[CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL]
[00:00:04]
JOE BREIN FROM THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE IS HERE.
JEN SHAW FROM THE ENGINEER'S OFFICE.
ANTHONY VALENCIA FROM MCMAHON AND MYSELF REPRESENTING THE TOWNSHIP.
WE ONLY DO THE MINUTES ON THE FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH.
[APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD ON OCTOBER 19, 2022]
UM, AS WELL AS THE, UM, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND PENDOT.AND THE ONLY, UM, TRUE, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE THAT WAS, UH, NOTED BETWEEN THE REVIEWING AGENCIES WAS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE INTERSECTION, WHICH WE DISCUSSED AT SOME GREAT LENGTH.
UH, WHEN WE WERE BEFORE YOU WITH THE SKETCH PLAN, WE DID HAVE A, UH, COMPREHENSIVE GROUP, UM, CONFERENCE WITH PENDOT AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM MCMAHON.
UM, MR. GRACE WAS THERE AS WELL, UM, REGARDING POTENTIAL OPTIONS TO ALLEVIATE ANY, UM, TRAFFIC CONCERNS AT THAT INTERSECTION.
AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER DID DEVISE A SKETCH FOR A POTENTIAL, UM, SOLUTION THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY ON OUR SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAN.
NOW, THAT BASICALLY ENTAILS US DEDICATING A PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY, UM, FROM THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND I CAN LET MR. HAMMOND DESCRIBE IT IN, IN MORE DETAIL, BUT I, I THINK THAT THE, THE, THE POINT IS THAT THIS BEING AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED NOW BY THE TOWNSHIP AND, AND SOME OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE WE RE-ENGINEER ANYTHING OR MOVE FORWARD TO, TO FINAL THAT, UM, WE UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT IT IS THAT THE TOWNSHIP WANTS TO SEE.
ALL FAMILIAR WITH THAT INTERSECTION.
IT'S NOT A GREAT INTERSECTION TODAY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOL OBVIOUSLY IS THE BIG THING THERE, AT LEAST TWICE A DAY.
UM, SO I THINK THAT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PERSPECTIVE, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, A BETTER WAY OF MOVING THAT TRAFFIC AND ADDING EVENTUALLY MORE CARS COMING OUT ON THAT ROAD AT THAT, ANY OF THOSE TIMES OF DAYS, PARTICULARLY THE SCHOOL CONCERNS US AND CERTAINLY A LEFT TURN WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA.
UM, SO YEAH, I THINK, UH, AND PLEASE JOIN IN GUYS.
WE'RE, UH, BUT I THINK THAT'S OUR CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, THE TRAFFIC AMOUNT IN THE PATTERN AND SLOWING IT DOWN EVEN MORE THAN IT'S SLOW ALREADY.
YES, I, I UNDERSTAND AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT CONCERN FROM THE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL.
AND SO YOU'LL NOTE THAT ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, WE DID IMPLEMENT THE, UM, SUGGESTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS DRIVE.
A IF YOU SEE THAT COMES OUT ONTO SOUTH LOUIS ROAD, HAS A STOP BAR, UM, NO LEFT HAND TURNS OUT OF THERE ONLY RIGHT HAND.
[00:05:01]
UM, ACCESS DRIVE A FROM SOUTH LOUIS, OR EXCUSE ME, YES.UM, THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE SIGNAGE, NICK, WAS THAT NICK? NICK, FULL ACCESS.
I'LL NEED YOU TO CHECK IN AND WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU AT ALL.
UH, NICK THEOLA, BARUCH ASSOCIATES, UH, ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, WHAT WE DID WAS, UH, THE, UH, ACCESS ON WHAT I'LL CALL THE NORTHERN LEG IS A FULL ACCESS.
UH, IF YOU RECALL, I, UH, WE DID HAVE AN OPTION BACK DURING THE TENTATIVE SKETCH WHERE WE, UH, WERE LOOKING AT A SECOND ACCESS OUT ON THE SOUTHERN LEG, WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH AN EMERGENCY ACCESS.
UH, AND WHAT WE DID WAS WE HAD MOVED THAT, UH, INTERSECTION OR WHAT I'LL SAY THE ACCESS DRIVE AS, UH, AS FAR NORTH AS WE COULD.
UH, THE, WHAT I'LL SAY THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAVE TONIGHT, UH, WITH, WITH THE, UH, THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON A PENDOT RECOMMENDATION.
WE ALSO MOVED IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO, UH, TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, UH, BECAUSE PENDOT THOUGHT THAT WE HAD, UH, A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH RADIUS AND THEY WANTED TO MAXIMIZE THE SITE DISTANCE TO THE LEFT.
SO, UH, ON, ON THAT NOTE, ON THE NORTHERN ACCESS, I, I DIDN'T SEE ANY NOTES FROM PENDA, BUT I'M WONDERING ON YOUR THOUGHTS AND THE CONCEPT.
SO VEHICLE TRAFFIC HEADING SOUTH ON SOUTH LOUIS ROAD, PAST THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE RESIDENCE OF THIS LOCATION, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO TURN INTO THE RESIDENCE IN THE MORNING, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 10 MONTHS OF THE YEAR, OR IN THE AFTERNOON, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 10 MONTHS OF THE YEAR FOR SCHOOL, AND THEY'RE JUST SITTING THERE AND THEY'RE NO ONE'S LETTING THEM IN.
WHAT'S THE, WILL THIS BEEN THE ASSESSMENT OF HOW THAT'LL IMPACT TRAFFIC BACKING UP TOWARDS SPRINGBOARD SCHOOL AND THE LIGHT, AND THEN FURTHER INTO ROYERSFORD? I WILL REFER TO, UH, MR. HAMMOND FOR THAT QUESTION.
GOOD EVENING, MATT HAMMOND WITH TRAFFIC PLAYING AND DESIGN.
UM, SO THERE HAS BEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED FOR THE SITE.
UM, AS NICK HAD MENTIONED, UH, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS REALLY A CULMINATION OF A LOT OF COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP TRAFFIC ENGINEER, MYSELF AND PENDOT AS IT RELATES TO ACCESS.
UM, I WAS NOT HERE EARLIER MEETINGS, SO I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SEEN AND HAVEN'T SEEN.
UH, I KNOW THAT I HAVE LOOKED AT NUMEROUS PLANS THAT HAD MULTIPLE POINTS OF ACCESS, UH, PLANS.
WE LOOKED AT ACCESS ON SOUTH LEWIS ROAD ON THE BOTTOM, WHAT I'LL CALL THE SOUTHERN SIDE, SOUTH ROAD.
UM, I TRIED TO BALANCE THE ISSUES THAT I THINK EVERYONE'S OBVIOUSLY AWARE OF WHEN SCHOOL IS IN SESSION.
UM, IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES WHEN THERE'S AN ACCIDENT ON 4 22 THAT PEOPLE UTILIZE THIS AREA, THE CHIP AS A CUT THROUGH.
UM, SO WE WANTED TO TRY TO, TO LOOK AT AN OPTION OR OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US TO PROVIDE, UH, SAFE AND EFFICIENT ACCESS, UM, AND TO MAXIMIZE SITE DISTANCE AND TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTION.
SO OBVIOUSLY WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE IS THE RESULT OF THAT COORDINATION AND THAT DISCUSSION.
UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WITH RESPECT TO SOMEONE THAT'S COMING DOWN SOUTH THAT WANTS TO MAKE A LEFT END AND THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP AND NO ONE LETS 'EM IN, THEN YES, OBVIOUSLY THAT THAT COULD OCCUR.
I CAN'T STAND HERE AND SAY THAT THAT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY.
UM, COULD TRAFFIC BACK UP BEHIND THAT OTHER CAR WAITING TO MAKE A LEFT END? YES.
UM, OUR HOPE IS, IS THAT DOESN'T OCCUR.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO DO, UM, AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS HELPS TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM, IT'S NOT GONNA SOLVE IT, BUT TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM IS TO LOOK AT PUTTING SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS IN THE ROAD THAT SAYS DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION.
NOW, NOT EVERYONE'S GOING TO HEED THAT.
BUT IT IS THE ONLY REAL OPTION THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, SO THERE'S TWO THINGS WORKING AGAINST US, RIGHT? ONE IS OBVIOUSLY PROVIDING FOR AN ACCESS POINT IN THIS LOCATION, SERVICES PROPERTY, WE GOTTA GOTTA PROVIDE ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN TWO IS THE FACT THAT, UM, WE HAVE, WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY THREE.
SO TWO IS A FACT, OBVIOUSLY WE THE SCHOOL TRAVEL TO DEAL WITH.
AND THREE IS THE FACT THAT WHEN IT COMES TO PROVIDING ACCESS TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PEN DOT DISTRICT SIX DOES NOT LIKE TO SEE RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENTS AT A DRIVEWAY IF THERE'S ONLY A SINGULAR ACCESS PROVIDED.
THEIR FEELING IS, IS THAT IF WE WERE TO RESTRICT MOVEMENTS IN THE DRIVEWAY OR MOVEMENTS OUT, ALL THAT'S GOING TO DO IS CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC TO CUT THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS TO MAKE ILLEGAL MANEUVERS TO ENTER THE FACILITY.
SO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO PROVIDE A FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY.
SO THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY IS MOVE THE DRIVEWAY AS FAR AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION AS POSSIBLE AND PROVIDE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING, UM, TO HELP ALLOW FOR THOSE VEHICLES TO
[00:10:01]
ENTER AN EXIT.THE TRAFFIC IS HEAVY ACROSS THE FRONTAGE.
UM, I WOULD SAY, UM, OBVIOUSLY I HEARD THE COMMENT, THE INITIAL COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ADDING ANY TRAFFIC TO AN ALREADY EXISTING PROBLEM, JUST EXASPERATES THE PROBLEM.
UM, BUT I WOULD SAY FROM A TRIP TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE LOOKING AT 24 TOWN HOMES AND ABOUT 10 TRIPS TO 12 TRIPS DURING THE PEAK HOURS.
UM, WHEN I SAY 10 TO 12, THAT'S TOTAL, THAT'S EITHER ENTERING OR EXITING.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S REALLY ABOUT ONE TRIP EVERY FIVE MINUTES OR ONE TRIP EVERY SIX MINUTES, IT WOULD ENTER AND EXIT THIS PROPERTY.
SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, IT'S A VERY LOW TRAFFIC GENERATOR.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT A HUNDRED TOWN HOMES OR 150 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR WHATEVER IT WOULD BE, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S MORE OF A CONCERN THAT WOULD HAVE MORE OF AN ISSUE.
UM, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN AND MAKE WHATEVER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN HERE.
AND PENDOT AND MCMAHON BOTH HAD PROVIDED COMMENT LETTERS, UH, THAT EXPRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT EVERYONE HAS RAISED AT THIS INTERSECTION.
UM, AND A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS WERE THE SAME CONCERNS.
AND I KNOW THAT THE TOWNSHIP, UM, THROUGH THEIR CONSULTANTS HAVE LOOKED AT A MYRIAD OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE DONE HERE FROM A ROUNDABOUT TO A RELOCATION OF AN INTERSECTION.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS REQUIRE THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN TO EFFECTUATE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO WHAT WE ASKED FOR AND WHAT WOULD SUGGEST, AND I BELIEVE LINDSEY HAD MENTIONED THIS, IS FOR A MEETING OF THE MINES ESSENTIALLY FOR, UM, FOR OURSELVES, GET PENDOT AND THE TOWNSHIP ALL IN ONE VIRTUAL ROOM AND KIND OF HASH THIS OUT AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE SHORT OF ROUNDABOUT AND SHORT OF A REALIGNMENT.
IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY TAKE THE FULL PROPERTY.
WHAT CAN, ANTHONY, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON, WAS A, WAS A CONSENSUS REACHED, IS THIS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DOES THIS ACCOMPLISH WHAT MCMAHON WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH? AND ALSO AS A SEPARATE QUESTION, JUST FOR MY OWN CURIOSITY, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE THINKING OF THE COLLECTIVE GROUP ON THE REMOVAL OF THE SECOND ACCESS? YEAH, SO IF I COULD JUST, IF BEFORE, BEFORE YOU ANSWER, IF I COULD JUST, SURE.
I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IN THAT MEETING WHERE WE GOT TO, UM, SO WE HAD THAT MEETING THREE WEEKS AGO TODAY.
UM, EVERYONE WAS IN THE VIRTUAL MEETING AND WE KIND OF JUST THREW EVERYTHING OUT IN THE TABLE AND TRIED TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS THE BEST, WHAT COULD BE DONE HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE ROOM, WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO GEOMETRIES AVAILABLE TO US.
AND WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS PLAN IS REALLY THE CONSENSUS, AND I'LL LET ANTHONY ANSWER THIS, BUT REALLY THE CONSENSUS OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, AND IT WAS TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, YOU OUTLINE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, AND THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
IT'S HARDER TO SEE HERE, BUT WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS, THIS IS ORCHARD COURT HERE.
THIS IS THE EXISTING CHANNELIZED, RIGHT? THAT COMES OUT IN THE LEWIS ROAD.
THERE'S ORCHARD COURT, AND THEN THIS IS KIND OF WHERE SOUTH LOUIS ROAD CURVES.
SO WHAT YOU CAN SEE, THANK YOU.
THIS IS THE EXISTING PLAN HERE, RIGHT? TURN, LANE TURN.
SO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IS TRYING TO MAKE THIS INTERSECTION A MORE TRADITIONAL INTERSECTION, RIGHT? SO THAT WE CAN SLOW DOWN SOME OF THE TRAFFIC AND NOT HAVE EVERYONE MAKING A BUNCH OF MOVEMENTS IN ONE, ONE DEFINED AREA.
SO WHAT THIS PLAN SHOWS IS THAT AS PART OF THIS IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE, UH, THIS, A CHANNELIZED RIGHT, WILL BE PROVIDED ON SOUTH LOUIS ROAD COMING THIS WAY.
AND ANYONE THAT DESIRED TO GO STRAIGHT ON LONG ROAD OR MAKE A LEFT IN THE ORCHARD COURT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO A STOP, ESSENTIALLY LIKE A, A NORMAL T INTERSECTION.
SIMILARLY, COMING IN BOND ROAD IN THIS DIRECTION, WE'D HAVE TO STOP TRAFFIC COMING DOWN.
SOUTH LEWIS MAKING A LEFT WOULD BE ABLE TO, OR YEAH.
LEFT WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO DO SO LIKE THEY DO TODAY, JUST LIKE THE RIGHTS DO.
BUT THIS WOULD DO IS PROVIDE STACKING FOR AT LEAST FOUR VEHICLES.
SO IF SOMEONE WAS WAITING TO GO THROUGH THE VAUGHN OR THROUGH THE ORCHARD COURT, THEY'D HAVE TO STOP RIGHT? NOW.
OBVIOUSLY THAT DOESN'T OCCUR AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION WITH PEOPLE COMING UP LEWIS ROAD THAT INSTEAD OF GOING AROUND, RIGHT, THEY CONTINUE DOWN THROUGH VAUGHN ROAD.
THE OTHER THING THAT WOULD HELP THIS OUT IS THIS CHANNELIZED RIGHT HERE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE INTERSECTION, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY KICK THE MOVEMENTS FOR ORCHARD COURT OVER A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THIS INTERSECTION, KIND OF CREATE AN OFFSET FOR SOMEWHAT.
THAT WAS THE, THE IDEA THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
UM, WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF THE APPLICANT.
WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF US IS THAT WE SKETCHED THIS IMPROVEMENT AND MAKE SURE TO PROVIDE A DESIGN AS IT RELATES TO THE LAY DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THIS IMPROVEMENT FROM BEING COMPLETED IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY TO KICK EVERYTHING BACK, TO DEDICATE WHATEVER RIGHT OF WAY IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THIS IMPROVEMENT.
AND THAT ONCE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THAT IMPROVEMENT COULD BE, UH, IMPLEMENTED BY THE TOWNSHIP OR PENOC.
UM, EXCUSE ME, I I JUST WANT YOU TO
[00:15:01]
REITERATE OR CAUSE I DIDN'T GET IT REAL QUICK.THE ORCHARD COURT EXIT, YOU'RE GONNA GET RID OF THE RIGHT HAND LANE, IS YOUR PROPOSAL.
SO I'M, I'M NOT GETTING RID OF I'M, I UNDERSTAND.
I'M, I DIDN'T MEAN YOU PERSONALLY.
I DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE STAYING OUT THERE WITH A STOP SIGN OR ANYTHING.
UM, BUT YES, THE, THE PLAN WOULD BE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DO HAVE, YOU HAVE THIS EXIT LANE HERE AND YOU TO HAVE THIS RIGHT TURN LANE, RIGHT? PEOPLE ARE KIND OF TURNING RIGHT INTO THE INTERSECTION WHEN PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS LEFT COMING AROUND, THEY DON'T STOP.
SO IT WOULD BE TO REMOVE THAT RIGHT.
SO ANYONE WHO WANNA MAKE A RIGHT WOULD'VE TO COME UP TO THIS STOP BAR, COME TO THIS STOP, AND THEN EITHER CONTINUE STRAIGHT THROUGH OR MAKE A LEFT.
SO BASICALLY WHAT IT IS TODAY, JUST REMOVING THAT RIGHT HAND TURN LANE.
SO NO, WELL, IT'S REMOVING FOR ORCHARD COURT, CORRECT.
FOR ORCHARD COURT MOVING THE, REMOVING THAT, BUT COMING OUT THE OTHER WAY, THEY STILL HAVE TO MAKE A RIGHT AND STOP AT THE STOP CENTER.
SO THAT WOULD, THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE SEPARATION.
IT GETS THAT RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT OUT OF THE INTERSECTION KIND OF CLEARS UP A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONFUSION.
SIMILARLY, LIKE I SAID, RIGHT NOW WHEN SOMEONE'S COMING UP LEWIS ROAD, YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE TURNING ON THEON GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH TO VAUGHN OR THEY'RE MAKING THE RIGHT.
SO WE WOULD PROVIDE A SEPARATE LANE THERE FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO WAIT AND STOP, WHICH STILL ALLOWS THESE RIGHT TURNS TO MOVE WHILE THESE LEFT TURNS SHOULD MOVE.
SO THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.
AGAIN, WHAT WE WERE CHARGED WITH AND WHAT PENDOT SUGGESTED AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND AGREED TO WAS THAT WE WOULD AGAIN, SKETCH THIS IMPROVEMENT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING WE WERE DOING WOULD PRECLUDE THIS IMPROVEMENT FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE.
AND WE WOULD DEDICATE WHATEVER RIGHT OF WAY IS NECESSARY OBVIOUSLY TO EFFECTUATE THAT IMPROVEMENT.
AND WITH THAT SAID, I GUESS IT'S, I DON'T KNOW IF I STOLE SOME OF YOUR THUNDER, ANTHONY, BUT I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION POSED.
I THINK THAT PROVIDES A GOOD SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS I GUESS THAT OCCURRED, UH, AT THE MEETING I GUESS THAT, THAT MATT HAD REFERRED TO WITH, WITH OUR, WITH US MCMAHON, UH, THE APPLICANT TEAM, JEFF AND THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WE DID, I THINK MATT DID A GOOD EXPLANATION OF THE IDEAS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSED AND THE PLAN WE START, WE HAD SEEN IT ON THE FLY, I GUESS DURING, AS MATT WAS SKETCHING IT UP AT THE MEETING, THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME SEEING IT PRESENTED, I GUESS ON THE PLAN SHEET AS WE WERE LOOKING AT IT TOGETHER.
BUT IT DOES REFLECT THE CHANGES, UH, THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED.
THE ORCHARD COURT I THINK WAS A COMMON, THE RIGHT OUTS WAS, HAS BEEN A, UH, PROBLEMATIC, I GUESS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN AWKWARD CONNECTION.
CONNECTION POINTS CAUSES A LOT OF CONFUSION.
THE DEPARTMENT HAD RAISED THAT IN THE REVIEW LETTER.
UH, WE HAD, UM, YEAH, I KNOW WHEN THE TOWNSHIP RECALL WHEN WE IMPLEMENTED THE SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE TRIED TO COORDINATE, I GUESS BACKDOOR IN THOSE TIMES WHEN WE DID THE, UH, THE, THE PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND THE RUMBLE STRIPS, ET CETERA.
BUT AT THE TIME IT WASN'T, UH, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO HAVING THOSE INCORPORATED NOW IS PART OF THIS, THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN FRONT OF US, I GUESS IT WOULD BE A, YEAH, THAT'S A POSITIVE ORCHARD COURT THAT'S PRIVATE, RIGHT? I MEAN THAT'S A, IT'S A PRIVATE WHO OWNS THAT RIGHT AWAY COMING OUT OF THERE? WELL, THERE, SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S PORTIONS OF THAT WHICH ARE IN THE DEPARTMENT RIGHT OF WAY, BUT A MAJORITY OF IT, I BELIEVE IT, I, YOU KNOW, RIGHT OF WAY, I THINK IT IS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT FLUSHED OUT, BUT IT STRADDLES THE LINE BETWEEN PORTIONS OF IT BEING ON ORCHARD COURT AND A PORTION, BE IT.
AND DIDN'T WE HAVE SOME PUSHBACK FROM THEM, JEFF, WHEN WE YES, YES, YES.
SO DOES THIS HINGE ON, YOU KNOW, AS FOR IN TERMS OF THAT PUSHBACK OR WE HAVE TO DO A TAKING OR SOMETHING? I DID WANT, I DID WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE COMMISSION BECAUSE, UH, IT WAS, IT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE COURSE OF OUR MEETING THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME THE TOWNSHIP HAD MADE AN OVERTURN TO ORCHARD COURT, UM, TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR, IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS AS WHAT MATT HAS SKETCHED OUT HERE.
AND THEY WERE RESISTANT TO THAT.
UM, WE ASKED THE HOA TO PULL THE MEMBERS THAT LIVED THERE AND IT, AND AGAIN, WE WEREN'T IN CONTROL OF IT.
WE WEREN'T, WE WEREN'T THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTIONS FROM THE TOWNSHIP SIDE, BUT IT CAME BACK OVER THE RESOUNDING NO, WE DON'T WANT TO CLOSED.
SO YES, IT'S GONNA BE A RELATIVELY HOSTILE TAKING IF WE GO TO THAT ROUTE.
WELL THAT WAS MY, THAT'S MY QUESTION BECAUSE I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE, THAT HOA AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN IT, AND I'VE BEEN TOLD MYSELF WE'RE NOT GIVING THAT UP.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE PLANNED FOR GETTING RID OF THAT? I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA.
WELL, THEY STILL HAVE THE, THEY, THEY CAN STILL GET OUT OVER THERE.
THEY JUST HAVE TO COMMIT OUT FURTHER DOWN, RIGHT? SO RIGHT.
THEY, THEY'RE NOT LOSING THEIR MOVE, THEY'RE JUST LOSING THAT RIGHT TURN.
THEY CAN'T JUMP THE CORNER AS QUICKLY.
THEY GOTTA STOP AT THE STOP SIGN NOW.
THEY GOTTA MAKE A RIGHT TURN AND STOP IF THEY WANT TO GO LEFT, CORRECT, OR RIGHT, EVEN STRAIGHT.
AND I DON'T, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PRESENTATION WAS MADE BY THE HOA, WHAT, HOW THEY PRESENTED IT AND IF SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY LOSING THAT MOVEMENT OR WHATNOT, BUT THEY'RE NOT LOSING THE MOVEMENT, THEY'RE
[00:20:01]
JUST LOSING THAT RIGHT TURN.SO, BUT, BUT THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE LOSING THAT MOVEMENT.
THEY DO FEEL, THEY DO FEEL THAT THAT'S THEY'RE, WE'RE TAKING SOMETHING FROM THEM WHEN IT, WHEN AT A VEHICLE COMING OUT OF THERE WANTING TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN, BE AT THE MERCY OF A VEHICLE THAT'S WAITING TO TURN LEFT.
SO IF A VEHICLE IS COMING OUT OF HERE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN, BUT THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF IT'S WAITING TO TURN LEFT.
JAMES, IF YOU'RE COMING UP VA ROAD AND YOU WANT TO GO STRAIGHT OR, OR I MEAN YOU'RE WAITING THE CAR IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT HE USED MAKING A LEFT, YOU'RE SITTING, THERE'S THE SAME.
IT'S THE SAME IF YOU'RE COMING THIS WAY, NO.
IF YOU'RE COMING EVEN ANOTHER WAY, WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU'RE COMING THIS WAY AND ONE OR TWO CARS THAT WANT TO GO THROUGH AND THERE'S PEOPLE COMING THIS WAY, YOU'RE WAITING.
BUT I THINK TO AJ'S POINT IS THAT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT.
AND SO THEREFORE THEY'RE LOSING THAT MOVEMENT.
THEY, THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY'RE LOSING SOMETHING.
BUT, AND, AND THE ONLY ONE OTHER THING THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT I THINK NICK JUST DID, DIDN'T MENTION, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, IS ACCESS DRIVE A, BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, THAT MEETING WE HAD WITH PENDOT AND TOWNSHIP THREE WEEKS AGO, UH, WE ACTUALLY MOVED THIS ACCESS ANOTHER 15.
UH, PENDOT WAS AGREEABLE TO ALLOWING US TO SLIGHTLY REDUCE THIS RADIUS, UH, BEYOND WHAT THEY NORMALLY, UH, SUGGEST.
JUST SO WE CAN GET THIS DRIVEWAY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE INTERSECTION.
SO THIS, THIS PLAN DOES REFLECT THAT THERE'S A SHORTER OR A SMALLER RADIUS HERE, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO KICK THAT DRIVEWAY A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY.
ANTHONY, WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT ABOUT PUTTING A SMALL LEFT HAND TURN COMING DOWN LEWIS ROAD INTO THE PARK? YEAH.
SOUTHBOUND IF FOR THE ACCESS TO PUT A TURNING LANE? UH, WELL WE, SO THERE, THE STUDY DOESN'T REQUIRE FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT THE NEED FOR ONE, BUT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING AN AREA FOR A MOVE FOR THE LEFT TURN TO, TO MAKE THE MOVE AND GET THE TRAFFIC, THE STILL FLOW ACROSS WOULD CERTAINLY BE, UH, BENEFICIAL.
THAT WASN'T THIS, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER, THE FOCUS WAS AT THE INTERSECTION FOR THE MEETING.
UM, BUT IN TERMS OF A, OF A TURN LANE AT THE ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED.
HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ROOM TO TO, TO POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE ROOM TO ALLOW MANEUVERABILITY AROUND THE LEFT TURN LANE AND IT COULD BE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE ACCESS TO THIS TRAFFIC.
UM, SO WHAT WAS THE NEGATIVE OF THE OTHER ACCESS, I GUESS OUT OF, IT WAS CALLED B BUT THE ONE DOWN AROUND, DOWN OVER THIS WAY? YEAH, I THINK THE, THE, BASED ON WHERE WE COULD LOCATE THAT ACCESS, THERE WAS LESS SITE DISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR SOMEONE EXITING OUT AND LOOKING BACK THIS WAY.
SO THIS MOVEMENT, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS MOVEMENT IS A FREE FLOW MOVEMENT.
THEY'RE ALWAYS MOVING, SO THEY'RE NOT SLOWING DOWN.
BUT WHEN THEY MAKE THIS TURN, SO IF YOU HAVE THE OTHER DRIVEWAY LOCATED IN THIS LOCATION, YOU ALMOST, YOU HAVE TO LOOK ACROSS AND BACK THROUGH YOUR SHOULDER.
YOU WOULD ELIMINATE THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
BUT EVEN THAT WAY, YOU COULD STILL HAVE TO LOOK BACK ACROSS YOUR SHOULDER TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE WASN'T COMING AROUND THIS TURN BEFORE YOU EXIT IT OUT THE DRIVEWAY.
I THINK PART OF THE CONCERN WAS ALSO THAT BY CREATING AN ENTRANCE ON LEWIS ROAD GOING TO THE NORTH, THAT IT CREATED A, A CUT THROUGH AND WHEN THAT INTERSECTION GETS BACKED UP, PEOPLE ARE JUST GONNA FUNNEL THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT AND FURTHER, UH, YEAH.
CAUSE PROBLEMS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WITH THEIR LAST DESIGN.
CAUSE THEIR LAST DESIGN HAD THAT, AND WE DISCUSSED THAT.
WE WANTED TO SEE THAT GO AWAY BECAUSE IT BECAME A CUT THROUGH AROUND THIS CORNER.
AND, AND I THINK THERE'S EVEN ANOTHER REASON, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS THAT, THAT, THAT ACCESS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL.
YEAH, I THINK THERE'S A, THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES IF WE HAD TO MM-HMM.
I WOULD SAY IT REFLECTS WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED.
NOW, I THINK IT WAS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR WHEN, SO WE WANTED IT TO BE SKETCHED AS PROVIDED.
UM, BUT IN TERMS OF DEFERRING THE IMPROVEMENTS, I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION I GUESS.
BUT OUR, OUR THOUGHT WAS THESE IMPROVEMENTS WERE WHAT WAS AGREED UPON, BUT, UM, OBVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTING THEM WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME, NOT DEFERRING THEM FOR THE FUTURE, I THINK IT'S NEEDED.
WE'D ARGUE THAT IT'S NEEDED NOW WITH THE DEVELOPMENT NOT IN THE FUTURE.
AND, AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, UH, OUR ROLE IN THIS BEYOND MATT HAVING DRAFTED OUT SORT OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, IS THE OFFERING OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE BOARD SUPERVISORS TO, UM, DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO
[00:25:01]
DO WITH THAT INTERSECTION AND, AND THEN DO, SO WE, WE, WE DID NOT OFFER TO BECOME EMBROILED IN, IN, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, CERTAINLY HAPPY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ORCHARD COURT AND MAKE MR. HAMMOND AVAILABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN TERMS OF MAKING THIS A SAFER INTERSECTION FOR EVERYONE, WHICH WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS OF ORCHARD COURT AS WELL.BUT IN TERMS OF ANY APPROPRIATION OR, OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, UM, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE OFFERING.
WHAT WE'RE OFFERING IS THE RIGHT OF WAY.
DOESN'T THAT HAVE TO BE OFFERED ANYWAY, THIS IMPROVEMENT OR NOT A RIGHT OF WAY, THIS RIGHT OF WAY, THE ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY? YES.
SO, SO YOUR RIGHT OF WAY IS, HAS TO BE OFFERED WHETHER YOU DO AN IMPROVEMENT OR YOU DESIGN AN IMPROVEMENT OR NOT.
THE ORCHARD COURT RIGHT OF WAY QUESTION IS A LENGTHIER QUESTION THAT WE CAN GET INTO LATER.
THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE WOULD BE OFFERING THE TOWNSHIP FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENT IS, UM, WIDER THAN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO OFFER.
DON'T YOU SHOW AN ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY LINE THAT'S BEHIND YOUR SIDEWALK? SO I, I THINK THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S BEING DEDICATED THAT WAS EXPANDED UPON WAS ACTUALLY THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE DEPARTMENT.
WHEN I SAY DEDICATED, I MEAN TO, SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT YOU OFFER THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY TO WHATEVER GOVERNING AGENCY THERE IS THIS IMPROVEMENT OR NOT.
JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THIS WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IMPROVEMENT IS DEFERRED OR DONE THAT THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS COMING TO US OR TO THE DEPARTMENT AT ANY TIME.
YOU THE ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY YES.
WHICH IS BEHIND YOUR SIDEWALK.
IS IT NOT HANDED RIGHT OF AWAY? OH.
DOES THIS REQUIRE AN EXPANDED RIGHT OF WAY? I'M SORRY? DOES THIS IMPROVEMENT REQUIRE AN EXPANDED RIGHT OF WAY? YES.
THE, THE, UH, WITHOUT THIS IMPROVEMENT, THE, OUR PRIOR PRELIMINARY PLAN SHOWED, SHOWED THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, SINCE WE ARE HAVE TO, TO, TO BASICALLY, UH, OFFSET THE, UH, FOR THE RIGHT TURN LANE AND THEN COME BACK.
BASICALLY THERE'S ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY, UH, ALONG THE CURVE AND THEN ALSO, UH, ALONG BOTH LEGS THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND, UH, WHAT THE SAL THAT WOULD REQUIRE.
SO THAT WOULD BE, WOULD, WOULD, UH, MS. DON IS TALKING ABOUT NICK, WHEN YOU SAY THIS IMPROVEMENT, WHICH PART OF IT DO YOU MEAN? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT TURN LANE RIGHT HERE.
SO THIS IS A CONCRETE BOOK IN HERE.
SO ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING FROM HERE OVER IN TERMS OF, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A, THIS RIGHT TURN LANE, HE'S ABOUT 15 WIDE, ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE A 15 HEADLINE HERE,
JOE, WHEN THE CARS COME UP THAT WE COME UP THERE.
NOW, IF HE WANTS TO GO STRAIGHT ON VAUGHN ROAD, IT BACKS THAT ALL UP.
OH, BELIEVE ME, MY KIDS WENT TO SCHOOL THERE.
I KNOW THE, YEAH, SO IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH, BUT THEY'RE OFFERING IS TO PUT A, A GO STRAIGHT LANE IN AND WIDEN THE CURB, RIGHT? THE RIGHT HAND CURVE? NO, THEY'RE OFFERING TO GIVE US THE RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
SO I JUST WITH THE DEFERRING QUESTIONING THE TIMING OF THAT, IF WE'RE BRINGING UP SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PROJECT AS AN ENTITY AND THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT IS GOING TO SUIT A MORE SAFE APPROACH TO THE ROADWAYS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT, HOW FAR DEFERRED WOULD IT BE AND WHAT'S THE EXCHANGE IN DEFERMENT THAT'S UP.
OBVIOUSLY IF, IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGREE TO THIS DEFERMENT, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO FUND THE IMPROVEMENT AND TO PUT IT IN, WHY, WHY WOULDN'T YOU FUND THE RE THAT, THAT IMPROVEMENT YOU'RE GIVING UP THE RIGHT OF WAY.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU JUST MAKE THAT IMPROVEMENT? SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS IS THAT, UH, WE ARE TRYING TO FIX AN EXISTING, OR AT LEAST WORK WITH THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS TO FIX AN EXISTING PROBLEM.
WE HAVE VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND WE ARE WILLING TO DEDICATE NOT ONLY THE RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE, BUT ALSO WE HAVE AN IMPACT FEE THAT WE'LL BE PAYING.
UM, AND BASED ON THAT YOU FEEL LIKE THAT'S FAIR FROM AN, FROM AN IMPROVEMENT STANDPOINT, UH, THE TOWNSHIP OBVIOUSLY HAD PLANS, SIGNIFICANT PLANS FOR THIS INTERSECTION.
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME FUNDS TOWARDS THAT WITH RESPECT TO, UH, LIKE I SAID, THE IMPACT FEE AND PROVIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY AT NO COST TO EFFECTUATE THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
THEIR TRANS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE IS $38,000.
WHICH IF THEY WERE TO DO THIS IMPROVEMENT, THEY COULD REQUEST THAT THAT FEE BE WAIVED.
[00:30:01]
AMOUNT OF IMPORTANCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A OUTWEIGH THAT THAT IMPACT B, WE HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER THE ORCHARD COURT HOA AND THE ABILITY, AGAIN, I THINK WE CAN SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES.IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'RE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
YEAH, BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND.
MAYBE I'M THE LAST ONE TO CATCH UP.
BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE WORK BEING DEFERRED, WHAT WORK WOULD BE DEFERRED? SO WE WOULD BE ANY WORK THAT THE TOWNSHIP WOULD WANT TO DO WITHIN THE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WITHIN THE FOUND OF ORCHARD COURT.
NOW I, I WILL ADMIT, I'M NOT POSITIVE.
SOMEBODY DID RAISE, YOU KNOW, PART OF THIS IS A STATE ROAD, PART OF IT FALLS WITHIN THE PEN DOT RIGHT OF WAY.
PART OF IT IS PRIVATE, PART OF IT IS ORCHARD COURT.
I SEE THAT AS A, MY, I PERSONALLY SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY PUSHING BACK HARD.
WE'RE NOT GONNA USE EMINENT DOMAIN ON THEIR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY OVER THERE.
SO IF THAT'S A, I'M ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT A LYNCHPIN TO MAKING ALL THIS WORK? BECAUSE IF, WELL, I'M NOT SURE IT IS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A PROBLEM TODAY.
IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING AND THEIR, THEIR BUILDING ISN'T GONNA AFFECT THAT.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING TODAY.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS TODAY.
RIGHT? I I THINK IT'S A COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL YEAH.
YOU'RE OFFERING IT TO SAY, HEY, THIS COULD IMPROVE THE WHOLE INTERSECTION IF YOU DO THIS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANTHONY WOULD DISAGREE WITH ME OR NOT ON THIS, BUT IF THAT RIGHT.
TURN OUT OF WHAT COURT WERE TO REMAIN AND NEVER GO AWAY, BUT THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WERE EFFECTUATED, I DON'T KNOW.
IT WOULDN'T BE THE PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE A SOLUTION.
I GUESS, I GUESS TO STATE, TO STATE MY QUESTION A BETTER WAY I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, IS THE, IS IMPROVING THE FLOW COMING OUT OF ORCHARD COURT TIED IN ANY WAY TO WHATEVER BACKUP THERE IS ENTERING INTO YOUR PROPERTY OR ANY OF THE FLOW THAT GOES IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY? DOES DOING THE ORCHARD COURT PIECE MAKE YOUR SITUATION BETTER AT YOUR ACCESS POINT A NO, I THINK THE ORCHARD COURT PIECE IS A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, NOT A MAIN PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
NOT A HUGE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, BUT IS A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE TO HELP, TO HELP.
YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERSECTION THAT EXIST TODAY.
THE BIGGER PICTURE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN MANY OTHER FORMS ABOUT THE INTERSECTION, YOU'RE SAYING IT JUST IMPROVES THE INTERSECTION GENERALLY.
I THOUGHT YOU'RE SAY IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY IMPROVE ANYTHING TO YOUR PROPERTY OR YOUR PARCEL OR THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC TO FROM YOUR PARCEL.
CAUSE ALL THIS IS, THIS IS ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING OUT AND GOING RIGHT THIS WAY.
IT'S NOT EVEN COMING ANYWHERE NEAR OUR PROPERTY.
WHAT IT DOES THOUGH IS IT HELPS AGAIN, BRING EVERYONE TO A MORE MORE TRADITIONAL TYPE INTERSECTION.
BUT AGAIN, IF THIS, AND, AND SO THE REASON WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP, CUZ IT'S BEING, IT'S A SEPARATE TOPIC.
THE POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS IT REALLY DOESN'T RELATE TO YOUR PLAN OR HOW WELL YOUR PLAN WORKS OR HOW YOUR, WELL THE TRAFFIC FLOWS IN FRONT OF YOURS.
IT'S JUST A WHOLE SEPARATE OTHER THING.
IT'S A SMALL PART OF THE WHOLE LARGER CUL-DE-SAC SIGNALIZATION CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD FOR TWO YEARS IN THE TOWNSHIP.
THAT'S ALL YOU'RE REALLY SAYING.
AND, AND, AND TO YOUR POINT, MR. BRE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF A, IT'S, IT'S A DISCUSSION AND A DIALOGUE THAT WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO ENGAGE IN WITH THE TOWNSHIP IN PENDOT.
UM, INSOFAR AS MY CLIENT IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, HE LIVES HERE, HE UNDERSTANDS THE CHALLENGES AND WHILE WE DON'T NEED ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CERTAINLY RECEPTIVE TO, TO HELPING AND BEING A PART OF THE COMMUNITY, ESSENTIALLY WHAT MATTERS TO US AT THIS JUNCTURE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE SHIFTING EVERYTHING UP 10 FEET AND OFFERING THIS EXPANDED RIGHT OF WAY OR NOT.
AND, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WILLING TO DO IF THAT'S WHAT THE TOWNSHIP AND PENDOT WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
BUT IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD, WHICH WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY LIKE TO, TO ADVANCE AT THIS POINT.
AND WHAT DOES PENDOT, I MEAN SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH STATE HIGHWAY OPENINGS, THEY HAVE MORE LEEWAY THAN THE TOWNSHIP DOES.
THEY CAN ASK FOR THINGS THAT WE CAN'T AGREED.
UM, MY OPINION IS, AND BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT PENDOT WOULD NOT GET INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF CONDEMNATION, UH, FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OR A PRIVATE ENTITY.
IF IT WAS A STATE PROJECT AND THEY WERE LOOKING TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT AT THIS INTERSECTION, THEN YES, THEY WOULD LIKELY HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, BUT IF IT'S NOT A PROJECT THAT THEY HAVE A PART IN SHORT OF ISSUING PERMITS AND REVIEWING THAT THEY WILL NOT GET INVOLVED.
WELL, I MEAN THAT PROOF OF THAT IS THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING EVEN THOUGH THE TOWNSHIP AND OTHERS HAVE COMPLAINED FOR MANY YEARS, THE STATE HAS HAS IGNORED IT.
NOW IF I, IF I COULD ADD ONE THING REGARDING THE ORCHARD COURT.
SO PANDA DID BRING THAT UP IN THEIR LETTER.
SO IT IS AN ITEM THAT'S, THAT'S ON THEIR REVIEW LETTER TO ADDRESS AND WAS DISCUSSED THAT THE MEETING AS WELL.
[00:35:01]
THE PROCESS FOR, UH, THE PENDO PERMIT AS, AS MATT WOULD KNOW, IS THAT ALTHOUGH THEY CAN'T REQUIRE AND CONDEMN CUZ IT'S NOT THEIR RIGHT OF WAY, THEY, THEY WILL REQUIRE THAT IT MOVED FORWARD AND AT LEAST ATTEMPTS BE MADE TO, TO APPROACH THE PROPERTY OWNER APPROACH ORCHARD COURT TO SEE IF THEY'RE AGREEABLE OR NOT TO THE IMPROVEMENT.SO THAT IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE PENDO PROCESS, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO EXPLORE.
AND, AND DOES IT LIKE THAT THAT THAT RIGHT HAND LANE TURN? NO, THEY, THEY AGREE THAT TO IMPROVE AS AN IMPROVEMENT AS MATT MENTIONS, ALTHOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY TIED TO THE OPERATION OF THE SITE OF THE ACCESS.
THAT IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE AWKWARD CONFIGURATION THAT IT HAS AND THE IMPACTS THAT IT HAS TO THE INTER TO THE INTERSECTION IN THE OPERATIONS.
SO I THINK THE ITEMS SPECIFIC TO THAT, I THINK WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT OR EXPECTATION FROM THE DE DEPARTMENT.
AND WHAT WE HAD IN MIND WAS THE APPLICANT MOVED FORWARD WITH CONTACTING THEM CURRENTLY.
I MEAN THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION, UM, TO, THEY NOW HAVE A PROJECT I GUESS THAT TIES TO THE, NOT JUST AN INTERIM TYPE SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENT WITHOUT SOMETHING TIED TO IT WHEN, UM, THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I HAD DURING THAT TIME WAS IF IT WAS, THEY WOULD RECONSIDER IF IT WAS TIED TO SAY A ROUNDABOUT OR THE SIGNALIZATION ET CETERA.
WHETHER THAT CHANGES, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T THAT, I'M NOT SURE, BUT AT LEAST THE PROCESS WOULD BE CONTACT THEM PEN OUT WOULD REQUIRE THE APP TO GO THROUGH THAT COORDINATION.
IF THEY SAY YES, WE ADVANCE, THEY SAY NO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T REALLY FORCE THE HAND I GUESS AT THAT POINT.
BUT TO JOE'S POINT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT THAT ROW REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR PLAN AT ALL.
BUT IT IS, IT AFFECTS THE INTERSECTION.
SO THAT'S WHY PENDOT WANTS TO CLOSE THAT LOOP.
THAT, THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.
SO, AND AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I THINK ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE SHOWING WITH THIS INTERSECTION AND EVERYTHING THAT'S DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN ISN'T NECESSARILY FOR, IT'S MORE TO SOLVE THE ISSUE THAT EXISTS AT THIS INTERSECTION.
THIS IS MORE BETTER DEFINE SOME OF THE MOVEMENTS, MAKE IT MORE CLEAR FOR VEHICLES THAT ARE APPROACHING THAT INTERSECTION REGARDLESS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IS HERE OR NOT.
BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED, IT'S WE'RE GENERATING A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC.
SO WE HAVE TO, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE DEFERRED PART OF THAT.
IS IT REALLY AFFECTING THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD? IS IT GOING TO BE ANY MORE SAFER? LESS SAFER? WELL IT DOES ON THE, ON THE, THE RIGHT HAND TURN SIDE COMING UP SOUTH LEWIS ROAD HEAD TOWARD THE HIGH SCHOOL THAT DEFERRED THAT DOES, THAT DOES AFFECT IT.
YOU HAD SOMETHING BOB, YOU WANTED TO I DID.
UM, I TRAVEL UP LEWIS ROAD QUITE A BIT TO SWAMP PIKE AND UP THAT DIRECTION AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THERE'S A RUNAROUND UP THERE THAT WOULD BE PERFECT HERE.
I MEAN, ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE SAYING COULD BE FIXED RIGHT THERE.
NOW SOMEBODY MENTIONED THAT EARLIER AND THEY SAID WHAT? WE'D LOSE OUR WHOLE PROPERTY.
IS THAT REALLY TRUE? I MEAN, NO, THE, I WILL, I WILL REMIND YOU.
AND, AND PERHAPS YOU WEREN'T, UM, FAMILIAR WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEWED, BUT THEY ACTUALLY DID COMMISSION YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO UM, BASICALLY PRESENT AT LEAST ONE PLAN OR TWO COMMANDS FOR THAT.
MR. BREMAN? THE, YEAH, WE LOOKED AT WHAT, WHAT ALL WOULD BE INVOLVED IN, UM, PLACING THE ROUNDABOUT THERE.
AND THE OVERALL COST WAS STAGGERING WHEN YOU CONSIDERED THAT WE WOULD REALISTICALLY HAVE TO USE EM AND DOMAIN FOR ALMOST ALL OF THIS PARCEL TO FACILITATE EVERYTHING.
AND IT, IT QUICKLY MADE THE TOTAL COST, UM, JUST NOT REALISTIC.
AND THEN I GUESS WE BACKED OFF TO LOOKING AT SIGNALIZATION.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHERE THAT, UH, TWO, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR COMMAND, BUT TWO PLANS WERE PRESENTED.
THE BOARD OPTED FOR THE SIGNALIZATION PLAN AS MUCH AS THE ROUNDABOUT WAS THE MCAH FAVORITE.
I THINK THE OPTED FOR THE SIGNALIZATION PLAN, IT'S STILL CAME TO ABOUT SIX TO $7 MILLION.
AND THAT WASN'T EVEN WHEN THE PROPERTY COST, THE PROPERTY ACQUISITION COST.
AND THE BOARD AT THE TIME SAID, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN SPENDING THAT MONEY.
WE WEREN'T GETTING ANY HELP FROM PENDA.
WE WEREN'T GETTING ANY HELP FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
AND WE REALLY THINK IT'S A SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUE.
SO NOT SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD, BUT SPEAKING IN MY EXPERIENCE IN DURING THE DISCUSSIONS WAS IF PENDOT AND, AND THE, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AREN'T WILLING TO STEP UP AND, AND SPEND SOME MONEY,
[00:40:01]
WE'RE NOT READY TO SPEND MONEY EITHER.IT ALSO WAS NOT AT THE TIME WHEN THE CONVERSATION BEGAN ABOUT THE INTERSECTION, IT WAS DRIVEN LARGELY BY A COUPLE OF ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPENED WHERE CARS CONTINUED ON LEWIS STRAIGHT ON THROUGH TO ORCHARD AND SULLIVAN.
YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE, I KNOW THAT OUR FORMER, OUR FORMER POLICE CHIEF ASKED THE QUESTION AT THAT TIME, HOW MUCH DO YOU DESIGN AROUND PEOPLE WHO WERE LEGALLY DRUNK AND SPEEDING? RIGHT.
THEY COULD CRASH ANY, THEY COULD, THAT COULD HAPPEN.
SO THAT ALSO, IT REALLY WASN'T INITIALLY ONLY TO ADDRESS AN OBVIOUS TRAFFIC PROBLEM, BUT IT WAS ALSO FIRST KICKED OFF BY THE BRIAN BORNAN CHECK FROM THE, THE ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGERS HAD THE POLICE DEPARTMENT LOOK INTO IT.
AND OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, THE ONLY ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, THERE ARE TRUCKS THAT PASS AROUND THE CORNER AND CLAP MIRRORS.
SO THERE, IT HASN'T BEEN THAT DANGEROUS IN AN INTERSECTION AT THIS POINT? NOPE, IT HASN'T.
CAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK YOUR PLAN'S BAD.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY GOOD TAKING THE ORCHARD COURT OUT BECAUSE I, I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT AFFECTS YOUR PIECE AT ALL.
I DON'T THINK IT'S BAD EXCEPT FOR I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU MAKE THAT IMPROVEMENT.
NOT DEFER, MAKE THE IMPROVEMENT IS, I GUESS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ALLUDING TO ANTHONY? YOU KNOW YEAH.
SEPARATE THE ORCHARD COURT SEPARATING, FORGET WHAT RECORD FOR A MINUTE.
LET'S JUST FOCUS ONLY ON THIS OR, OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU.
YOU WANT TO SEE THEM PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS INSTEAD OF JUST DEDICATING RIGHT AWAY.
CUZ IT THE WAY, SO THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THEY DELINEATES ALONG LEWIS ON BOTH LEGS.
SO THE 20 FOOT, I THINK ON THE SOUTHBOUND APPROACH, 40 FOOT HALFWAY, UH, HALF RIGHT AWAY WIDTH ON ABOUT, SAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE NORTHBOUND APPROACH LEADING UP TO THE INTERSECTION.
I MEAN IT, THAT RIGHT OF AWAY SEEMS TO ACCOMMODATE A MAJORITY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THERE.
I GUESS AT THE CORNER IS PROBABLY WHERE WE'RE TIGHT OR CLOSE WITH THE SIDEWALK WITH, WITH THE WIDENING OF THE RIGHT TURN LANE.
SO I I MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FIT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S ALREADY REQUIRED AS JEFF WAS MENTIONING AND SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
SO I THINK WE HAVE THAT LITTLE SMALL CORNER, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT THINGS ALSO PRACTICALLY IN TERMS OF DEFERRING.
SO YOU, YOU BUILD EVERYTHING NOW.
YOU BUILD SIDEWALKS, YOU BUILD, UH, CURB LINES FOR THAT PORTION, THAT RIGHT CHANNELIZED PORTION.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T DO THE ISLANDS DEFERRING JUST DOESN'T SEEM PRACTICAL FROM A CONSTRUCTABILITY AND JUST STA SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE WHY NOT DO THE WIDENING AT LEAST FOR THE CURB, EVEN IF YOU DON'T DO THE MEDIAN PIECE WITHOUT MUCH DISRUPTION OR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY OR, UH, MODIFICATIONS OF THE CORNER OF THE SITE.
I DON'T, SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I, I THINK THESE IMPROVEMENTS MAKE SENSE TO IMPLEMENT, UH, AT THE, AT THE VER AT THE VERY LEAST, THE CURBING AND, AND THE SIDEWALK.
I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD DEFER THAT.
WELL WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON, I MEAN IT'S NOT, IT'S IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS TO YOUR PROPERTY SO IT'S NOT OFFSITE, CORRECT? WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T THINK IT WAS OUR INTENTION TO BUILD THE CURB LINE AT ALL, RIGHT? IT WAS LEAVE THIS INTERSECTION AS IS, BUT MAKE SURE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE WAY TO PRECLUDE THIS FROM OCCURRING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AND PROVIDING THE RIGHT OF WAY NECESSARY AND THE IMPACT FEE NECESSARY THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAD THE ABILITY TO COMPLETE THESE IMPROVEMENTS AT SOME POINT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS, THIS IS NOT TECHNICALLY OFFSITE.
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME SORT OF, I WOULD ASSUME SOME SORT OF IMPACT FEE FUND THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS THAT COULD BE UTILIZED FOR THIS INTERSECTION.
UM, BUT OUR POSITION WAS IS THAT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT TAKE FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, UM, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, JUST COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE THAT COULD BASICALLY BE IMPLEMENTED THIS INTERSECTION STILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR AND IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY AT THIS INTERSECTION.
I HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE EXCEPT FOR I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE IT GO A LITTLE BIT FIRST UNDERSTOOD.
AND, AND TO COLLABORATE AND I MEAN, AND MAKE IT LIKE, TO ANTHONY'S POINT, DO IT ONCE WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT AND YOU'D BE DONE WITH IT AND, AND THERE CAN BE, THERE CAN CERTAINLY BE DISCUSSIONS OF COLLABORATION WITH THE TOWNSHIP IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATING, UH, PERHAPS, AND I'M JUST SPITBALLING HERE.
I UNDERSTAND, I TALKED TO MY CLIENT ABOUT THIS OBVIOUSLY, BUT HE'S MAKING ALL KINDS OF FACES BACK.
PEOPLE HAVE DOING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY AND TO ELIMINATE YOUR R F RFPS AND, AND ALL THAT AND, AND JUST SORT OF CUT DOWN ON YOUR RED TAPE AND YOUR COST TO COLLABORATE WITH YOU.
BUT BEYOND OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE IN TERMS OF MAKING OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY PROPOSING THAT.
I I'M PROPOSING, I I'M PROPOSING I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I'M PROPOSAL.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REFINED FOR FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
AND IN TERMS OF THE, THE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, UM, THAT
[00:45:01]
WE'VE SUBMITTED, UM, FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, THIS IS LARGELY, UM, ACTUALLY ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THIS SUCH PLAN.AND WE WOULD, AND, AND, AND I BELIEVE BASED ON THE REVIEW LETTERS FROM GILMORE AND YOU THE TOWNSHIP, FIRE MARSHAL AND THE COUNTY, THAT, UM, THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF I AGREE.
AND I'M, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THERE IS, I'M JUST SAYING THAT OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WHERE CAN WE MAKE THIS BETTER? AND, AND THAT MAKES IT A LOT BETTER IF WE FIX IT NOW TO ANTHONY'S POINT, NOT TEAR, YOU KNOW, AND TO COME BACK THREE YEARS AND DEFER IT OR WHATEVER.
WELL, BUT IF WE PAIR IT UP, IF WE PREVAILED UPON YOU TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS, THEN WOULDN'T THEY BE PART OF YOUR PLAN? SO WOULDN'T THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE, WE'D NEED TO REFLECT IN THAT, THAT IS, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MR. HAMMOND'S SKETCH, RIGHT.
TO SHOW THAT WE CAN STILL COMPLY WITH THE CELL THOUGH, IF WE BUMP EVERYTHING UP 10 FEET AND PROVIDE THAT, UM, THAT WIDER RADIUS THERE AT THE, AT THE CURVE AND, AND TO SAY WE'RE, WE'RE DEFERRING, WELL WE'RE NOT REALLY DEFERRING, WE'RE, WE'RE OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, UM, A POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
PARDON ME, MISS SON, YOUR WAIVER LETTER WILL, NICK, YOUR WAIVER LETTER DOESN'T REQUEST A WAIVER OF, OF SIDEWALKS OR OF, UH, CURBING.
SO ARE YOU REQUESTING THAT WAIVER OF CURBING ALONG ALL IMPROVED RIGHT AWAYS? CAUSE THAT'S REQUIRED.
SO IF YOU'RE SHOWING CURBING THE ARGUMENT THAT WE WEREN'T PLANNING TO PUT ON CURBING THE ARGUMENT WAS, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS AN ARGUMENT, IT WAS MORE OF A DISCUSSION ITEM.
WHICH WAS THAT WE WEREN'T PROPOSING TO WIDEN THE ROAD AT ALL.
WE WERE SHOWING WHAT COULD HAVE BE ACCOMMODATED THERE.
WE WEREN'T PROPOSING TO, BUT YOU WIDEN THE ROAD TO ANTHONY'S POINT, IF I MAY MM-HMM.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE WERE SAYING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOUR WAIVER LETTER DOESN'T REQUEST THOSE WAIVERS.
AND WE'RE AT PRELIMINARY PLAN STAGE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A WAIVER, BUT OUR SUBDIVISION LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE SECTION 1 54 20 AND 1 54 18 REQUIRE CURB SIDEWALKS ALONG ALL FRONTAGES, ALL IMPROVED ROADWAYS AND ALL FRONTAGES.
SO MAYBE, MAYBE SAY IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
WE ARE NOW PROPOSING TO IMPLEMENT THIS IMPROVEMENT.
WE WEREN'T ASKING FOR A WAIVER BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDING SUCK CURB AND SIDEWALK.
MAYBE NOT ITS ULTIMATE LOCATION AS FAR AS THE CURB IS CONCERNED, WHICH MAY HAVE TO BE RIPPED OUT WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE, BUT AT LEAST WE CAN MOVE THE SIDEWALK BACK.
SO THAT WASN'T IN A WAY, BUT I THINK TO MR. WRIGHT'S POINT, WHY PUT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS IN NOW IF WE HAVE TO RIP THEM OUT? WELL, AND AND THAT WAS MY POINT THAT IT, IT MAY BE WHO CERTAINLY THE TOWNSHIP, BUT, BUT EVERYONE IN TERMS OF NOT NEEDLESSLY EXTENDING TIME AND RESOURCES TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE RIPPED OUT IF WE COORDINATE, UM, THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWNSHIP AND PENDO WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THAT INTERSECTION AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE ARE COMPLETING OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THOSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WOULD COST THAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THAT PLAN? NO.
I'M CURIOUS WHERE IT BOUNCES OUT WITH A $38,000 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY.
BUT THAT'S NOT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.
THE, THE TOWNSHIP HAS A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE THAT IS MM-HMM.
AND WE'RE OFFERING NOW IN A SPIRIT OF GOOD FAITH TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA RE-ENGINEER OUR PLAN, BUMP OUTING UP 10 FEE, GIVE YOU MORE STANDARD RIGHT OF AWAY SO THAT YOU CAN DO THIS.
AND, AND IT, AND IT'S, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE NO GOOD DEED GOES ON.
AND, AND, AND, AND NO, I'M NOT JUMPING ON YOU ABOUT OFFERING IT.
MY POINT IS THAT YOUR DOLLAR GOES A LOT FARTHER THAN OUR DOLLAR DOES.
OUR DOLLAR IS A DOLLAR 50 FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT A PRIVATE DEVELOPER SPENDS.
SO IF WE AS A TOWNSHIP, WE HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO HAVE A DEVELOPER DO THE IMPROVEMENTS AND NOT PAY FOR AND, AND IF WE HAVE TO WAIVE, UM, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD, BUT IF, IF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT WE WAIVE FEES, WE'VE DONE IT FOR A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS, WHETHER IT'S OPEN SPACE OR WHETHER IT'S THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FEES, WE'VE WORKED IT OUT SO THAT IT BALANCES OUT.
WE'VE DONE IT WITH WB HOMES, WE'VE DONE IT WITH THP, WE'VE DONE IT WITH, WITH TOLL BROTHERS.
CAN WE, CAN WE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION WITH ANTHONY AND TRY TO WORK OUT A PLAN USING THE
[00:50:01]
IMPACT FEE AND SAY, OKAY, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS WORK SO THAT WE DO THIS IMPROVEMENT, WHICH I THINK IS GOOD ONE TIME.YOU KNOW, DEFER PUTTING IN NEW CURBS AND SIDEWALKS AND TEARING 'EM UP THREE YEARS FROM NOW OR WHATEVER.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH PENDO.
I AND I SO CAN'T WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IT? SO WHEN YOU SAY IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM THOUGH, BUT IT KIND OF IS BECAUSE NO, I MEANT, I MEANT HOW MUCH IS IT GONNA COST IN TERMS OF IT'S EVERYBODY'S PROBLEM, RIGHT? THE WHAT IT COSTS IS, IS IS NEEDS TO BE KNOWN BECAUSE WE CAN LOOK AT HOW MUCH OFFSET WE CAN PROVIDE ON OTHER FEE WAIVERS.
IT'S, IF I HAD TO JUST GUESS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW, WHEN YOU GOT THE CURBING, YOU GOT THE WIDENING, YOU GOT CONCRETE, GOT MULLAN OVERLAY AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DRAINAGE AND WHATEVER UTILITIES EXISTENT ROAD, I'M GONNA VENTURE TO GUESS, RIGHT? SO BETWEEN THE 2 0 9 AND THE UM, PER LOT FEES, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PROBABLY ALMOST EVEN IT OUT.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE A PART OF YOUR PLAN UNDER THAT SCENARIO, NOT JUST SHOWING THE RIGHT AWAY THE ACT SHOWING THE WORK.
THAT'S WHY I SAID DOESN'T IT NOW, IF THIS ALREADY SHOWS I DON'T RE THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED.
PART OF PART OF OUR DISCUSSION WITH PENDOT WAS THAT, AND I SUGGESTED THAT IF THIS IS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO SEE AND IF THIS IS WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THOUGHT WAS A, AN ACCEPTABLE, UM, ALTERATION TO THIS INTERSECTION TO ALLEVIATE ANY ISSUES, UM, THAT MCMAHON COULD HELP, THE BOARD COULD ASK MCMAHON TO HELP COORDINATE IN THE FULL ENGINEERING OF THE ACTUAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT WHILE OUR PLAN WOULD JUST ESSENTIALLY OFFER THAT AREA FOR THAT TO OCCUR.
AND IF, AND IF THE TOWNSHIP WAS INTERESTED IN COORDINATING DURING THE COURSE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WELL COORDINATING IS DIFFERENT FROM US HAVING YOU DO THE WORK AT A DOLLAR INSTEAD OF OUR DOLLAR 50 CORRECT.
SO THAT DOESN'T GET US ANY CLOSER TO US GETTING OUR DOLLAR.
WELL THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY COORDINATE.
I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, INDEMNIFICATIONS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS AND, AND, AND SINCE IT'S A STATE ROAD, PENDOT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE ON BOARD, I THINK.
AND AND AT THAT MEETING I SAID THAT NO, I DID NOT WANNA MCMANNON DO IT.
I MEAN, I'LL COME ON THE RECORD ABOUT THAT.
MY ISSUE THERE WAS WE'VE ALREADY PUT A LOT OF MONEY TOWARDS DESIGNING THE INTERSECTION THAT WE'RE NOT USING.
AND SO MY HOPE WAS THAT JUST AGAIN, AS JUST PART OF THE, THE ENGINEERING OF IT, YOU COULD PUT THAT, YOU COULD SHOW THAT ULTIMATELY HOW IT WOULD AFFECT YOU, A FULLY ENGINEERED PORTION OF THAT.
BECAUSE IF WE HAVE TO GO IN AND RE-ENGINEER THE, THE STORM WATER AND THE STORM WATER BASINS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THAT AREA, THAT'S A WHOLE LOT OF, LOT MORE THAN YOU DOING IT WHILE YOU ARE CALCULATING IT AND TAKING THOSE CALCULATIONS INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU DEVELOP IT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S FAIR EITHER TO, TO SHOULDER BURDEN A, A, A PRIVATE DEVELOPER WITH THE ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ON THAT'S BEEN SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND CALCULATED FOR OUR SITE IN ORDER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO A STATE ROAD.
WELL IT'S NOT REALLY MAKING IMPROVEMENT TO STATE ROAD.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IMPROVING YOUR DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S MAKING YOUR DEVELOPMENT MORE DESIRABLE NOT ONLY TO POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS BUT TO THE, TO THE PEOPLE AROUND IT, THE TOWNSHIP, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
AND WE GAVE THEM WAIVERS ON OTHER FEES SO THAT IT DIDN'T, IN IT WASHED OUT THAT IT DIDN'T COST THEM A DOLLAR MORE.
I MEAN, IS THAT OF ANY INTERESTING, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAYING.
SO WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET AT, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE 200 AT, AT 4,000 A LOT ON YOUR PROJECT PLUS THE OFFSET OF THE, UM, ACT 2 0 9 30 $8,000, WE'RE PROBABLY USING NAPKIN CALCULATIONS.
WE'RE J THERE'S PROBABLY ENOUGH THERE FOR US TO USE TO OFFSET THE EXTRA COST THAT YOU INCURRED DOING THAT WORK.
WELL I WOULD, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY.
UM, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN IT, ENTERTAIN THAT AND I WOULD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY CLIENT TO ENTERTAIN THAT.
UM, NOW WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD MAKE, SORRY MATT, WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD MAKE ANY, YOU KNOW, GUARANTEES AS TO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS EVENING.
OBVIOUSLY I CAN NO, I THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD APPRECIATE THAT WE'VE BEEN MOVING FORWARD THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND THE SPIRIT OF GOOD FAITH IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY AND ALL WE'RE SAYING NOW IS WHAT I HEAR YOU, JOE'S OFFERING YOU AN OFFSET TO THIS FOR YOU GUYS TO DO THAT WORK BECAUSE YOU COULD DO IT A LOT BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN WE CAN SO THAT HE'S OFFERING YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, HEY, WE'LL OFFSET THIS, WILL YOU DO THIS? WILL YOU COME BACK WITH A PLAN THAT SAYS WE'LL DO, WE'RE GONNA WIDEN THIS BY 10 FEET OR WHATEVER IT IS AND IT'S GONNA COST THIS AND WE'RE IN.
WELL, AND ALSO MY POINT WAS IF WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT, THEN THOSE DETAILS WOULD NEED TO BE A PART OF YOUR PLAN, RIGHT? NOT, NOT SOME MCMAHON OTHER THING.
CUZ YOU WOULD BE DOING THE WORK.
THAT'S ALL, THAT'S ALL THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO HAVE THAT.
[00:55:01]
AND SO THE, THE, THE MENTION ABOUT DEFERMENT AND ALL THAT, SO, SO THE PLANS DO SHOW WIDENING I GUESS, WHICH IS WHY I RAISED THE POINT ABOUT IF WE'RE SHOWING 20, IT'S 20 FEET ON BOTH LEGS.SO IT'S LOOKS ABOUT FIVE FEET OF WIDENING FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS AS WAS PRESENTED PRIOR TO THIS SKETCH.
SO ON THE PLAN THAT WE REVIEWED.
UM, SO MOVING THAT CURVE BACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE POSSIBLE RIGHT TURN AND THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT, THAT'S WHY I LOOKED AT THAT AS WELL.
IF WE'RE ALREADY WIDENING AND BEARING THE EXPENSE OF THAT COST, THEN ADDING TO THE CURB LINE TO GET THE RIGHT, TO GET THE CURB LINE TO THAT FUTURE CONDITION IS ALREADY IT.
I KIND OF DIDN'T, IT WOULD ALMOST BE MORE COSTLY NOT TO DO IT, I GUESS, IF WE'RE ALREADY WIDENING.
I, I DO ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT SINCE THE MEETING, UH, I HAD A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH THE REVIEW CONSULTANT FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOW, TO FOLLOW UP, I GUESS ON THE MEETING.
AND THESE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH, WHICH MATT WAS SO ELOQUENTLY DRAWING UP ON THE FLY, I GUESS STORING THE, UM, THE VIRTUAL MEETING.
AND THEY, THEY DO SEE THE BENEFIT, UM, ON IMPLEMENTING THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF, YOU KNOW, WE, SO IT'S MUTUAL FROM THE, FROM OUR SIDE AND THE DEPARTMENT'S SIDE, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THE MUTUAL BENEFITS.
BUT AGAIN, LIKE WE HAD WIDENING SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
SO THAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
WASN'T, WASN'T AS IF WE DIDN'T SHOW ANY WIDENING AT ALL.
SO THERE WAS WIDENING SHOWN, AND SO THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF MY, MY, MY COMMISSION, BUT THE, THE PLAN CAN BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ZONING CHANGE OR ANY KIND OF RELIEF.
AND IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT, YOU CAN ALSO, UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, SAY TO THEM FOR ON THEIR OWN SITE, FOR SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS, NOT OFFSITE, BUT SOMETHING RIGHT THERE YOU CAN SAY YOU PAY FOR IT.
THE CHALLENGE HERE IN SAYING YOU PAY FOR IT WITHOUT ANY KIND OF AN OFFSET IS THAT THESE 24 HOMES DON'T SIGNIFICANTLY ADD TO ANY PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT ALREADY EXISTS AT THE INTERSECTION.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE TRYING TO COME AT IT FROM A DIF I THINK IT TOOK US A WHILE TO GET TO I AGREE.
THAT'S WHERE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
SO IS THAT POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD GO BACK AND COME AND LOOK AT THAT AND COME BACK TO US WITH A PROPOSAL INCLUDING THAT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE JOE'S OFFERING YOU SOME OFFSET? YEAH.
AND, AND, AND I WOULD, I WOULD PREFER CANDIDLY TO DO THAT AT FINAL OR, OR, YOU KNOW, A, A DISCUSSION, A PRELUDE TO FINAL.
WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR THIS EVENING IS PRELIMINARY PLAN RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AND I, AND I THINK IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE MAYBE MORE EFFICIENT AND STREAMLINED IF WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AS WELL WITH THE BOARD.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD, NOBODY VOTED FOR ME FOR ANYTHING.
SO WHEN I SAY I'M OFFERING YOU AN OFFSET IN THE ORDINANCE, REALLY? YEAH.
THERE'S A COUPLE GUYS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM WHO HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE OFFSET.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REALLY MINE TO OFFER.
IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT IDEA AND IT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK THAT IT MAKES MOST SENSE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING WITH THE BOARD.
AND THEN ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISED COME.
I MEAN, I, I, I'M, I'LL LET ASK JOE ADVISE US ON THAT, HOW THAT WORKS.
BUT NOW WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEATEN UP THE PLAN YET.
I MEAN, WE'RE JUST KIND OF BEEN FOCUSING ON ONE CORNER.
IF, IF I MAY, YOU WON'T BE ON A BOARD AGENDA UNTIL THE 21ST OF NOVEMBER.
AND I'M NOT SAYING REVISED PLANS, BUT OUR NEXT MEETING IS NOT TILL THE 21ST OF NOVEMBER.
SO THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE INTERNALLY ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS.
SOME CALCULATIONS YOU COME UP WITH.
OUR TYPICAL WAY FOR WAIVERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IS YOU HAVE A CALCULATION.
WE LOOK AT THEM AND WE SAY, WE AGREE WITH THAT NUMBER.
WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT NUMBER.
SO I, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET TO THE BOARD IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WILLING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT.
WELL, I, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO, AND I KNOW WE SPENT AN HOUR NOW TALKING ABOUT THIS CURVE.
UH, SO LET'S, I THINK WE ALL ARE ON THE SAME PAGE NOW AND WHERE THAT'S AT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE PLAN AS BRIEFLY AS WE CAN AND YOU KNOW, CAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THIS.
YOU KNOW, THE BUILDINGS AND PARKING AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF THAT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT.
SO, UM, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? UM, I DON'T KNOW.
WE DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM, I'LL JUST GET THAT ONE OUT OF THE WAY.
THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, I, I HOPE I'M NOT, UM, MISCHARACTERIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES REVIEW LETTER TO INDICATE THAT, UM, EVERYTHING IS COMPLIANT, UM, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF FIRE SAFETY AND, UM, FIRE PARKING.
[01:00:01]
UH, I BELIEVE, UH, DOES MCMAHON HAVE ANYTHING LEFT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IN TERMS OF THEIR REVIEW LETTER BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO, UM, GILMORE'S LETTER? I DON'T THINK SO.I THINK EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE ISSUE, SO NO, AND, AND PENN.AS WELL.
SO WE'VE, WE'VE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, PEN DOT AND, AND MC MCMANN, UM, IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW OF GILMORE ASSOCIATES, I'M NOT, IS ANYONE FROM GILMORE ASSOCIATES REAL? SUSAN, JENNIFER? SURE.
UM, SO THE, THE REVIEW COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, UM, WITH RESPECT TO ZONING, I THINK THAT THE FIRST, UM, COMMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN VISIT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION WE WERE JUST HAVING FOR FEES AND, AND SET OFFS, UM, MOVING FORWARD.
IT, IT RELATES TO A, UH, A FEE IN LIEU OF DEDICATION FOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE AMENITIES, WHICH I THINK IS APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED AT FINAL AS WELL.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE YARD REQUIREMENTS, UM, THE SOLICITOR, UM, MR. BRESIN, UM, BOTH DURING THE SKETCH PLAN AND, UH, IN, IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION AND, AND IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DURING THE SKETCH PLAN PLACE, SKETCH PLAN PHASE, EXCUSE ME, WE DISCUSSED, UH, AND I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE IN THE ORDER, UM, THAT THE SETBACKS DELINEATED IN ZUNI ORDINANCE SECTION 180 2 DASH FIVE THREE C N D ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT AND WE ARE COMPLIANT.
UM, THE PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGES, UH, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN CHAPTER 180 2 DASH 100 B.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE SAL DO COMMENTS, ALL OF THESE WILL BE ADDED TO THE PLAN FOR THE, THE FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION, UM, STARTING WITH NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS JUST, UH, AN AN INFORMATION, UM, SUPPLY, AND THEN THE FLOOR AREA FOR EACH TOWN HOME SHALL BE ADDED TO THE PLAN.
WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THOSE.
A NOTE WILL BE ADDED TO THE RECORD PLAN INDICATING THE ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY AREAS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT IN LIMBO PENDING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE, THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION MOVING FORWARD.
THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS WILL BE 26 FEET WIDE, AND THAT WILL BE INDICATED UPON THE PLAN.
UM, THE MINIMUMS CLEAR SIGHT TRIANGLE OF 125 FEET WILL BE PROVIDED, ALTHOUGH I, THAT CHANGED THAT BASED UPON THE SHIPPING OF THE, UM, THE HOME TO THE NORTH.
SO COMMENT THREE IN OUR LETTER.
SUBDIVISION LETTER TALKS ABOUT A PARTIAL WAIVER USING THE AERIAL PLAN FOR THE EXISTING FEATURES TO THE NORTH, AND THEN THERE'S A CLEAR SITE TRIANGLE THAT IT WOULD EXTEND ACROSS PROPERTY OFF SITE.
SO ACCESS AND COORDINATION WITH THAT OWNER WOULD BE REQUIRED
UM, THE COMMENT REGARDING THE 40 FEET CURB RADIO EYE, UM, WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE PROPOSED INTERSECTIONS WITH SOUTH LEWIS ROAD.
THE SITE DISTANCE INFORMATION WILL BE UPDATED AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY INTERSECTIONS WITH SOUTH LEWIS ROAD.
ALL CURVES WITHIN PARKING AREAS WILL HAVE A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT RADIUS AND BE LABELED ON THE PLANS FOR FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION.
AND WE ARE CURRENTLY, UM, REFINING, UM, SEWER PLANS.
UM, IF YOU RECALL, WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, UH, THE NEED TO, UH, OBTAIN AN EASEMENT THROUGH INDIAN CREEK HOA AND WE'VE MADE, UM, SIGNIFICANT INROADS THERE AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THAT WILL BE DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE COMING WEEKS.
ARE THERE ANY, IT MIGHT, THIS IS A MASSIVE LETTER.
CAN YOU, ARE THERE, IS IT EASIER TO JUST DO THE ONES THAT ARE NOT WELL COMPLY? YEAH, THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY, NO.
COMPLIES A BIG LETTER ONE FOR IT,
[01:05:01]
MR. PRESIDENT.AND SOME OF THESE ITEMS ARE, ARE RELATED TO THE OUTSIDE AGENCY PERMITTING AND THINGS THAT WE WOULD ACCOMMODATE DURING THE FINAL PLAN.
ALSO THAT, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A NUMBER OF SENATORS STILL COMMENTS ARE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
ONE, THE ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS YOU WERE RUNNING LINE LOOKING AT A LITTLE THAT'S, UH, DID THE ONE QUESTION I I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S EVEN QUESTION.
IT WAS ABOUT, UH, ACCESS DRIVE, A BEING CONSIDERED A STREET AND WE'RE PROVIDING FOOT ACCESS DRIVE.
WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT, UH, THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN AND OUT TO CIRCULATE NEW TO SITE.
UH, AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATE COMMENTS FAR YOU DIDN'T WAIVER FROM THAT? UH, I'M NOT THINK SO.
WELL, LET ME ASK JENNIFER, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE DO YOU SEE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF? SO IF THE SANITARY SEWER COMMENTS ARE ALL WE'LL COMPLY, CORRECT? YEAH, YEAH.
WE WENT THROUGH, WE WENT THROUGH EVERY ONE OF THE COMMENTS AND, AND THE SEWER ONES WERE ACTUALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UH, WE WILL BE PROVIDING ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO SORT OF COORDINATE WITH, WITH THE TOWNSHIP IS WITH THE EASEMENTS AND HOW THEY WANNA SHOW 'EM.
A LOT OF TIMES, UH, THAT, THAT WE WOULD SHOW IT, UH, ALONG, YOU KNOW, CURVE LINE TO KIND OF CURVE LINE, YOU KNOW, LIKE AS FAR AS THIS REALLY ISN'T A, A STREET.
SO, UM, SO WE'LL PROVIDE EASEMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER THAT THE TOWN TO SEE THOSE FOR, FOR, FOR THE SEWER.
UH, SINCE THAT WILL BE DEDICATED TO, I BELIEVE THERE'S A FEW COMMENTS.
AND ALSO I, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY RELEVANT TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THE TOWNSHIP IS GOING TO WANT TO BE A GRANTEE UPON THE SEWER EASEMENT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC WORKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
YEAH, WE HAVE THE, UH, WE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
LET, LET JENNIFER PLEASE LET JENNIFER FINISH HER COMMENT.
UM, OTHER THAN IF THOSE WERE WILL COMPLIES, I MEAN THAT WAS A MAJOR ISSUE THAT WE SAW WITH THE PLAN MOVING FORWARD.
UM, ENS PLANS, I DON'T BELIEVE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED YET OR INCLUDED IN THE PLAN SET.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO DO WAS WE WOULD TYPICALLY DO THAT AT, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION TO THE TOWNSHIP ONCE WE'VE UP ALL OF OUR LAYOUT AND DON'T, LIKE, HONESTLY, THEY'RE NOT EVEN GONNA HEAR YOU THAT FAR.
I'M USUALLY PRETTY LOUD FROM WHAT I HEAR
BUT YEAH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD ATTEND IT TO SUBMIT THAT, UH, THOSE WITH THE FINAL PLAN.
SO, SO I GUESS THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IN NOT HAVING SEEN ALL OF THE INFORMATION, TYPICALLY WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF PRELIMINARY, MY LETTER STOPS AND I CAN ONLY COMMENT ON THESE THINGS MOVING FORWARD, BUT THERE ARE ITEMS THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN YET, SO WANNA PRESERVE THE REVIEW MOVING FORWARD.
I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE WAIVER BEING REQUESTED FOR THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH PART OR SIDE OF ACCESS DRIVE A, IS THAT THE ONE GOING OUT TO LEWIS ROAD? THAT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP, IT'S SORT OF A OBVIOUS WHAT WE DID WAS THAT THAT WAIVER WE WERE REQUESTING A WAIVER FROM SIDEWALK ALONG HERE.
THAT'S WHAT I, AND WE WILL ADD THAT YOU WILL HAVE.
AND ON THE, UH, ON THE, THE SECOND THE CONCEPT THAT WE DID PREPARE, WE DID SHOW THAT ON THE, WE DID SHOW, I, I JUST NOTED AS PART OF THE LAW.
WE, IT WAS SORT OF AN WE WEREN'T SURE IF IT WAS NECESSARY, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY DON'T HAVE IT AN OBJECTION TO PROVIDING IT, SO.
IF, IF I COULD JUST ASK, UH, I ALSO WASN'T HERE LAST YEAR, THAT WAS A COMMENT EARLIER, EARLIER DESIGNS.
BUT JUST FROM A CONCEPT STANDPOINT, LOOKING AT THIS, THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNSHIP LIVING THERE, IF IT'S, IF IT'S NOT JUST COMPLIANCE, MAYBE IT IS, BUT CO CONCEPTUALLY, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF
[01:10:01]
THE SIDEWALKS FOR THE RESIDENTS? WHERE ARE THEY GOING? IS THERE SOME ASSUMPTION THAT THERE'LL BE CROSSWALKS MADE TO ACTUALLY GO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, MAYBE WALK THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, WALK THEIR DOGS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING NOWHERE.THEY'RE JUST GONNA BE CROSSING THE STREET AND CAUSING TRAFFIC IMPEDED MEDS, RIGHT? YEAH, I, I BELIEVE FROM, FROM A A SITE STANDPOINT, I MEAN, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, UH, SIDE, IS THERE SIDEWALK ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD? I BELIEVE? NO, THERE ISN'T.
AND THERE'S NONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE EITHER.
YEAH, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE SIDE RIGHT HERE.
THERE'S TWO KIND OF A TWO-PART ANSWER THERE.
ANTHONY, DIDN'T YOUR LETTER CALL OUT, UM, SOME SIDEWALK TO AVOID PEOPLE WALKING BETWEEN, AMONG CARS? AM I NOT RECALLING THAT? YEAH, WE DID, WE DID RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS AT THE INTERSECTION.
I KNOW WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE TRAFFIC ELEMENTS I GUESS SO THAT, THAT WAS A GOOD POINT TO BE RAISED, BUT YEAH, WE DID, WE DID MENTION, BUT, BUT ALSO THE, UM, WE OFTEN SEE, UH, SIDEWALKS TO NOWHERE.
THE IDEA BEING THAT EVENTUALLY THAT'LL ALL FILL IN OVER TIME.
WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE.
EITHER YOU PUT, MAKE 'EM PUT IN THE SIDEWALKS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T GO ANYWHERE IN THE HOPE THAT LATER OTHER DEVELOPERS WILL PUT SIDEWALKS IN OR YOU WAVE IT, TAKE THE MONEY AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SIDEWALKS SOMEPLACE ELSE.
BUT YOU DO OFTEN SEE SIDEWALKS THAT DON'T.
JUST FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, THE ONLY SIDEWALKS WE HAVE ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD, DR.
WERAN ON 4 29, THE BUILDING HE'S PUTTING IN, I THINK WE'VE REQUESTED, I I DON'T THINK HE GOT A WAIVER OF SIDEWALKS.
I THINK HE'S PUTTING, AGAIN, THAT'S ONE LOT.
SO AGAIN, SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE, BUT FULL DISCLOSURE, THAT'S THE ONLY SIDEWALK ON THAT SIDE.
BECAUSE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE STREET YOU SEE A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS USING IT, JOGGING, WALKING, AND THEN JUST YOU DO WONDERING, THE ONLY WAY TO ACTUALLY USE THESE WOULD BE SOME POINT WHERE YOU'RE GONNA IMPEDE TRAFFIC, GET THEM ACROSS, AND I SEE THE ADA RAMP AND THE CROSSWALK, WHICH IS I UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT YOU KNOW, CUZ PEDESTRIANS MAY WANNA ACTUALLY WALK TO THE SCHOOL INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK, BUT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO WITHOUT SOME OTHER TYPE OF CROSS.
SO, SO WHERE WE AT, JOE? WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO HERE? WHAT SHOULD WE, WHAT WHAT'S OUR PLAN? WELL, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, RIGHT? THEY'RE ASKING FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND THAT THERE BE A CONDITION APPROVED BY THE SUPERVISORS TO ADDRESS THESE IMPROVEMENTS ISSUE.
THE, UM, JEN'S LETTER IS VERY, IS LONG AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONDITIONS, BUT THERE WILL COMPLY ON EVERYTHING.
SO, BUT SHE ALSO HASN'T SEEN ALL OF THE INFORMATION SHE NEEDS.
THEY STILL OWE YOU INFORMATION.
RIGHT, JEN? SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IS DOES ANY MORE OF THAT INFORMATION HAVE TO BE SHARED? I MEAN, THE NEXT STEP IS PUTTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IN FRONT OF THE SUPERVISORS, NOT COMBINED WITH FINAL, JUST PRELIMINARY.
BUT IS THERE ENOUGH BEEN EXCHANGED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE STUFF THAT YOU WOULD NEED, JEN, THAT YOU'RE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO STILL SEE? IT WOULD JUST BE ENS AND THAT WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE STORM WATER.
UH, WELL THAT'S THE, BUT CURRENTLY, CURRENTLY WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN FOR STORM WATER MEETS THE ORDINANCE, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN, THEN, THEN I, I THINK IT WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO SEND IT TO THE, TO THE SUPERVISORS.
WITH THAT SUPERVISORS DOING AND THEN SENDING IT BACK TO US FOR FINAL AT WHATEVER POINT THAT WOULD BE.
THAT WOULD BE, UH, WHAT NOVEMBER OR THOSE? WELL, NO, I MEAN THE FINAL'S DEPENDENT ON WHEN THEY GET THEIR PLANS TOGETHER.
BEFORE WE DO ANY OF THAT, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE, UH, UH, PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? WE HAVE SOME, UH, PUBLIC HERE TONIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ANY OF THIS? I, WELL, YOU HAVE TO COVER AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
UM, I LIVE NEAR BOB HEIST OF 180 9 ROTA BOULEVARD.
SO MY MS. SANTOS, I'M SORRY, YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN PLEASE.
UH, SO JUST A GENERAL QUESTION AND UH, THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING, SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ALREADY, BUT, UH, IS PUTTING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AN OPTION AT THAT INTERSECTION? CAUSE MY SON DOES GO TO SPRING FORWARD AND I'VE COURSE BEEN THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION MANY TIMES.
AND CAN IT BE HAIR RAISING? ESPECIALLY DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN CONSIDERED.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IN THE PRO IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED.
THERE'S, I WOULD SAY THERE'S REALLY NOT BEEN A FIRM DECISION MADE, BUT THAT WOULD HAPPEN INDEPENDENTLY BY THE TOWNSHIP WITHOUT THIS DEVELOPER.
[01:15:01]
OKAY.YEAH, I THINK THAT THERE'S, OVER THE YEARS THERE'S BEEN TALK ABOUT THAT, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD JOE SAY EARLIER THERE WAS SIGNALING AND THERE WAS THE, THAT ROUNDABOUT AND THERE WAS A COUPLE, AND ALL OF THEM ARE COSTLY AND, AND, AND DIFFERENT REASONS.
AND, UH, IT HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD.
BUT AGAIN, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPER.
THAT INTERSECTION IS THE INTERSECTION.
THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WOULD GO THROUGH A PEN DOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE, IT, IT WOULD BE INITIATED HERE.
BUT NOT BY, NOT AT, NOT WITH THIS DEVELOPER SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THEIR PLAN.
IT WOULD JUST BE A TOWNSHIP JOB.
IT WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN THE ROUNDABOUT I WOULD GUESS, RIGHT? OH, YEAH.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TONIGHT? NO.
UM, SO BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, I'M GONNA JUST SAY THAT NORMALLY A PRELIMINARY PLAN HAS QUITE A FEW ANSWERS ANSWERED AND THIS IS STILL, I THINK HALF BAKED AT THIS POINT.
I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY ONE MONTH AHEAD OF OURSELF.
AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL.
CUZ APPROVING THIS PRETTY MUCH SAYS THEY COULD GO OUT AND SELL THIS THING THE WAY IT IS.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THEY CAN DO WHEN, WHEN A PRELIMINARY PLAN IS, IS, IS APPROVED.
SO THAT'S MY ONLY RESERVATION.
I JUST THINK IT'S HALF BAKED SIGN.
BUT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DONE STORM WATER YET.
BUT THEN IT'S STILL NOT QUITE THERE YET.
SO, AND YOU COULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE SUPERVISORS, YOU WOULDN'T NEED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL TO DO THAT.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'LL HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL.
SO THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER TRIP.
I I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S GONNA BE ANOTHER TRIP.
I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE SUPERVISORS SAY.
FINAL PLAN APPROVAL IS JUST SAYING YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING.
WE CAN'T IMPOSE NEW CONDITIONS AFTER PRELIMINARY.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW THAT, BUT I'M TELLING THEM, SO I I, I UNDERSTAND CONCEPTUALLY THE POINT THAT HE'S MAKING, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALLY THE CASE HERE BECAUSE THE DEFERMENT, YOU'RE STILL WORKING WITH US ON THE STORM WATER, SO THEREFORE THAT ISN'T COMPLETE NOW.
SO, SO THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE PROVIDED STORMWATER CALCULATIONS TO DATE AND WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED DOES THE APPROPRIATE REDUCTIONS, BUT WITHOUT THE ENS AND FINALIZING IT, THERE COULD BE REVISIONS TO THAT.
AND ENS WON'T REVISE THE STORM WATER.
THE ENS IS PART OF OUR N P D S STORMWATER PERMIT, WHICH WILL GET REVIEWED BY THE, UH, THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE DISTRICT DOESN'T LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY UNDERSTAFFED AND, AND AND BACKED UP.
SO WE ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, MANY, MOST OF THE TIME PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND OUR LAYOUT AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN BE EFFICIENT WITH OUR SUBMISSION TO THE DISTRICT.
AND YOUR ENGINEER WILL GET TO REVIEW THOSE, THOSE ENS PLANS.
BUT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AS MS. GURE SAID, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY COMMENTS ON THE, UH, ON THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEPART, BUT IS THERE, IS THERE FURTHER, YOU KNOW, AND WHEN WE BEGAN THIS EVENING, UM, LINDSEY, YOU HAD INDICATED YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TOWNSHIP WAS AGREEING ON WHAT THAT AGREEMENT WAS BEFORE YOU DID ANY FURTHER ENGINEERING.
SO IS THIS THING WE'RE LOOKING AT, THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS, IS THAT A PART OF YOUR PLANS, YOUR SUBMITTED 20 SEARCH? DON'T HAVE TO.
SO I JUST MEAN IS THE PLAN SET THAT THE, IF YOU GOT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ON A PLAN SET, DOES THAT PLAN SET INCORPORATE? NO, THIS, THE, THE, THE PLAN
[01:20:01]
SET SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION IS NOT WHAT THEY'VE SHOWN TONIGHT.THAT WOULD, THAT IS MY TAKE ON THE MATTER IS THE, WHAT THAT SHOWS ASIDE, WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN SET THAT SHOWS THAT, THAT WE'VE REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR A PRELIMINARY.
WE CAN APPROVE YOUR PREVIOUS PRELIMINARY SUBMITTED SOMETIME IN THE BEGINNING OF JULY.
BUT IT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT AND IT'S NOT THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
I, I'M LEANING TOWARD GIVING YOU THAT APPROVAL.
CAUSE I, I DON'T WANT TO OPEN THE CONVERSATION AGAIN, GETTING BACK TO THIS ROADWAY APPROVAL.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE TO BE THE ONES THAT MAKE THAT CALL.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET THAT IN FRONT OF THEM SO THEY CAN THEN DISCUSS WITH YOU GUYS EITHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATE AND THEN IN PUBLIC WHATEVER, HOW IT DOES.
BECAUSE FOR ME, THAT'S A BIG PIECE OF THIS THING MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S FIXING THAT ROADWAY AND UH, AND IF THAT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL GETS YOU TO THAT CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR SUPERVISORS AND, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS HAD COME TO SOME AGREEMENTS THAT, THAT'S, I LIKE THAT IDEA.
I, I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
I THINK BOB MAKES GOOD POINTS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF, UH, UH, EYES TO DOT AND TEASED ACROSS, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT THE THING, THE IMPORTANT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THAT ROADWAY AND I THINK OUR SUPERVISORS GOTTA GET INVOLVED WITH.
I'M JUST SAYING, I'M JUST WONDERING, I HEAR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE SAYING AND AGREE.
I'M JUST WONDERING CAN WE GET AS A, AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE, THAT WE GET A PLAN SET THAT INCORPORATES THIS, THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
BECAUSE WE'VE YOU'VE SEEN IT ALL.
YOU'VE SEEN EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE PLAN.
IT'S BEEN FULLY VETTED FOR THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF.
I MEAN I DO HAVE, I DON'T THAT HAVE TO AND I DONT.
WELL, I I, I CAN ACCEPT IT ONLY BECAUSE THERE, THERE IS A SEPARATE, UH, WORKUP THAT'S BEEN FULLY VETTED TONIGHT.
IT'S, YOU'RE NOT SAYING THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ACCOMMODATION, BUT THERE DOES EVENTUALLY.
THIS DOES EVENTUALLY HAVE TO BE, IT'S KIND OF A BIG AD FOR FINAL COMPARED TO PRELIMINARY.
BUT SINCE YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, OFFERING TO WORK COOPERATIVELY ON THE OTHER ISSUE, THEN I CAN GUESS WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT.
YEAH, I, AND I, I, YOU KNOW, I I THINK WE ARE ALL, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT FUZZY ON ALL THE DETAILS AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW, BUT I, I, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF FEEL WE GOTTA GET IT IN FRONT OF THE SUPERVISOR BECAUSE I THINK THE ROAD IS SO IMPORTANT TO THIS PROJECT THAT THAT'S GOTTA BE SETTLED.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHY I'M, DO, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHY I'M SAYING I'M AGREEING WITH YOU BECAUSE I'M NOT SHIRKING WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT I THINK THE ROADWAY IS SO IMPORTANT TO THIS PROJECT THAT THAT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THE SUPERVISOR.
JOE, JOE, IF WE, IF WE WERE TO DO THIS, WHAT ARE THE CAVEATS THAT WE HAVE TO ADD TO, UH, REMOVING THE PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAN FORWARD FOR WHAT WE'VE
[01:25:01]
DISCUSSED TONIGHT? SO WE'RE ASSURED THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.IT, THE, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO INCORPORATION OF THE PRESENTATION MADE THIS EVENING INTO THE PLANS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL, ELIMINATION OF THE SIDEWALKS AND HOW TO, EVERYTHING'S SHOWN ON THE PRESENTATION THIS, THIS DATE, WHICH WE THEN HAVE A COPY OF.
DO, DO WE HAVE, HOW DO WE REFER TO THAT PLAN THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN? AND THAT REVISION WOULD INCLUDE STORM ARM MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE ALONG THE FRONTAGE AS WELL AS IMPROVEMENTS IN GRADING.
AND, AND, AND TO AJ'S POINT, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MORE DISCUSSION ON THE CROSSWALKS IF WE HAVE TO GET OVER TO THE, TO THE SOUTH SIDE.
UM, BUT YEAH, I THINK CAN'T, CAN'T THE PROPOSAL OR THE MOTION COVER ALL THAT IN SAYING THAT, THAT ALL HAS TO BE SHOWN AND COVERED AND AGREED ON? YEAH.
WELL, WE'LL USE, WE'LL USE THE SPECIFIC PLAN DATE THAT SHE'S HANDING OUT.
IT'S 10 THAT HAS THREE WAIVERS LISTED.
UM, ARE YOU INCLUDING THOSE STILL OR DO YOU WANNA REVISE YOUR WAIVER LETTER TO UPDATE IT FOR WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN JEN'S LETTER? CAUSE TYPICALLY, I MEAN, IF, IF THERE'S WAIVERS OF THINGS YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN, IN THE LETTERS, UM, THERE'S THAT SIDE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE AN UPDATED LETTER IF THERE'S OTHER WAIVERS YOU'RE ASKING FOR BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING.
I GUESS IT'S THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT.
I I, YEAH, I GOT THE THUMB DRIVE.
SO WE COULD TAKE A MOTION NOW, UM, WITH THE CAVEAT IN THAT MOTION THAT, UM, UH, THIS PLAN IS THE, IS THE PLAN AND, UM, AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE AGREED TO THE, THE, UH, STORM WATER, THE CROSSWALKS, ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT, AND OBVIOUSLY THE ROAD.
AND, UH, AND WE CAN TAKE THE MOTION COVERING THOSE THINGS IN THIS FINAL PLAN OF 10 22, 10, 10 22.
SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE THAT MOTION.
WE CAN TAKE A BOAT ON IT THEN.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE THE PRELIMINARY PLANS FORWARD, UH, REFLECTING A PLAN THAT IS DATED 10 10 20 22.
ALSO IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE STORM WATER.
AND I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE, YOU'RE MAKING IT SUBJECT TO THE, THE 10, WHAT'S THE DATE NOW? 10 10.
THE 10 10 PLANS WILL, WILL POSSIBLY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL PLANS SUBJECT TO DELIBERATION WITH THE SUPERVISORS.
SO THEY'RE NOT AUTOMATICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE PLANS YET, BUT THEY, IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT IF WE WORK OUT THE TERMS FOR THE OFFSETS, THAT IT, THEY WILL BE, UM, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE PLAN THAT 10, 10 22 INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL PLAN, UH, BEFORE IT MOVES WELL AS IT MOVES FORWARD.
UM, SO I'M MAKING A MOTION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN.
I EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND, UH, GILL'S MOTION, UH, IN WITH THE CAVEATS THAT SOME THINGS HAVE TO BE, UH, UH, FINISHED, COMPLETED, AND AGREED UPON.
UM, SO IF EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT, I'LL TAKE A SECOND, NOT HEARING A SECOND.
DO I HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS? SET THE GAVEL ASIDE AND SECOND IT CAN I, YEAH, I SET THE GAVEL GRANT AND I SECOND IT AND I'LL BRING IT BACK AND SAY, OKAY, NOW WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR? AND YOU DO HAVE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
YOU CAN ABSTAIN, RIGHT? AYE, AYE.
[01:30:01]
SO WE GOT THREE AND TWO.SO WE'RE GOING TO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT'S PASSED AND MOVE TO THE SUPERVISORS ON, UH, WHATEVER DAY.
JEFF SAYS THE NEXT ONE WILL BE.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THEY, THERE'S THE, THE NEXT SUPERVISOR'S MEETING IS THE 21ST OF NOVEMBER.
WELL, YOU'LL, YOU'LL MAKE THAT COMMUNICATION, I'M SURE.
SO, UH, MOTION PASSES, UH, WITH A LOT OF HESITATIONS.
I, I DON'T, I I HAVE FAITH IN YOU, LYNN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT GUYS, THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS GOOD DISCUSSION.
AND, UH, I APPRECIATE AJ AND, AND, AND BOB, YOU KNOW, HOLDING THE GROUND ON THAT.
IT WAS, UH, IT'S, IT'S A STICKY ONE.
IT'S A, IT'S A STICKY ONE AND I THINK THAT, YEAH, WELL, I DON'T SEE PRECEDENT SETTING THINGS.
I, I, AGAIN, I, I'VE MADE MY STATEMENT.
I THINK IT HAS TO GET IN FRONT OF THE SUPERVISORS AT THIS POINT.
I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE CERTAINLY OPENED A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS.
AND, UM, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK NOW WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GET THIS MAYBE PUT TO BED.
BUT DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE IT WASN'T RECOMMENDED TO PRELIMINARY? I DON'T KNOW.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE SUPERVISORS.
THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY TURNED DOWN EITHER.
NO, BUT THIS WAY THEY'RE, WE REALLY SHOULDN'T DISCUSS THEIR APPLICATION FURTHER SINCE THEY LEFT.
SO WE'RE DONE, UM, WITH THAT ONE.
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THAT'S TWO
OKAY, SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS, JEFF,
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:]
WHAT'S THE NEXT, WHAT'S THE DEAL? WE HAVE A, A NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING IN AUTO ZONE NOW THAT THEY'VE CLEANED UP THEIR, UH, ZONING HEARING BOARD ISSUES.THEY'VE ASKED TO BE BACK ON THIS AGENDA FOR TENTATIVE AND CONDITIONAL USE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, NOVEMBER 16TH, UH, I'VE PUT ONE 11 EAST LINFIELD TRAP ROAD.
THEY'VE RESUBMITTED PLANS THAT CLEAN UP SOME OF THE ISSUES WE HAD AT THE LAST TIME THEY WERE HERE WITH.
IS IT LAND DEVELOPMENT IS NOT LAND DEVELOPMENT WHERE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS MAY GO OR MAY NOT GO.
THEY'VE WORKED WITH JEN AND THEY'VE SUBMITTED SOME NEW PLANS.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SHORT TURNAROUND IN TERMS OF REVIEW, BUT SINCE WE'VE ALREADY HAD IT, I WANNA SORT OF CLEAN IT UP FOR THE END OF THE YEAR.
UM, DECEMBER 7TH, WELL, LET ME BACK UP.
NOVEMBER 16TH WAS WHEN PARKHOUSE RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED TO BE ON THE AGENDA.
UM, I GOT AN EMAIL EARLY THIS WEEK REQUESTING TO BE MOVED TO THE 7TH OF DECEMBER.
WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, IF, IF SOMEONE REQUESTS TO BE ON A CERTAIN AGENDA, JUST LIKE AUTOZONE AND, AND, UM, THIS APPLICATION, IF THERE'S NO OTHER IMPEDIMENT TO THEM BEING ON IT, THEY'RE ON THE AGENDA.
SO WE WILL HAVE OUR DISCUSSION WITH PARKHOUSE RIGHT NOW SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 7TH.
THAT SHOULD WRAP US UP FOR THE YEAR, DEPENDING ON HOW PARKHOUSE GOES.
IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND MEETING, YOU KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE THE 21ST OF DECEMBER.
BUT WE WILL, UM, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.
WOULD WE HAVE THAT MEETING THAT CLOSE TO IT? IT WOULD BE TWO WEEKS.
THE, THE SE IT WOULD BE TWO WEEKS.
IT WOULD BE OUR TYPICAL MEETING.
IT WOULD BE THE, THE THIRD WEDNESDAY.
UM, THIS KIND OF, THIS IS ALL OF MY ACTIVE PLANS NOW.
THE, THE SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER.
IF, IF WE GET ANOTHER PLAN THAT COMES IN THAT, WHETHER THAT'S, LET'S SAY AMELIA STREET, WHICH IS STILL SORT OF HANGING OUT THERE, BUT THEY NEED TO CHANGE SOME THINGS OR SPRING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEIR MINOR SUBDIVISION.
THOSE ARE THE PLANS I SORT OF HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WAITING ON THEIR REVISIONS.
UM, IF THEY, IF THEY COME BACK, THEY MIGHT GET MOVED INTO, IF THEY, IF WE CAN GET REVIEWED IN TIME, WE MIGHT TRY TO FINISH THEM UP BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
SO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IT'S THE BOARD MEETING SCHEDULES A LITTLE HINKY ANYWAY.
THEY'RE GONNA FINISH BY THE 5TH OF DECEMBER, ASSUMING THEY ADOPT THE BUDGET AT THAT MEETING.
AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY MEETINGS AFTER THAT.
SO THERE MAY NOT BE MUCH OF A POINT TO HAVE ANYTHING ON AN AGENDA AFTER DONE.
SOUND LIKE OUR FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER? YEAH.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO, UH, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS.
SO I'LL TAKE A, UH, A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
AJ'S MADE A SECOND AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.