[0:10] Madame President, we are recording.
[0:12] » Thank you and good evening everyone.
[0:14] Welcome to Swapmore BO Council's work
[0:16] session for September 8th, 2026. We'll
[0:20] start with roll call. Miss Garland
[0:21] » Here.
[0:22] » Mr. Theion
[0:23] » Here.
[0:24] » Miss Thompson here. Miss Zang
[0:26] » Here. Miss McCloud
[0:28] » Here.
[0:28] » Mr. Bonan
[0:29] » Here.
[0:30] » Mayor Booth
[0:30] » Here,
[0:31] » Manager
[0:32] » Here,
[0:33] » Assistant manager Ashcom
[0:35] » Present,
[0:35] » And solicitor Scott
[0:36] » Here.
[0:38] » We're going to take a few things out of
[0:39] order this evening to accommodate some
[0:41] schedules. And we're going to begin with
[0:43] the president section. And I'm going to
[0:45] make a little statement.
[0:49] Before we begin tonight, I want to
[0:51] briefly address a concern that was
[0:52] recently raised about a potential
[0:54] conflict of interest involving planning
[0:57] commission chair James Lavine and his
[0:59] law firm's representation of Swathmore
[1:01] College. We take this concern very
[1:04] seriously and therefore we've asked for
[1:06] a solicitor to review the matter and
[1:08] give us his legal opinion and some
[1:10] guidance. We also recognize that
[1:12] regardless of this legal determination,
[1:15] the circumstances could create questions
[1:17] about the appearance of a conflict and
[1:19] we want to make sure the process going
[1:20] forward is clear and above reproach.
[1:23] So, and without prejudicing prejudging,
[1:26] sorry, we're prejudicing the situation.
[1:29] James has been instructed not to
[1:31] deliberate or vote on any land
[1:32] development plan or other proposal
[1:35] submitted by Swathmore College so long
[1:37] as he remains affiliated with Troutman
[1:39] Pepper Lock and the college remains a
[1:41] client of that firm. The vice chair or
[1:44] another commission member will instead
[1:47] take the lead on these matters. We
[1:49] believe these steps are the best way to
[1:51] protect public confidence in the
[1:52] planning commission's work and council's
[1:54] ability to independently consider any
[1:56] college matter that comes before it. We
[1:58] will continue to handle this situation
[2:00] carefully and take the solicitor's
[2:02] guidance into account as we move
[2:03] forward. Thank you.
[2:08] Okay, we're going to just finish out
[2:10] under president since we're already
[2:11] here. Um, can I get a motion to approve
[2:14] the August 3rd, 2026
[2:17] work session minutes?
[2:20] » Is there a second?
[2:21] » Second.
[2:22] » Does anyone have any
[2:23] » Second?
[2:24] » Anyone have any comments?
[2:27] I think I do. I think there's a date.
[2:30] Yeah. Under president, it says um Mr.
[2:33] Boon's motion to approve the July 6,
[2:35] 2025
[2:37] council minutes were second was
[2:38] seconded. So, it should be 26. Catch
[2:41] that.
[2:43] Shame.
[2:45] » Any other comments?
[2:47] All in favor?
[2:48] » I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Um, can I
[2:52] get a motion for the approval of the
[2:54] September 2nd, 2026 special committee
[2:57] meeting minutes?
[2:58] » So moved.
[2:59] » Is there a second?
[3:01] » Second.
[3:02] » Any any comments about uh those minutes?
[3:06] » Do we vote if we weren't there?
[3:08] » Yeah.
[3:09] » Not.
[3:10] » That's right.
[3:10] » Not needed for you can, but no need to.
[3:13] It seems we got plenty of people here
[3:15] today.
[3:15] » Yeah.
[3:16] » All in favor?
[3:18] » Any opposed? Um uh
[3:22] » Abstaining. I wasn't there.
[3:24] » Okay. So we have one, two, three.
[3:27] » One, two, three extensions. Okay.
[3:31] » Noted.
[3:32] » Okay. Next, um I would like to bring up
[3:35] Aaron Hartung, a member of the
[3:37] Centennial Foundation, who will be
[3:39] presenting a very special gift to the
[3:41] burrow. And I'll let her explain what it
[3:44] is. Yes, please.
[3:50] All right. Um, my name is Aron Hartung.
[3:51] I'm uh, vice president of the Sworthmore
[3:53] Centennial Foundation. I'm here today to
[3:55] present a gift to the burrow on behalf
[3:57] of the Centennial Foundation. Um, in uh,
[4:00] 2020, we commissioned um, this piece of
[4:03] art that I will show and many of you may
[4:05] have seen. This is a a painting by local
[4:09] artist uh Robert Bonet um of the um the
[4:13] beautiful parkletits um and uh and
[4:16] greenery along Park Avenue that were um
[4:19] uh placed there in the wake of the co 19
[4:21] pandemic and allowed many uh local
[4:23] restaurants to stay in business. Uh we
[4:25] had commissioned this painting as a
[4:26] fundraiser for the foundation and now we
[4:28] are envy and sold prints of it and now
[4:30] we're pleased to present the original as
[4:31] a gift to the borrow. Thank you so much.
[4:41] Thank you. I'm sure we'll find we'll
[4:44] find a picture.
[4:46] » We'll find a beautiful place
[4:49] to place
[4:51] it.
[4:51] » Thank you.
[4:52] » Thank you.
[4:55] Put it on the chair back. You want the
[4:57] cardboard? Yeah.
[5:00] » All right.
[5:08] Thank you very much and our thanks to
[5:09] the Centennial Foundation.
[5:13] » Okay. Uh public comment. Al, do you want
[5:16] to take it from here?
[5:17] » Yep.
[5:20] » All right. First speaker for this
[5:21] evening, uh Richard Newton, please come
[5:24] to the stand. You have three minutes
[5:26] when you begin speaking.
[5:28] » Councilman Michael, microphone's off,
[5:30] please, except for Jill, please.
[5:39] Uh Rich Newton, 316 South Chester Road,
[5:43] corner of Westdale and Southchester. Uh
[5:46] as you'll be aware, the college and TCDN
[5:49] are studying the feasibility of locating
[5:52] a 100 place daycare facility on Harvard
[5:55] Avenue beside Mary Lion Hall.
[5:59] I fully support, as many of the
[6:01] neighbors do, expanding daycare
[6:04] provision within the Swathmore
[6:05] community. My concern, however, is
[6:08] whether this is the right site.
[6:12] It is a small, heavily treed and
[6:14] constrained site on a quiet neighborhood
[6:17] street hemmed in by the steep slope down
[6:20] to Yale and Crumb Creek. A facility at
[6:23] this scale will require removal of many
[6:26] large mature trees, generate substantial
[6:29] additional traffic from daily drop off
[6:32] and pick up likely hundreds of cars
[6:34] movement at the most congested congested
[6:38] time of day. Importantly, the site also
[6:41] appears to lie entirely within the INB
[6:44] 200 ft perimeter transition area where
[6:49] the zoning code specifically calls for
[6:52] compatibility with adjoining land uses
[6:56] and streetscapes. Our recently adopted
[6:59] comprehensive plan similarly calls for
[7:02] development to be thoughtful, deliberate
[7:04] and sensitive to the existing context
[7:08] and for appropriate transitions between
[7:10] the college and surrounding
[7:12] neighborhoods.
[7:14] So for me the question is not simply
[7:16] whether a 100 place child care facility
[7:20] can technically be accommodated on the
[7:22] site but whether this is the site that
[7:25] it should be located. I would therefore
[7:27] encourage the burough to ask the college
[7:30] to share the criteria and comparative
[7:33] site assessment that led to this
[7:36] location being considered and most
[7:40] importantly
[7:42] to reconsider whether another site
[7:44] within its extensive land holdings could
[7:47] accommodate this important facility with
[7:50] substantially less impact on the
[7:52] immediately surrounding
[7:55] neighborhood neighborhood neighborhood.
[7:56] the residential community. Thank you.
[8:00] » Thank you.
[8:07] » Next up, we have Haven Wel.
[8:11] You have three minutes to speak uh when
[8:13] you begin speaking.
[8:24] » All right. Hi, Bro Council. Uh, my name
[8:26] is Haven Winsel, 500 College Avenue. I
[8:28] suppose the residence for right now. I'm
[8:30] a junior at Sworthmore College and this
[8:32] summer I had the pleasure to work for
[8:33] the burrow on the records retention
[8:36] policy or excuse me, record retention
[8:39] project. Sorry, a little nervous. It's
[8:40] the first time I've spoken for council
[8:42] before. Um, I wanted to share a little
[8:45] bit about my experience and what it
[8:46] meant to me as well as the impact
[8:48] hopefully that it has for the bureau.
[8:50] Um, so I should mention my in
[8:52] professional interest is in cities and
[8:53] the development. And so I approached uh
[8:56] manager Dave in the spring about
[8:58] potentially helping out the the burrow.
[9:00] And he called me back sometime later
[9:01] asking what did I think about uh
[9:03] municipal record detention. I said let's
[9:06] do it. Uh
[9:09] um and so we we started uh and I thought
[9:14] and I found the project to be really
[9:15] revealing about the development of
[9:16] Sworthmore and I found it absolutely
[9:18] fascinating. Um, I'm originally from
[9:21] Oregon and so I didn't know as much as I
[9:23] probably should have about the area. And
[9:24] it was wonderful as we went through
[9:25] these files from the 1920s onward to
[9:27] learn about how Sworthmore grew and
[9:29] developed from this small cute quaint
[9:31] town to this small cute quaint town that
[9:33] still is today. Um, yeah. And so from my
[9:37] you know personal understanding learned
[9:39] a lot about the bid process how local
[9:40] government was organized and uh the
[9:42] degree like absolute collaboration
[9:44] between local brooks which is absolutely
[9:46] fascinating and working with some of the
[9:48] local you know wonderful historical uh
[9:50] society volunteers some of which may be
[9:52] present here today um that helped
[9:55] provide like a lot of context for the
[9:57] actual documents that we went through
[9:59] and a lot of things that I personally
[10:02] didn't realize to be so important such
[10:04] as street resurfacing and street
[10:06] repaving and street widening, which
[10:08] apparently comes across the local
[10:09] municipalities desk more often than I
[10:11] realized before. Um, and so I find it
[10:14] absolutely fascinating how that all
[10:15] those records paint an absolute picture
[10:17] of how the uh burrow operated. Um, and I
[10:21] thought many of the town discussions
[10:22] that those records captured in the
[10:24] 1950s, the 1970s, the 1990s, and onward
[10:27] about parking meters and traffic and
[10:29] development are still discussions that,
[10:30] you know, come up today even now. And my
[10:32] hope is that these records, you know,
[10:34] they're a little bit more organized, can
[10:35] be used for future discussions, and
[10:37] hopefully eliminate some of these some
[10:38] of these points going forward. Um, and
[10:41] hopefully this will help Lisa her filing
[10:43] going forward uh as well that I wanted
[10:46] to say thank you for this opportunity to
[10:48] learn. Um, and I'm very appreciative to
[10:51] uh all the folks that we worked with,
[10:52] the local historical society,
[10:55] uh, and Elise for this opportunity and
[10:57] to help everyone out.
[11:00] » Thank you so much.
[11:07] A did a great job.
[11:08] » Yeah, thank you.
[11:12] » Next up, we have a Scott Draper.
[11:18] » Scott, you have three minutes when you
[11:20] begin speaking.
[11:31] Good evening. I'm Scott Draper. I have
[11:34] two parts to cover tonight. The first is
[11:36] my public comment that will be followed
[11:38] by sharing public comments from 10
[11:40] residents.
[11:42] I stand today as both the business owner
[11:44] of Easy Composting and a proud resident
[11:47] of this burrow for 30 years. The
[11:50] opportunity to serve this community for
[11:51] the past year has been the highlight of
[11:54] my career. the capstone of my mission to
[11:56] create business platforms that enable
[11:59] communities to be better together. I've
[12:02] been proud to see program participation
[12:05] to witness a significant leap towards
[12:08] our zerowaste goals and to work
[12:10] handinand with neighbors some of whom
[12:12] have and or will speak today toward a
[12:16] shared mission to make our community
[12:18] stronger and greener. I am passionate
[12:21] about what I do and I hope that easy
[12:24] composting has played a small role in
[12:26] making caring for our earth a little
[12:30] easier for residents of Swathmore.
[12:35] And while I'm proud of what we've done,
[12:37] I can also say that we can do better
[12:40] here tonight and in sitting and
[12:42] listening in previous Burough meetings.
[12:45] I've heard the voices of residents and
[12:47] council members providing important
[12:49] feedback, insights into areas where easy
[12:52] composting can improve to better serve
[12:54] our community.
[12:56] Over the past weeks and months, I've
[12:59] taken these insights, consulted with
[13:01] trusted experts in the field and arrived
[13:03] at a plan of action to move easy
[13:06] composting forward and Swathmore forward
[13:09] in our goal of zero waste.
[13:13] Community feedback is very important to
[13:15] us. It was recently highlighted that
[13:18] in-person communication was an area in
[13:21] need of improvement. I'm excited to
[13:23] announce our new locally based route
[13:27] manager, Dawn,
[13:31] will be available to meet with Burough
[13:33] staff and residents within 48 hours
[13:35] notice. Additionally, we're seeing bins
[13:39] left out after routes have started. This
[13:42] is understandable with composting being
[13:43] a new program. To make it easier for
[13:46] residents to remember, we're providing
[13:48] residents with notification reminders
[13:50] for collections. To sign up, just email
[13:54] hello@ easycomposting.com.
[13:57] To tonight's attendees and council
[14:00] members, thank you for giving Easy
[14:02] Composting the opportunity to serve you
[14:05] this year. And on a personal note, as a
[14:08] 30-year resident, thank you for the
[14:10] privilege of allowing me to play a small
[14:13] role in the history of this town, I am
[14:16] eager to hear your thoughts and am
[14:18] committed to working with council
[14:20] members, burough staff, and any and all
[14:23] members of this community to ensure that
[14:25] we provide a service Swathmore residents
[14:28] can count on for years to come.
[14:35] May I provide the comments from the
[14:37] residents?
[14:38] » Yeah, sure.
[14:41] » This is Margaret B on Fairview. While
[14:44] serving on the Swathmore EAC, I learned
[14:48] about easy composting from a fellow
[14:50] member who recommended their service as
[14:53] an easy, affordable, and environmental
[14:56] solution to ensuring compostable waste
[14:59] didn't end up in landfills. Their
[15:01] service was always friendly, effective.
[15:04] The few times I had questions or issues,
[15:07] I received quick and friendly email
[15:09] responses that helped fix the situation.
[15:12] I was thrilled when the burrow
[15:14] officially created a composting service
[15:16] with Easy Composting.
[15:18] Their service continued to be friendly
[15:20] and effective. I hope the burrow will
[15:23] take seriously my endorsement of easy
[15:26] composting as well as the environmental
[15:28] need for composting in general.
[15:33] Jack G on strap statement. We've used
[15:36] easy composting since before Swathmore's
[15:39] burrow wide program began and our
[15:42] experience has been consistently
[15:44] positive. The curbside service is
[15:47] reliable and convenient, and we've
[15:49] appreciated the responsive customer
[15:51] service and connection to a local
[15:53] provider. Please feel free to share this
[15:56] with Burough Council as firsthand
[15:57] feedback about our experience with the
[16:00] program.
[16:06] Maria M on Ruckers. You've made it easy,
[16:10] affordable, and pleasurable for a
[16:12] beginning composter like me to start
[16:14] making a difference in Swathmore. Always
[16:16] great communication with questions, etc.
[16:19] Always friendly pickups. Thank you,
[16:24] Julia M on Chestnut.
[16:27] We've been very happy with Easy
[16:28] Composting for several years now, even
[16:31] before it became the Burrows program.
[16:33] It's been easy and convenient with
[16:35] responsive service. We strongly support
[16:37] M curbside composting in Swathmore.
[16:43] Cesaly V on Elm, I read the Swathmore,
[16:47] but I don't get into the weeds when it
[16:49] comes to some local controversies.
[16:51] I gathered from your letter to the
[16:53] editor a couple weeks ago that the issue
[16:55] arose over where easy takes the food
[16:57] waste to be composted. Sometimes these
[17:00] folks think everything can be done hyper
[17:02] locally. It's okay that the farmers at
[17:06] the Saturday market drive here from
[17:08] Lancaster County. I understood from your
[17:11] letter that Delo that the Delo facility
[17:14] would not make the necessary commitments
[17:16] in writing. So you go to and that
[17:19] you have clients in other locations etc.
[17:21] I support the Berto's contract with you
[17:24] and have enjoyed excellent service with
[17:26] Easy since 2023.
[17:29] As another sub subscriber said, I also
[17:32] much appreciated Easy coming by the day
[17:36] after I failed to put my bucket out
[17:38] early. You have responded promptly to
[17:40] every email I've sent. My regular trash
[17:44] rarely has any food in it, so it doesn't
[17:47] smell or attract pests.
[17:49] » Scott, I'm just going to ask that you
[17:50] maybe summarize a little bit more and
[17:52] wrap it up.
[17:54] » Just trying to quote like
[17:55] » I understand.
[17:57] » I literally have
[17:58] » Yeah, why don't you send it to us if you
[18:00] will?
[18:00] » Okay. Can I just There's like one I want
[18:02] to end with if that's possible.
[18:03] » Yeah.
[18:04] » Okay. Um,
[18:08] I'm fine with including me as a
[18:10] supporter of easy compost arrangement. I
[18:12] think your explanation will prevail.
[18:15] » All right, I'll skip a few and I'll get
[18:17] to the
[18:17] » Yeah, let's wrap it up.
[18:18] » Okay, thank you. Um, Susanna H on
[18:21] Swathmore. Happy to lend my support
[18:23] here. We strongly believe that
[18:24] composting is an essential part of
[18:26] caring for the place we are privileged
[18:28] to call home. Not only does composting
[18:30] significantly decrease the amount of
[18:33] trash sent to landfills, it regenerates
[18:35] food scraps into compost, which
[18:38] nourishes the earth without chemicals
[18:40] that could harm humans, as well as all
[18:43] the living organisms we share this space
[18:46] with, from foxes to bees to earthworms.
[18:48] We've composted with Easy Composting for
[18:50] years, even before the burrow contracted
[18:52] with them. And we've always been pleased
[18:55] with the level of service. It's
[18:57] important for this service to continue
[18:58] with a local company committed to the
[19:00] burrow and its residents.
[19:02] » Thank you very much.
[19:08] » Uh Jane Billings,
[19:11] you have three minutes. When you take
[19:12] the stand
[19:18] » Who is
[19:22] » Really the parklets and and uh co was
[19:26] enough to send me spiraling back to uh
[19:29] uh memories. But we did a great job. We
[19:31] we stopped it. Um I'm passing out some
[19:34] stuff about the peace bowl. I'm actually
[19:36] here on what I hope is a
[19:37] non-controversial matter. Um and um uh
[19:41] Sean Ering is actually with me as well
[19:43] with the representatives of sport
[19:45] Rotary. Uh I'm the past president for
[19:47] two years of Rotary. Pretty much went
[19:49] into that after I retired. Great
[19:51] organization. Um and one of our
[19:54] unofficial committee of Sean, myself,
[19:56] our current president Lonnie um and
[19:59] another member of our club uh to install
[20:01] a peace pole in a public place in the
[20:04] burrow. There actually are some peace
[20:06] poles already in the burrow. Um, but our
[20:09] local voter district um is hoping to put
[20:12] peace polls in a public place where they
[20:14] can be seen pretty much on an everyday
[20:17] basis. And after some searching and
[20:20] discussing with other people, we have
[20:22] picked a location that you can probably
[20:24] see. It's by the um oak tree sort of on
[20:27] the far side of Central Park. Uh we
[20:30] checked in with the Centennial
[20:32] Foundation because, as you know, they've
[20:34] done so much work in the park. We
[20:36] checked in with uh the horicultural
[20:38] society because they've done most of the
[20:40] plantings and we checked in with Doug
[20:42] who just did the most amazing renovation
[20:44] of the of the um veterans memorial just
[20:47] to make sure that nobody thought it was
[20:49] a funky location or they didn't want to
[20:50] do it. Um so the peace polls uh all are
[20:54] engraved with languages that are that
[20:58] all say may peace prevail on earth. Uh
[21:00] we are planning eight languages and they
[21:03] will include English, Lape, Swahili,
[21:06] German, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese.
[21:10] I think that was eight. If it wasn't,
[21:11] I'll miss one. Um the German actually
[21:14] you're probably going to hear a little
[21:15] bit more about this town used to have a
[21:17] relationship with a town in Germany that
[21:19] started after the war and um we're
[21:22] hoping to get a little more information
[21:23] about that. And we also uh the Japanese
[21:27] connection is very important. These
[21:28] peace holes were started after World War
[21:30] II by a survivor from Japan um and uh
[21:34] pretty much in response to Hiroshima and
[21:36] Nagasaki and there are now 250,000 of
[21:39] them worldwide. So we're hoping to kind
[21:42] of fasttrack this a little bit. Um we
[21:44] would like to get this in the ground. Um
[21:47] we're not going to make International
[21:48] Day of Peace September 21st. Uh but we
[21:52] would like to get it in the ground by
[21:53] November at the very latest and they do
[21:56] take a while to make. So, if council has
[21:59] no questions or approves of it, it would
[22:01] be great if we could get approval
[22:03] tonight.
[22:05] I don't know if everybody has any
[22:07] questions.
[22:08] » I think we can do that.
[22:09] » Okay.
[22:10] » Yeah.
[22:11] » Thanks.
[22:11] » Thank you, Jane. That's really nice. It
[22:13] is. It's really nice.
[22:16] » I was going to have a second
[22:17] inscription. More peace all the time,
[22:19] but um we're going to go with me. Peace
[22:21] prevail on earth. It's it's uh pretty
[22:23] remarkable to think about them all over
[22:24] the world.
[22:26] Thank you.
[22:26] » And as I understand it, this would be at
[22:29] no cost to
[22:30] » No cost. Right. Correct.
[22:32] » And it's maintenancefree and it's not
[22:34] going in the grass because Brian Tipping
[22:36] assured me that they would destroy it
[22:38] with their weed whackers. Not
[22:39] intentionally, but if it was in the
[22:41] grass. So, this will go with some um
[22:44] pavers around it and um in the the sort
[22:48] of more the planted area.
[22:50] » Thank you.
[22:53] Next up, we have Rhyma Aaron.
[22:59] You have three minutes when you begin
[23:00] speaking.
[23:07] It's Evan. I guess I have to work on my
[23:10] handwriting.
[23:12] I'm here to talk about artificial turf,
[23:15] but I want to take a brief historical
[23:17] detour first.
[23:19] Lead paint has many advantages which can
[23:22] be broken down into two basic
[23:24] categories, convenience and performance.
[23:28] Lead makes paint dry more quickly. It
[23:31] makes paint more resistant to moisture
[23:33] that causes corrosion and rusting. It
[23:36] increases paint's durability and
[23:38] maintains fresh, vibrant colors. Not
[23:41] surprisingly, the lead industry heavily
[23:43] marketed the addition of lead to paint
[23:45] and promoted it as a wonder ingredient.
[23:49] However, the dangers of lead paint were
[23:52] well known by the end of the 19th
[23:53] century. German health laws banned women
[23:56] and children from working in factories
[23:58] processing lead paint as early as 1886.
[24:02] Uh Sherwin Williams, the paint company,
[24:05] reported on the dangers of lead paint in
[24:07] 1904.
[24:09] True to form, the US, so often
[24:12] interested in putting money ahead of
[24:14] public safety, didn't ban lead paint in
[24:16] residential buildings, public buildings,
[24:19] toys, and furniture until 1977.
[24:23] Why this change in judgment? Because the
[24:26] scientific establishment determined that
[24:28] lead paint causes damage to the nervous
[24:30] system, kidney failure, stunted growth
[24:33] in children, reproductive problems. to
[24:36] list only a few of the serious
[24:38] consequences of lead paint exposure.
[24:41] Today, in 2026, the artificial turf
[24:44] industry heavily markets their product.
[24:47] Why? Two basic categories: convenience
[24:50] and performance. You put down the turf
[24:52] and it doesn't get muddy. It stays fresh
[24:55] looking, its colors vibrant. It is
[24:58] marketed as state-of-the-art, the wonder
[25:00] turf that all competitive athletic
[25:02] programs should have. The scientific
[25:05] community has another view. An article
[25:08] on the website of the National Library
[25:10] of Medicine reads as follows. Numerous
[25:13] studies have shown that chemicals
[25:15] identified in artificial turf are known
[25:17] carcinogens, neurotoxicants,
[25:20] mutagens, and endocrine disruptors. It
[25:23] is also widely known that artificial
[25:25] turf increases risk to children. They
[25:28] are lower to the ground where toxic
[25:30] chemicals settle. They are more likely
[25:32] to put their hands in their mouths. They
[25:34] have immature detoxification systems, so
[25:37] their bodies cannot cope with powerful
[25:39] chemical agents. They produce more heat
[25:42] per mass than adults, and they sweat
[25:44] less. This intensifies their risk to the
[25:47] extreme heat generated by turf. Here in
[25:50] Swarmore, we face a test. Do we turn our
[25:54] backs on science, equivocate about
[25:56] risks, and choose the equivalent of
[25:58] exposing lead paint to our children and
[26:01] our environment? The people of Swarmore
[26:04] are watching the Sparrow Council. Thank
[26:06] you.
[26:07] » Thank you.
[26:16] Uh, next we have a Barbara
[26:20] uh, Draven.
[26:21] » Dreb. Yep. That's one of
[26:23] » Three minutes when you uh come and vote.
[26:31] » Barbara Jing, 323 North Swathmore.
[26:35] Uh, I've passed out
[26:37] copies of routine exclusions that exempt
[26:41] insurers from paying any liability
[26:43] claims related to PAS, Forever
[26:46] Chemicals, and other chemicals used in
[26:49] artificial turf and other products.
[26:52] These exclusions raise a major question
[26:55] whether the bureau or the school
[26:57] district would have any liability
[26:59] coverage for any potential future claims
[27:02] related to these chemicals from
[27:05] Cunningham Field adjacent to an
[27:07] elementary school and residential
[27:09] neighborhood or any artificial turf
[27:12] fields on school district property. When
[27:16] you read the exclusions, you see that
[27:18] they do not require that PAS forever
[27:21] chemicals or other specific chemicals be
[27:24] proven to be present on the site, but
[27:27] they are broadly written to include any
[27:30] substance that may exhibit or
[27:33] demonstrate the same or similar harmful
[27:36] properties as PAS.
[27:41] as the Swathmore Burough may soon
[27:44] consider changing the zoning on
[27:45] Cunningham Field after first turning
[27:48] them down to permit the college to
[27:50] install multiple tops types of turf on
[27:54] the fields and on the walkways. The
[27:56] bureau would be permitting the
[27:58] proliferation of PAS forever chemicals
[28:00] and other chemicals in close proximity
[28:03] to residents, the school, school staff,
[28:07] athletes, spectators, people working in
[28:10] the vill and frequenting the town
[28:12] center.
[28:14] The Delaware County Planning Commission
[28:15] has told Swathmore residents that they
[28:17] have never seen a proposal with this
[28:19] many different kinds of artificial turf
[28:22] products to be installed in close
[28:24] proximity to an elementary school and
[28:27] homes. They encourage residents to get
[28:29] all the details the impact of the
[28:31] interaction of these chemicals and child
[28:33] and resident health. And since they
[28:35] always categorize artificial turf as
[28:38] hardcape to get details on how the
[28:41] massive runoff could be handled to avoid
[28:44] flooding. In the event of a suit when
[28:47] there is no liability coverage, how will
[28:50] the burough solicitor and the council
[28:52] explain why the bureau would ever
[28:54] reszone Cunningham Field to allow
[28:57] proliferation of a huge volume of
[28:59] chemical particles next to our
[29:02] elementary school and residential homes.
[29:08] All
[29:13] right. Next up is Neil Young.
[29:18] You have 3 minutes when you begin
[29:19] speaking.
[29:29] talk tonight about composting. Uh but as
[29:32] I will maintain, I don't think the issue
[29:34] is comp composting. The issue is
[29:36] governance. Um you know, we approved
[29:38] $150,000 of expenditure without any
[29:41] clear goals, measurable criteria, um or
[29:44] any sort of notion of what the program
[29:46] was supposed to achieve. Those are basic
[29:48] functions of government. Um, you know,
[29:50] I'm a fierce but measured critic of this
[29:52] council and it's okay to make mistakes
[29:55] and it's okay to respond to new
[29:56] information, but entering into a
[29:58] contract without first deciding how
[30:00] you'll measure success is is
[30:02] embarrassing.
[30:04] We should before entering it, spending
[30:05] the money, you should count should come
[30:07] to the public and said, "This is what
[30:08] we're trying to accomplish. Here's how
[30:10] we'll measure it. Here's what success
[30:12] looks like and here's what it would
[30:14] cause us to reconsider."
[30:16] You say those questions you want to ask.
[30:18] And so without meaningful metrics uh
[30:20] measured in advance almost any result
[30:22] can be defined as success. Satisfied
[30:25] customers a pound of food waste diverged
[30:27] from landfill. Um you know an arbitrary
[30:30] 30% figure site is a success. Um it's
[30:34] all post fact and I think taxpayers need
[30:37] a much simpler question answered. If we
[30:39] had $150,000 of dollars to spend which I
[30:42] don't think we do but if we did what
[30:45] would be the best use of that taxpayer
[30:46] funding? And I'd argue um the best
[30:49] result here would be to return that
[30:50] money to the taxpayer and let people
[30:52] choose for themselves how to um sustain
[30:54] the environment. So nobody asked these
[30:57] questions before the unanimous vote last
[30:59] year. So when SR comes up and the
[31:01] seniors come up asking for a couple of
[31:03] thousand or a couple hundred bucks,
[31:05] every penny is scrutinized. So why
[31:07] wasn't the same standard applied here?
[31:11] And I think this is what the bigger
[31:13] issue is. There's a growing perception
[31:15] uh in the community that highly
[31:16] organized committed groups and and very
[31:18] wealthy landlords like the the college
[31:21] have disproportionate influence uh over
[31:23] the over the public discourse because
[31:24] they have this council here and so they
[31:27] get a seat at the table. Um so when
[31:29] you're at the table, everyone else is on
[31:31] the menu. Um and so once these you know
[31:34] ideas and schemes and notions gain
[31:36] momentum, it stops being about what's
[31:38] right for the public and it becomes
[31:40] about the politics. So we've seen that
[31:42] with composting and now we're seeing it
[31:44] with with development. So enthusiasm for
[31:46] the vague notion of of town center north
[31:49] seems to be dominoes are falling into
[31:52] well that means we have to tough over
[31:54] cunning field and it feels like the
[31:56] political momentum is now replacing
[31:58] sound judgment. So I urge you uh once
[32:01] again to recommit to a much higher
[32:02] standard of governance um much more
[32:06] consideration of public input, much more
[32:08] objective evaluation, much more
[32:10] transparency and much more willingness
[32:12] uh to question your own assumptions. And
[32:14] I think most importantly, we need to
[32:16] stop confusing uh the interests of small
[32:18] minorities and local minorities with the
[32:19] needs of a broader community. Um so
[32:22] again, I encourage you to listen more
[32:24] broadly, govern more objectively and
[32:26] serve more of the community. Thank you
[32:27] for your time.
[32:28] » Thank you. Anyone
[32:33] else who wishes to speak for public
[32:34] comment?
[32:37] » Okay, no further public comment.
[32:39] » Thanks, Al.
[32:41] Okay, we're going to do um the planning
[32:43] and zoning committee next because we
[32:45] have a member of the planning commission
[32:47] here, John. That's you. Um so, do we
[32:51] want to take a a minute so we can set up
[32:52] this uh projector? Okay, we're going to
[32:55] be in recess for 2 minutes, 3 minutes,
[32:57] however long it takes.
[32:57] » Five minutes. 5. Thank you.
[32:59] » Okay. Um the planning commission and uh
[33:04] planning zone each met this uh past
[33:07] month will be in a little bit later. The
[33:10] largest area of discussion at our two
[33:13] meetings was the PC's revised rever
[33:16] version of what we sent to the planning
[33:20] commission uh regarding uh outdoor
[33:24] commerce. The biggest difference is
[33:26] whether the burrow should require
[33:28] parklets to have curb pipe flat
[33:30] platforms or allow the parklets to be at
[33:33] street level. There is general agreement
[33:35] about the need for improved aesthetics
[33:37] compliance with ADA and the need for
[33:40] crash barriers. Members of the planning
[33:42] and zoning have concerns about the cost
[33:44] of platforms, who pays for them, and
[33:46] whether the cost might kill a park
[33:48] program. uh planning commission provided
[33:51] no cost analysis previously and we were
[33:55] working with $30,000 of for modular
[33:58] units. We recently received just this
[34:01] afternoon and that's what John will be
[34:03] discussing uh some more refined cost
[34:07] estimates as we move uh further into
[34:11] this evening's agenda. uh planning on
[34:13] zoning also discussed restrictions on
[34:15] artificial turf and has sent related
[34:18] questions to our solicitor and the
[34:19] zoning officer before taking the next
[34:21] step of engaging the uh planning
[34:24] commission in discussion. More on this
[34:26] later and the college has not submitted
[34:29] a proposal regarding Cunningham Wheel
[34:31] nor has it provided uh us nor Satna with
[34:35] a dividing line between the Cunningham
[34:37] Field project and the town center north
[34:40] boundary. The lack of a plannable bouch
[34:42] will probably cost us our place in line
[34:44] regarding transtorian it developed in
[34:47] Swathmore by SEPTA to defer the
[34:50] development of Town Center North Septa's
[34:53] needs for clarity and its planning
[34:55] schedule. Uh the PC will meet on the
[34:59] 16th uh at 7:00 and planning and zoning
[35:03] on the 17th at 7:00.
[35:06] Um,
[35:08] and uh, we can get back to general
[35:11] comments on planning and zoning in a
[35:13] second. I want to move right into
[35:15] outdoor commerce, give a little bit more
[35:17] background, and turn it over to John.
[35:20] And I thank the planning commission for
[35:22] all of its hard work. Um
[35:25] so um as I said the biggest difference
[35:28] is you know whether we require curb uh
[35:33] height platforms
[35:35] and there are differences in opinion on
[35:38] this. One's not right, one's not wrong.
[35:40] They're different different emphasises.
[35:43] Um and um
[35:47] after we had much discussion at our
[35:50] meeting, which we only had the planning
[35:53] commission's text a few hours before our
[35:57] uh meeting, we thought it would be
[35:59] appropriate to talk to Swathmore Town
[36:01] Center merchants and restaurant tours as
[36:04] well as public works about the planning
[36:06] commission's revised approach. Um, and
[36:11] this will take us probably a week or
[36:14] two. So, we're not going to be asking
[36:16] for any, you know, uh, decisions made in
[36:20] this cycle, but we want to try to keep
[36:22] them all all moving. Um
[36:25] and um
[36:28] at this point as I said we just got
[36:31] today some you know interesting
[36:34] additional
[36:36] uh quantification of potential cost. Uh
[36:40] subsequent to that, members of the of
[36:42] the committee uh met with our uh
[36:47] uh PC liaison and talked about this and
[36:51] what we hope that this is the next step
[36:54] in discussion about what these costs
[36:57] are, how they could be met or not, and
[37:00] uh take it from there. So, John, I'm
[37:02] going to turn it over to you. Um and uh
[37:07] now we can have a discussion on where we
[37:10] are on this topic.
[37:12] » Great. Thank you, David. Uh I'm John
[37:15] McCallum. Um I am a um as David
[37:19] mentioned, I'm a member of the SWAT
[37:21] planning commission. Um so just glad to
[37:24] be here to be able to talk through some
[37:25] of the thinking behind um our latest
[37:28] draft of this ordinance. And oh, you
[37:31] know what? I think this
[37:35] You turn that off, too.
[37:40] » So close everybody.
[37:43] » It's all my fault.
[37:45] » Most things are.
[37:46] » I understand.
[37:50] » Exactly.
[37:53] » While that while that's back up and or
[37:55] about to be back up and running.
[37:57] » Yeah. But it's uh
[38:01] so um we as a commission um met last
[38:05] Wednesday on 2nd and recommended the
[38:08] latest draft be uh sent back to to
[38:10] council for uh debate and um uh and
[38:15] working of course through um planning
[38:17] and zoning um along the way. So we did
[38:21] receive a draft back in May. Um that
[38:24] draft had uh sort of two different
[38:26] parts. one was the ordinance form and
[38:29] the other was uh in more of a resolution
[38:32] form. What we did for our work was
[38:34] actually to consolidate the two in one
[38:37] uh coherent ordinance. Uh the ordinance
[38:40] we uh affectionately know as 1020.04
[38:45] uh use of sidewalks and streets in town
[38:48] center. Uh I believe that's a a renaming
[38:51] from um I can't remember what it it's
[38:55] 1020.0 4. Um, but what we're looking to
[38:58] do here is actually uh adapt what we
[39:01] received from PNZ. Um, and we folded in
[39:04] most of that into the front end of this.
[39:06] And we've structured this in such a way
[39:08] where we talk more generally about
[39:10] commercial use in the public right away.
[39:13] And then we drill down eventually onto
[39:15] parkletits. I I I I know we want to get
[39:18] to parkletits uh very quickly, but this
[39:20] is really a comprehensive look at all of
[39:22] uh permitted commercial uses within the
[39:25] public right away. I'm not going to read
[39:26] through all this uh clearly it's um uh
[39:30] not necessary to for tonight, but I
[39:32] encourage you all to get your eyes on
[39:34] the draft if you haven't seen it uh thus
[39:36] far. But you know this covers everything
[39:38] from the burough's um uh position uh and
[39:43] uh this use of the public realm as a
[39:46] privilege for uh for those uh those
[39:49] commercial proprietors and uh you know
[39:52] the need for any fixtures or any other
[39:54] improvements to be temporary and be
[39:56] removable should uh should the bureau
[39:58] need them to be removed for any any
[40:00] reason. Um and so on. So that then it
[40:04] sort of starts generally and then we get
[40:06] into use of sidewalks uh display of
[40:09] goods where is merchandise um and uh and
[40:13] or outdoor seating. Um and uh there is
[40:17] one provision in there that talks about
[40:19] the requirement to maintain a a pathway
[40:22] a clear pathway free of any uh any
[40:24] fixtures, displays or seating that is at
[40:27] a minimum of 5t. Previously that was 4
[40:30] ft. Um I think we we uh we along with
[40:33] P&Z have have gotten comfortable with
[40:35] the 5t. The rationale there is that two
[40:37] people can kind of comfortably pass one
[40:40] another on the sidewalk. It's a standard
[40:42] with for ADA turnaround all that. Um so
[40:47] um in addition um
[40:51] we also include outdoor commercial
[40:53] product display and sales limitations.
[40:56] Um and I think that's uh that's pretty
[40:58] straightforward. Again, I encourage you
[40:59] all to read the draft. Um, I think for
[41:03] tonight's purposes, we want to get to
[41:04] the discussion points here. We do under
[41:07] general outdoor dining regul uh
[41:10] regulations
[41:11] um uh we do uh permit year round um
[41:16] dining uh regulations. So, year round
[41:19] use. So, that is something that's put uh
[41:22] explicitly within this um within this
[41:25] ordinance. Um, and then we do uh also
[41:29] prohibit any enclosed or roof
[41:31] structures.
[41:33] Talked a little bit about furniture, the
[41:35] need for them to be durable, maintained,
[41:38] uh visual consistency. You know, we're
[41:41] we're really trying to kind of clean up
[41:43] and make much more clear uh what we're
[41:45] requiring of uh retailers and merchants
[41:48] within uh within the public right away.
[41:54] Um I'm going to move directly then to
[41:56] parklets. So then we really drill down
[41:58] specifically on parklets and um again
[42:02] this is really intended to be a
[42:03] comprehensive solution and uh one that
[42:06] we would really prefer not to be pulled
[42:08] apart um but is really driven by the
[42:11] priorities of uh ensuring safety,
[42:15] ensuring accessibility and ensuring uh
[42:17] the quality of the public realm. That's
[42:19] really what's driving our thinking
[42:21] behind carpets. And to the point of
[42:24] safety, um I'm going to just bring up a
[42:28] diagram here so we're not just staring
[42:29] at a text.
[42:32] Um this is a sketch um that we prepare
[42:37] to to lay out the requirements of a
[42:39] typical parklet. Now, in this case, this
[42:41] is a a parallel parking spot. Um and uh
[42:46] in terms of safety, there's really three
[42:48] components to it. The first is safety
[42:50] from vehicles. We're talking about
[42:52] people dining in in literally in the
[42:55] road directly adjacent to a travel lane.
[42:58] And one thing that we have yet to see um
[43:01] really effectively thus far since the
[43:03] introduction of park lights is a
[43:05] significant barrier that uh provides a
[43:08] certain measure of buffer uh from
[43:11] vehicles should they lose control or
[43:13] otherwise stray out of that travel lane
[43:15] and impact a part. So what we're uh
[43:18] suggesting here in in our draft is a
[43:20] significant um sign significant
[43:24] vehicular barrier um but one that can be
[43:26] a planter uh something of significant
[43:28] weight. We give some perform performance
[43:30] criteria in our text uh to to specify
[43:34] what the weight of that is um and uh
[43:37] dimensional criteria. We do think that
[43:39] that barrier can can uh be right at the
[43:42] edge of the travel lane um because we
[43:44] really do want to maximize as much of
[43:46] that parklet platform as possible. But
[43:48] these would be significant um barriers
[43:51] again should uh should the worst happen
[43:54] and it uh it it provides measure of
[43:57] safety for the people dying on the
[43:58] platform. The second layer of uh
[44:01] security here is this guardrail uh that
[44:04] you can see on three sides of the
[44:06] parklet. And uh this is to ensure that
[44:09] people aren't um aren't falling off by
[44:12] accident. The platform falling into the
[44:14] travel lane. This would be a 42-in high
[44:17] typical um guard rail that you would
[44:20] find anywhere else uh where you're
[44:22] needing to uh to keep people from
[44:24] accessing a different area. So um that
[44:27] has its own performance criteria. We've
[44:29] included that in in the ordinance. Um
[44:31] thirdly, we are um we are including a a
[44:36] requirement for wheel stops at either
[44:38] side of the parklet platform. We have
[44:41] parking spaces often times adjacent to
[44:43] these parkletits. We don't want people
[44:46] accidentally straying too far forward or
[44:48] backing up into the platform could cause
[44:50] a real issue of safety. So, uh just
[44:52] simple wheel stops 3 ft minimum off the
[44:55] edge of the of the park platform.
[44:57] um we do feel like those can encroach
[45:00] within the adjacent uh um parking
[45:03] spaces. That's yet not clarified in the
[45:06] text, but that's something we can
[45:07] address. Um
[45:10] so that really sort of covers things
[45:11] from a safety standpoint. From an
[45:13] accessibility standpoint, and this
[45:15] really gets directly to what uh David
[45:17] started to introduce uh is the platform.
[45:20] Um we have found uh in in uh all of our
[45:24] work looking at precedents for platforms
[45:27] or for uh parklets that platforms are
[45:29] commonly accepted uh and encouraged by
[45:33] municipalities to ensure uh barrierfree
[45:36] access to uh parkletits. Uh we find it
[45:40] problematic um today's condition where
[45:43] uh parkletits those dining areas are
[45:45] actually sunken down in the bed of the
[45:47] street. uh it presents a step down. Um
[45:50] but it also means you know the surface
[45:53] of the street is intended to be the
[45:56] surface of the dining uh the dining
[45:58] area. Whatever slope you have for that
[46:00] street that cross slope that's what you
[46:02] have for the for the dining surface. We
[46:05] really feel like it's a problem from an
[46:07] ADA accessibility standpoint. And
[46:10] introducing a platform
[46:12] literally levels the playing field. It
[46:14] levels the surface. It it gives us
[46:16] control to create as level as possible.
[46:19] It may not always be achievable given
[46:22] the um the existing conditions that we
[46:24] have throughout our town, but at least
[46:26] we're doing the best that we can. We're
[46:29] making a a good measured steps to uh try
[46:33] to rectify um a potentially inaccessible
[46:36] condition. Um, so, um, you know, we we
[46:41] we've, uh, discussed openly about other
[46:44] ways of satisfying ADA regulations.
[46:47] Would it would it work to have an
[46:49] accessible table along the sidewalk,
[46:52] allowing the parklet perhaps not to need
[46:54] to be accessible? or could we introduce
[46:58] um uh ramps that get uh folks in
[47:01] wheelchairs or who are otherwise
[47:03] mobility challenged down to the lower
[47:05] level of the of the uh parklet. We
[47:08] really feel like any one of those
[47:10] solutions are kind of um episodic and
[47:14] not um really showing a conviction
[47:16] behind uh creating and achieving a
[47:19] barrier-free environment. And I think we
[47:21] all agree we want as inclusive and
[47:23] barrierfree environment as we possibly
[47:25] can achieve for our um for our public
[47:28] realm within reason. Um and it's our uh
[47:33] our take and now the commission's take
[47:35] um as recommended last week
[47:39] that uh the platform solution given its
[47:42] ubiquity should be achievable. Um, do we
[47:45] have the answer to make it uh to to uh
[47:48] ensure that it's affordable?
[47:51] Um,
[47:52] uh, right now we think we we've come
[47:55] certain some way. Um, but, uh, I think
[47:58] there's more work to do. But I think
[48:00] what's important is that we set our
[48:02] sights high. We uh, we have some measure
[48:05] of aspiration behind um, what we're
[48:08] trying to achieve in the public realm.
[48:10] and to to sort of acknowledge that what
[48:12] we have today is not acceptable. Um, but
[48:16] that uh we want to achieve that that
[48:18] that safety, that accessibility, and
[48:21] that general quality of the public realm
[48:23] that we think this this uh bureau really
[48:26] deserves. Um, and we don't think it's
[48:28] really that big of a lift. This is
[48:32] common across the country, and I think
[48:35] this is something we can figure out. So,
[48:37] um, there's been back and forth. We've
[48:39] uh I know Doug who's joined me or Doug
[48:41] Karnsburgger has has done quite a bit of
[48:43] work looking into the planters
[48:45] themselves. Um he's found a a great
[48:48] source out of Iowa for um for a number
[48:52] of these planters to be provided. Um I'm
[48:55] not going to quote the cost because
[48:56] frankly I can't remember the exact cost
[48:58] but uh to be purchased uh delivered
[49:02] installed uh using a forklift and um
[49:06] those would be uh uh provided as that
[49:09] sort of vehicular barrier uh component
[49:11] of this design. The platform component
[49:14] of the design we have started to work
[49:16] through an idea that um I'll try to
[49:20] bring that up. I'm sorry guys.
[49:24] That's sort of outlined in these
[49:26] sketches. So, um
[49:30] park plates are in the public realm.
[49:32] They need to be uh um easily assembled,
[49:36] easily disassembled, should they need to
[49:39] be removed. Um and or just should a
[49:43] portion of it need to be removed. So,
[49:44] the idea here is actually to create
[49:46] something that's modular. Uh in this
[49:49] case, we've as a test case taken a
[49:51] parking space that's 6 feet by 18 feet
[49:54] uh long. It does account for the space
[49:57] that's required for those vehicular
[49:58] barriers. And uh it it uh uses a module
[50:02] of 3 ft by 3 ft. So uh these these are
[50:06] panels that you put down uh in uh on the
[50:09] road. They're leveled with adjustable um
[50:12] pedestals uh that are structural and
[50:15] would support each each module. And then
[50:17] together they're all ganged together as
[50:19] the parklet platform. They can be um uh
[50:23] built with the handrailing as well and
[50:26] um built offsite in a shop um and
[50:30] delivered to the site and assembled
[50:31] pretty quickly. Uh so what you see here
[50:34] is basically just sort of a a codified
[50:36] plan in the upper left that labels the
[50:39] modules and then we break down each
[50:40] module uh in terms of its detailing. It
[50:44] can be done by a a general contractor.
[50:46] Does not have to be a very expensive
[50:49] prefab like you know similar to what we
[50:51] had been looking at earlier. David um
[50:54] does not need to be $30,000 uh dollars.
[50:56] We actually have a general contractor on
[50:59] sitting on the planning commission which
[51:00] is very convenient. a good good builder
[51:03] uh Steve Mitten who uh worked through an
[51:06] estimate um on this scheme and uh I
[51:09] think in his uh in the middle of his
[51:12] pricing he he came out to about $12,500
[51:17] um estimated based on his experience,
[51:20] just an estimate, but um in that range
[51:23] for something like this, which again
[51:25] could be done by a general contractor um
[51:29] and uh and assembled uh conventional
[51:33] wood uh wood members and hardware that's
[51:36] readily available. So this is one
[51:39] approach. Um, thus far the draft uh
[51:42] ordinance that we have is not mandating
[51:44] an approach to this, but uh it could
[51:47] serve as an example and if we wanted to
[51:49] take it the next step and and um you
[51:52] know organize an effort to um to uh uh
[51:56] construct multiple um uh parklets um and
[52:02] uh and really organize that as an effort
[52:05] um and help to organize the financing.
[52:07] That's something that we could talk
[52:08] about. We do uh value deeply the
[52:12] apartments. Um I think it's really
[52:14] timely that we saw uh that painting from
[52:17] Aram earlier. Yes, we want to encourage
[52:20] that vibrancy within our town. It's not
[52:22] just a value to the merchants. It's of
[52:24] value to our town center and to to us as
[52:28] residents. So we want to encourage that.
[52:30] We acknowledge that it's an additional
[52:32] cost, but uh that doesn't preclude the
[52:35] need to really um approach this with um
[52:39] with a deliberate um uh set of
[52:44] aspirations that um really has, you
[52:47] know, that that requires a certain level
[52:49] of quality and and safety for our town
[52:51] center. So, I'll I'll I'll leave it at
[52:53] that and maybe open it up questions or
[52:55] conversation. I know the platform
[52:58] probably is is maybe one subject, but
[53:01] feel free to ask talk about it.
[53:05] Thank you, John. Uh I
[53:08] we didn't quue it up for council to
[53:11] really review the entire proposal
[53:14] uh as I said in my introduction uh this
[53:18] evening, but uh we really wanted to
[53:23] uh start kicking around ideas about
[53:27] parkland versus no parkland amongst the
[53:30] members up here. get us some more
[53:33] guidance uh to raise concerns about um
[53:38] you know costs etc. Um you know
[53:44] you know you mentioned that Doug had
[53:46] some
[53:48] uh cost what the vehicular barriers
[53:50] might cost. Doug can you share that with
[53:54] us? the Iowa contractor that
[53:59] goes.
[54:01] » Thank you. The the crash barriers that
[54:05] John referred to are manufactured in
[54:07] Iowa, two other places in the Midwest.
[54:10] So far, we have two bids or two quotes.
[54:12] The the lowest of them is approximately
[54:16] $8,200
[54:17] for 10 of them, which would amount to
[54:22] three crash barriers on the two Park
[54:24] Avenue sites and four crash barriers
[54:27] total on what was that cost? Sorry.
[54:31] » 8,200
[54:31] » 8,200. And to that, the question of how
[54:35] they get moved, that needs to be
[54:37] included. Uh the rental of a forklift
[54:40] at6 $650
[54:43] has been quoted u by ENF Heartscaping
[54:47] which did the work of memorial. So
[54:51] combine those two numbers and you're
[54:52] close to $9,000 for the for the 10
[54:56] barriers. Uh I'll just embellish a
[54:59] little to say that these these need to
[55:01] be filled with gravel and top soil and
[55:04] plants. So they come to us weighing uh
[55:08] 950 lb. When they're filled, they're
[55:12] 1,500 lb. So the the weight here is the
[55:16] important thing to remember. 1,500 lb of
[55:19] dead weight for each of these three
[55:21] planters. There's 4,500 lb. So that's a
[55:24] significant
[55:26] barrier to keep the car truck from
[55:29] entering into the zone. And that's what
[55:32] we're trying to achieve here. This is
[55:33] not a unique solution. You can go to
[55:36] media and see it at the silver pig on
[55:39] the sidewalk. They have the same
[55:42] at the silver pig.
[55:45] » A sterling
[55:49] is
[55:51] I haven't been there. I just took a
[55:52] photograph of it. So I show you that.
[55:54] But any case has it, Laura Marion has
[55:57] it, and Philadelphia has a useful
[55:59] solution. So we're not inventing
[56:01] something here. We're using precedent.
[56:04] And the key idea here is that they're 2
[56:06] ft deep, 4 ft long. It's that 2ft
[56:09] dimension that allows the depth of the
[56:12] parklet to remain between 5' 6 and 5 and
[56:16] 6 ft in depth. So I think it's it's an
[56:19] elegant structural solution. And I would
[56:22] just emphasize because this is something
[56:24] that I've spent a lot of time looking at
[56:27] is that we need to provide this
[56:29] protection in our bureau. We've we've
[56:32] skated without such protection for the 6
[56:34] years since co but I'm I'm aware that
[56:38] accidents happen and I've been involved
[56:40] in one of those accidents professionally
[56:42] and the bureau does not want to go there
[56:45] as far as allowing u the possibility of
[56:48] an accident in this situation. So even
[56:51] in terms of priority, I think it's the
[56:53] number one priority to protect the
[56:54] bureau's interest as we address the
[56:58] other issues that John mentioned.
[56:59] » Thank you, D.
[57:00] » Thanks, Dad.
[57:01] » Um, so,
[57:04] you know, as I
[57:06] said at the top, we weren't really
[57:09] queuing this up for the council to do a
[57:12] whole die. We wanted to get some input
[57:15] on uh the issue of platforms versus node
[57:20] platforms, the cost of platforms. Um you
[57:24] know there's all sorts of different ways
[57:26] of of doing this. Um and um you know I
[57:33] want to make it clear that when the
[57:36] uh planning uh planning and zoning and
[57:39] the council sent us on without platforms
[57:42] to uh the planning commission
[57:48] we did so understanding that we needed
[57:51] safety barriers we needed ADA
[57:54] compliance. you know, you don't need
[57:59] I'm not weighing in one way or the
[58:02] other. I'm just explaining that you
[58:03] don't need
[58:05] uh platforms have these barriers that
[58:08] Doug just uh provided. I was driving
[58:10] through Maddio just over the weekend and
[58:15] right down I guess that's main street
[58:18] Manunk all sorts of parklets all at
[58:21] street level all with what I think they
[58:23] call jersey plastic jersey barriers
[58:26] probably filled with water uh they're
[58:29] different ways they're different
[58:30] solutions uh I've even been mentioning
[58:34] in our discussions that
[58:37] on the safety end on the crash barrier
[58:40] ers. It may be something that we as a
[58:42] burrow want to make sure are in place.
[58:45] Does it change the fee? Does it are
[58:47] there ways of recovering those costs?
[58:50] But you know, putting safety paramount,
[58:53] you know, over the um you know, very
[58:57] many ways that you could have a
[59:01] a parklet. So our members of our
[59:05] committee will be talking with
[59:06] restaurant tours and uh town center
[59:10] people etc and trying to advance this
[59:13] very conversation. Uh I talked to Doug
[59:16] this afternoon uh after getting um
[59:20] this uh cost estimates from uh John and
[59:25] Steve and he said oh you know this is
[59:28] step one let us look and see if there
[59:30] are other structures and other ways we
[59:33] can suggest that might reduce the cost.
[59:37] So I think we're all moving in the same
[59:41] direction. I just don't think we've
[59:43] converged on a final spot at this point.
[59:46] » Okay. Um, so would you like to open it
[59:49] up for discussion or it's going to go
[59:51] back to committee?
[59:52] » It's going to go back to committee and
[59:54] then probably back to uh uh depending on
[59:57] what the committee does. It it may come
[1:00:00] right back to us. It may go back to the
[1:00:03] planning commission. We're working as
[1:00:05] collaboratively as possible on on this.
[1:00:08] So, um, yeah, I'm always interested in
[1:00:12] my colleagues views.
[1:00:14] » I mean, I have a lot of questions, but
[1:00:16] I'm thinking I'll hold them until
[1:00:18] something that looks like a close to
[1:00:21] final draft comes before us because who
[1:00:24] knows,
[1:00:25] » Right? I I mean, we were just
[1:00:27] discussing,
[1:00:28] you know, whether it was today or
[1:00:30] yesterday, you know, uh, Jill doesn't
[1:00:32] take any days off. um that we um were
[1:00:36] saying, oh, it says something about two
[1:00:39] parking spaces where it should only be
[1:00:41] one or two parking spaces depending on
[1:00:44] the configuration. We want to clean up
[1:00:46] some language. I'm sure everybody wants
[1:00:49] to do the same thing there. So yes, uh
[1:00:52] uh I don't want to get into that level
[1:00:55] of
[1:00:56] » Nits on something where we all know that
[1:01:00] » Details are important, but if there are
[1:01:03] general questions about
[1:01:06] » Yeah, go ahead. Oh, I I I I definitely
[1:01:10] acknowledge there are probably details
[1:01:12] to work through, but um you know, as as
[1:01:14] I mentioned last Wednesday, uh the
[1:01:16] commission um voted to recommend the
[1:01:19] draft. Um
[1:01:21] » And I think you know, the fundamental
[1:01:23] pieces are in place um in terms of our
[1:01:26] recommendation back to council.
[1:01:27] » Well, now that you're saying that, so
[1:01:29] let me just ask my big question. Um it
[1:01:33] you're not saying like this would be
[1:01:35] once it's accepted that this would be a
[1:01:37] standard standardized way to build the
[1:01:40] parklets or are you saying that like if
[1:01:43] it's vote like this would be in the
[1:01:44] ordinance?
[1:01:45] » Yeah. No, currently it's not it's not
[1:01:47] addressed like that. Currently it's
[1:01:49] open. We're giving performance criteria
[1:01:51] meaning you need a barrier in place of
[1:01:54] this size of this of this weight and and
[1:01:57] you need a platform that achieves flush
[1:01:59] a flush. you know, it's more general. Uh
[1:02:01] that gives people flexibility in terms
[1:02:03] of how to achieve it.
[1:02:04] » It does talk about building materials.
[1:02:06] » It does. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, it it
[1:02:09] puts uh restrictions on, you know, yes,
[1:02:13] this needs to be exterior grade
[1:02:14] materials. They need to be kept uh you
[1:02:17] know, maintained.
[1:02:18] » Will there be like Harry the building
[1:02:20] inspector? Will he be required to say
[1:02:22] yes, this meets the building
[1:02:24] requirements in the ordinance or is this
[1:02:26] like I mean if it's for safety it has to
[1:02:28] reach a certain
[1:02:30] » Threshold standard. So who decides that
[1:02:33] » It it goes through the bureau. So
[1:02:35] there's a there's a specific uh list of
[1:02:38] required items that uh are required to
[1:02:41] to be submitted includes a plan includes
[1:02:44] a list of materials
[1:02:45] » Um that has to be reviewed by uh by the
[1:02:48] bureau and then a permit is issued um
[1:02:52] and there's a fee associated.
[1:02:53] » That was my big question. Thank you. A
[1:02:55] and we could have
[1:02:58] barriers up, crash barriers up quickly
[1:03:02] that would not impede whether we had
[1:03:05] when we when and if we would have
[1:03:08] platforms following that. So we could be
[1:03:11] addressing the main safety concerns
[1:03:14] quickly if we thought there needed to be
[1:03:17] a transition period to allow um the
[1:03:22] whomever is providing these platforms to
[1:03:26] provide the platforms. The restaurant
[1:03:29] tours generally don't own the property.
[1:03:31] You know that they may only be there for
[1:03:34] a couple of years. Do they take their
[1:03:36] platforms with us? Is this something the
[1:03:38] landlord's providing? all of these types
[1:03:40] of practical financial issues are still
[1:03:43] a little bit up in the air.
[1:03:46] » Could I could I ask a few questions? Um,
[1:03:49] » So the platforms on Dartmouth it it
[1:03:52] would be sloped appropriately. So
[1:03:56] that issue.
[1:03:57] » Yeah, I think uh I think the road is a
[1:04:00] fairly significant slope and I think uh
[1:04:03] essentially we would do the platform
[1:04:05] would do the best it can uh to mitigate
[1:04:08] that slope.
[1:04:09] um is it going to be perfect and it's a
[1:04:12] letter of but again this is a
[1:04:14] pre-existing condition I think it would
[1:04:16] greatly greatly improve the slope that
[1:04:18] that is there
[1:04:19] » And
[1:04:20] » And on Dartmouth the very question you
[1:04:22] raised as you level it are we creating a
[1:04:26] different trip hazard at the edge of the
[1:04:28] platform or how do we address that and
[1:04:31] and we have
[1:04:33] » The barriers
[1:04:34] » Well we would have to have entry
[1:04:36] barriers or something you can only get
[1:04:38] through
[1:04:39] a a small point.
[1:04:42] » Again, we're not solving for for every
[1:04:43] condition because
[1:04:45] » What do you need?
[1:04:46] » Turn your microphones on, please.
[1:04:49] » Okay. And then um
[1:04:52] » What's there now? Right. There are
[1:04:55] barriers. There are platforms. So, those
[1:04:58] are platforms.
[1:04:59] » The platform was all been taken out.
[1:05:01] » They were removed. Yeah.
[1:05:02] » I haven't been out and about in
[1:05:05] development.
[1:05:05] » I know how it feels.
[1:05:07] We'll give you a special business.
[1:05:11] » Okay. Um
[1:05:14] then then my question is not relevant.
[1:05:16] Uh but the the existing barrier barriers
[1:05:18] are they there. The planters.
[1:05:20] » Yes.
[1:05:20] » Okay. So they just weren't heavy enough.
[1:05:23] » I think that's our that's our feeling.
[1:05:25] Yeah. They're just not significant
[1:05:26] enough. There needs to be real mass to
[1:05:28] to these barriers to have any any impact
[1:05:31] on car. And then I thought I saw very
[1:05:33] quickly it said something about if you
[1:05:35] have an existing parklet these
[1:05:38] guidelines would be put you would have
[1:05:40] up until April of next year to
[1:05:43] » That's right. That's what we're
[1:05:44] currently you know ready for the warm
[1:05:48] season. Um, it's something that that
[1:05:52] » So, if I'm a merchant and I think you
[1:05:55] said they they're around that the ROM is
[1:05:58] like 125, am I paying that?
[1:06:04] » Yeah. So, we're talking about that. So,
[1:06:06] we we have been talking about, you know,
[1:06:09] » Is there a way to fund this to get like
[1:06:11] a long-term learning through STC? So,
[1:06:13] that's what we're trying to figure out.
[1:06:15] But we would come up with a solution for
[1:06:16] funding before the deadline. So they're
[1:06:19] not just
[1:06:20] » Yes. I I think ideally we would give
[1:06:22] proprietors a few options. You can take
[1:06:24] these specs, go build it. If you have a
[1:06:26] contractor, if you want some financing,
[1:06:28] we're hoping 10 century so far has been
[1:06:30] very willing to work with us and and
[1:06:33] maybe, you know, they give a xyear loan.
[1:06:36] Um do we get a grant? Do we fund it? You
[1:06:38] know, give the to the bro give them some
[1:06:40] money to help them.
[1:06:41] » Okay. and the April date was developed
[1:06:44] early in this review process. We may
[1:06:46] have to add some time into that timeline
[1:06:50] in order to make it pragmatic.
[1:06:52] Again, just one of those details that
[1:06:54] needs to be worked out.
[1:06:56] » Okay. Circling back to your initial
[1:06:58] point about like we all love the parklex
[1:07:00] because of like, you know, all of the
[1:07:01] things, right? Vibrancy, etc. Um, what
[1:07:04] we would want to do is like I'm a big
[1:07:06] fan of the platforms. Clearly, I thought
[1:07:09] they were still there.
[1:07:10] Um I for all of the reasons that you
[1:07:13] described what what would would hate for
[1:07:15] it to happen is because of the financial
[1:07:18] » Literally the financial barriers and
[1:07:20] figuratively the barriers to entry
[1:07:23] um would make so that they don't come
[1:07:25] back.
[1:07:26] » I think that's what we're all we're all
[1:07:28] agreeing with you definitely. Um and I
[1:07:31] think that's that's step two is to
[1:07:32] figure out how to how to achieve it so
[1:07:34] it's not such a barrier. And and if I
[1:07:38] could just add Jana, like I you maybe
[1:07:41] have talked about this even more than
[1:07:43] anybody else in the room, but like you
[1:07:44] know I know that each of these decisions
[1:07:46] about parkletits has been so difficult
[1:07:48] in the town central world. Everybody's
[1:07:50] got an opinion. However, I do think that
[1:07:52] following like a lot of municipalities
[1:07:55] put it like slap dash to Parklet during
[1:07:58] CO and now it's like it's a 2.0 version.
[1:08:01] They've had to grown up. They've had to
[1:08:03] grow up, you know, know what the safety
[1:08:04] concerns are. And so I think that the
[1:08:06] message to the proprietors is really
[1:08:08] going to be, yeah, it was great when,
[1:08:10] you know, we were trying to keep your
[1:08:11] business alive, but if you want to do
[1:08:12] this, it really, you know, you're taking
[1:08:14] public space to do it. It has to be
[1:08:16] within our um our vision and our safety
[1:08:19] and, you know, we'll work with you, but
[1:08:21] nobody's trying to kill it by making it
[1:08:23] so arduous.
[1:08:24] » Sorry, Colin.
[1:08:25] » Can I just caution you against um using
[1:08:29] burrow tax dollars to give to private
[1:08:32] parties? There are state, you know, I
[1:08:35] know there's some state main street
[1:08:36] programs where they give grants that you
[1:08:38] could then hand out, but as to the
[1:08:40] burough's own tax revenues, that's not a
[1:08:43] permitted use.
[1:08:44] » Would you be distinguishing between the
[1:08:48] platforms and the safety barriers there?
[1:08:51] » So, I think I'm sorry, I apologize, but
[1:08:55] the safety barriers is the thing that I
[1:08:56] want to talk about because I think that
[1:08:58] is something that we've been lacking for
[1:08:59] a very long time. And I'll defer to Bob,
[1:09:03] but if there are barriers that we can
[1:09:05] utilize in any way, shape or place we
[1:09:08] need to or at events that we have, then
[1:09:11] I think that that's something that we
[1:09:12] should have on hand. Um, and it has been
[1:09:14] a a concern of mine for many years.
[1:09:17] » Well, and that's one of the beauties of
[1:09:20] and again, I'm not weighing in on any
[1:09:22] particular technology of the waterfilled
[1:09:26] jersey barriers.
[1:09:28] You know, they're not as privy. you
[1:09:30] know, uh, uh, so there are there are
[1:09:34] tradeoffs, right?
[1:09:37] » Bob, would you say that the same is true
[1:09:38] of a
[1:09:40] » A crash barrier?
[1:09:42] » I would if it's dedicated to one
[1:09:44] property's use, you know, I I I
[1:09:47] understand mayor's point. If you have
[1:09:49] something that's movable, you use it for
[1:09:51] special events, use it here or there,
[1:09:52] that's a burrow, that's a burrow
[1:09:54] property. But if it's being dedicated to
[1:09:56] one particular business, I don't think
[1:09:58] that's something you can do. Well, I
[1:10:00] would view that it's being dedicated to
[1:10:02] the safety of our citizens uh versus a
[1:10:06] parklet is being dedicated to the
[1:10:08] business.
[1:10:13] » I my caution stands.
[1:10:15] » Thank you, sir.
[1:10:18] » Anybody else have any burning um
[1:10:21] questions or comments on parklets?
[1:10:22] Because it's going to come back and
[1:10:24] maybe that's the just let it do its
[1:10:27] thing. I just wanted to say that I think
[1:10:28] the planning commission has done exactly
[1:10:30] what I hoped they would do. I wanted
[1:10:32] safety and accessibility addressed and
[1:10:35] and thank you for doing that. And I
[1:10:38] think that that those considerations
[1:10:41] should be continued no matter what the
[1:10:44] cost is because they just they're just
[1:10:47] not negotiable. Um and I fully
[1:10:51] understand our solicitor's cautions
[1:10:53] about using taxpayer money. I was going
[1:10:56] to make the same one, but I didn't know
[1:10:58] the legal background. So, thank you.
[1:11:01] » Yeah, I I just want to say too that um I
[1:11:05] support what the planning commission has
[1:11:06] done requiring platforms and safe
[1:11:09] barriers for accessibility and safety.
[1:11:13] And we can all take a look at the uh
[1:11:16] telephone pole or poll in front of the
[1:11:19] co-op that was hit by a truck a few
[1:11:22] months ago.
[1:11:24] it it still is all marked off. You can't
[1:11:26] walk down the sidewalk um in front of
[1:11:29] the co-op. And if that had been a few
[1:11:32] feet to the left, that could have been
[1:11:35] Arya.
[1:11:37] So um you know, just it it it's really
[1:11:41] important. So I I really also applaud
[1:11:44] the planning commission for all its work
[1:11:46] and advising us. Thank you. Well, we'll
[1:11:49] be back to you uh probably not next
[1:11:52] week, but probably next month with more
[1:11:55] on this. Uh so, and we um look forward
[1:12:00] to working with members of the planning
[1:12:04] commission on other concepts around
[1:12:07] design standards and costs that may make
[1:12:12] it less of a gulp for people to swallow,
[1:12:15] you know. Uh
[1:12:16] » Thanks, John. really appreciate it.
[1:12:19] » Thank you.
[1:12:19] » Um can we let um Mr. Petrosa go next?
[1:12:23] » I'm I'm doing him next. Okay.
[1:12:26] » I told uh my good friend that he I
[1:12:29] didn't even think he needed to be here
[1:12:31] tonight, but here we go. Riverview Road
[1:12:34] » Regarding the application dealing with
[1:12:36] properties at 541 545 Riverview Road. PC
[1:12:39] working on the applicant. Transiting
[1:12:41] officer, federal engineer recommends
[1:12:43] approval of the proposed land
[1:12:45] development plan for 541545
[1:12:48] for review as amended or resubmitted by
[1:12:51] the applicant, including granting the
[1:12:53] waiver from section 128609 to allow for
[1:12:57] a combination combined preliminary and
[1:13:00] final land development application and
[1:13:03] from uh section 10246E
[1:13:06] to allow a curb cut over 12 ft to the uh
[1:13:09] proposed 24 ft to facilitate traffic
[1:13:12] flow and access by emergency
[1:13:15] and planning and zoning concurs with
[1:13:17] that recommendation. And given the
[1:13:20] extensions granted by the applicant and
[1:13:22] all and that all matters seem to be
[1:13:25] resolved, I'd like to move for approval
[1:13:27] of the application as revised and
[1:13:30] recommended by the planning commission.
[1:13:33] So moved.
[1:13:35] » Is there a second?
[1:13:37] » Second. I'm going to ask you to amend
[1:13:39] that you just add a condition that the
[1:13:41] um the applicant enter into a
[1:13:43] development agreement and financial
[1:13:45] security agreement to the satisfaction
[1:13:47] of the citizens. We don't always require
[1:13:49] them, but this project I think is going
[1:13:51] to require some some fur oversight and
[1:13:54] making sure that the sidewalks and
[1:13:57] streets get restored and connected
[1:13:59] properly.
[1:14:00] » As amended, Dave. A
[1:14:02] » As amended. And I asked Don if they
[1:14:04] would have any problems with that just
[1:14:06] so no problem. So as amended by
[1:14:09] solicitor
[1:14:11] » Second.
[1:14:13] » Any further comments?
[1:14:16] » Jared, do you have a comment?
[1:14:21] Yeah, I'm going to call the question and
[1:14:22] thank everybody for finding a solution
[1:14:25] to something at the top of Riverview
[1:14:28] Road, which has been a question for as
[1:14:30] long as I've been here and probably
[1:14:31] almost everybody's been here. So, I'll
[1:14:34] call the question. Thank you.
[1:14:37] All
[1:14:37] » In favor.
[1:14:40] » Anyone?
[1:14:42] » All right. Uh for a second later on in
[1:14:46] the agenda under public works, there's a
[1:14:48] motion to approve a traffic sign
[1:14:51] » Which relates to the same project.
[1:14:53] » Okay. Did you want to handle it that way
[1:14:56] so we can get out of here?
[1:14:57] » Yeah, I think
[1:14:59] incorporate that.
[1:15:00] » I'll defer to Jared then
[1:15:04] to to you.
[1:15:05] » Okay. Uh so in connection with this
[1:15:07] project um right
[1:15:10] » There's a a traffic signal problem.
[1:15:11] there was a traffic signal that was uh
[1:15:13] placed
[1:15:15] um at at Baltimore Pike and River Road
[1:15:19] uh encroached on private property built.
[1:15:21] I don't know how many years ago that
[1:15:22] was, but um anyways, in order to to get
[1:15:26] pendon approval for what they're doing,
[1:15:28] they need to either move that over or
[1:15:32] they need to get an easement from the
[1:15:34] property owner, which is his client. His
[1:15:36] client's willing to give an easement to
[1:15:38] the burrow so we can keep it where it
[1:15:40] is. and then hand off the traffic. So,
[1:15:43] uh there's a traffic signal agreement
[1:15:45] which uh Bob has reviewed um that would
[1:15:49] accomplish this. I'll move the
[1:15:51] acceptance of the travel traffic signal
[1:15:54] agreement.
[1:15:56] » Second.
[1:15:59] Do I have is that up here? Do we have
[1:16:02] that? Oh, yeah. That's in our packet.
[1:16:04] Okay.
[1:16:05] » Um any comments, questions? All in
[1:16:08] favor? I oppose. Motion carries.
[1:16:12] » All right. Back to planning and zoning
[1:16:14] if that's all right, Mr.
[1:16:17] Manager. Um,
[1:16:21] regarding artificial turf, uh, one of
[1:16:23] the many, uh, concerns raised by the
[1:16:26] public and noted by council in its memo
[1:16:29] to planning commission on camp field is
[1:16:31] artificial turf. uh planning themselves
[1:16:34] to release that it might be timely to
[1:16:35] address artificial turf worldwide
[1:16:37] through some type of restriction.
[1:16:40] The uh
[1:16:44] uh PC liaison to planning and zoning
[1:16:46] thought it's sufficient to hear from
[1:16:48] planning and zoning on this matter and
[1:16:49] not necessary for come at this juncture.
[1:16:53] As mentioned earlier, planning and zing
[1:16:56] has uh decided not to send anything to
[1:17:00] the planning comm uh commission until we
[1:17:02] hear from the solicitor and zoning
[1:17:04] officer to whom we have sent some
[1:17:06] inquiries which we have heard from this
[1:17:08] afternoon. Uh we will consider all of
[1:17:11] this at our next meeting and get back to
[1:17:13] you one way or the another for our
[1:17:16] October cycle. The scope of our
[1:17:18] discussion ranged from ban on new
[1:17:20] installations of artificial turf to
[1:17:23] treating artificial turf as hardcape for
[1:17:25] lockage with the former getting the
[1:17:28] majority of our support. Our current
[1:17:30] rules and regulations do not address
[1:17:33] artificial turf. During the over one and
[1:17:35] a half years of discussion regarding
[1:17:37] Cunningham field, we have found ways of
[1:17:39] providing the college with guidance
[1:17:41] about what may or may not be acceptable
[1:17:43] at Cunningham. For example, we have sent
[1:17:45] to the college strong signals about the
[1:17:47] importance of the 200 foot transition
[1:17:49] zone, preserving mature trees, strict
[1:17:52] views of the colleges to be allowed to
[1:17:54] install lighting or amplifies sound and
[1:17:57] parking requirements. These informal
[1:18:00] conversations have hopefully provided
[1:18:02] the college with greater insight as it
[1:18:04] continues to develop plans for
[1:18:06] Cunningham Field, a policy direction on
[1:18:09] artificial turf should add to that
[1:18:11] clarity. We're not asking for a vote on
[1:18:15] uh this cycle in artificial turf or
[1:18:18] making a particular proposal. We wanted
[1:18:20] to let full council and the public know
[1:18:23] that we were discussing this matter at
[1:18:25] committee and thought we would provide
[1:18:27] other members with an opportunity to
[1:18:29] give us feedback.
[1:18:31] So, if there's any comment you'd like us
[1:18:34] to be considering as we, you know,
[1:18:37] ponder this issue and uh come back to
[1:18:39] you hopefully as early as next month. Uh
[1:18:43] we are all ears now or as you all know
[1:18:47] always accessible to each and everyone.
[1:18:51] » Does anyone have anything to share on
[1:18:53] TUR? I know that individually we've been
[1:18:56] reading and digesting and trying to
[1:18:58] understand. So that process should
[1:19:01] continue and it will be in committee and
[1:19:04] please feel free to go and share your
[1:19:06] thoughts.
[1:19:08] Very good. Uh and I believe that is
[1:19:11] everything. Thank you for your patience
[1:19:13] and your input. Can we take a one
[1:19:15] minute?
[1:19:16] » Yes. We're in recess for a minute.