[0:00] Good
evening everyone. Welcome to Elizabeth
[0:02] Township Planning Commission meeting.
This is Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025.
[0:07] Time is 7:04. Can we please stand for
the pledge of
[0:10] » allegiance
[0:14] to the flag of
the
[0:19] standy
[0:23] andice for all.
[0:28] All right, next is roll call.
>> Burke.
[0:39] » Terra Kite
>> here.
[0:41] » Mark Kendrick.
>> David Miosi, he's absent. Robitis
[0:47] » here.
>> Matt Rudis,
[0:50] » present.
>> Scott Groom from KH
[0:53] » here.
I believe everyone's here, so we can
[0:56] begin.
>> At this time, we'll have citizens to
[0:58] address the commission. Uh each resident
uh or business owner will be granted
[1:02] three minutes to discuss uh any issues
they have with the proposed subdivision
[1:06] plan, which is the only item on the
agenda this evening uh with the board.
[1:10] So, with that, I will ask for Lloyd
Zeller.
[1:15] Come up, sir.
[1:23] Here
[1:32] we go. Uh, while this subdivision
request may appear to be routine partial
[1:37] adjustment, I urge the planning
commission to view it in a broader
[1:40] context of recent legal decisions that
directly impact both this property and
[1:44] the applicants intended use. Just last
month, the Commonwealth Court
[1:48] enhancement ruled that Elizabeth
Township violated its own zoning
[1:52] ordinance by allowing gas well related
infrastructure in rural residential
[1:57] zone. The court found that this type of
industrial development constitutes a
[2:02] principal structure which is prohibited
on lots that already contain single
[2:06] family homes under section 303 C of the
zoning ordinance. This subdivision may
[2:12] be an attempt to circumvent the ruling
by recommending or rearranging parcels
[2:17] to create a new legal path for the same
use. A back to work approach to
[2:21] accomplish what the court has already
deemed unlawful. I urge the commission
[2:26] to consider whether approving this
request would undermine the zoning
[2:29] protections designed to ensure land use
decisions follow the letter and the
[2:35] intent of the law. These ordinances
exist to protect residences, not to
[2:40] reinterpreted or bypassed following an
unfavorable legal decision.
[2:46] Additionally, this site is less than a
half mile from our local high school.
[2:50] Many of the community have raised valid
concerns about air pollution, emergency
[2:54] preparedness, and long-term health risks
of placing industrial infrastructure so
[2:58] close to where children learn. These
concerns remain unresolved and they
[3:03] should not be ignored. On a personal
note, since fracking began near our
[3:07] community, including the bell pad just
across the river in West Morland County,
[3:11] I've witnessed disturbing pattern of
serious health issues among friends and
[3:15] family. Thyroid disorders, worsening
asthma, chronic headaches, cancer, and
[3:20] saroma. I'm not a scientist, but the
timing, concentration, and correlation
[3:26] of these cases raise serious questions
that deserve attention. The township has
[3:30] a responsibility to investigate these
patterns through community health
[3:33] surveys, resident questionnaires, and
independent health impact studies. We
[3:38] also cannot ignore the findings of the
43rd state grand jury report, which used
[3:43] 2.5 million in taxpayer dollars to
investigate the fracking industry in
[3:47] Pennsylvania. A process prompted in part
of the cancer cluster identified in
[3:51] heavily fracked areas in West Mor County
concerning E-wing Saroma. The 2-year
[3:56] investigation reviewed thousands of
documents, heard from 70 witnesses, and
[4:01] examined scientific and health data and
depth. One of the key recommendations
[4:06] was increase protective setbacks to 2500
ft from homes and wells and 5,000 ft
[4:11] from schools and hospitals. These
recommendations exist for a reason. We
[4:16] should not be making planning or zoning
decisions that move in the opposite
[4:19] direction, especially when public health
and safety are at stake. For these
[4:25] reasons, I respectfully urge the
commission to not deny this subdivision.
[4:30] » Thank you, sir. Joel Whiteman's.
[4:39] » Hi, guys. Joel Whiteitman, 126 Walnut
Circle. Is this like the commissioners
[4:45] where we just like ask and you guys
don't respond? It's just like comments.
[4:50] » This is your comment period.
>> Okay. I didn't know I was a planning
[4:52] meeting in like four years.
Well, my questions would be, does this
[4:58] new subdivision fully comply with the
zoning ordinance? I don't know if
[5:01] anybody can answer that or will. Um,
>> it'll be discussed at the time the
[5:06] applications presented.
>> Well, should I wait till later?
[5:08] » You're not going to get a chance to
comment.
[5:10] » Oh, perfect.
>> Okay. Um,
[5:13] » well, I just want to know how the
original conditional use got approved if
[5:17] it didn't comply. And now we're doing
this now. And why are we doing this now?
[5:21] because we all presented this
information to you guys when they
[5:25] presented their original conditional use
application and you told us we were
[5:28] wrong and approved it and the court said
otherwise. So, I just want to bring that
[5:33] to your attention. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Sandy.
[5:39] » Sandy Hearn.
[5:42] » Sandy Hearn um 156 GR Drive. Uh it's
difficult to comment
[5:49] having not been given the opportunity to
see uh what this subdivision looks like.
[5:56] Um
[6:00] » well, now this is my first vision.
>> I hope you will take your time studying
[6:05] all aspects of this proposal. I would
hope that each of you would ask a lot of
[6:10] questions. I don't think that didn't
happen before. Now we're in this
[6:14] position. I think a lot of questions. We
need to be sure find out exactly what
[6:18] this is about. it is very complicated.
Um I would also like the opportunity and
[6:25] the time to study what's being asked for
and so I would hope that there would be
[6:29] no vote taken tonight. I can't see that.
Um as a citizen, as a taxpayer, as an
[6:36] objector in the case, I think we need to
be given time and not rush. This is not
[6:41] the usual planning commission meeting.
Uh suddenly here we are on September the
[6:46] 3 and so I question that too. Uh what
kind of emergency is this?
[6:53] » Um
>> this wasn't scheduled as an emergency
[6:55] meeting. Just
>> okay. It's just a schedule.
[6:57] » It's a res meeting. Yeah,
>> it's rescheduled from
[7:01] » from the original date from last month.
So it's just it's just a regular
[7:05] schedule.
>> It's not happening on its normal day
[7:08] because in truthfulness I wanted to make
sure I was going to be here tonight.
[7:11] » Okay. Well, anyway, this is not respond
a minor subdivision which I just saw in
[7:16] something very complicated and I think
we need to look at every single aspect
[7:21] of this going forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you Scott Taylor.
[7:34] » Good evening everybody. It's Scott 304
Mohawk Drive. Um
[7:40] thought a lot about what I actually
wanted to say tonight. um given only
[7:44] less than 36 hours to actually review
this and prepare it. Um because
[7:48] apparently our municipality shuts down
before our solicitor goes on vacation.
[7:52] Um all of this stuff should have been
public information should have been put
[7:57] out straight away for us with a right to
know over two weeks ago. Um we'll deal
[8:02] with that with the commissioners. Um why
are we here? Plain and simple. You guys
[8:07] got it wrong three years ago.
Plain and simple. You got it wrong.
[8:11] court said. So, well, in regards to this
subdivision,
[8:16] you are hopefully actually taking the
time to review this as you should do
[8:22] your job and then report back to the
commissioners in writing so we can all
[8:26] review that as well. You're talking
about two parcels of property owned by
[8:31] two people, two different property
owners being subdivided into five
[8:35] separate lots. One lot is now going to
contain a parcel of two different
[8:41] owners. How do you do that?
This should be two separate applications
[8:47] at a minimum because you're dealing with
two separate parcels of property. Once
[8:51] they're subdivided,
if that's okay, all that gets recorded
[8:56] at the county courthouse. Then they move
to the next level of bringing different
[9:01] property lines into play. Are you guys
going to play along with the Selda
[9:06] requirements or require try to uh keep
straight lines as much as possible?
[9:11] Right angle corners in a right angle
corner on any of these applications.
[9:15] Nothing. This is as complicated as can
be. I'm sure EQT has a grand plan for
[9:21] everything,
but it is not one plan. They're trying
[9:26] to run this through you guys with a
halfass knee-jerk reaction to court
[9:31] rulings that honestly they just filed
for appeal to the Supreme Court. So,
[9:35] this isn't even settled yet. So, now
they're asking you to preemptively fix
[9:40] their problem that you allowed to happen
three years ago.
[9:46] Do your job correctly this time. Just
say no. Period. Commissioners are going
[9:52] to get the same conversation. do your
job the way it's supposed to be by the
[9:57] law. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[10:02] » At this time, we'll call the applicant
for the Lamardo Beverly subdivision.
[10:12] » Good evening, members of the commission.
Bla Lucas with law on behalf.
[10:18] Um just to kind of summarize the history
of this originally Olympus and its
[10:24] midstream subsidiary applied for
conditional use approval for the
[10:28] Heracles welp and the the adjacent
Heracles interconnect into the equator
[10:34] main transmission line. This planning
commission recommended approval of that
[10:39] uh board of super board of commissioners
approved that subject to a laundry list
[10:44] of conditions. Uh the facility has been
built and is operational.
[10:49] uh EP this summer purchased the assets
of Olympus/hiparian.
[10:55] So now uh that's why the application is
in the EP state. It's been alluded to
[11:01] already. While that was all going on,
there was a challenge to the uh approval
[11:07] by the township. Uh that first went to
common police court Mary McKinley who
[11:13] affirmed the approval. Subsequently that
was appealed to Commonwealth Court.
[11:18] Several issues raised. The one that's
precipitated all this is one of the
[11:23] issues that was raised was that the
argument was that a provision in the
[11:27] township zoning ordinance said that you
couldn't have a wealth pad or an
[11:32] interconnect on the same lot where there
was a single family residence.
[11:37] Obviously, many of these projects, not
just here, but around Southwest
[11:42] Pennsylvania, often times the wellpad is
on farmers property. Farmers still has
[11:47] some property. Um, the Commonwealth
Court
[11:52] ruled that that that they think they
couldn't be on the same lot. So, as was
[11:57] alluded to also, the township and EQT
disagree with that ruling and are
[12:04] continuing to pursue an appeal of that
to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. As an
[12:10] abundance of caution,
we're just coming back now and said,
[12:14] "Okay, the argument was you can't have
them on the same lot." Um, in fact, the
[12:19] question was raised by one of the
members of the argument panel before
[12:23] Commonwealth Court. Why don't we just
subdivid? That's what we're doing. A
[12:28] little bit uh unique, but uh it meets
all the ordinance requirements. Uh we're
[12:34] going to have Ryan
Le from CC come up here in a moment.
[12:40] This has been reviewed by both the
county planning department and by your
[12:44] own engineer. made some minor kind of
technical comments on notes on the plan
[12:50] and the like. Uh CDC revised those and
received a letter today from the
[12:55] township engineer indicating that uh all
those the issues he had raised resolved.
[13:01] So at this point I'm just going to turn
it over to Ryan who you've seen here in
[13:04] the past to to walk through the layout
of the plan.
[13:08] » Thank you.
>> Ryan Dailyaly, project manager with
[13:12] Civil and Environmental Consultants.
uh my colleagues um prepared the survey
[13:18] for this uh plan and this site. Um so as
it stands today, there are currently
[13:25] three uh tax parcels uh that comprise
this plan. There's the larger
[13:32] property which is on the western side.
It says larger parcel that the majority
[13:38] of the access road comes through. It
fronts on Route 51. And then there's two
[13:44] parcels on the eastern side. Um they're
owned by the Everly family. One of those
[13:50] parcels fronts on Scenery Drive, Route
48, and the other one fronts off of
[13:56] Wiggles Hill Road to the north. Um so
that'll be these two parcels over here.
[14:03] Um if you can see on the plan, the well
pad itself sits um on what is today the
[14:09] Lombardo property. Um and then the
interconnect pad and a little part of
[14:14] the access road sit on the Everly side
of the existing parcels. Um so what
[14:20] we're proposing with this subdivision
plan is to create a new parcel that
[14:26] contains the well pad, the interconnect
pad, the access road, and the storm
[14:32] water management pods that are
associated with those features. Um, and
[14:37] in doing so, that new parcel bisects the
Lombardo property. So, Lombardo we're
[14:44] going to split into essentially three
new parcels. We'll have parcel A, which
[14:49] will be the northern part, parcel B,
which will be the southern part below
[14:54] the access road, and then what we're
referring to as parcel E being the new
[14:59] parcel in this plan that'll contain the
well and the access road down to Route
[15:05] 51.
Um so per the zoning ordinance um in the
[15:10] R1 residential district um minimum lot
width is 100 ft. Um so the width of the
[15:18] new lot that follows the access road is
a minimum 100 ft for that entire length
[15:24] to make sure we meet that ordinance
requirement.
[15:28] Um total uh parcel size parcel sizes
when we're done. Um parcel A be about 88
[15:36] acres. Um and that'll remain in the
Lombardo family. Um parcel B will be
[15:42] about 64 acres and that too remains in
the Lombardo family name.
[15:48] Parcels C and D on the the Everly
properties uh will get a little bit
[15:53] smaller. Um so they'll go down to about
61 acres and 31 acres respectively. And
[16:00] then parcel E which has the well pad and
the access road will be a total of about
[16:06] 35 acres. Um that two will remain in the
Lombardo family name. Um so there will
[16:13] be a transfer of property about 9 acres
from the two Everly parcels um to the
[16:20] new Lombardo parcel.
[16:29] Let's see. Um, the access 51 is shared
for both entrance to the wellpad and to
[16:37] the Lombardo residence. So, their
driveway use the same access off.
[16:45] Um, so because those are going to be two
new parcels, we are proposing
[16:50] an access easement to be granted from
the new parcel E back to parcel A such
[16:57] that um, in the event there was any
ownership change to these parcels. Um,
[17:02] the owner of parcel A would still have
access through that same entrance off.
[17:13] Um, so no changes to um the road
frontage um on Everly parcels. Um no
[17:21] additional easements on either of those
properties. Um and then lastly, as
[17:26] alluded to, there's no other
improvements we're proposing with this
[17:31] plan. It's simply creation of of a new
parcel.
[17:40] » Is there any questions from the
engineers?
[17:43] Speaking of microphone, please.
>> I just had some minor comments about a
[17:49] week ago under the comment that I had.
It's been addressed.
[17:53] » So, Mr. G, in your review, it's
compliant. This plan is compliant with
[17:57] our current zoning ordinance and
subdivision and land development
[18:00] ordinance. It is
[18:05] um Matt, do you have any comments,
questions, or concerns? Um,
[18:13] » I have question. I have some questions
for Blaine.
[18:16] » Okay.
>> Come on up, Mr. Lucas.
[18:19] » I just want to clarify a few things that
were brought up in public comment. Um,
[18:24] did did the court's decision say that
you cannot drill gas wells?
[18:28] » No.
>> Did the court's decision say that
[18:31] drilling is dangerous?
>> No.
[18:33] » Did the court's decision say you can't
drill in the township because of the
[18:36] zoning ordinance?
>> No. Did it say that you can't drill
[18:40] because of location per the school?
>> Yeah.
[18:43] » Okay. I don't have any other questions
for you. Thanks.
[18:46] » Does anyone on the panel have any
questions concerning or comments?
[18:51] » I do. I just want to clarify. So, what
I'm understanding is that the
[18:55] Everly are selling a parcel to the
Lombardos and this is the subdivision of
[19:00] that parcel. I mean, I understand what
you're using it for, but
[19:05] is it legally transferring to the
Lombardos? That's what I'm trying to
[19:09] figure out.
>> The what would happen here was if the
[19:12] plan is approved and reported the this
portion of the Everly property that
[19:19] overlaps two parcels will be conveyed
and merged into
[19:26] the larger.
>> So, it will only have But I think what
[19:32] she's asking is
>> one owner will be Lombardo, not Everly.
[19:35] There's not multiple owners. Okay, just
clarify. Thank you.
[19:39] » Yeah, do that.
>> Well, it was brought up. So, I'd like to
[19:42] clarify that for them as well.
>> So, it'll be just the one family.
[19:45] They'll have the whole
>> correct.
[19:48] » Okay.
>> So, the Ely family will remain owners of
[19:54] the final parcel C and parcel D and then
family.
[19:58] » Oh, no. I understand that. We were
talking about little section. That's why
[20:02] we were talking about that little Right.
That correct.
[20:05] » The new line created all of it will be
owned by the park.
[20:09] » Okay. That's what we were wondering.
>> Right. Right.
[20:11] » Okay. All right. So, all right. So,
anybody else have any questions,
[20:15] concerns, or comments?
>> Um, I guess now is the time for a have
[20:22] this go towards the commissioners. I
need
[20:26] someone to give their
motion to go forward.
[20:40] » But more questions.
>> Well, it's not really more questions. I
[20:43] realize the work around what's
happening. Um, and yes, you probably do
[20:48] meet all the requirements. I just it's
hard to look at that and understand how
[20:52] that all came to be, but uh
>> it was not our preference. I mean, it it
[20:58] is, as Scott pointed out, a very unusual
lot, but if the Lombardos or the Everlys
[21:06] have agreed to make the sale, then I
have no other questions about it.
[21:12] » Okay. So, I need someone to put a
motion.
[21:18] » Someone needs to make
>> approve or deny the Lamard subdivision.
[21:23] » Motion to approve.
>> Okay, approves it. I need a second.
[21:29] » Mark will second. All in favor say I.
>> I oppose.
[21:34] Motion carry. Going forward.
>> Thank you.
[21:39] » I need a motion to adjourn.
[21:44] » Makes a motion.
[21:48] » Second.
>> Terra. All in favor say I.
[21:54] » 726.
You're on this.