[4:57] Good evening everybody. 6 o'clock p.m.
This is a regular business meeting of
[5:00] the Smithfield Township Board of
Supervisors. Please join me in
[5:04] allegiance.
[5:07] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[5:12] republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[5:17] justice and for all.
[5:22] » Thank you very much. Members present
include myself, chair Jacob Pride, Vice
[5:26] Chair Robert Levenheim, supervisor
Michael Alber, project manager Julie
[5:31] Hilica, administrative coordinator
Jessica Haj, conservation recreation
[5:35] director Dr. Alex Jackson, engineer John
Trestler, and solicitor Ron Harrison.
[5:42] Announcements. Executive session was
held January 14th from 5:14 p.m. to 6:19
[5:47] p.m. regarding litigation in the M manor
back 9 matter and personnel. Likewise,
[5:52] we had one on January 22nd from 10:05
p.m. to 2:01 p.m. regarding litigation
[5:58] in the Mannor back 9 matter as well as
personnel.
[6:03] Just want to remind folks as we get into
the rest of the agenda that uh we
[6:08] establish rules for public comment from
resolution 602. So we're trying to avoid
[6:13] duplication by allowing folks to speak
further minutes during the time frame uh
[6:19] after which the board would uh
deliberate just to allow the meeting to
[6:23] be more efficient.
First order of business to the consent
[6:27] agenda which is the consideration to
approve the January 5th reorganization
[6:31] meeting minutes and the regular meeting
minutes. Approving the build pack mean
[6:36] 3304,814
monthly general fund, EMS fund, act fire
[6:42] fund, capital grants fund, liquid fuels
fund, and professional aspro fund
[6:48] consideration to appoint Chris Bowers to
the environmental advisory council's
[6:52] planning commission member term ending
January 4th, 2027. Consideration to
[6:56] appoint Kaden Machowski to the
Environmental Advisory Council term
[6:59] ending January 4th, 2027. and the
consideration uh to approve the special
[7:04] event permit for custom import
performance. Do I hear a motion?
[7:08] » Motion to approve.
>> Motion by Mr. Leven. I hear a second.
[7:12] » I'll second.
>> Second, Mr. Discussion.
[7:15] » Um
on the bills, uh Sylvie, what's the
[7:21] Sylvie Brew?
>> Nalt.
[7:24] » Salt. Okay, that makes sense. Big one.
Uh that was the only one I have
[7:33] question
[7:37] and
all in favor I
[7:41] » I
okay next reports emergency services
[7:57] fire chief
Uh fire tax accounts funds $24,310
[8:02] fire tax capital purchase account
$92,11.
[8:06] Uh December EMS EMS calls 12 December uh
25 fire calls 70. Uh recently we had two
[8:14] working house fires and two working
vehicle fires. Uh total EMS calls for 25
[8:19] 191. Uh 2025 total fire call 883 with a
grand total of 1,024 calls. Uh in
[8:26] January 2026, uh our large purchase uh
was $15,000 worth of repairs to our
[8:34] engine 11 up in Wooddale station for a
new foam pump and various mechanical
[8:38] issues that we had. Um received
notification that we approved for the
[8:43] 2024 RS5 and 6 Office of State uh fire
commissioner EMS grant for $15,000. Uh,
[8:50] this will allow us to pay off our Lucas
device, which was a grand total of
[8:54] $19,121. So, that would be pretty clear.
Also, we received $14,487
[9:01] cents on the fire grant side to use
towards our final radio project of
[9:05] $61,000.
So, hopefully that would pay off this
[9:08] year. Uh,
I have no immediate need and no
[9:12] additional notes.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you.
[9:20] My turn.
>> Yes. Thanks, Debbie.
[9:22] » Debbie Q. First little emergency
support. I promised you last month that
[9:26] I'd come back with something a little
more uh inclusive. So, uh last year's
[9:32] calls were 3,359.
We now have five trucks. Because of the
[9:38] tax funding, we were able to purchase a
new ALS truck, a new BLS truck,
[9:44] replacing our 1992 ambulance and our
2009 ambulance. Major upgrade. Thank you
[9:51] to Smithfield Township for your help in
obtaining the $100,000 LSA grant, which
[9:58] will be a portion of the cost of our
three power load stretchers for a total
[10:03] cost of $222,000.
[10:07] We handled 31 sports and standby events,
multiple days and shifts, participated
[10:13] in five municipal events both at
Smithfield and Middle. We offered five
[10:19] classes to residents of both townships
and local organizations. We sponsored
[10:25] one paramedic through school and now he
volunteers several shifts a month.
[10:32] uh we offer in-house [clears throat]
training as well as CPR certifications.
[10:38] We served as a preceptor location for
both paramedic and EMT students and we
[10:43] have a number of students who are now
part of our career staff.
[10:49] We are the only organization within the
EMS community that has both volunteer
[10:55] and career personnel. We worked with the
Rotary Club of the Strabergs to have our
[11:00] Winona Falls station exterior painted
and the interior of our Marshall Creek
[11:06] station painted. Our volunteer hours
exceeded 2,000 plus training completed
[11:13] outside of normal shift hours. We wished
and thank Dr. Pavini who had been our
[11:19] medical director since 1992
a happy retirement. And we now have Dr.
[11:26] Haskins as our primary and Dr. Kennedy
as our secondary. And we're pleased to
[11:31] have had the organization complete
lensure and having reached 60 years of
[11:37] service. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[11:43] » Listeners reporting.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since uh the last
[11:48] report, I had worked on the land
development improvement agreements for
[11:54] the Rockco collision
service land development plan along with
[12:00] the Smithfield Sewer Authority plan
which will be on the agenda for later
[12:07] discussion.
I also prepared the brief in the Vgap
[12:14] appeal where they appealed with the
denial of the preliminary plan.
[12:21] There are two matters pending there. One
deals with the
[12:26] well appeal this deals with the uh
the denial of the plan by the
[12:34] supervisor. So I prepare our supporting
brief. I also worked on the mountain
[12:39] manner stipulation which will be
discussed later.
[12:44] I also had an opportunity to review the
materials from Mr. Trestler regarding
[12:49] high density residential development
option and then just miscellaneous items
[12:55] but those were the major ones.
>> Perfect.
[13:01] » Okay. Uh engineers report J.
>> Thank you Jacob. Uh since the last
[13:07] meeting uh I've had some discussions
with PennDOT regarding
[13:12] uh posting weight limit on road bridge.
Their position is that uh the repairs
[13:19] brought it back to where it was and they
were recommending the three time weight
[13:25] limit. Uh I don't know if we can do
anything to bump that or not. Uh I'm
[13:30] still in discussion with them.
Uh we reviewed and issued a review
[13:36] letter for ThreePoint Garden Road on
their new minor subdivision.
[13:42] We did work with Mr. Aerosaced out on
the high the outline I should say of a
[13:48] high density residential ordinance to be
permitted as a standalone
[13:55] uh use uh in the ED zone for the board
to consider and discuss.
[14:02] And I also had a meeting with Mr.
Depetrus and his engineer
[14:08] regarding his proposal for data centers
within the gateway project.
[14:14] That's all that I have to report unless
there's any questions.
[14:23] Thank you very much. July manage
support.
[14:27] » Sure. Um, we wrapped up all the 2025
rate command requests in for that year.
[14:31] We had 118 submit to the township,
approximately 168 hours of staff time.
[14:37] So far in 2026, we've received eight uh
two of which are still outstanding. Time
[14:42] spent on those has accumulated to be 6.5
hours. Uh on a good note on the grant
[14:47] end of things, um we do have $33,000 on
the way from an act 101 section 902
[14:52] reimbursement and we unfortunately
received word today that neither Shauny
[14:57] Fire Company or Delaware Water Gap were
funded through the DC&R uh volunteer
[15:03] fire assistance grant. Um so no dice
there, but we'll keep
[15:09] » Thank you.
Okay, I don't see Tara Maznati, so
[15:13] nothing on I80 611
on the EAC. Alex, anything you want to
[15:18] present?
Um, I know we have an agenda item later
[15:22] on that uh, you know, we'll we'll
discuss, but you want to give an over
[15:27] now, that's fine, too.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, the EAC had their
[15:32] reorganization reorganization meeting on
January 20th. Uh Mitch who's here with
[15:37] us this evening was elected as vice
chair. Recording secretary say the same.
[15:42] The EAC also said their meetings
to have first Monday of the month at 7
[15:48] p.m. as needed and then the third
Tuesday of the month at 7 p.m. for the
[15:52] regular meeting. And I just want to
thank Mitch and Todd for being here
[15:55] today and anybody else that I could
recognize. And Katie, congratulations.
[16:01] » Thank you.
>> Okay. Thanks, Alex.
[16:05] Supervisor's comments, anything?
>> No,
[16:10] » nothing wrong.
>> Okay. I just want to thank the DPW for
[16:14] all their work during the most recent in
a snow apocalypse. We had some of the
[16:18] best roads in the county as a result of,
you know, that chaos and our crew did a
[16:23] great job working, you know, more than a
day's work. So,
[16:26] » very true.
>> Great question on that. 209. Do we do
[16:31] that as a part as a contractual if it's
still
[16:36] » pen dot? Um
>> one area that there's some pretty big
[16:39] issues. Turning lanes are not good and
>> that is correct. Uh our crew is
[16:43] prioritizing a couple of high priority
intersections and they are handling some
[16:48] of the lines on that above the township
roads to try and get them faster.
[16:51] » We're allowed we're allowed to do that.
Okay. [clears throat]
[16:56] » Connected to our road. We do have a
little bit of leeway to pull. So because
[17:01] there is so much it is taking time and
our crews have been working since
[17:04] Tuesday to do that.
>> Yep. Great. And they're doing a great
[17:06] job.
>> Awesome.
[17:09] » Okay. Uh data center decommissioning
criteria. I know there's also some
[17:14] information in there. Um beyond
clarifying and decommissioning but also
[17:20] a sound and noise. So Alex uh you're
here to discuss that with us and then
[17:25] tell us the the next step. Sure. I guess
I'll get a little longer
[17:32] chairman. So, just as a recap for the
board, so the supervisors adopt an
[17:38] update to the township zoning ordinance
criteria for data centers, disaster
[17:43] recovery facilities, and data centers
accessory use. Um, that was back in
[17:48] 2025. And then on November 13th, the
township planning commission discussed
[17:52] revisions. The edits discussed included
revisions to the noise criteria and
[17:57] decommissioning criteria.
And during those meetings, your planning
[18:03] commission went over in great detail all
the county planning commission
[18:06] recommendations
um on your re on the data center
[18:09] ordinance. I believe you adopted your
ordinance in in October if I'm not
[18:13] mistaken. So I just want to emphasize to
the board that your planning commission
[18:18] went and engineer and solicitor role
there during that discussion and this
[18:24] that this whole discussion was quite
detailed and quite elaborate. So that
[18:27] took place. I believe that was part of,
you know, what the board had discussed
[18:30] back then when you adopted it. And then
on December 11th, uh, 2025, the township
[18:36] planning commission again discussed
provisions, more specifically devising
[18:40] the decommissioning language again
revising the noise criteria. After
[18:44] discussing Pen Futures sound provision
update which was provided to the
[18:48] supervisors and also distributed to the
planning commission everybody there were
[18:52] some um edits um which basically now
includes narrow band frequency analysis
[18:57] and deleted the outdated octave band
table um from the prior version which
[19:02] was previously carried over from the old
Smith the attention data center
[19:05] criteria. So those edits were
memorialized in the draft that you see
[19:10] and are now being presented to the board
for um for your discussion.
[19:15] » Is the intention to have the planning
commission review it at their next
[19:20] meeting?
>> That's that's up to the board. If you
[19:24] know you could send it to the county
>> for a formal review and we're going to
[19:28] send it back to your um planning
commission. It's up to the board. I
[19:32] » think it makes sense to trigger both
reviews at the same time, but defer to
[19:36] point Robert if they have any other
thoughts. I mean it's pretty well gone
[19:40] out and the next logical step.
[19:46] » Yeah, I've got a question. So I mean I
know we already had decommissioning in
[19:51] the original ordinance. So this is
effectively just giving us a little bit
[19:53] more detail
giving a bit of timeline.
[19:58] Um,
so I'm having trouble fully realizing
[20:03] what has changed from what is in the
ordinance.
[20:07] » That's a good question, Supervisor
Albear. So on the second page,
[20:12] uh, paragraph, that last sentence, it
says the decommissioning agreement shall
[20:16] include a bond or letter of credit that
demonstrates adequate financing is in
[20:19] place, but decommissioning is the
primary change to that because we talked
[20:23] about financing, so it's just a letter,
I guess. Right.
[20:29] » It's a, you know,
and then the in the noise sound and
[20:34] noise. Um, I did look at some of the
there were some text revisions to
[20:41] I guess in the preliminary study, it's
no longer required as part of
[20:44] conditional use. Um, but now you would
need an interimm sound study as well. So
[20:49] not having to do it during condition
initial use is um a little more
[20:53] permissive for the developer, but having
the interim sound study is a little bit
[20:56] more restrictive for the community. It's
also worth noting to the board that
[21:00] reference to noise and nuisance isn't in
this. You could put that in here if you
[21:06] so please that was in that's in your
current ordinance. That's up to the
[21:09] board up to you know TNM up to you guys
what you recommend on that. My my one
[21:14] concern with the sound noise section as
I can tell
[21:19] there isn't an indication of where the
decibel level is measured. I know our
[21:23] sound ordinance is fairly clear that
it's on the property of the individual
[21:27] that is concerned with the the the sound
but it's not so is this on the edge of
[21:32] the property. Is this as we know sound
very relevant where it's measured
[21:38] » here
on the property line.
[21:43] » Where does it say that?
[21:48] » Two 23 through paragraph number one.
[21:59] » Yeah.
>> Why am I not able to read that? Can I
[22:02] get an old version here?
>> No.
[22:04] » Normal hours, maximum daytime, all day
Sunday, decel max on the property line
[22:09] use. Okay.
[22:14] » So, I will just say I mean that is
different from a restrictive. It's more
[22:18] restrictive than our sound ordinance.
So, I guess that's fine. You know, sound
[22:20] ordinance
is on the property line of affected
[22:25] property.
um which in this case probably end up
[22:29] being the same honestly but
>> okay
[22:32] » all right it's there thank you sorry I
missed it
[22:36] » fine
Robert anything is there
[22:42] » oh
I would think it's in order that I'll
[22:45] entertain a motion to trigger both
planning commission the review draft
[22:50] ordinance number two
>> motion I'll second a motion
[22:54] » motion by Mr. 11 second Mr. Ro there.
Any discussion?
[22:59] » Uh clarification question for me. Are
you triggering your reviews and do you
[23:03] want something scheduled or do you want
to wait until you have review?
[23:06] » I'd rather wait till we have reviews.
>> Understood. Thank you.
[23:09] » If that's the consensus of the
All right. Go ahead, Joel. Um I was just
[23:15] wondering with the data centers, has any
um consideration been given to like
[23:20] other areas where they've had data
centers installed and seeing what their
[23:24] experience has been um since they've
been installed and if they're having
[23:29] complications because there there are
data centers that have been installed
[23:33] throughout the US and um there that
would be a really good way of doing
[23:39] that. Has anyone researched that?
Yeah, if you want to detail a bit of the
[23:46] research that you've done, that's
essentially what we what went into
[23:49] drafting the data center ordinance. We
>> the experience other communities are
[23:55] having now that they're in place like
any other.
[23:59] » Just want a reminder, the data center
ordinance is already in place. That was
[24:03] done in October last year and it is one
of the most restrictive data ordinances
[24:07] that we were able to review. Um, so this
is just one of the things that happened
[24:14] on that day was we realized there
weren't there wasn't really enough teeth
[24:18] in the decommissioning bit, but we
didn't want to stall getting the
[24:22] ordinance in place. So, we decided to
vote on it and that we would fix it at a
[24:25] later time to just clarify the teeth on
the decommissioning, which basically
[24:29] says that's the line that highlights
that there needs to be um a letter of
[24:35] credit demonstrating adequate financing.
So that's really what today is about as
[24:40] well as the amendment to the noise.
>> Yeah, I got Yeah, I just like as a
[24:46] recommendation definitely look into what
is happening in other areas where these
[24:50] status centers are point and just I know
that's a separate thing. So I got what
[24:54] you're saying.
>> Thanks very
[24:57] » Thank you.
All in favor?
[25:01] » I
um discussion on housing economic
[25:06] development residential zone. John or
Robert, I don't know who wants to start.
[25:11] At least maybe John you could be tell
what you drafted for us to consider. Uh
[25:17] there's been you know discussion over
several months
[25:22] uh
how to address probably a twoprong
[25:29] and one is to create affordable housing
and two how to get [clears throat] more
[25:35] uh use out of our economic development
district.
[25:40] And
the really the only way to get more
[25:46] affordable housing in today's market
saying that will always be the case but
[25:51] is to have a high density component. Um
the higher the density the more units
[25:58] going to build for for the dollar. Uh
and that basically means three four or
[26:04] five story buildings are necessary.
uh
[26:09] » but only in our economic developments
zone which the three major roads
[26:14] » right so we we looked at that and so I
drafted an outline of I also looked at
[26:22] other ordinances where uh they are they
have been successfully incorporated one
[26:29] being township which has several similar
projects I looked at the criteria for
[26:35] theirs um I also looked at proposals
that are being proposed in Smithfield
[26:42] Township.
And uh what we came up with is
[26:49] uh to take advantage of this, we believe
a developer should propose a minimum
[26:55] density of 12 delling 12 dwelling units
acre. Uh and that could go up to 12 20
[27:05] dwelling units proposed acre. uh if he's
strictly going to do a residential
[27:12] uh building and he must have public
flatter and public sewer. I make that
[27:15] rose acreage.
>> Gross acreage. Yes.
[27:18] » Gets too complicated.
>> Still must preserve
[27:22] anything that is required to be
preserved be wetlands, steep slopes,
[27:27] whatever zoning war is preserves. But
for the simplicity of calculation, it's
[27:32] it's easier just to work off of gross
acreage.
[27:36] And that's how and again that's how Beth
Township does it as well.
[27:39] » Gross acreage is essentially what is
left to be usable. No,
[27:44] » it is your if you have five acres uh you
have a 5 acre track,
[27:49] » right?
>> Let's say you have one acre of wetlands
[27:52] and a half an acre of steep slopes which
have to be preserved,
[27:55] » right?
>> That would mean your net acreage is
[27:58] three and a half acres.
>> Oh, okay.
[28:00] » Your gross acreage is five acres.
>> Okay. So if we per So if a builder was
[28:06] going to put in the minimum 12 units uh
for gross acre on that particular site,
[28:13] he'd have to build a minimum of 60
units.
[28:16] » Yeah.
>> If he couldn't put them in, then the
[28:19] site doesn't work.
>> That's not the township's problem. It
[28:22] just doesn't work.
But if he has a nice [snorts]
[28:26] 10acre site that has very few
restrictions and he wants to go with
[28:32] that 12, then he could put in 120 units.
Uh we're if he's doing res strictly
[28:38] residential only, which would be
permitted if this use is adopted,
[28:44] he's got a maximum height limit of four
stories for 50 ft. Mhm.
[28:50] » somewhat as an incentive to
give some commercial along with this
[28:57] development
which he uped the density to 25 units
[29:01] per acre.
Uh and he's allowed to go to five
[29:06] stories or 60 ft if he provides a
commercial component equal to the floor
[29:12] area of one of those buildings or 20% of
the residential floor area. Mhm.
[29:19] » Well, so we had another example. I don't
know if it made any particular
[29:29] go with our parking requirements or the
developer can submit something that she
[29:35] feels is um for
>> demand based.
[29:39] » Yeah. of of what he wants to build.
And oh there's another thing we we did.
[29:45] We said
um this must be uh in an area certified
[29:54] tour.
And the reason we did that is because uh
[29:58] it pretty much restricts where you can
do this to where we want it, which is to
[30:02] say this going independence and Brown
Street and uh a piece of Milford road
[30:10] that goes
airport from from the east going to the
[30:14] airport. But on 209, uh it only goes to
Gateway, which is
[30:21] um you know a major development plan
anyway. So it doesn't really matter
[30:28] and I think uh if if we if we accept and
we're patiently talking about it in some
[30:37] further uh point we should probably look
at u the major mixed juice development
[30:45] just to tweak things so there's a
continuity between one and the other.
[30:50] It's I read through it. It's not It's
not that much, but there's a few things
[30:53] we should probably just change,
>> right?
[30:57] » We can we can wait on that one.
>> Oh, yeah. I mean, I think naturally
[31:00] there are some things there that are
more permissive, but some things that
[31:03] are meant to be an incentive end up
being more restrictive.
[31:08] Our our uh our goal here is to try to
get something going or passed so that we
[31:15] can uh which we're not in danger of
losing our multimotal grant on Franklin
[31:19] Road which I heard just got a hop on
that what the next last couple of days
[31:25] right so that's moving along but it
>> you didn't get the HOP but you did get
[31:30] acceptance of the of the study uh which
does give the developer the green light
[31:36] to go ahead and prepare his hop plans in
accordance with that study.
[31:41] » Thanks for that, K.
May I just want to highlight a comment
[31:45] I've made at the last I think two
meetings where we've discussed this
[31:49] which is I'm all for
uh making it possible to have this
[31:55] highdensity
u residential in the township and
[32:00] especing
[32:03] an area to something that is more akin
to an um EDR um economic district with
[32:09] residential.
Um, but I'm not a fan of amending our
[32:14] current ED so that it allows potentially
anywhere
[32:20] um for exclusively residential and the
the reason being the purpose this was a
[32:26] B1 B2 zone
that was converted to this ED zone and
[32:32] residential was added specifically for
the purpose of incentivizing commercial.
[32:39] So, if we're getting to a point where
the idea is to have no commercial on
[32:43] that property, in my opinion, that
completely defeats the purpose of the ED
[32:47] zone. Um,
>> Michael, so remember we're saying it
[32:54] must be served by sewer and water, which
>> and another item on this agenda is
[33:00] expansion of the sewer and water all the
way down 209,
[33:02] » right?
>> Which we can worry about amending this
[33:06] later. What we're trying to do is do
something now,
[33:08] » but I'm not going to I don't want to
amend the ordinance for one developer
[33:12] and then go around and and change it
back. That's not that's spots only.
[33:16] That's
>> this is what John and I came up with. If
[33:18] we if we uh incentivize the uh current
ED section 308, let's say in this way,
[33:28] um it's relatively easy to do if we're
talking about a new zone. We talked
[33:33] about an R3 zone or modified EDR zone.
Uh, it's a long process.
[33:41] » Well, why can't it just be exactly the
modification you'd mentioned, but limit
[33:46] that to a new zone?
>> Well, I I'll defer to John then. I don't
[33:52] know.
Well, and I may even defer to Ron, but
[33:56] my experience has been that a text
amendment uh will go quicker than
[34:02] creating a new plan and a whole new
zone.
[34:06] » You post the properties and do mailed
notice and all that.
[34:09] » But I may be wrong on that, Ron. I don't
know what your experience is.
[34:13] » Well, a zoning amendment would go
quicker.
[34:16] advertised twice, once for two weeks,
and uh
[34:21] and then gets reviewed by the planning
commission here, the planning commission
[34:27] in Monroe County, and then it's ready to
vote. You don't have to do a whole lot
[34:31] of hoops and etc. If you were looking at
I'm looking at your amendment here, this
[34:36] was just a zoning amendment.
It's tough because I I see the there's a
[34:41] couple of small properties that want to
do
[34:46] something akin to the probably not high
development or high sorry high density,
[34:51] but I've heard about people that have
properties that they want to do, you
[34:55] know, six units on a second floor and
have the first floor be something else
[35:00] that's permitted. That's [clears throat]
still tough because they need to utilize
[35:05] all of the ground floor for bed use
minus any incidental things like cluster
[35:10] boxes and whatnot. So, I'd like to see
something that that fits those in too.
[35:17] I also share the concern that we don't
want the whole EV zone to be this, but I
[35:21] I think
probably a couple of riders attached
[35:26] onto this
more sighting standards would make it
[35:31] easier
um more digestible. Otherwise, you when
[35:35] you're talking about new zone, you do
have to pick out where exactly you want
[35:39] it to be. And I think that's where the
spot zoning concern really gets strong
[35:44] unless you do wide swats like we had at
the last uh meeting was mostly 447 that
[35:51] corridor. I mean, are you allowed to
have in your zone
[35:57] um
or sort of Yeah, I guess in a zone or in
[36:01] your zoning ordinance stipulations that
a certain covenant is exclusive to a
[36:07] corridor because I think everyone
generally agrees that we're talking
[36:09] about 447 makes sense for 447 to have
this sort of option, but don't don't
[36:14] really want to see it on. Well, you I
think the easiest way to handle that is
[36:20] to if you don't want to create a new
zone, you create an overlay, right, for
[36:24] this criteria for the 447 corridor and
Brown Street or whatever else you want
[36:30] to put. I would like to see if we were
to take that route.
[36:36] I would like to see the property that
sort of already has it like behind
[36:42] Smithfield Gateway is I I don't remember
if it's zoned ED or not, but the Shauny
[36:49] Senior Living, I forget exactly what
it's called. I don't remember if that's
[36:52] ED and I know the property was directly
adjacent to it. Not necessarily all
[36:56] owned by Gateway, but some others. I'd
like to see that included
[37:02] just because I think it makes sense at
least on the rear portions. You know,
[37:06] where it's street frontage, I don't
think you're going to get it. But
[37:11] I don't mind the overlay approach
because I think it's a balance. I don't
[37:15] know how an overlay works though in
terms of procedure. Do you still post
[37:21] uh physically the properties that would
be in an overlay?
[37:24] » You're talking about the establishment
overlay. Yeah,
[37:28] » I would post the law really isn't clear
in that regard, but in order to be safe,
[37:34] I would post
and notify the property owners as you
[37:39] would with a with a map chase, if you
would.
[37:42] » It allows you to sort of have the best
of both.
[37:46] » You're informing neighbors, which I
think is appropriate.
[37:49] » Yeah. So, we're we're pretty much
agreed, I would say, uh, Independence
[37:53] Road and Brown Street. Um, I'm looking
at a piece of um, Milford Road and
[38:00] wondering if at least especially as far
as sewer goes now if that would be a
[38:06] candidate for it only because
nothing else has worked.
[38:11] » Well, there's what I the one gentleman
Jonathan Weber came to one meeting at
[38:18] the beginning.
>> What's that? If the one wants to build a
[38:21] lowcost house or
>> well he wanted to build like six units.
[38:25] » Oh no different.
>> No near Lake Ohio close encounters
[38:31] building. He wants to tear that down and
develop straight residential there. It's
[38:36] a very fairly small parcel. I mean it's
it certainly doesn't hit the five acres
[38:41] but I know that there are other types
that are
[38:43] » is that the massage parlor?
>> Yes.
[38:46] I I'd like to see improvement, you know,
in that realm, uh, too. Um, but maybe
[38:52] that's a different solution than this. I
I at least think that we can
[38:58] generally agree on the framework of an
overlay to sort of handpick more without
[39:03] necessarily
overlays can be more restrictive too if
[39:08] I'm not mistaken, right? They're not
necessarily all permissive like we
[39:12] wouldn't want uh highintensity
uh commercial use um in a place that we
[39:21] kind of anticipate
residential. I I I know that's dictated
[39:25] kind of by acreage and setback limits
too.
[39:30] No, but I also remember if there's
residential, there's a reason for uh
[39:36] commercial that doesn't exist right now,
especially small businesses.
[39:39] » I really like the maximum density option
that's you know the that talks about um
[39:46] you know incent that kind of says that
you can incentivize your residential if
[39:51] you had the commercial uh component. Um,
but it says that it may be on the first
[39:58] floor predominantly residential building
or somewhere else on the lot. I assume
[40:01] that I that could be interpreted to mean
I build a let's say like a a drive-thru
[40:07] Starbucks now is is a thing that we're
starting to see pop up if you were to
[40:11] you could concentrate your commercial in
one of those.
[40:14] » Yeah. Thought
>> use like that. I mean there may be you
[40:19] know there could be attractive land or
the developer may want to just keep a
[40:24] residential building separate from this
commercial commercial aspect and right
[40:28] » want to give them flexibility that's all
>> and I think the devil's in the details
[40:33] and if this the idea of this discussion
is to sort of say let's draft something
[40:38] and see what it looks like I mean in
order to move this al along I'm fine
[40:42] with that I'm not going to say that I'm
100%
[40:47] I guess and Michael I I agree with you
preserving um for instance 2019 in the
[40:54] way we have it now in EU because that's
that's where we're probably going to see
[40:58] a lot of hopefully a lot of growth once
the sewer comes is with commercial
[41:02] buildings. Well, and I also I can
appreciate that
[41:06] typically, not exclusively, but you
might see if if you've got commercial
[41:12] right next to residential, which a lot
of this section is. I mean, I I I think
[41:18] some of the homeowners in the
residential area might prefer a slightly
[41:23] denser residential to then a Waw Wa or,
you know, or a data center, right? um
[41:31] or something very commercial, it's sort
of a a transition. R2s are often
[41:35] transitions, right? So, this is sort of
that and I think in that sense it makes
[41:38] sense along that corridor. Um so, again,
I'm happy to see what the ordinance
[41:44] change would look like.
>> Yeah.
[41:45] » Um and that at that point, you know,
public can dig into the details and we
[41:50] can have a hearing and decide if it's
going forward or not. We would also be
[41:54] able to have at this stage a map of
the theoretically eligible parcels so we
[42:03] can kind of decide whether or not we
would want to go. I mean, I have a
[42:07] feeling it's a huge amount and I don't
want it to be as huge as it probably is
[42:11] right now, but I think that the general
direction on that makes a lot of sense.
[42:19] Well, and if we're doing the overlay and
then neighbors are informed and and you
[42:24] know have an opportunity to provide
their input, that's that's what matters,
[42:28] I think, is making sure that the
everyone that's in this area and they're
[42:32] joining can adjacent can provide their
input.
[42:36] » Yeah.
>> Well, well, I think we should proceed
[42:39] with some haste here only because it is
coming up and that's when our multimodal
[42:45] grant that we already have expired.
I I assume we can extend it if we show
[42:50] some progress, but we've got it assumpt
along the road.
[42:56] » Yeah.
>> Right.
[42:59] » Well, I think I I think the progress
would be
[43:03] submission of plans
depend
[43:09] or an HOP. I think that would that would
certainly satisfy the progress, but
[43:15] you're going to have to satisfy the
developer that you're moving forward. So
[43:21] that I I think people spend that money
to prepare those plans and I think the
[43:25] developers um as as a partner on the H
on the multi.
[43:32] [clears throat]
So anyway,
[43:34] » so just so I'm clear, where are we going
to extend this over over like
[43:39] Independence Road, Brown Street? Are we
going up Milford Road at all?
[43:45] I would like to see the properties and
and maybe this requires some
[43:49] coordination with the planning the
county planning commission, but I'd like
[43:52] to see what parcels
exactly are eligible in terms of,
[43:59] you know, five gross acres and being
served by Central Sewer and Water
[44:02] because I I realize that that's not just
um public, you know, entities. Daniel,
[44:09] I don't know of any Shaunie off the top
of my head that that have both
[44:13] theoretically some in that area that
might be served by Manuel Min.
[44:21] » Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's what I'm
wondering. I don't know. I just want to
[44:24] see exactly how how farreaching it is.
If it's smaller, then I think, you know,
[44:30] I I'm more amenable to to to the
direction. I really like the
[44:35] incentivizing of the commercial. It it
makes more sense I think frankly than
[44:40] what we have right now. And I think the
incentivized option which has really
[44:46] complex math and tries to get people to
to there's no definition of what
[44:53] suitable means in terms of how to uh
transfer your gross commercial space.
[44:59] So, I think that if we can get a map and
I guess a more fleshed out draft based
[45:05] on this, I think that would be good. And
I I would like to think that for our
[45:12] February uh 18th work session that we
could potentially spend time on that so
[45:19] we can uh leave the rest of our meetings
to hopefully be getting some other other
[45:24] tasks done. I I I can try to get you
something in advance of that.
[45:31] » Does that sound Does that make sense?
>> Okay.
[45:36] » I'm just wondering exactly the overlay
area. What were you talking about?
[45:43] » We're talking about an overlay to
basically highlight certain parcels that
[45:48] we think make sense for
>> eligibility to vote.
[45:54] It it could be anything. Right now, we
don't we don't know everything because
[45:58] we're talking specifically about uh
>> No, I was I was just
[46:03] » Yeah. No, the idea of an overlay is it
generally adds or subtracts some sort of
[46:09] character from a particular zone. So an
overlay is different than changing the
[46:15] zone because you can generally still do
everything that's already in that zone,
[46:19] but you allow some additional incentive
or some additional uh type of
[46:24] development is the thought. So rather
than change or create a new zone at
[46:29] least in the interim, we want to see
what properties would meet the five
[46:34] gross acres and served by central water
and sewer. So that's our next step. And
[46:39] then on our February 18th meeting, we'll
be able to discuss that more at length
[46:44] so that we can [clears throat]
kind of move along the other projects
[46:48] that we're
[clears throat]
[46:51] put the over probably for Ron. U if this
moves forward right, uh does this stop
[47:00] anyone from having presidents to do it
someplace else?
[47:05] So if you allow this,
>> someone decides they want to do the same
[47:08] thing somebody else, you say no. And
they go back and say, "You did it here.
[47:12] Why can't I do it here?"
>> No. A request for a zoning amendment,
[47:16] which just would be it's a it's a
legislative matter. It's something that
[47:22] can [clears throat] can be requested,
but the supervisors can deny it without
[47:27] any appeal or without any uh retribution
for it. Now there are certain type of
[47:33] zoning amendments. A municipal curative
amendment or a landowner curative
[47:38] amendment that's different. Final zoning
amendment uh is just a legislative act
[47:43] and the supervisors can say we're not
going to do it here but we did it here
[47:47] and that's too bad.
>> Okay.
[47:53] Mitch,
>> I had raised I think several points at
[47:58] the last meeting relative to high
density housing.
[48:01] » Sure.
>> And um I'm curious as to whether or not
[48:06] you've given any consideration
to those points and what your response
[48:11] might be. I don't think anyone's
prepared to give a response today. But I
[48:16] I think the intention is to have
something that's more than just a
[48:20] nebulous idea before we can address
that. And I think for the February 18th
[48:25] meeting, we'll hopefully be able to sit
down to what we think the answers to
[48:29] that will be. Well, I think the basic
question is before you do a lot of work
[48:34] on promoting and incenting
highdensity housing on Smithfield
[48:40] Township, the question is why? Why do
you want to pursue this and what are the
[48:48] benefits to the township and the
residents?
[48:53] » I can appreciate that when we'll
certainly get into that, but I I think
[48:56] we have already maybe not to your
satisfaction, but
[49:00] We know why we need more housing. There
are people that already live here that
[49:04] don't live in good enough conditions.
They want to to stay here and there's no
[49:09] room to downsize for anyone that wants
to downsize. There's no room for
[49:13] anybody, you know, even young
professionals that live in the area to
[49:16] to be able to stick around. It's it's
difficult. There's a lot of different
[49:20] reasons, but in terms of the ordinance,
we're not going to be uh you know, as
[49:25] direct in, you know, this housing is for
this type. I think that we want to be uh
[49:30] broader than that. But we'll get into
why and how more in detail at at the
[49:38] work session when we have more than a
concept because right now this is a
[49:43] concept that we've only let sit. Don't
know exactly where it's applicable for
[49:48] you know two hours ago we might have got
that this updated version. So I think
[49:52] our intention is to dedicate you know a
couple hours on the 18th to deciphering
[49:59] exactly that where we go from here. I
don't know Mitch I mean I think you
[50:04] probably for the last 10 years there's
been developers coming in here. I'm not
[50:09] saying we're doing everything for
developers but telling us that the need
[50:12] and what they're what people are looking
for is higher. they're looking for some
[50:16] apartments and that more younger people
are not don't want single family homes
[50:22] necessarily and so there is a need for
that to some degree but I also agree we
[50:28] don't want it everywhere
>> um it needs to be limited and then the
[50:32] last thing I'll just say is I think this
also looms into your your argument which
[50:38] I think is a valid one that at some
point it would be nice to have an
[50:41] updated
um strategic plan or updated plan. I
[50:46] mean, one thing that I I know I said
this once before on the planning
[50:49] commission, which is that I have a
challenge with these township specific
[50:55] plans, and the reason being you can talk
about, well, I don't want it to be busy
[50:59] on 209. Why don't we have it like it
used to be in like a single two-lane
[51:04] road? The challenge is 95% of the
traffic on that road is coming from one
[51:11] township and going to another township.
And we're in the middle. They're going
[51:15] over, they're driving up to Bush.
They're going further away. It It's hard
[51:19] to do a plan in isolation um of your
neighbors. Um I'm a big proponent of
[51:27] coordinated plans with Middle Smithfield
with with with Smithville. I would love
[51:31] to see that happen. That's why I do
think that the Monroe County um at a
[51:35] countywide plan is probably a better
place for us to look at when we look at
[51:39] strategic direction. Um, so I I would
hope I actually do hope that in the next
[51:44] year or two um we do do a Smithfield
Township plan, but I don't think it
[51:49] should be this deep deep comprehensive
thing because it frankly is just
[51:54] unrealistic to think that you can set
certain rules specifically for your
[51:58] township without thinking about what's
going on in neighboring townships and
[52:02] not knowing that they're going to change
and you have to sort of change with
[52:07] them. Does that does that make sense? I
guess I want to say we also need to look
[52:11] at the county level planning um to think
about what is happening countywide. What
[52:17] are the changes that are happening
countywide whether we like them or not?
[52:20] Um and make sure we adapt in a positive
way that allows us to keep our rural
[52:26] character while also um being cognizant
of the realities of what's going on in
[52:33] neighboring townships and all around us.
[52:39] And uh just speaking to the question of
high density um assuming there is a
[52:46] pressure for more housing here, I think
all of us would rather see it in high
[52:51] density along our corridors rather than
spread out around the township and
[52:56] taking more and more open space and
making it into housing. Uh I I
[53:02] personally would rather see no more
single family houses built around here.
[53:07] I think the only way we're going to
preserve open space is to stop that by
[53:12] offering another incentive. And anybody
wants to see this, this is the last
[53:17] couple of days in Shauny Valley where 19
acres are being clearcut for a
[53:23] developer, which nobody wants, at least
nobody that lives here. 19 acres.
[53:31] You realize that a deer needs to feed on
22 acres. one deer. This is 19 acres is
[53:38] no longer there. And we don't want that.
I don't want it. I would rather see high
[53:43] density uh uh developments along our
commercial corridors and not have any
[53:48] more of this because I think this is a
travesty. I'll pass it around if they
[53:54] look at it. Anybody want to take a look?
>> Is there a benefit to the township
[53:59] » for what for this?
>> Well, I I understand that. for the high
[54:04] density housing. Is there a tax benefit?
Is there any estimate?
[54:07] » Well, we don't even look at that. There
is, but we don't look. And by the way,
[54:11] another thing that that I'm sure will
come up is everybody talks about the
[54:15] school taxes. What about the schools?
Well, the statistics that you can Google
[54:21] and read anywhere because there's a lot
of them. High density housing,
[54:25] especially what we're talking about,
which is one bedroom
[54:29] have very little to schools. one-bedroom
apartments had nothing. Two-bedroom
[54:34] apartments, they figure about a quarter
to a half of a student per apartment on
[54:40] average. And the other thing in East
Straburg is there was a meeting of all
[54:44] the parents in the school district about
two weeks ago in which the school
[54:49] district revealed that they don't know
what to do because they're losing
[54:52] students. They've lost 600 students in
the last couple of years and they're
[54:57] going to have to consolidate or close
schools. doesn't it doesn't save any
[55:01] money, but what it does is say we've got
capacity that we're not using and every
[55:06] time we lose a student, we lose the
subsidies from the state on that
[55:10] student.
>> I'm going to defer the rest of the
[55:15] discussion
to the next to the February 18th meeting
[55:19] when we have something a little more
concrete.
[55:23] I think, you know, I appreciate
everyone's perspective, but I think
[55:26] we're going to be better served by
discussing when we have something in
[55:29] front of us and we'll make sure that
goes online ahead of that meeting. So,
[55:34] we'll make sure we have that, you know,
hopefully a week or so in advance if
[55:38] possible. Do what I can.
>> Yeah. And if you need me to to contact,
[55:42] you know, Eric, I can just give him this
and say, can you give me a map of what
[55:47] would be eligible?
>> Uh, yeah.
[55:52] I mean, I was going to see where I could
come up with it. If Eric probably has it
[55:56] more easily than I do, that would save
me some time and effort.
[56:01] » All right. I will contact Eric.
>> Yeah, it is cool.
[56:06] Okay.
All right. We have some progress on the
[56:09] sign ordinance. Um, Michael, do you want
to give an overview on that? I know Alex
[56:15] has some info. I know that we have uh
>> All right, let me let me go. Um, okay.
[56:21] So, in front of [snorts] you, you have a
new draft ordinance related to signage.
[56:27] As you may recall
several months ago, I don't know what it
[56:31] was. Uh, we there was a draft ordinance
that was significantly larger. There was
[56:39] a lot of questions around um off-
premises signs which is another way to
[56:45] say billboard but it's not exclusively
billboard because billboard you think
[56:49] giant um but off- premises signs mean
any sign that is for a business that is
[56:54] not located on that business's property.
Um there was a lot of questions
[56:59] um a lot more that we needed to look
into. So we agreed that the committee
[57:03] which consisted of um Alex, myself and
Dave Strunk from the the planning
[57:09] commission um we met every week um for
an hour um first for the large uh
[57:17] ordinance and then we decided it made
sense for this committee to um sort of
[57:21] tackle this one sort of part of the
signage ordinance at a time. So what you
[57:26] have before you we thought was the most
pressing part and this is namely um
[57:32] defining and creating some language
around limited duration signs and
[57:37] temporary signs. Temporary signs being
um yard signs um things that are going
[57:44] up that are very temporary
um as well as uh limited duration signs
[57:51] which tend to be more like a year tend
to be construction signs uh real estate
[57:55] signs um
uh that sort of thing. So adding
[58:01] definitions around that, clarifying that
that was those are two things we added
[58:05] here. And then the other thing that we
added here was um increased power
[58:12] effectively to the township um around
removing
[58:18] um and or providing notification and
then requiring the removal of um illegal
[58:25] signs um in the townships that um don't
meet the criteria of um pre-existing
[58:32] non-conforming. Um, so it does allow for
the zoning officer to remove effectively
[58:41] temporary signs without providing notice
if they are illegal. So that would be if
[58:46] someone puts a yard sign on somebody
else's property um advertising um a
[58:54] business or in the right of way that is
technically not legal right now. Um uh
[58:59] but there the township officer right now
the township officer the zoning officer
[59:03] right now the only signs they can remove
are snipe signs. Snipe signs are signs
[59:07] that are on utility poles. No sign on
utility pole is legal um property
[59:12] belongs to um the utility companies and
they do not allow them. Uh we are
[59:16] allowed to remove those. This provides
the ability to remove um illegal yard
[59:22] signs effectively. It also allows for
the removal of um felapated falling over
[59:28] signs. If they are at all permanent, it
requires notification, all that sort of
[59:32] stuff and the owner has to remove it. So
there's this was all in the uh last uh
[59:40] draft ordinance, but it's only really
those sections. Define limited duration
[59:45] signs and talking about what when
they're allowed, when they're not
[59:48] allowed, temporary signs, um where
they're allowed, when they're not
[59:52] allowed, all that sort of stuff. as well
as um
[59:57] uh our ability to better manage um
illegal sons.
[1:00:05] » And there's a bunch of definitions. This
whole thing is 40 pages long,
[1:00:09] » right?
>> Um but I will say a bunch of it is
[1:00:12] definitions that are absent from the
current ordinance.
[1:00:17] flags, abandon signs, inflable signs,
snipe signs was actually not even
[1:00:22] defined,
>> right? Do you think at this point it's
[1:00:26] prudent to
the the reviews?
[1:00:30] » So, we need we still need a legal review
on this. Um, is that right, Alex?
[1:00:36] Full legal review. Matt zoning officer
has reviewed it and his his comments
[1:00:40] [snorts] have already been incorporated
into this.
[1:00:43] Um,
>> okay.
[1:00:48] » Obviously, I think signage um reviewing
from a legal standpoint makes sense
[1:00:52] because you start talking about
potentially free speech and that's what
[1:00:56] signage is.
>> Um, because it's but I think we've done
[1:00:59] a good job. Most of this does come from
uh the model ordinance that we were
[1:01:05] using before as a template.
>> Well, and and you should be aware, Mr.
[1:01:11] chair that this was given to me uh the
end of December. I probably began to
[1:01:17] look at it initially the first week in
January and I just haven't had a chance
[1:01:20] to.
>> It's okay. We've had other
[1:01:23] » the follow up from you based upon the
other barking dog been dealing with.
[1:01:27] » Sure. Well, we've had a lot of
ordinances that we've been getting
[1:01:31] through. So, um ideally,
you think you could get a review for
[1:01:37] February 11th, our next
>> I would think. Yeah, I would totally be
[1:01:42] able to get that.
>> Yeah. Is this restricting signs on
[1:01:46] anybody's private property? Like that
they if they just put up a sign on their
[1:01:50] property that the township can come in
and say that's an illegal sign.
[1:01:53] » Well, right now uh there are laws
already about signs you can have and you
[1:01:58] cannot have on your property. It doesn't
uh restrict free speech, whatever. It's
[1:02:05] exclusively about um I mean it's the
language is clear
[1:02:09] » for manic. Yeah. about businesses and so
I mean you cannot right now,
[1:02:15] [clears throat] you know, put a big
billboard on your on your property
[1:02:20] there. By the way, there's a whole slew
of when when temporary signs are legal.
[1:02:25] What I was talking about is if it
doesn't meet any of those legal
[1:02:28] criteria. So, if it is considered an
illegal sign, um
[1:02:32] what this does is allows for temporary
signs to be removed. Right now, the
[1:02:38] zoning officer would have to site
um for a yard sign that is technically
[1:02:44] illegal, would have to site, would have
to um go through a process in order for
[1:02:49] that sign to be removed except snipe
signs. Um the reason we could do that so
[1:02:54] easily with snipe signs is because um of
how very clear it is that it's illegal
[1:02:58] because it's on somebody else's property
that has already written a letter, sent
[1:03:02] any sign, any snipe sign on any of our
utility polic.
[1:03:05] » Yeah. I mean, that makes sense if it's
somebody else's property, but I think
[1:03:08] defining any sign as illegal, you're
going to run into some major first
[1:03:12] amendment problems with if it's
somebody's own property.
[1:03:15] » Yeah. You u
>> So, I understand that people will call
[1:03:18] things illegal, but the Supreme Law of
the Land is the First Amendment, right?
[1:03:22] And so, you would open it up to some
pretty serious legal battles.
[1:03:25] » So, we've and we've gone over all that.
What's the First Amendment, right? I
[1:03:28] mean, you're still allowed to restrict
signs in a township. It's done in every
[1:03:32] township size. Um what you really can't
do is say um
[1:03:37] » content. You can't restrict content.
>> You can't restrict content. Right. So,
[1:03:41] and in fact, what this does is actually
allows more um if it's not um business
[1:03:48] specific.
>> Would you do that any different if it
[1:03:51] was a piece of paper? Can I write
whatever I want in a small piece of
[1:03:54] paper?
>> Theoretically, you can't have a sniper
[1:03:57] sign that says lost dog on a teleport.
You're not allowed to have that.
[1:04:00] » If we go was if we go beyond it.
>> Okay. Sorry,
[1:04:03] » question and answer. I, you know, I want
to make sure we comment so everyone gets
[1:04:06] their their uh their say.
>> I guess I'll just say thank you for the
[1:04:11] comment on free speech and we're very
well aware of it which is one of the
[1:04:15] reasons why I mean we've been talking
about signage for
[1:04:18] » since I started in the bank I mean
probably 10 years or longer. Yeah. um
[1:04:22] how there are challenges and the biggest
challenge that has been uh noted is uh a
[1:04:30] lot of these 209 littered with um
what are illegal signs because they're
[1:04:37] not allowed in and our ordinance um that
are in rightways that are not on
[1:04:43] properties that are belong to people. I
mean that's one example. So,
[1:04:48] » and that that I that I completely
understand. Other property,
[1:04:51] » rightways, etc. That makes sense.
>> Um, excuse me. May I have your name,
[1:04:55] please?
>> Uh, Phil Ryan.
[1:04:56] » Thank you.
>> But on your property, um, if you want to
[1:05:00] write up a sign that says um, God is
great or I hate Biden or anything like
[1:05:05] that, that's perfected under the
Constitution and also Supreme Court
[1:05:11] decision 2015 called Reed versus
Gilbert. We can't control any of that.
[1:05:16] Yeah,
>> I agree. My worry is that is it is it
[1:05:18] just that now can't have a certain size
sign saying that and is there a busy
[1:05:22] body that's going to come up with a
reason why you can't say what you want
[1:05:25] to say? I think that's
>> entirely on our end. It's entirely it's
[1:05:31] as aesthetic as we can, but it's it's
not about the content. You know, it's
[1:05:36] about making sure that theory doesn't
become blighted. We have that the worst
[1:05:40] offender is these feather flag signs
that get shredded over time in the wind
[1:05:44] and then they become a nuisance and
they're usually in the right away and
[1:05:48] things like that.
>> Yeah, that's polluting other property
[1:05:50] which that makes that I completely
understand.
[1:05:53] » That's that's [clears throat] if you ask
Scott Amoy who probably has the same
[1:05:56] exact views as you the chair of our
planning commission. I think that's
[1:06:00] Scott's number one. He was you know
think that true in other people. So I
[1:06:03] think that's that's the intention and
they're certainly going to review it
[1:06:07] once we get through a legal review
>> and that exactly the point that he's
[1:06:13] raises the lens you should be reviewing
this with sort of care. Yeah.
[1:06:19] » All right. Under new business we have
the consideration for revisions to the
[1:06:23] developers agreement regarding the
Smithfield sewer authority and
[1:06:26] development plan.
Want to say this was done at some point
[1:06:30] in December. could have been uh earlier
than that. I don't have any backup, but
[1:06:37] I know Michael, you had some stuff. Uh
did you want Russ to come up to the
[1:06:42] » I it really was at my request that this
was all because I had reviewed the
[1:06:48] revisions that were suggested by
attorney Kitwell Smithfield.
[1:06:54] I had prepared a development agreement
and sent it out
[1:07:02] December 15
fact a little earlier than that December
[1:07:07] 11th and then Bob had or Bob Chidwell
had asked for a word version so that he
[1:07:15] could then mark it up and do whatever
needed to be done which he did and sent
[1:07:21] me a marked up copy.
And
[1:07:25] uh again had a number of changes. He
wanted to make sure that
[1:07:32] the authority was indicated as both the
owner and developer of the project and
[1:07:37] that
uh the fees that are charged would be
[1:07:42] reasonable, necessary and itemized.
Uh that
[1:07:47] there would be no release for the
township's acts. that the township did
[1:07:52] something that was negligent or willful.
Uh and
[1:07:58] the major items are that this authority
doesn't want to postponing security.
[1:08:05] According to the quantity and cost
estimate, that security would be around
[1:08:10] $212,000.
The authority doesn't want to post the
[1:08:14] 18month maintenance security. Again, I
believe their argument for that is that
[1:08:20] we are not uh we're not instructing any
public improvements. We're just doing
[1:08:28] private improvements. I'm not sure how
if that works for the storm water, but
[1:08:32] I'll defer to in that regard.
>> Storm is almost done anyway.
[1:08:36] » And they do not want the restrictive
covenant provisions in the stormwater
[1:08:41] covenant that I normally put that runs
with the land. In other words, that the
[1:08:45] owner of that property would have to
take care of and make sure that the
[1:08:49] storm water facilities are clear and
able to be used and not being
[1:08:54] accumulated with various particles. So,
just to just to be clear, not saying
[1:08:59] they don't have to do these things, they
will do these things, but that they
[1:09:02] wouldn't need to be bonded. Um and I
will say I have some language here that
[1:09:07] was at that I was told if maybe it could
be added in lea of any performance or
[1:09:12] financial security the authority shall
request demonstrate to the reasonable
[1:09:15] satisfaction of the fashion solicitoring
authority uh that the authority
[1:09:18] maintains the sufficient funds because
for them they're saying because it's a
[1:09:23] public entity they're raising these
funds to do it they're going to have the
[1:09:26] bank account um
>> essentially want to self collateralize
[1:09:29] » yeah they're just going to say we're
going to have the revenue we're going to
[1:09:32] show you that we have it before we start
any work. Um, but that means we have to
[1:09:37] have it and we have to get a bond for
it, which they're basically saying is
[1:09:40] doubling what they need to have. And the
main rationale for why it's a little bit
[1:09:44] of a unique is it is a municipal entity.
Um, and the reality is in the event that
[1:09:50] the sewer authority goes bust over this
$200,000, which of course would never
[1:09:54] happen, but in the event they did, it's
the township that would have to
[1:09:58] ultimately pay for it anyway. So there's
the ramification. There's no difference
[1:10:04] really I guess in that well the
authority is just separate
[1:10:07] » it's but it's part we went
>> I feel like
[1:10:09] » we went hold on we went through this
>> in detail around our audit and we made a
[1:10:14] very strong argument that they are
parked that was the whole thing around
[1:10:18] why when we had our whole conversations
around the audit
[1:10:22] » yeah I um I don't have issue with the
changes if if John has I don't know I
[1:10:29] know the storm water part is probably
the most important given that they're
[1:10:33] not constructing any other improvements
necessarily for public use. I mean, we
[1:10:40] have our own park immediately next door.
You know, I get that. Um, part of this
[1:10:45] part of this came up, too, because I
mean, I'm I'm the sewer authority. I'm
[1:10:48] appointed as the sewer authority
representative. um my confusion because
[1:10:53] I assumed these sorts of bonds were
specific to the public improvements
[1:10:58] because I thought in other cases they
were specific to public improvements,
[1:11:02] not all the improvements of the project
because we don't public,
[1:11:06] » right?
>> But the fund we're requesting is not
[1:11:09] public improvements because there's no
public improvement in this in this case.
[1:11:12] » Well, I get and that's what the
authority is saying, but I can't just
[1:11:16] say okay, you got to have the
supervisor, right? Right.
[1:11:20] Yeah,
>> I apologize.
[1:11:23] » Hang hang on. We'll do public comment
when
[1:11:25] » No, it's not it's it's about pertaining
to this issue.
[1:11:28] » Yeah, but we'll we'll do that once the
board discusses and then No, it's okay.
[1:11:33] We'll I'll call when you're when we're
ready.
[1:11:36] » I mean, I don't have any particular
issue. I think it makes a lot of sense.
[1:11:41] I'd like to extend that that hand of
cooperation to to them. I mean, are
[1:11:47] there any other specific requests other
than than that? Because that seems
[1:11:51] » That's the one line plus the edits that
were already submitted.
[1:11:55] » Robert, any um is Russ here.
>> What?
[1:12:00] » Russ.
>> Yes.
[1:12:01] » Yeah. Do you want to
>> No, I I I just
[1:12:05] » Thanks, Russ. So, we there may be some
questions in this next um new business
[1:12:11] article about um uh letter to Manual. So
I I know in the sewer authority we
[1:12:18] studied the um um the manual sewer uh
what do they call it facility um the
[1:12:27] hammer did a report so we may just need
referrals u to some of the things we
[1:12:33] found in that but if you just stick
around so we can get through the next
[1:12:36] time it's all but
>> okay but I don't know what well what I
[1:12:41] could offer but I'll stick around
>> well thanks your your source of
[1:12:45] information. That's all.
>> Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Russ. All
[1:12:50] right, yeah, Katie, you had a question.
>> Yeah, I was just wondering um so just to
[1:12:56] clarify,
we are the developer is paying the
[1:13:01] $212,000
for this or we are
[1:13:06] » no the the developer, which in this case
is the sewer authority. So he's just
[1:13:11] adding language
to specify that part.
[1:13:17] » So when you may have seen this with
Shauny Valley
[1:13:21] » when a developer develops a property
>> uh any public improvement that they're
[1:13:27] going to develop in addition to getting
approval to move forward they have to
[1:13:31] post a bond
>> in the event that they do everything
[1:13:35] except the public improvements and then
they get out of town. that bond can then
[1:13:40] be taken by the township to finish those
public improvements. All right. My
[1:13:45] understanding is it's pretty typical
that
[1:13:48] » any of the sort of improvements on the
property end up falling under this
[1:13:52] developers agreement. And in this case,
um the sewer authority has said doesn't
[1:13:58] necessarily make us make sense for us to
the bond and because we have a bank
[1:14:02] account showing you that we have the
money that's been reserved for this
[1:14:05] purpose and they want to add that
language so that they don't have to also
[1:14:08] toast the bond.
because
[1:14:12] ultimately it would be us drawing down
on the bond which would happen in the
[1:14:17] effect that they default which means we
would already have to assume their
[1:14:21] liability anyway. So we essentially
decided not to
[1:14:24] » that was the part that I got confused
on.
[1:14:26] » Yeah, it's easy. Yeah.
>> All right. Um,
[1:14:33] » so I mean can I just make a motion to
approve the document as um amended um
[1:14:40] but including this line that I have that
was drafted by
[1:14:45] the one I read
[1:14:50] just saying it'll give the township
access to see the account so that we
[1:14:54] know that there's the money to finish
this project.
[1:14:57] » Okay.
>> Motion by Mr. Alvar. Do I hear a second?
[1:15:00] started. Second, Mr. Levenheime
discussion
[1:15:04] with that. All in favor?
>> I I
[1:15:10] need to copy this when I do this.
>> You can have that.
[1:15:13] » Well, here we keep the plastic. It's
it's fancy instrument. Fine. Okay.
[1:15:17] » I'll take it.
>> A very nice translucent folder.
[1:15:20] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[1:15:22] Next uh item being under new business,
the consideration for the offer of
[1:15:25] stipulation regarding the M manor back 9
MX injunction litigation. I wanted to
[1:15:31] say before we get to the actual
consideration
[1:15:34] that in the spirit of community, the
board has chosen to extend an olive
[1:15:38] branch to restore the right of the burn
boys uh the ability to ride with
[1:15:44] friends. It's our hope that in this that
this results in some positive movement.
[1:15:49] Michael and Robert have thoughts and
they'll address some of the details, but
[1:15:54] I want to uh note for the record that
the attorneys from the represented
[1:15:58] parties
uh have seen the draft of the
[1:16:02] stipulation earlier this week. I note
that this applies only to the injunction
[1:16:08] as it relates to the the zoning case. It
is different than uh the underlying case
[1:16:14] itself. This is theoretically temporary,
but Michael, I'll let you explain if you
[1:16:20] want to additional.
>> I don't see all the boys are here.
[1:16:26] They're not here, but um
effectively what this is, it's actually
[1:16:31] we went back to the initial offer that
had been made. Um, again, in keeping
[1:16:36] with Judge Zulick's indication that you
can come to some agreement until the
[1:16:41] appeal is heard around the ri writing of
the family members,
[1:16:46] um, that that offer at that time had
included some stipulations around the
[1:16:51] zoning officer having to be present.
Instead, we sort of dropped that. Added
[1:16:56] that this would be the two the two
burned boys along with up to a maximum
[1:17:01] four friends um all under 21 years of
age. There's some um a number of hours
[1:17:08] provided but it does include weekdays,
Saturdays, Sundays
[1:17:13] um
uh you know 3 to six during the week. Uh
[1:17:17] Saturdays 10 to 4, Sundays noon to 4. Um
it also very clearly highlights um a
[1:17:24] couple things. One that all other laws
in the township um must be um held into
[1:17:31] account including our um noise
ordinance. So that's important. This
[1:17:37] doesn't um mean we can break the noise
ordinance. Um it also
[1:17:44] doesn't condone um any development of uh
the property or motocross facility and
[1:17:51] doesn't certainly doesn't um condone the
use as a motocross facility but does
[1:17:57] ensure that especially if the case is
delayed significantly further that at
[1:18:01] least the family that owns property,
their boys and their friends can
[1:18:05] continue to use the track as they would
um if this was their backyard.
[1:18:11] um and as a residential area. So, um
this has been provided to the attorneys
[1:18:16] and um regardless of whether they've
accepted, we want we have to vote on
[1:18:21] whether or not we're formally um making
this offer.
[1:18:25] » The reason is [clears throat] later on
Sunday at noon was just because there's
[1:18:30] a church near the high and we didn't
want to disturb everything.
[1:18:35] » I'll entertain a motion on the offer.
A motion to
[1:18:40] approve the offer.
>> Motion by Mr. Alber. Do I hear a second?
[1:18:46] Discussion.
>> Sure.
[1:18:50] » Yes. Do you wouldn't
[1:18:55] even members of the board. I am actually
here speaking on behalf of the Burn
[1:19:00] family tonight regarding the township's
proposed stipulation addressing personal
[1:19:04] family use of the property to Hudson
Grant.
[1:19:08] First, I want to thank Mr. Levenheim for
the time and effort he has put into
[1:19:13] this. We recognize that he heard the
request at the last meeting. He acted
[1:19:17] quickly and he worked to be responsive
and we appreciate that. We acknowledge
[1:19:22] receipt of the township's proposed
stipulation and understand that the
[1:19:25] township has characterized it as a firm
non-negotiable
[1:19:30] offer. However, as written, there are
specific components that raise concern
[1:19:35] and do not appear to function as true
private family use of the property. The
[1:19:41] owners greatly appreciate the steps
taken for the resolution, but until they
[1:19:46] have had the opportunity to fully
confirm with their legal counsel, they
[1:19:50] are not prepared to state a position
verbally this evening. They simply want
[1:19:54] to ensure that anything agreed to is
legally sound and does not create
[1:19:58] unintended consequences moving forward
for them um in the future. Any response
[1:20:04] will be provided formally and in writing
after that review, but I think it'll be
[1:20:09] step in the right direction. So, thank
you all for
[1:20:15] you should be aware that the the vote
tonight is to confirm the offer. We
[1:20:21] understand the offer may not be accepted
where that you may want to make changes
[1:20:25] to the offer etc. Whether the board
would want to do that is another story
[1:20:29] but right now this vote is simply to say
we confirmed the offer on the table.
[1:20:33] » Greatly appreciate that.
>> I also think that Mr. Albert deserves
[1:20:40] equal credit on this because he started
this several months ago trying to get
[1:20:45] something in in in place
>> and the efforts have not gone unnoticed.
[1:20:49] We appreciate that. You know, we just
and obviously yes, you are voting on the
[1:20:53] stipulation. Um but you know, we just
want obviously the legal counsel on us
[1:20:59] to offer an advice. I'm sure things got
a step.
[1:21:02] » Can I say one thing too? I'm aware that
um Ron attorney Keros was sort of
[1:21:08] dotting his eyes and crossing his tees.
Um but I would say we didn't
[1:21:13] specifically agree that this was the
absolute firmst thing possible. the
[1:21:17] hours pro they were they were sort of
like oh well let's do this so I I think
[1:21:23] if there's that tiny little detail
nuance please don't be like well no you
[1:21:27] know
>> yeah no and and um you know respectfully
[1:21:30] there's a starting point and I think the
fact that there is a starting point that
[1:21:34] hopefully you know terms can just be
insured through our lawyer that you know
[1:21:39] if there is something that is
questionable there can be some
[1:21:42] negotiation but we fully recognize
absolutely the olive branch and you know
[1:21:46] the The goal in all of this is to get
the boys, you know, back on the track.
[1:21:51] This is family property to use it as
such. So, the appreciation is certainly
[1:21:55] there and we want to thank you and uh,
you know, work with the board moving
[1:21:59] forward for the sole purpose at this
point in time of getting the voice
[1:22:03] riding. So, much appreciated. Thank you.
>> I'm curious why uh I have friends like
[1:22:09] over 21. Why would they not be able to
ride with me? I think there was a
[1:22:13] general feeling that if it was over 21
that might be some form of business that
[1:22:18] is happening and there was just sort of
concern that there should be limited to
[1:22:22] friends. Um that that was the feeling
for why it should be that way and that's
[1:22:27] why it was crafted that way to think
about it as your sort of peers as
[1:22:33] opposed to some sort of formal
commercial training.
[1:22:38] » Well, [clears throat] I'd like to add to
that. I need to ride with at least like
[1:22:41] my trainer that would be like the whole
purpose. It's like a training track.
[1:22:44] That's why we built it. Like he's not 21
or under and like it's that's like a
[1:22:49] little like up absurd like the limit of
21 I would say. And then like I
[1:22:53] » I think if you're at Tarnney, you know,
will will speak to us. I mean I there
[1:22:58] might be
>> Yeah. And then there might be a
[1:23:00] distinction between someone's
physical presence uh versus
[1:23:08] you know.
>> Correct. So I I think that you know
[1:23:11] that's a point you know we're happy to
hear your position when when when you're
[1:23:14] ready to provide them
>> and make sure please bring that back
[1:23:18] also to the attorney as well that
there's
[1:23:21] » we appreciate the office to you know
certainly investigate you know there's a
[1:23:26] few areas that maybe we need to you know
just have some further discussion on.
[1:23:31] That is much appreciated.
>> Also, just know if there's tweaks, this
[1:23:35] has to go before here again and voted on
again
[1:23:38] » because we're going to we may vote on
this and this is a formal offer. If
[1:23:41] there's changes, you have to do that
again. And my understanding is it has to
[1:23:45] be registered with judge as well. Is
that correct, Bob? [clears throat]
[1:23:47] » The stipulation would be filed with the
court and approved by the judge as a
[1:23:52] court order. I mean, the judge could
always say, "I'm not doing this." I
[1:23:55] don't think that would happen if the
parties have agreed based upon this
[1:23:59] various this very contentious matter. I
think the judge would agree. Uh but
[1:24:05] again, [clears throat] we don't have the
judge who entered the order on the bench
[1:24:08] anymore. This will be a new judge.
>> Second.
[1:24:12] » Okay.
[1:24:15] » All in favor?
>> I I
[1:24:19] » Okay. Item C. under new business the
consideration to join the environmental
[1:24:23] advisory council's letter regarding the
manual wastewater treatment plant.
[1:24:28] » Are you guys taking any questions on
that last one?
[1:24:31] » Uh we're not we can do in public comment
which
[1:24:38] » um so going to describe that to us.
has a long kind of procedural history,
[1:24:44] but the environmental advisory council
has weighed in previously on the East
[1:24:47] Strasburg wastewater treatment plan and
it's essentially the same type of uh
[1:24:53] weighing in and I thought it might be
prudent for us to join in their in their
[1:24:58] efforts. So, Alex, you describe that for
us.
[1:25:01] » Yeah, Mr. Chair, I mean, I could
describe it and you also have members of
[1:25:04] the EAC here present. Um B publishes
notices
[1:25:10] in the PA bulletin. They have public
comment periods. In this case,
[1:25:16] um it ended but then it was extended.
Um basically the deadline for public
[1:25:23] comment is about February 10th or
something like that now. and the AC
[1:25:30] wanted to wanted to see if they could
get permission from the supervisors to
[1:25:34] send a letter during that public comment
period um to to ask for a public hearing
[1:25:40] um which was sort of the same procedural
thing that happened with the East
[1:25:43] Strasburg wastewater plant. Um, in
addition to that, there were some
[1:25:47] concerns that they raised at the
meeting. Um, in particular, it's also
[1:25:51] worth noting that this wastewater
treatment plant district is very close
[1:25:55] to Rivers Edge and Men Park. By very
close, I mean within hundreds of feet.
[1:26:01] So, it's, you know, kind of like right
there. Um
[1:26:05] there's some concerns with some of the
outdated technology
[1:26:10] and the EAC wanted to emphasize upgrades
to best available technology. And then
[1:26:15] it was also noted that during the Rivers
Edge master site development plan when I
[1:26:20] looked into it and I brought to this
AC's attention
[1:26:24] um after they discussed it there were
endangered aquatic species that were
[1:26:28] identified in that vicinity. So the so
that was included in the draft. So there
[1:26:34] was a draft letter put together and it's
basically just a draft just to because
[1:26:38] the AC wants to see if they had your
blessing to send this or a version of it
[1:26:42] to the D and that was kind of how they
left it. I don't know if council member
[1:26:46] was going to comment at all or
>> the reason the reason I asked Russ to
[1:26:50] stick around a few minutes was this that
um couple of years ago we uh had our
[1:26:57] engineering do a survey of that plant
and
[1:27:01] » [clears throat]
>> um there were some repairs necessities.
[1:27:05] I just wonder Russ if you remember any
of the highlights of that might um be
[1:27:11] relevant to what we're talking about
now. No, I don't have any of that
[1:27:14] information handy. I I I just don't
recall. Okay, Robert,
[1:27:19] » one second.
>> Can I just So I can understand um
[1:27:23] [clears throat]
the main
[1:27:27] point of this letter is requesting that
PA uh the D make a public meeting of
[1:27:34] this because they don't normally do a
public meeting. Is that correct?
[1:27:36] » That's correct. And the main reason for
the public meeting is a recommendation
[1:27:41] from the EAC. I mean, I see four points,
but it's basically one point that you
[1:27:45] think PA Americans should move to UV uh
disinfecting from chlorine. Is that
[1:27:51] correct? Is there anything else that I'm
missing here?
[1:27:54] » Wait, one more thing. I have another
thing. I'm sorry.
[1:27:57] » That's one technological upgrades that
were identified as um
[1:28:05] sort of best available technology that
we know other plants. I believe the
[1:28:08] Smithfield sort already has UV that if
they were
[1:28:11] » that's what this says. And is there is
chlorine not no longer allowed as a
[1:28:15] sort. I'm just
>> I'm trying to understand what
[1:28:19] » what I'm part of me is trying to
understand the jurisdiction that the
[1:28:23] township has here because my
understanding is this is entirely
[1:28:26] governed by D.
>> That's why we need you to sign the D
[1:28:30] with us.
>> Right. But and so this idea sort of
[1:28:33] makes us a party but it'd be great to be
at a party
[1:28:38] um to be a party member but do we have
any jurisdiction? I just don't I don't
[1:28:41] know the answer to that. I don't that's
the question to you Ron. I mean what
[1:28:44] sort of jurisdiction do we have to
govern
[1:28:47] » um this even if I agree with it 100% yes
it should be recommended
[1:28:52] » say it it's kind of the same and we're
not talking about it legally but it's
[1:28:57] like Strasburg weighs in you know with
Panda and D on the permitting for the
[1:29:02] theoretical 80 expansion and whatnot
>> and get nowhere on it. [laughter]
[1:29:07] » I'm not going to tell you that I dis I'm
not going to tell you I disagree with
[1:29:10] that. Um, I do think that DP has been
kind of responsive in this area and Alex
[1:29:16] could probably talk about it more than I
in terms of like and know this is not an
[1:29:20] NPDES permit.
>> This is
[1:29:23] » No, it's it's an NPDS permit for waste
water.
[1:29:26] » Okay.
>> So, it's a permit renewal. They they
[1:29:29] only come once every 5 years, Mr.
Chairman. That's the other thing, right?
[1:29:33] You miss it since we got five years of
whatever they're dumping.
[1:29:37] » There's another question. Have you also
looked into the wastewater treatment
[1:29:41] plant of the paper mill and what they
use?
[1:29:45] » Well, they're not up for renewal. We can
do that next definitely. But what I'm
[1:29:50] saying, this particular facility is
bought by a million dollar a billion
[1:29:55] dollar company. Um, it is public record
that they are polluting. Um, we're well
[1:30:02] above healthc care standards in the
water, although it's not illegal.
[1:30:08] Um, Act 537 says that there should be
some upgrades going on.
[1:30:15] They they do claim that they're doing
upgrades, but you cannot find an upgrade
[1:30:21] list or a timeline list any
>> so for all I know they're doing upgrades
[1:30:27] on their office
>> or anyone to speak to as far as
[1:30:30] » So yeah, you can't speak to. So the only
person and I did ask this a couple of
[1:30:36] meetings ago directly to Michael who
said you have to go to the D of which we
[1:30:42] did intern do we went to the D. So all
like all we're asking you is to maybe
[1:30:51] check inside some of these
situations. This is a billion dollar
[1:30:57] company. They have money to upgrade the
facility. This is also our area that
[1:31:04] they are dumping into.
>> Right. Let me just clarify that the
[1:31:09] procedural posture here. I added it to
the agenda basically to join and
[1:31:14] requesting the hearing just so we can
get that information. It doesn't
[1:31:18] want
>> Well, yeah. I'm just saying it doesn't
[1:31:21] » obligate us to a position.
>> No.
[1:31:24] » Yeah. No, I know. I'm just
>> and I want to the reason part of the
[1:31:27] reason I asked too is to highlight that
you can have the public hearing doesn't
[1:31:31] mean anything's going to change and it
doesn't necessarily mean that we're
[1:31:33] going to have any power to make any
change. I want to make sure that's
[1:31:36] clear. You can do this that doesn't mean
>> it's
[1:31:41] Michael.
[1:31:45] » Okay. Um, we all collecting enough
information to vote on the letter.
[1:31:53] » Oh, I mean my question was to
>> All you're doing is basically saying we
[1:31:58] want a public hearing so we can make our
comments. Whether or not they'll listen
[1:32:02] to those comments or whether they'll
announce I don't know but you're
[1:32:06] basically saying is
>> as the chair said when you do a have a
[1:32:09] pen do permit pendot usually sends a
letter when they're doing their review
[1:32:13] and say do you want to make any comments
you have any comments about any comments
[1:32:17] about that even though pen do makes the
call the comment the township can still
[1:32:22] weigh in so that's what you're doing
you're saying we want to weigh in
[1:32:26] » right I just see it as a mechanism
because I think the AC did this on their
[1:32:29] own before I I think it it looks better
if it comes from from us too
[1:32:34] appreciating you know their concerns and
then if we do have any comment
[1:32:38] ultimately Alex you'd be the one
>> well and I just want the other thing is
[1:32:41] I from a technology standpoint and
I don't know if UV is better than
[1:32:48] chlorine I mean the last thing I want is
just feces going into the broadhead
[1:32:52] that's been
a lamps put on it so before I ever
[1:32:58] submitted something saying I'm
advocating for UV light on on sewage as
[1:33:04] opposed to chlorine which for my history
it seems like that is a better way to
[1:33:08] kill the sewage. I would like to sort of
make sure that is true before I sign my
[1:33:13] name's something recommending um it go a
certain way that that's the other thing
[1:33:19] » right
>> all right so accordingly we could make
[1:33:25] uh
>> but we're not doing that right now we're
[1:33:26] just saying we want a public hearing
>> yeah so so I'll just I'll differentiate
[1:33:31] when I ask for a motion in a second that
you know BAC can submit this should
[1:33:36] should they want to but hours would be
uh stinct then I mean or edit the letter
[1:33:44] uh and
>> why don't we do this why don't we have a
[1:33:46] letter why don't we have a letter that's
come from the township that's very
[1:33:50] simple that says based on this based on
the attack recommendation from the um
[1:33:55] Smithfield um environmental advisory
council we would request that you host
[1:34:00] and then just repeat the first
>> and then they're both attached
[1:34:05] » perfect you make that motion by
>> I I just did
[1:34:08] » motion by Mr. Sarah Alair second. Mr.
Levenheim discussion. All in favor? I.
[1:34:15] » Okay. We will now proceed to general
public comment. Um [clears throat] if
[1:34:20] you'd like, uh please come up to the
podium and state your name uh and where
[1:34:25] you live and then we'll uh start the
time. But any public
[1:34:31] » are you going to ask us on Zoom?
>> Yeah.
[1:34:35] » Can I go ahead and jump in? Sure.
Go ahead.
[1:34:40] » So, so I have a question. I have a
question about back nine. So, you have
[1:34:44] an injunction and you're shutting these
people's track down because of sound,
[1:34:48] correct?
[1:34:51] » No. the the the appeal that is in place
is around the operation of a business
[1:34:58] motocross facility uh which
by our township zoning officer is not an
[1:35:04] allowed use in the R1 zone.
>> How does that affect people riding on
[1:35:08] their personal land if they're not doing
a business? It seems pretty easy you
[1:35:12] could just go ahead and let them ride
and say you can't have a business. Am I
[1:35:14] wrong there?
>> You want to pause the timer again just
[1:35:19] to answer that but we in fact
uh made an offer to do just that for the
[1:35:24] folks affected that you know reside
there.
[1:35:28] » That was the offer that just went out.
It should be said that
[1:35:31] » No, it wasn't. You you said people under
21, which is lunacy to me. Why would
[1:35:36] that matter? Somebody's age. Wouldn't it
be more like limit the number of
[1:35:39] motorcycles?
[1:35:43] » We appreciate the the feedback, but
we're going to let our owners stand.
[1:35:48] » Hold on. You can't give me a reason on
that age thing because it doesn't make
[1:35:51] any logical sense. If you could just
tell me, it'd be pretty simple, right?
[1:35:56] Do you not have an answer?
>> Um, I mean, we do have an answer. I'm
[1:36:00] happy to talk about it with the with the
lawyer. Um,
[1:36:05] » why can't you do it publicly?
[1:36:09] » Hold on. It's not question answer.
You can continue to to to make a
[1:36:14] comment. The purpose of this was to give
the Burn Boys and their friends the
[1:36:17] opportunity to ride on track um and not
for this to be a motocross facility.
[1:36:24] That's that's the answer.
>> Yeah. Which is wild because I ride and
[1:36:28] I'm well older than 21 now. I can't go
ride at the Burns House just simply
[1:36:32] because of this law that you guys are
putting in or this injunction. That's
[1:36:35] lunacy.
the the judge actually
[1:36:41] gave us this opportunity to present it
on the same. He doesn't care.
[1:36:45] » No, I do care. I'm just curious as to I
think it's one of the it just doesn't
[1:36:49] make sense to me logically as why you
would choose a specific age. I see what
[1:36:52] you're saying, but what you're saying
doesn't make sense.
[1:36:55] » Well,
I think there's a trust issue as well,
[1:37:01] being perfectly honest.
>> So, you don't trust adults, but you
[1:37:04] trust kids?
>> No, I don't trust that. if we leave it
[1:37:07] open to anyone that it won't become a
motocross facility.
[1:37:10] » How about you deal with that later and
you just go ahead and actually let them
[1:37:14] use their land the way they're supposed
to and then if they violate that then
[1:37:17] you shut it down if you catch them
running as a business.
[1:37:19] » We're not doing cross talk.
>> Yeah, we had cross talk.
[1:37:26] » That's my answer
if we came to that conclusion that could
[1:37:34] will offer
Goodwill offered to use their land to
[1:37:39] their choice. My goodness, I thought
this was the United States.
[1:37:42] » The judge, which the judge specifically
said was our it was up to us and unless
[1:37:48] we allowed that that it would not be
allowed to use any motorcycle on the
[1:37:52] property. Correct.
>> Okay.
[1:37:55] » All right. Gentleman's time's expired.
I'm going to go to
[1:37:59] say Mr. Reinhardt or Reinhardt. Uh
>> Dr. Reinhardt. Um yeah, Dr. Philip
[1:38:04] Reinhardt. Um, so I think this is a good
start. I think it's good that you guys
[1:38:07] are trying to get these kids back to
riding. I think it's pretty aware that
[1:38:11] this area has a drug problem and keeping
kids off of drugs. I mean, I don't know
[1:38:16] if you guys know, we have methadone
clinics here. We have overdoses left and
[1:38:19] right. Half of my graduating class is
addicted to something or in recovery.
[1:38:23] Um, these kind of sports will keep these
kids off of those kind of problems in
[1:38:28] society. So, I think allowing them is a
good first start. But I do share the
[1:38:33] kind of concern that this is somebody's
private property. Dictating who is
[1:38:36] welcome on that property to do what is
kind of an overreach in my opinion. I
[1:38:40] wouldn't come to your property and say,
"Hey, you know, you can't have somebody
[1:38:43] over 21 mowing your lawn next to my
property mine." Right? Uh and even if
[1:38:47] they did want to start a business, I I
think there's a major problem where
[1:38:51] they're going to be restricting property
rights for people that want to develop
[1:38:53] businesses uh because a neighbor doesn't
like it, right?
[1:38:59] Um, you know, I live right near Shauny
Mountain. I have to hear a worring
[1:39:04] noise, you know, all winter long from
snowblowers. I would never come in and
[1:39:09] say, "Hey, as a annoyed neighbor, I have
the authority to come and tell you guys
[1:39:11] you can't run a business there." Because
I recognize the benefit to the
[1:39:15] community. And I think the same thing
happens here. So, like I said, I I I I'm
[1:39:20] happy that you guys are moving forward
with something to at least get these
[1:39:23] kids to have some sort of positive
outlet that they could do with their
[1:39:26] life. I think you're still extending
your authority far beyond what it should
[1:39:29] be. Regardless of what a court may say,
America is built on life, liberty, and
[1:39:33] property, right? That's the decisions
are the things that the government
[1:39:36] you're supposed to protect people's
access to do the things that they want
[1:39:38] with those three things. Um, and I think
there's a lot of local tyranny happening
[1:39:42] here, keeping a family from using their
property.
[1:39:45] » Thank
[1:39:52] go ahead, Terry.
>> Hi, my name is Terry Vanza Martin. I
[1:39:56] live in Chestnut Hill Township. I'm
going to be 70 years old this year. I
[1:40:01] wanted you to know that I in my day
would go to snowmobile grass races at
[1:40:07] East Straburg airport. So, I'm really
familiar with the area. I was president
[1:40:12] of our homeowner association from 1999
to 2003. I'm a mother of 10. Um, I am a
[1:40:20] woman that uh was an involved president.
that we had a lot of kids playing
[1:40:25] basketball at our recreation center and
they were like my kids and I loved them
[1:40:31] and I had an older son that had
I was here. Okay. But some of the kids
[1:40:38] parents had to commute. So I'm going to
tell you that within a 1 to two mile
[1:40:43] radius
15 of those kids are dead.
[1:40:49] By the time my son was 44, he never used
drugs or alcohol. He had three heart
[1:40:55] attacks because he had to carry the
coffins
[1:41:00] of his friends. And in August, I had a
client that was 26 that committed
[1:41:06] suicide.
And in September, I was asked to check
[1:41:09] on my neighbor's son, Johnny, the one
that used to ride his ATVs up and down
[1:41:13] the road and get yelled at.
And when me and the state police officer
[1:41:18] walked in to do a well-being check, I
turned the corner. He was dead on the
[1:41:22] floor. This is Johnny, okay? He's 26
year old man with two kids, but he was
[1:41:29] dead. Same kid that used to got yelled
at when he was riding his ATV.
[1:41:35] And uh
I'm just saying there's got to be a
[1:41:39] middle ground. And that we have to
remember this is private property. But
[1:41:43] it grieves my soul personally to see
this. These kids aren't going to stay
[1:41:50] little long. My kids grew up. My kids
grew up
[1:41:56] and they grew up real quick and these
kids aren't going to be little long. And
[1:41:59] boy, I'll tell you, I know the judge
ruled one way, but we're really pushing
[1:42:03] the line with overreach with the
government. I want you to know I so much
[1:42:08] appreciate your offer
um to these people, but
[1:42:13] you know, it changed me forever. I drive
PSO's basketball courts. They're not
[1:42:18] there. They're dead.
Thank you for listening.
[1:42:23] » Thank you, Terry. We appreciate your
comment.
[1:42:27] » I wonder am I able to talk?
>> Yes, Tammy. Go ahead.
[1:42:33] Actually, I just have a question, two
questions for the supervisors.
[1:42:39] Um, I wonder what your process is when
somebody applies for a job. What do you
[1:42:44] require? I mean, as far as is experience
in that. The other question is, how do
[1:42:52] you feel if someone did apply for a job
and had to bring their um application
[1:43:00] back because they were harassed on
social media,
[1:43:05] which we kind of know that that has
happened. I want to know your feelings
[1:43:10] on that because it does reflect the
township and a lot of the residents
[1:43:16] um are concerned about that. So I
wondered if you had any comment.
[1:43:22] » You want to pause your camera? I just
>> Hold on, Katie. You can have your own
[1:43:27] comment, but I'm not going to do
>> individual individual response to her,
[1:43:32] but Tammy, I I I share your perspective
and I think you know that we spoke
[1:43:36] earlier today and you know, I I will let
my two colleagues speak for themselves.
[1:43:41] Um but at least for the appointments of
of various commissions and whatnot um
[1:43:47] everyone had to submit a resume or cover
letter etc. And then they were
[1:43:51] interviewed by Alex uh extensively I
think in in most cases and then
[1:43:57] recommendations ultimately made to the
board uh at least with the information
[1:44:02] all the information a couple of weeks
ago. So that's that's all I can say, but
[1:44:06] I'll I'll defer to supervisors Alber and
Levvenheim if they have other comments
[1:44:11] that they wanted to [clears throat] to
say. And and let me just please say that
[1:44:14] I don't want this to become
>> I agree, Ron.
[1:44:19] » Oh,
>> I'm saying I don't want this to be, you
[1:44:22] know, call response, but if if you so
choose one, you know, so chose to
[1:44:26] respond, you can. But I'm going to, you
know,
[1:44:30] » I don't have any comments on that.
>> Okay. Nothing. I'll respond and then um
[1:44:35] I think u I know the the uh person in
question you're talking about and I had
[1:44:41] never seen any u any uh applications
resume submitted and then I heard that
[1:44:47] this individual had withdrawn that's all
I know and it's like you know if you
[1:44:53] don't want the position fine but um uh I
can't comment on why or or what the
[1:45:01] process was only that the application
was withdrawn and was no longer under
[1:45:07] consideration.
[1:45:12] » Well, I mean, I wasn't going to make
comment, but
[1:45:16] » the supervisors are aware that this
person withdrew because they were
[1:45:19] harassed and bullied online. Um,
>> yeah,
[1:45:22] » that said,
>> yeah,
[1:45:24] » with the application went through his
prompt, so that person's not in
[1:45:27] contention. Whether they would have been
or not is irrelevant. And by the way,
[1:45:31] that statement that it was um whether or
not that's true or not, I don't know
[1:45:34] that.
>> That's what I'm saying. You have no way
[1:45:36] of knowing that was what the people, you
know, react on. So I I understand that.
[1:45:42] So Tammy, anything else? You have uh two
minutes that Katie, I'll get you in in a
[1:45:47] moment, but
I just wanted to know the response of
[1:45:51] that because I'm, you know, it concerns
me. It concerns me that [snorts]
[1:45:58] this township I feel is being bullied
lately and that's not how you make
[1:46:02] decisions
and and a lot of the residents feel that
[1:46:07] way. So I just want to make you aware of
that.
[1:46:12] Thank you.
>> I appreciate it. Thank you Tammy.
[1:46:17] » Okay.
I'd like to also state that um and it is
[1:46:23] available on all of the YouTube um
township meetings that I have also been
[1:46:29] harassed and bullied
by certain members of the township
[1:46:35] that I will not name and I did not
withdraw my application.
[1:46:42] At first, certain people were very for
me and then they found out where I lived
[1:46:48] and then I was harassed and bullied
online. It is available.
[1:46:55] You can all see it on any of the YouTube
videos
[1:47:01] and I did not withdraw my application.
So, if somebody else decided they
[1:47:09] couldn't handle the heat and they got
out of the kitchen,
[1:47:13] I feel like my apologies,
but I stood here
[1:47:19] and I withheld it. Okay, back.
>> Any other
[1:47:26] entertain motion to adjurnn?
>> Second.
[1:47:30] » All right.
>> All motion to motion by Mr. there.
[1:47:33] Second by all in favor
>> I3
[1:47:40] Thank you everyone.