[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.

Smithfield Twp. Board of Supervisors Meeting - January 28, 2026

Transcript