[0:19] Good luck.
>> Yeah. Are you guys set?
[0:22] » All right. Going to call the meeting to
order. Thank you everyone for coming
[0:26] out. Uh, first thing on the agenda is
approval of our meeting in August.
[0:32] Any corrections, concerns?
>> I'm good.
[0:36] » I have none.
>> Get a motion to approve.
[0:42] » One second.
>> Okay. So, Andy made it. Alex second. All
[0:45] in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.
[0:49] All right. So, what do we got? Uh,
pending next rule here.
[0:54] » Actually, you don't between
when I prepared this and now we've
[0:58] received extensions for
these projects.
[1:06] I made extension for 109 and for FO.
>> That's right.
[1:11] » Yeah. And I got one from Tim Snider for
the green top.
[1:14] » All righty.
All right. So, we'll move forward. Uh,
[1:19] Fasco Heckler.
[1:29] » Uh, good evening. I'm Brian Folk with
COC Design Group. Um, here tonight talk
[1:34] about the Fusco Heckler subdivision.
Um, have a couple handouts here. May
[1:39] help it. I got
[1:45] » Thank you.
[1:49] » [laughter]
[1:51] » Yeah, that actually helps.
>> Thanks.
[2:02] All right. So, um, this project is is
actually a I call it an lot annexation.
[2:09] We're just basically moving lot lines
around. There's three existing parcels
[2:13] and there's going to be three parcels
when we're finished. Um
[2:20] there there's two parcels out along uh
Forest Avenue. Um that's I'll refer to
[2:26] the green parcel, that's the Fusco lot.
Um and then the light yellow one will be
[2:31] the Heckler lot. And then the the pink
lot I'll refer to as the Real Pro lot.
[2:38] Um so um kind of working our way around
here as you see the the the the um busco
[2:45] lot. It's existing 10 acre parcel. It
has an existing home on it with access
[2:51] out the forest. Um what we're proposing
to do is to take um a portion of the
[2:58] land and convey it to the Heckler parcel
right next door. Um that's the darker
[3:02] yellow area. Um and as well as a portion
of the land in the rear which is in in
[3:09] dark pink and convey that over to what
will be the real prolot in the end. Um,
[3:16] so that that parcel is going to go from
10 acres to about just under six and a
[3:20] half, 6.43 acres, uh, in the end. Um,
then the Heckler lot is is the, uh,
[3:26] light yellow one. Um, that has an
existing home on it. Um, currently it's
[3:32] an ex existing non-conforming lot. The
the home is located um, too close to the
[3:38] existing property line. Uh, so it's
considered an existing non-conforming
[3:43] uh, structure. Um, by conveying that
parcel over, we will eliminate that
[3:48] nonconformity and and improve that
issue. Uh, so it would no longer be
[3:52] non-conforming.
Um, and then so it's going to take the
[3:57] dark yellow in and then it's going to
convey.
[4:01] » Can you point to any color?
[4:07] Oh, you got Oh, sorry. Sorry. You're
good.
[4:14] Um and then uh the pink area in the back
um of the Heckler lot is also going to
[4:19] get conveyed to the Real Pro. So that's
a 10acre lot that's going to be reduced
[4:23] down to 4.7 when it's finished. Um and
then the Real Pro lot is is not
[4:28] conveying any land out. It's just
accepting parcels from both Heckler and
[4:32] Fusco. And it's originally was 15.3
acres and it's going to be a little over
[4:38] 24 and a half acres when it's finished.
Um, so again, the the the intent here is
[4:44] just to move some lot lines around. Um,
the reason we're here doing this now and
[4:50] not part of any other plan is there's an
contractual agreements with with the fus
[4:56] um that require us to get things moving
along and get finished and get the
[5:00] settlement by a certain date. So, we
need to move forward to to meet those
[5:05] obligations. So that's the purpose of
this um going through this process here
[5:10] independent of of the full development
plans um that everybody's aware are are
[5:15] being worked on. Um we did receive a
review letter from Steve's office um
[5:22] back in June I believe it was. We did
resubmit plans. Um I don't think there
[5:27] were any issues in that from our from
our end. They were will comply. We did
[5:32] not receive an updated letter letter yet
from Steve, but I don't have any uh real
[5:37] concerns that that there's anything in
there of substance. Um I'm sure Steve
[5:41] will will speak up here if he has any
concerns. Um
[5:44] » I guess just to clarify,
I had a larger comment here about sewage
[5:49] planning modules. I think I saw just saw
an email from you that D has confirmed
[5:54] that they're not going to require sewage
planning.
[5:57] » That's correct. We got an email this
morning finalizing that because there's
[6:01] existing dwellings on the properties and
there's no new development, no sewage
[6:04] planning is required.
>> Follow up on that.
[6:10] We've asked several times in the past
for some kind of master plan for sewage
[6:17] planning for the entire subdivision.
that is
[6:23] this property, the adjoining properties,
the ones out on Lawn Avenue. We just
[6:28] want to see how all of that is going to
be tied into Penridge Regional.
[6:34] » Yeah, that's I mean, again, that's not
for discussion here tonight. We're just
[6:38] talking about the adjustments for these
parcels. There's no development. There's
[6:42] no proposed sewer. There's there's
nothing along
[6:46] » this is
in process to getting to a much bit
[6:52] larger development
>> potentially, but I mean we're in a lot
[6:55] of discussions with the township and the
local authorities to to work all those
[6:59] details out. This is just there's three
three lots and there's going to be three
[7:04] lots when we're finished. So, they
exist.
[7:06] » Is is the real pro property part of the
larger subdivision? Uh, the real pro
[7:13] will be part of that subdivision. Yes.
All right.
[7:15] » How about the heckler property?
>> Uh, no. I don't believe in the end it
[7:19] will be.
>> And the real pro is partially in the
[7:24] village and partially in the RA.
Is that how I read that?
[7:29] » That's correct. The
the zoning line runs right along the
[7:34] back of that the dark red.
>> I got you.
[7:40] What is that diagonal mean?
>> What was that diagonal line from? That's
[7:44] the existing track lines from well
before we were involved.
[7:52] » Any problem conveying land out of RA
into the VR?
[7:57] » Not changing the zone?
>> No,
[7:59] » just moving the lot line.
>> Correct. John's correct there. The
[8:04] zoning two are the same and just
>> and what's going on with the two. So you
[8:10] got a medium yellow and you got a
lighter yellow green. What's what's
[8:14] going on there? Like with the whole
>> the darker yellow is just going to be
[8:17] conveyed from the fusco parcel to the
heckler. It's going to be now owned by
[8:20] Heckler. It one of the big benefits
there is it eliminates the need for the
[8:24] the the existing house on Heckler is
right up against the property line. So
[8:28] it doesn't meet the sideyard setback. So
that whole yellow is going to go to
[8:32] » correct
>> lot well lot one
[8:35] » that's correct
[8:42] » um one of the waivers was for
that correct
[8:47] » uh the well there's there's one waiver
request having to do with existing
[8:51] vegetation
um I guess locating trees over 6 in
[8:55] caliper or whatever similar to what we
did on the the fisher track There's no
[9:00] construction, there's no disturbance.
So, we're asking for that waiver. As far
[9:03] as road improvements go, we were um
asking for the deferral. Um
[9:09] » Okay. So, similar to what was done with
that property.
[9:12] » I always forget,
>> but around the corner on Fisher on Mount
[9:16] » Fisher. Yes,
>> that's Fisher. The next one down
[9:18] » the treatment plant. That wasn't Fisher.
>> Fisher.
[9:21] » Yeah, that's Fisher.
>> Fisher is the pump station.
[9:23] » I'm getting
>> up on Mountain View.
[9:26] » Mountain View.
>> Yep. So, similar to that one there,
[9:29] you'd be asking for a deferral or
covenant on a lot when the larger
[9:33] subdivision if and when the larger
subdivision proceeds it that will get
[9:38] revisited.
>> Correct.
[9:40] » Yeah, understood.
>> So, I didn't list that as a waiver. I
[9:44] think it's just a deferral. I think it's
the
[9:50] » Is there any other concerns from you,
Steve?
[9:57] No, I just wanted to I I actually I have
a draft letter for the new law, but then
[10:02] it became too late for this meeting, so
I didn't want to issue it and confuse
[10:07] what letters got distributed.
>> I figured
[10:09] » I just want to look at that quick. I
don't think there was anything on there.
[10:19] No, there'll be a lot of deeds of
consolidation and whatnot that will be
[10:22] by your attorney which is a confirmation
for the township.
[10:26] » No, I have no other issues because
there's no construction on
[10:29] » construction.
[10:32] » All right. Any discussion for you
fellas?
[10:44] If not, uh,
any public comment on this project?
[10:50] If you have some, please come up to the
microphone.
[10:54] » All right. Seeing none, we'll move
forward. Uh,
[10:57] » you want to get up, come on up. Uh, give
me your name and address when you get up
[11:00] here, please. Please speak into the
microphone.
[11:04] » Harry Costic, 111 and 117 Holiday House
Road. um keep on moving these ahead,
[11:10] which is fine and that's what has to be
done. But we do we get any improvements
[11:14] on the intersection up here or any
drawings that you've been asking for for
[11:18] the the main intersection where all
these developments are coming together?
[11:23] » Not that I'm aware of, but
>> Well, that's we're having a lot of
[11:26] problems with all the other
developments. Outrage Road. The
[11:29] traffic's getting so bad and and I
understand if they had the right if if
[11:33] it's legally in in our code and they
have the right to build these, but we
[11:36] can't have a [clears throat] bottleneck.
We only have one one from the hospital
[11:40] done and the other three aren't. So, we
really need this should be addressed,
[11:44] not when everything's rearranged and
ready to go.
[11:47] » I I think that you know everything's
still in a planning stage once things
[11:51] get rolling.
>> Yeah. Well, you're rejocking everything
[11:53] around to make it in a planning stage to
make it bigger and make it work. So
[11:58] anyhow, just
>> there is a point in the process where
[12:00] there has to be a traffic stud. Yeah,
we're just not to
[12:03] » but they've been talking about that for
6 months a year now too,
[12:06] » probably even longer. It may still be
six months from now. But
[12:09] » so it's a problem and as long as it you
know as long as it's addressed that's
[12:13] fine but it has to be addressed.
>> It will be addressed forever.
[12:17] » Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else?
[12:23] » All right thoughts from you guys. So,
you're looking for a waiver.
[12:30] » Yes.
>> And a deferral.
[12:32] » A waiver. A deferral. And then a
recommendation on the plan. That's
[12:36] » right. Any comments on the waiver.
[12:43] » It makes sense.
Any any concerns with the waiver?
[12:48] » No.
>> No.
[12:49] » How about the deferral?
>> It makes sense to me as well. Yes.
[12:56] [clears throat]
>> All right. So, let's uh take a vote on
[12:59] the waiver. So, we can recommend that.
[13:06] We want to make a motion to approve the
waiver.
[13:11] » Make a motion to approve the waiver for
section 365-8
[13:18] for the existing vegetation.
>> I'll second. All in favor? I opposed.
[13:25] Motion carries. All right. So, you got
your waiver. We need to vote on the
[13:28] deferral as well.
>> You can make that part of your
[13:32] conditions of the plan of
>> All right.
[13:36] All right. So, are we [clears throat]
satisfied to make a recommendation with
[13:41] this?
[13:45] I I don't see anything tripping us up at
this point.
[13:59] So nobody has any comment. I would look
for a motion to recommend conditional
[14:04] approval.
[14:11] » I'll make said motion.
[14:15] » Second.
>> We got it.
[14:19] » Andy got the second. All right. All in
favor?
[14:22] » I
car. [clears throat]
[14:25] » Okay. Thank you. You got it.
[14:41] » All I needed was a color map. [laughter]
>> It helped.
[14:48] » Yes.
All right. So, next will be Pen Valley
[14:55] representation. Are you the
representation?
[15:00] » I'm Phil Durststein, an employee of Pen
Valley Gas. Um, representing the Bulmer
[15:06] family or Bulmer Farms property. I don't
know if you had a picture up there. Um,
[15:11] we want to I didn't print out anything.
I didn't know if you had anything from
[15:15] Cynthia from Horizon Engineer.
>> Yes.
[15:20] Um, we would like just to on our plot
plan, we would like to increase one of
[15:26] the building sizes by 476 ft. We would
like to make an employee room onto one
[15:32] of our storage buildings. And so the
area around where we're building on top
[15:38] of is already impervious surface. It's a
a stone area there uh that we don't
[15:44] really use for um anything there. And so
we thought we would want to build just
[15:50] an employee room there. So that's
basically what I'm just asking for.
[15:54] » So we don't have a
for
[15:59] » all right
>> on the map. It's
[16:02] » you have the the storage tanks the
>> right
[16:05] » up on township line,
>> right? It's the upper part up there
[16:09] where we have about three storage
buildings up there.
[16:13] » Right. Are all those buildings built?
>> They're all built. Yes. Okay.
[16:18] » It says on the on the schedule given
that there's proposed storage building.
[16:23] » I can [clears throat] explain that.
>> Okay.
[16:25] » Thank you.
>> For ease of processing this application,
[16:29] we chose to have them go through it as a
amended final plan. So
[16:36] instead of starting the process over for
a new waiver of land development, this
[16:41] goes through more steps. So some of
those things that are listed proposed
[16:44] because they were proposed on the
original final plan.
[16:47] » This is a 2019 plan.
>> Yeah.
[16:50] » Well, no, it was even earlier than that.
>> The very first
[16:55] » 2005 is probably when it was started.
>> Yeah.
[16:59] » That's when the first building went
>> and then 2015
[17:04] » 15
>> maybe. Yeah.
[17:06] » And then we did one last year.
>> Right. So that's why some of the things
[17:12] they proposed on it because it's
carryover from the old plan.
[17:16] » So it's a little 34 by 14.
>> Yeah.
[17:21] » The I call it a lean to onto the one end
of the building, but it's Yeah. I have a
[17:28] foundation under. We just find that
instead of having everybody come down to
[17:33] the office, we thought we would
keep a lot of the truck drivers and
[17:38] delivery guys up top there.
>> Right.
[17:43] » All right. So, it doesn't sound like
it's a major deal, right?
[17:48] » No, it doesn't impact parking because
you're not talking about new employees.
[17:51] It doesn't impact storm water
>> because you're
[17:54] » sewer, water, any of that.
>> That's now on public sewer. where way
[17:58] back when this started, the site was all
on on lot sewer,
[18:02] » right? But yeah, we have public sewer
now.
[18:04] » Public sewer
>> and we're not adding any bathrooms or
[18:07] anything.
>> You're not put any bathrooms on the
[18:09] employee room?
>> No, it's basically for like employee
[18:12] boxes and for like there's computers
that they they've been doing it inside
[18:17] the storage building,
>> right?
[18:19] » It's just dirty. And so we're going to
just make it and there'll be a little
[18:23] kitchenet in there.
>> All right.
[18:28] Is there so we just looking for a waiver
of land development here?
[18:31] » No, you're approving an amendment to the
final plan.
[18:36] » Oh, okay.
>> All right. Um discussion with you guys.
[18:41] I think
>> is the stone that's there is that um
[18:45] impervious already?
>> Yes.
[18:50] » Is it stone or is it paved?
>> It's stone. It's um modified packed.
[18:55] » That's impervious. Yeah.
[19:00] » Yeah. I mean, I don't have a problem
with this.
[19:04] » All right.
>> All right. Somebody want to make a
[19:06] motion. What are we doing again?
Amending the
[19:09] » amending the Oh, sorry.
>> Amending our plans. Yeah.
[19:12] » Any public comment on this project? I'm
sorry.
[19:15] All right. See? None. So, it's an
amended. Say it again.
[19:21] » Final plan. I motion that we amend the
final plan to include this break room.
[19:26] » I'll second.
>> All right. All in favor?
[19:29] » I opposed. Motion carries.
>> Thank you very much.
[19:31] » You got it.
>> I'm sorry. Your name again?
[19:35] » Okay. Thank you.
>> I don't know. [laughter]
[19:39] » I don't want to say anything. I have to
somewhere
[19:44] go back on one, I guess.
>> All right. So, next on the agenda is
[19:52] I know what it is. I hold
business. I lost my agenda.
[19:59] Never mind. Thanks. I got two. Probably
have three. All right. Old business. Uh,
[20:04] anyone have any old business?
[20:09] This question was answered before the
meeting. So, all right. So, new business
[20:12] would be the uh proposed amendment to
the ordinance. uh the data center
[20:19] ordinance. Um John, I know you have a
lot to talk about, but we'll take care
[20:24] of a couple things. First, um is there
anyone here from that group that put
[20:29] this together?
[20:33] » I was going to thank them, but
I I will to that group. Thank you for
[20:38] putting this together. The
>> video, right?
[20:42] I know it probably required a lot of a
lot of work. So appreciate their
[20:47] efforts. Um we did get review from Bucks
County. We got a review from our
[20:53] what are we calling Tom Kitta
planner.
[20:58] Um Bucks County didn't seem to have any
issues with it. Um or planner. I wasn't
[21:06] print that.
He had a couple of suggestions.
[21:11] Um,
[21:14] » you want to talk about those first? Come
on in.
[21:20] » He hit some of these same issues that I
did. So,
[21:23] » right.
>> So, what I what I'd like to do if we're
[21:28] not going to have any more discussion
about the planners review, John, I know
[21:34] you you put a lot of work into it. Um, I
want to give you the floor to go through
[21:39] what your your comments are. Um, what
I'm going to suggest though, we'll have
[21:45] some discussion on your your thoughts,
your comments. What I'm going to suggest
[21:49] is we table this, ask that your comments
get reviewed by either the planner or or
[21:58] solicitor or another attorney. Um,
not that I don't trust you, but I don't
[22:05] think you're you're a specialist on
everything that you touched on.
[22:10] Does that make sense to you?
>> Well, I I guess
[22:14] so. You're not going to let me go
through?
[22:16] » No, I'm going to let Yeah. No, I want
you to go through it. We'll have some
[22:19] discussion on it, but I I I would like
it to be reviewed by another
[22:22] professional.
>> Oh, absolutely.
[22:24] » Before we make any decisions on it.
>> And And that's I would agree to that. I
[22:29] would propose that. Does that does that
make sense?
[22:31] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Whatever you do, don't trust me.
[22:33] Let me just [laughter]
show I don't know how many degrees you
[22:37] have. [laughter]
>> Uh so anyway, um if you want to let me I
[22:43] couldn't print out your 32 pages, so I
got to follow it on this.
[22:48] Um
>> so the good news is I wasn't going to go
[22:51] through all 32 pages.
>> Oh, awesome.
[22:54] » But I put together a four-page summary.
>> I was going to go through
[22:57] » You gonna hand it out to everybody?
>> I'll hand that out to everybody. So
[23:05] » all right.
[23:23] So, as I mentioned the Yeah, that that
darn Gregie threw me for a loop because
[23:27] I was all ready. I had my agenda all set
and I open my email this morning and I
[23:32] see the thing from the planners.
[laughter]
[23:34] » Stole your phone.
>> You didn't steal it. actually he um
[23:40] he verified several of the points that I
made and I I have a sheet to talk
[23:45] because I only was able to briefly try
to put together a comparison between
[23:48] what he said and what I said and
that as we're going along but I'll I'll
[23:54] start on my review
before reviewing the individual
[23:58] sections. This review is grounded
strictly in the fundamental pillars of
[24:02] constitutional law known as Dylan's
rule. Doctrine of state legislative
[24:07] supremacy over municipal governments as
established by the Pennsylvania Supreme
[24:12] Court in landmark cases like
Commonwealth versus Moore from 1901,
[24:17] Klein versus Harrisburg in 1949.
The township possesses zero inherent
[24:22] sovereign power. is strictly a creature
of the commonwealth and can only
[24:26] exercise the specific land use powers
explicitly granted to it by the state
[24:32] legislature through the Pennsylvania
municipal Pennsylvania municipal
[24:36] planning code. If a township passes a
zoning mandate that goes beyond those
[24:40] explicitly authorized powers, such as
trying to regulate regional electricity
[24:45] rates or override the uniform state
building code, the courts must rule
[24:49] against the municipality and strike down
the text as an act completely beyond our
[24:54] legal powers.
We can see a modern example of this
[24:58] boundary right here in our community. In
the fall 2026 township newsletter,
[25:03] Supervisor Kaiser stated the board of
supervisors formally adopted resolution
[25:08] 2026,
which strongly supports Pennsylvania
[25:12] House Bill 2533.
This amendment to the municipal planning
[25:16] code would empower local governments to
implement a temporary moratorum on
[25:21] massive data centers, giving
municipalities the necessary time to
[25:26] update zoning ordinance and protection
laws against sorry and protect local
[25:31] electric grids, water resources, and
emergency services.
[25:35] As Chairman Kaiser correctly stated, our
current municipal span of control holds
[25:40] strict binding limits. The board
explicitly recognized that we currently
[25:44] lack statutory power to regulate
regional electric infrastructure.
[25:49] My technical revision simply brings
ordinance 260 into legal alignment with
[25:54] the exact statutory boundary that the
board of supervisors already public
[25:58] acknowledge we must follow. Why include
wording in a local ordinance that
[26:02] assumes we remain that we maintain such
authority if we are actively asking the
[26:08] state to grant us that same authority.
The standard administrative updates
[26:12] below are designed to ensure our
ordinance aligns perfectly with
[26:16] Pennsylvania law, protecting the
citizens strong environmental and noise
[26:20] goals within litigation proof shield.
One week prior to tonight's meeting, I
[26:26] submitted a full review of this
ordinance of ordinance 260 and a revised
[26:30] copy of the ordinance to the township
manager, township solicitor, and the
[26:35] planning commission members, which I
trust you have all read. Those documents
[26:40] I request be included in the final
minutes of tonight's meeting, which I
[26:43] have a copy of here. What I'll read here
is a brief summary of that review and
[26:47] the proposed changes to ordinance 260.
This goes fairly quick from here. The
[26:54] preamble cleans up text to prevent
version stacking loopholes between the
[26:58] different ordinance drafts. Section A,
use rules clarifies the statutory role
[27:04] the zoning hearing board. Section B,
accessory structures, distinguishes
[27:08] everyday sheds and trash enclosures from
multi-megawatt generator yards and
[27:12] hybrid substations. That's one of the
things that the the planner cited on in
[27:18] his report.
Section C on lot size. This is the big
[27:22] restores the baseline to 25 acres. The
35 acre shift was made without map
[27:27] analysis because our zoning map has zero
vacant contiguous 35 acre parcels left
[27:33] in the PI district. The 35 acre rule
functions as an uncondition
[27:38] unconstitutional total ban. Even if a
specific applicant manages to merge
[27:43] smaller tracks, the standard remains
legally invalid because it creates an
[27:48] unorthodized monopoly for one developer
while maintaining an unconstitutional de
[27:53] facto total ban for every other land
owner in the district. So, my analogy of
[27:58] that is if you see a sign saying
iPhones, brand new iPhone, 35% off, and
[28:03] you go into the store and say, I'd like
one of those 35% off iPhones. I'm sorry,
[28:08] we don't have any. When are you going to
get them more in? No, we're not going to
[28:11] get any more in. How many did you have
originally? Well, we didn't have any
[28:14] originally. We call that false
advertising. This is like the legal
[28:19] coral area that you're saying you got to
have 35 acres to build a data center,
[28:23] but oh, by the way, we don't have any
35acre lots for you to choose.
[28:27] I put wording in there that I think
straightens that out, but again,
[28:31] somebody else needs to look at it.
>> Can I comment on that?
[28:33] » Yes.
>> I mean, we do have obviously we have one
[28:37] » that they're they're trying to build a
data center on now.
[28:42] » It's 38, isn't it?
>> 25.
[28:46] » 38.
>> There's [clears throat] two lots.
[28:47] » Yeah.
>> Together, they might be 38,
[28:49] » but individually they're not.
>> So, they can combine them. But if you
[28:55] pass the ordinance says it's required to
be 35, you not only blocked out anybody
[28:59] else, but you've created this artificial
monopoly saying you let one guy through,
[29:04] but you can't let anybody else through.
The ordinance has got to be designed for
[29:07] the whole township, not just for one
applicant.
[29:12] » Well,
[29:15] again, I'm not a lawyer. [laughter]
But
[29:18] » you did stay the holiday. But I did say
the holiday.
[29:23] Um, we do have I mean what's what's the
vary property size? I mean they they
[29:29] could very well turn around and say you
know warehouses the appetite is weighing
[29:33] for a warehouse. Let's put a data center
there. That's that's over 35 acres.
[29:39] » I don't know. I'm pretty sure
>> I looked I found there were total there
[29:44] were there were when I read the map
there were three that I found and I went
[29:47] into Google Earth and I found buildings
on all three of them. I don't know one
[29:51] of
I don't know who they all belong to, but
[29:54] they're they were already developed
>> and like you know like we're seeing
[29:59] that question and each acquire property
to get the desired amount of property
[30:04] they need. I mean they they can buy
contiguous lots parcels
[30:11] from what I understand my reading of the
rule is that's still a violation forcing
[30:16] them to do that.
[30:21] All right. Well, let's let legal look at
that one.
[30:23] » Yes. But those are my thoughts on and I
understand.
[30:27] Section D, acoustic and noise
measurements irons out a hidden
[30:31] contradiction where section S of the
draft permits 55 dB while section D
[30:36] limits it to 25 instead of 45. Because
decibb are logarithmic, a 10dB gap
[30:43] allows the facility to run twice as loud
at night. PA law dictates all text
[30:48] contradictions must be resolved in favor
of the developer.
[30:53] That was also one of the items that um
planner identified and I like my answer
[30:59] better. Of course, also under
enforcement tools, changed a should to
[31:04] shall, which makes testing protocols
mandatory, isolates background traffic
[31:08] noises, removes the Y20 DBA generator
testing loophole, requires high
[31:15] precision ANC type 1 research
instruments instead of loose consumer
[31:20] meters.
Section E for loading docks increases
[31:24] off- streetet loading births to prevent
heavy 18-wheelers from idling or staging
[31:29] on public roads.
Section F, this is another biggie,
[31:33] replaces the vague opinion-based
phrasing with objective will serve
[31:36] capacity letters from utility providers.
removes the groundwater extraction ban
[31:42] and regional electricity infrastructure
expansion demands as water allocation
[31:47] and transmission facilities are strictly
and exclusively jurisdiction of the
[31:53] Pennsylvania sorry of the PJM
interconnection, the Delaware River
[31:56] Basin Commission and the Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission.
[32:02] In all the ver all the drafts of all the
different ordinance I've read, nobody
[32:06] has touched electricity infrastructure
or electricity rates. And I believe as I
[32:11] said here, it's it's not in our
jurisdiction to touch those things. It's
[32:16] handled by others.
Section G for utility lines clarifies
[32:21] underground line placement through rules
and fuzzy wording. First responders.
[32:26] Section H removes uninforceable training
fee demands and subjective livestock
[32:31] wording to ensure full compliance with
the state building code. Mrs. Olirri's
[32:36] cow passed away. You can't assume it's
the data center's fault.
[32:40] The height baseline adjusts the
measurement rule to account for slope
[32:43] topographies preventing massive visual
walls on downward slopes. This is
[32:48] something I think we we should take a
look at across the board. This was the
[32:51] uh you know the cold storage facility
issue that we
[32:56] » saying we need
>> we've had plenty of discussion on that.
[32:59] » Yes.
>> Section J landscape buffer strengthens
[33:02] the screening by mandating high impact
type three industrial buffers and
[33:06] continue with sixoot earth and BMS. That
was also one of the issues that the
[33:10] planner addressed. Section K lighting
enhances criteria to establish net
[33:14] ambient trespass limits and shields
neighbors from downward slope glare.
[33:20] Section L, signage corrects formatting
flaws regarding emergency contact
[33:24] postings.
Section M, cooling systems as
[33:27] requirement for closed loop cooling
infrastructure to be in strict
[33:31] compliance with the mechanical and
pressure containment standards of the
[33:35] Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code,
the American Society of Heating,
[33:39] Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning
Engineering Standards.
[33:43] Halfway there.
Section N environmental impacts deletes
[33:47] the subjective unmeasurable smell test
for diesel exhaust and replaces with an
[33:52] objective 7 to1 all factor meter limit.
Section O hydraological standards
[33:58] hydraological safeguards strips out an
unconstitutional presumed guilty
[34:03] liability clause that would collapse in
court. replaced it with mandatory
[34:08] network of three on-site monitoring
wells with live telemetry data logging
[34:13] to automatically protect residential
water tables. So the wording in there
[34:17] before was, you know, if somebody's well
runs dry, we assume it's the data
[34:21] center's fault. What I'm proposing here
is that the data center would have to
[34:25] install test wells with real time
monitoring to monitor the the water
[34:31] level in those in those test wells. And
from there would be able to better
[34:36] gather whether it was indeed the data
center that caused somebody else's well
[34:40] run dry or some other issue.
[34:46] Section P construction hours removes
fuzzy wording that gave the township
[34:49] manager absolute personal discretion to
change operating hours locking down a
[34:54] non-negotiable construction timeline
limited strictly to public safety
[34:58] emergencies.
Section Q, this is another one. converts
[35:02] the rigid solar building requirement
into a progressive zoning incentive. The
[35:07] original text force the placement of
solar panel hardware would lack the
[35:11] legal mechanism to compel its connection
or use.
[35:15] Section R, battery rules removes the
unconstitutional chemical material ban
[35:19] on lithium-ion batteries. Substitute
strict containment setbacks with
[35:23] mandatory NFPA 855 explosion venting
code enforcement.
[35:30] Section S, backup generator testing and
use, irons out the dangerous
[35:34] contradiction which section D required
strict noise compliance. Yet section S,
[35:38] need a blank check to bypass noise caps
during outages.
[35:42] What I propose in here is that the the
restriction is 45. No matter what,
[35:47] whether it's an outage emergency,
whether generators are running or not,
[35:50] they got to stick to the 45 dB at night.
Section T. Electronic waste removal
[35:56] replaces a vague and uninforcable
corporate procedure statement with
[36:00] strict clear code enforcement tracking.
Operators are required to maintain a
[36:05] certified EPA hazardous waste
identification number and route all
[36:10] commission server infrastructure
exclusively through certified eswarts
[36:15] or R2 recycling pipelines.
Section U, economic funding, converts
[36:21] the illegal cash funding requirement
into a standard legally permissible
[36:25] capital infrastructure impact study.
Section V dis decommissioning and
[36:31] abatement replaces invalid private
building bond with legally defensible
[36:36] public nuisance abatement tracking using
court issued administrative warrants.
[36:42] Section W. Escore review fees adjust the
review building tracks to match NPC
[36:47] guidelines. Protects townshipdirected
studies while removing ordinary legal
[36:51] overhead.
Section X ordinance integration removes
[36:56] ambiguous ambiguities regarding how this
text interacts with our other existing
[37:01] municipal codes. And I added three new
requirements. In section M, I add a
[37:06] requirement for air filtration as an
automated MV 13 particulate
[37:12] filter louver requirement to protect
local power system from emergency
[37:17] generator triggers caused by external
agricultural or environmental smoke. So
[37:22] if there's a fire down the street and
there's a lot of smoke in the area
[37:27] right now without any filtering, the
smoke gets inside triggers the equipment
[37:31] to think that there's an emergency and
kicks in the generators. This requires
[37:35] them to put filters on the air coming
into their facility to filter out any
[37:39] any particulate matter like that.
>> Where did you find that?
[37:44] » Lots of digging. Yeah, I was busy for
last week.
[37:48] » Apparently,
>> section N EMF radiation shielding adds a
[37:54] strict 4.0 0 millig maximum boundary
threshold to protect surrounding homes
[37:59] and schools from high voltage
electromatic field electromagnetic field
[38:04] radiation.
In section Y, hardware upgrade triggers
[38:10] adds a new post construction
modification clause. This requires a
[38:14] developer developer to return for a
fresh technical review if they upgrade
[38:19] server densities or swap out rooftop
solar fan sorry rooftop fans ladder
[38:24] equipment after construction is
complete. I mean all new housing changes
[38:28] so fast every couple years things
change. So if I think it was 20% I had
[38:33] in there that if they if they replace
more than 20% of their gear, they got to
[38:38] come back through for another round of
restudies to make sure they still meet
[38:41] all the other requirements part of their
original construction.
[38:46] So in summary, when a tenant rolls the
dice on a poorly drafted ordinance,
[38:49] Pennsylvania judges do not simply te
adjust the text, they strike it down
[38:54] entirely. Under long-standing
Pennsylvania appellet case law, the
[38:58] counter faces direct exposure under
three specific doctrines.
[39:03] Number one, the exclusionary mirage
standards in Surirk from 1977,
[39:08] NEOC from 1988. If an orderant sets
dimensional barriers like an
[39:13] unachievable 35 acre lot size, it cannot
physically fit on the remaining vacant
[39:18] land within the district, judges strike
it down as an unconstitutional total
[39:22] ban.
Number two, statutory preeemption SECCC
[39:28] versus London Grove Township for 2008
and Dukane Light from 1954. When the
[39:33] state legislature established uniform
statewide rules like the Pennsylvania
[39:38] Uniform Construction Code Act 45 or the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Code, local
[39:43] zoning cannot alter or add to those
technical systems. Courts routinely
[39:48] invalidate local texts and overreaches
into fire, battery, solar, and
[39:53] electrical system boundaries.
Number three, the favorability mandate.
[39:58] If an ordinance contains internal
contradictions or mathematical conflicts
[40:02] such as the 45dba versus 55dba property
line noise mismatch, Pennsylvania law
[40:08] dictates that judges must resolve the
ambiguity strictly in favor of the
[40:12] developer and against the township.
The reason I compiled this line by line
[40:17] audit was to protect our county from
severe legal liabilities. The
[40:21] Independent Citizen Group did an
absolutely phenomenal job establishing
[40:25] the strong environmental, water, and
acoustic goals that we all want to see
[40:30] protect West Rockill Township. They gave
us a masterful design tree. My work here
[40:35] was not to cut down the tree, but rather
to use the pruning shears of
[40:39] Pennsylvania case law to remove the
unconstitutional dead wood before
[40:44] developers litigation team uses to tear
down our entire zoning control in county
[40:49] court.
When this commission reviewed ordinance
[40:52] 257, the majority voted that the text
was adopted, it should receive an
[40:57] independent third party legal review. I
ask, where did that official
[41:02] recommendation go?
it went nowhere. I'm not a gambler. I
[41:07] don't like to just roll the dice and
gamble that no one files a claim against
[41:11] us. I don't like unnecessary risks. And
most of all, I don't like the idea of
[41:15] risking the township and its resident's
future on the question document.
[41:20] » Thank you, Kale. Thank you. Y
[41:29] » you have more.
>> You say you had something else.
[41:33] » Well, I I said
>> take a break.
[41:35] » No, I I just this quick. So, I compared
the um the planner's comments under
[41:41] landscape buffering. He recommended a
type two buffer 150 ft wide and landing
[41:47] 12 foot tall evergreen evergreen trees.
In my
[41:53] response, it mandates a continuous type
three heavy industrial buffers with a
[41:58] six-foot earth and burm and continuous
native evergreens.
[42:02] Under the section s for backup
generators, his comments, he forces the
[42:06] operator to attempt to restore noise
compliance within one to three hours
[42:10] after power is restored to to the
system.
[42:15] In mine, I eliminated the loophole
completely mandating that permanent
[42:18] structure level three sound enclosure
perimeter acoustic barriers keep the
[42:23] quiet during
under F,
[42:28] expand the study to I mean the planner's
comments expand the study to list supply
[42:33] sources renewable capacities and change
the name to energy use analysis.
[42:39] In my comments, I changed the framework
to a mandatoryformational power
[42:43] infrastructure statement that certainly
will serve utility capacity letters.
[42:50] Um, under other missing provisions, he
recommend adding definitions, security,
[42:55] fencing rules, architectural standards,
and traffic study references.
[43:00] My revised text features a continuous 24
by7
[43:06] sign registry, hotline, structural
equipment shielding, dedicated off-
[43:11] streetet loading births. I didn't look
at architecture.
[43:15] So that in the couple hours I had to
compare his notes against my notes after
[43:20] getting the emails this morning. That's
that's a quick summary of what I came up
[43:24] with with the the similarities and
differences where he identified
[43:30] some of the same items I did. You had
slightly different recommendations for
[43:34] how to resolve.
[43:38] Okay.
Any comments?
[43:43] » Once again, thank you, Joe. That's a ton
of work and I appreciate you doing it. I
[43:48] I don't
um thank you also John for for preparing
[43:53] this
um you know the the the 35 acre 25 acre
[43:59] discussion
I'm sure at at in some way some path
[44:04] there would be a way that a developer
could you know get a 35 acre lot through
[44:12] some combination of something
>> if
[44:17] From what I read, a developer could do
that. If if he was of the mindset, he
[44:24] could go out, find parcels like this
other one did, add them together, get 35
[44:29] acres.
>> The thing I found is if he chooses to
[44:33] fight, he could also fight on the basis
that there's no 35 acre. So then it goes
[44:38] to the lawyers to resolve.
>> Um, okay. Okay. So, you know, you're
[44:45] suggesting uh restoring it to the 25
acres. So, and there's how many parcels
[44:51] that do do you know did you count 25
acre parcels?
[44:55] » I originally counted seven and I think
out of that seven there were
[45:00] four or so that were still available.
>> So, you're I mean I guess my point that
[45:04] I'm trying to make is what is enough,
right? Is zero.
[45:08] » Well, and that's a good point that why
not
[45:10] » 100, right? So, you know,
>> pick a number. But I if you pick a
[45:13] number, it's it's got to be something
that's achievable. You know, you can't
[45:16] make it, as I said, if
>> if you want to buy an iPhone, it would
[45:20] be false advertising. If you put it into
an ordinance called exclusionary where
[45:25] you as as I said here, you create
standards
[45:28] that are impossible to meet. So,
>> well, not impossible, but difficult or
[45:33] challenging under
>> challenging, right? So the question is
[45:36] do you want to
do you want to cross that you want to
[45:41] fight that battle I guess.
>> Right. Right.
[45:43] » It's people with higher pay grades than
I do to make that decision. I'm just
[45:47] pointing out the fact that the way it is
written now it's written as an
[45:51] exclusionary clause.
>> Is there some uh
[45:57] basis for 35 versus 25?
[46:03] I can't go off the record, but when the
first version of the ordinance was
[46:08] reviewed in the public meeting, this
room,
[46:13] somebody raised their hand. They came up
to the podium and said, "I think it
[46:16] should be 35 acres." That's how it got
to be 35 acres was based on one person's
[46:21] public comment. I said there, as far as
I could tell, there was no other
[46:25] analysis review that was done. Somebody
said make it 35. So, it got to be 35.
[46:34] I don't know if that's necessarily true
because I think there was other
[46:37] ordinances reviewed and they said some
township.
[46:41] » Oh, that's true. But I'm talking about
our township
[46:44] » 35.
[46:48] » I said that's how it got to be 35. It
was 25. Somebody said why don't we make
[46:53] it 35.
>> It was based on the fact that there was
[46:56] proof that there was other townships
that had greater than 25.
[46:58] » Oh yeah. I mean, there are some towns
that have hundred 100 acre limits
[47:01] because they put in these massive
centers, but we also don't have any 100
[47:05] acre lots that they could they could
build on.
[47:08] So, 30, 35, 20, I you know, what's your
favorite number? It's 100. [laughter]
[47:20] » [clears throat]
>> I guess I was just trying to figure out
[47:23] if there was a
scientific reason for 35 versus 25. But
[47:29] it does sound like
>> having sat in the room when that was
[47:33] discussed, I don't believe there was
there was any like that that was done.
[47:37] » Gotcha.
>> And there's there's also always a
[47:41] balance between the lot size and the
setbacks. you have more setbacks in the
[47:45] ordinance and
whether you could meet those setbacks on
[47:50] any of the 25 acre lots that exist in
the township would be the same kind of
[47:54] question.
>> Yes, that's true. It's not just the
[47:57] size, it's also the shape of the
property,
[47:59] » right?
>> Might be creating a lot that's too small
[48:04] to to create the building that they
need.
[48:09] you know, they need they need half a
million square feet to to accomplish
[48:13] what they want to do. Trying to squeeze
that on 25
[48:17] with with the setbacks and any uh any
type of
[48:23] environmental issues.
>> Yeah. Wetlands, steep slopes, any of
[48:26] that.
>> And but that's that's another that was
[48:29] my initial reaction was if you got a 25
acre requirement, they could only build
[48:34] a building so big on a 25 acre lot. If
you raise the limit to 35 acres, you're
[48:41] somewhat encouraging someone to build a
bigger building because they've got more
[48:44] room that they could use. So there it's,
you know, there's two sides to it. Yeah.
[48:49] I mean, 25 would be the minimum. It's
not that's not the maximum. So they
[48:53] could have more property than big to
build their facility size that they
[48:57] need.
[49:02] » Well, I mean, personally, I'm still
comfortable with 35. I don't think it's
[49:06] a tremendous roll of the dice. Um,
again, dealing with the fact that we do
[49:11] have a property available and and
there's, you know, the option of of
[49:16] purchasing contiguous parcels.
That's me. I'm one of five.
[49:23] And we can, like I said, we'll get a
we'll get another on your
[49:27] recommendations
um and and see what they have to say.
[49:32] They might, you know, they might say,
"Yeah, he's he's right, you know.
[49:36] So there's two parts to that. One, the I
looked at the planner. I actually look
[49:42] at his background. His is he looks at
architecture and and landscape and he's
[49:51] looking at he's not looking at the legal
issues. I guess
[49:56] he's looking at the the technical
building issues. The legal issues he
[50:00] didn't touch because I don't think that
that's his background. I think that is
[50:04] actually the more important piece is
getting a thorough legal review and for
[50:12] the supervisor to decide, you know, we
want to go strictly by the rules as the
[50:16] state has laid them out to us or do we
want to try to push the envelope, kind
[50:21] of take the chance that either nobody's
going to try suing us or if they sue us
[50:26] we'll we'll win in court. you know,
there's the safe route, there's the not
[50:30] so safe route, and said that's kind of
up to the board to make that
[50:34] determination which way they want to go
with.
[50:41] Any other thoughts?
[50:45] » I'd agree. I think a uh solid legal
review would be
[50:50] » in the township's best interest. Yeah,
>> I would agree.
[50:54] » Yeah, I agree.
>> Um, all right. Let me open the floor up.
[50:57] public comment.
>> I had like two questions
[51:02] I decided I better list them because I
ended up with 30 [laughter]
[51:08] team Joe Swinny Holiday House Road. So
just a few questions that I had here
[51:12] here when you went through and thank
you. Uh if we did all these requirements
[51:16] right like in compliance who polices
them
[51:22] » seriously
>> the zoning officer [laughter] the guy
[51:25] with the short pants. I mean I mean you
stop and think about it, right? Like we
[51:28] say, "Hey, you got to do this, this,
this, and this."
[51:30] » And then nobody ever shows up to confirm
that they're in compliance. The decibb
[51:36] is the neighbors going to say, "Hey,
anything loud over there?"
[51:38] » Wasn't in one of the drafts like an
annual review or something?
[51:42] [clears throat]
>> Yeah, right. I think there was something
[51:45] in there like
>> in one of the in one of the first
[51:47] rounds, first or second round, there was
something about annual annual review.
[51:51] » Yeah,
>> I think I've got something in there that
[51:54] expands on that. like it was the the
asbuilt then like six months after built
[51:59] right and then maybe like another 12
months after that.
[52:02] » But you're right. I mean ultimately
>> people will get away with whatever they
[52:07] can get away with. Absolutely. No
complaints.
[52:09] » Absolutely. So I was in corporate for a
while, right? And if you knew corporate
[52:12] was coming, you got ready for them. So
I'd rather them not know when we're
[52:16] coming.
>> You know what I mean? So there should be
[52:18] some surprise inspections. And also I
think the the agreement should be
[52:21] written that we have the right to
inspect at whenever we want. That should
[52:26] be written into it. Just a thought,
right? Uh like I said, a set inspection
[52:31] schedule, you know, it's kind of scary
because they'll probably make the decibb
[52:34] real low when you show up, right? And it
won't be that surprise. So think about
[52:39] that. All right. U
if they're out of compliance, is there
[52:44] going to be kind of penalties set up?
You know what I mean? Like it seems like
[52:47] in this township people get away with
doing something and then it's like smack
[52:52] their hands and they move on. So let's
just say they're way out of compliance
[52:57] or do we have the right to shut them
down? Do we have the right to do
[53:00] anything? A
>> certain amount of time to come into
[53:03] compliance before we
>> Right. I mean, it's still going to be
[53:05] written to say like you got to Yeah. say
like, "Hey, listen. We showed up today.
[53:08] Your decibels are real high and
contaminants for this, whatever,
[53:11] everything you listed to say there's
going to be, you know, a chart to follow
[53:15] to say, hey, a timeline of events, you
know, a date to be in compliance, and if
[53:20] not, here's your penalties, right?" and
and you sort of reinforce some of my
[53:26] argument here because
when I read the original version of
[53:31] draft 260, there were a lot of things
that weren't
[53:36] measurable. It was like, you know, like
the smell test, you know, somebody
[53:40] smells diesel fuel,
>> somebody's
[53:44] cat dies or whatever,
>> right?
[53:46] » You know, I I tried to land line this up
so that it's very definitive with
[53:52] specific measurable goals. So, somebody
could go out there with a, you know,
[53:57] meter and say, "You're too loud."
>> Right?
[54:00] » You sound kind of loud today.
>> We had an old saying, what gets measured
[54:03] gets done. So, you got to get you got to
measure, right? So
[54:06] » add that to my next round.
>> Right. Just [laughter]
[54:08] just a thought, right? Uh you know, and
then going back to what you you
[54:13] mentioned, your name is Andy.
>> Andy.
[54:14] » Andy. I'm Joe. Nice to see you again.
>> And the whole thing with the 25 and 35
[54:19] acres. What really worries me with that
is, you know, one, it opens up the door
[54:23] that there are four lots that are
currently possible. Okay. Two, what I've
[54:29] heard is when the lot lines get moved,
it seems pretty simple. So, I know that
[54:33] other parcel I think you're talking
about, I started looking at it saying,
[54:36] "Wait, if they combine the two, you
know, and if we did 35, I think it ends
[54:41] up being 38, they still make it,
>> right?" You know what I mean? But like,
[54:45] how easy is it going to be to like move
the lot lines and do whatever? So, uh, I
[54:49] still think it should say at least 35,
especially when we learned other areas
[54:54] had 50. So, that's just a thought. Um
what and what about the the the frontage
[55:01] and the side requirements and that goes
back into I think we're talking about
[55:04] the building size and I and I like your
thought about that when you say hey if
[55:08] you went to 35 that means they could
probably build a bigger building. So, do
[55:12] we know right now if it's a 25 acre lot,
not knowing what the wetlands are and
[55:16] anything else, how big of a square a
footprint can they build? You know, I
[55:21] mean, how big is that building? You
know, what does that generate? I don't
[55:24] know. I don't have the answer, but
throwing it out there, we should
[55:27] probably know that.
>> Like, basically 25 acre lot, assuming no
[55:30] wetlands, the largest building you could
build. We already had the height, but
[55:34] what's the dimensions?
>> Yeah. I mean, it all depends on the on
[55:39] the parcel,
>> right?
[55:40] Exactly. But I mean looking at you're
right because if the lines aren't square
[55:45] right you're coming in on somewhat you
know and I didn't hear you mention that
[55:49] but at the one meeting I for which one
it was there so many of them. Uh the
[55:54] question came up about the requirements
on the side and the frontage and ours
[55:58] was really limited and that's where we
really really concerned. I think it was
[56:01] like 150 ft or 100 feet or something on
the side. And that's like the the
[56:06] neighbors were worried at that time
saying, "You got to be kidding me." Like
[56:09] basically, you're going to build this
massive building and be, you know, 100
[56:14] feet from me or 50 feet, whatever the
number was. It was small. Okay. But I
[56:18] didn't hear that get addressed tonight.
Right.
[56:22] » That's it.
>> That's me.
[56:23] » Yeah. I was going to say what I read
tonight was my four-page summary of my
[56:26] 32page.
>> No, no, I'm with you. But this I'm just
[56:28] throwing it out there just to trigger
your brains to say, "Hey, maybe it's in
[56:31] your thoughts later or maybe I missed
it." Okay.
[56:34] » Pretty sure there was a 150 foot
>> I think it was set back.
[56:38] » For most cases, the the version three
has 200 foot setback unless it's against
[56:43] a residential property. Then it requires
400 feet 400 feet from residential, 200
[56:49] feet from anything else.
>> That sounds better, right? I mean, it's
[56:52] better than the 150, but at least my
memory was right about the 150.
[56:56] It stuck into me a little bit there.
Okay. Uh
[57:04] » yeah, that was it. That was the things.
So, but I appreciate your time.
[57:09] » Thank you.
>> Everything you put into it. All right.
[57:12] » Anyone else?
Come on up.
[57:21] » Hey y'all. Uh my name's Ethan Seuss. I
live on 480 Broadway Avenue, uh, which
[57:26] is Sersville. Um,
but I imagine like you and I'm also very
[57:33] worried about, uh, data center. I've
only recently moved here. Um, as of uh,
[57:38] less than two months ago. Um, so I
haven't been to the previous meetings or
[57:42] exactly where you guys are at on all
this. You know, what's been discussed
[57:46] previously. Um, what you put together is
is really amazing and everybody being
[57:51] here. We appreciate it. Um, as I said, I
don't know exactly what's been said
[57:57] previously. I'm wondering
>> uh there's been a proposal. There's been
[58:01] an informal sketch of a building. That's
correct. Uh, where is that now? And what
[58:07] would that look like? What would the
course of that look like?
[58:10] » As in
>> like there's been here moving forward.
[58:14] » Yeah. Are they going to do they apply to
>> We're still figuring out the like
[58:19] » So they have to they have to apply for
special exceptions for zoning hearing
[58:24] [clears throat]
>> which they keep pushing. I don't even
[58:27] Where are we at with this by now?
>> They made an application and they
[58:31] granted an extension to the hearing
date. So at this point there's no firm
[58:36] date for a hearing.
>> Okay. But they were scheduled for this
[58:40] month. And part of part of the really is
the problem is now the card has gotten
[58:45] before the horse. Meaning that
>> since they filed an application already.
[58:50] » Yeah.
>> They're kind of locked into the
[58:51] ordinance that was in place at the time.
>> Okay.
[58:54] » We're still trying to make the ordinance
more better than it was before.
[58:58] » Yeah.
>> So we kind of got two parallel paths
[59:00] » I see.
>> Running here that
[59:02] » hopefully some point in time will
converge in the future.
[59:04] » Okay. And I I seen that um there was an
executive order that data center
[59:11] constructions uh need to comply with
local ordinances. Is that uh does that
[59:18] affect what you are doing now at all or?
>> Yeah. And this the state right now has
[59:25] got their own path going along.
Data centers are popping up all over the
[59:30] state. Innesota there's a lot of
pressure on Harrisburg to take a
[59:35] stronger stand. Um, as I mentioned in
the beginning of my dribble that the u
[59:41] the board of supervisors approved an
ordinance supporting a bill from the
[59:46] Pennsylvania house put a moratorum on
data centers. The timeout, you know.
[59:51] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Take a timeout. everybody everybody
[59:53] regroup figure out what they want to do
and what they need to do and then
[59:57] proceed from there because right now
said the the data center development is
[1:00:02] moving faster than a lot of
municipalities are able to to put
[1:00:06] ordinances in place.
>> Right. Okay. Um so
[1:00:12] does that mean the like executive order
has fur needs to develop further in
[1:00:16] terms of the conversation about
moratoriums or
[1:00:20] sorry uh you had said that they already
put in an application if a moratorium
[1:00:26] were to come in would the application
already being submitted bypass that at
[1:00:31] all or
>> that's a good question
[1:00:32] » that's up to Harrisburg.
>> Okay.
[1:00:34] » Yeah. how whether they make the
moratorium retroactive to some point in
[1:00:38] time in the past
>> or you know put a stake in the ground
[1:00:42] for anything going forward from here.
>> I don't really know the details on that.
[1:00:47] » Okay. Oh, I I've heard rumor that since
we had started our process of creating
[1:00:53] the uh uh ordinance for data center
before they put their application in
[1:01:00] that they're going to have to
use whatever regulations we end up with
[1:01:05] in place.
>> Okay.
[1:01:07] » Is there any validity to that? Do you
know?
[1:01:10] » There is a pending ordinance doctrine. I
don't know, but I can't speak to when it
[1:01:15] actually gets applied and not applied in
what circumstances it works and which
[1:01:19] circumstances it doesn't.
>> And and where would that be coming from
[1:01:24] that uh that restriction?
>> That's a case law kind of restriction.
[1:01:30] It's it's not a a written regulation
somewhere.
[1:01:33] » Okay.
>> The regulation is the ordinance has to
[1:01:35] be in place before the application is
>> to be applicable. You can't adopt an
[1:01:41] ordinance after an application comes in
>> and apply it retroactively.
[1:01:47] » Okay.
>> But there's some case law that says if
[1:01:50] you're in the middle of preparing an
ordinance, there's some point where you
[1:01:54] can use it.
>> I don't know when that kicks in or
[1:01:57] doesn't.
>> Okay. Okay. Um and would there how would
[1:02:02] I know about uh when their hearing might
happen or
[1:02:07] » the township website?
>> Township website. And also on the
[1:02:09] township website, you can see all the
previous meetings.
[1:02:12] » They're all all YouTube meetings.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[1:02:14] » So, if you want to catch up on that, you
can watch those.
[1:02:17] » All right. That's perfect.
>> You can even watch yourself tomorrow.
[1:02:19] » Yeah. Great. [laughter]
[1:02:23] » Good stuff. All right.
>> I do that. So,
[1:02:27] » I sound as stupid as I sound.
>> Yeah.
[1:02:29] » Worry about wearing the same shirt.
[laughter]
[1:02:33] » Um, I think that
>> Where did you say you live? Uh 480
[1:02:38] Broadway Avenue, right next to Sersville
Elementary.
[1:02:41] » Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah, it's it's funny.
[1:02:44] I've only just realized the the
boundaries. You know, Sellersville
[1:02:48] Elementary is West Rock Hill,
>> but then down the street, Sersville.
[1:02:52] » Yeah.
>> But thank you all for your time. Nice to
[1:02:55] meet you.
>> Anyone else?
[1:03:00] » All right. So, what kind of action would
you want to take?
[1:03:03] » Table this with
>> I guess I'll go back to one of the
[1:03:06] things that I I would like
the the long the short version won't
[1:03:11] make it into the minutes because I read
it out, but I'd like the full review
[1:03:18] and my full revised ordinance
to go into the minutes of the meeting.
[1:03:24] » Okay. Since that's what referred to. So,
I'll give these to
[1:03:28] » Yeah, I'm not reading them.
Well, somebody might
[1:03:32] » not for the report.
>> I sent electronic copies. The only
[1:03:38] difference is I put page numbers on. So
you can use either one.
[1:03:47] » All right. So again, my my suggestion
would be to to table this suggest a a
[1:03:52] professional review of of your comments
and your your drafts.
[1:03:59] I would include the uh planner's
comments.
[1:04:02] » Yes,
>> in there as well.
[1:04:05] » Thank you. Yeah, but [clears throat]
county didn't really have much to say.
[1:04:08] So,
>> no,
[1:04:10] » they didn't find any spelling errors or
punctuation mistakes. [laughter]
[1:04:14] » Um, is that what the supervisor were
expecting?
[1:04:17] » What's that again?
>> What were the supervisor expecting us to
[1:04:20] do by having this review tonight?
>> Um, well, they're looking for a
[1:04:24] recommendation. I I don't think this
third round is was important to get on
[1:04:30] the books as the first two. Um I think
they they expect us to take a little
[1:04:36] time on this.
>> Okay.
[1:04:37] » Um so by suggesting this review I think
falls falls into place
[1:04:41] » because I I was a little confused that
at the meeting they didn't formally
[1:04:48] announce a hearing date for this review.
They just said it was going to be sent
[1:04:53] out.
>> Right. That's because they wanted to
[1:04:55] have the time to amend it again before
there's a public hearing. Once there's a
[1:05:00] public hearing, it's very hard to change
language other than correct some typos.
[1:05:05] » That's what I was hoping for, but I
wasn't sure. Um, so I was assuming that,
[1:05:10] you know, we we had to get our best
effort in tonight, but I I agree. You I
[1:05:16] said, don't don't take my word for it.
Lock, stock, and barrel. Have somebody
[1:05:20] have independent verification. Right.
Engineering 101 1972
[1:05:25] first page of the first textbook to
human to check his engineering. So do
[1:05:31] the engineering. Make sure I'm
>> There you go. Somewhat legitimate.
[1:05:37] » Is it too late for me to ask a question?
>> No. Come on. Too late.
[1:05:41] Name and address, please.
[1:05:46] » Joanne the Tally, 113 Ridge Valley Road.
I'm just curious. You're talking about a
[1:05:51] a review, an an attorney review, I
assume, right? Is that our attorney that
[1:05:56] would be doing it or have you engaged a
specialized attorney? No, no offense to
[1:06:01] ours. Just
>> that's exactly my point. I I I
[1:06:06] the way I think it works is our attorney
is like a GP,
[1:06:11] » general practitioner, and then there are
specialists.
[1:06:13] » Yeah.
>> My recommendation that this goes to the
[1:06:15] specialist.
>> Good. Okay. Good. and somebody that's
[1:06:19] independent of the township that can
look at it.
[1:06:21] » Well, I've heard that there are some
that specialize specifically in this
[1:06:25] because it is such a hot topic and so
many nuances. It would be important to
[1:06:30] not miss anything.
>> Yeah. I mean, we hired this planner and
[1:06:34] not quite sure why we didn't hire a
specialized attorney.
[1:06:40] » Can you answer that question?
>> Thank you.
[1:06:43] » Thank you. Thank you.
>> All right. So, we just want to make a
[1:06:48] motion here. Um, we're going to include
that your [clears throat]
[1:06:53] review on the minutes. Um, that doesn't
need need motion. Uh, table is um
[1:07:00] suggesting a review by specialized
attorney and the planner.
[1:07:06] » And Chris, will the public comments or
some of them be put into what you
[1:07:10] learned tonight or not?
>> Anything that's in the microphone?
[1:07:14] [laughter]
couple days more.
[1:07:20] » That won't be recorded. [laughter]
[1:07:25] » Um, does somebody want to make a motion
to that effect?
[1:07:28] So, a motion that we um
recommend that the
[1:07:36] comments from John and the planner be
put before a specialized
[1:07:41] attorney to review for applicability and
defensibility
[1:07:47] for the township tableling any further
action until we get those results.
[1:07:54] » I was thinking that.
>> All right. All in favor? I
[1:07:58] » opposed. Motion carries. All right,
John. Thank you again.
[1:08:02] » Thanks.
>> Um,
[1:08:05] so that's it. Uh, you do you have any
other new business?
[1:08:09] » No.
>> Anyone else?
[1:08:11] » No.
>> All right. All the floor public comment
[1:08:14] again.
Anyone? All right. Seeing none for a
[1:08:19] motion to what we call this.
>> Ajourn. Thank you.
[1:08:24] I'll make
>> all in favor.
[1:08:28] » Thank you.
[1:08:37] » Alex,
>> when is your trip to South Africa?
[1:08:41] » Well, theoretically it would be in
November.
[1:08:45] Um cuz that's their