly, it's all going to have to be all private. If I remember correctly, this is one of the central.

So any water requirements here going to have to be on site whether it's for fire

and and access uh access to water for these number of homes is going to be an issue. I mean, I live right up the street. I have a well, so I would be very concerned about um the amount of water that would be used in a in an area such as this question. All right. I would make a recommendation to deny the applicant make a recommendation to deny the request that would be my motion somebody

there's motion on the floor. So, we have to wait for a second. See whether or not there's a second to it. Second. Have a second. Motion was made by Bob, seconded by Mr. Daniel. Yes. Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time. Any details? Next item. UGI agenda 2026. So if if there's anybody here for the bill or you don't mind. Yeah. Please please take

over. Thanks for being here. It's never over. I fully expect them to go to the board of supervisors. Oh, I I assume they will, but board has your recommendation. So, you've done your job. There's nothing changed. I mean, and spot zoning. I mean, I can't Welcome.

So, my name is uh Mark Plesznney. I'm with NECH Engineering. I'm here on behalf of UGI to discuss the next round of the UGI bath regulation station subdivision. Welcome back. Thanks. Um looking at uh some any feedback that you guys that you all may have on the engineer comments dated to May 1st and the WA request that we put out. Do you want to go over the waivers for them?

You have those in front of you that you can explain them. They can give you at least a thumbs up or down. If they want to vote, they can vote. So that way it helps you plan. letter's not in the packet. No, it's on Yeah, it's on. So, everything is in diligent. The only thing here is the right.

Yeah, that would be a great start. You want to just go item by item and see your waiver either approve talk about or decide. All right, sounds good. Um, go ahead. Okay. Uh, waiver assado section 212- 33A3 drawing scale. Again, I think uh we have a waiver is requested to allow a scale of 1 in equals 20 20 ft and a drawing scale 1 in equals 80 ft due to the size of the parcel that's being subdivided. Yeah, the parent track is quite large. Parent track is quite large and this is 23 by 180 foot section and a a long skinny three-foot section.

Do you do you have a problem with that dimension? Uh no. Okay. We want to go individually or Yeah, go individually. I think you can move right through it. All right. We make a motion to accept salo section 212 33 drawing scale. So moved. I mean I second motion by Bob second by give me a minute roll call Mr. Daniel yes yes Mr. Heming yes Mr. Yes.

All right. Thanks. Um waver for S section 21233E1 ultimate rightaway. Um this is a section that requires the legal and ultimate rightaway lines with bearings and distances. Um the legal and ultimate rightaway is shown along the frontage of the UGI property. Uh partial waiver is being requested for not providing ultimate rightaway along lot 2 which is the large tract along Locust Road and Beth Beth Bath Pike. Uh it's known that the rightway along this section varies widely. um determining legal and ultimate right away would require extensive field survey and research. So

So it was kind of unclear to me where what you were actually asking for the waiver for for lot 2. Was it along Locust Road and 512? And I think you just clarified that for me, but the justification seemed to me that it was for the 512 portion of it. Yeah, I think it's just um both sections along that large lot two track.

Yes, I'm not sure how complicated it would be to do the rightway along Locust Road. And I think that would be the more important one because that's what the township would take us right away because it is a local road. Anything along 512 would just ement. Um, but I think you should still try to through pendot establish what the rightway is on 512 um, as best you can. And if you're going to say you're not going to fully survey it, but use pen rightway plans, that's fine. Okay. But I think the township may still be interested in taking the rightway along lot two on.

Yeah. I think we're going to want to see you exhaust all of your options for the township road if the land owner is reluctant just proving that not just asking for the waiver because of the importance of the township road. Um we've typically along this this roadway accepted on all of them the rightway dedication. So if you can't get it just prove that you can't get it. We understand that that you're limited to what you can buy and do um and the concerns, but if you can, we want to see see that. Okay. Because yeah, this this project even there is a land swap between two properties. Correct. Correct.

So the property or whoever is representing lot two has to agree in sign. So you know and that's I think another comment is I'm not sure if you're showing the full boundary of lot meets and bounds yet because of its size. It could just be by D.

Um, so I'm not sure if that's an option, but there is going to be a change in lot two as far and I know you're saying not the area because you're swapping, but lot two will change. So you will have to record a D for lot two too. So I think you know with having to record the D you're going you should be establishing and showing on this plan the bearings and distances. Okay. These drawings are better than the ones we have on our file. These are these are actually complete drawings these ones here than what we have on building.

I think this is the same as submission number two. I don't remember. They have all the material in the new facility and everything. Is this submission one or submission two? What's that? Yeah, submission number two. Yeah, it's there's top. It's the top one in the list. I got the wrong one. That's okay.

Yeah, it's much improved. So if I understand it then Jill the the the waiver would be partially granted as to that pike assuming with the condition that the applicant would utilize the pendot rightway plans. Um so so it's that that waiver would be limited in that respect. would apply to that section, but asking the applicant to utilize those plans to define where that right away is

because once again, if you're doing a legal description for lot two, which I think you're going to have to because um the lot changed, you're going to have to at least try to define where the rightway is along 512 because that will be your property boundary also. Okay. But it will not apply, the waiver will not apply to Locus, correct? No, it's not. It's not what's on, but that's okay. Project plan 2026 till the two. It should be four sheets.

Continue on. I think the last plants that had three sheets, now they have four. And what they've added in the second sheet that's done by another company or surveyor surve surveyor sheet sheet two. Yeah. So if you're looking at a plan with four sheets and it is the current it's on here. Yeah, you're right. Okay. Go ahead. We're good. It's not my This is good. All right. Um S section. Well, did we take action on that one? So I guess the question is do you want to take action now? Do you want them to go through in right away work with the application. I think generally we're favorable. It sounds like it's just a matter of

right. Right. We we'd like to see what the outcome is first and then then you uh update your waiver request letter and then you know if you're still considering that exactly. Yeah.

All right. Got it. Um Sus section 21233G2 emergency vehicle access. uh facility is an unmanned facility and there's no public access to proposed uh existing narrow width of the tract does not provide adequate space for large emergency vehicles to turn around within the site. I think it's also fenced um since the facility is near the road access for emergency vehicles is available along road. So we're looking for a waiver of that section of okay now if I understand correctly where you have your new equip Your old equipment is going to be removed, correct? Yep. At least the building. What's that?

At least the building. Some of the buildings in the tank. Some stuff will remain. You basically would have a drive access along the new where the old stuff was. Right. Correct. So that could provide if you needed to get an emergency vehicle in there, you could pull in there. So, just to clarify, this this is a large transmission facility. I think it's 12 inch main. We're not going to park a fire truck right next to the the building. It's going to be a distance away uphill or downhill up wind or downwind. Okay.

So, and it's going to be an area available, but for if something were to happen with this facility, which we would never enter anyway, it's not something we're not going to be that close. Correct. Okay. And I think I think the other thing was is that they might be able to get in there, but they're going to have to back back out anyway. Yeah. So, can you get like a normal size vehicle will be able to pull in, park, pull out with having not having to back out onto Locus. Probably just emergency vehicles might have to do that. Yeah. Yeah. As long as the emergency vehicles have to do, but your your vehicles that are going there to do any maintenance activities or repairs should be turning around on the site and not backing out.

Yeah. And I think if we needed to show that through a turning template or something, we can we can certainly do that. That would be great. Regular regular regular vehicle. That would be great. So action on that will be deferred until you come back to us and they go away once you come back to us. Okay. Great. waiver section 21233 G4 right away dedication. Um, right away I I guess this might I think this kind of repeats but carry over. Yeah.

So, yeah, it'll be the same thing. Whatever you work out um we can then consider a partial waiver for what your updated partial waiver potentially just uh 512. Yeah. and then just use the pen. Yeah. And I mean, if they have a complete deed and you can follow the deed, that's fine. You can do it by letter indicates that's it, right? I just don't know. I hadn't looked at the deed to see if it's like updated complete or if it's kind of old and it's just taken from another lot and it doesn't have its own specific to it.

Okay. Anything else with that one? Um and then the last waiver in the letter is s section 21257a paving of access drive. Um there's no proposed changes to the existing gravel driveway due to the infrequent use of the driveway. Paving is not proposed. So that's where we're requesting. Okay. So I I I would like to either have it paved or defer the pave pave and that would be deferred until we well repay locus.

So the problem that you will run into is you will be able to grant a deferral but the zoning requires in the pavement. So we're back to where we were with the 6099. So I think the only compromise that could be had is the first 25 ft would be paved and everything after that would not have to be paved. But that would require variance. Correct. Currently any off street loading and unloading and parking areas required under the ordinance have to be paved with black top. And and I was looking at it as if you don't pave it at least if we deferred it when we repave locus you wouldn't have breakage of the sides. We're going back and forth.

You will never live to see the paving of that driveway. We're waiting for us to pave locust. I might not live this. So, I I guess the recommendation would be then to to deny that because or give a partial waiver uh after the 25. Yeah, if you're if you're inclined to do that. the 25 but I

I think it was an oversight when the expansion came in because I think we thought it was exempt as a utility and it was not the facility was constructed then they came in with the expansion to relocate the existing and when that happened it was an oversight to driveway back in 2019 2020 and I I I think Um, a lot of times with these facilities what you run into is that the driveway is what leads to the gate and then after that it's just bad. So at least you know if there's the compromise of the first 25 ft at least kind

yeah 25 ft gives you enough room that a vehicle can park in open the gate and then do whatever you need to do in the facility. Plus, it you're not having run off from the pad site out as much dirt and stone and other things or stones coming out as the vehicle's backing in and out or turning around. Okay. So we need a recommendation to approve partial approval of salv.

Are you making a motion? I made a motion. Sure. I open second by Marty. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel. Yeah. Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. Mr. Mr. If somebody opens their mouth and breathes, that's a second. What's that? If somebody opens their mouth and breathes, that's a second. Like an auction, you make hand signals, but I wasn't sure if you were making. Yeah. Now, so now what do you got to do? All right. Tired. I want to go eat. That's the hungry.

That's all. That is all the waiverss. Um I I think uh when we come back, I think we might I wanted to bring one up about section 21233D2 which is location and type of all existing monuments shall be prov 2 shall be provided on the plan. I think it was I think the idea is just because of the uh block size and then take the survey time to track those monuments down in the field. Yeah. So, what it's number 11 on your comment. Yeah, number 11.

Yeah. On page two, it's location and type of all existing monuments for lot 2 shall be provided on the plan. I think we're really looking at verification so that when you do your meets and bounds, there's something to verify it off of. I'll say yeah, if um I don't know, but if you're doing lot lot can by deed, right? So, if the deed says, you know, iron pin found and you want to use that for deed, but I think you're saying and this isn't to set the monument just says location and type of all existing monuments shall be provided on. Okay.

I think it's Did you put everything on now? I think the first submission didn't have a full lot too. Yeah, they have they have a whole lot now showing.

Yeah, I just don't think we have monuments indicated there.

So, I just wanted to bring that one up at least just to at least discuss it waver request for the next meeting with with the other changes you're making that w Okay, understood. Yeah, you got a crazy parcel there on the large side. Yeah. Um, yeah, especially if you're saying that you're just using you're doing the meets and bounds by deed, then I wouldn't expect, but if for some reason there's not a deed and you have to go out, then you're going to want to.

Okay, that makes sense. Um, so yeah, that's that's it on the uh the waiver front. I I don't think I had any specific questions related to the engineering comments. Um they all seemed fairly straightforward. I think we just wanted to kind of touch on those too. The other thing that I think I just wanted to say I don't think I've seen there was reference to in the general comments about township consider zoning comments but from the township zoning officer um and then also about township emergency services, but I don't think we've received comments from either of those.

We can talk with the zoning officer. What I would recommend is you reach out to the fire department and just submit a copy of the plans and ask for any comments they do have. Um, if you have a hard time doing that, just reach back out. We can, but um, I believe their emails are all on their website at eastallenfire.org. It's getting there. Okay, that works. Yeah, if you need any help, reach out to our office and we can connect you guys and then we'll we'll talk to the zoning officer tomorrow and issue any comments.

Um, and I think the only other thing I'll ask you, but I think I know the answer if you consider conditional approval or not. I think because the waiverss have not been identified and fully granted yet. I mean, I don't think we have I think you're back here one more time either way and you know that's the end of it. But let them know that you asked. That's that's what that's what I was going to do. I just think, you know, if the waiverss had all been cleared up, you know, it might have been a different story, but I think because we're waiting for a couple things, probably a good idea just to give it to you all at the same time. If they would have granted that, that would have been a first. Yeah. Well, he's a nice guy, so they might have fallen for that. You got to ask. You don't get what you don't ask. Thanks for coming.

All right. Thank you. Keep me on a nice one. It's going to work eventually. Eventually. We'll see you next time. Have a great evening. You too. All right. Continuation of the discussion of the zoning ordinance amendment data centers version 4.

All right. So, um, as everybody knows, data centers is the new land use phrase. Um, we have proposed a draft ordinance to amend our current chapter 250. A data center is a building or buildings which are occupied primarily by computers and or telecommunications and related equipment where digital information is processed, transferred and/or stored, primarily to and from off-site locations. This use does not include computers or telecommunications related equipment that is secondary and customarily incidental to an otherwise permitted use on the property, such as servers associated with an office building. This use shall also include cryptocurrency mining, blockchain transaction processing and server farms. We then go and further define some sound regulations. Um and then we define a sound sensitive location and then we define building setback. Um, but this basically would allow a data center as a conditional use in the extractive industrial zoning district, which is predominantly Keystone cement along Norbath Boulevard. U, it requires 10 acres minimum, maximum building height of 50 ft, requires both public water and public sewer, and it goes through a whole host of issues related to access, buffering, and screening, BM construction, accessory uses that are permitted as well as structures that are um sound evaluation and mitigation that they have to do a sound study. We also then have additional criteria that deals with cooling systems, emissions and ground vibrations, air pollution controls, dust control and light control. And then we have fire protection designs that they have to provide some upgrades for the fire department in responding as well as we have aesthetics and architectural design criteria and emergency management

planning. Um other than that it's pretty extensive. The final version of this ordinance is 16 pages. The longest ordinance next to storm water management that I think we've ever written. Um but it it is very thorough. I believe it covers if somebody were to come in. Um it's a combination of multiple ordinances that have been adopted. The only thing that is probably more unique with this one is the sound management portion. I don't believe a lot of places have done sound studies before development and postdevelopment which they would have to do. So it gives us some baseline of where they're at in the event there's an issue with the site where people are hearing noise or sound. I've always I went through and kind of marked it up. I think I had one thing I would want to discuss, but everything else was kind of like reading.

Yeah. And redundant. I can give you the document with my If you want to send over the proof reading markups that that's fine. I'll show it to you after the meeting so you you see what the how I did it. I had one thing I wanted to ask about. Do you know what page it's on? Yeah, I'm I'm getting there. Hold on. I dog it. Yeah, it's on page nine. Uh 7B the if full enclosure mechanic.

The last sentence, a double evergreen landscape screen shall be required to accommodate the fence or wall. My comment was I'm not quite sure what accommodate the fence or wall actually means in the context of this kind of like I think it's supposed to have a double evergreen in addition to a fence or wall. So it should be accommodated should be in in junction. I couldn't figure that out in that wording. So maybe just something to look at. Everything else was just typographical stuff and yep we can yeah we can clarify that up. So what it's meant to be that if there is something that they sound they said they can't go out for each one.

Okay. Um so each one So they have to screen if they can't mechanically soundproof it. They have to do double evergreen and then either a wall or a fence solid. I just didn't get that. Yeah. Pictures worth thousand words. Any other comments or thoughts or so right now we are in the 45day review period. I think this is going to the LBPC. Um so now after this phase they'll get their comments and then we'll go to the board of supervisors. So, you can either make your recommendation with the comments noted as discussed.

You could make a recommendation deny it or you could do nothing. I'm not going to do it this time. There were no other comments. No. No. Okay. I'll make a motion um that we recommend approval based on the comments that I'll second that one.

We have a ready. We have a motion by Marty, a second by roll call, please. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. Mr. Heming. Yes. Yes. The motion pass. Four votes to none. Moving on to the next item. Item F. Continuation. discussion of planning commission bylaws. That kid you hated in school. I'm sure you all Well, if there's grammar or type Yeah, I'm just going to give that to you.

Yeah, that's fine. So, we went through and we did discuss some changes regarding um I think it was meetings as well as the responsibilities of the commission. Y I didn't want to go into super detail. I just put that it's under the MPC as well as those adopted by the board of supervisors. Um this really is a guide of where they're going when they come in as a member. So, do you have any questions on the bylaws? Norm shaking his head. No.

That's right. We need a motion to recommend the board of supervisors adopt the planning commission bylaws. You made a motion. I said we need a motion. Sounds like a motion. Arts on the board. We need a second. I'll second. Made a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Daniel, Mr. Favor. Yes, Mr. Heming. Yes, Mr. Yes. Motion pass. Four votes to none.

All right, moving on to business being carried. Salo 2024 expires 6:30 2026. No action required by the commission. Salo 2023-0000 expires June 30th, 2026. action required by the commission been around forever. I was just curious as to whether or not anything new was happening with it. I haven't seen it in a while.

So with Nwood, the question has come up before Pendot on doing a traffic study and limiting the speed limit because of the access design. PENDOT has pretty much said we do not do traffic studies to lessen the requirements of a developer that you have to provide for whatever the speed limit there. They said they did a study within the last 5 to 10 years and they felt it doesn't meet the warrants to restudy it again. Um so I'm not sure what's happening with where they're at, but I think they're trying to get out of some of the turn lane requirements that they might hit. Okay.

Just curious. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Item C, sales 731 2026. No action required by the plan commission. Salo 2025006 expires August 31st, 2026. No action required by the commission. Salo 2025-003 time expires January 31st 2027 actions required by the commission on the agenda's public comment step forward and Bart Wagner Snider's church 6057 Snider's Church Road Pennsylvania. Um, first of all, I'd like to thank the board for using the technical um, provisions of the law to, you know, go through the subdivision or the orchard part, you know, division. The other thing is, um, I live right behind that lot and he has not followed the agreement with the board of supervisors. Um, most of the woods are gone. and he's been back there digging and he's had dump trucks back there dumping whatever. So, um, again, I think it was right by the board to question his motives and his integrity because I from living next to him for 28 years, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could go. Not trying to be mean, but actions do speak louder than words. And I've seen enough of his actions you know, not trust anything that he puts puts out there. So, you know, we have not followed into the agreement. So, you

know, his signature is questionable. Thank you again. Thanks for your support.

We all live here, too.

My name is Maya. I'm actually a resident of the orchards. Um, I hesitate to speak when Mr. Miller is here. just for repercussions to just I don't want to stir that pot. Um, however, you guys brought up a really amazing thing that's been on my mind. Um, and this gentleman had mentioned about the water there within the plan. Uh, when Mr. Miller bought the orchards in 2022, there were already existing well issues. There were limited water issu problems. So, in the past four years, there's been no improvement in that. this land development plans including kind of above ground storage. He wants to tie all the water together if I'm understanding it correctly. Um over the last four years I've had the conversation with Mr. Miller several times about the well and there's been various reasons why it's not done. It's pretty clear to me if I'm getting the grip here that the expense to fix the current well situation for the current residence is tied up to this development plan. I can't afford to just do this and that's a wise business decision. Very well could be, you know, it makes more financial sense to book it together. However, in the meantime, we have a lot of hot days, we do not have water, mostly in the fall, the winter when we don't get a lot of replenishment of the well. Um, so, uh, when you mention about if there's a fire in our property, the water's in the well, we don't have water, what do we do? We really are sort of in a situation beyond the sanitary safetiness of not having drinking water available. Um, I'm asking what our resources may be. Can there be a recommendation to separate the current well structure, get this resolved before you add in more water usage and more things? You know, I I don't know what the answer is. I'm not an engineer. I

just know there's a lot of times we don't have water. So, I believe there are requirements under the property maintenance code as well as other things that require them to provide water. So, if there are those issues, We we can follow up. I know we've referred the matter to D. I don't know if it went anywhere. I've spoken with Mike at D several times. Okay.

Um and and he's right. I mean, like I get a lot of information from him, but you know, he's correct. I believe that, you know, Mr. Miller is doing nothing illegal. He's doing nothing. He's following the rules. His resources are available to him. He has a plan as a owner and a businessman, you know, he's doing all the things, you know, totally within his rights to do. Um, it is not particularly it's not against the law to have an unsatisfied resident. You know, that that's just it. So, I don't want to complain on that level. It may be under the authority of DP does not have any regulations, but we do have standards for

property owners to have water and sewer and other things on the local level here that we've had for some long time. It's not anything new

and it has been an issue and like I I'm pretty good at emailing and I I do keep track of it. Um, and I guess you know frequently what Mr. Mill is telling me is that when we don't have the water or we have a lot of boil advisories that he extends to full 30 days. Um, this is a mostly older community. They are not going to boil this water. That boiler advisory is legit. These people are not going to but the boil advisory is he's not testing the water. He's waiting 30 days to test the water because it cost money to in my opinion. I don't know if that's accurate. Um, but it's inconsistent water availability to us.

If you're able to provide us,

he frequently says, "Well, people are dripping faucets in the winter." Well, in October, it's not snow and what is it? And he's stating that we use about 1,200 gallons per day for 25 units. That seems very low to me. You know, for 25 families only, 1200 gallons a day. So if we're going higher than that and it's draining the pump and yes the pump shuts up to burn off the motor makes perfect sense but is the well deep enough? I don't know enough about this. So you know is the current well sufficient for the 25 families that already live there. Yeah, if you can provide us the dates and times if you're able.

Absolutely. I've actually emailed them to um zoning to Okay. Berno. Yeah. If you can most recent and and we can reach out. Our goal with our enforcement in East Allen is code compliance. We're not going to go out and site anybody. We're not going to find them. Um we'll reach out and try to get some resolution to it. But there's definitely ordinances that deal with what you're we're not trying to be punitive with the code enforcement is what he's saying. But if there's issues, we need to know about them so that we can she very well may have reached out. Maggie and I have talked resource. And who do I talk? I've talked to EP.

Well, I think with D, we've been referring it over there, but D has never said this isn't our issue and reaching out. They've just gathered information. So, I'm not aware of them reaching out to Maggie or I and saying, "Hey, this is not something that the department regulates." Email my dates. Uh, if if you want to email them to info wp.org. Okay. Um, it's a private well, correct? We know it's a community community well, correct? That's where D comes in because of it being a community with that particular well. So,

it's it's private, but it's for a community. Is it just for our community? I didn't realize church was also having water issues. So are those two? No, they're individual.

Yeah. So the parcel that his parents own the edge, their well is always low pressure. So again with this plan he's presenting his potential plan. He wants to combine all that. So you've got a low pressure inefficient well. not enough water. Well, to combine those, I just concerns me. Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Personally, I would think he should be taking care of his current residents first in my opinion. All right. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Have a great evening. Before you move on, and maybe I missed it, did we approve the minutes?

No. We skipped over that because we went to public comment because of the crowd. So if you want to make a motion to approve the minutes unless there's comments. I have no comments. Uh the only comment I had was maybe going forward. There's probably a technical reason, but can we show who is in attendance meeting on the minutes? I think it's not on there. It should be. Yeah, it is. Yeah, it says it should be it should have all of the board as well as the non-staff. Okay. Should be at the top. Okay. But now that you say that not sure what I'm talking about then it is not on this version. So we will make sure it's added.

Wow. Approve the minutes with as long as somebody adds the people that attend the meeting. Great. Was that a motion? Second. We have a second by Marty. Motion by Bob, second by Marty. All favor. All in favor say I. I meeting 54. That's how many gallons a day a family 23 families of four would require. 9200. Are we all Are we all good to see Good night. Good night.