[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.

Elizabeth Township Planning Commission 9-3-25

Transcript