Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. We're going to start the meeting now. I would ask everyone please rise for the pledge to the flag of America for it stands nationy andice for all. Okay. Uh Amber, can you hear us? I can. Oh, good. Are you still going to do roll call? Can you see us? I can see you, but if you can do it, that would be great. Do roll call. Sure, I'll do roll call. Thank you.

Okay, roll call. Uh, Richard Nuttle here. Peter Tantala here. Amber Watson Tardiff. Tardiff, sorry. Here. Joseph Anteneelli here. Uh, Tom Pioentino is absent. Keith Aroswald is absent. Jimnis Dominic Kandari here. Matthew Johnson, Johnston, sorry. Hey, Matt. Jim Espazito here. Okay, we're all here. Next item. Uh, approve the minutes from last month's meeting. Uh, is there any member of the board who read the minutes and seen any, uh, errors or omissions in the minutes? I am Amber. Nope.

No. All good. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from our February 4th meeting. Need a second. Second. All in favor?

I opposed. Minutes passed. Third item SLD number 25-4 petitioned on be behalf of Corman Commercial Properties to Middletown Township to seek both seek both a zoning map amendment as well as a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow for the reszoning of the aggregate properties referenced in the application for the establishment of new use identified as logistics fulfillment center in the M1 light manufacturing zoning district. The undeveloped property subject to the petition contain the addresses of 2011 West Lincoln Highway are near the intersection of Route One and West Lincoln Highway, also known as business route 1, cover approximately 83.7 acres and splitzoned between the C commercial and M1 light industrial and O open recreational zoning districts. Tax map parfals 22-15-12-11 22-15-16 22-16-131 22-16-127 22-16-125 and 22-16-124 along Lincoln Highway are proposed to be reszoned to the M1 light manufacturing district or open recreation district. There were 35 addresses notified.

Look like a familiar face. We just saw you a month ago.

Yeah. Yeah. Um Joe Blackburn from Whistle Pearlstein here on behalf of the applicant. Uh good to see everyone again. Um as you accurately summarized and probably will recall from our February meeting and our September meeting and our June meeting. Um the applicant before you application before you tonight seeks both the reszoning of the aforementioned properties and the subsequent adoption of a text amendment which would create various new uses and overlays within those properties. Um for the purpose of tonight's um uh meeting uh you will recall that at our February 4th meeting the applicant left with a uh list of revisions to make to the ordinance. Um I am happy to report that all of those revisions have been incorporated and circulated. Um with the exception of one which uh we can touch base on but uh before doing the one we did not incorporate um just by way of brief reminder we did um include or excuse me exclude um certain vehicular inclusions from the industrial outdoor storage use definition. We did make all uses within the logistics fulfillment center by conditional use as opposed to by right. We did revise the industrial outdoor storage use to be exclusively an accessory use. Uh we also at the request of Mr. Enis and Mr. Espazito added language to prohibit the aggregation of properties to meet that 50 acre minimum. Um the properties need to be standalone 50 acres. You can't have multiple properties separated by rights of way. um combined in order to meet that 50acre minimum. And we did add additional language to specify and clarify that uh all D and EPA cleanup standards would need to be met in conjunction with any development. Um we left that hearing or that meeting rather on the 4th with the assurance that um make those revisions, we come back and I think your words, Mr. Nuttle, where this will will sail

through. It'll be the quickest approval we ever got. So here we are. I've already blown that because I've been talking for 5 minutes. um happy to answer any questions that the commission may have and I'm uh joined by Dan Ratando from Dynamic Engineering uh to answer any questions as well. So, you are correct. Um there was one thing you I did mention that you did keep on there that should have been left out was buses. Uh we talked about recreational vehicles I think and and we first in the beginning and I got the minutes here we talked about the whole industrial storage one

the whole thing getting erased and then when we came back it was the buses and the recreational vehicles. So you are and so if we take the buses out on my end personally and the only other thing I looked at was under the fleet vehicles if we could just change that to fleet you could keep fleet vehicles but maybe in a parenthesis or something if Jim Espazito agrees with this to to also exclude buses. Um, I'm if you're good with that, I'm turning it over to the rest of the board to speak uh and tell you anything that they might issues they might have.

I'm not sure I entirely follow, but I'm sure we can circle back and confirm what that what that would be. So,

all right. So, then at this point, I mean, do you have anything else or you want to turn it right? only u I did mention the one revision we did not make uh that was requested was to specifically enumerate the TMP numbers that this overlay would apply to because again there is an overlay being applicable. We did preview um why that would be an issue um to avoid spot zoning um we conferred addition you know further with Mr. Espazito the township solicitor and he you know can speak for himself but was not in favor of that approach. Yeah, I agree. If we if we put in just one specific text map partial number, we would be challenged and uh we would lose onspot zoning at the at the court level. Um so what we did ask them to do and you have it in front of you is a is a zoning map of what properties could possibly be affected and it's actually way less than on that map that uh than you see because we added that language about can't be dissected by a right of way or roadway or rail railway. Yeah, I think what that what that exhibit shows and I don't know if you're able to put that up, but it identifies the the totality of the properties within the township that would satisfy that 50acre minimum. Uh, and then identifies all but the subject property or clarifies rather that all but the subject property would be separated by a right of way of one or another such that at the end of the day,

yeah, made the mousetrap as small as possible and applicable to only our property. I mean short of specifying the TMP numbers. Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. He was uh anything else? That's I think Pete, you're up to there.

Yeah. Uh thank you for explaining all that. I appreciate that. But actually that issue is really one of my first issues a question I have about that. I understand the spot zoning argument, but the way the ordinance reads that or the proposed ordinance reads um section 5002205B a as regards applicability of this ordinance. The LC logistics center overlay district shall be an overlay to provide additional use of the land as appropriate within the area designated as LC on the township zoning maps on the township zoning map. the requirements and standards of the overlay district shall supersede those of the underlying districts. So the way I read this, there's I I would understand that there's to be a a zoning map change that includes an area designated as LC.

Correct. That's the overlay that we've that we've talked about. So is this is this intended to be the uh that is the exhibit identifying the property? No, that is not um this just

I'm going to jump in here just to to clarify. I think so Pete, I'm going to agree with you on that one little addition onto the back within the area designated as LC. There actually won't be a specific area designated on the zoning map as LC because it's not a lot of times you have just like a circle around an area for an overlay district. This is a uh an overlay district that is more described within the text as opposed to on the zoning map. That sentence, that last part of the sentence would probably need to be removed to uh um to show exactly how we're not doing it because we're not doing an overlay district with like a like a bubble on the map.

Well, it would still be designated the LC. It would just be designated pursuant to the application of the 50acre minimum and all that other stuff. So, yeah, but he but it does say on the township zoning map. That's where that's the part where I think it just needs to be clarified. Um, in other words, I read this and I'm looking for the map where this is designated elsewhere. It's a it's it's more of a little bit of ambiguous language. I think that's a minor thing that we can clear up, but it won't be specifically on the map. So, at what point in the process when this goes to land development, will that be identified? In other words, they'll they'll just say with the application, this is the area we intend. Yeah, it's it's kind of, for lack of a better description, a floating overlay. And it's a floating overlay where you need at least 50 acres.

Okay. In the M1 zoning district. So when we vote on this, we could be voting on any one of these parcels that No. Because what that map's really showing, especially with the language about it needs to be contiguous. It can't be separated by a rightway, railway, waterway qualifies. Yeah. So if you look at that, the one for instance, the best one I can think of on that map, they're showing a 70some acre. Well, a couple properties that combined, two sites. That's two sites and it's two sites that's also separated by a rightaway. So, you actually really wouldn't have a a total of 50 acres. There's no map amendment tonight. The map amendment would be to resone. I'm sorry. Yes. To reszone the property. Right. Okay.

Okay. Even though you don't have to now the way it's written because this district would supersede those of the underlying district. That's true. But it's more of a a cleanup. It's just it's never a good idea to have a split zone propert went on a whole thing about trying to eliminate split zone properties and I think that serves to do that as well. Yes. Right. So that's a good thing. Um

just by way of history, you first came to us not as an overlay but as a revision to M1 and now you're an overlay. So that's good. That's a good thing. Um there are environmental benefits to this. Obviously you're still going to provide access to the park, the recreation area. I'm kind of saying these things for everyone's benefit so they understand how we got to this point. There were a lot of uses that you removed already. Data center, that was a particularly delterious one. Cold storage, you removed the height increase, right? um at the in the end. Oh, and you changed a lot of uses that would have been by right to really being conditional, meaning the implication meaning that you have to go to the board of supervisors to get a lot of these uses. Correct.

And back in front of you

and back in front of this body. Um at the end, you're you're really not asking for much more than what M1 would allow you anyway. You're you're kind of reszoning the properties to get a little more M1. Um, and that's kind of how I see it. Um, okay. We talked about the the zoning map amendment and the way that reads the applicability uh clause. Um, I'm still not convinced about the traffic. Uh, but I'm being told that obviously when you're going to have a lot of truck traffic with these uses that you're proposing and there may be good ways to get into this site, there's just no good way to get out of this site to go on Route One southbound, the Turnpike, and some of these other destinations that you and um I'm told that that that's really a matter for the land development submission, which it is. It's not part of this. Um, however, no, I don't think any serious developer should be talking to anyone developing this site without having an answer to that question.

Absolutely.

Yeah. And that that's a big question mark for this site in my mind. Um, I do still have an issue with uh in your section 52205E4 where essentially you're relaxing the natural resource protections um that they may be reduced um for the development of this site. Uh and I understand why you're asking that, but in reality, those protections don't require that you plant additional trees on that site. uh because this applies to woodlands and steep slopes, but they there's a relief outlet there that you could plant trees on other sites. This would take that requirement away from a developer uh of this site. And so I still have an issue with that personally. Um, and then lastly, I I think when you do come in for land development, there's going to be a very high bar, I think, applied here in terms of you're really going to have to have an answer to that traffic question of how trucks are going to get out of this site. Uh, and and and it won't be winding through our neighborhoods and so forth. And then the whole contamination remediation thing, there's a lot of benefit to developing this site. It is very much appreciated, I think, that you added the clause in there that um the environmental cleanup any site identified by the D or hazardous as a hazardous site um or the EPA would have you'd have to they'd have to manage those cleanup requirements and that I think that that it's very well appreciated that that's in there at this point. Um so that I I see as a big benefit to this development. Um but between that and the traffic issue, I think there's going to be a very high bar when this comes to land development ultimately uh to this body and beyond. Um and those are really my questions, clarifications. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe. You got nothing? No. Amber, I am satisfied with the changes that were made. Okay, then it circles back to me and we're hung up on one word. Buses. Buses gone.

Strike buses and add a parenthesis where fleet vehicles are that says except buses. You can have fleet vehicles. What I don't want to see in the out in industrial outdoor storage is a it just I don't want to see a truck stop there. Your logistics fulfillment center I'm good with. Trucking cross stockck facility I'm good with. and your outdoor storage. What you changed I'm good with. But I just think when we talk about there I I don't even see the need what what need would there be to buses? Probably none. But let's take it out. We strike buses and put except buses in parentheses where the fleet vehicles are concerned. So there's no fleet buses. And you're okay with that?

Think I think Yeah, we can we can swallow that. Yeah. What's that? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no. I didn't hear the last part. We can swallow that. Yes.

Oh, okay. Then, um, is there anybody from the public that wants to speak uh on for or against this? Anybody uh out there for this? Sir, you can come on up and uh state your name and address, please. Uh Joe Lemming, 241 we chief. And I had sent an email out um we talked about this and I just figured it was important to also have the question asked when the developer was here last month. They said they would probably clear the whole site and um does that include going to the stream

or and this these these questions may be better asked once land development uh once the project comes. Do you have that other map that can go up that has the conservation buffer or that strip? So are would you leave the conservation buffer alone? So there as it is there is as a part of this like so there's as a part of this a uh conservation buffer that is created along the stream. I mean

let's let's take a step back. There's no mature hardwood legacy growth. This is the landfill. It is scrub brush. Uh things are pouring into the stream into the river right now. So um we will need to clear the scrub brush in order to comply with the D and EPA capping and remediation requirements. And then after that is done there will be a you know the conservation area along the stream the riparian buffer enhanced riparian buffer that will you know hopefully prevent uh or ameliate that condition moving forward. So I I think that answer if that you're looking at me like that does not answer your question but

so it'll it'll be replanted probably at the project stage it'll be replanted to form a strong riparian buffer. It will uh be preserved. I don't know the replantings will will have to be the subject of land development but uh it will be not developed not not impervious. It will be open uh and likely given its proximity to the to the river it will be replanted with some some manner of repairarian plantings. Uh but again that's that's kind of a land development question. Um, all I can tell you right now is that it's not going to be developed in that hatched area along the entirety of the screen. So,

and that's again to satisfy D and EPA. We don't look the less we have to do or a developer has to do the better from a cleanup standpoint or tearing trees out, but that's that's out of our hands. We don't decide where we got to cap what we got to take out in order to cap it. That's exclusively the province of D and EPA. So, okay. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks. Did he uh answer uh all your questions, sir? You good? Probably development. There'll be a lot more discussed during land development.

And the conditional use uh part as well because so it'll be conditional use and land development for whatever use is going to be happening come here. Yeah. Is there anyone else from the public? So, at this point then I'm going to ask for a motion. Um, but I want to amend I got an A, B, C, and D. I I need to How do I amend E to say strike buses from the industrial outdoor storage section and add in accept buses in the fleet vehicles part. Exactly how you just said it. You just did. Man, I'm a lawyer and I never even knew it. Huh. All right, then. Amber, are you okay with everything so far? Yep. Thank you.

Okay. So then I'm going to ask for recommendation of approval for SLLD25-4 petition to Corman Properties to amend the Middletown Township zoning ordinance by allowing a logistics fulfillment center use type with associated requirements in the M1 light manufacturing zoning district and to change the Middletown Township zoning map by resoning an aggregate of properties to the M1 light manufacturing or O open recreation zoning districts. aggregate of properties contained the Bucks County tax map parcels. Here we go again. 22-15-12-1 22-15-16 22-16-131 22-16-127 22-16-125 and 22-16-124. Recommendation is further based on compliance with the comments in the provided lists. A January 5th, 2026 memorandum from Isaac E. Kesler, PE and Dominic Kandere, PE of Remington and Vernick Engineers. Um B. September 9th, 2025 letter from Matthew D. Johnson, PE of Penoni Associates Incorporated, Middletown Townships traffic and transportation engineer. C. August 6, 2025 review letter from the Bucks County Planning Commission. D, June 26, 2025 letter from the Middletown Township Environmental Advisory Council. And E, discussion during meeting,

you can say strike buses and add except buses in parenthesis after fleet vehicles for the outdoor storage definition. Okay. So E would be strike buses from the industrial outdoor storage section and also add except buses in the fleet vehicle section of the industrial outdoor storage definitions. Did I do that right? Just before I call for a vote, Dominic, was there any other issues? I know we talked about this a couple times. Would you did you have anything that you wanted to add? Not at this time. No,

not at this time. Okay. Matt, I think so. Then um uh all in favor? Pete, I I I am Amber. I I Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for working with us, especially me on my bus thing. You're very welcome. All right. Have a good night. Thanks. That was not the quickest, but we'll we'll hold you to it next time. That's Pete's fault. You can blame that on Listen, you can blame that on Pete. That was all him. I only had two words, one word. Buses. Okay. Give pardon me one minute because Joe just handed me his agenda and somehow I lost it.

I don't know where you did it.

I don't know what I did with it either. Ah, I think I found it. Next item. Here we go. SLD25-12 application for subdivision and preliminary/final land development for a two lot subdivision with the construction of two new single family dwellings address 316 Tollgate Road Langghorn PA1 19047 tax map parcels 22-4-15 RA-3 resident zoning district 23 addresses notified sir you have the Good afternoon. Uh, good evening. Andrew Stole on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Blackburn had hidden it being quick. I'll be even quicker. Um, this was before you a couple months ago, and there were really just two issues. Um, dealing with some of the the neighbors. There was a rear neighbor who uh was claiming rights to certain property. That's been resolved, and there were other rights um raising issues with respect to a driveway. Those issues have been addressed. Um, we have a clean review letter uh from the township engineer. Uh, with me here tonight is the applicants engineers, Jake Diaz and Eric Case. Happy to answer any questions, though. I think this one seems a lot more straightforward than the one that just went through.

Okay. Um, sorry. Okay. Uh, Dominic, you did you have anything on this one?

Uh, I guess just to clarify, our our latest review letter that you mentioned was clean. we did have some conditions of approval that uh those items would still need to be uh addressed prior to the plans being final. Um I I do know that a plan was sent out earlier today that addressed some of those comments you mentioned about the residents one being um the the uh widening of the access road. So I'm I'm just looking at it as as you're speaking. So just I just want to mention this. So, you're adding the storm drainage within the paper street. Um, so just to to clarify, that is a paper street. So, you know, I'll have to confirm this with the solicitor, but that would require easements from those property owners that that is in front of since that is a paper street and that would be included in the O andM agreement. No,

to my understanding, a paper street is an easement and we would have the right to improve it with the township's approval, but I haven't seen specifically where you're trying to put this storm drainage show, but I'll have to It's all within the paper street limits. Okay. So, what we did is on the hydraulically low side, we put an inlet to capture the flow from the additional stone, and we're taking that into my client's property, uh, into an energy dissipator and then releasing it into his property. Okay. I think we can work with you, but I'll have to look at it a little. It works.

Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to mention that as I'm I'm looking at the plan for the first time, but um no, other than that, I mean, we we had uh like I mentioned, a conditional approval the last time, but um perhaps uh Mr. Clay, could you just I I know there were some adjustments too with the storm water, the footprints. If you could just touch on that and how they've been relocated and and perhaps why they were Okay.

relocated. And as Andrew stated uh at the last meeting uh one of the rear property owners uh we worked with them with an easement as to where they were utilizing part of my client's property. Uh we have an easement in place for that. Uh part of that agreement of the easement was to remove any proposed storm sewer out of it. So we weren't going to give them an easement and then put a basin in it. So we slightly adjusted the ba if you're looking at the plan. We slightly adjusted the basin to the left and pulled it to the bottom a little bit just to get it outside the easement of the area that he utilizes. Other than that, the basin has the same volume, the same design. Everything is similar except for the shape changed a little bit.

Thank you. Can our Can you turn our screens on so we can see that? All our screens are off.

Who controls that? Okay. Um, Matt, did you have Well, we we'll keep going while Did you have anything, Matt? Because it's paper street, no traffic uh situation. Okay. Um, then at this point, I'm going to turn it over to questions from the board. Joe, oh, you want to wait till the screen comes up? Excuse us. We're having technical difficulties. it on yours yet?

Nothing yet. No. Do you have yours? Yeah. Pete, do you have anything on your screen? No, we don't have anything on our screens right now. Well, you know, we Do you want to wait a question till you see the map or do you have any questions? I don't have any questions. You don't have any questions? Okay. Uh, Amber, can you hear us? I can hear you. It sounds like the concerns of the neighbors were met, which was my concern, so I'm good at this time. Okay. Um, Pete,

yeah, I actually I I I came to this with actually two concerns. Um, one, and I had no concerns before I woke up this morning on this one, but then an email came through, um, as Dominic mentioned, that showed a a different some differences in the stormwater management and how that's being managed on the site. And it looked like a little more than what you just explained. It looked like there were differences also in uh the level spreaders to the neighbors and some other things. You know, I did see the difference in how you're collecting runoff from the widened road and that's going to its own level spreader and I guess that'll be unmanaged as it goes onto the one property. I don't know if that's required to be managed or not. And then it looks like another difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have a very long level spreader at I guess what you would call the rear of the property to the neighbors, but that's now changed.

We had a longer, thinner one, uh, but that it went into this area, the easement, uh, but the discharge point is still the same. So, what we did is we shrunk it up and made it wider. So, it has the that the level spreader is the same volume. the water, the same amount of water gets into it, but it no longer goes into this easement area uh with the neighbor that was pl. It looks like you narrowed it to avoid that one neighbor and maybe avoid the one property. So, you have the same amount of volume going through a smaller area. It's No, we made it wider. We It was long and thinner. Now, it's shorter and thicker. Uh and it's the exact same discharge point. Hydraulic.

I'm assuming our township engineers still going to have the opportunity to review all this. And again, that could be a condition of approval because he has all the rights in the world to review it and make sure what I'm stating right now is correct. Were there any other changes to the stormwater management grading ENS? Well, obviously, well, not obviously to you guys. When you make those changes, the grading changes a little bit. We had to pull the structure out of the easement. So, there was a minor grading in those areas. But overall, outside of that easement and outside of the access drive changes, there's been no other changes. The only grading changes was to address the easement and the access drive. How did you arrive at that widened access drive?

That was with my client talking to the neighbors directly. I was not involved. Six feet was agreed upon and six feet in the beginning and then it's a little bit more uh it's hard to read with that what's up there, but I have a blowup so I'll read it right from the blowup. Well, my second concern in all this was your relationship with the neighbors and I I really want to hear that to hear that everything's worked out with the neighbors. I see a lot of neighbors are probably here. I'm sure they're all going to stand up and say everything stand up and speak, I'm sure. But our clients here, he had those conversations. Yeah. Pete, before you Hold on. Before we I'm not calling on anyone.

No, before we go any further, there was one thing I missed at the beginning of the meeting. I see a lot of people out there. Is anybody here for the Clear View case? Clear View Avenue case tonight that I heard that that was cancelled. So, I'm sorry that I forgot to mention that in the very beginning to keep you here so long, but the Clear View um lot line change in development is was cancelled for tonight's meeting. So, excuse me. Yeah. I

go ahead. So, so we don't we don't know right now. they they are still planning on on moving forward with that project, but there's some issues that they have to to address. Um, you will have uh the same kind of notification process again. So, you will be contacted. Okay. Sorry about that, guys. Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I didn't want people sitting here all night for, you know, that, but go on. Pete, who was talking? I'm sorry.

Pete had a question. I was going to just try and put a bow on one issue about what the conversations with the neighbors. I can tell you because I was personally involved in negotiating the easement uh with the the neighbor and forgive me Mr. Pton Novich I believe is how how it's pronounced where the easement area is. We went back and forth with plan iterations concepts things like that of concerns that were incorporated into an easement that all parties uh finalized. So there was a there was significant dialogue with that's the easement with the neighbor to the rear where you backed off the uh the level spreader. Everything from grading to what type of level spreader to a step in that area. But the driveway then the driveway. Um my my client had taken care of. Well, we're going to hear from the neighbors.

Okay. Yeah. And I I I was just speaking with the client. The client said he had spoken with the neighbors multiple times, but they're here, so they can obviously speak for themselves to see if they've been appeased or not. You good be for right now or? Yeah, I know trash is an issue as well. access. Yeah. So with that, the only thing procedurally to ask is that it puts before you is obviously recommendation on this. There's just one waiver which is more technical. It's the preliminary final uh plan review. So with that, um I appreciate everyone's time.

Thank you. Um so I have questions. Two two quick ones. One, I remember last time you were here, part of the roadway was encroached on one of the ladies properties and we talked about shifting that off of her property and then there was a discussion on who was going to pay for that. Um, that's one issue I'm interested in hoping was resolved since before then. And the other question I have for you is um the fire marshals letter that we received uh says uh ensure hydrants are installed within allowable distance appendix C-208 IFC. Now have you looked at that uh article and do you comply with the fire hydrant spacing?

Well, we we've uh reached out to the fire marshall every day this week. Uh he hasn't. We we're going to comply with the requirements. There is no public water in the vicinity. There's going to be no fire hydrant. What the answer could be is a stand pipe with a tank. But we we've reached out. We've emailed. Until we get an answer, we the condition of approval can be we will address a fire marshall's requirements and needs for emergencies. Uh but without public water, you can't have a fire hydrant unless you bring it in from somewhere else. Paul Brothers isn't going to allow us. There's public order right on

Okay. We'll we'll give you a chance to speak, ma'am. I just wanted to hear from them and see uh what what that whole situation was. So, we got to really talk to the fire marshal or somebody does find out what's going on. Yeah. I mean it's either they depending on where this goes tonight they can do a will comply which means then they're working directly with Allen right to to resolve all the issues that are they're listed or not necessarily issues the comments that are listed in his letter and also in his letter is about the turning radiuses for a tower ladder meet address that with them. Yep. But you're going to meet he gave he gave a a wheelbase 288 overall length 591. He gave that

you're going to meet that metro if they meet that on the plan. It was there. Yeah. The I just got the plans. I mean the plans haven't been revised since the last time we reviewed them until today. So the fire marshall what So you haven't finished reviewing the plan yet? No, not the submission that we just got today. No. Oh. So then why are we here? Well, it's Let's be care. Yeah, let's be careful with the word resubmission. We provided an exhibit for how we were going to address the comments at the last meeting.

Dominic's letter is clean. There are conditions. We We will meet the conditions of anything that's at the meeting tonight. But let's boil this back down. It's a two lot subdivision. That's by right. Uh we will work with the fire. We're boil Hold on. We're boiling it down to so like try not to shift it to where don't put words in our mouth is what I'm trying to say. Like if he says he just got something today and didn't have time to review it, my first question is why are we talking about this without our professional engineer reviewing something? So there so at that point let you know we got to take a step back on this and make sure everything's done right. Okay. So, so let let's keep that in mind and uh then go ahead.

Okay. All right. Well, one thing I'm not speaking for anyone here. We have an exhibit on the screen that was provided. We're not asking for a review. We're walking you through it just like we're going to walk Dominic through it. There will be a new submission that he will address as a final. What we're asking for is we were asked at the last meeting to look into a couple of topics. We did. We feel we addressed them. That's why we're here. If there's a feedback or back and forth, we'll address it even further. But at the end of the day, there was only two topics at the last meeting and we feel we've addressed them correctly. We've dealt with the neighbors. We worked with the neighbors. Uh anything else can be a condition of approval. Again, the reason I watered it back down was it's a two lot subdivision by right. There was one existing home. Now there's going to be two total homes. We we got to we got to look at this as what what is the totality of what's going on? Uh we're not doing a 50 lot subdivision. We're doing two homes where there's one existing.

To us, two homes is just as important as 50 or 500 homes. We try and look at everything in an equal uh fair basis, you know. Okay. But when you did just say, you know, there's another revision that Dominic's going to review and whatever Dominic reviews, you will comply to it. But that doesn't mean we got a chance to see that and we got a chance to review it and we got a chance to have an opinion on it. you you follow what I'm saying?

Yeah. And we appreciate that. It it's immaterial to your review of the plans. The the what the only reason that the uh revisions are even pertinent is because they address the two things that came up at the last meeting. It was the encroachment issue with the one neighbor and the driveway issue with the other neighbors. Those have been addressed. Conceptually, broadscale. This plan is the same exact plan that was before you before. The only small changes are the ones that we've mentioned to address the comments. So there, this is not a resubmission of a of the sort that you just heard about with a reszoning or an overlay. This is very very insubstantial. And again, just added layer of protection, we will have to go through Dominic again. We will have to go through the board of supervisors. This is just a preliminary uh plan approval recommendation from you guys. Okay. Um, we we heard from everybody on the board. I think we're going to open it up to the public then at this point. Is there anybody from the public? I do see we had a list of two people that were wanted to speak. Maryanne Gishamer. Did I say that correctly?

Oh, sorry. It's all It's all yours, Maryannne.

I'm Maryann Gheimer. I'm at 317 Tollgate Road. I have the thing from the fire marshall from the 30th of December. Um, we talked to him. He said, "Two fire hydrants and there is public water right out in front of my house." So, water can be taken right down that road and there's no reason why he can't. The guy across the street, two houses down, they for they told him he had to put a fire hydrant in front of his house or he could not build. So, he was forced to to put a fire hydrant down and and pay for it himself. Um, my thing is, where did I put my notes? Um, my driveway right now is only 10 ft wide. So, it has to go another 14t over in order for them to comply for for the width of the fire truck. It has to be 24 feet. So, I have that. Um, I want to ensure that it is a single family dwelling because there's two doors, two garages. That's a duplex. My 15year-old daughter said, "Mom, that's a duplex. Why do you have two front doors? I want to ensure that that is a single family home." And um if the township doesn't enforce the fire marshall's recommendations with the fire hydrants and everything uh and something happens, who's liable?

I'm a taxpayer and I don't want to be liable. Okay. Um how does how how do we come to this with the fire marshall? So this is actually, believe it or not, pretty standard. He he says that you have to ensure all these things. So there's there's code requirements. So, at least when it comes to the fire hydrant, ensure hydrants are installed with an allowable distance. Now, I'm not the fire marshall. I don't really know the code. Yeah.

But they're going to have to demonstrate compliance with that code and it may come down to them having to install a fire hydrant. It really will be up to the fire marshall. That usually happens, this is, again, it's pretty standard that happens like what I call post land development approval, but prior to any kind of permits are issued. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. because they said right now they would need fire three fire trucks in order to get to a fire back there. They would have to hook up three fire trucks. Okay. And her next issue she had was the 24 foot wide street. Um that that's um Yeah, I'm going to get it from our professionals here.

And that's another fire marshall issue, Jim. So yeah, I mean if you're talking about the fire apparatus access roads comment, it's a provide a turning plan demonstrating access to property for a tower ladder. So they're still going to have to show that on a plan for to his satisfaction. So they're going to have to absolutely demonstrate that a tower ladder can get down there and also turn and maneuver around there. So, let's hypothetically say they can't provide that with the drawing that we're all looking at right now. Then they have to come back with a whole new drawing and a whole new plan back to us.

If they can't comply with the fire marshall's comments, and they're probably going to say, "We'll comply to everything as far as any comments that were raised in all the different review letters, including the fire marshals." Then, yeah, they would have to then all of a sudden readress things and potentially have to do amendment of land development and come before you again. Okay. And can I also put on record that he did reach out, but we never discussed. He told me what he wanted. We never discussed and we never agreed to anything. Just you're the one with the road that it comes over onto your property. Was that was that ever resolved? Um in there he said he would move it over.

Okay. So that's what his applicant said that he would move it over. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um Joe, can we real quick just clarify that they're single family dwellings or are they multif family? Sorry, Amber. It's a condition of approval. And just to put a bow on it, Mr. Unice has accurately summarized everything that all these all the review letter comments would be conditions of approval while complying with those comments. So, and then on top of everything else, it's in a zoning district that does not allow duplexes or twins.

Okay. So, it is a right now we're viewing it as a single family home and it will always have to continue it as that type of use type. If they were to all of us if we were discovered that they were proposing a twin, we would not approve it. If we discover later on that they converted into a twin, then there would be an enforcement issue. Got it. I think we brought this up last time, too. I mean, it was obvious to me there's two separate garages there with one common driveway and it just it's set up to be divided as as if it could be that way. And that when when asked, the applicant said it's going to be a single family dwelling that time. Other than enforcement, I don't the plan doesn't say that, but it is very skeptical.

Yeah. Yeah. At this point, it would have to be enforcement. They have the right to build it like that, but if they turned it into a twin, duplex, anything like that, we would enforce uh the violations of of the zoning code. Skeptical. Joe Deenus,

did I say your name right, sir? Yes. All right. I got sometimes I do get it right. Um 313 Tollgate Road. Mhm. Now this the road the paper road is it going to be made to township specs. Um I talked to the fire marshals when they were out there. They cannot get their equipment down there. There's no It's a driveway. It's no bigger than a single car driveway right now. I mean

I mean that is something they're going to have to do post when they're finally done construction is that they are going to have to uh make the access road to a standard. It may not have to be the full township standard because I think it's impossible due to the width and everything else but it will have to be at least to the engineer standard that it is a fully accessed fully paved properly graded road. Why can't it be what you say to the standard road?

The township standard handles it with a certain rightaway width. This does not have that rightaway width because it's a paper street. So you can actually make it like a public road, but they can absolutely make it to as best as possible the standards of a public road with within the context of what they have to work with. So it so long story short over 30 foot from the from the telephone pole which is at the edge of the road the paper road right to Maryanne's driveway right to the road there's plenty of plenty of room to build a road to township standards

well it so I think what I'm maybe probably getting a little lost in the weeds here as far as township standards meaning code requirements but it will be to township standards meaning that the township will not approve that road unless it is absolutely a welle equipped, fully functional, properly graded, properly paved road that would also meet even the fire marshall's standards of of making sure that fire and emergency vehicles can access it and also maneuver around there. See, I I I talked to them. They came out there and looked at it, the fire, and he said he could not get his trucks down there.

Not now. But we would definitely not ever close out this project if it were ever to be approved and permits were issued for construction without them doing a great deal of of rehab or redevelopment of that road. So it's a it's a fully functional road on a road. Yeah. That it that would be part of right now that it's just a cow path. You know what I mean? Right. So it it definitely would be it would be significantly improved an effort to make sure that all vehicles especially emergency vehicles can get in there and out of there.

So So you make a make a road bigger than a single lane driveway. Okay. Now once it gets past my driveway, it's all woods. There's over over 130 trees down there. Mature trees. They'll have to come down. Um, can you I'm not familiar with what he's stating there. There is woodlands disturbance with this project which I believe they had addressed last time that they would uh provide a fee and loo of replacing the trees that are being disturbed as part of the woodlands that many trees. I don't know where you could put the 130 trees. You have to

Did it look like it was going to be that many trees? It was uh I believe it exceeded the 20% but below the 50% that's permitted per the zoning ordinance,

but he has to tear down that that whole hedge row. It's what is called a hedro uh to put put part of this road in move it off of Maryanne's property and it's 30 foot road is normally what they call for and there's plenty of room to put that 30 foot road. So I want water run down there. You need a culde-sac down there for get your get your engines in there, your fire engines, and a road because right now it's just a it's just a single trees. Lane, okay, I got a picture of all the trees along the road

and they're all mature trees.

Yeah. So again I can just mention I believe it was the the number I see on the plans is approximately 45% woodlands disturbance whereas they can disturb up to 50 but once they exceed anything more than 20% is when they would have to either provide replacement trees or a fee in loo if that was agreeable to the township. Well, there'll be I'm sure there'll be room to put trees down maybe her her property and and my property and DeFazio's property. The trees, but you have to have you're going to have to take downund and some trees, mature trees, and and there is water out on Tollgate Road, so they don't have to go over to uh Toll Brothers. I'm hooked up to the city water and she's hooked up to city water.

Yeah. Yes, sir. Like like I said, they this would just be this is just the very beginning of this. If this does get a recommendation of approval, I don't know if it will or not. I can't speak for for the planning commission. all your concerns are going to be addressed and ensured that that the tree replacements are put in effect that uh anything as far as a road that's fully functional again can facilitate emergency vehicles and the road's fine and they're just going to move it over a little bit and put stone down. That's that's not a road. Is that what go?

Yeah, please. I I Yeah. All right. What we're stating is at the last meeting, we were never asked to build a public road. We were asked to discuss with the neighbors till we reach a point of either you agree not to agree or you're making an improvement that's satisfactory. As far as I was aware, that was addressed, but I'm hearing it's not. Uh we at the last meeting never discussed putting in a public road all the way back to a culde-sac bulb for one additional home that it was always going to be improving an existing driveway for a property that has a home on it that we were putting one more. That was the discussion. We do have a fire marshal letter. We will address it with the fire marshal. By no means can we build anything where the fire marshall is saying it's unsafe. We will address any comments he has. Like I stated 20 minutes ago, we've reached out to him multiple times. We will continue to reach out to him until we talk to him, address his comments to his satisfactory. This project's not going anywhere without his approval. So, we will continue speaking to him. If it is the fact that we got to run water into the property with a fire hydrant, we'll end up doing it. He he's not going to approve it without that. So, we again can make in a condition of approval, but let's go back to the road. We never agreed to put a public road in here for one home.

I I don't believe that gentleman's looking for a public road. He's just looking for a road that would absolutely be better than what's there now. And also willing my client's willing to do that. And also the township, honestly, I can't speak for the Department of Public Works, especially their director, but I'm going to guarantee you that that he does not want it to be a public road as well, right? He doesn't want to have to maintain the public road. It would be the responsibility of uh your client to to maintain and everything else.

Yeah. And to reiterate what was stated at the last meeting, we hear a lot of, "I want, I want, I want, but don't touch my property." How do you improve things when part of the existing road goes into your property, yet you have a neighbor standing here saying, "Don't touch my property." It So, I'm going to improve it outside of your property, but the road already goes into your property. We're we're hearing a lot of double talk. So, we want to work with the neighbors. We want to do the right thing, but we're also not going to have my client, I mean, adver adverse possession, improve this, improve that, improve this, but don't take trees. At a certain point, we have a by right plan. I mean, the township's got to respect the ordinances in place. That's that's where I'm at. I don't care what he says.

Yeah, I don't. All right. I want a road. Of course, there's going to be three homes down there. They're saying two, but it's going to be three because it's duplex. Anybody here has just one car in the family, something's wrong. There's two cars, three cars in a family. If it's as big as a driveway, when when when we I want to get out or she wants to get out and they want to come in, it's not working. You need a road. The fire comp the fire marshal cannot get any apparatus down there. It's over a thou. How How far is it, Robbie? 800 what' you say from Tgate said 780

780 ft from Tollgate road now the f the furthest hydrant um where's he at you moved

when he built his house they made him the township made him put a water mane in and a hydrant out of his pocket so I want a road simple as that trash trucks got to go down. Fire engines got to go down. Ambulances got to go down. They can't do it now. Don't have to be a 50ft road, but it needs to be a road big enough for two lanes, one out or, you know, a lane on each side. That's it. That's what I want. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody who didn't sign the list who would like to speak on behalf of this case tonight? Come on up, sir. Can you just state your name and address, please?

My name is Ernie Naidell. I live at 1346 Hill Street. I'm the gentleman who the uh township and mainly the fire marshall requested that I bring a line from Tollgate Road. And fortunately for these gentlemen, the water is on their side of Tollgate, not on my side. So, but he re required me to bring a water line all the way up the street or halfway up the street to my house and including a fire hydrant. Uh, all of that was at at my expense before I could put my house in. So, uh, but I just wanted to reconfirm that what Maryann stated. So, that was it. Thank you. So, can you guys reiterate on So, I hear three neighbors saying there's water on the property. you were saying earlier there's no water on the property. What do

if I can just one thing I think is just greatly being missed is there's a house back there now, right? So it's not like we're putting something back on land that's not used right now. So when we're talking about how we're making all these improvements, the fire marshall is going to make sure we and we're going to go through fire marshall requirements. There's a house back there now. So it's deemed safe access and it's deemed safe right now in terms of fire code requirements. We're just adding one home. I just forgive me. I will answer your question. I just want to make sure that that's abundantly clear because I think that's being missed by a lot of the comments. So, who's answering my question? I'll answer it.

Uh, again, I didn't state there's no water on the There is no water on the property. There's water within Tolgate Road, which is hundreds of feet away. Uh, what I did state is we will address the fire marshall's comments to his satisfaction. If it ends up being we have to bring in water and put a fire hydrant, my client has to do it. But there's other ways to address fire needs. Like I stated now 40 minutes ago, you could put a tank in with a stand pipe. The tank constantly has water in it, and if there's an emergency, they they tie up to the stand pipe just like they would a fire hydrant. We will address it to the fire marshall's requirements and desires. So, we're not trying to skate around it, but we're also not just going to willy-nilly say, "Hey, we're going to do this," without talking to the fire marshal first. So, we're willing to meet his requirements after we speak with him and work with him. I know in the past, years ago or sometimes, there has been times where we had a lot of fire marshal comments and were able to address them. I remember there was a development off of Woodburn where they were going to access another property not owned by them with a gate for the fire trucks to get in in case there was a fire. Um it was an apartment complex on Woodburn and we had a little bit more insight with the fire marshall prior to you know um knowing what's knowing what's going on. Um, I guess my concern is I if there's an issue with this road I I don't we you guys I don't know if the road needs to be wider or or whatever it has to be done. I don't think it has to be improved to black top but um between the road between the possibility of the you know possibility of needing fire hydrants and water I think this is going to change the outlook of the plan we're looking at now if any of this is required to be put in

if the road needs to be widened if the um you know water and the fire has to come in why I guess I'm going to ask the members of the board should we table this until we get more information from the fire marshal and and a little bit more clarity from the fire marshall and and as far as this uh fire hydrant and road width situation. Um can I be so rude as to interject it? You can, but I mean if you're going to say it's just one house up there and there's they're just adding another house that's not that's that's gone right through us all.

Understood. I I think the fire marshall has interjected and I just want to make sure the context is clear for what is on the table tonight. It's an application with review letters that we're standing here saying all of the comments or will comply. So there's I get you're saying will comply and the part I just brought up was if you will comply and if the fire marshall says you're required to widen the road and required to put in water for a fire hydrant, that is going to change your plan a little bit, isn't it? Not enough that this would it's going to change yes or that's a yes or no answer. Is it going to change your plan? Change I mean will it change your plan sir? Yes or no? In what way? No. No. No. I'm just looking for a yes or a no.

Question that I now have is is the planning commission going to make us come back for any ch and I hope that this this is standard for any application that comes before this commission. Is is there going to be any we usually have a little bit more information. That's what I brought up earlier. Is every application that now that comes through this township, if there is any significant change, significant or insignificant, is the planning commission going to say, "I get that there review letters and it's a will comply, but we're tableabling it until I see the very comp coming in for permit for I get it. We do will comply with a lot of things."

So, I'm going to I'm going to interject here. So, I understand um Mr. that you're saying that they will that you will comply and I and I believe you will they're worried about where what is that compliance going to look like and how is it going to affect the the future especially the the road how that to me if you need to take water back there that's going to be underneath and you'll you'll figure that out but how is the road going to look and will that affect other things along the properties and they want to see how that is going to look like how is that compliance going to affect the overall plan so I think that's a reasonable request where how wide like when you comply with the fire marshall's letter about the road. We're not asking you to to build it to township standards for dedication. Township doesn't want it to be dedicated, but we want to see what it's going to look like, the width it's going to look like to be to be compliant with the fire marshall's letter. And I think it would be fair then for every application to come back

and and they have done that in the past where we see something because everyone says they will comply but there are some aspects that are more significant than others that it could affect other aspects. This might not it might not affect anything else but they want to see it. So I think it's a fair fair representation of what they're looking for to see how that will affect this plan. They have done that in the past where they said we want to see what that compliance is going to look like before it moves on to the supervisors.

And then I think it maybe it's a good compromise and it's well within your power to say we would make a recommendation on this plan that you have now if there are going to be significant changes as a result of compliance with the fire marshall review letter then you could come back. But if the plan's going to be as the plan is, as we're saying it's going to be, then we should be able, you should stand by our representation. And if there's going to be significant changes, then maybe you bring us back. But this is a

you have a lot of may. And I guess I would put back to you is if you're not worried about what you have there now and you're going to comply with everything with the fire marshall, why wouldn't you be okay with us seeing it? Why wouldn't you be okay with taking care of that and bringing it back to us bluntly? Because there's a house back there already.

That that's irrelevant. Your plan is to So you're But you're saying to me, why don't we approve it the way it looks? We're asking, well, there's a possibility of this, a possibility of that. There's a lot of ifs here. Then you're asking us to approve that plan the way it is, and then you would come back again. Well, if you were so confident that it was going to stay just like this and comply with all the fire marshall's requests, why wouldn't you just say, "Sure, we'll do it. We'll figure it out with the fire marshall and we'll come back." The end. If you thought it was going to be an issue, we wouldn't be paying to have engineers attorney. You just you just answered my question. You're saying it's no issue, but you're not willing to be okay with coming back when the fire marshal complies, tells you.

I just proposed to Mr. Andis is that if there are significant changes as a result of the as a result of addressing those comments, we would come back. But as of right now, you have Why are you asking us to approve something that has the possibility of you coming back? And you use the word possibility and if just as many times as I just did. Sure. And with all due respect, I I don't want to argue about I'm I'm I'm just wondering why you wouldn't be willing to give that to us.

You're looking for us to approve this tonight. We told you we have concerns. We would like to see a little bit more of what the fire marshall requires and because it's a little to us a little on the vague side. So on your end, why wouldn't you be willing to just say, "Sure, we're going to go work with the fire marshall. If the plan changes, we're going to come up with a new plan. We're going to bring it to Dominic and we're going to go and we're going to comply with everything." You're asking us to give you an an approval and a will comply on a lot of major things here. And the fact that there's a house there already to me personally is irrelevant. Um it's all to me I'm looking at it as a whole type of, you know, new project there cuz I see two new homes there and and I don't know why you're being so combative with us when we're asking for something simple. If you went to the fire marshall tomorrow and he said, "I looked at it. Everything complies. Come back next month. Other than Pete asking questions, you'll be in and out in 10 minutes." 10 minutes.

But why are you so combative as to not give us what we're asking for? We're not asking you to spend a ton of money. We're asking you to work with the fire marshal. And if it comes down to the fire marshal telling you to spend a ton of money, then that's not us. Yeah, I think we're all landing in the same place. And Rich, I I do agree with what you're saying. But what I need as a professional, I need clear guidance then of what you as a board will accept with this road improvement because I've heard a couple of different couple of different versions. What we're willing to do is widen it. It's a it's paved to a certain point. We were going to continue that pavement after construction, fix it, but we were not going to pave it all the way through. We were going to put stone down.

Yeah. I don't even know if paving was discussed in this that and Jim did say earlier the township doesn't It's getting confused between some of the what some of the neighbors are requesting and what the township is requiring.

So I yeah that all I need to know is when we come back in if we feel we've addressed everything. I just don't want a situation of hey this isn't a public road like we we will pave it to a certain point which we promised at the last meeting that paving will be done post construction. So once if it gets torn up in the beginning during construction we repair it replace it then it will be stone from that point out. We're representing that. That's what's going to be on the plan. We do realize it may get wider due to the fire marshall. We're good with all of that. But I need to know that the planning commission's good with stone because there's no sense in doing all this. And

I I can't I can only speak for myself. I mean, I never looked at this as it was going to be paving the whole way personally. But what I would say to answer your question is I would be happy with whatever Dominic, Jim, Jim, and Matt agree with. That's what I would agree with. I can't speak for Pete or Joe or Amber, but but I've I I knew there was some black top, but I never saw this as black top and curb and none of that. No, the township doesn't want the street basically. We're on the same page. All right. That's Yeah, that's that's my personal opinion of it. Je Pete and Joe, do you have anything to say about that? And Amber,

I I think what I would say to this is there's if the standard is that you think you have a compliant more or less plan and everything else is up to we'll we'll comply, then there's no need to come to us, right? That then our vote means nothing. The neighbors say means nothing. If if that's the standard that you just have that plus we'll comply and you should be able to go through. That's not how it works. I you're reversing back of what I just said. I just said I agreed with Rich. Yeah, he did say that. I

No, I understand that. But earlier what was said was, hey, we have a pretty compliant plan. We're going to comply with everything else. You're here in frustration. You're just here in frustration. It's a two lot subdivision. The process should be a little simpler than this, but we get it. We respectfully I agreed with Rich. Let's table it. Let's come back. I just wanted to make sure when we came back. So, you want to vote tonight or you don't want to vote tonight? We were plan. My I agreed with my plan was a table until we got a little bit more information from the fire marshal. We're not going to force a vote. You vote denial. I mean, that's that's would be silly.

Can I just add I mean, we don't really know if it will be stoned or paved right at this time, right? the the the town the township standard as I'm as I'm calling it right now is to the township satisfaction. Correct. So that will be civil engineer, traffic engineer and fire marshall and their consensus on what will be acceptable as far as the design of of the driveway road whatever you want to call it the paper. We'll have a very clear plan hatched paving stone what the stone is what the compaction is. We we'll have all of that. Pete, you you good? Amber, do you have any questions?

No. And we just had that additional wild card in the beginning when the easement was granted that that changed the plan a little again that Dominic didn't really get to look at that there. So, I just think it's better that we table this. I agree, Joe. I agree.

Yeah. Let our professionals hash out the road or type of road or whatever road. Um I my concerns just with it's a there's possibilities. could widen out, could need a fire hydrant, could need a tank, could need a whole new outlook to what we're looking at. Um, it looks like your client took care of the uh Maryanne's road that was shifted up on there. I know we talked about that. He was going to move that over till it's not on her property. Um, so yeah, I think that once we get a little bit more clear understanding with the fire marshall and it doesn't change the overall plan. Pete, you okay with that or?

Yeah, the only other thing was trash was an issue last time as well, if you recall. Well, the the concern with the trash, my understanding, was the truck getting down there. If they're making it good enough for the fire marshals truck to get down there, I would think that would also address the trash truck. That's reasonable. Yeah. Well, they can do like me. I have to walk my trash all the way down to the end of my driveway to the main street and that's what I and that might be the requirement of waste management but they'll have to deal with that if that's what M waste management says. Yeah.

All right. So then I'm going to make a motion to table this until we have a clearer understanding of what the fire marshall is requiring ma uh mainly for a whether or not a fire hydrant's required, whether or not a road widening is required. And if if it is, the applicant will work that out with with uh Dominic and Matt and the fire marshal. And when they all come to a happy plan of agreement, then you can come back and I don't think there would be any other issues that I don't have any other issues with this other than the concerns with the with the fire marshall. Pete, do you you have any other concerns that you might address to them before we do this?

Yeah. No, again, my two issues remain the same as they were as you said 40 minutes ago. one that our township engineer has the ability to review the plan. There were changes in the stormwater management that was obvious and secondly that the neighbors were satisfied to the township's you know satisfaction. Well, we we got to be careful there. We meeting we spoke about meet with the neighbors until a point of you've tried your best. That's all we can do. And he clarified to to the township satisfaction. Work with the work with the neighbors to the township satisfaction to the township satisfaction. Joe, anything to add? Second. Rich, I think you said 10 minutes next meeting, right? Is that right? No more guys are holding me to the minutes.

Apparently, as long as Pete I No, what I said was 10 minutes excluding Pete. I did say that. Um, all right. Amber, do you have any other anything else to add? No, I echo Pete. the neighbor satisfying the neighbor concerns the township satisfaction and letting somebody take a fresh eyes at that storm water amendment change. Okay, that's then uh a motion is on a table to table this. Is there a second? Second. Joe second it. All in favor? I opposed. Okay, that is 10 minutes minus P.

Just remember that for next time. Uh, Mr. Can you can you get us so a further extension from the MPC requirements waiver? I will include the 10-minute restriction in that. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you all. I appreciate and thanks for

Thank you. Okay. Again, oh, I had the agenda. Okay. Next on our agenda is SLLD26-2 application for preliminary final land development. Aqua is proposing upgrades to the existing Shaminy water plant to introduce a new PFAS perend. Whoa, this is a word I'm going to have to work on. Poly flora poly flora alkali poly flora alkali. Is that the word? Something like that. Substances Treatment System 20 the effort

2520 and 2050 Old Lincoln Highway Langghorn PA tax map parcels 22-14 at-1 and 22-142 in the M1 M1 light manufacturing district. Three addresses were notified. Thank you for being patient. You have the floor.

Good evening. My name is Gina Gerber. I'm an attorney with Riley Riper Holland and Colig Greco. I'm here on behalf of Aqua this evening. I'm joined by a representative of Aqua, Brennan Kelly, as well as our project engineers. We have uh Janie Jordan with us this evening and Joselyn Giuliano. Um we did prepare a little PowerPoint to kind of give you all a little bit of background about why we're doing this land development. But just very briefly, um as you've indicated, this is a property in the M1 Light Manufacturing District. It already has an aqua treatment plant. The purpose for this land development and the improvements that are being proposed are to address PAS. So, I'm going to call them that because I'm not going to try and pronounce it as you have bravely done. So, this is something that Aqua has undertaken um in all of their treatment plants. It's an EPA mandate. It's something that um they are required to do but are also doing a very thorough job of it which means that many of their treatment plants in this area are undergoing development and changes in order to be able to address the contaminants in the drinking water under the new EPA guidelines. Um this is a property where the improvements are within a fenced off area on a much larger property. Um the improvements that are being proposed are still going to be within that fenced off area. you're going to see the removal of one of the existing basins and then the introduction of um two new buildings and a pump station on the property in order to be able to accommodate these improvements there. And I think this is maybe one of the more important aspects of this project. There are not going to be any additional trips, employees, people coming to and from the site that aren't already there. Um there are full-time employees that access this site on a daily basis. We're not going to be increasing that as part of this application. Um we have requested two waivers with this application. The first

being administrative in order to be able to review this as a combined preliminary final application. The second waiver was to the extent required. We did ask for a waiver to not submit the landscaping plan. Um there are no major landscaping happening here outside of um some additional landscaping in a swale that's currently on the property and we can talk about that a little bit if you like. But um without further ado, I'm going to turn it over to our project engineers to walk you through the PowerPoint so you can get a clearer idea of what's happening on this property. Thanks Gina.

Yeah. Thanks Gina. We have no buses. We have no nearby neighbors. So, but yeah, she she walked through it all. But see what we go through here. See what we go through.

I do. I I hope it's easier on us. So, yeah, like she mentioned, we're at the Shaman water treatment plant. It's an existing plant. It's owned and operated by Aqua. We're here on their behalf. Uh the plant produces 15 million gallons per day of clean drinking water. They'll continue to do so. Okay. So the zoning map just shows where we are within Middletown down on the corner. And again, as mentioned, we're in the M1 Lake manufacturing district. It's pretty self-explanatory there. Here's just a aerial view of what the plant looks like. Now, the basin is the huge part of the site. That's what's going to be demolished. And we can come back to this if there's questions.

Oh, you do? Okay. Yeah, I think route one they they had just redone that section there and then MLK Drive is north uh west or Lincoln Highway, sorry. So again, the why we're doing the project. This is sort of the meat of the project is the POS treatment. The environmental protection agency has released the new regulations and we intend to be in compliance by 2029 ideally sooner. So the POS concentrations are just elevated concentrations in the drinking water. So we're adding one new process to the treatment and that process will eliminate the POS. Uh the to do that we're adding we're dem we're we're demolishing the basin and then we're adding two buildings and one water storage tank that's like that and I'll show you where we're doing those oh yeah so the where the footprint of where the basin is once that gets demolished there'll be a bunch of site regrading there that's where the two new buildings are going to go the pas treatment building is south and then the tank is north of that. The small building up on the right is the pumping station. Those are really the improvements. You can see where Namin Creek is. We have a nice repairarium buffer there. It won't be disturbed. And as Gina said, everything's within the existing fence line. Any questions on this one?

Good. And we're just we we have uh we have demonstrated the firetruck. I think we sent the updated traffic plans today. So hopefully we got to lighten it up sometimes. Yeah. Yeah. I I get it. Yeah. I I did speak with Allan a few times and I I we haven't gotten his formal approval yet, but we got his review letter and we believe we addressed his comments. We showed the turning analysis and I you should all have the updated plans. I think it's sheet 14 and 15 shows the truck turning exactly. Yeah. C110 and C11. Matthew on those hopefully.

I don't have them on the screen, but No, I'm sorry. I was You could keep going. We're listening. I'm trying. That was pretty much up.

That was pretty much the meat. The next few things are just to show you what the these are the two proposed buildings. Just to show you what they'll look like. We intend to have them match sort of what's already there and show you what they do. Uh this is the actual treatment building itself. Suppose we're under the 35 foot requirement, height requirement. And again, just trying to match what's on site already. And this is to show you what the vessels look like inside. So that there will be the actual treatment to remove the POS and this is the water tank that we're proposing. So it's a pretty large structure. Well, it is not considered a building though. So the we did speak with the fire chief again. This one is not considered a building. There won't be any people in it. It's a water storage tank. So that access to that is not the same as the access to the buildings, I think. And then this is just our land development plan. Again, everyone should see it. I think it's probably difficult to see there. And then we have some site photos if there's any need to see that, but otherwise, we're open for questions.

Any questions? Are you You're good. You're waiting for us for questions. Yeah, I'm good. Actually, I had a question. Uh, go ahead, Pete. Just a generic very generic question. You treat water, portable water here. What's your service area? The water that you collect from the creek here, you treat. And then how wide how is the service area from this from this plant? 22,000. Yeah, I think the stats say it's over 822,000 customers are treated. Now, the actual parameters of that service area, I'm not entirely

in terms of townships, in terms of is it only Middletown? Is it Middletown and Ben Salem? I'm just curious. And then I'm going to go to Dominic after they answer this question. You cut me off. Yeah, I'm done. No, no, no, no. I was just Brendan Kelly with Aqua Engineer. Um, SS serves multiple townships. Okay. System with all we call it Southeast PA. So from Valley Forge up to here and vice versa. So Wow. Okay. I didn't think it was that large an area. Me neither. I thought it was just my house. Um, Pete Dominic, uh, you have the floor. Any questions you have or any issues?

Uh, no. no issues. Um, we had some comments, but they have since addressed them with a response letter. So, um, they they will be complying with with the comments we did have. They, you know, I'll just reiterate, they did mention that they're regrading, they're removing more than an half an acre of existing impervious, but they are providing a ve vegetment. Um, the other comments we had, some were mostly were minor. There was one comment about the landscaping. It sounds like you are requesting a waiver from providing a landscaping plan. So that is

new um to our review letter, but that would certainly be one that we would support. It's just not noted on our first review letter. So I did want to mention that. Yeah. And I think the environmental advisory council suggested a list of native plant species in order to include in that vegetative swale. We are incorporating those. That's not an issue. But just for clarification, there is no further landscaping proposed in connection with this improvement at this time. So, we're utilizing the existing vegetation surrounding the site, the riparian buffer near the creek area. None of that's being disturbed as part of this. So, there's not any new vegetation per se outside of that vegetated swale.

And we would have to add that in as another uh waiver. Yes. So, as they began with the presentation, it would be the the waiver that's already listed in front of you for the, you know, allowing preliminary and final, but then it would also be, and I don't know the exact section off the top of my head from from the SA, but it would be a waiver from provide. Oh, you got it. Good. Very good. All right. It would

when we when we did our enclosure letter for the application, we did include that waiver. So, it's um it's two sections. It's section 440-303 D is in dog. four E is an egg and also three or I'm sorry 440-304 D is in dog four I'm sorry this is yeah this is duplicative 303 and 304 D4E are the sections so before I read it Jim I'll get that from you then okay um so other than that Don you would support that and you're okay with that whole situation yes okay I'm going to guess Matt that we don't have any traffic issues or do we? Uh oh, Matt's standing up.

Before we move on from that, just it's worth mentioning with the swale and everything, we do have an MPDS permit in the works. We received comments and we'll be resubmitting that one, but we plan to we intend to comply with all their comments. Okay, Matt,

we did have a couple comments regarding access and circulation and access for emergency services to the building. We did receive plans and response comments today. will be doing a formal review just like Dominic will of the revised plans, but what I've seen so far um and their responses and what they've shown on the revised plans, um I don't have a concern with a recommendation of approval. And then I guess I'll ask the same question that I asked on the previous case. Do you think any of these things you're going to look at are going to greatly affect the the uh outlook of what we're looking at now? Yeah, that just wasn't enough information to assess previously what the impacts would be and Okay, this point they provided the

Dominic. It would be the same with you or Yeah, I would agree with that. Okay. All right. Uh, anybody from the public here to speak out or for or against this? Amber, do you have any questions? We'll let you lead. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. I'm good. Okay. And they're doing this to make our drinking water safer. Joe, go to you. Pete, I ask that question.

Pete had one question and I don't have any questions either. So then with no questions and us having a good report from Dominic and Matt, I would say we put this up for a motion. I hope I got the right one. Yes, I got it. So, I'm going to make a recommendation of approval for SLLDD number 26-2 application proposing upgrades to the existing Namin Water Plant at 2520 and 2050 Old Lincoln Highway, Langghorn, PA19047, Bucks County Tax Map Parcels 22-14-1 and 22-142. Upgrades include the construction of new PF PFAS, I'm not going to try that word again. uh treatment plant, intermediate pump station and clear well recommendations based on a plan entitled namin water treatment plan PFAS treatment upgrade preliminary and final land development plans compromising 21 sheets and dated March 26th March 2026 plan is prepared by ACOM of Ka Hawk and PA recommendation is further based on the compliance of the comments provided in the a January 2026 letter from Isaac E Kesler PE of Remington Vernick Engineer Middletown Township engineer. B. A January 30th, 2026 letter from Matthew D. Johnson, PE of Penoni Associates, their Middletown Townships traffic and transportation engineer. C is a January 7th, 2026 review letter from the Bucks County Planning Commission. D is a January 20th, 2026 letter from Alan Welsh, Middletown Township Fire Marshal. E is a January 30th, 2026 letter from Middletown Township Environmental. Advisory Council F is the requested waiver from section 440-301 to allow preliminary and final land

development. And we have one final uh item that Jim is going to read for us now. So that would be G waiverss from sections 440-303D4E and 440-304D4E to not have to provide a landscaping plan. Okay. Um, seeing that everyone heard that. Uh, I will ask the board for a I made a I made a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second, Pete. Seconds. Uh, all in favor? I, Amber. Oh, that I just heard her. Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you very much.

Glad I'll have safer drinking water soon. Good luck. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda is review of zoning hearing board. Jim, anything exciting? I'm going to say no. It's all residential that's scheduled for uh next week. And actually, we have no applications that are scheduled for um the last week of March as well so far. So, wow. Yeah. So, everything was residential. If it did, I can't remember all of the things that were on there, but I know they were all residential projects and you wouldn't even if they were granted approvals, you would never see them because they're not they're not tied to land development. Yeah. Okay. Amber, do you have any questions?

I do not. Thank you. All right. Um well then, seeing as our next other item on the agenda is other business, is there any other business to come before this board? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing as none, I will ask for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I I Meeting is adjourned.