Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Uh we'd like to start tonight's planning commission meeting. If everyone could rise for the pledge to the flag of America to the repivisible and justice for all. Okay, our next order is roll call. Rich Nuttle here. Tom Pasantino is absent. Peter Tantala here. Amber Watson Tardiff, I'm here. Keith Hourwald is absent. Joe Antanelli here. Jim Enis. Dominic Kundari.

Matthew Johnston here. And Jim Espazito. Okay. Our next item is the approval of our January 7th meeting minutes. Is there any member of the board who reviewed the minutes and has any issues or finds any errors or omissions? Hearing none, I'll ask none. Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion to approve the minutes from last month. I'll make a motion. Got a motion. Second. All in favor?

I. Motion. Uh, motion passes. Excuse me. Next item. SLLDD number 26-1. Mark Rusden, applicant, owner, requesting a lot line change at 2340 Lincoln Highway, Langghorn, PA19047. Tax map parcel 22-057-22 in the general business district and tax map parcel 22-057-2-6 properties located at 130 Middletown Boulevard in Langghorn, PA. There was 23 addresses notified. Sir, you have the floor. Chair, sorry, Chair Rich. Sorry.

Oh, yes, I missed that. If there is anybody here tonight for the uh tollgate application that was on the agenda or the aqua application, they have both cancelled for this evening. Just to let you guys know if you don't want to stick around for the tollgate or the aqua applications, uh they both have been cancelled. Thank you. You're up now. So about that.

Okay. I am Nick Rose from Protract Engineering. I am here on behalf of Mark Resin who could not be here this evening. Um, as you noted, this is a lot line change and uh the plan is coming up on here right now. There's really not much to it other than the fact that if you look in the upper left corner of the plan, I think you might have copies in front of you. You can actually see that the the current configuration is quite strange. It's on the top there. Well, to the right as you're looking at that screen, there's one small rectangular lot and then there's a lot along Middletown Boulevard that's quite irregular in shape. The proposal is just to cut a new line across the back of the one property so that they are more equal properties and and just more normally shaped. So, that's the entire endeavor of what's being proposed uh before you tonight. Um, in round numbers, one of the lots is about 50,000 square ft right now, one's about 150. They're trading about 50,000. So, they'll end up both being just under 100,000 square ft. So, a little over 2 acres. So, nothing else is proposed at this time. They're just proposing to change the lot line. I understand there was a land development which I think your engineer noted originally uh proposed for the one property that has been withdrawn. Um so there is no effort being made to pursue that. Um I could go through the comments in your engineers letter or he could but I don't have any issue with any of them other than there's one waiver we're going to need to ask for.

Okay. Um, I'm actually getting out your paperwork right now. Sorry about that. Okay. Looking for the looking for the What waiver are you requesting?

Well, it actually came up in the letter that there is a section in your ordinance that says that not more than uh let me see it's not more than 20% of the uh area should be transferred in a lot line change. And we are actually proposing that both one will receive more than 20% and one will give up more than 20%. I'm not actually sure entirely what the intent of the ordinance was. I don't think it was something intended to apply to this because this does seem to normalize and reconfigure things in a positive way. So I think formally we need a waiver from that requirement since we're asking to transfer more area and that is noted at the bottom of the RVE letter. They anticipated that we would ask for that.

Okay. Other than that the items in his letter will comply. Dominic, any questions? No, no questions yet. that that uh waiver is in our letter, but that's a waiver that we would support, but it is uh in the ordinance. So, we do anticipate that waiver being requested and uh as I just stated, that's the waiver we have no issues with. Matt, anything on your end? No. All right. Uh any questions from the members of the board?

Go ahead, Pete. So yeah, I just to clarify um neither of these properties will be agrieved or encumbered in any way um by virtue of this lot line change. Is that right? Correct. They are both still entirely compliant with going to be uh shut out from sewer service or anything of that nature. No. Okay. Correct.

And also for clarity, does the waiver actually constitute two waivers, one for each property or is it considered one waiver? it would be considered one waiver since it's the waiver talks about a lot line change and you have to have two properties to actually talk about a lot line change. Just being clear, the one thing I wanted to jump and and and he did reference this was the prior land development. I think we're going to want some sort of note or reference on the plan acknowledging the withdrawal of that um prior land development and we are fine with that.

Okay. I yeah, I do remember we approved a whole little shopping center there years back. Um, okay. Uh, is there any member of the public that would like to speak on the behalf of this? Is there anyone here? Seeing none, I don't see a big deal with this myself. So, I will ask for at this point a recommendation of approval for S/LD26-1 application proposing a lot line change at 2340 Lincoln Highway and 130 Middletown Boulevard, Langghorn, PA 1 19047 Bucks County Tax Map Parcel 22-057-2-6. The property recommendation is based on a plan entitled lot line change prepared for 2340 Lincoln Highway comprising of one sheet and data September 30th 2025. Plan is prepared by Nick Rose PE of Protract Engineering of Hapro PA. Recommendation is further based on compliance with the comments provided. January 30th 2026 letter from Isaac E Kessler PE of Remington and Vernick Engineers. They're Middletown Townships engineer. A January 30th, 2026 letter from Matthew D. Johnston, PE of Penoni Associates, their Middletown Townships traffic and transportation engineer. A waiver from section 440-306 to allow two lots to allow lots to increase or decrease by more than 20% of the original lot area. And should I add Jim's comment on D comment D a note you wanted a note on the plan Jim?

It would be a note on the plan clearly stating that the previous previously approved land application that concerns these properties has been withdrawn. And that would make D a note on the plan uh indicating that the previous approval of land development on the property will be withdrawn. I think I got it all. If we have a motion, I need a motion and a second. I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Pete second. All in favor? I You're approved, sir. Great. Thanks for your time. Have a good night. You just leave it. Okay.

Sorry, I am looking for my agenda meeting. There it is. Item number four, SLLDD25-4, petition on behalf of Corman Commercial Properties to Middletown Township to seek both a zoning map amendment as well as a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow for reasonzoning of the aggregate properties referenced in the application to M1 manufacturing and to establish a new use identified as logistics fulfillment center within the limits of these parcels. Tax parcels 22-15-12-1 22-15-16 22-16-131 22-16-127 22-16-125 22-16-124 All are along Lincoln Highway to be reszoned to M1 light manufacturing or open space Recreation District property is located at 2011 West Lincoln Highway. There were 34 addresses notified. Sir, you have the floor.

Good evening. Joe Blackburn from Whistler Pearlstein here on behalf of the applicant uh Corman Commercial Properties with respect to the aforementioned application. Um we are here tonight um in order to advance a conversation that has um proceeded on a couple of occasions with respect to both the reasonzoning of the properties mentioned as well as the various iterations of the uh zoning text amendment that uh are before you. Um I'm joined by the project engineer from um Dynamic Engineering, Justin Gennady. Um, and I think it's probably most prudent to since this is, I think, uh, one of the successive times that we've, um, dealt with this, um, make sure that we're all dealing from the same playbook here, uh, looking at the same ordinance and reiterating some of the past, um, efforts that have been made that are kind of persistent through this effort. So, um, I'm going to turn it over to Justin very briefly to give, uh, just kind of a project, uh, overview and make sure that we're all up to date on the same ordinance and plan. So, thank you. All right, good evening everyone. Justin Giani with Dynamic Engineering. Um, as Joe said, we were here before you and this plan has been presented to you previously too, but just to recap, this plan in front of you on the screen here is labeled existing zoning exhibit. This is the assemblage of parcels that was noted by the chairman. Um, what you're going to see on the plan is different shades of colors for different zoning areas. Now, um, under the existing zoning, you can see the area in purple along the frontage is known as the the C commercial district. You'll see there's three pieces of it, sometimes split zoned. Um, there's also a portion that is light blue that is along the uh dish creek behind the sea commercial. That is the M1 light industrial district that we are proposing to expand over the majority of these parcels. And then in green is also the O open recreation zoning district. um that is the existing zoning. So, as part of this application

tonight, we're proposing both a zoning map amendment and a text amendment. So, the first piece of this is really just cleaning up um what we consider to be a um not a very well organized or configured configuration of uh uh zoning districts. So, Mr. If you switch to the next slide, I'll show you what is being proposed. proposed is as mentioned a real just a uh overall overhaul of that area to the M1 light industrial district. That is really what that district intends to be. Uh cleans up some of the the misused commercial along the frontage. There is a piece of green along the I'll call it the the right side of the plan. is the east side of the plan. That is an open recreation piece that is going to extend from uh Lincoln Highway down to the the creek that's going to give some access to uh the creek for for recreational purposes. And also on this plan is a conservation easement about 18 acres that goes along the entirety of the Namin Creek within the M1 district along all those uh parcels. It's approximately 22 200 feet in width. Um and again that that is to preserve the existing vegetation that buffer off of the stream in perpetuity. And the one point that I want to make is even though we are um making the majority of the parcels M1 the combination of that piece of O that is green on the plan the conservation easement that's 17 acres does equate to actually more land than was previously zoned as open recreation in the existing zoning. So that is the first piece of the puzzle here tonight is just a resoning to clean up these parcels. The map in front of you is what's being proposed. The second piece of it is a text amendment to allow um to promote the logistics famili fulfillment center use. Um under the previous draft amendment that was the draft amendment that was submitted to you. We contemplated both a potential data center use and a cold storage use. The

cold storage use had a condition that allowed to go to I think it was 150 feet of building height which is typical for cold storage use. Um the the uh draft in front of you guys tonight withdrew uh withdraws both of them. There is no more proposed data center use and there is no more uh cold storage use proposed. It is just the logistics fulfillment center use without those two uh separate uses within that ordinance. That's really the background since we last spoke uh or last presented this to you. The map is still the same. There's been some advancements in the text amendment um through conversations with you know from feedback from you guys and conversations with staff. And I guess at this point we'll take any questions you may have. We can walk through letters or um chair, Mr. Chairman, however you see fit here. We'll proceed. Dominic, any anything on your end at this point?

Uh, just to note in our review letter, um, we still have the, uh, the data center listed as a proposed use, but as Mr. Ginady just stated, I understand that's been removed. So, uh, just to clarify that on our, uh, memo. Um the only other thing I'll just highlight is uh still included in the text amendment are some of the natural resource um uh ordinances that are being proposed to be um addressed. Maybe if you can just speak.

Sure. And I think that was one part I left out. Thank you. So um the main part about this site that's in question tonight, this is a super fun site. So this was a uh a basically documented undocumented landfill for for many years. um all has been not capped appropriately. Um as part of this project, we are going to be cleaning up that landfill. In order to clean up a landfill, you do need to strip the vegetation. Um one of the proposed benefits of doing an industrial or large ind uh use that is being proposed. The best cap you can put over top of a contaminated site such as this is impervious. So the majority of this site and what's being proposed will be a total cleanup of this site which has not been cleaned up under proper D standards. It still exists in its current form. It is not properly capped. Um for all intents and purposes, this is still a fully contaminated super fund site that requires cleanup. So um the contemplated changes to the or I'll call the loosening of the restrictions of the natural resource calculations in that ordinance is specifically because this site is not I'll call natural resources. These are just secondary growth that has occurred since this stopped being a a a landfill. Um and none of the vegetation on that site should be classified under any type of natural resources. That includes woodlands, steep slopes, or anything that has has grown since it stopped being a landfill. Yeah, that's all I I really have. I I mean, when this may eventually come to a land development, that's when we will, you know, address a lot of the land development concerns, but at this point, uh, we have no other further comments.

Matt, not at this point. Not at this point. Okay. Um, all right. I'll start with Pete over here this time for questions with the board. Yeah. Uh, Mr. Geonat, thank you for your explanation. That cleared up some things for me in my mind. So, I appreciate that. Um, but one question on that. So, you're proposing two things. One is a text amendment and one is a map amendment. The map amendment you've explained very well. I get that. I understand that. The text amendment is an overlay district. Is that correct? That's correct.

Okay. Last time you when you guys were here last time, you proposed um you had a a plan to go along with your proposal. showed two warehouses or more um driveways and so forth. Is that part of this current proposal as well? Well, that is something that this proposal would allow and we showed that as a as an option of what could be constructed subject to change within the confines of the ordinance, but tonight is just strictly the map amendment and then the text amendment. So, no plan associated with that. No plan associated with this use. Yeah. With this application. My concerns with this submission really I organized them um in four four areas really. One had all to do with the data center and it it seems that you've now taken that off the table.

Yes, we have.

So we were I was prepared to bring up all the obvious delotterious components of a data center and so forth, but that's no longer part of this. So I won't bring it up. Um secondly are obviously the environmental concerns. um you're seeking to change and or diminish the the natural resource protections for the site. Um that's part of this and I understand what you're saying that these really shouldn't be classified as natural resource protection areas. That might not be your um authority to make or to do. That's for the board of supervisors really. But um that was a concern and also the idea that it's it is a contaminated site as you mentioned um and will the construction the question that comes up there is will you remove all the contaminated material or you'll cap it essentially.

So the way that these sites work when there's contaminated fill in a site you do not remove it from the property. That is that would be no you and a lot of the sites that we can get into a little further through the land development process you're not even really supposed to touch it. It's supposed to be just a cap over top of that. So that is what is being proposed here. We're not going to be removing any of this contaminated waste. It's going to be capped with an impervious cap in accordance with what's known as act 2 standards. So it's going to be a a closed landfill officially under and we can get into it more. We've done geotechnical investigations of what's under there. It needs to be capped properly because under current standards it's it's not appropriate. But it would be fully 100% capped and under the review of the EPA and so forth.

Yes, sir. Okay. The concern there obviously is that the construction itself might disturb the contamination, especially that you're right next to the creek and and the obvious concerns associated with that. That would have to be a condition to the approval and we'd accept that.

Okay. Um my other concern uh quite tursily had to do with traffic. Um when you did have a plan that uh showed driveways in and out, you had two driveways. They look like in right in right out pork chop type driveways. Um obviously you're trying to capitalize on your with your frontage on route business route one um where it splits right from the highway from um the limited access portion of of Route One. And it it just occurs to me that uh a lot of truck traffic would be generated by this and most of that truck traffic as it leaves your site would in my mind want to make it to the turnpike or further south on Route One and that sort of thing. Um, can you explain how that traffic in the absence of a signalized intersection would wind up from your leaving leaving your site to the turnpike or southbound route one and so forth?

No, it's a great question and obviously look it that's that's a land development item which just to just to address it that will be a condition of any type of land development approval. It's a state road so we'll have to abide by all PennDOT standards for design. we'll have to abide by any, you know, any of your township engineer recommendations. So, largely a use dependent issue depending on what gets put there in accordance with this text amendment. But here tonight to say obviously we will comply with any requirements and yes, we are aware of all the improvements that have been done to that roadway network. We're aware of being that close to the off-ramp from Route One onto business route one. All that will come into play when we do land development with a scoping meeting and we'll be, you know, we're we're prepared to address any of those concerns,

right? And that's the right answer, but it's unlikely in my mind that Pendot would permit such a signalized intersection so close to their off-ramp and that may be true. That seems to be a challenge to you. And again, that would be a hurdle we need to get across if we want to signal and if that's where we're going with this. If it didn't materialize, how would you see that happening? Again, I I can't deal with that right now. But this is not a land development submission. No, sir. Okay. And then my fourth thing had to do with height, but I think you've addressed that. Really? Um we withdrew the cold storage use. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Question. I had

Okay.

Um I'm up. I I We're in like a catch 22. If we change this to manufacturing, you're sure you're not going to let it sit that way. You're going to try and develop something on it, and it's going to bring us right back full circle to basically all the questions Pete just asked. Um, and they're questions that I wish you would, which you don't have to, but I wish you'd be able to answer prior to us making a decision on this because it's like once we open the floodgates, uh, you know, we're the ones who have to keep our heads above water on this. Um, so that that that I'm I'm a little bit on the fence about that. Uh, and then my a couple other questions I have is about I don't know much about how to cap a landfill, but and this parlays on what Pete had said earlier, too. Um, for let's just hypothetically say you're going for it, you get approved and you're starting to put buildings up. How do they get the footings in without disturbing the landfill? There's methods of footings that can be installed and that's part of a geotechnical investigation. Sometimes they may have to be with deep piles through the landfill. Um, but it's all

then you are disturbing the landfill like he asked about.

Well, you're allowed to. So, it's this is very I mean, look, this is highly technical how you do it. Uh, you can be assured that we need to follow all EPA standards when you deal with anything like this. So, your concerns are are warranted. We hear them. Um, but we will have to go through a whole slew of permitting to even construct anything on this site and comply with with EPA standards and your township standards, whatever gets applied in order to do any form of construction here. So, I understand your concerns. I mean, it really depends on what gets constructed, the footings that get in installed. Um, but this site can be developed. We have developed landfill sites and contaminated sites very successfully. Um, I will argue to say that the condition that it's in is probably at a worse state given that it's not a cap landfill that close to any stream.

That was one of the questions. It's really close to the the Shamony Creek and uh how's that going to affect the creek and the waterway? Um and then the other question I had was the three definitions that you had listed here with the industrial outdoor storage a facility for storage of vehicles, construction equipment, building materials. Got a better example of that? I mean I'm thinking a parking lot for tractor trailers like they have at the Oxer Valley Mall right now is and that's something I wouldn't want to see. Uh again, industrial outside storage is usually used as an accessory to maybe a warehouse. Um a lot of the warehouses you'll see will have um they'll have docks and they'll have the uh the loading stalls at the docks, but then they'll also have trailer storage off to the side. So that is really it can be used as an accessory to an industrial use. and industrial outdoor storage. I mean, it's it's defined it's it is pretty loosely defined there, but it does typically live as an accessory to an industrial use.

Who made this def that definition up? Is that in our ordinances? This you're making that up. This was this

this is what you're Yeah. And that's what bo right there. I thought it was a township, but that's the whole I got a like a gigantic question mark on that too. just the definition of that and every and what it means and um I'm seeing I'm envisioning things happening there under this industrial outdoor storage definition that is not going to work well. I don't know if anybody else on the board is seeing that but um um that's I really have an issue with that whole with that whole term and the whole definition of it. Um the the logistics landfill is sounds like not a bad you know not a bad thing or the trucking cross stockck facility but I really do not like that industrial outdoor storage one. Um I don't know if you want to take it out if you want to redefine it. Uh but your your definition is like just too general and does not detail what's going on there. Um that one

can I ask are any of these proposed uses uses which cannot which you need relief for under this variance or can they all be already

two two comments two com I'll address that question first um we've proposed and uh it's been suggested that these uses be further conditioned as conditional uses which would be uh entirely acceptable to us to give uh both this commission and ultimately any other reviewing body and board the opportunity to see it before it being a permitted use by right. And hopefully, you know, at that time you would get the further clarification, further detail as to precisely what it is that's going there, what impacts it's going to have and the opportunity to review it at that conditional use stage. I would So hopefully that answers the second part of that question. Not quite. Okay. Yeah. I don't think you answered my Right. My my question really is not to step on you, Rich.

That's okay. My question really is of the uses that you're requesting, which can be permitted currently on those properties? This is not it's a it's a zoning text amendment. So, this is new text that would be added to or revise existing text. So, each of these uses is a new use warehousing. Well, that's not in the or that's existing use. So it wouldn't it wouldn't override it doesn't take away the existing uses. It adds these three new uses to the scope of permissible uses in the overlay district which is now applicable to the M1. So the new ones you're adding again are this outdoor storage correct um

logistics fulfillment and trucking cross dock facility. We've removed the cold storage and the data center. Those are no longer being proposed. Um so none of them are permitted now. None of them exist now. None of them are defined. None of those three are are in the ordinance now. They would be proposed as a part of this this amendment to in permitted in the overlay. Um and I'll reiterate that it's acceptable uh if the the commission was so inclined that those be permitted only by conditional use. Uh again to give you

I would be inclined not to step on you Pete, but I would be inclined to take that whole thing out of there. The whole industrial outdoor storage. the more I read it, the more I paint pictures of things that are not going to work well. Um, there I mean, so that would that's what I'd be inclined to do is take that whole that whole definition of industrial outdoor storage totally out. I'll add one comment and then turn it back over to Mr. Gennady. Um, you heard him say that that's typically and anticipated as an accessory. Think of it just like most ordinances don't permit outdoor storage at the Home Depot or the Lowe's. They view that as a separate additional use that you have to specifically separately provide for. Um it's the same thing albeit on a uh industrial level. So,

but you're asking us to approve this the way it's written right here tonight, right? Is this is what you're asking for an approval for all this ordinance that you have written here the way it is tonight? uh the recommendation or as Oh, you're but you're asking us to approve it, correct? Or as you see fit to amend with with whatever recommendations I just amended, take the whole thing out.

Well, the one thing I'll add and I think you know, you know, the the Reedman site and the the industrial uses that you have on that site that just went up too, the dock storage on the out the the trailer storage on the outside of the uh loading docks around the facility is technically industrial outdoor storage. But you have that in trucking cross traffic dock facility, a type of distribution center with minimal storage space to accommodate goods that arrive and are quickly sorted and loaded to outbound vehicles. Technically, that does not and under some ordinances that does not permit the storage of tractor trailers that are not attached to the building. That's what that's my whole point. I don't want tractor trailers stored there. We have plenty of them over at the Oxer Valley Mall. But you're what you don't understand is how how warehousing works. So when you have a warehouse,

I think I've been a lot of around a lot of warehouses. Well, not to get argumentative here, but if that were the case, you'd understand that the modern warehouse has an industrial outside storage use as an accessory to their use under all standards. When you have a cross stock facility, what the way that they operate under quick succession is that they pull a trailer up to the building, it latches on the building, and then someone will go and pick up another trailer that's stored on the off along the perimeter. Those trailers that are stored around the perimeter of the site are technically industrial outdoor storage. So it is an accessory to a warehousing use and highly necessary under the modern warehouse. So the definition reads a lot more. You can amend it. You can amend it. But

I don't want to amend it as much as I want to say eliminate it.

That's more like what I'm thinking because you're adding on storage of vehicles, construction equipment, building materials, goods on pallets or containers. That tells me a lot of sea boxes will be there. A lot of pallets will be around. Vehicles may include operative trucks, truck trailers, buses, recreational vehicles, fleet vehicles, and other motor vehicles. You are your definition is a broad wide range of anything could happen on this property, but you're terming it under industrial outdoor storage. We can we can make it we we can further clarify it as only permitted as an accessory use if that

that that's what I was just about to suggest was a lot of these uses are accessory to a warehouse or some sort of warehouse use. I was going to suggest up to your review, you know, clarify the industrial outdoor storage is only permitted as an accessory use to one of the other um permitted use. So they'd have to redefine this whole definition here then.

No. Well, no, because that would the the definition is what they're saying industrial outdoor storage is, but that would not be allowed to be a main use on the property. It would have to be accessory only to what is the main use on the property. So, if they have a fulfillment center, uh, whatever, you know, they're going to have trucks and other things that are going to need to be stored outside that would have to be accessory. So, if all of a sudden we go and we see that the whole property is just all trucks, that's not that's not an accessory use. That's obviously their main use. That wouldn't be permitted. Mhm. It would have to be But this is after the fact. This is after it's already done. And then it's something that we have to police, right? When we're

We have to police, we have to police everything, Rich. And one thing And one thing that I I would point out that he agreed to um was that he would make all of these uses, all the main uses on this property would have to be a conditional use. So, when you're looking at approving the conditional use, you're going to ask them, what is your industrial outdoor storage going to look like? And we can you can certainly make some conditions at that time of what the outdoor storage would be. Mhm. Could you have the right under conditional use to insert uh conditions and we have the right to take it out, right? We have the right to take it out. You absolutely do. I think the the definition if you look at section C is just definitions, right? So

that's what I'm looking at.

Correct. Yes. And then if you go down to section D, you're going to actual use regulations. I think what would probably at least from what I'm hearing address your concern and maybe address Mr. Espazito's suggestion is um instead of listing that as a permitted use as subsection B um it just be changed to as an accessory use as opposed to a principal use such that you don't have that use dominating the property because it is a unquestionable reality that that is those are accessory components to pretty much any industrial use today. You have trucks moving freight pallets things around. So uh and we are simply just trying to not be in a position where it's down the road and it's well that's not a permitted accessory use that's not uh included in the underlying use. And again I'll go back to you see this today or well we've addressed it in most ordinances by today that outdoor storage in big box stores was viewed as a separate use distinct from the box store such that it had to be defined as an accessory use. That's why you have for you know Walmarts, Lowe's, Home Depot, you have the box store use,

right? But you're not defining it as an accessory use here. I we we are certainly proposing to do and as a conditional use on top of that. While I ponder that, I'll turn it over to Amber. That the conditional use was definitely a concern of mine and I feel better with that. Um my other question was the open recreational space is that contaminated and does that require any remediation?

So the limits of which or we we do have a plan that shows limits. I'm not sure how far it extends. The whole site will be cleaned up as part of this application. So that that is really what's being proposed here. So I don't have that if whether where that extents where the extents are. Uh we can get into more detail there. But what I'll commit to tonight as part of this application we will be cleaning up the entirety of this. And is that in writing somewhere that you guys are responsible for any remediation of that open area? I'm sure it could be condition of you can not like the discussion that's happening with the accessory use. You can make that a condition if you're inclined to go into a direction of condition of approval.

Yeah, I would I would not want to just leave that open space where people can use for recreation with it being contaminated. Yeah, it's it's really intended as a access way to the river more so than a I'll say yeah it said like it said educational it said forestry it said it sounded like and and just speaking with the applicant the the limits of the landfill are a little bit further to the the west of the site. So I'm just that's majority of the landfill. If there is anything over there obviously it will be cleaned up but the majority of the landfill does exist in the heart of the site to the west closest to the Route One area. But you guys when you do testing and whatnot, you will be testing that open area and if anything comes up, you're responsible.

The whole property go through the whole property will go through the actiation the act two review and approval. What EPA determines is necessary to quote unquote remediate that portion. I mean, they might say that needs to be capped too. I was going to say, can that be remediated and stay open space or will that have to be capped as well? That's a Yeah, it's a the entirety of that's outside of our space you're proposing to le leave open, but it's kind of a choose your own adventure depending what the testing shows. Based on what we know, that site's clean, that side of the site's clean, but committing tonight that it's obviously the whole site's going to be remediated. Okay, as necessary,

just back to the accessory use conversation. Um, do you have an idea of like the amount of that accessory use would inhabit a property? Is there some kind of parameter of percentage that you could put on that to make sure that it's absolutely going to be an accessory use and not a principle?

Um, I don't no I don't I don't know the use, but we could probably come up with a number that would maybe be appropriate, but no, we don't. And there is another and there is another further comment under I'll call it section E requirements at number eight outdoor storage materials goods refuge may be permitted as an accessory use to the permitted use provided such areas are buffered within a pig screen. So we did account for um outdoor storage being an accessory to the use. It would just be as as Joe mentioned and Mr. Blackber mentioned it would just have to be repositioned in the permitted use to an accessory use. to further clarify, but I do I do think it is a very very important part of any industrial use to allow that.

So yeah, I have another uh point of clarification. You intend for this overlay district to be applied to this set of properties, M1 district, correct? Yep. Right. And so when this first came before us the previous time, this was not an overlay district. It was intended as a text amendment to a certain zoning district. Correct.

Right. And the recommendation from this board at that point was that that be changed so that it's doesn't have such a widespread, you know, that compelled us to look at every property in that district. I think you stood here and made the point that okay, well, this only applies to 50 acre parcels within that district. That can become a slippery slope. But you now changed it to be an overlay district. But as I read it, it's not tied to this property or this set of properties. What would stop anyone from taking this and applying it to any other type of district within the township? What am I missing there?

And Mr. Espazito can certainly uh jump in here, but the approval would be specific to these tax map parcels. The overlay is applicable to the identified TMPs. They all share this zoning. Yes. Because the first component is the reszoning, but then the overlay is applied specifically to these parcels within the M1 M1 generally. That'll be written in the ordinance that Yeah, that's I don't see it here now. That's why I asked, so I'm missing it.

Yeah, that's that's that's currently not in in the ordinance. I think that's a an easy change, but it it current that's not in the latest iteration of the ordinance that we got. So, it'll be written in this ordinance that it's specific to these properties. Okay. Well, it's not. He said it's not now. It's not. It's not right now, but it part of tonight is is kind of amending if you if you're going to if you're willing to read. As I read it, that's just what occurred to me. And that's Yeah. Now, the way the way it reads right now, it's an overlay that could apply to pretty much any M1 district property that's over 50 acres that meets some of the other standards in here. So, you'd have to find an M1 property that's over 50 acres. But, but I I agree. I'm just trying to say how it's currently written.

Okay. Typically, we try to build the mouse trap as small as possible around a limited number of parcels as opposed to specifically enumerating limited parcels. But why would we avoid specifically enumerating parcels? That's a question for your solicitor. Well, sometimes if you if when you do that, then you're getting into spot zoning.

Spot zoning. Okay, back to me. What so what I see is um back I'm going to go back to the industrial storage facility. I mean I I'll agree with you. Storage of vehicles or construction equipment, building materials, goods on pallets or containers if you're building a warehouse. Yes. the parts that bother me. Um, recreational vehicles, fleet vehicles, or other motor vehicles that big big, right? Like right there that they're the parts that I'm thinking we're having a tractor trailer storage facility. You know what I mean? Um, because you're you're you're talking about storing the vehicles, but then you're saying they all have to be in working condition. Um, so you're asking us to do something with a We have a lot of questions. Unfortunately, we have a lot of questions. We have questions on the traffic, which I know it comes in later on, but it would have been nice if you if you have some of them answers for us. exactly what you're building I don't think is as much an issue as when we're trying to figure out you know we give you this we're going to give you this with blinders on and then we're going to then you're going to come back to us with this this this and this later on and it might not be something that makes the board happy but you can turn around and say well you gave us this overlay district you know what I mean and that's where I'm it's like I'm we're giving something away without knowing all the details anybody Anybody else disagree with that? I mean, you know, we just don't know.

You want to tighten this up? Is that Well, I want to tighten this ordinance on the outdoor the industrial outdoor storage that needs I want to tighten that part up. Sure. The other two parts I don't have an issue with. What Pete brought up about, you know, what's going to make this not be a general consensus that anyone else can't come in through town and say, "Hey, you gave it to them. Now, now you're going to give it to us." That needs to be tight. reworked. Um yeah, is there any way you can rework this stuff and then come back to us and we can table this for the time being?

Um I mean certainly the revisions to uh the applicability easy, no issue there. Um I had thought and hoped that you know the uh inclusion of the additional layer of conditional use approval and review would would maybe uh address and assuage some of those concerns. I'm not sure if I'm hearing that it's not. Um but we remain you know open to including that. Um I I agree without looking at all of the you know subcategories I agree you know recreational vehicles are probably not something that we need to include in that list. Uh um the reality is I don't know if you have a opinion on the extent of the enumerated vehicles that are included in here and their necessary uh inclusion in industrial use but

no and we do I mean the last two lines storage of damaged or scrap vehicles all parts of vehicles is prohibited. Storage of tank or trucks vehicles used to transport hazardous fl hazardous flammable explosive materials is prohibited. So, we did exclude. Sounds like you're hung up on the buses and recreational vehicles. If that's something I'm kind of hung up on the whole thing, but according to Jim, we got to let some of that go. Then I have to let some of that go. I'm hung up on that entire paragraph. I think the I think what you're hung up on is something that the entire paragraph. I just said that the entire paragraph, but the you mentioned that it's part of the logistics fulfillment center and the trucking cross stock facility. And you already mentioned that you think that this is already a a contingent part or an accessory part of it just by that definition.

Well, it's an ordinance. By that definition, if we leave this the way it is, you have everything. If we agree with this the way it sits, the way it's read, and we approve it this evening, then everything sits the way it is, right? Because we would need something else to reward the ordinance to change it.

Not necessarily. they you would say as conditions if you were inclined to go in the direction of giving a recommendation approval tonight you would you would make sure that there's emphasis on the specific TMP uh identification that we already discussed you would make sure that it isn't conditional use would also make sure that the the uses that you have issue with are indeed accessory use types and that's fully defined as a change they don't if they agree to those conditions they actually don't have to come back here tonight I mean back in front of you guys at a later time I should say they would just we would make sure that they did actually make make those changes prior to it actually going in front of the board of supervisors for any kind of approval that they're going to be seeking from them. Um just again food for thought doesn't mean I'm advocate or anything like that but that's the whole purpose of the conditional use right and and also the land development uh thing if if it is indeed a conditional use accessory use anytime something even similar is proposed they're going to have to go through a conditional use process but then allows us to put conditions allows us to really kind of understand the magnitude of that accessory use as far as how much it would inhabit the property its location and again we can start actually started talking about conditions that would screen it and also even limited scale and scope to make sure that it maintains an accessory use and it's not as impactful as as what what a very valid concern that you have right now

and I would add you know I I'm not aware myself of any accessory use that is permitted as a conditional use so that it is it would be a above and beyond that which I think exists in any ordinance that I'm familiar with uh to to have this permitted accessory or this accessory use permitted as a conditional news. Um, but just to echo what Mr. Ren has said, it would be layer upon layer of additional opportunity for review and commentary to make sure that it does, you know, meet with or or doesn't, you know, rise to the level of concern that I'm that we're hearing you have tonight. So, do you have any idea of, you know, a logistics fulfillment center? I know, and again, I'm working on when you were here with us before. I think you had pro proposed a cold storage facility that went close to 100 ft in the air or was

that that use has been eliminated. Yes. And so what you come back to us later on, you got a logistics fulfillment center. What's the height of that building going to be? Uh whatever is currently permitted and um I don't think we changed the height as a part of this ordinance from that which is currently permitted in the M1. So it would be whatever is permitted in the M1. I could I I'm not I think there's actually a um a height limitation in this ordinance of 60 ft. 60 ft. 60. Is that different than the M1? It is. It is. It is than the current. Oh, yeah. I see it now. Yeah.

If you look at subsection E, it has all the bulk zoning criteria. So, those would be applicable to any use, logistics center, warehouse, what have you in that district in the overlay, I should say. And just just to re in order for us to get to the next step of getting you what I think you want to see is what what's going to be planned here, what could be constructed here, what's it going to look like, the zoning needs to be in place so that we can talk to end users and develop a plan for them to come in here and develop the site. Until the zoning is in place, our applicant can't have those conversations because no one's going to come to a site that's not properly zoned. So, this is the first step and I know we've been working through it for some time and I I know we've made a few, you know, I think pretty big revisions to try to, as Mr. Blackburn said, tighten that box up a little bit that we can kind of pinpoint the user that we're looking for. But until that zoning is in place, we can't get to that next step and come before you again with a new sketch plan saying this is what's proposed in accordance with the zoning. Give us your conditions. So there is a next level to this where you will be able to apply the conditions but the base zoning needs to be in place and the map needs to be amended for that to happen. So um and that's that's just typical for any type of development is we need we need to have it in place before we can have those conversations. This is going to be a very very expensive property to develop. There's going to be a very particular end user that could come here and do the work. though. Um, that's going to be self-limiting. You're not going to get someone to come here and make it a trucking.

What would your first step be to cap off the uh landfill first before you even uh There needs to be there needs to be someone to pay for all that. That's a multi- multi- multi and that same person that's going to pay for that is going to build the building there.

Yes. The foundations on this property will be millions and millions of dollars. So there the zoning needs to be in place for us to have any discussions and we until this we we can't get the zoning in place so we can't have the discussions. So I mean as part of this application it's going to be full storm water management where there's no storm water. Now there's a lot of benefits to developing this property um as it exists today is a hazard for the township. I mean there's no other way to say that. Um so we're just trying to get the sitting there not bothering anybody for years. I don't know how it's a hazard to the storm water seeps going through contaminated waste going right into the river. So I mean we can get into more detail about that but I think any development

you just told Amber that close to the creek there was no waste. There's the site is a contaminated landfill as storm water seeps through the property. You brought up the point about leaking into the creek and you said most of it's on the west side. That's not what I said. I said that the I said the open space area is likely not a contaminated field but the site exists as a contaminated landfill today. So storm water runoff that goes through the site is going to leech into the storm into the into the namin creek. Do you have end users? Is this something that you are No. No. Okay. So this is all kind of No, there's conversations but no one's having the full conversation until we get the zoning in place.

Yeah. And then you're asking us to put our faith in you. No, I'm just asking you to to put the zoning in place so we can get to the next step so that we can bring a plan in front of you to have further discussions where you can apply conditions. Yeah, this is again I hold on I I'll stop this. Here's how I feel after this. I'll say this then I'm going to ask if there's any public comment. Okay.

The way I feel is this. I am not happy with the whole definition of industrial outdoor outdoor storage facility. It's a broad definition. It leaves the thing wide open for us to not be able to come back and set any type of regulations when you do find a developer. And if you're going to hang your hat on you can't find nobody cuz it doesn't meet that definition, that's not our issue. So, I'm going to say this. Change that definition and then come back to us and and of that or get rid of it totally and then I don't personally have a problem with it. I I can't speak for the rest of the board and some of the members aren't here this evening either, but um at this point I'm going to say that's how I feel and then I'm going to ask for public comment. Is there anybody here in the public that would like to speak on behalf of this applicant? Seeing none, I would make a motion once I find my paperwork.

Well, don't we need to talk about like what we have to limit our list. So if I guess I would need I think like he's saying specific if this was something that we were going to entertain, we need you to give us very specific language of how you are going to amend this text, what's moving, where it's going, what's changing

and and excuse me just so that we have a a clear understanding that includes the TMP number inclusions specification that the uh the one use is by accessory only that all the uses are by conditional use full remediation of the entire district well that and accessory use of the industrial storage move that somehow so that is very clear that it's accessessor use only how would that how would you suggest that how would that read what's moving what's changing

uh well the definition we can talk about whe the definition changes at all but if you go down to subsection the use regulations. It lists that use as a permitted use and we would just characterize it as an accessory use instead of a use permitted by right unless Mr. Espazito or Mr. Renis has a different opinion. It's pretty straightforward on that one I would think. So the the easiest way and listen we can write this the easiest way to probably amend uh some of this stuff if you looked at paragraph B for applicability that's where you would look at adding the tax back part parcel numbers the use regulations you would just add some additional language there saying the use regulations are all of these are under a conditional use uh permitted as a conditional use would remove the industrial outdoor storage as be there insert a new um new section for accessory uses

two accessory uses. you know it specifically for that as an accessory use there's an paragraph I believe it is without wait people wasting time it does talk about the remediation aspect we can add in there that it has to remediate the anytime there is any remediation it would have to remediate the entire site and can you give us any reason why recreational vehicles cars fleets would need to stay in this language at all can you give us any reason recreational

start there My guess is that it was I there's a database out there like this came from another ordinance. You know, lawyers are notorious plagiarists. You know, you'll hear it here first. This I guarantee you this definition exists somewhere else. It was taken. It was put here. Recreational vehicles. Strike it right now. We're we can get rid of it. Um Oh, the buses.

Fleets. Fleet vehicles. How about we do this at this point? I would like to table this until this entire ordinance gets cleaned up based on what we discussed tonight. Bring us the ordinance that we like. And I don't personally see any reasons to question anything else. I think that's fair. and um I'm just going to go understand what we're still going to be going on a lot of whatifs like with traffic and and different items like that. But um changing it I Pete's got a good point about you know what happens to the future parcels. Amber has a good point on remediating the site.

Um me I'm just stuck on something silly but that's the way I am. So can you come back with a rewritten ordinance based on the items we discussed this evening? come back to us and uh I think we'll be sailing right through the meeting. I just Yes, absolutely. I think we were just trying to make sure that I understood what those were. I think you guys probably I think they have notes. We have notes. We'll compare them and actually we'll probably talk to you guys in general as we're doing it just to uh figure it all out. Then at this point, I'd like to entertain a motion to table this until a later date. Is there a motion to table till a later date? I'll make a motion to table. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor? I I thank you very much for your feedback, guys. All right. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm still looking for my agenda somewhere. Ah, here it is. Okay. Item number five, SLLDD25-6, application for preliminary and final land development to propose a demolition of the existing vacant Denny's building to permit the construction of a 2700 ft Taco Bell fast food restaurant with a dual drive-thru. 640 East Lincoln Highway, tax map parcel 22-041-026 in the commercial district. 15 addresses were notified. Sir, you have the floor. Thank you very much. Uh Mike Mallaloy from Overbermire Redmond and Maxwell Hipple on behalf of Langghorn Investors LLC and a little background on Langghorn Investors. I'm sorry. First of all, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mr. Enis, Mr. Espazito, hello engineers. Uh uh so anyway, uh Mike Malloy on behalf of Lang Lang Horn Investors is a related company to the Summerwood Corporation. Summerwood is located right up the turnpike in West Kahaken. They own 200 plus uh Taco Bells and they own the ground underneath them. Uh so they handle all of their site work. They handle all of their landscaping, things like that themselves to make sure that their Taco Bells look like the best Taco Bells you've ever seen. Um I have tonight with me uh Brian Clearary from the Pedic Group. Uh he was our civil engineer on the project. Joe Eberly from TRG. He's our traffic engineer and I'll explain why he's here. And uh um uh Joe De Pascal is from Summerwood. He's the uh uh director of development for all the Summerwood locations. Um so uh this project is the first time it's been in front of the planning commission and we are still hoping for

preliminary slash uh final recommendation for approval. This project originated sometime last summer. Uh we applied for a special exception which is required for a fast food restaurant in the C commercial district where this is located and a couple of variances um having to do with parking things like that. Um at that point I'm sorry the if we take one more step back though uh and this is important uh the history of the project goes further back because this project is located at the intersection where uh Wawwa came in Pandot did a major revamping of the intersection the lights things like that um and so that becomes important as I'll discuss further So, um, Brian's here to discuss the engineering letter. Uh, can walk through the waivers. The waivers generally have to do with storm water management and existing site conditions because this site has been an empty Denny's for as long as I remember it. Um, not as long as I remember it. I mean, I grew up here, so it's like not not that, but at least the past past years it's been an empty Denny's. Um so he can walk through that. But the biggest issue that we faced um through this process um in June when we got our special exception and our variances and we we did our hearings um we were introduced to uh representatives from the Pendell uh Middletown Township Emergency Squad. and the ambulance squad is right next to the

Denny's. Um, and uh they uh at the squad made it very clear that they were unhappy with the fact that a Taco Bell was going next door for a number of reasons. um mainly because not because they don't like tacos, but because they didn't like sharing a driveway with the fast food use. So, this has been on your agenda for a number of months since, you know, I don't know, October of last year, maybe. And each time we've discussed with the township uh the concerns of the emergency management squad and uh we've met both together with the squad, the township's engineers, our engineers. Uh we've met independently with township staff to try to resolve things. I've of course called Mr. Esposito, talked to Mr. and um and the EMS squad hired uh dynamic engineering who produced a plan. And I'm going to have Brian because I you know I'm the I'm the lawyer. So I sit down at some point and ask the technical guy to get up. I'll get Brian to walk through first our site plan, the waiverss, that kind of stuff. And we'll we'll run through that and get to the meat of it, okay? which is that the EMS folks and their engineers have made uh certain recommendations about striping, about signage. One of the things that was implemented when Penn approved the intersection with the staff of the EMS squad at the

time, right? There's a preeemption device that when enact when you know uh u initiated turns the light at that intersection green. And so, you know, presumably any Taco Bell person who is going through the drive-thru and knows enough not to eat their taco in the driveway will see the green light and have plenty of time to clear the intersection before the ambulance comes out because that preeemption device is there. and we've offered to put, you know, work with them, pay for improvements to that, things like that. One of the things that was on the plan though was expanding the driveway. And again, Joe E Joe Eberly's here. He's the traffic guy. and he'll understand if you do that, it's going to create a problem because somebody might make a right-hand turn into the ambulance. Somebody might just start using it to get out there. There's a billion different ways we can't do that. But we're here to say that's the only thing on their recommended plan that we can't do. the rest of this stuff, the striping, the, you know, if we have to put new emitters off, if we have to adjust the timing on the preeemption device, if we have to put a bar that goes down, you know, to to block new drive-thru customers from coming out when the ambulance is coming through, we're in, but we can't touch the driveway. And that's what the guys will tell you. So, unless you have any questions for me, which you know, I'm just summarizing everything. I'm going

to ask Brian Clearary to get up and walk through the plan and then Joe Eberly is available for a traffic perspective to tell you why and walk you through everything else except for the driveway expansion. Okay. Thanks. Uh hello Brian Clary from the Pedic Group. Um if we could go to the next sheet. Okay, so this is a presentation exhibit. Um it shows the proposed improvements on the existing aerial with some landscaping shown that we're proposing. Uh so the project uh it's located across the street from the Wawwa. There's currently two accesses to the property. There's an existing access on the um east side of the property and the access that's shared with the EMS. Uh we expect the majority of people to utilize the shared access with the EMS, but the secondary access will be a right in right out for um patrons who are traveling westbound on uh Lincoln Highway and for those who are exiting westbound. Um, so the plan is to there's a row of parking uh along Lincoln Highway. We're keeping that generally as is. We're just restriping it. Uh, we're widening the um the landscaped island around our proposed pylon sign. And the layout of the property is, let's say you come in from the shared driveway, you make an immediate right into the Taco Bell and you can either make a left into a drive-thru only dedicated lane or you make a left into the row of parking. Uh that's um on the east side of the property. So, if you use the drive-through lane, you you circulate around the building, you exit on the west side of the property, and then you

make a right out to that shared driveway. Um, if you're just making a right out of the property, you could utilize the the eastern access. Um, we're proposing a don't block the box at the intersection between our front drive aisle and the shared driveway. Um, so that's really it for the layout. Uh, the parking area to the rear of the property, we're not really changing that. It's subject to a cross access and parking easement with there's a marble place um next door. So, they have an easement over the rear of that. So, that's why that parking area is generally staying untouched. Um, drainage. We're proposing an underground stormwater system to meet the ordinance requirements generally. Um updated landscaping on the property, additional lighting to accommodate the Taco Bell development. Um we received letters from the engineer, your traffic engineer, the fire marshall, and the environmental commission. We have no issues with most of those letters. the only um I wouldn't say an issue, but the environmental commission requested that we install a bio retention basin instead of the underground basin. We don't have room on site to be able to accommodate that. Um while it looks like there's a decent amount of green area, there is, but there's significant slopes on the property, and that's actually something I'll be discussing with a waiver request. So, there's not a lot of space to be able to put in a flat bio retention facility. That's why we're going underground. Um, as noted, we did receive variances to permit the fast food restaurant as a special exception to permit 22 dedicated

parking spaces for the Taco Bell where 54 required. Um, this variance doesn't include the parking to the rear that's subject to the shared parking. Uh and there's a few u uh variance to permit the hours of operation to exceed midnight and there were existing conditions that did not need variances because we weren't making them worse which had to do with impervious cover uh sign setback from the rightway and to provide a landscaped island along the rightway. Uh so we are requesting several waiverss. One of them is to permit preliminary and final plan approval concurrently. Um, we've addressed 99% of your professionals review comments. So, we think that this is a relatively straightforward request um from providing plans and profiles of storm water and soil erosion measures. I don't believe your engineer has an issue with that request uh to permit the water quality storm event to discharge in less than 24 hours. We have a small drainage area going to the basin. It's just not feasible for us to store it for 24 hours uh to prevent 12-in storm pipes where 15 in is required. Uh once again, small drainage areas to these um inlets that have the 12-in pipes. It's also a private pipe, so the developer will maintain it from providing street trees. Um, this is a technical waiver to not require them along the roadway frontage. Um, since there's not a whole lot of grass area between the existing parking and the sidewalk and there's overhead lines within that area, we don't think it's feasible to install street trees. However, we are proposing additional

trees on the inside of the property to compensate for those uh street trees. Um to permit curb radi, there are islands that are less than 10 ft in width. Um and the only other locations where we have less than a 5ft radius is directly adjacent to parking spaces. So we see no issue with the reduced radi uh to permit two driveways along the property frontage that's existing to permit a driveway within 12 ft of a property line existing for both driveways on the property uh from providing a 30-ft parking setback to the ultimate rightaway existing condition uh to permit grades in excess of 3% once again an existing condition and from providing an off streetet loading space. Um, Taco Bell, the way they operate, um, especially this developer, is their loading operations take place overnight. The delivery driver has a key to the building and they kind of park wherever works best for them uh, to access the building. So, no parking spaces, no driveways, nothing will be impacted by the loading operations. And that I believe is the remainder. Yes, that's the remainder of the uh required waiverss and generally that's the layout of the site.

Dominic requested.

Sorry, Dominic. A lot of requested waivers there. I I will note that a lot of the looks like five of the 11 requested waiverss are all existing conditions as Mr. Clearary stated. So, um I I just want to note that uh like he stated the the two existing driveways is an existing condition. Um the access driveway within 12 ft. Um so all the ones in our review letter that are noted as as existing conditions, I just wanted to highlight that. Um other than that, our review letter is conditionally approved um with three conditions. One of which has been addressed um obtaining a variance to for the 12T wide planning strip. We determined that that is not needed. An O andM agreement which I'm sure the applicant is uh willing to provide. And then the sewage facilities planning module I know is in the works as we speak. Um it is a site they are reducing the impervious area. they are providing storm water um that that meets uh the the ordinances of the township. Um so we have no other comments at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Matt, anything would uh I think I might go out of our synchronous order here. Could you shed some light on what the attorney earlier was saying about um the EMS engineers have a plan and they have a plan and there's only a couple things. I was asking Matt first, our township engineer, if he could shed some light on that for us. Do we have a do we have a drawing for that that you can put up? There it is.

I think having the applicant walk through those uh concerns and how they plan to address or what they plan to address first would probably be prudent. Okay. Well, I thought we had them him up there addressing he mentioned earlier how he was okay with everything on the their engineers drawing except for the one item, right, Jim? Well, that was their attorney. I think their traffic engineer can probably give a more technical review of it. All right, then we'll have their traffic engineer.

I'll try. How about that? Uh Joe Aberly with TRG. Uh good evening. Um the plan is up there. Um a lot of notes. There's um striping to be done um in front of the area of the garages uh where the ambulances would come out and also when they return back in just to I I believe there is some no parking there now or at least there was at one time. I'm not sure if it was put back after the it was repaved or not. Um, but a large box or, you know, no parking could be added as as text um for that area so no one is coming off of the driveway area any more than they need to be in the driveway area in the lane. Um, as well as some uh pavement marking in the driveway showing a box that should not be blocked. Um, that is just to keep those lanes open as much as possible. Um if there's any signage then that would be added could be added on site for Taco Bell as well as in the um along the side of the driveway not to block that box. Um the other thing is the the push button for preeemption. Um how that's supposed to work and I believe it works that way but um that there may be some uh issues with it of of timing. Um on the signal plan um when that button is pushed there's a clearance interval for whatever direction has green at that time that would go to yellow and then red and that takes about 6 to 7 seconds. At that time the southbound driveway approach would turn green. anyone sitting in the driveway um could then go make their left or right turn and the ambulance could come out and then go as well make their left or right turn whichever direction they're headed. The timing on that is 45

seconds worth of green time. So if you assume approximately 6 seconds for startup loss time changes typically that's probably pretty conservative. Usually people go right away, but there is a a kind of a startup loss time of about six seconds. So that leaves 39 seconds of green time. Um a conservative progress progression um per vehicle of 3 seconds. So you're going to get more than 10 vehicles being able to clear by that 45 seconds. Um from my understanding some emails um uh the EMS service may be looking for additional time than the 45 seconds and that's something we can um change the signal plan and uh take that to pendot um as well as the township township has to be involved as you know maintenance of the signal um that is the biggest piece that preeemption um if it's working right which we believe it is. I I I know the uh EMS would um have a better idea of dealing with it every day. Um but make sure it works right. Make sure the timing is enough for them to get out and clear anybody that's there. Um as well as currently the plan is set up for that button um to trigger the preeemption. However, there's also a preemption detector on the other side of the intersection for southbound traffic. I guess that could be um a scenario where a policeman is parked behind the Taco Bell, comes out and puts their preeemption on. So, they don't have access to the button obviously in the building, but that would still allow the preeemption to be triggered from someone on the driveway there. Um just like it would be on all other approaches and at other intersections. And then the other thing that um we've even talked about is

additional detectors for that preeemption. Um the ambulances sit kind of east and west. So, if they would come out eastbound and either, you know, haven't hit the button or um the detector on the south side of the intersection would not register their preeemption, we could do something with a detector that's directly across the driveway at the Taco Bell area so that when the ambulances come out to the east, it triggers right away. Um, so those are some of the things that that we looked at. um and you know willing to paint, put the signs up, make sure the preeemption's working the way it should be in the way that they want it to um and really go from there. The plan also shows the physical alteration of the driveway and um I believe the timing was when the WAW wall was done. The signal was installed at that point. This driveway was modified. Um it had a little bit different um there was kind of a curb in the middle of it and it was a oneway out for the western half. Um it's a little bit different operation before the signal went in. Now that it is the typical pendot low volume driveway footprint. Um it's it's a little wider. Typically they're 24 ft. Um so it's a little bit wider than that. Um but the additional uh proposed widening that is called for in the plan um would just create a lot of conflicts there um I understand we uh it's the same thing as we spend a lot of time designing signing and pavement marking plans and you move lines by you know half a foot and 4 in here and that kind of thing and then out on the roads people kind of do what they want. um we can get it as as good as we can. The same thing uh I'm sure happens when an ambulance or or emergency services comes up behind you and you're supposed

to get over and yield away. Doesn't always happen. Um but with that scenario, if you have someone that tends to freeze at the intersection, they're going to have a green light and they should be cleared out by the time the ambulance would get there. With this widening, you could have someone sitting there waiting to go. Even though there's a green light, they may be waiting. And then if the ambulance come tries to come beside them, you could have conflicting turns where the car wants to turn right, the ambulance wants to turn left. And I don't think it creates a uh a safe condition there. Just it it creates a lot of conflicts that I I I think is over and above what um is needed for this situation. Um the other thing once it is there um we can stripe it. We can say stay off the shoulder but people will use it. So if somebody's sitting there waiting with their left turn signal on somebody will come up and go beside them to the right and make their right turn out. Um I believe that's it on the plan. Um I can answer any questions or at least try to that anybody has at this point. Um I guess I would just I don't have anything to um add or to contradict with what this gentleman said, but maybe you could also uh just uh explain the existing conditions as far as queuing and stacking and the proposed conditions with the Taco Bell.

Yeah. Um we had both in our study and then a uh um a little bit of just a abbreviated analysis to go along with that. Um we looked at two different conditions. One with um if a sitdown restaurant was just to reuse that building that's there as it is um Denny's comes back or whatever it might be. We use that trip generation and analyze the intersection. Um, and for that the the worst case queuing, um, the 95th percentile queue, meaning um, it's only going to happen 5% of the time. It's it's 95th percentile. Um, kind of a a worst case scenario, it's 40 ft. A typical vehicle is considered 25 ft for that queuing. So, it's it's uh, not quite two two vehicles. We ran the same analysis with the Taco Bell traffic and that 40 ft goes to 100 ft which would be four vehicles. We'd already talked about with the preeemption um there's no reason up to more than 10 vehicles should not be able to use utilize the green time that's that's available there. Um, so yes, it is more it's a little bit more traffic um but it's handled at the intersection um and handled by by the signal.

Matt, you agree with them numbers? Yes. Okay. Just I think at this point before we have questions maybe we should I see a lot of members of EMS out there and I heard they have an engineer to speak on their behalf. Maybe we should uh hear them their side out first before we start questioning in case there is questions we have for both sides. We they might get answered within that uh realm. So do you guys have an engineer or EMS? Oh, come on up. Whoever wants to go first. I didn't grab the list, but I'm sure looking out there, the only people here are EMS.

Yeah. Well, the only people are Well, I won't say that the only people that matter. You look familiar.

Yeah. Joe Blackburn from Whistler Pearlstein again. And uh you'll recognize my uh my lovely Vanna White. Uh Justin Janati from Dynamic. Same cast of characters here. Um it pains me to be here because I'm usually the applicants person. I I I've made all those arguments. I'm not going to sit here and poke holes in them cuz most of the time I'm making them. Um but the simple reality is um they've done traffic studies, they've done a traffic proposal. I think it's a fair estimation that the township's traffic engineer finds no issue with their proposal. You've heard uh and seen that uh Dynamic on behalf of the EMS has also done a traffic proposal and impact analysis. I I think it's also fair to say I won't speak for him, but that there's similarly no opposition on the part of the township traffic engineer to uh what we're proposing. The only thing that I will um say and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Wro from the AMS is that it is accurate that there is a preeemption that was installed. It was installed at the time of the Waw Wa uh development across the street. Um but at the time of the Waw Wa development across the street, there wasn't a fast food uh drive-through lane being proposed uh or contemplated at the site. So, um, with that, uh, I will turn it over to Mr. Wro, who can probably speak more particularly to, uh, any of their concerns. And I would also reiterate that we do have Justin.

I'm sorry. EMS. Just just checking, you know. Oh, no. I Oh, name and address. I'm happy to. No, no, no. Go ahead, sir.

Gerald Wro, Six Walnut Way, Langghorn. um here uh as a spokesperson for Pendel Middleton Emergency Squad. Uh thanks for uh giving us the opportunity to have a few minutes of your important time. So I'm here as a spokesperson. As you can see, there's about 150 years of volunteer EMS service sitting behind you. Folks that just like you dedicate time, energy, uh sleepless nights to serve the township and Middletown and the surrounding burrows. why we're here today is to provide uh quite honestly as you said the other side of the story. U there has been a narrative that oh we're somehow against um development there. U we uh have worked with Denny's prior to their departure for decades. Many a sleepless night sitting there after a call. Um and quite honestly the the opportunity to have Taco Bell which is substantially better uh is seen as a good thing by many of our membership. Our concern comes down to u quite honestly the readiness that we have to have for both egress and ingress out of this building. So my name is Jerry. I'm an emergency medicine physician by background. A volunteer at Pendal Metal Emergency Squad for 40 years. I serve as the volunteer medical director. That's context to say that, you know, we're not here uh to talking about may. We're talking about the job that we do every day. Pendel Middleton Emergency Squad has been around for 67 years. We have been in continuous service. We provide uh care to over 7,000 uh dispatches per year at two stations. Our busiest station being the Lincoln Highway Station. U as it was talked about, we have had preeemption at that light actually long before WAWA. uh that preeemption uh has been a great tool but it's a tool in emergency services we work uh in a way with redundancy whether that's defibrillation how we treat

somebody's heart attack how we put in an airway why that's important is that there should not be one solution or even sometimes two solutions to a problem now um it was interesting to hear Mr. I think it's Maloy. I uh say, "Oh, we could put a a traffic bar down in front." Well, that's never been even talked about. My my point is I don't think we should be talking about the situation in a a scenario where well, these are what we could do. This should be concrete because in our world, right, seconds and minutes matter. In our world, we deal with the what could happen, right? What if um no one saw a nursing home in Bristol blowing up? And as someone that was there, right, we had to have preparation for that. Well, we talk about, oh, a preeemption will get it done. Preemption is one tool in the toolkit and we need others. And we think prior to this being approved, there needs to be a concrete set of guidance that's going to allow us to assure that our emergency vehicles can get in and get out back into our station to safely provide care. Now, we do agree that some striping will help, but any of us who have driven an emergency vehicle with preeemption will tell you unequivocally that it sometimes doesn't work. It actually if there's multiple emergency vehicles coming through, it will recycle. But that means if we have two trucks going to a cardiac arrest, there's the potential that it will recycle. Why that matters is a a fast food restaurant with these uh coming through a um takeout the risk of multiple vehicles queuing up and then there's a concern that they could freeze there and our vehicles could be blocked. When we gave ideas working with dynamic it was just that ideas. All we ask is that we align around ideas that will allow us to provide safe emergency care to the residents of

Middletown Township and the surrounding burrows. We do think that we're getting close. We think that having a don't block the box that's clearly marked, having signage in front of our building that clearly says no parking or no stopping. Um, we think preeemption can be a tool and there had to be some changes and modifications, likely some change to our vehicles that allows that preeemption to be activated from inside the vehicle. uh which is different than using it off of a preeemption um uh device that you pick up off the side of a building or a traffic signal. Um again, Mr. Malloy brought up maybe it's some kind of blockage that says you can't go when there's an emergency vehicle responding. Again, we this should be concrete in our opinion because we don't deal in what you know what this there's only a 90% chance of happening. We deal with the reality that we have to do the right thing 100% of the time to be able to take care of the patients that we serve. So all we're asking for is prior to this being approved, there be a clear set of guidelines that we as the neighbors at Pendel Middleton Emergency Squad that dynamic, the township and the applicant can align around to say, "Yep, we're all comfortable with this." And then that's how we think that that's going to make for the safest way for this this story to end. And again, we are very supportive. Having an abandoned bladed building next to us is not nice. We have unhoused people there. There's vagrants going through there. There's a lot of trash right now. There's a lot of snow. Um it's not being kept up. So, we would love to see development there to get this cleaned up and getting used again, but we don't want to have that at the risk that there could be inability to get out. And again, it only takes one time. Only takes one time that we can't get out effectively. Uh we ask you to put that into your thought process to make sure we're all aligned around a safe, effective way to do this. And we

thank you for your time. I I have a qu a question. Sorry. Actually, I had a question and now I just forgot. But I can help you. So, no, I have two of them. you don't have them like I'll just call it like a remote control in your vehicles for to activate that pree preeemption uh traffic light. It's it's on the building. So, it's a great question. So, there's multiple ways to activate preeemption. So, we actually have a hardwired button inside the building that was many many years ago installed because the thought process at that time was when you get dispatched you'd hit that button and it would change it. But the problem is many things happen as you can imagine during that response. I was under the under when was there you had the button

we tried we've tried remotes but the problem with remotes is that they don't always catch it and then a third way is what I think the traffic engineer for the applicant had talked about is you actually have a device in the light bar of our emergency vehicle but you have to be facing it right so that would require you to pull out position it to face the light that's the most uh the one that works the most it's called an opticon it works the most effectively um but it doesn't work for us because we're facing the wrong way. So it's been proposed why you come out and turn

correct. So uh but there are multiple ways and again going back to what we started with redundancy is the most important thing. There should be multiple things to assure that there's never a moment that any of us can't get an ambulance out or emergency vehicle out and preeemption is part of it but it it can't be the only solution. My next question sorry hold on Justin I apologize. Now, my next question is, I mean, do you have an estimated time of from when you get a call to when you're opening the garage door, making the turn, and heading to the traffic light? I know it's in seconds, but is it cuz I kept hearing 45 second time on this preemption, and I'm just wondering if

if that's within the, you know, guidelines or, you know, within a safe time. Do you have guys ever have an estimated time of that? Sure. So I mean so from the we do what's called a shoot time which is from the time that we get the request till we you know in the chute which is coming out of the of the building if you will. Okay. So that you know usually within to your point about 60 60 seconds that means you know you're walking in getting into the truck get the truck starting getting out. Now

to your point I think about preeemption though right it it does come down to you get in the truck and just do all the things you do. If you hit it and it cycles through and let's say you get a change, right? The radar room says, "Look, look at your update on your MDT before you, you know, go that time. It already could have passed." Now, you could hit it again, but remember that entire thing cycles again. Well, that's why I was wondering about the 45 seconds.

And so, the problem with preeemption is again, it can't be the only tool. We any of us have used it. We use it all the time. And the problem is it it does it's not perfect, right? It's a it's a great system. and we are much safer with it than without it. But it should not be the it's become the foundation of this uh of the applicants thing. That's what's going to save them. And and the reality is it it's one part of it and it should be but it needs to be multi multiple things to assure that we can do this safely. And I'm not going to walk away again. So I'm going to add one more question because I'm learning more as you speak. Do you have any ideas? You're the professional when it comes to this. So I think I I again

you're saying you're looking for other solutions and you want you know obviously you want them to be concrete but do you have any Can I actually piggyback on that? I kind of want to pull back to the bigger picture. Where's the sticking point with your suggestions? So I hear that you guys are kind of on the same page with don't block the box the stripes that you agree with a lot of what's been proposed. So I'm trying to understand where's the sticking point? Is it the width of the driveway at this point? What is the

So I I think I'm sorry to cut. I think the sticking point is more that you know how this started honestly was us having to come and saying we're really concerned about this right what where and and what we had hoped was that you know the applicant would say here's all these great solutions you know we've proposed many things and not all of them might be feasible but they're options but we still remain concerned I mean we believe that a drive-thru is not a great thing for there that's just our personal opinion but but we also understand that it likely is allowable But we believe that because of the way drive-through comes and if and we see McDonald's and we see Dunkin Donuts and how they quue cars, we think a restaurant's a much better thing. We live with one there for decades. It worked no problems. That being said, if if it's decided to move forward with that, we think that extra mitigation needs to be done just because of that because when cars queue out, we look no further than McDonald's down the street when they're snaked around there. Now put us coming out and there's cars sitting there and every one of us who drives an emergency vehicle will tell you that when you get behind them they panic and and so we're just saying that you ask you know what again initially it was proposed many many meetings ago like the manager would come out and like flag people down which is obviously not viable but maybe some kind of a prohibition that says you can't go during this again I don't know enough about that but what we do believe is that there are there are other options that we just all have to explore them. And I think there's a sense that somehow we're the the problem. But the reality is we're only advocating this is not like not in our neighborhood. We're just saying we have to advocate for the people that we serve and the people that don't even know they need us yet. That's what it comes down to.

Just to piggy back. So Justin Gani with dynamic engineering. This sketch was prepared by dynamic traffic which is our traffic company. I think your question was what is not being done that we ask? So, it was the the town the applicant's traffic engineer uh walked through some of the proposed recommendations that we made after viewing their sketch. One of the things that was hinted at but not fully explained was what was proposed was and it's seen in the red and I think I have does this work. Yes, it does. Um I don't know if that works well enough. It's not working. Let's go

over here. There we go. Right there. That is the existing driveway. what was being proposed there was about a 13 ft widening. Um there's been a lot of talk about redundancy. So um again I've been on the private side. Most of my work is the private side. Um we proposed don't block the box which are just stripings on the road. We propose do not enter signage. Uh we we heard the applicants traffic engineer say people ignore stuff. They ignore it. They park there. They freeze when an emergency vehicle gets behind them. So that striping or that additional widening of that intersection is redundancy. So yes, if preeemption works, great. If the don't block the box works, great. If all those fail or some of those fail and an emergency vehicle can't leave the site because there's cars queued there, that additional widening allows an ambulance to bypass any of the cars parked at the intersection and get out onto the road. They will have lights and sirens going at that time. They will be safe. They will be able to make the movement onto the road. If everything fails and everything doesn't work, they will still be able to leave this site. So,

and what is the argument that it cannot be widened? reason.

Sorry to cut you off. The the argument was that there could be a conflicting movement. If there was an emergency vehicle trying to make a left-hand turn while a car queued in the lane would be making a right. Again, this would be used as a last resort. The preeemption would be working. And emergency vehicles operate through lights without preemption all the time. So, that is the point of having lights and sirens. They know how to do so safely and they will be sure to make that turn safely. But without that access, without the driveway, if that drive-thru is pumping out cars, and we heard there could be four cars in that lane with the don't block the box, if that's failing and not working, there could be a blockage. That is just an option and a recommendation to provide that level of redundancy. I mean, we're dealing with emergency vehicles. Seconds matter.

Um Jim, that street, right? So is that legal? Can they can who owns the street? It you paper street is it own? I guess what I'm asking is could that street be widened if it was or you know is it a town is it a township street or

I don't have the full dynamics but I mean my understanding is it's if it's widened it's going onto their actual properties uh at that point um beyond any kind of rightaway that's there because it's is it is it a paper street right now? So, it's our understanding that it was vacated. Um, our survey has the um deed date and everything. So, it's our understanding it was vacated. So, it's no longer a street. Our plan's called out as a previous street, Walnut Avenue, I think. Um, but it's my understanding it's been vacated. Um, so it's not a street, it's private property.

So, okay. So, then each of you owns basically to the middle. uh each property owner to the middle there. Is there currently an easement uh between Okay.

Yes. So there's an easement if you the Alta survey should have been um included with the submission, but if it wasn't um if you look at my plans, both driveways, there's easements along the entire driveway and around the back of our property. So there's cross access easements everywhere. Um, and I also wanted to clarify one of the comments that um, or one of the items that we testified to. So, the four cars that are stacked up at that driveway, that's in an ideal scenario where we don't have our front driveway. So, 95% of our cars are going to be using the main drive aisle parallel to Lincoln for Taco Bell. So, you're going to have one car at the stop sign, hopefully no cars in the don't block the box, and then the rest of the stacking will actually take place in the driveway in front of the Taco Bell. So, they shouldn't stack into the shared driveway because if you're leaving the drive-through lane, you're not going to make a left, go around the entire Taco Bell property to get into that driveway. Um, so that's just one item I wanted to bring up. While it says four cars, we think those cars will kind of be snaked into the Taco Bell property and shouldn't on a regular basis impact the EMS side of the driveway. Okay. Um, now I guess we'll ask any Pete, any questions?

Uh, yeah, just kind of to take a step back here. It does seem aside from this driveway situation, it does seem that there are a lot of waiverss being requested and I'm not convinced that they're all need to be. But be that as it may, you're you're changing a Denny's to a Taco Bell. You know, I get that. Um, when it comes to this driveway, I think I'm still confused. There's a still some confusion on my part as to uh initially I didn't get the difference between the Denny's and the Taco Bell, but I guess the element of difference is the drive-thru, right? That the drive-thru would generate, and I'm sort of saying this with question marks at the end, the drive-thru is going to generate a sufficiently more traffic uh through that intersection than the Denny's ever did.

It's Is that true? Regardless of if it's a drive-thru, um the use fast food restaurant or fast food with drive-thru is a higher traffic use than what a sit down restaurant is according to it. Okay. So, the existing square footage of the sitown restaurant was compared to the proposed square footage of a restaurant. More traffic competing for the right to use that driveway. Yes. And that's going to conflict with the emergency vehicle operation. Is that it in a nutshell? Well, they're going to use the driveway. I don't know that I think Mr. Mallaloy is waving. No,

just that the just that the term conflict. I mean, they're both going to use a driveway and the whole presentation tonight, preeemption, that kind of stuff is to put into place measures to prevent a conflict. So that's why I grimst. So and that's where to me where my confusion I guess is it seems like a moving target. What satisfies this? What solves this? Well well let me let me just because I don't think anyone here I don't want to speak for everyone. No one here is going to say hey there's emergency vehicles. It's life safety situation and we're not going to vote for for that. You know

what's what's understandable interest that satisfies the EMS? Well, back back in late 2025 when we first sat down with the EMS and the township, we had the exact same discussion and the onus was put on the applicant. There's this idea that we need to be saved. There's nothing to save about this application. It's very straightforward. SEP special exception commercial district fast food permitted in the thing. Land development's clean. Okay.

Okay. Pendot you. It's totally approvable. Driveway is done. So, we were asked, the onus was put on the applicant. Well, figure out. So, we suggested the things that we're talking about tonight. And then, um, at the meeting, uh, we learned sometime in December that the applicant had hired dynamic. Then we waited for a plan. And sort of that's why we were delaying this meeting because we thought when the dynamic plan was put on the table that that was the EMS then telling us now what they wanted to satisfy the mitigation or or whatever we needed to make the intersection safe. So the dynamic plan and our agreement to it is that certainty. The only thing that we're opposing because we think and look, Summerwood is not a company. This is not a money thing. This is not We don't want to, you know, put the cash out to do the the driveway. This is a safety issue. Our traffic engineers explained why there could be a conflict. And I I don't hear the township engineer stomping up and down demanding a driveway. So, you know, I would just say we have done a lot in the past six months, you know, four or five months, right, to sort of solicit comments, uh, figure out what we can do and then agree to everything.

So, I'm sorry, Mr. Everly, you're the you're the traffic engineer for Taco Bell. Yes. Correct. And Mr. Giannati, you're the traffic. I don't want to Sorry to interrupt you. I want to say one thing while it's still in my mouth. Joe. Yes. You listed a laundry list of things that were clean and everything. You were legal on this, legal on that. All your things were in. But the one thing we're up here that we think about too is Taco Bell going to be a good neighbor to Middletown Township because to us that's an important part that counts as just as much as everything else. And in your speech, alls I heard was we're legal with this, we're legal with that. Well, how about being a good neighbor? We were fantastic to come into I can you didn't mention that once the whole time

I can absolutely and I thought that that was evident from the plan the team that we brought tonight whether your plans compliant or not there's an issue that goes beyond that and it is with EMS personnel which we I agree with Pete we're not going to sit there and and jeopardize you know a few seconds of somebody's life because someone wants to get a taco that's not going to happen you have not mentioned being a good neighbor to the township is, you know, right now, here's what I want to say. You guys hash this out yourselves and come back to us. I agree.

While we're on that, can we actually have our traffic engineer, can you speak to do you have any problems with widening the driveway? Do you see a conflict? Do you agree? Can you weigh in on the dispute and give us kind of the middle solution here?

Sure. I think, you know, we reviewed the application as it was submitted and we did not have any concerns with the driveway. The driveway functions as a driveway should. Their traffic study shows that the intersection will operate as it should. In this situation, you have the EMS facility there as well. Uh what we saw was that there's preeemption. Uh that there was discussion of improving the preeemption, working with the EMS to do what needed to be done. At the time, we didn't know what the exact operations, how the EMS functions, is the preeemption working. um you know when they come out do they come out with their sirens and lights flashing and how does the preeemption currently work for them? Do people clear out now with the two cars that are stacked there? So there was a lot of things. So we kind of left it to the two engineers to kind of work it out because we don't necessarily have a concern uh with either proposal. Uh the question is, you know, what makes the most sense? Uh you know, when an emergency vehicle, my understanding is if they come up behind you with their lights and their sirens on, you were supposed to move to the right and get out of their way. So, is there a potential for conflict with widening the driveway? you know, it's if the driveway is widened and we have a right turn and a through left turn lane, maybe those four cars that are stacked go down to two cars that are stacked. So, there's a lot of kind of variables and we're kind of okay with either. Obviously, PennDOT would also need to weigh in if the driveway is widened. It's a state road. Driveways are permitted by PennDOT. Um, so that comes into play. You know, the question is at the end of the day, is preeemption going to improve the situation as far as handle the situation? And I say handle the situation when the EMS come out of their garage has the traffic flushed out. If it hasn't then maybe there's something

else that needs to be done. I guess the question is what needs to be done is widen the driveway one possibility. You know, maybe that's a condition of your approval that says, hey, look, let's construct this and see what happens. Let's work with the striping, work with the um uh the preeemption, try to get it working, and then if not, maybe approach PennDOT to see about widening the driveway. That's kind of our thoughts. But again, we kind of left it to them to work things out. We really didn't have a a strong position one way or the other. I think we're fine with either way the driveway is configured.

So, this is a driveway, but can it also not be looked at as a four-way signalized intersection? And should the Yeah, right. Should the um should that be treated as no different than any other four-way signalized intersection? When there's traffic there and an emergency vehicle's behind you, you get out of the way. That's exactly how it's I mean the the signal and the intersection functions just like any four otherlegged intersection that's permitted by PennDOT. There's a traffic signal permit plan for it. The operations and the addition of the Taco Bell traffic to this intersection, it still functions appropriately. Right. If I'm leaving Taco Bell, I have to wait at a light if it's red or not to leave that intersection.

Correct. But if there's a way to enhance that, that's what we want to hear. What is the best idea? I I guess what we're trying to get at is what solves this. What

Well, I guess you really won't know until you implement. I mean, I guess we can ask how it's working now. You know, if there's two cars stacked there and EMS comes out and there's two cars there and they turn on their lights and their sirens or do they or they hit the preeemption, traffic flushes out and then they turn their lights and sirens on. I'm not actually sure what they do. So, maybe that would be good to hear. just and I extremely briefly um just because I think I've heard at least three of you ask the question the answer from EMS's standpoint as to what solves this and I think the only thing that the applicant hasn't committed to implementing is the widening of the driveway. So they're I hope that distills it. Uh and I hope I stated accurately the what is that what would solve it is that would

that is what the EMS uh feels they they've commissioned that their own traffic engineer to come up with solutions. Those are reflected on this plan and again correct me if I'm wrong but what I heard earlier is we're fine with all of them except for the widening and it is therefore the widening that remains the outstanding issue. Again why is that an issue? Yeah. Why is that an issue? I Well, the issue is because they feel that again goes back to redundancy. They're saying it's an issue. Which which Oh, why is that an issue? Widening the driveway is an issue. Why is it an issue? As we think it's dangerous. Explain, Joe. Yeah, but I don't Joe.

Go ahead. There's a couple pieces to it. You're introducing a lane that isn't um it would be striped off. It would have gore markings in it because it's only to be used when there's somebody there in the ambulance to get past. If the preeemption is on, there's a green light there. So, the person sitting there may freeze. I mean, that it happens. Sure. If the ambulance goes to go around it and at that point the car decides to go and the ambulance wants to turn left and the car wants to turn right, turn into each other. But it's not a lane. It's an area where if you occupy that area, you'll be ticketed. You'll be fined. It's not for traffic. other than emergency vehicles, right? But that that is the the scenario. The emergency vehicle is using it.

Yeah. And they're the ones in it. So it which is fine. But if that car decides to go with their green light during the preeemption while that emergency vehicle is there, it becomes a conflict of right away. But isn't that a situation that an EMS crew is trained to deal with every single day as they're coming in and out of intersections? And I mean they they kind of take a little more caution. I would think if anybody was prepared to go around cars or prepare for cars panicking, it would be an EMS team. I would think so, but I don't know that I can I think that's Yeah, I don't know that I can answer for them, but I would assume so. Yes.

What about like a gate, an arm on the one side just so cars don't go on that? Yeah. On the drive-thru. Sure. We do a gate. No, I'm saying right at the traffic light where you're going to add that extra 13 ft. Can you could you put up the um Could you put up the uh the site plan? What? No arm. So they could come straight out if they widen that out. You put a and you know when you drive through

what's this area at the drivethru? There's there's two stop conditions here. One would be coming out of the drive-thru lane as well as the bypass lane that's there. So, both of those, anybody coming through there would stop at the end of that area. Can you can you uh can you talk into the microphone, please?

Apologize. Sorry. Um, so this area does have a stop condition there. So, it's not people freely flowing out. They're stopping there. They're turning right. They're going to stop again. and they cannot they're not supposed to block that box area that that would have signage and the striping for it. If there's nobody at the signal, there's one spot for them to come out and wait that's outside the box. So, in front of the box and at the stop bar for the signal and then anybody else should, again, we can't guarantee, we all know people do things that they want in their cars, um, no matter what we plan for, but they should be stopped either in the drive-thru or if there's a spot open, come out into the park lane and stop again before going out to the signal. So any queuing what we said about was with the analysis with Taco Bell, it's 100 feet queue. Four vehicles is what that equates to and it would be one at the stop bar and then on site of the Taco Bell would be the other three whether it's in the drive-thru or straight back to the parking area.

Yeah. I'm I'm saying if you widen in front of the ambulance. Yeah, that's what they're talking about. That's on the red drawing. That that's on that red drawing that was up here before. the widening that we're talking about that the ambulance is is here. Yeah. Okay. But that's that's why we're saying and I'm saying put a a

if someone if if someone if the ambulance comes this way and the car decides to go that way, there could be a conflict. That's what we're saying, you know. Um, so, but does any of the traffic engineers think that PennDOT would approve that widening? Like, does anyone think that PennDOT would go for that? We think possibly not, Justin. That's that's what our our Okay, because we're getting everybody standing up here and we want to try and rain this in a little bit, but

Good. how you doing? Um, yeah. So, look, we we've done I've done a lot of driveway designs. I've done a lot of fast food, convenience stores. Um, there's a lot of opportunities and there's a lot of instances where you do have a a driveway wider than what is necessary for a normal lane width. Usually, it's for truck traffic getting in and out of a site. Um, they need larger radi to make the turn, so it turns into a larger radius at the entrance. So, you heard it, there's going to be one car available to stack at that light. All the other ones are going to have to be outside the box on site. that is not likely going to happen even though that is is being proposed but I mean again that's what it's designed so that's what's being proposed again this is about redundancy this is about if this does if there are cars stack there if there do people panic when the preeemption comes on or if the preeemption doesn't work it gives another means of exit if they're worried about it being striping for the widening we've done them out of concrete we've done them that a dissimilar material keeps other cars off of them they can make them out of rumble strips real real low to the ground to keep and dissuade traffic from being on top of it. Again, these are

you can I mean mountable is a different oper but you can just make it concrete on the ground with rumble strips on top of it that you can drive over it that cars are not using it for normal traffic. There's a number of things we can do. Your first question would pendot approve it? I'm assuming that they are they have a pendot application in for the right in right out driveway. I mean it would just be a a modification to that. We could have that conversation with pendot. Again these are recommendations. It's about redundancy. Um, it's about it just being emergency vehicles and ensuring their their access, you know, without pro without being prohibited or in making access through that light for any condition. That's really what this is about.

Would that satisfy you guys if if it rests on pendot and they say no, would that put a pin in it? Is it fair to leave it on Pendot's shoulders? You you're you're reading my mind. Yeah, that's exactly that. Yeah, I know that. No, we were we were just talking about it. If Penn dot approves it, we'll do it. If Penn dot doesn't approve it, can we We're back to square one. Well, I'll do all the other things that they've Yeah, we got to do all the We're doing a whole other all the other things should be done.

And and this is the only new new thing that was even discussed through five months, this driveway thing. So, everything else was always on the table, striping, everything. So, you know, yeah, we're willing, totally willing to do it. If Pendot will approve it, if you guys will make it a condition of your recommendation, we'd love to to do that. We'll engage PennDOT, uh discuss the widening in some way, shape, or form, you know, some depressed curbs, rumble strip, like uh Justin said, something like that. And let I want to talk to the gentleman from the EMS again. A couple quick other more questions. Earlier when you were up, you said when the gentleman discussed a arm coming down, you kind of were leaning towards that might have been a good idea.

Well, we never heard of that before. So that's the first we had heard many meetings ago that oh the manager will come out and stop traffic, which we ridiculous. Yeah. Yeah,

but this was was put on. Is that an option? I I don't even know if that's an option. I I guess maybe let's go full circle. Um, and thank you. And and first clarity again, I forget your name again, but the only thing was ever talked about was preeemption and putting a a box at the end, right? We came back and said, "Hey, we'd like to put something in front of the building and says, do not stop here because now there's going to be more potential for that." And they said they would do that. Clarity needs to be We need clarity on that. like when that paint wears off, who's going to put it back on, right? That all needs to be and I come back to we want concrete things. If Penn dot says no, then we believe yeah, there needs to be another option because redundancy is what

but at that point if Penn dot says no and that's one of our contingencies and we approve the Taco Bell, then that am I correct in saying that you know that there is no more negotiating on what to do because it was approved the way it was when we approved it tonight. Yeah. Yeah, I mean we I mean we put a conditioning, but there's pending PENDOT's approval on this and PennDOT doesn't approve it. Does that wipe out the entire approval for the whole Taco Bell or does that just wipe out that part? That was not how it was proposed. I mean, you could technically do that. That would seem a little No, I I'm asking how would it work because that I want to make sure.

So, we would make what was proposed was they would um propose to do all of the traffic uh suggestions from dynamic. If the only one that they're really concerned about that that uh would not approve would be the widening, but what they're saying is if Pendot does not approve that, then they'll just do the rest of them and that's it. And you're okay with that, sir? Well, we we were not. I mean, I think we've come back to that. That's what I'm wondering. But then what would your other suggestion be?

Well, and Exactly. Right. That so now things get thrown out, right? So, hey, we'll put a bar there, right? That's never even been talked about a control arm or something like that. And it was brought up today by the applicant. Okay, great idea. I guess my point is maybe more discussion needs to be had before this is approved just for that reason because if it's decide if someone reaches out to Pendot and they say that will never get approved, then a conversation happens. say, "Okay, then what's another mitigate way to mitigate that?" What we're talking about now is, "Well, don't worry about it." What I what we keep hearing is, "Don't worry about it. It's going to be okay." And it may be okay, but it, you know, we're glad that there's concern about our driving, but every time we drive with lights and sirens, there's risk. And again, if PennDOT approves it, we're quite comfortable navigating. We go on shoulders and opposite side of traffic all the time. That's not our concern. Now if PENDOT won't allow it to happen which could happen we still believe strongly that there needs to be some additional mitigation because

so do but you don't have any suggestions on what we proposed there was our what we thought was the most reasonable we and we thought that there was reason to believe that Pendot would think it was okay based upon all the things that happened. It's going to be different material.

You're going on a whim. You don't know if they're going to prove it. And then like we were just asking, we say yes to everything and they agree to everything on your thing, but Pen Pendot denies that extra lane. They do everything else that you want on your list. You're not getting the extra lane. And now then you're standing there telling us, but you still want more beyond that. And they have, you know, they they're claiming it's been 6 months that they've been back and forth with this. I do know that they've canceled a few times. It's been cancelled on our agenda. So at one point we have an obligation to respond to their request. So

I mean we it was only December when we had a sit down between the municipality and the applicant. Uh so 6 months to 6 months but it was only December that we had a meeting with them. So whatever the cause for 6 months was it certainly wasn't Pendell Middle10 Emergency Squad. Let me ask you this. Short if PEDOT does deny it short of anything else with that road widening, is there any solution you'd be happy with? Is that really what everything is hinging on? And if they don't, you don't even want that drive-thru there. Is that kind of your position?

Well, again, we're reasonable people and and although it people have tried to paint otherwise, we're reasonable people. We're we're just saying that we think you need to have redundancy. That's why we thought this was the best knowing full well it may not something to stop people from from sitting in that spot because against a bunch of cars sideways sitting there which is what we p again look no far the beauty of it is we have McDonald's to prove what happens when they're all sitting there sideways queued to try to get out on the Lincoln Highway and that's what our concern is. Um you know all we can give you is that our our guidance is that we think more mitigation needs to be done. We think the widening is the single best way to do that because it gives us an opportunity to get out

and then it goes back to and if they whatsoever at this point I don't know I'll ask the rest of the members but sir is there a chance and I know you said you've been trying to be up here several times right what if we give this Why is everybody looking at me like they want to shoot me oh um Is there any way you can work with the EMS and come back here? And Jim, would we be able to get them on the agenda for next month? We give this 30 days. One more thing. Go ahead. But I'm ask Wait a minute. One, two, I don't know if you're an engineer.

Three of four Joe engineers in the room. No one says anything except what's on the dynamic plan. That's what we did, sir. We waited. We said, "What do you want? We're fresh out of ideas. Give us some." They gave us going on the Now we're at a point with the dynamic plan. We understand, but that's their plan, right? And we understand.

Now we're at a point where where okay, if we're going to move forward, I'd rather move forward with PennDOT in the driveway and have a condition that if anybody comes up with anything else that's reasonable, we'll do it. we'll do it. Because here's the problem. We've asked and asked and asked, and that's the same answer we've gotten. We think there's mitigation to do, but we don't know what it is, you know, and and that's just not going to work anymore because we're going to come back in 30 days and they're not going to have any more ideas. And we're going to lose another 30 days not going to see whether this driveway works.

Nope. So at that point, at that, See, you got to understand that you've been doing all that behind the scenes. We have not known any of this was going on. It was one month, five months, 6 months. We didn't know how many time how long you've been negotiating with the MS or

how we don't we're learning all this tonight. Everything's a first time for us here. And now that we know this, we can turn around and come up with a can you work this out based on let's go with the idea that Pendot's going to say no. Let's just take that. We're going to start with Pendot says yes, you agree to it. We're going to move on with the driveway, the extra driveway putting in. But in the in the interm that if pendot does say no and it could be a 5050 chance that pendot says no then I would almost say that the EMS is on notice to work out something they agreed to within the next 30 days and then we you come back to us and our discussion you'll be the fastest one on that agenda that night. Now the only thing I would say is it's it's not on them to work something out. They need to give us something concrete, another another solution. They need to sit down with their engineers another 30 days now and come up with something else on the list that we gave them 60 days to do.

Can this condition trigger if PEDOT says no that they come back and or is it moot at that point? Can we just say if Pend dot says no then we need to circle back and work something out? How can we get past the sticking point? Hold up. Can I just ask what's what because it's to your question. What is what is the timing? It's ridiculous. What is the timing of PENDOT discussions if we were to leave here tonight with a condition that you're talking about? Like what what's the timing on that? That's a good question. Would PENDOT be able to answer this in 30 days?

No, probably not. No, it would be answered in final land development approval before the board probably. You know, typically we put approval as a um condition condition. I get it. I get it. And then we've heard a lot of discussion now on this. Now we're at the point where where I don't know what to do. I mean, we're at the point where

everybody's hinging on what Pendot's gonna say. And if PENDOT says no, there's going to be some unhappy people here. But on the flip side, we're hearing that the unhappy people have not agreed to any other resolutions but everything else that's on their plan. Um, so that leaves us in a predicament. That leaves us to the point where we cannot hold the applicant up any more at much more time. Right, Jim? They're on a we're on a timer on this one. if they agree to another waiver from the MPC requirements, then you can extend that time. But yes, there's always a clock on a land development application.

The may I if you don't mind, Joe D. Pascal from Summerwood. Um you you mentioned the neighbor, right? So we're going to be their neighbor. We have cross access. We have cross easements. We're going to live together. We have to live together, right? as opposed to your prior application where you were reszoning and doing all those things and you were concerned that you were going to get bait and switch somewhere or whatever. There's no bait and switch here, right? I want to build a Taco Bell. I've agreed to play nice with my neighbor. We're going to give them what we can give them. None of us sitting in this room, including PennDOT, which I might be retired before they answer the question. We don't know what's going to happen. We build our store. We see what happens with the traffic. I don't want anybody to die. Obviously, right? All of us, you know, live with EMS and emergency vehicles all the time. We live here, right? We all live here. That's not an issue. We will fix something if it needs to be fixed. We don't know if it needs to be fixed. We don't know what's going through there. Denny's was there. Now they're not there. It's empty. There's nobody in that in that driveway. And the reality is, if you look at my plan, 90% of my traffic is going to stay on my site. It's not going to be in there until it gets in the intersection, which is fully signalized, preempted, approved by PENDOT based on a WAWA across the street, by the way. Right. So, those conditions are what they are. I'm going to add to them absolutely hopefully a lot because I'm going to be successful. But we're more than happy to address these things as we go forward. We're going to be again, we're going to be living next door to these guys, right? So, we're not trying to get away

with something and we're not trying to skirt our responsibilities. What we're saying is we don't know. We don't know what's going to happen in that light at that signal with that traffic and it's going to be different five years from now than it is today. Right? That was a a flashing yellow light for how my entire life. Right? Now it's a signal. So it's behaving differently. Everything about that road has changed. Right? So uh I would just suggest to you that we're not going anywhere. I already own that property by the way. uh and we want to build a store there and be part of that community which includes the EMS. So um you know just want to put that out there.

It seems like all of our powers to be are having a little what about gathering there so I'll wait a few minutes to see what they come up with. Um,

no. Sorry. We're trying to We're trying to come up with something here. Um,

what what I thought you said. Okay. But I don't I think I misspoke. So So correct me. Okay. I said if the board recommends approval um we would accept a condition or look at a condition where let's just say irrespective of the pendot approval of the driveway. Okay, whether the pendot approval gets done or not and we will seek pendot approval for the driveway. the engineers, township, um, EMS and Summerwood traffic engineers will meet in the next 30 days and come up with whatever that other thing is.

Plan B, maybe not even plan B. Maybe it's something else that they just want, you know, and we'll look at it and in good faith. And, you know, Joe just spoke. You know what we did? We agreed to everything else. We had legit concerns about the thing. Well, 99.9% most likely and I hear that it's probably not going to be anything extreme anyway. So, is that good?

Um, I maybe I'm not sure. I'll say what I think and then you guys can tell me if it's the same thing. Pendot condition or pendot approval as a condition of the widening. If, and I guess this is where I I'm not sure we, if they say no, somewhere down the line, which is going to be down the line, then we get the engineers back in a room and as a condition of approval, they just got to figure it out. It's got because it's not going to be a PENDOT issue at that point. Pendot has kicked it out of their jurisdiction. So, we got to have our traffic engineer, their traffic engineer, and Penoni agree to whatever that potential plan B is. And and the thing I

the thing that I'm saying is I think I think the only distinction is I think we need to do that plan B now. I agree we can always got to have a plan B. So we're looking at a plan B pending. PEDOT says no. And it's a plan B that all parties can agree on. Well yeah I I agree we can get that plan B going. But I don't want it to be at the expense or in lie of a legitimate effort to advance the pendot approval of the widening.

No, the way I'm way I'm hearing uh Mr. Mallaloy say it is this is plan A. this is what is going to be approved, but there's a condition of the approval that within the next 30 days, you're going to come up with a plan B and that plan B would only go into effect if plan A is denied by PENDOT. That is fine. I'm saying if you come up with something else though, well, that's always we'll look at that too cuz that's how for some reason plan 30 days. We can't even give plan B here. Plan plan A plus plan A plus. You lawyers can't even agree on plan B and now you want to go to C. I think I think we're good. Yeah, I think we're good.

Yeah. I look, there's going to be a scoping work together. There's going to be a scoping meeting and I understand we're not going to get you'll have a scoping meeting in 30 45 days. I think we'll have a good idea as to how realistic plan A is. How does the EMS feel about this? He represents it. Yeah, you might as well come on up. This the last time cuz I'm pulling a motion right after this. But how does the AMS feel

again? We these are going to they're going to be our neighbors. We want to be good neighbors. We're just here to advocate for our responsibility to you and the municipality. We believe strongly that we need multiple layers. We think what's been proposed is reasonable. We all know it potentially could not happen and we do think something else. We our job is to be here to advocate and also to inform. Multiple layers need to be done and that's why you don't want a doctor doing traffic engineering. you want um the engineers to do that. So, this sounds like a very reasonable thing. We think this is the best plan. If that doesn't happen, we'll come up with plan B and hopefully not a plan C. Thank you. Thank you for your time. We appreciate

and I think Huh. No more questions, right? Nobody's got any more questions cuz it's like getting late here. It's past my bedtime. Pete, anything? No.

Okay. I'm going to need some verbiage on it would be item item G at one point, Jim, when we get to it, but I'll read the I'll wind up the rest of this here. I want to make a recommendation of approval for SLLD number 25-6. Application of proposal. Can I stop one second? There is one thing on my mind, and I don't mean to slow this meeting down anymore, but I did have another concern, which I don't know if anyone thought about. Let's hypothetically say the plan gets approved tonight. I have a little bit of concern on the construction, the demolition and the construction of the new building impeding the EMS. Is there any measures in uh put in place for for that? Um you know, are are you going to be fencing up around the property

so that everything stays within the fenced area when you're demolition and doing construction? Are the construction there is there's when it comes to deliveries to build your new store, is all your trucks going to go inside that fenced area, not pulling alongside the road where it would maybe block the EMS? Is that something I have to mention? Well, that's that's usually uh in the building code and the building permit phase that will all be taken care of. So they when they're going to do the demolition even they got to get building permits and follow the regulations in the building code in order and the ENS approval and ENS approval will deal with where the trucks enter and all that kind of stuff.

I've taken many deliveries on job sites where the truck just pulls up, gets out, goes and looks for who he's got to deliver it to. Here we are sitting four, five, 15 minutes with a maybe possible tractor trailer blocking the e the exit of the EMS. Well, I understand that they're they're they're not following the regulations. We can't we can't be there all day. It does happen. Yes, but it does happen. So, I don't know if we had to put anything into that before I go any further.

Okay, then I'm going to start over again. Recommendation of approval for SLLD number 25-6. Application proposing construction of a 2700 foot Taco Bell with a drive-thru at 640 East Lincoln Highway, Lincoln Drive, Langghorn, PA 1 19047. It's on Bucks County tax map parcel 22-041-026. Recommendation is based on a plan entitled Langghorn Taco Bell preliminary and final land development comprising nine sheets dated June 10th 2025 and last revised October 15 2025. Plan is prepared by Brian Clearary PA of the Pedic Group LLC of Sul New Jersey. Recommendation is further based on the compliance with the comments provided. A November 21st, 2025 letter from Isaac Kesler, PE of Remington and Verdict, Middletown's Townships Engineer. B. November 21st, 2025 letter from Matthew D. Johnston, PE of Penoni Associates Incorporated. They are Middletown Townships traffic and transportation engineer. July 11th, 2025, review letter from the Bucks County Planning Commission. November 10th, 2025 letter from Alan Welsh, Middletown Township Fire Marshall. November 25th, 2025 letter from Middletown Township Environmental Advisory Council. The requested waiverss on site plan sheet three of nine of the land development plan. And how do I word this last one? Jim G.

Applicant will seek a pendot approval. If approval is not granted then applicant will work with neighboring EMS prop property for alternative solutions. So no we know what you're doing. All right. Yeah. And yeah I work with Yeah. We'll work with Hold on a sec. So we have we have a record of what was kind of agreed upon here. If this is not exact language, by the time we would give any kind of preliminary final approval from the supervisors, I will have worked out language with the attorneys for both sides on that.

All right. My handwriting my hand my handwriting is my handwriting is terrible. I know. Okay, I'm back. Item G. Applicant will seek pendot approval. If approved in if approval is not granted then applicant will work with neighbors neighbor EMS uh neighboring neighboring EMS properly for alternative solutions. With that all said, do I have a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. I was all right. Pete second. All in favor? I I I Any opposed?

I opposed. We have one opposed, but motion passed. Hopefully you guys work all this out. Have a good night, gentlemen. Hold on. Is that your sheet? That's all this man. This is Yeah. Oh, okay. Review a zoning hearing board. Jim, anything important on here on the review of zoning hearing board that pertains to us in the future? No, actually the the the sheet that you have the actual public notice is all residential in nature. Even if they were all granted, you would never actually see them as far any kind of like uh land development pursuit.

At that point, motion to adjurnn meeting. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Is there a second? All in favor? I