[0:04] All right. Like to welcome everybody to
tonight's uh okay
[0:10] to tonight's uh burough council meeting.
Um we'll start with the uh call to order
[0:15] and roll call.
>> President Gerard.
[0:18] » Vice President Burns
>> present.
[0:19] » Council member Ferguson
>> here.
[0:21] » Council member Hoff
>> here.
[0:23] » Council member Weiss
>> here. Mayor Gerard.
[0:26] » Senior council person Thompson
>> present. B manager Snider
[0:30] » here Harper
>> here.
[0:33] » Thank you. And if we stand and do the
pledge of allegiance
[0:41] to the republic of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[0:47] stands one nation under God indivisible
with us for all.
[0:54] Stay standing for the invocation.
Let us take a moment to pause and
[0:59] reflect as we begin this meeting. May we
approach our work with open minds, clear
[1:04] purpose, and a shared commitment to the
common good. May respect guide our
[1:09] conversations, wisdom inform our
decisions, and unity strengthen our
[1:13] community. We're grateful for the
opportunity to serve and we strive to do
[1:17] so with integrity and fairness to all.
Amen. Nice.
[1:24] Buckeye show. Damn. I just got back from
the Buckeye State. Nice. Yeah. Still I
[1:31] can still feel the
All right.
[1:37] » So, we will start with approval of the
meeting agenda. I'd like a motion to
[1:41] approve that.
>> Motion.
[1:43] » Second.
>> Okay. We have a motion
[1:49] and a second. All in favor?
>> I
[1:53] » oppose.
Uh and then I'd like a motion for the
[1:57] approval of the minutes for July 15th.
>> Motion second.
[2:04] » All motion by Cyia and second by
Michelle White.
[2:11] All in favor? I
>> I opposed.
[2:16] » All right. Now, uh we will do the public
input. If there's anybody from the
[2:21] public that would like to speak, please
rise, state your name and address and
[2:24] your reason for addressing council.
[2:31] Okay.
I do have one um from President Gerard.
[2:39] uh he's not able to be here tonight, so
he asked me to uh read this um
[2:46] in in and this is a statement by him. In
light of the fallout from our recent
[2:50] meeting about the North Broad Street
development proposal, and the resulting
[2:53] reaction from various people, both
residents and non-residents, I've put
[2:57] together a statement that I'm requesting
to be read by Burough Vice Council
[3:02] President Larry Burns in my absence of
the next council meeting.
[3:06] I would like to take a few moments to
address the recent zoning decision that
[3:10] has prompted significant discussion
throughout our community. I understand
[3:15] that this decision, particularly the
choice to favor residential use over
[3:20] commercial development, has raised
concerns and in some cases frustration.
[3:25] Those reactions are heard and taken
seriously. It is important, however, to
[3:31] clearly explain how this decision was
made and what factors were carefully
[3:35] weighed throughout the process. This was
not a quick or simple determination and
[3:40] is not done not a done deal carved in
stone at this point. The council has
[3:46] considered input from the planning
commission, feedback from public
[3:49] meetings, the proposed developer,
applicable zoning ordinances, and the
[3:54] bureau's long-term comprehensive plan.
In addition, there will be a final
[3:59] evaluation of infrastructure capacity,
traffic patterns, neighborhood
[4:04] compatibility, and the impact on
essential community services. Once that
[4:09] is completed, the burough the burden
will then fall on the developer to meet
[4:13] our requirements before final approval
is given. One of the most significant
[4:18] considerations in this case is the
operational needs of our local fire
[4:22] department. As many of you know, their
ability to respond quickly and
[4:27] effectively depends in part on
maintaining adequate access and parking
[4:32] for emergency personnel. Any reduction
or disruption to those resources could
[4:38] directly affect response times and
public safety. The proposed commercial
[4:43] use raised legitimate concerns about
increased congestion and the potential
[4:49] loss of critical parking availability.
After careful review, council determined
[4:54] that preserving residential zoning in
this area better supports not only the
[4:58] character of the neighborhood, but also
the functional needs of the fire
[5:02] department and by extension the safety
of our residents. Not only that, but the
[5:08] fire department relies on the use of
additional parking spaces, which the
[5:12] devel developer agreed to preser
preserve, as a means to help with
[5:16] funding their operations so they can
remain a viable, necessary operation in
[5:21] the future. This does not mean that
commercial development is unwelcome in
[5:25] our bureau. On the contrary, thoughtful
and wellplaced commercial growth remains
[5:30] an important part of our va our economic
vitality.
[5:35] However, zoning decisions must reflect
the specific context
[5:40] of each location and the realities of
our current economic environment. And in
[5:44] this instance, the balance of factors
weigh in favor of residential use. I
[5:50] also want to address the tone of some
recent public commentary.
[5:54] While disagreement is a natural and
valuable part of civic engagement, some
[5:59] remarks directed at council members on
social media have gone beyond policy
[6:04] critique and into personal
disparagement. That is neither
[6:08] productive nor fair, especially coming
from some individuals who are not even
[6:13] residents of this bureau. Every member
of this council approached this decision
[6:18] with diligence and integrity. They
viewed the facts, listened to residents,
[6:23] and considered expert input. You may
disagree with the outcome, but it's
[6:27] important to recognize that these
decisions were made in good faith with a
[6:31] broader interest of the community in
mind. As we move forward, I encourage
[6:37] continued involvement from Aluro
residents. Your input is essential and
[6:42] it plays a meaningful role in shaping
future decisions.
[6:46] At the same time, I ask that we all
remain committed to respectful and
[6:50] constructive dialogue. We all share
responsibility for be for the well-being
[6:55] of this bureau, supporting our volunteer
fire department, preserving neighborhood
[7:00] stability, and planning responsibly for
the future and goals that are ultimately
[7:05] benefit us all. Finally, I would like to
say that it is truly an honor to serve
[7:10] as council president and to work
alongside the current members of this
[7:14] burough council. Their diligence,
thoughtfulness, and commitment to doing
[7:18] what is best for this community should
not go unrecognized. I am proud of the
[7:23] care they bring to each decision, even
when those decisions are difficult.
[7:27] Thank you.
[7:34] » Great. Any more public input?
>> Right. Thank you. All right. Next, we
[7:40] will move on to announcements.
Next pro council meeting is the
[7:45] September 16th workshop regular meeting
at 7 p.m. in council chambers. The next
[7:50] planning commission meeting is scheduled
for Monday, September 28th at 6 p.m. in
[7:54] council chambers. Moving in the park
that was scheduled for Thursday, August
[7:58] 20th will be cancelled due to projected
forecast for tomorrow. Unfortunately,
[8:04] our fall fest though is scheduled for
Saturday, September 19th, starting at 3
[8:08] p.m. on East Lincoln Avenue. The Bur
offices will be closed from 12:00 p.m.
[8:12] to 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 26 for
employee training. And the Bur offices
[8:17] will be closed on Monday, September 7 in
observation of the Labor Day holiday.
[8:23] Thank you. Any questions on those?
Uh, next we'll move on to number five,
[8:30] uh, land development presentation for
200 North Main Street, Lden Schlagger
[8:35] Senior Apartments.
[8:46] Good evening
[8:50] Stewart. Uh we represent the applicant
Latin flagger campus benefit LLC in
[8:55] connection with our application for
preliminary final land development
[8:58] approval from the burough. Applicant is
the owner of two adjacent parcels. one
[9:03] that's located in Hatfield Township and
then another one located that's
[9:07] approximately 1.46 acres in the burrow
which was the former location of the
[9:13] biblical Theological um seminary school
and that's located at the corner of
[9:19] Fairgrounds and Carol Road which turns
into North Main Street in Burrow. The
[9:25] furrow parcel is presently improved with
a small sliver of the principal school
[9:29] building, a secondary singlestory
building and two driveway accesses off
[9:35] street. The eastern driveway access is
currently shared with the green
[9:39] residential properties and connects to a
large sort of impervious parking field
[9:44] on the southern corner of the burough
parcel. applicant here is proposing to
[9:49] convert the existing school and
redevelop the site for age restricted
[9:53] imperence. The secondary building that's
located in the burrow parcel will be
[9:58] removed from um the property and the
parking field that's in the burrow
[10:04] parcel is being redesigned as shown. Uh
the existing imperous parking that's
[10:10] located in Wam's southern corner there
doesn't extend past what the current
[10:14] existing parking fields is. There's also
associated utilities, storm water
[10:19] management and landscaping proposed
within the burrow itself. Um
[10:26] although there are additional
development being proposed in connection
[10:29] with the project this is phased and you
can see on the overarching plan that was
[10:33] submitted you can see there is proposed
to be two additional buildings over time
[10:38] in phases those are both to be located
on the council and not in vern itself.
[10:45] Um, as you might recall, and I believe
might be discussed on the agenda later,
[10:51] there was zoning relief previously
granted for this project. Um, it was a
[10:56] special exception relief and we are
going back in on 24th of September to
[11:01] request that that be reinstated. That's
to allow the conversion from one
[11:06] non-conforming use to another. Um, we
are optimistic that will be reinstated.
[11:11] um as the applicant has really been
moving forward with this project in good
[11:17] low income. It requires a number of
groups from both here, the township and
[11:24] a variety of other kind of
parts in order to get the project
[11:30] moving. And so we're optimistic that'll
be reinstated so that this project can
[11:35] proceed and provide um much needed
housing for the community. Um I'm here
[11:41] tonight with Jacob Tacket. He's been an
engineer on this project um to further
[11:46] walk through the actual plan for you
guys in detail since he's the one that
[11:50] actually designed this and um more
articulate at least to the engineering
[11:55] than I am. But um we did
receive the engineers review letter um
[12:02] largely comply to everything. Um we
don't see any major red flags. Um there
[12:08] were some comments that were made that
um precipitated our um decision to
[12:15] request some waiverss. For example,
normally you request information about
[12:21] 200 ft around the property. We'll
provide an aerial and necessary
[12:26] information, but we're asking for what's
typical of waivers to not have built in
[12:32] and surveyed neighboring properties. Um,
we're also asking for we'll get into
[12:38] them one by one um to allow for the
impervious that's going to provide for
[12:43] the carping to be shown so that there's
the the bishop circulation and that
[12:48] we're not kind of having to push into
the grassy area that currently exists.
[12:53] Um, I'm going to say planning south
which isn't actually south on the
[12:57] property. Um, in order to do this, the
layout does provide for more states than
[13:02] a row with how the landscape land. So,
we did ask for a partial paper for that
[13:08] when we presented it to the planning
commission. They were interested in
[13:12] potentially if it's possible and we work
with the engineer if there's a way in
[13:17] which they wanted the would provided for
enough space like a couple trees and a
[13:23] bush. So if you can fit that in
somewhere else on the property, we are
[13:27] willing to do so. Um we do currently
have this proposed this new landscaping
[13:33] that is very very planned out moment. So
we kind of provide that guarantee but we
[13:38] were against that in order to um
think if there were any other
[13:45] major kind of red flags. There really
weren't. Um again largely we we feel
[13:50] like we didn't comply. We're moving
through with the NPDS part. You don't
[13:53] see any anticipated kind of state
changes as a result of that. Um, and
[13:58] we're moving forward. We also again
participate to get cons. So, we are
[14:03] optimistic that we can kind of proceed
with you guys in working towards an
[14:07] approval of the burough side. Um,
conditioned on our ability
[14:14] necessary outside agency at zoning
relief.
[14:19] that I will turn it over to you.
>> Hold on for a second. Can we just get a
[14:23] couple questions?
>> Sure.
[14:27] » All right. Um, this project is in the
township and the burrow, correct?
[14:32] » That's correct.
>> All right. So, you're going to the
[14:34] burrow zoning hearing board for relief,
actually an extension of the relief that
[14:38] you're already granted for this
proposal.
[14:41] » That is correct. and you'll be filing if
you haven't already um land development
[14:46] plans here in the burrow but also in the
township. So we filed for the um
[14:52] approval here. We've also applied for
approval in the township. We're doing it
[14:56] in parallel and we've received review
letters from both right the board has
[15:02] them I think it is and so with the
burough we have completely will comply
[15:07] with the township. I think we're pretty
close. We have a couple questions
[15:10] because there were a couple comments
that felt a little vague which sometimes
[15:14] happens. So, we're going to have a
meeting with the township engineer, but
[15:17] we don't we didn't see any kind of red
flags or issues on the township side or
[15:22] if we do see that we're going to be able
to work on that. Township
[15:29] » in a way that's not going to result in
meaningful changes to the plan that
[15:32] we're proposing.
>> All right. And the plan you're proposing
[15:35] tonight, is it the same as the one that
already went to the zoning board and got
[15:40] relief some years ago or has it changed?
It It is the same. It's just further.
[15:46] » Very good. All right. Just a little
facts might be helpful to the council's
[15:51] understanding what we're doing here.
[15:55] » Any other questions?
I can always come back here.
[16:07] D can you just start by orienting us
where the municipal boundary line is?
[16:11] » Absolutely. Good evening. My name is
James Hacket. I'm a associate civil
[16:15] engineering consultant for the project.
Um the municipal boundary sort of runs
[16:20] diagonal along the uh parcel here. I
will and parallel to the existing
[16:25] seminary school. Julie is kind of
tracing it now. It's a light dashed line
[16:29] that runs sort of just north of the
bottom of the existing site. Um, so the
[16:36] proposed project, as Julie said, it is
contained mostly within the township
[16:41] boundary. There are no proposed
structures within the burrow's boundary.
[16:46] uh improvements generally consists of uh
reconfigured driveway parking
[16:50] improvements, utility improvements,
storm water conveyance, non-storm water
[16:54] management systems with storm water
conveyance types and structures,
[16:58] landscaping and lighting uh with some
pedestrian access via sidewalks uh and
[17:03] ADA compliant crosswalks and driveway of
Me Street. Comprehensively, the project
[17:08] consists of three different uh
buildings, two of which are proposed, as
[17:12] Julie said, one of which is a
rehabilitation or renovation of the
[17:15] existing baby school um existing
driveways uh present along Cowpath Road.
[17:22] One of which is proposed to be closed
part of the application. The other we
[17:26] show here to the south of the
development is proposed to be
[17:28] reconfigured to align with our parking
and uh drive layout uh for safe
[17:34] circulation draw site. The residential
driveway to the south of our parcel,
[17:38] which kind of is bifurcated by our
property line, is proposed to remain
[17:41] untouched or unchanged to the extent
that we're able to uh leave it alone if
[17:46] it needs to be repaved. It's just a
function of rehabilitating the existing
[17:50] access points to the residential
properties that do not have access
[17:55] directly on West uh School Street.
The project generally is uh is is a a
[18:04] slight change in cover from the existing
condition. Meaning we are proposing to
[18:09] increase the impervious coverage very
slightly um and essentially diminish uh
[18:15] change in cover within the purpose
boundary itself. Um
[18:20] the project itself is proposed to
service three of the the three proposed
[18:27] the three proposed structures um
individually with water, sanitary,
[18:31] sewer, electrical gas as this project is
proposed to be completed in multiple
[18:35] phases. Um storm water management is
proposed uh in two phases essentially.
[18:41] The first of which is to service the
first phase of construction which is
[18:45] presently funded by DHFA. Um it is a
surface MRC basin which is just a way of
[18:51] saying that the the ground on this
property does not infiltrate. Um so it's
[18:55] sort of like a quasi infiltration basin
that doesn't actually seep into into the
[19:00] ground. It's contained within a soil
media um at the basin bed. Similarly for
[19:06] phase two and three um though they are
not clearly defined on this plan the
[19:10] separate MRC bases proposed to manage
both of those spaces in the future.
[19:16] We have in hand our engineer uh the
burough's engineering letter. Um again
[19:21] largely what we consider or will
complies. Um there is a comment that we
[19:26] would like to discuss with the town of
engineer as it relates to their storm
[19:29] water review. We have that scheduled for
early next week. Um I would like to also
[19:33] schedule a time chat with you to discuss
the engineer comments from the birth
[19:37] perspective. Um we don't think that
there is anything in that letter that
[19:41] you prepared as not able to be complied
with. Um there were a couple of comments
[19:45] certainly related to the zoning that we
expect to be reinstated. Um and
[19:49] understand that the project cannot move
forward without that. Um but we're
[19:52] optimistic that that will occur here
later in September uh to put that to
[19:58] rate that ship. Um
excuse me sorry it's been a long day.
[20:07] We are uh currently under review and
addressing blance comments with an NPDS
[20:10] application with Montgomery County
Conservation District. We had a
[20:13] production call with them this
afternoon. Um the site does not
[20:17] infiltrate as I mentioned there shallow
bedrock. So we will be um installing in
[20:21] permeable liner to separate any
potential groundwater from the runoff
[20:25] generated by this development. Um all
runoff generated by this development
[20:33] will be collected and uh again directed
to the storm water basins that discharge
[20:38] ultimately into fairgrounds road and
then further north into uh our receiving
[20:42] waters within the township's boundary.
The only runoff uh proposed to
[20:48] drain to the waterways within the burrow
uh are the grass area south of our
[20:54] proposed parking field within the
burough's boundary where there's kind of
[20:57] like no development shown uh between the
residential driveways and our parking
[21:02] field. That will continue to flow as it
does in its existing condition. There's
[21:06] no change to the cover. In fact, we're
actually um buffering that quite
[21:11] substantially with proposed landscaping.
There's an argument to be made that the
[21:17] density of our landscaping will actually
seep up more runoff that presently
[21:20] exists with a lawn cover today. But it's
not an argument to make um back in
[21:25] science. It's just a concept.
Regardless, uh we've demonstrated that
[21:31] both or all of our points of interest uh
from pre-development to post development
[21:35] condition are reduced. um meaning that
what is generating today will be less
[21:40] than what is generated tomorrow when the
site is fully built out. We received
[21:44] feedback from the planning commission as
part of our presentation on Monday that
[21:50] uh certainly we keep our storm water
basins in good condition. That's a state
[21:54] requirement uh that we agree to add the
requested notes to the plan. Um but we
[21:59] do have a couple of waiverss that we'd
like to discuss this evening as it
[22:02] relates to the application.
first of which uh is to combine the
[22:07] preliminary final plan development
process into a single uh application uh
[22:12] which was voted or considered to be
accepted as part of our presentation on
[22:17] Monday. Uh we have a waiver as it
relates to presenting or detecting the
[22:23] existing conditions within 200 ft of
property boundary. Um the partial waiver
[22:28] that we're requesting was to omit the
irrelevant items that would be
[22:35] impractical to show or necessarily uh
obtain additional survey for examples of
[22:40] that would include uh topographic survey
down gradient of us in residential
[22:44] properties uh that we might not be able
to easily need access for. uh we would
[22:49] be showing aerial imagery to depict
existing conditions uh from surface
[22:54] level with the areas surrounding our
property um as well as you know kind of
[22:58] omitting the storm water conveyance or
utility infrastructure that is relevant
[23:02] to our application.
The two material waiverss that we're
[23:06] requesting uh support from include the
development of parking spaces within 20
[23:14] ft of our property line which exists
here to the south of our property line
[23:19] or to the south of our development uh
very close to this other property line
[23:24] here. Um what we are proposing is to
maintain an existing condition where
[23:28] there's presently paving up to the
property line today. we proposed to
[23:32] enhance that and make it more um
aesthetically pleasing and actually
[23:36] stripe it out and and bring it into
modern stance or construction standards.
[23:41] Um we will be meeting the intent of the
ordinance from a buffering perspective
[23:46] by installing an opaque fence um to
mimic a vegetative buffer so that there
[23:51] is some visual break up from the
residential uh property south of us. The
[23:58] other waiver that we are requesting is
for the allowance of more than 18
[24:02] parking spaces uh to be laid out
continuously without the breakout of a
[24:07] landscaping island. Um again this mimics
an existing condition while the site is
[24:12] currently vacant and the parking field
is very widely strike. Um there is
[24:17] presently enough room uh within the
parking field to park more than 18
[24:23] spaces uh continuously without a
landscaping island. So again, we're
[24:27] proposing to sort of mimic that existing
nonconformity by bringing the site into
[24:31] modern uh w with modern construction.
We understand that the burrow prefers to
[24:39] provide electrical power to all of the
three proposed
[24:44] uh redeveloped structures as was
discussed at our planning commission
[24:48] meeting on Monday.
PPL has the authority or jurisdiction of
[24:54] electrical service within the township's
boundary. Um, and so we are working with
[24:59] the bureau now to get PBL to relinquish
their right to service the site uh so
[25:06] that the burrow can continue to service
the site electrically. Similarly, uh
[25:11] there was a request to maintain existing
sanitary service maintain the existing
[25:16] sanitary service for the vac seminary
school which we proposed to comply with.
[25:21] The other request was that both proposed
buildings are serviced by Hatfield
[25:25] Burrow's uh sanitary um municipal
authority. However, knowing that there
[25:32] is a moratorum within uh Main Street for
the next four and a half or four and a
[25:37] quarter years, I can't remember what
it's now. Um we and given the
[25:42] topographical challenges of our site, we
are looking to connect our proposed
[25:47] buildings one and two to the fairgrounds
road sanitary system.
[25:52] Uh water service for all three buildings
will exist independently
[25:57] as well. Uh we maintain
[26:02] the existing service points within uh
main street to the extent that we're
[26:06] able to with water, silver and uh
>> electric
[26:10] » and so electric is presently uh we're
working through that as well. Uh but
[26:15] certainly for the uh for the seminary
you know we'll be continuing to be
[26:20] serviced through the existing initiative
[26:26] landscaping. Uh if you could go to the
the next sheets here, maybe two more
[26:31] here, you'll see is very substantially
built out. We've left very little square
[26:35] footage on the site that doesn't have a
shrub or a tree or a bush. Um but as
[26:42] discussed at the planning commission
presentation on Monday, we will look to
[26:48] install additional vegetative buffer
along that southern property line with
[26:51] the residents uh adjacent to us if
they're open to it. If not, we will
[26:55] continue to work with engineer to find a
satisfactory response to that request.
[27:05] » Can you ask you because it did come up
at the planning commission meeting and
[27:09] continue appreciate for you guys to
understand this a little bit more since
[27:12] this is a phase project. We understand
that neighbors are always concerned
[27:16] about kind of ongoing construction for a
long period of time when there's a phase
[27:21] project. Um, can you just explain
there's there's very clear permitting
[27:25] requirements for each phase when the
construction is done to bring the
[27:29] property into a condition that looks as
though the construction's complete and
[27:34] finished. And then when you move into
phase two, you would then obviously set
[27:39] up the property for that next
construction project. But Jacob can
[27:43] explain this better than I can. But I
know that that was um that was a concern
[27:48] that's been expressed and it is
considered. There will be a more
[27:52] detailed phasing thing provided so that
there is a full understanding of how the
[27:58] phases will work, how the property will
appear at the end of each or in between
[28:03] each phase in case there is a delay um
in moving forward with the project. So
[28:09] it doesn't look like a construction site
for
[28:13] however long this takes. Right. We
definitely are going to need a phase
[28:17] plan that our engineer can't review.
Yes.
[28:19] » And because when the time comes to give
approvals,
[28:24] you know, normally
say the construction has to be done in a
[28:28] year and that's not going to work here.
So you need to lay out for us what your
[28:32] plan is. So that's the the burough
council can't consider that in any
[28:36] approval resolution. The other thing is
I did ask the question about electric
[28:41] because you may or may not be aware of
this. Hatfield Burrow is a municipal
[28:45] electric um provider. Very unusual in
this part of the world, but Landdale has
[28:52] similar situation. So um we would we had
originally talked about connecting the
[28:59] entire site to our electric. You would
have to run the the conveyancing from
[29:04] one end to the other to make sure it was
in the burrow when it connects.
[29:09] I'm not sure I understand what you mean
by conveyancing, but yes, we do
[29:13] recognize that and Jamie and I have been
in discussion with how we're approaching
[29:18] PBL to get them to uh give us permission
the bureau permission to service the
[29:24] entire property.
>> Yeah. So, so Kate, that's actually a
[29:27] condition of their zoning order
>> was it was a condition. So, they get it
[29:31] extended, they have to do it, but I just
want to make sure they understood.
[29:34] » Yeah. You know why?
>> Electric and sewer is a condition of the
[29:38] zoning order too. Now, keep in mind it's
a little bit gray. It says if possible.
[29:43] So, they could argue whether or not it's
possible, but that's something that
[29:46] should certainly be considered in the
zoning extension.
[29:50] » Absolutely.
>> And we do have a provision in our
[29:52] ordinance for if you have to tear up a
road that we just paved. Okay. There is
[29:57] a provision. We've had to do that for
the the Heckler property. remember they
[30:02] had to come in make their case and uh B
granted it with certain conditions to
[30:07] make sure the road got repaired. Okay.
So that's a possibility. You shouldn't
[30:12] regard that as it's impossible. Okay.
>> Understood. And uh I I think I can speak
[30:19] for the applicant owner that they would
prefer to go through you guys as the as
[30:22] the utility makes it easier. It's more
for small town. Um so we're working
[30:28] through
>> those issues. Okay. And and if it was in
[30:32] the zoning uh approval and it's um
extended,
[30:37] you know, we'll be expecting that. We're
we're not requesting any modification to
[30:42] any of the conditions of the prior
approval in connection with the
[30:45] extension. So the expectation is that
the conditions that were there before
[30:50] will still be in place and the project
is being designed and they're proceeding
[30:56] under the impression that they will need
to meet each of those conditions. Okay.
[31:01] Thanks. Just want to make sure we're all
on the same page.
[31:03] » Um just for the purpose of this meeting,
can you point out the phases?
[31:10] » Sure.
>> Yeah. Could you go back to the plan?
[31:13] Are we doing the redevelopment of the se
second phase or third phase?
[31:18] » Say it again.
>> The redevelopment of the existing
[31:20] structure. It's sort of flip-flop back
and forth. Phase two or three has been
[31:25] the redevelopment of the existing
structure.
[31:29] » It's going to be three.
>> Okay. All right. So, I'll go to the
[31:33] screen here and point out basically what
we're looking at.
[31:37] » Phase one includes the development of
proposed building one, which runs
[31:40] parallel to Fairgrounds Road. the
necessary parking to facilitate
[31:44] operations on that will be installed as
part of phase one as well which
[31:48] generally includes all the parking
fields central to the site um and
[31:52] extending as far as we need to uh to
adequately service phase one. The
[31:58] remaining driveway as part of that
improvement will be installed as well.
[32:03] The parking spaces and sidewalk
associated with that would be deferred
[32:07] until phase two. landscaping is still
sort of ambiguous or undefined. Uh the
[32:14] quantity of landscaping or or vegetative
spaces that need to be installed to
[32:18] comply if this first phase were to be
the only part of the project will be
[32:22] installed as part of phase one. Uh but
the entirety of the site will not be
[32:26] planted until phases two and three.
Storm water basin one. If you can go to
[32:30] the grading plan next sheet.
>> What page was that?
[32:35] » Right here. Stormwater basin one here,
the northern of the two will be
[32:40] installed as part of phase one, as well
as all of the necessary storm conveyance
[32:44] infrastructure to facilitate runoff to
that basin. Phase two and three will be
[32:49] installed or this basin would be
installed as part phases 2/3.
[32:54] Um, utilities for phase one will be
installed as part of phase one. The
[32:57] deferment of sanitary, sewer, water, and
uh, electrical connections would be
[33:02] deferred until phase two and three for
their respective buildings as well. Uh
[33:06] but from a site layout perspective,
you're talking about the driveway
[33:10] improvements on both Main Street and
Fairgrounds Road. Uh the comprehensive
[33:15] circulation loop that gets people to and
from each of those increas points. Um
[33:20] the building itself of course and then
the north storm water basin uh would be
[33:25] comprised of phase one. Phase two would
see the rest of the site uh built out
[33:30] from a parking perspective as well as
all underground utilities so we don't
[33:34] have to bring that up in the future. Um
and the phase two building which is
[33:38] running parallel to the western property
line. Phase three as we understand now
[33:43] will just be the redevelopment of the
existing bas.
[33:47] » So a couple questions. So if the amount
of imperous ground didn't change
[33:52] significantly why do you have to put the
basins in there?
[33:57] » We engineers today are paying for the
sins of our forefathers. uh storm water
[34:02] management has uh what we're supposed to
be doing as part of our NBDS permit
[34:07] regulations is essentially assessing a
part of the existing imperous site as a
[34:12] meadow cover which triggers even a one
to one change in cover from a
[34:16] pre-development to post development
condition as u on paper generating more
[34:21] cut off so it's been a long-standing
effort in state to correct some of the
[34:27] flooding issues that we see pretty
commonly in this uh neck of the woods.
[34:33] So uh we have water body requirements
that we need to adhere to as part of our
[34:37] MDS requirements. Um as well as the way
that runoff presently runs off the site
[34:44] is is going to be different when the
site is built out than it is today. So
[34:48] it's it's just the best engineering
practice uh to maintain and improve the
[34:52] site from existing conditions. The
township also has uh more robust storm
[34:57] water regulations that require us to
dial back our storm water rates in the
[35:01] post development condition.
So even if there was no increase in uh
[35:07] in previous coverage, you would still be
needing to follow your rates back to
[35:11] whatever the touch ordinance in this
case requires us to do.
[35:15] » Okay.
>> So Jason, just touching this ground
[35:17] requires them to put basins in. And and
as a general statement, storm water
[35:21] management, and it may be hard to
believe, is by far the hardest part of
[35:24] any land development project there is.
It's it's the most timeconuming. It's
[35:28] the most difficult to comply with. Um,
you know, we we do private work as well
[35:33] and and it's a nightmare. Um,
>> that's where I thought somehow it might
[35:36] be grandfathered in because it was it's
already been that way.
[35:40] » Nothing's grandfathered in. Um to
reiterate his point, anything that's
[35:44] impervious currently, you have to assume
20% of that is meadow. So even though
[35:50] you're not increasing impervious, on
paper you are. And that's again to
[35:55] improve the sins of the past as they say
and and try to make think of the
[35:59] Montgomery Mall for example. I mean
that's all parking lot. There's no storm
[36:02] water management out there at all. You
wouldn't want to build something there
[36:05] and not do some sort of improvements.
>> Got it.
[36:08] » This isn't quite to that extent, but
it's the same concept.
[36:11] » Okay. I didn't know that. Okay.
>> Yeah. To avoid solar management design
[36:15] improvements or solar based
improvements, you typically be looking
[36:18] at reducing the existing impurities
coverage by 20% or more uh in a proposed
[36:23] development uh condition, which is rare.
You really only see those in major like
[36:28] metro redevelopment like malls.
>> Yeah.
[36:31] » Um so in other words, Yeah. So because
it wasn't done before, now we're doing
[36:35] it now. I get it. So
[laughter]
[36:40] » yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. And so when we
think about the electric and sewer, so
[36:46] do we already have connected connections
of burrow today for electric and sewer
[36:51] » to the existing building? Yes.
>> To the existing building. Right. Um, so
[36:55] when you talk about phase one and phase
two, you're going to have to connect
[37:00] those into the existing electric and
sewer as part of that.
[37:07] » Zoning order. We are required to do that
if it is possible. Okay.
[37:10] » An example of it being impossible in my
mind would be EDL not allowing
[37:16] » their service area to be over ruled by
the
[37:21] municipal authority.
>> I will just add that electric is under
[37:25] legal review right now by our uh by use.
Electric is under legal review right now
[37:31] by use. So Jacob and I have had a
conversation offline or might have met
[37:36] with his electrical engineer and we have
proposed um Hatfield having all three
[37:40] buildings and it's under legal review of
Salsman use. So um when we get an answer
[37:45] from legal as their special utility
council then we'll they will know how to
[37:49] move forward.
And now knowing that there is an ability
[37:53] uh to impact the
recently completed main street of the
[37:59] sewer connection, we we're going to have
to take a look at that, see if we can
[38:02] make that work vertically as well. So
the only reason that would be an
[38:06] impossibility is that there's not enough
vertical space to make the connection.
[38:12] » In my mind,
>> I keep going.
[38:16] » Yeah.
>> Okay. [laughter]
[38:18] So, so there you you you were talking
about, if correct me if I'm wrong, there
[38:22] were four different waiverss, right?
>> There were. Yes.
[38:25] » Okay. So, the the first waiver was
combining all of this into one. I guess
[38:30] » the request one approval.
>> Yes. The request uh typically projects
[38:35] of this magnitude, you would combine
preliminary final development plan
[38:38] because it's a it's a concept that
doesn't anticipate changing much
[38:44] perspective. If we were proposing a
subdivision like a 10 lot subdivision
[38:50] where uh buildings are not fully
designed, we would coming for I see.
[38:55] Yeah. Okay.
>> And then in the future
[38:58] plan once the
individual lots are fully engineered but
[39:02] in this case we we know what the mission
is. We don't anticipate it changing much
[39:06] uh but for address components from uh
the reviewing agencies.
[39:10] » So how would that work if it was
combined versus separate? It's we would
[39:14] you would just vote when the time came
on a resolution that gave preliminary
[39:18] slashfinal
approval.
[39:21] » Okay?
>> It it's it's often done.
[39:24] » And if we didn't do it, then they would
have to go to the planning commission.
[39:27] They'd have to get preliminary approval,
then come back to go to the planning
[39:31] commission again, and then come back to
us again. And so if their plans don't
[39:35] expect to change, preliminaryfinal is
probably a a good way to go unless the
[39:41] engineer finds something really serious
that will need to be changed and they
[39:45] can't do it, right?
>> It saves them a meeting. It doesn't
[39:48] really save them time. Well, they're
here anyway, so it saves one or two
[39:52] meetings. It doesn't necessarily save
them time because you're not going to
[39:55] issue I wouldn't recommend you grant
final approval until it's it's all
[40:00] buttoned up. A lot of times a developer
would want to get a preliminary approval
[40:04] because their financing can can be
vested once they get their preliminary
[40:09] approval. When the the banks will loan
money, that's when their vesting rights
[40:13] are are in place. In this case, it
doesn't sound like they're, you know,
[40:17] too concerned about that. So, they're
willing to forego the preliminary
[40:20] approval and go to final approval.
Again, I wouldn't recommend this board
[40:25] approve it finally until it's ready to
go and you're comfortable with it,
[40:29] right? So it doesn't necessarily speed
up the process. It saves them a night or
[40:32] two come to one of these meetings.
>> Well, the other thing is they could do
[40:36] um and we often do approvals with
conditions.
[40:41] » Certainly there will be some conditions.
>> Yeah. Going to need a variety of
[40:46] conditions outside either the township
or the burrow.
[40:50] » Yeah. Correct. We we would not be
expecting a colony final that was not
[40:55] conditioned upon our compliance with his
review letter and um the
[41:04] and
[41:07] the NPDS any outside agency approval
that might be required for the project.
[41:12] Um
>> township approval, the need for us to
[41:18] get the zoning, all of those types of
things. That way you guys are also
[41:22] protected. If we didn't get one of those
things, we don't get that condition and
[41:26] further disapp. So, and the main reason
why we're really, you know,
[41:30] consolidating it here in particular is
when you look at where the line is, as
[41:35] we've discussed that the kind of the new
buildings, the big buildings that are
[41:39] happening. This really is the layout
that we're having here. It's not
[41:42] modifying, but that's up in the
township. So what's happening in the
[41:47] burrow itself is really just about
parking utility connections and an
[41:53] existing building that's already there
that's going to remain there and inside
[41:57] happen but that's not kind of a land
development issue. So have a question on
[42:01] the existing building because one of the
things the burrow liked about this plan
[42:05] was the reuse of the theological
seminary building for something
[42:09] different. Um and it looks like it's
going to be in phase three. So I Bill
[42:15] probably can speak to this better than I
can and I don't want to fully put my
[42:19] sense in don't worry but I before I went
to law school I did design build and I
[42:24] did this kind of work on the other side
the which is really sad to me because I
[42:28] love the reuse of buildings the it's
actually infinitely more expensive and
[42:34] so for funding purposes and getting that
kind of low housing funding in for phase
[42:39] one it's for that first bill thing so
it's kind of to get the project started
[42:44] and up and running, but it certainly is
in kind of there's, you know, no plans
[42:49] to demolish and the goal really here is
to kind of revitalize that building and
[42:53] make it functional and [clears throat]
and
[42:59] the
>> So, do you have any plans to maintain
[43:01] it? Because it's been years now. Do you
have plans to maintain it if it's going
[43:06] to take years to get it done?
>> From an exterior perspective, we will we
[43:10] will be required to. Yes. Okay.
>> Can I make a couple comments?
[43:18] » We have to say your name so we get it
right the minutes.
[43:20] » What's that?
>> You have to say your name
[43:22] » so that we get it right. And we are
actually televising. So if you want to
[43:26] go up to that might even be better.
>> Okay. Thanks.
[43:34] » How tall are you? [laughter]
[43:39] » My name is Bill. Bill Brown. Um, and I
am really excited about our our project.
[43:47] We've been working on this for several
years. Uh, what I'm happy to say is that
[43:51] we have uh the state has funded us. So,
we've been awarded the funding for this
[43:57] phase one project. There is a
possibility in the future that we might
[44:01] be able to merge two and three together.
That's a possibility. We don't know that
[44:06] for a fact yet, but that might be a
possibility.
[44:11] Um, unfortunately, it takes
this is probably four years of trying to
[44:17] get phase one funded, but we got it
funded. Once we get it up,
[44:23] it'll be occupied pretty quickly because
55 plus affordable housing for seniors
[44:29] is a big need in the area all over. Uh,
but we're excited about it. It's going
[44:35] to move. U people are calling me now
wanting to know when they can uh apply
[44:41] for admission which is very interesting.
I like that. Uh but we're excited about
[44:46] the project. It's awesome. Uh I will
also comment that uh we're almost ready
[44:52] probably within two months of fully
remediating the uh Misio Seminary
[44:58] building.
uh that needs remediation and we're
[45:03] about ready to to start that. Um they'll
have no effect on the new construction
[45:10] at all.
Any questions anybody might have for me?
[45:15] » I have a question about the phase
timing. So I know that was something we
[45:18] were going to get to. So what's the
what's the timing plan for phase one,
[45:23] two, and three? And uh what does that
future outlook look like?
[45:28] So as soon as phase one is completed, uh
we can apply for phase two,
[45:34] possibly two and three at the same time.
Don't know that, but we'll take us a
[45:39] year after the building is complete to
apply. Uh they won't accept an
[45:45] application if the building is not
complete.
[45:48] » It just won't
>> Can you can you kind of walk through
[45:51] timing? Okay, we're going to start
approximately here and then phase two
[45:55] will begin here and phase three. Sure.
So it should take us uh
[46:02] 12 at a minimum 13 probably maximum time
frame and construction of phase one. Uh
[46:09] that's what our time frame has been.
Harkens will be the builder. Um they're
[46:14] an awesome building company and they
they can build that. Um and then we
[46:21] don't have to wait 12 months once the
building is complete. Then we got to
[46:25] apply. But you can only apply once a
year. Uh this is a 9% tax credit
[46:31] application, but it the application is
due and they change it almost every
[46:35] year. It could be due in February, it
could be March, it could be April. Uh so
[46:40] we're all worthy planning for
applications that we'll be submitting uh
[46:45] for early next year. Uh but that's
pretty much the time limit and how how
[46:50] that stuff works. But it's generally 12
months. uh you got to be complete and
[46:55] then the next funding round that's when
you can apply but they only do it once a
[47:00] year.
>> So So I apologize I'm probably missing
[47:03] something. So So when do you estimate
the start date will be based on your
[47:08] current plans
[47:11] » and I'm not talking about the
remediation right that's happening but
[47:14] we're actually talking about the
construction. So shovels in the ground.
[47:18] » Okay. As soon as we get all the uh um
authorization from township and abro
[47:25] um
>> we can start construction.
[47:29] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[47:41] » October it took him four years to get
fun.
[47:44] » No, I got it.
>> Yeah.
[47:45] » I said could be 10 years. It could be.
>> Okay.
[47:49] » I asked that in the planning commission
was 10 years.
[47:51] » Okay. Yeah. I was just what I So, what I
was looking for was I understand it may
[47:54] not be in stone, but based on where
we're at today, what do we think?
[47:59] » Didn't you did you say October?
Commission. I'd love to have a
[48:03] groundbreaking in October. That would be
my goal. Whether you get there, that
[48:06] depends on the approvals, but that was
your goal. Groundbreaking.
[48:09] » That was the goal.
>> Yeah.
[48:11] » Okay. Next summer.
>> May not have until December. May not
[48:14] have until January or February. Just
depending on the timing of
[48:19] » October 27th.
[48:23] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[48:25] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay.
[48:30] » A lot of hoops.
>> Yeah. No, I get it. I get it.
[48:33] » It's the fun. That's
>> so
[48:37] probably told you this, but I'm
reminding our council that we can't
[48:42] actually grant any kind of land
development approval until you have your
[48:47] zoning document in place. Okay.
>> Did you hear that? We can't actually
[48:52] grant any kind of land development
approval until they have the zoning in
[48:57] place extended.
>> Yeah. So, I think what I our goal here
[49:01] was to kind of provide a presentation.
we anticipated or were optimistic that
[49:06] if there weren't
major concerns that we were unaware of
[49:10] Chad or anyone else on you know the
board that we would be able to at least
[49:15] try to tee this up in a way that we
would be able to come back in October
[49:21] we get the zone reinstated so that you
guys could actually formally vote on
[49:25] this.
>> Yeah, there's a number of things that I
[49:28] would like to work offline with the
engineer. One thing in I'll say fairness
[49:33] to them is that they should hear your
input on the waiverss. Not necessarily
[49:37] that you have to vote on them, but at
least give them a warm and fuzzy when
[49:40] they walk out of the room because, for
example, if you don't allow that parking
[49:43] lot to be four feet off the property
line, that's a pretty significant
[49:48] redesign of the entire project.
>> So, they're going to need answers on
[49:51] some of these.
>> Okay.
[49:54] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[49:56] » Okay.
>> Yeah. No. So I I still have more
[49:58] questions on waiverss if we can keep
going. So and and I apologize everyone
[50:02] has council and who's listened because
I'm annoying with questions. So you guys
[50:05] haven't dealt with me yet. So I'll
apologize to you up front. So um so that
[50:10] you also had a waiver on the survey, not
conducting a survey.
[50:14] What's the issue with not conducting a
survey? What's the risk if you don't do
[50:19] that?
So,
[50:21] » and when I say risk, sorry, when I say
risk, is there going to be a risk to the
[50:24] bureau, to the residents if that survey
is not done because something wasn't
[50:28] detected
with that? So, this is a partial waiver.
[50:33] It's not a complete waiver. So we would
be providing all of the information that
[50:37] be necessary and for an evaluation of
the site changes but this is regularly
[50:45] asked for um and I don't think I've ever
had a project where it wasn't asked for
[50:50] because there are private properties and
we you know will not get rights to go on
[50:56] and basically to inspect underground
what it has no impact on our property
[51:02] that exists on burning property. So,
this allows us to kind of provide you
[51:07] with an aerial a top down kind of view
of everything that's going on around the
[51:11] property and we are agreeing to provide
you with any information that would have
[51:15] any impact on this development
going off the property within that area.
[51:21] So, it's really just a partial leap or
>> it's areas that you can't get access to
[51:26] underground for the neighborhood. Okay,
that's I wasn't sure. I didn't
[51:28] understood that. So,
>> so I'll agree with with what what she
[51:31] said. Um, it it's
It's a very common waiver to request.
[51:36] It's I'll say standard DS and it's
standard to to grant that partial
[51:41] waiver. An aerial image that's
of you know legitimate clarity. It
[51:48] should be provided. Um their waiver
request is to omit irrelevant
[51:53] information. If you're comfortable with
me making the decision on what's
[51:57] relevant and what's not, I think that's
probably the way to go. There are a few
[52:01] items that I brought up in my letter.
Uh, for example, there's a wood curb, I
[52:05] think you call it, right off of your
your steep slopes that you're proposing.
[52:09] Um, which I would want to make sure can
stay structurally sound if they're
[52:13] cutting three toes at the bottom of that
that curb. Um, I know from imagery and
[52:19] being out there that I don't know, is
there access to the the school property?
[52:23] It looks like there's some equipment or
sheds or something that they may use
[52:27] your property to gain access.
>> There's presently no fiscal barrier uh
[52:32] property line,
>> right? And it looks like the
[52:34] just continues and there's sheds or
something there.
[52:37] » So, yeah, I I there's an existing shed
right here uh that we don't anticipate
[52:43] using in the future uh part of our
demolition. Um
[52:49] I'm sorry, what what is the question?
Even beyond that, I I don't know if they
[52:53] they store equipment there or or or what
it is, but it almost looks to me like
[52:58] there's no defined boundary between the
school property and this property and
[53:02] the parking lot just kind of continues
and they maybe they use it. So, I don't
[53:06] know if they have access rights, if
there's some sort of agreements or you
[53:10] can just put up a fence there and stop
them from accessing it.
[53:13] » To our knowledge, there is no usement
right for the access of the existing
[53:17] middle school. Um, as Cathedral point,
we are proposing to buffer our property
[53:23] from the school um at the property line
via vegetative trees.
[53:29] » I would suggest they be notified and
then just
[53:32] » Yeah. So,
>> be aware that they may be cut off from
[53:35] access if they are in fact using it. Um,
>> the school districts.
[53:39] » Yeah.
>> Or or maybe it's the private property. I
[53:42] don't know. But there's something there
that appear. Is that something you want
[53:44] to handle first or do we you want us to
write them?
[53:50] » Well, so I think it depends on what the
property is. Obviously,
[53:54] » it's a public school. The public school
that's right there. Um I mean we are
[53:59] unaware baseball,
>> right? It's not a elementary uses that.
[54:03] It's baseball fields that are owned by
North Penn School District, but um the
[54:08] little league uses that. So like they
use it and they do park in the biblical
[54:11] seminary parking lot to access the lower
fields. So I would probably say you
[54:16] would send to the school district
because that's who they rent the fields
[54:19] from, but also send a courtesy letter to
the little lake like, hey, this is going
[54:22] to happen and this is our pro, but it's
not going to be public parking anymore.
[54:26] They probably honestly park on biblical
seminary property when they used to
[54:30] below.
>> Yeah, they
[54:33] Yeah, there's no rights. We I mean I
think we're willing to notify them of
[54:37] that, but um in terms of like asking for
permission to kind of buffer our
[54:41] property.
>> No, I'm just using this as an example of
[54:44] why we would want some additional
information surveyed or or at least
[54:48] provided so we can understand what the
impacts are on the the res or the
[54:51] neighboring properties.
[54:57] » So one last question and I I promise I
will be quiet. Um,
[55:03] sh I don't know that.
>> No. Um, so there was a question about
[55:08] the the parking waiver, right? And that
I think that had to do with an island
[55:12] with so many spaces. Is that correct?
>> Okay.
[55:15] » Um, so it kind of brings up a question
about parking and how do we determine
[55:20] the amount of parking spaces that were
there? Because as everyone knows, we
[55:24] have overflow parking issues here in the
burrow in general. And so I'm curious
[55:28] how we determine the number of parking
spaces and does that take into
[55:32] consideration of potential overflow
issues that we've seen other places.
[55:36] » So I'll I'll answer that. The number of
parking spaces is calculated in the
[55:41] zoning ordinance. So they are actually
providing more spaces than are required
[55:46] by a significant amount. Zoning
ordinance actually only requires one
[55:50] space per unit because this is a an
elderly community. Mhm.
[55:54] » Uh for any other community it would be
two spaces per unit. I believe Ho
[55:58] Township requires two spaces per unit.
Um
[56:02] 114 units.
>> That is correct.
[56:05] » And how many spaces?
>> 127.
[56:08] » 127. So the common thought is that
there's at max one car per unit.
[56:14] » Um so you should at least consider that
when you think about this waiver request
[56:19] that they are providing more than the
burrow requires. I certainly understand
[56:23] the sensitivity with parking in the
burrow. Um, but to answer your question,
[56:27] it is a requirement of the zoning
ordinance that defines how many spaces
[56:30] are required.
>> And uh, as an as an add-on to that
[56:34] point, the reason our park configuration
is as such is we are uh, compliant with
[56:39] the zoning order with township that
requires us to park 127 spaces on site.
[56:47] So, we have uh relief from the township
of Arizona ordinance to park less than
[56:51] what their required number is. [snorts]
>> Okay. Because that because correct me if
[56:56] I'm wrong, right? You said there's 114
units, 127 spaces. So, we're only
[56:59] providing 13 more spaces
than what the requirement than what
[57:04] you're required to in the burrow.
>> Yes.
[57:07] » Okay. So, and the and the township's
giving you a waiver that says you don't
[57:11] have to have two spaces per unit. They
granted a variance for that.
[57:16] » A variance, right? So if if you were
following the township ordinance, you'd
[57:20] have to have 228 spaces.
>> Yes.
[57:22] » Approximately. Okay.
>> Without going by. Yes.
[57:25] » Okay. So,
so for me, that's a potential problem.
[57:32] my understanding we're granting 13 more
spaces, but if we're talking about 114
[57:37] units, if you needed half of that as
additional spaces, you've just crowded
[57:43] up the whole area around the entire
property. So, to me, that's that would
[57:47] be a problem, right?
From a from a from a parking standpoint.
[57:53] Does that does my statement make sense?
You kind of
[57:56] » No, I I am I am confused. So, so if
there's 100, so what we've seen in
[58:01] similar um building in the in our
community here is we've seen much more
[58:07] than two spaces needed per unit. Now, I
understand that this is a 55 and older
[58:11] community and they may have less
vehicles, right? But we've seen here
[58:16] where you almost need two and a half to
three spaces per location here. So
[58:22] saying that we're only going to have one
to me says we're going to have a parking
[58:27] problem that we're all going to have to
deal with. So that's that's my concern.
[58:31] » So So we are again we are in significant
access
[58:35] parking is required and the waiver that
we're asking for here is to allow for a
[58:40] few extra spaces. So if you didn't grant
the waiver, we would end up with fewer
[58:45] spaces on the property because what our
waiver request has to do with the
[58:49] subcate island, which would remove one
of the parking spaces and convert it to
[58:56] a planted island. So here we're
optimistic that you would be supportive
[59:02] of us having a couple extra spaces on
the site for the overflow even though it
[59:08] is in excess of the burough requirement.
versus if you don't grant that waiver,
[59:14] you're still compliant, you end up with
less parking on site. And I would also I
[59:19] do understand what you're saying about
concerns about overflow particularly in
[59:23] apartment buildings.
We we've had traffic evaluations and
[59:28] kind of there's other senior the senior
apartment building that are similar to
[59:33] this and are significantly underfoot
that's quite different from an apartment
[59:40] building that is housing younger
workforce members as opposed to people
[59:46] who are older no longer drive at all. Um
it is actually the case that there is
[59:53] often only one car if that per kind of
apartment building. So it was very much
[1:00:01] so evaluated and presented to the
township because again the township had
[1:00:05] a higher requirement for parking and so
they were comfortable that the parking
[1:00:11] that we're providing is adequate for
this particular type of use and waver
[1:00:15] here against so that we we don't lose a
couple spaces in the boat.
[1:00:20] » No, I I and I get it. I'm not I don't
necessarily have issue with the waiver
[1:00:23] for the island. I'm [clears throat] just
highlighting that the parking question
[1:00:26] brings up a bigger parking concern
because the the parking too, correct me
[1:00:30] if I'm wrong, you're going to have staff
there as well too. So staff is going to
[1:00:34] take up some of the parking as well,
right?
[1:00:38] » Staff will uh will park, but if you took
a ride two miles from here of the last
[1:00:45] three buildings I put up, uh there's uh
180 units. Uh, I think the partner
[1:00:53] places are are 200 that are there. Most
people don't even have a car because
[1:00:59] they're in their 80s and they can't
drive anymore. Um, it's I'm telling you,
[1:01:04] it's not going to be an issue uh about
parking. It's just and everybody thinks
[1:01:10] the opposite way that there's not
enough, but there's always so much extra
[1:01:15] space always. uh a lot of people don't
have cars.
[1:01:21] » Is it is it too much to ask for you guys
to do an analysis to highlight that?
[1:01:25] Because invariably what's going to
happen is is that residents are going to
[1:01:30] come to us and say, "Hey, we have a
problem here." And if we approve
[1:01:34] something and I and I understand that
we're for the burrow, we're within the
[1:01:40] numbers that that you know, so there's
not a waiver for the number of parking
[1:01:44] spaces, but invariably it's going to be
a problem for the community and if we
[1:01:48] approve something and then there's a
problem later on, we're all stuck with
[1:01:51] it. So, so that's why I'm saying would
it be too much to ask to have that
[1:01:55] calculation done? So, for example, if
you've done these communities before,
[1:01:59] you know, approximately, hey, if I have
a 100 units only 50, I'm only going to
[1:02:04] need 50 spaces because this is what
history tells me. If you can come up
[1:02:07] with an analysis like that, that'll help
us be able to talk to the community
[1:02:11] about it when the question arises.
>> Remember, this is affordable housing.
[1:02:16] It's not market rate. That's totally
different in the calculation.
[1:02:21] because a lot of people can't afford to
have a car because it's affordable
[1:02:26] housing.
>> Right. But I'm saying but you based on
[1:02:28] your experience, you have some
estimations on that. Can you provide
[1:02:32] estimations for what it would be based
on your experience?
[1:02:40] » We're going to submit our traffic impact
study. It made its way to the township
[1:02:43] but did not get submitted as part of the
application here to the but we do have
[1:02:47] traffic
one
[1:02:49] » that might be the PCSM report.
>> Okay.
[1:02:52] » It was we received a review from the the
traffic engineer.
[1:02:56] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:02:57] » I can't recall. I I apologize. The
traffic impact study that was completed
[1:03:01] was in close proximity to the our
submission date. So I don't know if it
[1:03:04] made its way into our submission.
>> We have a review letter from
[1:03:09] » somebody on traffic.
>> Yeah. The traffic engineer for the
[1:03:12] township is also our traffic engineer.
So if you like one line one joint and I
[1:03:16] believe so he would have got it you
submitted for the township. He would
[1:03:19] have got it on
>> I do know that he has it.
[1:03:23] » Yes.
>> Well in all fairness it's dated August
[1:03:26] 18th. So it hasn't been out there a
while.
[1:03:31] » We haven't but I thought I read that it
said that uh was going to produce that
[1:03:36] much traffic. But
>> no but it's not going to tell us how
[1:03:39] many spaces are needed. It's going to
say how many vehicles per hour you
[1:03:43] expect to have flow, but it's not going
to tell you how many parking spaces you
[1:03:47] think are needed based on the needs of
the community who are living there.
[1:03:50] Right?
>> So, so it may be an unusual request, but
[1:03:55] the reason I'm asking for, like I said,
we've had numerous problems in the
[1:03:58] burrow in the past. And so if we can
show that, hey, the builder's done an
[1:04:04] analysis that thinks that we're only
going to need x number of spaces, then
[1:04:08] that helps us sell it to the community
to say, hey, we don't think there's
[1:04:13] going to be a problem. Or if your
numbers show that there's a problem,
[1:04:16] then maybe we can get that red addressed
ahead of time.
[1:04:19] » Right. Well, the other thing I was
thinking is whatever evidence you showed
[1:04:22] to the township zoning hearing board
might be helpful here. You said that the
[1:04:27] township gave you a waiver or
I wasn't you were housing council at the
[1:04:33] time so but I do know that
>> original relief uh was provided by the
[1:04:38] township neither TNM or got well
involved project at that time.
[1:04:44] » Okay. But do you have whatever evidence
was used or no? I I'm sure if I don't
[1:04:49] have
>> right I mean to his point if he would
[1:04:52] like to show the the resident that we
understand their concerns and here's
[1:04:58] what the developer says about
>> so I do think the traffic impact site
[1:05:04] that we prepared for this application
was submitted
[1:05:07] » would satisfy that we have not had a
chance to fully address just the traffic
[1:05:11] engineer
>> Jason did you hear that they do think
[1:05:16] their traffic study might help us
understand that, but it's focused on
[1:05:22] traffic in and out as you said, non-p
parking,
[1:05:24] » right,
>> spaces. So, we need a little more
[1:05:26] information on your parking
>> and uh burough council really should
[1:05:30] consider if this is a real concern of
yours what you want to do with North
[1:05:35] Main Street. The ordinance requires two
12oot travel lanes and and 8 foot for
[1:05:41] parallel parking. So, you're going to
want to consider if you want to allow or
[1:05:44] prohibit parking on the street.
>> Mhm. Right. Because again, that's
[1:05:48] something we'd have to consider if we
don't have enough spaces. So, Yep.
[1:05:52] » which is now a bigger deal, right?
Because now we're dealing with a pendot
[1:05:57] road and
>> Well, it's not pendot in the burrow.
[1:05:59] » Well, yeah, that's true. I'm sorry.
>> Um and and with that in mind, consider
[1:06:04] public transportation as well, whether a
bus stop or something along those lines
[1:06:08] would make sense.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:06:21] I did not read the traffic study and
maybe Chad didn't either. I have no idea
[1:06:26] whether it says anything about parking
on Maine or not. We'd have to have an
[1:06:30] expansion of Main Street to do that,
right?
[1:06:33] » It's actually very close. I think
they're within two and a half inches of
[1:06:38] what's within.
>> Doesn't strike me that as that wide.
[1:06:41] » No, it doesn't. Um,
>> no. It'll just create other problems.
[1:06:44] » I believe when Mr. Brown came and you
presented a sketch plan with Mr. Clement
[1:06:49] like two years ago, if not more than
that, the same question was brought up
[1:06:52] about parking and you were talking about
maybe a space you did in Amler and you
[1:06:56] did talk about that you did have some
type of analysis done. I remember the
[1:07:00] conversation. So, I would be happy to go
back and see if something was provided
[1:07:04] at that time. I remember the
conversation coming up because it was a
[1:07:07] concern. It might have been your
concern, but I know it was a concern of
[1:07:09] rural council about parking. And I
remember Mr. Clement was your council.
[1:07:13] It was just a sketch plan. There were
residents here and that was a concern.
[1:07:17] And I remember you talking about studies
being done that it's really to have a
[1:07:22] bar if a Gar for age age restricted
income restricted housing. So I do know
[1:07:27] there has to be something out there
somewhere that could help Burough
[1:07:30] Council see something that backs what
your theory is about the parking.
[1:07:35] Remember the conversation,
>> right? Is that so that B council can
[1:07:37] answer questions that are raised by
their neighbors?
[1:07:42] » I check on that.
>> Yeah, I remember the conversation. I
[1:07:44] don't know. I remember something.
>> Okay. So, we we should go ahead and
[1:07:48] continue with the waiver part because
that's what we what we're talking about
[1:07:52] here because that's really not a part of
that.
[1:07:56] » Right. the waiver requests that were
were here before you tonight would allow
[1:08:00] for more parking on site and
>> eliminate the need or the requirement to
[1:08:05] install
>> because the elimination of the aisle.
[1:08:07] » Yes.
>> Yes, I did. Yeah.
[1:08:09] » So there any other questions from us on
the waiverss?
[1:08:16] » There was the fourth waiver just to
clarify regarding the parking at the
[1:08:20] » in the fence.
>> Yeah. Did you guys have any questions
[1:08:23] related to that?
>> No, we just went through that before.
[1:08:25] So, you know, I think the bigger
question will come up from the the
[1:08:28] neighbors,
>> right?
[1:08:31] » It's like 4 feet or so from the property
line
[1:08:34] » about that. Yes.
>> Yeah. Katie, can you pull up the
[1:08:37] existing plan?
>> It's one of the first.
[1:08:39] » Oh, it's the second or the third sheet.
>> Sorry guys.
[1:08:44] » Or the demo plan.
>> Is it number three?
[1:08:48] » Uh right there. Yes.
>> Go to the next one.
[1:08:50] » This one.
>> Show. Yeah. Go to the previous one. So,
[1:08:55] can you point to where it is now?
>> So, the existing parking line, this is
[1:09:02] this line right here,
>> the top or the bottom?
[1:09:06] » Uh, the top of the two parallel lines
right there is the parking. The bottom
[1:09:09] line is the property line.
>> Okay.
[1:09:11] » So, we're we're maintaining the existing
distance uh of the the parking field
[1:09:16] today as part of the post initial.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, like I said, I I don't
[1:09:21] necessarily have any issue with that. I
think uh like in the past, people have
[1:09:25] always made accommodations where needed.
So, I don't think that's that I I think
[1:09:28] you could work something out if there
are any questions that come up about the
[1:09:32] fence or type of fence or do we want,
you know, trees instead of a fence. I
[1:09:37] mean, I think you guys would be willing
to accommodate any requests that may
[1:09:40] come up from the community. So,
>> yeah, trees won't work there, but
[1:09:43] » I know, but you know what I mean. That's
Yeah. Yeah. Willing to accommodate
[1:09:46] something. So,
>> so the B manager has a question which I
[1:09:49] think we should talk about here. Go
ahead. I'm sure the engineer has the
[1:09:53] same question. So my question is you're
um planning to go to the zoning hearing
[1:09:57] board and you're planning to just ask
for that zoning hearing order to be
[1:10:02] extended. Three minute exact same thing
with the same nine implications. The one
[1:10:06] imple I'm calling it invocation. I don't
know the ter. Thank you. Um the one
[1:10:12] condition is that you have to put a
storm water pipe all the way down Main
[1:10:16] Street to the post office. I was
surprised when you resubmitted your
[1:10:20] zoning not to admit that because while
talking to our burough engineer that's
[1:10:25] just not something that's realistic for
your property according to you you're
[1:10:29] going to put most of your storm water in
Hel Township. So my question is how is
[1:10:33] that going to be addressed if you go
back and you're just going to get a
[1:10:36] letter that says yeah sure we agree with
everything we gave you before you're
[1:10:40] then going to be having to put that pipe
down and that final wasn't addressed in
[1:10:44] any of the zoning application that you
submitted. I don't know if this is the
[1:10:48] correct uh form for that, but that is uh
something that we would have omitted uh
[1:10:54] or requested to be straightened from the
zoning order if it were to be reinstated
[1:10:59] as discussed in our staff meetings that
and as mentioned here's not a practical
[1:11:05] implementation
>> correct
[1:11:07] » of that still modified.
>> Yes. Um, so
[1:11:12] as part of our zoning hearing, we would
discuss that not being part of
[1:11:16] » because your letter just seemed like you
were okay and you were going to submit
[1:11:19] the same. Yeah. You were going to submit
the same thing and ask for nine and all
[1:11:24] of those implications would just be
reinstated.
[1:11:27] So I think council just want like to
understand in the engineer like that,
[1:11:31] hey, it's not practical or practical.
You planning on doing that.
[1:11:37] So
without it getting legal without legal
[1:11:42] [laughter] I think the idea is that the
because of the storm water changes that
[1:11:46] that is not practical anymore. We did
would be requesting to strike that
[1:11:51] particular condition and I will legally
amend our application. We do have time
[1:11:56] to do so so that it can be
looking.
[1:12:02] Yes, we would have time to rob that
properly so that it wasn't a continued
[1:12:06] condition that there
was needed added on
[1:12:13] like when the application came in.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it was our
[1:12:17] understanding based on everything we've
heard that you're just looking for. All
[1:12:20] right, let's extend it the way it was.
And I think almost to your benefit, we
[1:12:25] flagged that as a problem for you.
>> Great.
[1:12:28] » And Chad, from a burrow engineer
perspective, you have no objections.
[1:12:33] » I have no objections, particularly
considering the fact that they're
[1:12:36] looking to push all their water in the
opposite direction.
[1:12:38] » Anyway, right.
Okay.
[1:12:42] » Yes.
>> Thanks, J. Any
[1:12:52] other questions,
comments, questions? Go ahead.
[1:12:57] » I'm sorry.
>> Go ahead.
[1:13:00] » That's our pres.
[1:13:08] » Yes.
>> I think it's actually
[1:13:14] » state your name. I'm much daily vice
president.
[1:13:17] » Thank you.
>> Um
[1:13:20] there's going to [clears throat] be at
the end 114 apartments somewhere around
[1:13:24] there. So that's the number I hear.
>> Yes.
[1:13:26] » Okay. And it's age qualified. Is there
going to be anything like um personal
[1:13:30] care or any kind of medical? No.
>> This is all just street apartments.
[1:13:36] » Thank you.
And we do have a letter from the
[1:13:40] township fire marshal which we're
complying with as it relates to fire
[1:13:44] lanes and and proper signage and of
course all of the necessary building
[1:13:49] codes for spring and fire protection.
>> Just concerned if there's any anything
[1:13:55] in there that we need to worry about.
>> Sounds good. Thank you.
[1:14:01] » Great question.
>> Let me ask another question here too.
[1:14:03] Katie, if you can go back to the site
right there. right there.
[1:14:08] So, you said you're going to will comply
with with the comments in my letter. One
[1:14:11] of my comments is providing a handicap
accessible path from building I think
[1:14:16] that's two across the parking lot to the
the sidewalk. Would you do that without
[1:14:21] removing parking spaces?
>> We would not um be within the parking
[1:14:27] field itself. we would not be able to uh
provide struct parking. Uh we would
[1:14:33] require the removable parking spaces
strike out crosswalk. What we would be
[1:14:37] envisioning is the crossing somewhere
where there is no parking uh to get from
[1:14:42] the left side of the site to the right
side of the site. This is not this is
[1:14:46] live. Um potentially something along the
rear parking field here, rear parking
[1:14:52] field here or north uh where there is
presently no parking spaces provided.
[1:14:56] Uh, go back to where you just were. So,
you just had your finger in that general
[1:15:00] area. I was thinking of no doubt to that
corner to that that sidewalk. I think
[1:15:04] you need to get people from that
building too to that side to get them
[1:15:08] down to Main Street to, you know, go the
rest of the way down. How are you going
[1:15:11] to do that without losing parking
spaces?
[1:15:14] » I'm missing a point. From this building
to Main Street
[1:15:18] » down here.
>> Yes. Correct.
[1:15:19] » This entire length of the development is
proposed to be sidewalked. Um, we would
[1:15:25] potentially be looking at adding
sidewalk in this island here, providing
[1:15:28] an ADA access point from this building
across the parking field or the drive
[1:15:32] aisles to this sidewalk network down to
Main Street.
[1:15:37] » I think geometrically that makes sense.
That means you're not going to put trees
[1:15:40] in that island, which would then require
another waiver.
[1:15:46] » Yeah, this domino is in the will
complies domino into problems. to your
[1:15:50] point right we do need to talk and
discuss
[1:15:57] I don't have an answer to you right now
but we'll we'll talk and figure it out
[1:16:02] another thing that came up at the
planning commission meeting was and and
[1:16:06] we didn't solve it but we talked about
some something outside for the people to
[1:16:11] go to you know like a gazebo or
something like that
[1:16:14] » that was in the township
>> yeah where would you put put that in
[1:16:17] there so that's something else that we
talked about that
[1:16:20] » and and these certainly aren't deal
breakers. These are all things that we
[1:16:23] need to consider and again a reason why
don't just grant approvals without going
[1:16:27] through the details of of the the
comments.
[1:16:30] » Yeah, transportation vehicles would come
inside the inside the development pickup
[1:16:36] residence. That's how it works in all
the all the communities. They come they
[1:16:40] drive in uh scheduled pickup or whatever
it is, whoever is providing the service
[1:16:46] and pick up residents that way.
[1:16:51] to to go back to the comment you made
about a common space. Uh between the
[1:16:56] proposed building one and existing
seminaries, uh there is
[1:17:00] area that were kind of designated, you
know, informally as a courtyard space
[1:17:04] for the outdoor congregation of the
residents. Um, presently as part of the
[1:17:09] application, there's no site furnishings
or benches proposed, but believe the
[1:17:15] owner and applicant are open to
discussions about how that ultimately
[1:17:19] looks.
>> That was kind of the uh the tenor of the
[1:17:23] discussion the other night.
>> Yeah.
[1:17:26] » So, okay.
>> Okay. Very good.
[1:17:31] » One more question. Can you clarify
what's happening with that driveway in
[1:17:35] between the residential driveway and
your property?
[1:17:38] » We want to leave it untouched as much as
possible. Um, we are proposing to
[1:17:42] physically separate it via a chain fence
or something barrier gate that would
[1:17:47] only be open in an emergency. It would
be for the continued use and benefit of
[1:17:52] the residents that don't have access to
West Street. Good.
[1:18:02] Okay, that's all I have.
>> Okay. Sitting too close to him.
[1:18:08] » Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Appreciate it.
[1:18:12] » Thank you guys.
>> Thank you.
[1:18:20] » All right, we'll move on to number six.
Public hearing ordinance number 562
[1:18:26] amending chapter 2 animals of the code
ordinances of the bureau of Hatfield
[1:18:31] providing definitions and conditions to
regulate the keeping and feeding of
[1:18:36] feral/outdoor
cats in the burough.
[1:18:41] » Yes, please.
>> Okay.
[1:18:43] » Um
this is the update to our pearl cat
[1:18:48] which we've been working on for months
and months and months. Okay. So, um We
[1:18:53] have advertised tonight for a public
hearing and I do have um an exhibit
[1:18:59] tomorrow, two exhibits tomorrow that I'm
going to hand into Katie to make sure
[1:19:04] that we have them in minutes. Okay. So
um guys would favor
[1:19:12] the rest of the meeting.
>> No, they don't have to stay um for the
[1:19:16] rest of the meeting, but during this
part of the meeting he doesn't watch.
[1:19:20] » Yeah. Was that all right? Okay. All
right. So, I have burrow one is an
[1:19:26] affidavit of publication proving that we
uh published in the newspaper that we
[1:19:31] were going to consider adopting a new
fur cat ordinance and burrow 2 or B2 is
[1:19:39] uh the a copy of the ordinance itself.
Um B council has discussed this several
[1:19:45] times.
Um and the purpose of the public hearing
[1:19:51] is to uh to let the public comment about
this process. The committee worked very
[1:19:58] hard on this ordinance. And it basically
what it does is it provides a pathway to
[1:20:06] allow people to feed furl cats, but only
if they register and the cats have
[1:20:11] certain characteristics like proof that
they were um sterilized and that they're
[1:20:19] marked that way and things like that.
Because
[1:20:22] feeding furrow cats, and the ordinance
says this, creates a nuisance in the
[1:20:28] burrow because uh you feed furough cats,
you get a lot more furough cats. And
[1:20:33] they don't just hang out on your
property, they hang out on all of your
[1:20:37] neighbors properties. And the burrow has
had complaints. So what we have tonight
[1:20:43] is the burough's consideration of an
ordinance that
[1:20:47] permits feeding of fur cats but only
under certain circumstances. And if you
[1:20:52] feed fur cats without going through the
circumstances which are registering and
[1:20:57] making sure that the cats are neutered
and and that that that you're taking
[1:21:02] care of them. Um then you're going to
get fine. And it it announces three
[1:21:07] fines.
Last page. First offense is only $50 and
[1:21:13] you'll be informed that you have to
register. Second offense is 100, third
[1:21:17] offense 200, and fourth offense $500.
Okay? So, what we're trying to do is get
[1:21:24] people to realize that they have to
commit to compliance. They don't commit
[1:21:28] to compliance, it's going to get very
expensive.
[1:21:31] And um we could take other actions as
well, but it seems to me that once
[1:21:37] people start getting fines for feeding
burrow cats that they will realize that
[1:21:42] the burrow is serious about that. So
that's basically the exhibits showing
[1:21:47] tonight's been appropriately advertised
and I just gave you a summary of the
[1:21:51] ordinance. Um uh chairman I think the
best thing to do would be first ask for
[1:21:57] questions from Bur Council and then ask
if there's any member of the audience
[1:22:00] who has a question about the ordinance.
Good.
[1:22:03] » All right. Anybody on council have any
questions on the new ordinance proposed
[1:22:08] ordinance?
[1:22:12] Anybody in the audience have any
questions? Okay. All right. The record
[1:22:16] should reflect that neither burough
council nor anybody in the audience
[1:22:19] there are people in the audience raised
any issues with regard to the burrow
[1:22:24] cat.
>> Sarah Ke is there anybody online?
[1:22:27] » Sorry. Is there anybody online who has a
question?
[1:22:30] » We don't.
>> That's fair. It's very difficult to get
[1:22:34] it's very difficult to get participation
unless the person in the room
[1:22:38] » and nobody provided questions ahead of
time.
[1:22:40] » Nope. So
>> did we receive any questions ahead of
[1:22:43] time?
Dr.
[1:22:46] » Jamie didn't mention it to me and she
usually would. So I think that we did,
[1:22:50] but we can assume that we did not.
>> I would also then announce that um we
[1:22:54] can close the public hearing, but this
is on the agenda tonight for action. So
[1:23:00] um if anyone's interested in the federal
category, they can they can stay and see
[1:23:05] what happens with this. Okay.
>> Thanks. I think we close the hearing.
[1:23:09] » Thank you.
[1:23:14] Okay, I think I can start this. Um,
we're going to move on to number seven,
[1:23:18] reports from standing committees and the
mayor. Uh, budget, labor, and finance,
[1:23:22] budget, finance, and labor committee
report. uh on that one. Um we did meet
[1:23:28] we we met on I close my book
[1:23:35] the fourth and uh we just we just
discussed uh upcoming
[1:23:40] um
numbers for the um
[1:23:47] the upcoming numbers coming for u next
year's budget. And uh that was about it
[1:23:52] for for that committee.
Um planning, building and zoning
[1:23:57] committee report. Uh we did not meet but
we've been working on both the feral cat
[1:24:02] ordinance that as was stated. We're
going to address that later and also the
[1:24:08] um
we have another one that we're bringing
[1:24:11] up that we'll be talking about a little
bit later as well. So uh public safety
[1:24:16] committee report. Um, we should be
meeting soon, but I have nothing in the
[1:24:21] report as of right now.
>> Um, public works and property and
[1:24:26] equipment committee report.
[1:24:30] » Oh,
we just had meeting today for our
[1:24:36] council. So, um, 2036 project includes
ongoing roads, storm water, utility,
[1:24:43] park maintenance, and area ramp
improvements. And for 206 the future
[1:24:48] plan includes delivery improvements park
priorities and funding includes safe and
[1:24:54] handout and other infrastructure
programs.
[1:24:57] » Okay. Very good.
>> Okay.
[1:25:03] Uh utility committee report.
>> So the utilities committee did meet
[1:25:06] about three weeks ago. So been a while.
Um there was nothing really to report
[1:25:12] out to the public or to council on. We
did have a lot of discussion about uh
[1:25:16] some current activities and things going
on with the grid uh and some of our
[1:25:21] major customers, but there's really
nothing to report.
[1:25:23] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh have the economic revitalization
[1:25:28] outreach committee report? I don't if
there's anybody here from that.
[1:25:32] » Nope. Okay. Yep.
>> Uh and uh the mayor is not here, so do
[1:25:38] you do she leave you anything, Jamie?
No. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll
[1:25:43] move on to reports and correspondence.
>> Uh the monthly investing reports is in
[1:25:49] your packets. Um we will get more into
investments later in this uh meeting. So
[1:25:55] I won't really talk about key banks
since agenda items tonight, but the cash
[1:25:58] accounts through June 30th is located in
packages as well.
[1:26:04] » Okay.
[1:26:07] The monthly EIT and LST report. monthly
EIT and LST report is in your packets
[1:26:13] through the end of July uh 2026 326 214
and 2025 it was 323 381. If you look
[1:26:22] down uh kind of going through August it
looks like August might be a really good
[1:26:26] month for us. Uh last year it brought in
$101,000.
[1:26:30] Year to date we're at 32. So it does
look like we have some room for growth
[1:26:33] in August. So it seems like we're
tracking good. And when we move into LST
[1:26:40] um through the end of July 2026, 25,000
226 2025 we're at 27,484
[1:26:49] little bit behind but again um roughly
$10,000 comes in August. So we'll we'll
[1:26:56] see where we are at the end of the month
at the September meeting.
[1:27:00] » Monthly year-to- date report. Monthly
year-to- date report is in your packets
[1:27:04] just highlighting roughly halfway
through the year. Uh 54% of revenues
[1:27:09] received um 50% of expenditures used of
revenues were 352 538 for June and
[1:27:17] expenses 424 584 which seems to track on
par with us. some expenses tend to be a
[1:27:24] little bit higher sometimes in um June,
July and August just due to the electric
[1:27:28] bill
>> and monthly zoning hearing board
[1:27:31] applications.
>> So um as we just spoke about during uh
[1:27:35] 200 North Main Street, uh they do have a
zoning hearing board application um that
[1:27:41] they will be coming back to zoning
hearing board asking for an extension of
[1:27:45] one year. Uh that zoning hearing board
is scheduled for September 24th, 2026.
[1:27:51] That's what I was out in the lobby
talking to them about. Um, just if you
[1:27:55] had any comments or anything about their
zoning, um, they would be happy to come
[1:27:59] back to the next meeting and talk about
it. Um, and I had said, I will let you
[1:28:03] know. But again, this was already
pre-approved. They're just going back
[1:28:06] and it looks like they're going to make
some type of amendment to address the
[1:28:09] storm water pipe before they go back on
the 24th.
[1:28:14] » Okay. And we'll have the Hatfield 250
committee report. Um even though uh July
[1:28:20] 4th has come and gone, uh the events
were great. You know, we did well. Uh we
[1:28:24] actually we still have some events
coming up. Uh Thursday, September 10th,
[1:28:29] 7 p.m. at the Hatfield Township
Building. Um the speaker will be Chief
[1:28:33] Blue J. uh also known as Barbara
Macowski of the um she's part of the
[1:28:39] Lapi tribe and she'll be giving a talk
on the past, present, future of the Lafi
[1:28:44] people and their culture including
important places in Bucks and McGomery
[1:28:48] County, places we can go see and visit
and stuff. And she'll be having cultural
[1:28:53] items and stuff there as well. Um, and
then on Monday, October 12th at 7 PM in
[1:28:59] the Hatfield Township Building, uh, the
speaker will be Tim McGrath. He's the
[1:29:04] author of a book, Give Me a Fast Ship:
The Continental Navy and America's
[1:29:09] Revolution at Sea. The topic is the
history of the American Navy during the
[1:29:13] Revolutionary War. And then Thursday,
November 12th at 7 p.m. at the Township
[1:29:19] Building, Dr. Suzanne Johnston of the
Tmentson chapter of the Daughters of the
[1:29:25] American Revolution. She'll be speaking
on spies of the revolution and the
[1:29:30] lecture will talk about something called
the culprit ring and about the unusual
[1:29:34] methods that were used to convey
messages. Um, for participants that are
[1:29:39] there, bring a pencil and an eraser
because you're going to be decoding uh
[1:29:43] ciphers and things to see if you could
really be a So,
[1:29:49] like one of
[laughter]
[1:29:52] » That's funny.
>> Yeah, these things uh if if you've ever
[1:29:56] gone to any of them, they're actually
really good. Um, so see if you can get
[1:30:02] out there and see. There's a fourth one
we're not sure of yet and we don't know
[1:30:06] when it'll fit in there, but hopefully
there'll be a fourth one.
[1:30:11] » All right. Um the Montgomery County
Planning Commission steering committee.
[1:30:17] » Uh the Montgomery County Planning
Commission steering committee met on
[1:30:20] Monday after our planning commission
meeting. We looked at the uh
[1:30:23] comprehensive plan like the draft of it.
We went through made some like minor
[1:30:27] changes and adjustments. Um the planning
commission is going to memory county
[1:30:31] planning commission is going to put that
all together, give us a good draft that
[1:30:34] we can share with the rest of council
and our consultants and then we'll move
[1:30:38] through the process of scheduling a
public comment period and work through
[1:30:42] the adoption of what that looks like
maybe more towards the end of the year,
[1:30:45] maybe into the beginning of next year
depending on how long the process takes
[1:30:49] for public comment. But we're going to
have a really nice cleaned up draft that
[1:30:52] we can share with council and our
consultants and ask for input.
[1:30:57] Yeah, we had asked them and they're
going to provide copies of each of us
[1:31:01] get one so you guys could see it. You
know, it's really I guess what that runs
[1:31:05] till November. Did he say next year?
>> Yeah. Our our contract runs I think
[1:31:11] halfway through next year. So if we had
any like design work on parks or
[1:31:15] anything like that after this they still
are contracted with us. They can help us
[1:31:18] on some other things as well.
>> So
[1:31:21] » all right. Uh the police department
report
[1:31:29] » still awake out there.
>> I was actually about [laughter]
[1:31:36] » uh fire department report.
>> We have another $50 month this end of
[1:31:41] July. We're at 362
August for 387.
[1:31:48] We had a bunch of virus recently.
actual fire alarm. So, very actively
[1:31:55] made that way too.
>> Can we just briefly go back to the
[1:31:59] police?
>> Oh, yeah. Sure.
[1:32:00] » Just wanted to point out that the way we
wrote this ordinance with the fines, it
[1:32:06] can be enforced by our own code officer.
>> Yes.
[1:32:08] » Oh, that's better.
>> That's what I thought you would say. So,
[1:32:12] there
>> and it doesn't go back to the first if
[1:32:15] you get fined and you go a little while.
It doesn't go back. There you go.
[1:32:20] » You you you're stuck at that and you go
to the next level. So it's not like you
[1:32:24] can, you know, stop for a while and then
okay, it's only 50 bucks, you know.
[1:32:28] Yeah,
>> that's a good one.
[1:32:29] » Yeah.
>> Right. So that was one of the changes
[1:32:31] the committee recommended. So I thought
the police be happy about that.
[1:32:35] » Yeah.
>> Maybe do that for
[1:32:38] [laughter]
[1:32:43] » Okay. EMS report.
>> EMS report in your packets for the month
[1:32:48] of July. uh 1,140 calls. 11 of those
were in Hatville Burrow and the highest
[1:32:55] fall was 44% was falls.
>> That is that number higher than it's
[1:33:01] been in the past. The 11 for the bur.
>> Uh no, it was about like between eight
[1:33:08] and maybe 13 something.
>> Yeah, I I remember single digits. Yeah.
[1:33:12] » It's always false.
>> Yeah.
[1:33:13] » Yeah. One time it wasn't. I remember one
one meeting was like it's not false. It
[1:33:18] was like sick nursing.
>> Yeah.
[1:33:22] » Public works.
>> Um nothing really exciting to add. Um
[1:33:26] here for any questions you might have
though.
[1:33:32] » Engineering report.
>> Uh coming up you'll see on the agenda
[1:33:36] release of escrow for 23 North Main
Street Hatfield Wall project that's
[1:33:41] wrapping up. They have some sight
stabilization to complete, top coat of
[1:33:46] paving, and some ancillary work to do,
but that's that's about wrapping up. Uh,
[1:33:51] Brooks has been in communication with
Jamie and myself regarding a big parking
[1:33:55] lot expansion they want to do in the
back. Originally, we thought it was
[1:33:59] going to be a land development
application through the burrow. It turns
[1:34:02] out the majority, if not all the parking
lots actually going to be in the
[1:34:06] township, but they're going to be
sending their storm water to the burrow.
[1:34:09] What's that sound like? Right. Um, I
believe it's going to be a storm water
[1:34:13] permit as opposed to a land development
because again the majority of the work
[1:34:17] is is in the township. But they kind of
been going back and forth with us for
[1:34:21] two months plus at this point and and
they still don't have an application in.
[1:34:25] But I suspect at some point in the
future that that's going to come in
[1:34:29] soon. They have big plans from what we
understand. Um, they need to expand
[1:34:34] dramatically. Um, and they need to
expand uh both the facilities and and
[1:34:38] the number of employees that that
they're bringing in. So, I think they're
[1:34:42] going through a lot of due diligence,
different options, potentially some
[1:34:46] large buildings on the property with
again expanded parking lot.
[1:34:50] All very preliminary at this point, but
there may be some good things coming
[1:34:53] down the line on that property. Then,
the other thing I want to report on is
[1:34:57] the ADA ramps. We've been working for
several months now on that. Um, I have
[1:35:01] the draft designs on my desk right now.
Uh we are adding eight more. So that's
[1:35:06] going to take a little bit of time. The
goal is to have this ready for bid uh
[1:35:10] early next year. So that's the plan that
will be funded with liquid fuels funds.
[1:35:16] I have
[1:35:20] » zoning officer building code property
maintenance report.
[1:35:24] » Zing officer report is in your packet
just highlighting uh completed by uh
[1:35:28] five fire inspections, three rental
inspections, uh 10 notices of high
[1:35:32] grass. uh rubbish sidewall repairs, work
without a permit, and one non-tra
[1:35:38] citation uh for an unstaged structure.
[1:35:44] » Our marshall safety inspection report.
>> There's no report included in your
[1:35:48] packet.
>> And junior council person report.
[1:35:51] » Nothing related to report for this
month.
[1:35:56] » All right. Manager's report.
>> My report was included in your packets.
[1:36:00] Um nothing new specifically um except
disconnections will resume in September
[1:36:06] for pass to electric accounts. And just
wanted to highlight um most residents I
[1:36:12] know I personally did at my house and I
know you staff member who did should
[1:36:16] have re uh received a letter from
Congress Fitzpatrick um that he's proud
[1:36:21] that he got Hatville Burough $1 million
for a storm water and sanitary uh sewer
[1:36:26] infrastructure project. Uh we talked
about that in length tonight in um
[1:36:30] public works and property and equipment
and we're really excited that the
[1:36:33] burrow's you know uh awarded a million
dollars. Our match is you know only
[1:36:37] 300,000 of that and we've been working
with Chad's office to work on Cherry
[1:36:42] Street, Diamond Street, Union Street
kind of getting that neighborhood all
[1:36:46] the sanitary done with the ADA ramps
along with possibly paving and then it's
[1:36:51] kind of going to be like east school
west uh east school forest and orchard
[1:36:55] work. that neighborhood will basically
be completed. So, I know the committee
[1:36:59] was excited about hearing about how the
grant worked and that we can, you know,
[1:37:03] move forward and um so we're just
waiting for some grant documentation
[1:37:06] from that, but um if we can reach out to
the congressman when we have those
[1:37:10] documents and we can do some type of
groundbreaking or something, I think
[1:37:13] their office would really appreciate it.
[1:37:19] » Okay, move on to new business. Um first
one is 23 North Main Street, Hatfield
[1:37:24] Block. Site work escrow release number
one.
[1:37:28] » As Chad highlighted in his report on her
consideration this evening, uh based on
[1:37:32] the construction status, the engineer is
recommending a site work expert release
[1:37:37] of 326,799.30
[1:37:42] and it's on for consideration as an
action item.
[1:37:47] » Uh B defined benefit plan 2027 minimum
municipal obligation. Uh every year we
[1:37:54] have to um approve a minim minimum
municipal obligation for our defined
[1:37:59] benefit plan and defined contribution
plan. Uh ironically they're the same as
[1:38:05] last year, not surprisingly for the
defined benefit because we had sunseted
[1:38:09] that plan. So we'll basically know
moving forward uh what that amount is.
[1:38:14] And for the defined benefit, our minimum
municipal obligation uh for 2027 is
[1:38:19] $61,858.
[1:38:23] And for item number C for the defined
contribution plan, minimum obligation
[1:38:28] for 2027 will be $34,700.
And both of those are on for
[1:38:33] consideration as an action item this
evening and will be placed in the 2027
[1:38:37] budget.
>> Good. Great. So we did see we'll go to D
[1:38:42] resolution 2026-10
key bankank investment accounts.
[1:38:48] » Uh we talked about at the last meeting
um key bank and our investment accounts
[1:38:53] and how we manage those and um budget
finance and labor um and myself had
[1:38:59] created a memo that was uh sent out to
to burough counsel and the solicitor
[1:39:04] just highlighted how we can move forward
with our investments. So currently right
[1:39:07] now we have four investment accounts and
we're strictly looking to take those
[1:39:12] four investment accounts and just making
them one investment account. The
[1:39:15] investments will still be the same. You
will be investing in the same items. Uh
[1:39:19] the money will be the same. We just pay
fees to manage four accounts. So instead
[1:39:23] of paying fees and doing all the
administrative work for four accounts,
[1:39:26] we're just putting it into one account.
Also, when we put them into one account,
[1:39:30] it makes the investments that we're able
to look at a little bit larger. So when
[1:39:36] we have, you know, $2.4 million in an
investment account versus $136,000,
[1:39:42] we're just able to earn more money back.
So it's just a way we checked with Key
[1:39:46] Bank. There's nothing that doesn't allow
us to do that. Uh Diane will still
[1:39:50] continue to um use all four of those
accounts in her recordkeeping. So we
[1:39:56] would take money from to buy something
for electric and we use electric money
[1:40:00] to pay that back. that's still going to
be documented on a spreadsheet for our
[1:40:04] auditor. It's just really for
administration purposes and um really
[1:40:09] the fees that we pay every month to
manage four accounts goes down when we
[1:40:13] only are managing one.
>> And I believe the solicitor looked at
[1:40:18] it, she was okay with it.
>> Right. Right.
[1:40:22] You might not remember this, but burrows
and all the governments are limited in
[1:40:27] what we're allowed to invest in.
>> Right. So I sent that information to um
[1:40:31] Ebank who
and um and they have acknowledged to to
[1:40:36] Jamie that they understand that they
have to use those investments. I would
[1:40:41] like to get a letter from them on
letterhead saying they understand and
[1:40:45] that all the money that we put with them
they'll make sure stays in investments
[1:40:49] that they're allowed to invest in under
uh Pennsylvania law. So I'm fine with
[1:40:55] that. I was just worried that they
didn't understand that you're limited in
[1:40:59] and where you could put your money
because the legislature selected certain
[1:41:03] things they thought were safe
investments for local governments.
[1:41:09] » And I would just sorry I'd like to just
say thank you to the manager, assistant
[1:41:13] manager and budget finance and labor for
always evaluating opportunities to save
[1:41:18] money and and make more in our
investments. So thank you for the
[1:41:21] efforts.
[1:41:25] » Sorry.
Wow, [laughter]
[1:41:27] » that was so
good.
[1:41:31] » I did that on purpose. I did.
>> Good timing. [laughter] Uh, E resolution
[1:41:37] 2026-11
closure of certain burough roads for
[1:41:41] Fall Fest.
>> This is the annual resolution of the
[1:41:44] closure of East Lincoln Avenue for the
burrow uh for the fall festival event.
[1:41:49] This authorizes the closure for the fall
fest on September 19th from 12:00 p.m.
[1:41:55] to 8:00 p.m. and it's on for
consideration as an action item. Though
[1:41:59] we will not be having a car show this
year, we still are interested in closing
[1:42:03] the road just for safety and traffic.
We're still going to be having vendors,
[1:42:06] people walking around even though there
isn't any cars. It still makes the event
[1:42:09] a lot more functioning.
>> Yeah.
[1:42:12] Okay. Um F ordinance number 563
provisions to penalties for compliance
[1:42:18] for vegetation and snow removal.
[1:42:24] » Okay. This is another ordinance where we
are trying to um help enforcement of
[1:42:29] things like
shoveling your sidewalk on a timely
[1:42:32] basis and cutting your grass. And um
this ordinance makes it easier for our
[1:42:39] code officer to to enforce compliance by
shifting to a basically fines, you know,
[1:42:46] the same way. And the way we could do it
as opposed to filing a little lawsuit
[1:42:51] with the district justice office, um
maybe put like a door hanger on saying,
[1:42:56] [snorts] "Hey, you got to do this or
else." you know, and so that what we're
[1:43:01] asking for tonight is just permission to
advertise this. And I think Jamie's
[1:43:06] picked a September date, the regular
meeting in September for the hearing.
[1:43:10] » Okay.
>> So, that's one for an action item just
[1:43:13] to advertise.
>> We Okay,
[1:43:15] » we we raised Did we raise the fines on
that, too? I thought we did. I think the
[1:43:19] it's uh so for vegetation it's you have
five days after the door knocker or it's
[1:43:26] $25 a day for every day. Yeah.
>> And for snow it's 24 hours and then it's
[1:43:32] $25 a day every day continuous until you
take care. And if you do not comply with
[1:43:38] either of that then we still have the
right as the solicitor said to go to um
[1:43:42] Judge Lavine's office and file.
>> Okay.
[1:43:46] All right. G43 Roosevelt escrow release
number two final site work escrow
[1:43:52] » escrow releases on for consideration for
43 Roosevelt for their site work in the
[1:43:58] amount of $82,5502.
[1:44:02] Uh this would be release number two
final release and is being recommended
[1:44:07] by our engineer and on for consideration
as an action item.
[1:44:13] Uh H payment request number two final
payment for pedestrian crossing
[1:44:17] improvement project.
>> Subject to whatever Chad says on this
[1:44:21] one. Chad approved this final pay
Bowman. I'm sorry Bowman approved this
[1:44:28] final payment on on this project. But
this is a project where we had a lawsuit
[1:44:33] filed because somebody slipped and fell
or fell off a skateboard or something.
[1:44:38] And um under our contract with the
contractor who who is armor
[1:44:44] um who we do a lot of work with actually
they had to give us a certificate of
[1:44:49] insurance and then offer to hold us
harmless in this situation. They gave us
[1:44:54] a certificate of insurance and they
signed the contract
[1:44:59] 60 days ago. I notified them that we had
this lawsuit pending from somebody who
[1:45:04] was injured while during while the
construction was proceeding allegedly
[1:45:09] because the condition was unsafe. Okay.
Um and so my recommendation tonight is
[1:45:18] this is ready for approval. I would
suggest that the motion be and I think I
[1:45:23] think uh Jamie wrote it down here,
didn't you?
[1:45:25] » Yeah. Yeah. We'll cover that when we get
to that part.
[1:45:27] » Right. And the motion would be just to
that you can that you can authorize
[1:45:32] payment when they comply with their
contract
[1:45:36] » because if they fail to pick up the the
lawsuit, they're in breach. They have an
[1:45:41] obligation under their contract to
ensure us. And I don't think it's Armor.
[1:45:45] I think it's their insurance company. So
today um I resent the letter. Yes, I
[1:45:50] resent the letter. And today I heard
from the insurance company saying,
[1:45:54] "Okay, we have your letter." I said,
"No, what I need is a letter from abuse
[1:45:58] saying you're picking it up and you're
taking care of it and you're going to
[1:46:02] cover it." So, I didn't get that yet,
but my suggestion would be that you
[1:46:06] authorize the payment when I get that
letter that they're going to comply with
[1:46:10] the contract,
>> right?
[1:46:12] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:46:14] All right.
Uh, is there any old business
[1:46:21] anybody?
All right. We'll move on to the action
[1:46:24] items. Um, a motion to consider
ordinance number 562 amending chapter 2
[1:46:33] animals of the code of ordinances of the
bureau of Hatfield providing definitions
[1:46:38] and conditions to regulate the keeping
and feeding of feral/outdoor
[1:46:42] cats in the burrow. I need a motion.
>> Second. So we have a motion by Michelle
[1:46:51] Weiss and a second by Jason Ferguson.
All in favor?
[1:46:56] » I opposed.
>> Motion passes.
[1:47:02] B. Motion to consider site work escrow
release number one at 23 North Main
[1:47:07] Street, Hatfield Walk in the amount of
$326,799.30.
[1:47:15] I need a motion.
[1:47:19] » Motion second.
>> Second. All right. We have a motion by
[1:47:23] Sevilla and a second by Michelle. All in
favor?
[1:47:28] » I opposed. Motion passes. Um C.
[clears throat]
[1:47:35] Motion to consider the defined benefit
benefit pension plan 2027 minimum
[1:47:41] municipal obligation in the amount of
$61,858.
[1:47:48] You get a motion.
[1:47:53] » Second.
>> Okay. Have a motion by Michelle, second
[1:47:56] by Cynthia. All in favor? I opposed.
I have it D. Motion to consider the
[1:48:03] defined contribution pension plan 2027
minimum municipal obligation for
[1:48:10] employees receiving contributions of
their annual income in the amount of
[1:48:15] $34,700.
Need a motion.
[1:48:19] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:48:23] » Okay. Motion by Michelle, second by
Sevilla. All in favor?
[1:48:27] » I
>> opposed.
[1:48:29] Seventh. E. Motion to approve re
resolution 2026-10
[1:48:36] merging a key bank investment account
into one account titled Hatfield Burough
[1:48:41] Capital Reserve. Need a motion?
>> Second.
[1:48:45] » Okay. Motion by Michelle, second by
Sevilla. All in favor?
[1:48:49] » I opposed.
Have it.
[1:48:54] Um, close to agreements resolution
2026-11
[1:48:59] closure of certain burough roads for the
annual
[1:49:03] fall fest event. Motion. Okay. Second.
>> Second.
[1:49:08] » All right. We have a motion by Michelle,
second by Sevilla. All in favor?
[1:49:12] » I opposed. 57.
And we have a motion G a motion to
[1:49:18] consider advertising ordinance number
563
[1:49:23] amending chapter 10 health and safety
and chapter 21 streets and sidewalks of
[1:49:28] the code of ordinances of the burrow of
Hatfield to revise and restate
[1:49:33] provisions relating to penalties for
fail failure to comply with grass,
[1:49:38] weeds, and other vegetation and snow and
ice removal for a public hearing to be
[1:49:43] held on September 16,
26 at 700 p.m. I get a motion. Second.
[1:49:50] » Second.
>> Right. We have a motion by Michelle,
[1:49:53] second by Sevilla. All in favor? I post.
I have it.
[1:50:00] Okay. H.
Motion to consider escrow release number
[1:50:05] two, final site work escrow for 43 North
North Roosevelt Avenue, I'm sorry,
[1:50:11] Roosevelt Avenue in the amount of
$82,5502.
[1:50:20] » Second.
>> All right. Motion by Michelle, second by
[1:50:22] Cadilla. All in favor?
>> I opposed.
[1:50:27] Seven. All right. Last one is a motion
to consider payment request number two,
[1:50:33] final payment to Armor and Suns
Electric, Inc. in the amount of
[1:50:37] $143,28267
[1:50:43] pending an acceptable response to the
Timothy Knox letter sent on June 10th,
[1:50:49] 2026.
>> Move. Second.
[1:50:53] » Right. Motion by Michelle, second by
Sevilla. All in favor? I
[1:50:58] » I oppos
have it.
[1:51:01] » All right. And do we have a motion to
approve the payment of the bills?
[1:51:07] » Any questions on those first?
[1:51:12] » The ramp's done.
[laughter]
[1:51:16] » So, we open it tomorrow.
[laughter]
[1:51:22] » Ramp's done. It looks great. I think
Steve and the Steve's crew and the
[1:51:25] contractor did uh I said in today it
looks awesome and amazing. I'm excited
[1:51:29] for the business to open, but the ramp
looks awesome.
[1:51:33] » Good job.
>> Because of the long hair.
[1:51:37] » Yes,
>> it's just a feeling.
[1:51:39] » It's getting cut tomorrow. Okay.
[laughter]
[1:51:43] » Okay.
>> Getting text from him during the
[1:51:47] meeting.
Yes.
[1:51:49] » Steve, you need one of these.
Steve is just jealous.
[1:51:55] » They're empty, huh?
>> Yes. [laughter]
[1:51:58] » Can I get a motion for the to approve
the payment of the bills?
[1:52:03] » Okay.
>> Second.
[1:52:07] » I'll second it.
>> Okay. So, we got a motion by Cydia,
[1:52:09] second by Jason. All in favor?
>> I opposed.
[1:52:15] And
uh I guess we're going to have an
[1:52:18] executive session. Uh motion for
adjournment.
[1:52:23] » Second.
>> Okay. Motion by Michelle, second by
[1:52:26] Cadilla.