[00:00:01]
YOU.[CALL TO ORDER]
IT.UM, I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND WE'RE GONNA STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, UNITED STATES REPUBLIC NATION WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE THROUGHOUT ALL.
OKAY, SO BECAUSE OUR CAST IS SUCH A BIG ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS MEETING AT 10 30 TONIGHT.
HOPEFULLY WON'T BE HERE UNTIL THEN, BUT WE JUST WOULDN'T PUT A CAP ON IT.
YOU NEED TO MOVE THAT MICROPHONE UP OR SOMETHING? YEAH.
OH, IS THAT BETTER? THAT'S BETTER.
SO WE PUT A CAP ON FOR 10 30 TONIGHT JUST 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANNA RUN OVER THAT.
AND I'M GONNA REORDER THE MEETING SO YOU'LL SEE.
WE'RE GONNA DO A LOT OF OUR REGULAR BUSINESS FIRST SO THAT WE CAN GET IT OUT OF THE WAY AND LEAVE PARKHOUSE FOR THE END QUESTION.
WHY DO THE REGULAR BUSINESS FIRST AND PUSH THE IMPORTANT BUSINESS TO THE END? WHY DON'T WE DO THE IMPORTANT STUFF FIRST? PUSH THE REGULAR BUSINESS TO THE END.
THAT WOULD BE A LOGICAL PERSON.
THEN IT WON'T RUN UNTIL 10 30 IF I HOPE SO.
JUST THE, THE, THE THOUGHT WAS WE MAY NOT GET, WE MAY NOT, I APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION.
WE MAY NOT GET TO THE OTHER IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TO DO AS WELL.
AND IF WE DO RUN UP AGAINST 10 30, OUR THOUGHT WAS WE WOULD SCHEDULE A FOLLOW UP MEETING VERY RAPIDLY TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
BUT WE, THERE'S ONE IMPORTANT ITEM.
EVERYTHING ELSE CAN BE PUSHED.
[MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD AGENDA]
SO LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BOARD AGENDA.I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[PUBLIC COMMENT]
COMMENT.I WOULD LIKE ANYONE NOT HERE FOR PARKHOUSE, SO LET THEM COME FIRST.
AT LEAST LET THE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT WANNA SPEAK ABOUT PARKHOUSE, ANYONE HAVE A COMMENT ON ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEM AND THEN THEY CAN BE GOOD IF THEY WANT TO LEAVE ANYONE.
'CAUSE I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THE RULES.
IF NOT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU NEED TO STAY WITHIN THREE MINUTES.
SO YOU CAN SELF-REGULATE AND, YOU KNOW, YOU COME UP AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU CAN GET STARTED.
NO COMMENT, COMMENT ON ANYTHING, NOT YOU HAVE A NON I HAVE THAT'S WE'RE ASKING FOR.
I LIVE IN, UH, ON LOVERS LANE IN MONTCLAIR.
AND WHEN I'M UP HERE FOR, I'M HERE TO ADDRESS THIS TO THE SUPERVISORS.
YOU ARE OUR VOICES FOR UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP AND I'M HOPING THAT YOU FULFILL WHAT YOU STATED DURING YOUR CAMPAIGNS.
OKAY? UM, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO US THIS, UH, OUR HOMES OR OUR LIVELIHOOD AND WE LOVE WHERE WE LIVE.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO JUMP
[OLD BUSINESS (ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS) (Part 1 of 2)]
INTO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PARKHOUSE, I THINK, JOE.UH, REIN IS GONNA DO A PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A COMMENT.
OKAY? THIS ONE, THIS ON LIGHT'S.
ON THE LIGHT'S ON, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, YOU THINK FOR WHAT? ALL YOU KNOW, SIR.
ALRIGHT, I'LL PROB I'M GONNA GO BACK TO MY SCENE.
I GUESS MICROPHONE ABOVE YOU IS ON, BUT IS IT ENOUGH? I MEAN, I CAN SPEAK LOUDLY, BUT I THINK IT EASIER HEARD FROM MY MICROPHONE OVER THERE.
[00:05:04]
OKAY, GOOD EVENING.UM, I'M GOING TO GIVE A, UH, SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE STAND ON PARK HOUSE.
I WOULD ASK ANYBODY TO HOLD THEIR QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END.
UM, NO INTERRUPTIONS, NO CALLING OUT, NO YELLING.
ANYBODY WHO DOES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING.
UH, WE'RE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR POSITIONS AND PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF OURS EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM.
I'M SURE, UH, FOR MOST OF YOU, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT EVEN NEEDS TO BE, UH, SAID.
SO WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA IS A DRAFT ORDINANCE AND A REQUEST FROM STAFF AND ME TO HAVE THE SUPERVISORS FORWARD IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, INPUT FROM THE DEVELOPER WHO IS ANXIOUS TO GET TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, HE HAS STATED THAT HE WANTS TO TAKE IN EVERYBODY'S INPUT AND TRY TO MAKE HIS FINAL LAST BEST BLAST OFFER ON THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE ON HOW FAR HE'S WILLING TO GO WITH THAT ORDINANCE.
NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PENDING PLAN FOR 1,203 UNITS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A CARE FACILITY.
AND THAT REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, WHICH I'M GOING TO GO OVER IN DETAIL.
THE ORDINANCE, EVERYBODY'S FEEDBACK AFTER THE ROLLOUT OF THE 1,203 WAS, PLEASE DO SOMETHING FOR US, PLEASE MAKE THIS BETTER.
UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE ATTEMPTS TO DO.
THE ORDINANCE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO ATTEMPT TO DO SOMETHING BETTER.
SO WHAT THE ORDINANCE DOES IS IT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND IT REMOVES THE MEDICAL FACILITY COMPONENT SO THAT IT, IT'S JUST CONVENTIONAL HOUSING FOR MORE THAN 40% LESS TOTAL UNITS THAN THE 1203.
AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN DETAIL.
I'M AWARE THAT THERE ARE OTHER VERSIONS OF A RESOLUTION THAT COULD BE REACHED.
I'VE HEARD ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT, UM, POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
I'M AWARE THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO WOULD PREFER THE 1,203 UNITS TO, UH, WITH THE MEDICAL FACILITY, TO THE, UH, TOWNHOUSES WITH FEWER UNITS.
I'M AWARE THAT THERE AND ARE PEOPLE WHO, UM, SAY WE HAVE ENOUGH OPEN SPACE.
JUST LET 'EM BUILD ON THAT, BUILD ON THE WHOLE PARCEL AND, AND HAVE R ONE OVER THE WHOLE PARCEL.
UM, THE DEVELOPER AND I, THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO ME.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S MY OPINION, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I HEARD.
UM, SO, AND THEN THERE'S, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, UM, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD, UM, AGE RESTRICT SOME OF THE UNITS ON HIS, UM, ON THE, THAT ARE IN THE, IN THE NEW WORD AS THE TOWNHOUSE VERSION.
MAYBE HE WOULD AGE RESTRICT SOME OF THAT FOR LESS IMPACT, UH, ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
ALL OF THESE KIND OF THINGS ARE WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS ABOUT.
WE START SOMEWHERE WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT WE THINK IS A BETTER ORDINANCE THAN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
OKAY? UM, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION.
THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED IS, UM, WE WORK INTERNALLY TO CREATE A DRAFT ORDINANCE.
WE PRESENT IT TO THE PUBLIC, AND THEN THE PUBLIC IS OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON IT.
THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE ORDINANCE IS INTERNAL.
UM, I'M AWARE OF ALL THE COMMENTS ABOUT ME NOT BEING TRUSTWORTHY AND, UH, ALL THAT.
MOST OF THAT STEMS FROM, UH, THE PEOPLE NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND THINKING THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME TALKING TO THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY DURING THAT PROCESS, WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS.
WE CAN'T HAVE SOME PEOPLE COME IN AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS AND EXCLUDE OTHER TOWNSHIP PRESIDENTS FROM THAT PROCESS.
NOBODY CAN BE GIVEN SPECIAL TREATMENT IN THAT PROCESS.
SO WE CREATE AN ORDINANCE AND THEN WE PUT IT UP TO THE PUBLIC TO FULLY VET IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE HERE FOR.
UM, THE, IF WE GO THE, UH, CONDITIONAL USE ROUTE, THAT'S OKAY TOO.
NOBODY REALLY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED IN RESPONSE TO PEOPLE SAYING, CAN YOU PLEASE DO SOMETHING BETTER? AND AT A STAFF LEVEL, AND WITH ME, WE ALL FELT THAT BETTER BETTERMENT, UH, FEWER UNITS REMOVE THE MEDICAL CARE FACILITY AND HAVE LESS CONVENTIONAL HOUSING.
THAT DOES ASSUME, THAT DOES ASSUME THAT SOMETHING WILL GO THERE.
AND I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS.
BUT IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES THAT IF, IF YOU JUST LEAVE THE ORDINANCE ALONE, THE LAND WILL STAY UNDEVELOPED.
[00:10:01]
BEEN TRUE FOR A SINGLE DAY GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2013.AND I'LL, WE'LL GO OVER THE DETAILS ON THAT.
SO ANYBODY WHO WAS TOLD THAT KEEP IT OPEN SPACE, IT'S JUST OPEN SPACE, DON'T CHANGE THE ORDINANCE AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.
THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TODAY UNDER THE ORDINANCE TO SEEK CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF THE 1,203 UNITS.
SO IF YOU'RE IN THE CA THE GROUP THAT BELIEVES IN OR, UH, OR KEEPS INSISTING THAT IF YOU DON'T CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY.
WE CAN'T, THERE'S NOTHING MORE WE CAN SAY WITH, TO HELP YOU.
YOUR POSITION IS NOT CORRECT, AND WE CAN'T SPEND TIME ON THAT POSITION AFTER BEING SO OBVIOUS THAT IT, THAT IT IS CAPABLE, IT'S BEEN CAPABLE OF DEVELOPMENT SINCE 2013.
OKAY? SO, UM, WE WILL, I'M GONNA GO OVER ALL OF THE DETAILS WITH YOU, BUT IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE IN THAT CAMP, I, I CAN'T HELP YOU FURTHER.
IF YOU'RE IN THE CAMP THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT SOMETHING HAS TO GO THERE, AND I'VE, A LOT OF YOU HAVE COME UP TO ME AND INDICATED YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT SOMETHING HAS TO GO THERE.
WE PRESENTED AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU, WHENEVER YOU, WHENEVER YOU'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE SOMETHING BEFORE YOU GO DOWN THE PATH OF A CONTESTED HEARING WHERE THERE'S PARTIES AND THERE'S A WINNER AND A LOSER, BEFORE YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH, YOU ALWAYS WANT TO KNOW THAT YOU TRIED TO GET THE BEST SETTLEMENT THAT YOU CAN SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PUSHING OFF AGAINST SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NO TO.
SO WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO IS GET THE FEWEST NUMBER OF UNITS AS THE BEST POSSIBLE RESOLUTION OF NOT GOING TO A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING.
AND THEN IF EVERYBODY SAYS, UH, AGREES THAT, HEY, THAT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH, LET'S GO TO A HEARING, THEN THAT'S GREAT.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PUSHING OFF AGAINST.
AND THE REASON WHY WE WANNA SEND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO GET THE DEVELOPER IN HERE HAVE YOU ALL BE, OFFER ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND GET HIS FINAL BEST OFFER.
UM, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE AT 479 UNITS AS YOU, OR EXCUSE ME, 679 UNITS AS YOU KNOW FROM THE PLAN THAT YOU WERE GIVEN.
UM, THAT NUMBER WILL GET A LITTLE BETTER.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH BETTER, BUT WE WANT TO GET IT FULLY VETTED WITH THE DEVELOPERS SO WE KNOW HOW MUCH BETTER.
THEN ONCE WE KNOW HOW MUCH BETTER IT CAN BE, THEN YOU SAY THERE'S THE BEST.
HOW DO WE FEEL WE'VE GOT THE BEST? HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT? WOULD WE RATHER MOVE ON AND HAVE IT CONTESTED HEARING? OKAY.
SO I'LL EXPLAIN HOW THE HEARING WORKS AND WHO ALL THE PARTIES ARE AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
BUT TO GET IT, TO GET IT STARTED, UM, I PUT THIS POLITICAL CARTOON FROM THE TIMES HURLED UP TO SHOW THE HOW, HOW WE ALL GOT INTO THIS.
I KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE ROOM HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE BACKGROUND.
SO I'M JUST QUICKLY GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING TO EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT HERE.
THE COUNTY WAS EXTOLLING THE VIRTUE OF OPEN SPACE AND AT THE SAME TIME SOLD THE THE PARK HOUSE WHERE IT SAYS THE 200 ACRES.
THAT'S A REFERENCE TO PARK HOUSE.
WHEN THE COUNTY WENT UNDER AGREEMENT OF SALE TO SELL THE PROPERTY IN THE, IN THE YEAR PRIOR, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS ALREADY UNDER AGREEMENT, THIS DOCUMENT AND THE NEXT DOCUMENT SHOW YOU TWO THINGS.
THIS SHOWS YOU THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE, THE LAND AND CALL IT OPEN SPACE.
OKAY? THE LAND WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
AND THEN IN 2013, THE THEN TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS ADOPTED TWO ORDINANCES ON THE SAME NIGHT.
ONE THAT CREATED THIS OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION, AND THEN THE NEXT ONE, JEFF, AND THIS ORDINANCE THAT PLACED THE PARK HOUSE PROPERTY INTO THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY.
SO THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY HAS EXISTED STARTING ON THE SAME NIGHT FOR AS LONG AS THE OPEN SPACE.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN OVERLAY THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL OPTION TO THE LANDOWNER.
SO THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE TO ABIDE BY JUST THE ONE DESIGNATION.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN OVERLAY, IT CREATES A SECOND OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO USE THE OVERLAY.
SO THE, THE DESIGNATION IS OPEN SPACE.
I CAN'T COMMENT ON IT IN DETAIL.
I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS THAT THEY CALLED IT OPEN SPACE, MAYBE IS SOME BLOCKING, HOPEFUL BLOCKING MANEUVER OF THE DEAL GOING THROUGH OR SOMETHING.
BUT THEY, AT THE SAME TIME, THEY MADE IT THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY FOR THE WHOLE PARKHOUSE PARCEL.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS DONE SO THAT THE PARKHOUSE PARCEL DID NOT BECOME A NON-CONFORMING USE IT STILL COM, THAT
[00:15:01]
THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY IS EXACTLY WHAT PARKHOUSE WAS, WAS A CARE FACILITY.SO I THINK THEY ADOPTED THAT SO THAT PARKHOUSE DIDN'T BECOME SADDLED WITH BEING CALLED OPEN SPACE WHEN IT WAS BEING SOLD TO A PRIVATE PARTY.
IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER NOW 'CAUSE WE'RE STUCK WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
SO SINCE 2013, THE, THE, THE, THE PLAN IS PENDING NOW FOR 1,203 UNITS COULD HAVE BEEN FILED FOR IN 2013, AND AT EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY YEAR, THAT HAS TRANSPIRED SINCE THEN.
THAT IS WHY I SAY TO PEOPLE WHO SAY, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AND WE'LL ALL BE FINE.
IT IS JUST, IT WAS NEVER TRUE.
AND I, IT GOT STARTED AS A, AS A MOVEMENT OF SORTS, BUT IT WAS BASED ON A FALSE, IT WAS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE AND IT REALLY KIND OF SET BACK THE EFFORT ON TALKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN RESOLVE THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE WERE TOLD THAT IT COULD BE THAT IF EVERYTHING JUST STATE STATUS QUO, EVERYTHING WOULD BE OKAY.
OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE IN DAMAGE CONTROL 2013, AND I'M A TOWNSHIP PRESIDENT TOO.
2013 IS WHEN WE ALL GOT SCREWED, OKAY? BECAUSE THAT'S THE POINT AT WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NOW PENDING BECAME A POSSIBILITY, RIGHT? SO NOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO DO DAMAGE CONTROL AND COME UP WITH A VERSION THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL AGREE TO.
KEEP IN MIND, HIS, HIS ZONING FREEZES ON THE DAY HE PUTS IN HIS APPLICATION.
SO YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE THE ZONING TO SOMETHING ELSE.
I, I GUESS YOU COULD, BUT IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO THE PARCEL BECAUSE THEY HAVE, UH, PENDING APPLICATION.
AND SO THAT FREEZES THE ZONING.
SO THIS IS THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, UM, AND WE'RE GONNA TRY TO DEAL WITH IT BY COMING UP WITH WHATEVER THE BEST THING IS.
I JUST PUT THIS ONE IN TO SHOW, UH, THIS WAS AN ARTICLE FROM MARCH OF 2014 CONFIRMING THAT THE DEAL CLOSED, UH, THE COUNTY SELLING PARK HOUSE AND THEN THE NEXT ONE, NO, I GUESS IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MISSED ONE.
UH, CAN WE, CAN WE SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT? CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE FOR ONE SECOND? SO WE GO ON, READ THAT? SO, UM, IT'S THE SECOND PAGE SHOW.
I WASN'T SURE HOW SHE, HOW SHE SCANNED IT.
SO THAT'S JUST AN ARTICLE THAT CONFIRMED THAT THE, UH, CLOSING WENT THROUGH ON THE SALE OF THE PROP, THE PARKHOUSE PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY OKAY.
SO THAT'S, THERE'S REALLY NO DETAIL IN OTHER CONFIRMING THAT THAT DEAL CLOSED.
THIS IS REALLY THE MOST INCREDIBLE PART OF THE BACKSTORY.
UH, THE WHOLE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE THE COUNTY PROPOSED A MOVIE STUDIO IN OURS TOWN, WHICH IS, UH, TRUTH STRANGER THAN FICTION.
UM, I, I SORTA CAN'T BELIEVE IT EVER EVEN SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY, BUT IT DID, AND IT, AND IT FAILED.
AND IT LEFT A HOLE IN THE BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY, AND THAT'S WHY THEY SOLD PARK.
OKAY? THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THE FAILED MOVIE STUDIO.
THAT ARTICLE CONFIRMS THAT THEY THEN WENT TO COURT TO TRY TO GET OUT OF THE DEBT RELATED TO THE MOVIE STUDIO, BUT THEY FAILED AND THE DEBT WAS THEIRS.
UM, THIS IS THE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM 2010, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS LANGUAGE STATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT, AT THE, AT PARKHOUSE AND WITH AN APPROPRIATE INFILL USE AND, AND WITH MAXIMUM OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION, THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY ARE SEEKING RELIEF UNDER REQUIRES 50% OF THE PROPERTY TO BE DEVOTED TO OPEN SPACE.
AND THEN THAT WAS KEPT IN THE DRAFT OF THE NEW ORDINANCE.
SO RIGHT FROM THE JUMP, 50% OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE.
THE, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER 50%.
SO THE, THE 50% THAT'S PRESERVED, UM, WE HAD THE NATURAL LAND TRUST TOWARD THE PROPERTY.
THEY IDENTIFIED THE PARTS THAT WERE THE MOST PRISTINE.
WE ASKED THE DEVELOPER TO, UM, STAY OFF OF THAT PRISTINE AREA.
UM, THEY LARGELY DID, BUT NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND TRUST REPORT AT NU, SOME OF YOU HAVE IT THROUGH RIGHT TO KNOW THE GREEN AREAS INDICATE THE MOST PRISTINE LAND, AND THEY, THEY LARGELY STAYED OFF OF IT, BUT NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND IBEL FROM TALKING TO THE DEVELOPER, HE DOES UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO GET A HUNDRED PERCENT OUT OF THE GREEN AND PULL BACK THE PROJECT OFF OF, UM, THE GREEN AREAS.
SO THIS, THIS SHOWS YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LAND WAS ALWAYS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, AND IT CHANGED LIKE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
BUT BEFORE THAT CHANGE EVER HAPPENED, IT WAS ALWAYS FORESEEN THAT IT SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL, UM, IN THE EVENT THAT IT WAS EVER SOLD TO A PRIVATE PARTY.
AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FULL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, ONLINE TO LOOK AT THAT FURTHER.
[00:20:01]
UM, JEFF, OKAY, HERE'S SOME OF THE, THIS IS, I CALLED IT THE, JUST CALL IT THE PAGE FINANCIAL.IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST FINANCIAL, BUT IT'S LARGELY FINANCIAL.
UM, AND I ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS EVERY POINT THAT HAD BEEN RAISED BY EVERY PERSON WHO EVER CAME TO THE PODIUM.
EVERYBODY WHO EVER CAME TO THE PODIUM SAID, EXPLORE EVERY ANGLE, EXPLORE EVERY OPTION, AND, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'VE SPENT OUR TIME DOING.
UM, SO THE FIRST LINE IS A $49 MILLION, UM, APPRAISAL.
WE DETACHMENT OBTAINED AN APPRAISAL IN ORDER TO DO DUE DILIGENCE AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REALISTIC POSSIBILITY THAT THE LANDS COULD BE PURCHASED BY THE TOWNSHIP.
UM, THE APPRAISAL, I, I KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE IN THIS AUDIENCE CAME IN AND SAID, THE APPRAISAL'S TOO HIGH.
DO IT OVER AGAIN AND GET A BETTER NUMBER.
IN REALITY, UM, THE, THE, UM, THE PURCHASE PRICE ON THE PARCEL IS OVER $80 MILLION.
UM, THE DEVELOPER THAT, NOT THE DEVELOPER, THE BUILDER IS NVR HOMES.
UH, NVR HOMES TOLD ME, UM, WELL FRIDAY, THAT IF THEY, IF IT'S, IF THE 1,203 UNIT PLAN GOES THROUGH, THEY WOULD PAY $90 MILLION FOR IT IF THEY, IF THE PLAN UNDER THE PENDING ORDINANCE WERE TO GO THROUGH, WE DON'T YET, WE HAVEN'T YET FINALIZED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO THAT NUMBER IS NOT YET KNOWN, BUT IT'S SOME NUMBER OVER 80 MILLION.
SO THEY WOULD SUFFER, SUFFER A $10 MILLION, UH, THEY WOULD GET $10 MILLION LESS IF THEY AGREED TO THE ALTERNATE, UM, ORDINANCE.
UM, THE OPEN SPACE REFERENDUM WOULD BE, WOULD CREATE AN, A TAX FOR OPEN SPACE, UM, BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF YOU ONLY USE THAT TO PAY BACK THE DEBT ON BUYING PARKHOUSE.
UM, ALL TOWNSHIP TAXES WOULD DOUBLE FOR EVERYBODY, UM, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOWNSHIP WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT BARK HOUSE IS.
UH, SO THERE'D BE A $6.5 MILLION ANNUAL REPAYMENT ON THAT BOND.
AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW AT THIS POINT WHETHER THE DEVELOPER WOULD STILL, UM, EVEN BE WILLING TO SELL IT SINCE HE'S UNDER AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE JOB.
BUT THE NUMBER WAS, IS JUST A NON-STARTER AT $80 MILLION OR $90 MILLION.
THEN WE WERE ASKED, WELL, WHAT ABOUT USING EMINENT DOMAIN? EMINENT DOMAIN IS THE POWER OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE LAND.
YOU CANNOT USE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR TO ACQUIRE OPEN SPACE.
UH, THE US SUPREME COURT RULED ON THAT YEARS AGO.
UM, I THINK IT WAS THE CASE OUT OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, BUT YOU, YOU, YOU CANNOT TAKE FOR OPEN SPACE.
AND IF YOU DO TAKE ANYWAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IF YOU USE EMINENT DOMAIN, YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY FAIR MARKET VALUE.
SO YOU'RE BACK AT THE 80 MILLION OR $90 MILLION.
SO USING EMINENT DOMAIN IS ALSO NOT AN OPTION.
UM, SOMEONE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING THEM DONATE THE LAND IN EXCHANGE FOR THE TAX BREAKS THEY WOULD GET FOR THE DONATION.
I ASKED THE DEVELOPER WILL, WAS WHETHER HE WAS WILLING TO DO THAT, AND HE SAID, I'M NOT.
SO THAT ENDED THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE A VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION.
THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE THAT I COULD DO WITH HIM SAYING, UH, NO.
UM, SCHOOL IMPACT, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE, I KNOW THAT THERE'S, UM, SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THAT'S THE PRIMARY, THAT THAT'S THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN WOULD BE SCHOOL IMPACT.
SO YOU CAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED.
UM, THE 1203 UNITS IS ACTUALLY BETTER THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S AGE RESTRICTED AND YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU ASSUME YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE MANY SCHOOL DISTRICT KIDS.
IT'S STILL POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE WAY, UH, UM, THAT TYPE OF HOUSING WORKS, YOU COULD HAVE A PERS A PERSON WHO'S 62 MARRIED TO A 40-YEAR-OLD WHO HAS KIDS.
SO IT'S NOT, KIDS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM IT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.
SO YOU WOULD ASSUME SOME SORT OF LOW NUMBER OF IMPACT ON, ON THE, ON THE 1203 VERSION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY SIGN IN FAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, GOING THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE LE LESSER IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
UM, TIM, I, SOME PEOPLE HAD HAVE ASKED, UH, WHETHER IT WOULD REQUIRE BUILDING A NEW SCHOOL.
UM, THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY HAS STUDIES THAT HE'S LOOKING TO SHARE.
HE HAS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND HE HAS, HE'S GOING TO HAVE A SCHOOL IMPACT STUDY THAT HE WANTS TO PRESENT AT, YOU KNOW, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, TIM, I, I ASKED, UH, OUR MANAGER, THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER, TIM RED SWEATER, UM, TO WORK THE NUMBERS UP.
AND HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT A NEW SCHOOL WOULD BE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE, UM, IT WOULD TAKE MULTIPLE YEARS FOR THE PROJECT TO GET BUILT.
SO THE STUDENTS WOULD BE GRADUALLY INTRODUCED INTO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THAT WOULD BE, UM, OF DIFFERENT AGES, UH, ALSO.
[00:25:01]
AND THEN HE, BUT HE, AND HE USED A NUMBER OF 0.6 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A STANDARD ASSUMPTION NUMBER WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS.UM, AND THEN OF THAT 0.6, SOME GET HOMESCHOOLED, SOME GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOL, BUT THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT YOU USE FOR THE IMPACT OF THAT ANALYSIS.
UM, EMS, UM, CHIEF RISS HAS, UM, ALSO SEATED OVER HERE.
UM, HE WOULD, HE ESTIMATES THAT UNDER THE AGE RESTRICTED 1203 UNIT PLAN, UM, THERE, THE, THERE WOULD BE A QUADRUPLE NUMBER OF EMS CALLS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDS TO EMERGENCY CALLS.
SO THEY WOULD BE QUADRUPLED IN CALLS ALSO UNDER THE AGE RESTRICTED.
UM, WHEREAS THE TOWNHOUSES WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, REGULAR CALL VOLUME THAT WE ALL SEE THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP.
UM, IMPACT FEES ARE SOMETHING THAT COME UP ON EVERY PROJECT.
UM, THINGS LIKE BUILDING, SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A $4,000 FEE PER UNIT IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE, UM, OPEN SPACE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY BUILDINGS AND RECREATION CENTERS AND DIFFERENT STUFF LIKE THAT.
UM, THERE'S, UM, REAL ESTATE TAXES AND TRANSFER TAXES.
THESE ONE TIME HITS, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A BIGGER NUMBER UNDER THE 1203 PLAN BECAUSE IT'S MORE UNITS MORE IMPACT.
AND THEN UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE UNDER 5 MILLION.
SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE COMPLETE IN SHARING THE ANALYSIS.
I I DON'T REALLY KNOW ANY, I, I WOULD CALL THAT A WASH BECAUSE THE NUMBER IS BIGGER AND SMALLER IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE IMPACT OF THE JOB.
SO IN ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT, YOU COULD SAY IT IS KIND OF A WASH, BUT FULL DISCLOSURE, UM, THE, UH, PENDING PLAN WOULD YIELD MORE MONEY AND IMPACT FEES THAN THE NEW ORDINANCE.
UM, ALSO EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY ASKS US TO LOOK AT EVERY ANGLE AND TO ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE.
SO STORMWATER WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS RAISED EARLY ON, UM, LESS SO MOST RECENTLY.
BUT STORMWATER WAS RAISED AS A CONCERN FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE DOWNHILL OF, UH, PARK HOUSE.
UM, THIS IS, THIS LANGUAGE FROM THE STORMWATER ORDINANCE TELLS YOU THE FORMULA BY WHICH YOU HAVE TO HOLD BACK STORMWATER FROM THE SITE AND RELEASE IT MORE SLOWLY THAN IT WAS BEFORE.
UM, SOMETIMES PEOPLE GROAN WHEN THIS STATEMENT IS MADE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
BUT THE FACT IS THAT IN THIS ONE RESPECT, LAND DEVELOPMENT DOES MAKE SOMETHING BETTER.
AND THE THING IT MAKES BETTER IS THE STORM WATER CAPTURE, BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE MADE FOR THOSE BASINS IS VERY, VERY GENEROUS IN FAVOR OF SAFETY AND CAPTURING STORM WATER.
NOW, IDA IS GONNA BE A PROBLEM.
THINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO THE IDA LEVEL ANYWHERE, BUT FOR LESSER SIGNIFICANT STORMS, UM, THE STORM ORDER CAPTURE IS GENERALLY MUCH BETTER, UM, WITH A NEW PROJECT THAN, UM, THAN THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.
OKAY, SO WHEN THIS, UM, WE'RE GONNA GO OVER THIS IN DETAIL.
THERE'S A LETTER THAT I SENT TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEVELOPER WHERE I MADE THE OFFER FOR THE LESSER UNITS.
AND THAT, THAT'S MY LETTER RIGHT THERE.
UM, I DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SHARE IT WITH ANYBODY, BUT, UM, I AM AN OPEN BOOK.
UH, I AM NOT A DISHONEST PERSON.
I'M NOT AN UNTRUSTWORTHY PERSON, CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTIONS OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.
AND, UM, I, I TAKE THOSE, I'M NOT GONNA DEBATE THEM WITH YOU HERE.
THE MEETING IS ABOUT THE SUPERVISORS AND THIS ORDINANCE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE CONCERNS THAT SOME OF YOU HAD WERE RAISED WITH THE SUPERVISORS.
THEY'RE NOT REMOVING ME FROM THE PARKHOUSE JOB.
YOU ARE STUCK WITH ME, BUT IT'S NOT ALL BAD NEWS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A SECOND LAWYER INVOLVED IF IT GOES TO A HEARING, AND WE'LL GET TO THAT.
OKAY? SO JEFF AND I SAID, HOW CAN WE, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS BETTER? LET'S, LET'S THINK ABOUT WAYS TO MAKE THIS BETTER.
AND WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS THAT WE COULD SHOW THE DEVELOPER THAT IF WE HAD UNRESTRICTED ZONING, REGULAR RESIDENTIAL, THAT HE COULD REDUCE HIS NUMBER OF UNITS FROM, UH, 1203 DOWN TO 7 29 AND NOT, AND, AND WE WOULD NOT BE TAKING MONEY OUT OF HIS POCKET.
WE WOULD NOT BE DOWN ZONING BECAUSE REGULAR ZONING, LIKE REGULAR RESIDENTIAL COMPARED TO THE CARE FACILITY, REGULAR ZONING LOTS ARE WORTH MORE TO THE, TO THE BUILDER.
SO JEFF AND I, WE ACTUALLY, UH, SURVEYED, I SURVEYED PROBABLY AT LEAST FIVE OF THE MOST PROMINENT LAND DEVELOPMENT, UH, ATTORNEYS IN THE COUNTY.
JEFF SURVEYED THE FIVE BIGGEST BUILDERS IN THE AREA.
WE ASKED ALL OF THEM, UM, HOW MUCH MORE VALUABLE IS THE LAND, YOU
[00:30:01]
KNOW, IF IT'S UNRESTRICTED.AND WE GOT ANSWERS THAT RANGED FROM 20% TO 50, 50%.
50% WAS AN OUTLIER, 20% WAS GIVEN BY SEVERAL OF 'EM.
ONE OF THEM SAID HE KNOWS IT'S, HE KNOWS IT'S WORTH A LOT MORE, BUT HE DIDN'T EXACTLY HAVE A NUMBER TO OFFER.
BUT WE, WE TOOK THIS INFORMATION AND I SYNTHESIZED IT IN MY LETTER AND LAID OUT THE FORMULA TO THE DEVELOPER AND SAID, IF YOU GREETED 729 UNITS, UM, WE ARE NOT TAKING MONEY FROM YOU.
WHEN WE DID THAT, WE LIMITED THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT HE COULD PUT FOR THE 729 UNITS, AND THAT MADE US REASONABLY CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE 729 UNITS.
THE MATH TOOK YOU TO A NUMBER OF 7 29, BUT BY LIMITING THE HOUSING, IT COULDN'T REALLY BE 7 29.
SO HE CAME BACK TO US, UH, IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER AND, UH, AGREED TO THE 7 29 THAT HE WOULD BUILD UNDER THAT INSTEAD OF THE 1203.
OKAY? THEN, THEN HE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING BUILDERS.
THERE'S A LONG PERIOD WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE WERE JUST KIND OF WAITING.
UM, JEFF AND I WORKED ON THE ORDINANCE AND THEN, THEN WE SHARED THE ORDINANCE WITH HIM FOR THEIR COMMENTS.
WE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE, AND NOW WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THE ONE THING, EVERYBODY CAN GO THROUGH THE LETTER AT THEIR OWN SPEED AND, AND ANYBODY WHO GIVES JEFF WILL GIVE HIS BUSINESS CARD OUT TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS.
AND WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE GONNA BE HERE, AND IT SEEMED LIKE A BIG WASTE OF TREES TO MAKE HUGE PILES OF THESE, BUT ANYBODY CAN GET 'EM BY EMAIL.
OKAY? THIS IS A COMPLETELY OPEN PROCESS.
AND I DO MEAN COMPLETELY IN THE LAST OR THE LAST PAGE OF MY LETTER, I SET FORTH WHAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE LAST PAGE OF MY LETTER.
AND I IS THAT, I DUNNO IF THAT'S SCANNED, BUT THE LAST PAGE, MY LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE LETTER SAYS THIS, ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AND THEIR INPUT RECEIVED PRIOR TO ANY VOTE UPON THIS AGREEMENT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PUBLIC COMMENT CAUSES ONE OR MORE SUPERVISORS TO VIEW THE TRANSACTION DIFFERENTLY.
AND THIS IS A REALITY THAT MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESS.
SO BY NO MEANS DID, DID JEFF AND I TRY TO SECRETLY WORK UP A DEAL AND HIDE IT FROM THE PUBLIC AND RAN SOMETHING THROUGH BECAUSE WE'RE FRIENDS WITH SOMEBODY OR DOING SOMEBODY A FAVOR OR ON THE TAPE OR WHATEVER PEOPLE WANT TO CALL IT.
I'VE HEARD EVERYTHING AT THIS POINT.
OKAY? YOU PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ON YOUR OWN TOGETHER, NOT, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC PROCESS, IT IS NOT COLLABORATIVE.
THEN WE BRING OUR BAKED, OUR FINISHED LOAF OF BREAD TO THE PUBLIC TO ASK THE PUBLIC HOW IT FEELS ABOUT THAT LOAF OF BREAD.
THERE WAS NO SCENARIO WHERE ANYTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT FULL PUBLIC INPUT.
AND WE DON'T ASSUME THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS THE ONLY WAY OUT.
MAYBE WE WANT PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ON WHAT OTHER OPTIONS MIGHT BE OUT THERE TO, BUT WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.
OKAY? SO WITH WITH WE FOCUSED ON THE LEAST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF UNITS AND REMOVING MEDICAL AND HAVING ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF HOUSING, BASICALLY TOWNHOUSES IS WHAT HE CAN PUT IN THERE.
UM, WE HAVE SPOKEN RECENTLY ABOUT ADDING STACKED TOWNHOUSES BACK INTO THE ORDINANCE.
NOT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, BUT IT STACKED TOWNHOUSES WOULD ALLOW, UH, SOME GREEN TO BE PUT INTO THE PROJECT.
UH, NOT THE 50% THAT ALREADY IS PRESERVED, BUT ON THE 50% THAT'S DEVELOPED, UH, ANYBODY WHO'S LOOKED AT THAT PLAN COULD SEE THAT IT LOOKS KIND OF DREADFUL IN TERMS OF NOT HAVING MUCH GREEN ON IT.
UM, IF WE DID STACK TOWNHOUSES, WE COULD, UM, HAVE SOME OF THE UNITS, YOU KNOW, ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER STACK TOWN HOUSES ARE BASICALLY LIKE TWO UNITS ON TWO UNITS, UM, OR TWO FLOORS ON TWO FLOORS, BUT EACH ONE BEING A UNIT.
SO YOU COULD GET SOME UNITS GOING A LITTLE BIT UPWARD AND THEN HOPEFULLY CREATE SOME GREEN SPACE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD TALK ABOUT, HOPEFULLY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ANYWAY, A, IT'S A ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO BY LAW ZONING ORDINANCES GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE CREATED TO PLAN AND TO HELP IN THE PLANNING AND TO HELP IN THE CREATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO THE IDEA IS, THE IDEA IS TAKE THE ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN HAVE EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR FINE, ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT EVERYTHING.
HAVE THE DEVELOPER DO AS MUCH AS HE CAN DO UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, THEN DECIDE WHETHER TO SAY YAY OR NAY AND MOVE ON TO A FIGHT IN A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING TO BRING THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
[00:35:01]
COME UP.MAYBE PEOPLE WANT TO COME UP AND SAY, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WHY DON'T YOU FOCUS ON THIS OR THAT, OR, OR, OR, WE PREFER THE 1203 BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR WHATEVER ANYBODY'S OPINION IS.
OKAY? BUT WE NEED, WE NEED, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THIS ORDINANCE, AND JEFF AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A, WE BELIEVE IT'S A GOOD RESOLUTION TO STILL HAVE 50% OF THE OPEN SPACE AND HAVE THE NUMBER OF UNITS CUT IN HALF AND HAVE NO MEDICAL FACILITY IN THE ABSTRACT.
TO ME, I, I SEE MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD HAVING THAT DESCRIBED TO THEM, SAY, THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S THE OPINION OF THE PEOPLE HERE IN THIS ROOM.
I'M DESCRIBING, I'M DESCRIBING THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WENT BEHIND US CREATING THAT ORDINANCE AND DOING LIKE THE BEST THAT WE COULD IN SETTING IT UP FOR, UM, A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
I DON'T, I THINK THE DEVELOPER, HE DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE HIS LAST BEST OFFER TO, TO ME, HE WANTS YOUR PUBLIC INPUT, THEN GIVE YOU HIS LAST BEST OPTION.
AND AT THAT TIME YOU CAN ALSO TALK WITH HIM ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS.
SO THE ONE THING THAT I CAN'T BE CLEAR ENOUGH ABOUT, AND I BELIEVE EVEN A COUPLE OF THE SUPERVISORS MAKE THEIR OWN STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD, SENDING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S GOING TO GET VOTED ON POSITIVELY WHEN IT COMES BACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION'S A PART OF THE PROCESS.
AND I REPRESENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOO.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THE SUPERVISORS VALUE THEIR INPUT AND THEY VALUE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE TOWNSHIP.
AND THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE A BIG HELP.
SO THEY COULD EVEN RECOMMEND BACK, DON'T DO IT.
IT'S NOT, THEY'RE NOT LIKE A RUBBER STAMP.
SO THEY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WE DON'T, WE THINK THIS ORDINANCE IS HORRIBLE.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.
BUT MY POINT IS, I HEARD, I I, I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY LIKE THAT, THINK THAT THEY THINK IT'S THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS APPROVING.
LIKE IT'S JUST LIKE MASSAGING.
IT'S TO SET IT UP FOR APPROVAL WHEN IT COMES BACK.
AND THAT JUST IS JUST COMPLETELY, UH, WRONG.
SO THIS IS, THAT'S, SO MY LETTER IS THERE FOR ALL OF YOU TO READ.
UM, AND THAT'S THE ONLY LETTER THAT WAS EVER SENT TO THE, TO THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY.
THEN WE HAD EMAILS ABOUT SECTION A SHOULD SAY THIS, MOVE SECTION B TO THIS AND DO ALL VERY ORDINARY, BORING EMAILS.
UM, MY NEXT LETTER, OKAY, A YEAR AGO WHEN THEY APPLIED MO, MANY OF YOU WERE HERE AT THAT TIME, AND I OFFERED YOU THE OPINION THAT THE APPLICANT PROBABLY SATISFIES THE CRITERIA FOR A CARE FACILITY BASED ON A HOLDING FROM JUDGE SLO IN NORRISTOWN OUT OF, OR TOWNSHIP.
AND THAT WAS THE FIRST ROUND OF PEOPLE THROWING ME UNDER THE BUS.
THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO CAME UP AND SAID, WHY IS THIS GUY HERE AND GET RID OF HIM AND HE'S NOT ON OUR SIDE AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF.
AND I WAS WILLING TO TAKE THAT FLACK.
I KNEW SOME OF THAT FLACK WAS GOING TO COME, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT GOT THE BALL ROLLING DOWN THE HILL AND ME BEING DISHONEST AND UNTRUSTWORTHY, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT GOT IT STARTED.
UM, THE OPINION THAT I OFFERED.
WE'RE GONNA SET IT ASIDE FOR A MINUTE WHILE I EXPLAIN THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.
OKAY? SO IF WE DO CONTINUE, IF WE, IF THE TOWNSHIP DECIDES THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T WORK, WE'VE GOT THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK, EVERYBODY THINKS IT'S A DISASTER, WE'RE GONNA, LET'S JUST GO TO A HEARING.
OKAY? HERE'S WHAT A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING IS WHEN IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE YOU HAVE IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE TELLS YOU WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO WITH YOUR LAND.
HERE'S RESIDENTIAL, HERE'S INDUSTRIAL, HERE'S INSTITUTIONAL, HERE'S LIBRARIES, B, B, B, OKAY.
AND THERE'S A LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT TELLS YOU HOW TO BUILD THE THINGS THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS IN YOUR LAND.
SO THOSE, THOSE TWO WORK TOGETHER.
THE, THE, UM, THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS USES THAT ARE PERMITTED AND USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE, BUT CLOSER TO PERMITTED IS CALLED, ARE WHAT ARE CALLED CONDITIONAL USES.
CONDITIONAL USES ARE PERMITTED AS LONG AS THEY PROVE THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE, OKAY? SO IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, THEY ARE A PERMITTED USE.
AND THE, AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THEY'RE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
NOW, WHEN YOU GO TO A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING, ALRIGHT, I WILL BE UP HERE WITH THE BOARD, ANOTHER LAWYER UNAFFILIATED WITH ME, NOT YET DETERMINED WHO IT'S GOING TO BE,
[00:40:01]
WILL REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AS A PARTY TO THE HEARING, OKAY? AND THAT PERSON WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE, THE DEVELOPER WHO GOES FIRST MAYBE DIDN'T PRESENT AND HE SHOWS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN.HE OR SHE SHOWS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPER.
SO DEVELOPER GOES FIRST, UM, I SORT OF PRESIDE BY LIKE MARKING DOCUMENTS AND YOU KNOW, WITNESSES BEING SWORN AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.
AND IT CAN, IT CAN LAST FOR A YEAR.
IT COULD LAST FOR, BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY DOING IT IN DRIBS AND DRABS OF A COUPLE HOURS HERE AND A COUPLE HOURS THERE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW HOW BIG THE CASE WOULD BE BY EACH PARTY, HOW MANY WITNESSES THEY WOULD HAVE.
UM, EITHER YOU SET A SEPARATE NIGHT ASIDE EACH MONTH TO HAVE THE HEARINGS OR YOU TAG THEM ONTO YOUR MONTHLY HEARING HERE AND DO LIKE START AN HOUR EARLIER OR SOMETHING.
SO THEY'RE JUST A SERIES OF REGULARLY OCCURRING.
UH, MEET IS COURT STENOGRAPHER AND ALL THAT.
AND I, I HOPE IF EVERY, IF I DON'T EXPLAIN IT WELL ENOUGH, I HOPE ANYBODY FEELS FREE TO CALL ME AND TO HAVE IT EXPLAINED FURTHER BECAUSE SOME OF YOU ALREADY DO CALL ME AND I NEVER MIND TALKING TO ANYBODY ABOUT IT.
THE SUPERVISORS WEAR A LEGISLATOR'S HAT, 99% OF THE TIME THEY ADOPT ORDINANCES.
THAT'S LEGISLATIVE ORDINANCES ARE JUST LOCAL LAWS, ALRIGHT? A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING IS THE ONLY TIME, THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY PUT ON JUDGE HAS THEY SIT IN WHAT'S CALLED A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY.
A JUDICIAL BODY IS AN OLD JUDICIAL BODY.
SO, UM, WHEN THEY'RE WEARING THE JUDGE HAT, THEY CANNOT, THEY CANNOT OFFER OPINIONS IN ADVANCE.
THEY CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS.
IT, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME ANALYSIS AS IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO TO TRIAL AND THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THE TRIAL SAID, YOU KNOW, THE DAY BEFORE, UH, WELL I'M GOING TO, I REALLY DON'T LIKE THAT GUY.
I'M GONNA HAND HIM A LOSS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WHAT EVERYBODY WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE SUPERVISORS OUT OF THE GATE WAS, WE'RE ON YOUR SIDE.
HE'S GOT NO CHANCE IN THIS TOWN.
THAT'S THE KIND OF LANGUAGE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR, RIGHT? AND THAT'S, AND I'M HERE TO MAKE SURE MY SUPERVISORS DON'T SAY SUCH THINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE WEARING THE JUDICIAL HATS.
AND THERE ARE PUBLISHED CASES WHERE BIAS WAS FOUND AT A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING AND THEY, AND THE VICTORY WAS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER AND YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT COMING OUT OF THE GATE.
SO I, THEY HAVE STAYED VERY QUIET AND THIS HAS LED TO THE ACCUSATION THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS BEING ORCHESTRATED BY ME AND JEFF.
WE'VE STAYED IN CONTACT WITH THE SUPERVISORS.
WHEN I SENT THAT LETTER THAT WE ALL JUST, YOU ALL JUST LOOKED AT WHERE I MADE THE OFFER, THAT LETTER WAS READ BY THE SUPERVISORS AND A MAJORITY OF THEM AUTHORIZED ME TO SEND THE LETTER, OKAY? WE DIDN'T DO SOMETHING ROGUE, WE DIDN'T DO SOMETHING ON OUR OWN.
WE DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T INVOLVE THE SUPERVISORS.
IT WAS AN IMPORTANT LETTER AND IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY MY CLIENT AND THAT'S WHY I SENT IT.
AND I DIDN'T CHANGE ONE WORD IN IT AFTER I GOT THE AUTHORITY TO SEND IT.
OKAY? SO, UM, SO WHEN YOU, SO WHEN YOU, UM, WHEN YOU GO TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE HEARING AND THEY ARE NOW WEARING THESE JUDGE HATS, THEY'RE REMOVED NOW IT'S VERY, VERY, VERY WEIRD BECAUSE A CASE CAME OUT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE THE JUDGES, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HIRE ANOTHER LAWYER TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
I CAN'T DO IT 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE BIAS.
ANOTHER LAWYER CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE EVEN THOUGH THE TOWNSHIP PAYS THAT LAWYER AND HIRED THAT LAWYER.
BUT THERE'S A SEPARATION THERE THAT'S A LITTLE VAGUE.
UM, IT WOULD'VE BEEN MUCH CLEANER IF CONDITIONAL USES DIDN'T EXIST.
UM, THE SAME CASES GO TO THE ZONING HEARING VOTER ALL THE TIME.
THEY'RE CALLED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THERE.
AND, AND WHEN THEY'RE HERE, THEY'RE CALLED CONDITIONAL USES.
IT GOES TO THE ZONING HEARING BOARD, IT'S CALLED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.
UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT KNEE TIDINESS.
WE HAVE THEM WEARING THE OCCASIONAL JUDGE HAT.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY HAVE REMAINED QUIET.
THEY WILL ALL OF THEM EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE.
AND THE ORDINANCE HAS ONLY BEEN PENDING FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
WE DISTRIBUTED IT IN NOVEMBER.
THAT WAS A BIT OF A, UH, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF A GLITCH BECAUSE THE SUPERVISORS DECIDED AT THE LAST MINUTE TO START FRESH WITH THE NEW NEWLY ELECTED SUPERVISORS IN JANUARY.
BUT OUT HERE IN THE ROOM, THE ORDINANCE WAS ALREADY BEING HANDED OUT.
AND THAT CREATED A BAD SITUATION BECAUSE YOU HAD, UM, PEOPLE LOOKING AT SOMETHING WITH NO EXPLANATION.
SO I WAS GONNA GIVE THIS EXPLANATION THEN TO EXPLAIN IT, BUT THEN YOU
[00:45:01]
WERE LEFT ALL WONDERING WHAT THE HECK IS THIS THING? AND THAT WAS UNFORTUNATE.SO NOW HERE WE ARE EIGHT WEEKS LATER AND SORT OF EXPLAINING EVERYTHING A LITTLE BIT, UM, AFTER THE FACT.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE, HEARING ALL THE PARTIES PRESENT THEIR CASES, ALRIGHT? AND EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER PROVES EACH ELEMENT OF HIS CASE, OTHER PARTIES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD AFTER THAT AND SAY, AND PROVE EVEN IF, EVEN THOUGH HE PRO PROVED HIS ELEMENTS, WE'RE GOING TO PROVE THAT HE STILL NONETHELESS SHOULDN'T WIN.
BECAUSE THIS IS, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE TOWNSHIP.
NOW, THE BAR IS HIGH FOR THAT, THE PROOF BAR IS HIGH FOR THAT, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE IT IS OUT THERE AS A, AS A POSSIBILITY.
SO WHEN I SAY TO THE PUBLIC LIKE I DID LAST YEAR, LOOK, IT LOOKS LIKE HE DOES SATISFY THE DEFINITION OF THE CARE FACILITY BASED ON THE WAR SISTER CASE.
I'M SAYING THAT INTENTIONALLY.
AND SO THAT THE PUBLIC COULD TEMPER EXPECTATIONS AND THE PUBLIC WOULD UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW WHAT, IN A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
EITHER SIDE COULD WIN OR EITHER SIDE ON APPEAL, IT COULD FLIP THE OTHER WAY AND IT'D BE REVERSED OR AFFIRMED WHEN, WHEN IT'S IN NORRISTOWN AND THEN IN COMMONWEALTH COURT OR EVEN THE SUPREME COURT.
YOU JUST NEVER, UM, YOU NEVER REALLY KNOW.
AND THE, THE RESOLUTION, I I EVEN HAPPENED IN MY LETTER, UM, WHEN I WAS A PROSECUTOR, I PROSECUTED A WOMAN FOR, UM, SEDUCING THE PRESIDENT OF BIEBER COLLEGE AND STEALING HIS CREDIT CARD AND GOING WILD WITH HIS CREDIT CARD FOR VERY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY SHE GAVE.
I HAD WON EVERY OTHER CHILD I EVER TRIED AS A PROSECUTOR.
AND, UM, WHEN I WAS IN THE HALLWAY, A LADY WHO WAS ON THE JURY CAME UP AND SAID, YOU MADE THAT YOUNG GIRL CRY.
SO YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DIRECTION A WIN OR LOSS IS GOING TO COME FROM.
SO, BUT HERE'S THE THING, THE BUILDER HAS TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT TOO.
SO THE REASON WHY YOU WOULD LOOK AT A, AT AN ORDINANCE THAT RESOLVES EVERYTHING IS SO THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE CERTAINTY.
SO THE BUILDER HAS TO WORRY THAT EVEN THOUGH HE'S CONFIDENT IN HIS CASE, UM, MAYBE HE WOULD LOSE FOR REASONS, WHO KNOWS, RIGHT? SO MY OPINION WAS THAT BASED ON THIS CASE OUTTA WORCESTER, UM, IN THE CASE OUTTA WORCESTER, WHAT THEY HELD WAS ON THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS ON THE JOB, THE 1,203 UNITS WAS A DIFFERENT NUMBER THERE.
AS LONG AS THOSE PEOPLE EACH HAD THIS CONFIRMED SUPERIOR STATUS, THIS DIBS ON THE MEDICAL FACILITY.
SO AS SOON AS THEY WANTED TO USE THE MEDICAL FACILITY, THEY, THEY COULD USE IT, RIGHT? HE JUDGE SILO RULED AND, AND OF COURSE OBJECTING PEOPLE, THE FRIENDS OF HORSES SISTER, UH, UH, OR WHATEVER THE GROUP WAS CALLED, UH, SAID, LOOK, HE, THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO PUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN A PLACE WHERE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED.
AND THE COURT SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE TIED TO THIS MEDICAL FACILITY WITH SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
AND THAT WAS APPEALED TO COMMONWEALTH COURT.
AND COMMONWEALTH COURT AGREED WITH JUDGE SILO AND NORS DOWN.
AND THIS PROPOSAL IS ACTUALLY STRONGER THAN WAS IN STER IN THE SENSE THAT THEY CAN, UM, ALL THE AMENITIES AND SERVICES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS CAN GET FROM THE MEDICAL FACILITY HAVE PEOPLE COME TO THEIR HOMES, RIGHT? SO MY OPINION WAS THAT, THAT THEY WOULD LIKELY SATISFY THOSE CONDITIONS, AND THAT'S A REASON TO LOOK AT CHINA TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THEM AND NOT JUST SAY, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
AND I, I STAND BY THAT OPINION TODAY, BUT WE KNEW, AND I SHOULD GIVE CREDIT TO STAFF, YOU GOOD.
EVERYBODY REALIZED THAT IF, IF WE DID THIS NEW ORDINANCE, THE NEW ORDINANCE LETS THEM DEVELOP THE PROPERTY BY RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING.
THE WHOLE POINT OF IT WAS TO PLAY ON THE FEARS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING TO GET THEM TO AGREE TO FEWER UNITS, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE ALL KNEW, EVERYBODY AT THAT TIME HAD SO LITTLE FAITH IN MY OPINION AND WAS YELLING AND CARRYING ON ABOUT IT.
IF WE WENT TO THE, UM, THIS NEW ORDINANCE, EVERYBODY WOULD SAY, WELL NOW WE'RE STUCK WITH YOUR OPINION ON THE, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WAR SISTER CASE AND HOW DO WE KNOW YOU'RE EVEN RIGHT? SO WE GOT A SEC, THE TOWNSHIP GOT A SECOND OPINION FROM ATTORNEY, UH, BOB BRAND.
BOB BRAND IS A WELL-RESPECTED LAND USE ATTORNEY.
HE ACTED ALSO TO BE ATTACHED RESIDENT, UH, AND VERY TRAGICALLY DIED A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER HE ISSUED HIS OPINION LETTER, WHICH IS, WAS SHOCKING.
UM, BUT HE AGREED WITH ME, OKAY? HE ISSUED A LETTER THAT AGREED WITH ME AND, AND THEN, UM, IN HIS FIRST LETTER, WHICH WAS LONG
[00:50:01]
AND SORT OF SORT OF RAMBLING, I ACTUALLY PUT HIS CONCLUSION ON THE TOP TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SAY.BUT THEN SEE, SO THERE, THERE'S HIM AGREEING WITH ME, RIGHT? THEN HE ALSO, BUT HE FORGOT TO ANSWER THE OTHER THING THAT I HAD PUT IN MY OWN OPINION LETTER, WHICH WAS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT LICENSING IS AN, IS AN ISSUE FOR CONDITIONAL USE.
I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE CERTAINLY RELEVANT, BUT NOT, NOT RELEVANT UNTIL YOU'RE AT PERMITS.
SO IF THEY WERE STUPID ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PLAN AND NOT BE ABLE TO GET LICENSURE, THEY WOULDN'T BE EVER, EVER, EVER BE ABLE TO OPEN, BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE LICENSURE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, WHICH LOOKS AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, NOT DOWN AT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OF PERMITS AND, AND LICENSING.
SO, UM, HE THEN, HE THEN DID A SUPPLEMENTAL ONE PAGE MEMO.
I DON'T REMEMBER IF YOU'RE SCANNED THE RIGHT ORDER.
HE AGREED WITH ME ON THAT OPINION ALSO.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE ONE YOU AT OR YOU HAD JEFF, OKAY, THAT LETTER, THAT LETTER WAS WRITTEN FOR, UM, UM, ED, ED MULLEN SHARED THAT WITH ME.
THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY SHARED THAT LETTER WITH ME AND IT WAS A, A LETTER, UM, STATING AN OPINION FROM THE ORGANIZATION, THE PHCA, THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSES IN THE PROJECT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO LICENSURE.
AND I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK LICENSURE IS A PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING ANYWAY, BUT I'M JUST SHARING WITH ALL OF YOU WHAT WAS GIVEN TO ME.
OKAY? UM, SO, AND I, THAT'S HIS OTHER ONE WHERE HE AGREED WITH MY FOLLOW UP.
UM, SO WHEN WE, WHEN WE FINISHED THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING, UH, THE BOARD WILL WRITE A DECISION EITHER GRANTING OR DENYING THE RELIEF, AND THEN, UM, SOMEBODY'S GONNA BE UNHAPPY AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO APPEAL DENARS DOWN.
SO THAT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
UH, AND THEN IT COULD GET APPEALED EVEN FURTHER TO, UM, COMMONWEALTH COURT.
UM, BUT OUR, OUR ANALYSIS WAS THAT, UM, THAT THIS WAS A GOOD WAY OUT THAT THAT, SO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS COULD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT COMES DOWN TO SIX 50 OR SOMETHING.
NOBODY WANTS THOSE 650 UNITS, BUT THE DEVELOPER TOLD US RIGHT FROM THE JUMP R ONE ZONING WAS OFF THE TABLE, THEY WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN AN OFFER THAT WAS R ONE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH UNITS ON THE, ON THE 50% OF THE LAND THAT WAS, THAT THAT COULD BE BUILT ON.
SO WORKING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF R TWO TYPE DENSITY, WE DID THE BEST WE COULD TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE.
AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH IT, AND WE, WE DO WANT TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, HOW EVERYBODY FEELS ABOUT IT.
UH, BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO NOT SEND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO, UM, NOT FULLY VETTED SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NO TO.
IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING NO TO, I WOULD BE CRITICIZED HARSHLY LATER SOMEWHERE IN THE COURSE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING, LIKE, WHY DIDN'T YOU EVER TELL US WE COULD HAVE GOT OUT OF THIS WITH 650 UNITS, AND WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT? NOW, IF PEOPLE WANT TO TRY A SETTLEMENT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, LIKE A WHOLE DIFFERENT LOOK AT IT OR LET IT GO AT THE 1,203 UNITS OR WHATEVER, UM, THAT'S OKAY.
THE ONLY OPINION THAT'S, THAT ISN'T A VALID OPINION, AND I DON'T MEAN DISRESPECTED TO PEOPLE WHO HOLD IT.
THE ONLY OPINION THAT ISN'T A VALID OPINION IS SOMEONE WHO COMES UP HERE AND SAYS, DON'T CHANGE THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE AND IT WILL STAY AS A FIELD BECAUSE THAT'S PROVABLY OBJECTIVELY NOT TRUE.
AND ALTHOUGH EVERY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO COME UP HERE AND EXPRESS THEIR OPINION, THAT IS NOT AN OPINION THAT'S GOING TO, THAT ANYBODY CAN DO ANYTHING WITH BECAUSE IT'S AN INCORRECT, UM, OPINION.
SO THAT IS THE WHOLE, UM, YOU KNOW, I PUT A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AT THE END.
UM, THOSE ARE THE ONLY DOCUMENTS THAT ARE, THAT HAVE REALLY BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS WHOLE THING.
I MEAN, IT'S TAKEN A LONG TIME BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING FOR HIM, THE DEVELOPER, TO GET A BUILDER AND COME BACK WITH A DRAWING.
AND THEN, UM, IT WAS PUSHED BACK A FEW MONTHS IN THE FALL.
I WAS AWAY AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE WERE AWAY.
UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AS ANYBODY WHO SAYS FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
UM, I, I'VE TOLD OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, I'VE TRIED PROBABLY MORE THAN 75 CASES THROUGH JURY VERDICT.
I HAVE MORE, MORE LITIGATION EXPERIENCE THAN MOST MUNICIPAL LAWYERS.
UM, BUT OF COURSE, I'M NOT REALLY THE ONE WHO'S PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE.
I'M JUST SAYING I KNOW HOW TO BE A PARTY TO, UM, TO A FIGHT.
AND I, I DON'T MIND IT AT ALL.
BUT I THINK MOST OF YOU, IF I WAS TALKING TO YOU 1 0 1 PRIVATELY, MOST OF ALL YOU WOULD SAY, YEAH, WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT'S THE BEST
[00:55:01]
WE CAN DO FIRST BEFORE WE PUSH OFF AND SET SAIL DOWN THE ROAD OF, UH, CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS.OKAY? SO THAT'S THE OVERVIEW, THAT'S WHAT THE INTENTION IS.
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO SEND IT TO, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAVE THEM HELP AND GET ALL THE EVIDENCE WE CAN OUT OF THE DEVELOPER.
HE'S READY TO COME HERE, UH, AS SOON AS HE LIVES IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA OR SOMETHING, HE'S READY TO COME HERE AS SOON AS, UM, AS SOON AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN, UH, GET HIM ON THE AGENDA TO DO THAT.
AND, UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
READY? I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE DOING IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU LEAVING TO DO THE REST OF THE AGENDA? LIKE, IN OTHER WORDS, ARE ARE, ARE WE GOING STRAIGHT INTO COMMENTS FOR LIKE AN HOUR OR AN HOUR AND A HALF? AND THEN, THEN THE REST FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE? I, I'LL, I THINK WE COULD PLAY IT BY EAR.
I THINK SOME SIMPLE RULES, KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES.
I THINK ONCE YOU HEAR A COMMENT, I JUST HEAR IT FIVE MORE TIMES.
IT'S TAKING TIME UP THAT I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP OPEN TO NEW THOUGHTS AND THAT'LL KIND OF KEEP IT CONDENSED.
WE WANT TO HEAR EVERYBODY OF COURSE, BUT AT 10 30 WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO END THE MEETING.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO STOP AT SOME POINT TO GET THROUGH THE REGULAR, UH, MOTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA.
PER YOUR COMMENT, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PARK HOUSE FIRST, SO WE'RE GOING YOUR WAY.
AND I HOPE THAT ALLOWS US TO GET THROUGH ALL THE REGULAR, UM, NOTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA.
SO I'M HOPING, I GUESS BY 9, 9 30, THAT WOULD GIVE US ANOTHER HOUR TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE AGENDA AND STOP AT 10 30.
SO CAN, CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK? IS THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HERE TONIGHT? NO.
IS WHAT IT WAS, IT WAS THE, OR IT WAS ONLY ROLLING OUT THE ORDINANCE.
YEAH, THEY, NO, THEY'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'LL BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING IF THERE IS ONE.
SO JEFF'S, I'M SORRY, LET ME, UH, JEFF'S GONNA READ OUT THE NAMES.
SO THE FIRST NAME IS JOHN WESLER.
UH, MR. GRETCHEN, I APPRECIATE YOUR, UM, YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS AND YOUR COMMENTS AND EXPLAIN THIS AND HOPEFULLY I'LL, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT AS SMART AS YOU, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST TO, YOU KNOW, INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS SINCE PROBABLY SINCE 2013.
I WENT DOWN TO TOWNSHIP, OR EXCUSE ME, THE TOWN, UH, COURTHOUSE MADE COMMENTS DOWN THERE.
I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS THE ENTIRE TIME, SO I GOT A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
I WORK, I LIKE WORK FROM ABOVE.
UM, SO I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS SINCE INCEPTION, I THINK PRETTY MUCH IN UNDERSTANDING IT.
SO I THINK, UM, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I, I I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE ACTUALLY BEING HEARD BECAUSE I THINK THE ONE THING THAT EVERYBODY'S BEING SAID THE ENTIRE TIME HAS BEEN THAT THERE TO, TO KNOW ZONING CHANGE, RIGHT? AND NOW OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING TO GET THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE AND GET, YOU KNOW, THE BEST KIND OF, I GUESS, COMPROMISE.
BUT I STILL DON'T THINK THAT, IN MY OPINION, THAT IT'S THE BEST COMPROMISE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED TO HOLDING TO EXACTLY WHAT THEY BOUGHT IT FOR.
AND THAT IS INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACE.
AND WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE, UH, 180, UH, COUNTRY ORIGIN, UH, OFF OF, UH, HALF THE ROAD, UM, THAT I WENT TO THE TOWNSHIP AND I ASKED, I SAID, WHAT IS IT ZONED? AND IN 2010 WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE 2011, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS OPEN SPACE, UNLESS SOMEBODY HERE WAS MISINFORMED, I THINK IT WAS PRETTY MUCH OPEN SPACE BACK AT THAT POINT.
I THINK THE OWNER IS GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT.
THEY STARTED OUT WITH SHOCK AND ALL OF A WILLIAMSBURG TYPE OF, UH, FACILITY.
THEN THEY MOVED INTO THE CCRC, WHICH IS GONNA REQUIRE THE, UM, CONDITIONAL USE AND THE ORDINANCE CHANGE.
AND AGAIN, NOW I THOUGHT IT WAS THE OWNER COMING TO PRESENT THIS, AND IT IS NOT THAT, BUT IT'S, YOU PRESENTED THEM TO GET REDUCED UNITS, BUT I THINK THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED ALL ALONG TO GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT RESIDENTIAL ON THERE.
AND THE PEOPLE, FROM MY OPINION, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, HAS SAID ALL ALONG, YOU'VE SEEN THE SIGNS AND EVERYBODY HEARS.
I'M NOT SAYING EVERYBODY, BUT I THINK A LOT OF, YOU'VE RUN ON THE CONCEPT OF NO ZONING CHANGE.
WE'RE SUPPORTING THAT, AND NOW WE'RE HEARING THE FACT THAT IT'S GONNA BE A ZONING CHANGE.
UM, I, I DON'T THINK, UM, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA GET WHAT THEY WANT.
I THINK THE SUPERVISOR, LIKE I SAID, THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE GOING TO A PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK THIS SHOULD STOP HERE.
I THINK, I THINK IT SHOULD BE STOPPED WHERE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE LAND, BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE LAND OFF OF WHAT THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ARE, WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS.
AND IF THAT'S THE 1203, THEN THAT'S THE 1203.
UM, BUT THEY BOUGHT IT JUST LIKE I BOUGHT MY HOUSE AND I KNEW IT WAS ZONING INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACE, AND NOW IT'S BEING SOME RESIDENTIAL.
SO CAN I, CAN I SAY SPOKE BY, BY SHOW OF HANDS, ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO JUST CLAPPED AND I'M, THIS IS NOT A LOADED QUESTION.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU WOULD PREFER THE 1203 TO THE RESIDENTIAL? NO, I WOULD SAY I WOULD FORCE THEM TO MAKE HANG.
I THOUGHT IT WAS AN, THE PROBLEM IS THE DENSITY.
I I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EASIER QUESTION THAN THAT.
WE WILL GET TO EACH, LET'S DO IT.
LET'S STAY WITH YOU FOR, SORRY.
[01:00:01]
SORRY.I SHOULDN'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE MUCH LONGER, BUT I, I, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I THINK IT SHOULD BE KNOWING THEY BOUGHT IT AT, THEY SHOULD KEEP IT AS WHAT IT IS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M ON HALF OF AN OLD ESTATE AND THE ENTIRE TIME NOW IT'S GONNA BE IN MY BACKYARD, LOOKING IN MY BACKYARD.
I LOSE ALL MY PRIVACY FROM WHAT I'VE HAD.
UM, AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE GOING THERE.
SO, UH, I'M ASKING THE SUPERVISORS TO STAND UP, UM, TO DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW EVERYBODY'S RUNNING POSITION, BUT I THINK MOST OF YOU RAN ON THE FACT THAT, THAT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE AN ORDER EXCHANGE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA SUPPORT THAT ZONING CHANGE.
I THINK YOU MAKE THEM DO AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF WHAT IT IS ZONED FOR AND THEY HAVE TO, AND IF IT GETS BUILT ON IN THE MATTER THAT WAS, UH, PRESENTED FOR INSTITUTIONAL, THEN IT GETS BUILT ON THAT WAY.
BUT PUTTING RESIDENTIAL AND PROBABLY A BUNCH OF OTHER FOLKS IN HERE ARE GONNA MAKE MUCH MORE SMARTER COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, MY TIME'S OUT, BUT, UH, ABOUT THE IMPACT WITH SCHOOLS AND THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU, YOUR, YOUR POSITION WOULD BE GO TO THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING? YEAH.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD GET, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO, TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK IT SHOULD GO AND STICK WITH WHAT IT IS.
WELL, WE THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID ALL ALONG IS THAT NO ZONING CHANGE PERIOD.
AND NOW WE'RE HEARING HERE ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE WE WANT TO COMPROMISE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE BUILDER'S GONNA GET WHAT THEY WANT.
BUT I THINK FOR THEM TO GO IN AND PUT THIS, UH, TO GO BACK TO THE INSTITUTIONAL IS GONNA MAKE IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
AND I THINK WE'RE ROLLING OVER BY GOING AND SAYING, HERE YOU GO, BUILDING RESIDENTIAL, HAVE A GOOD DAY AND THEY'RE GONNA MAKE THEIR MONEY.
AND THAT AGAIN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT DEBATING, I'M TRYING, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE NO, YOU DON'T.
WE, THERE'S, THERE'S ONE PERSON HERE WHO'S WHO, UH, IS CALLING OUT AND DO IT AGAIN.
ARE YOU TALKING TO ME, JOE? I AM.
SO, UM, SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, THERE'S SOMEBODY HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST ALL OF US, LIKE MAYBE 60 PEOPLE, WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW.
SO, UH, THEY DON'T NEED TO KNOW THAT.
SO HE'S NOT CALLING OUT RELATIVE TO PARKHOUSE.
HE'S CALLING OUT RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, MY PLANS CHANGE TONIGHT AS I SIT HERE.
I'VE GOTTA TELL YOU, I'M ECSTATIC SEEING EVERYBODY HERE.
UM, I'LL LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF MY TIME BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS PRETTY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW.
I WORK WITH A GROUP OF 10 OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD FOR THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS TO TALK TO THE PARK HOUSE SITUATION.
PLEASE, WHEN YOU SEE THE PETITION EMAILS, THEY CAME FROM ME.
IT'S THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET OUT TO YOU GUYS.
SO IF YOU SEE IT, DON'T IGNORE IT.
KNOW WHAT COMES FROM ME, ANYBODY WHO'S INTERESTED, WE HAVE A SIGNAGE SHEET LATER ON.
THAT 10 OF US ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SPEND ANY AMOUNT OF TIME WITH ANYBODY TO GET MORE IN DEPTH IN THIS.
'CAUSE IT'S OVERWHELMING AS AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND IT.
BUT I GREATLY APPRECIATE SEEING ALL THE FACES HERE TONIGHT.
SO, UM, I'M JUST EXCITED FOR THAT.
I DO HAVE SOME THINGS I'D LIKE TO GET ACROSS TO THE BOARD, SO I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
UM, FIRST, I'M NOT HERE TO STOP OVER DEVELOPMENT, I MEAN TO DEVELOPMENT, BUT OVER DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALL KNOW THE LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED.
UM, WE MET AS A GROUP WITH MR. BRESLIN EARLIER, UH, A GROUP OF US FOR THREE HOURS TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT PLAN.
TONIGHT WE GOT THROUGH AND A QUARTER OF THE TIME, UM, I'LL SAY THIS RESPECTFULLY, THAT WE'VE LOST FAITH.
I BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY HAS LOST FAITH WITH MR. BRESLIN AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ISSUE.
I'M SORRY, THAT'S MY RHODE ISLAND ACCENT.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW ON THIS ISSUE, PARKHOUSE THE OTHER TOWNSHIP STUFF I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS.
I JUST FEEL THAT THE COMMUNITY IS THERE.
MY SECOND POINT IS THAT WE HAVE NEW SUPERVISORS.
WE'RE SORRY YOU GOT DRAGGED INTO SUCH A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, WE MET WITH YOU GUYS.
YOU KNOW, KIND OF REMINDS ME OF A CONGRESSMAN TELLING HIM HE GETS A 400, YOU KNOW, PAGE BILL DROPPED IN THEIR DESK AND THEY GOTTA VOTE ON IT TOMORROW, RIGHT? YOU GUYS ARE IN THE THICK OF THIS STUFF AND THIS, THIS CHANGE IS COMING, IS NOT WHAT ANY OF US WANTS.
SO PLEASE, AT ALL COSTS, WE'RE LOOKING TO STOP THIS AND I'LL TALK TO YOU, MR. DEVELOPER.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT PAINFUL FOR YOU.
WE WANT TO FIGHT YOU IN COURT ON IT, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
WAIT, IS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF PARKHOUSE, BECAUSE I ASKED YOU LAST WEDNESDAY AND YOU SAID YOU WOULDN'T TELL ME WHAT YOU WANTED.
[01:05:01]
A COMMUNITY MEMBER.I FEEL LIKE I REPRESENT A NUMBER OF VOICES IN THE COMMUNITY.
I'M JUST SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ANY OF THOSE TO SUPPORT MY POSITION ON MAKING THIS PAINFUL PROCESS TO THE DEVELOPER.
SO, CONDITION YOU HERE, BRING IT ON.
'CAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT PLAN AS IS DESIGNED AND PRESENTED CURRENTLY CAN GET THROUGH 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE NEEDS.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE'VE MET WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THAT WE'VE GIVEN SOME IDEAS TO THEM ABOUT THAT.
THEY LOOK AT IT, THEY SEE A LOT OF FLAWS WITH THIS.
WE'RE JUST SAYING WE THINK THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE FOR US.
SINCE I HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME, I WILL JUST CLOSE WITH A COMMENT THAT I HAD IN A WORLD THAT LEADS TO SUSPICIOUS.
WHY DOES IT FEEL LIKE WE'RE PUSHING THIS FORWARD TO APPEASE WHAT THE CURRENT DEVELOPER WANTS? NOT THE COMMUNITY INTERESTS.
IF THERE THREATS TO GO FORWARD ON THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING, SO BE IT.
WE DON'T THINK THIS IS FEASIBLE.
WE DON'T THINK IT CAN BE BUILT AS PROPOSED.
WE DON'T WANNA FIGHT WITH THE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, TO FIGHT WITH YOU GUYS TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR ALL OF US IN THE COMMUNITY.
THANKS FOR MY TIME, JANINE NORRIS.
UM, THANK YOU TO THE SUPERVISORS AND WELCOME TO THE NEW SUPERVISORS, UH, ON THE BOARD.
THIS IS CERTAINLY A CHALLENGING EVENING FOR ALL OF YOU.
UM, I KNOW THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT POSITION AND I ADMIRE YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.
I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT IN FACT THOUGH, THIS IS THE SAME COMMUNITY THAT VOTED YOU INTO OFFICE.
UM, SOME OF US CAMPAIGNED FOR YOU.
AND WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT NO REZONING WAS A PRIORITY.
UH, IN FACT, IT WAS NOTED ON A NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN SIGNS, UH, THAT THAT WAS THE PARTICULAR PLATFORM, NO REZONING.
WE UNDERSTAND, AS RAY SAID, WE UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY THAT SOME DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT.
WE, UM, SOME OF US LIVE IN NEWER COMMUNITIES.
UM, SO WE'RE NOT HERE TO BE, UM, UH, HAVE SOME HYPOCRISY HERE.
WE KNOW THAT, UM, THIS DEVELOPER BOUGHT THE LAND AND THE LANDOWNER UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING.
WE URGE YOU TO STAND BY YOUR WORD.
WE URGE YOU TO VOTE NO TO A PARK HOUSE ZONING AMENDMENT CHANGE, AND ALLOW THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING TO, UH, GO THROUGH WITH THIS PROCESS.
UM, BEFORE WE START THE CLOCK, I'M GONNA ASK, UH, THAT THE VIDEO RECORD REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE ROADS ARE ICY, WEATHER'S COLD, AND IT'S LIKELY KEEPING A LARGE NUMBER OF CITIZENS FROM ATTENDING TONIGHT.
I SALUTE THE FOLKS THAT DID SHOW UP.
SO, UH, AS A POINT OF REFERENCE SCHOOL, UH, SPRINGBOARD SCHOOL BOARD CANCELED THE KIDS MEETING FOR TONIGHT.
BLAKE ROWLING, 1 35 BENNINGTON ROAD.
I'LL START WITH A THANK TO THE SOLICITOR FOR NEGOTIATING WITH THE LANDOWNER'S ATTORNEY, SEEKING TO OBTAIN MORE OPEN CASE.
HOWEVER, I SAY NO, NO, NO TO THE AMENDMENT AND NO ZONING CHANGE.
WHY NUMBER ONE, THERE IS A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR THE SOLICITOR'S NEGOTIATIONS.
NUMBER TWO, THERE ARE MAJOR FLAWS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
FINALLY, THE RESULTING 670 UNIT PLAN IS WRONG FOR ALL THE PEOPLE HERE.
I'M GONNA FOCUS ON THE FIRST TWO ITEMS YOU'LL HEAR FROM PLENTY OF OTHER FOLKS ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.
SO ITEM ONE, AGAIN, THERE IS A BASIC FRONT OF MOUTH LAW AND THE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR THE SWISS NEGOTIATIONS.
THE NEGOTIATIONS STARTED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE 1,203 UNIT PLAN WAS FEASIBLE.
WELL, GUESS WHAT? THAT 1,203 UNIT PLAN IS NOT FEASIBLE.
GO BACK TO THE SKETCH PLAN AND THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.
THAT PLAN AND THE VERY LIMITED APPLICATION HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION ON WHETHER THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET.
I'M REFERRING TO THE 50% OVERALL AND THE 30% CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL
[01:10:01]
OVERLAY ORDINANCE.GILMORE AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING POINTED OUT THAT OUT IN THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION, AND THEY ALSO RAISED MANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND ISSUES SUCH AS INSUFFICIENT SETBACKS.
NOW, BECAUSE THE PLAN DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER OPEN SPACE, IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE ACTUAL MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS POSSIBLE UNDER INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY AS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN A THOUSAND.
THAT MEANS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS 1200 UNITS WAS WRONG.
SO WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE END POINT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ABOUT THAT 679 UNIT FIGURES? ITEM TWO, THERE ARE MAJOR FLAWS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SUCH AS IT IS NOT READY AT ALL TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO ITEM TWO, A OPEN SPACE, THE NEGOTIATION LETTER CENTERED ON THE DONATION OF 100 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE TO THE TOWNSHIP.
THAT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF OPEN SPACE DONATION OR DEDICATION IN THE ARTICLE.
180 2 DASH 63.3 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT.
THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL OVERSIGHT.
I'LL GIVE THEM MY, I DON'T THINK IT WORKS THAT WAY.
SO THE NEGOTIATION LETTER SOUGHT TO REDUCE DENSITY.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CALLED OSR TWO, AS WE KNOW.
RR TWO IS WEST DENSE R THREE, BUT THE ACTUAL DENSITY IN THE AMENDMENT IS BETWEEN R THREE AND R FOUR.
AND IT'S NOT MUCH LESS THAN WHAT'S IN THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY ORDINANCE.
AND THAT WOULD COME UNDER THAT CONDITIONAL USE.
SO CALLING ORDINANCE AN AMENDMENT TO OSR TWO IS A FUNDAMENTAL WRITTEN MISREPRESENTATION.
IT'S MISLEADING, IT'S NOT R TWO, IT'S R THREE OR R FOUR EIGHT UNITS PER DEVELOPABLE ACRE.
THE PPLICANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS STUDIES ARE MISSING STACKED TOWNHOUSES, 48 FOOT TALL STACKED HOUSES.
TOWNHOUSES ARE ALLOWED IN THE AMENDMENT EVEN THOUGH THE NEGOTIATION LETTER SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE.
SO I'M GONNA WRAP UP QUICKLY HERE.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND THIS FLAW DOCUMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, PLEASE DO NOT SEND A DOCUMENT BASED ON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS IN NEGOTIATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF YOU'RE DUE TO THE BOARD, PLEASE, PLEASE TAKE TIME TO MAKE A FULLY INFORMED DECISION ON THIS MATTER.
THAT MEANS TABLING THE DECISION TO THE NEXT MEETING.
ASSOCIATE NOTE TO THE AMENDMENT.
HI, SUSAN DENBY, 1 3 5 BENNINGTON ROAD.
UH, I WANT TO REITERATE THE, THE PLAN THAT WAS PUT FORTH AND HOW DENSE THE TOWNHOUSES ARE DOWN WHERE A LOT OF US WHO ARE SPEAKING UP ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, HOW THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THE TOWNHOUSES ARE.
THAT'S ON PROPERTY, THAT'S ON THE NATURAL LANDS AREA.
THAT WAS A PRIORITY A, WHICH WAS SIGNIFIED IN THEIR REPORT AS THE MOST IMPORTANT, THE MOST CRITICAL TO THE NUMBER ONE AREA IN THAT OF THE NATURAL LAND REPORT.
THAT MEANS IT'S, IT SHOULDN'T BE AS DENSE AS IT IS, AND YET PRIORITY B OVER HERE HAS LESS DENSITY AND THAT'S CLOSER TO 4 22.
IT'S CLOSER TO THE HUB OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE TRAFFIC.
UH, WHEREAS THIS AT THE BOTTOM, OR THAT'S DOWN, DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY PAPER, IS A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO COME OUT ON COME VISIT US.
THEY ALMOST GET KILLED DRIVING ON SECOND AVENUE.
AND IT IS JUST TO ME, UNCONSCIOUS THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER PUTTING 48 FOOT HOUSES DOWN THERE WHEN THEY REALLY BELONG AT THE TOP CLOSER TO WHERE THERE'S MORE EASIER ACCESS ROADS.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THERE AND CAUSE SO MUCH MORE CONGESTION? THE OTHER THING IS THAT THERE, THERE ARE NO SETBACKS.
THIS IS BUILT RIGHT UP ON THE, TO THE ROAD AND HOW CAN WE, THE COMMUNITY AROUND, I OPEN A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS 33 HOUSES IN IT.
[01:15:02]
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 600 HOUSES OUT IN FRONT OF MY, WHERE I, WHERE I LOOK.IT, IT JUST, HOW COULD WE ABSORB THAT? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THIS TOWNSHIP? DO WE KNOW? 23,000 THOUSAND.
AND WE'RE AT, WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT THAT MUCH MORE, THAT PERCENTAGE MORE INTO THIS ONE LITTLE AREA THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS TO GET OUT MAYBE OF SPOT ZONING.
I FEEL THAT YOU ARE OPENING THIS UP TO ANY PLACE OF THAT THIS COULD BE DEVELOPED.
ARE WE SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT THIS WOULDN'T IMPACT SCHOOLS? UH, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY, HOW MANY EMS TRIPS DO YOU MAKE TO THE PRIVATE UP COMMUNITY BY WEGMAN? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THAT? HOW MANY, HOW MANY TRIPS A DAY? ANY WINDOW BECAUSE A 55 AND UP COMMUNITY, 62 AND UP.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE ELDERLY.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TIME PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE 60 AND UP AND I DON'T SEE US WALKING AROUND THE NEED EM S EVERY DAY.
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
UM, I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY HERE, BUT IN RESPECT TO WHAT MS. KELSEY ASKED THAT WE DON'T REPEAT A LOT OF THINGS I'M GONNA SORT OF FAST FORWARD HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS TOWNSHIP HAS BEEN UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
AND, UM, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CONSCIENTIOUS PLANNING AND WELL-WRITTEN ZONING ORDINANCES, UPPER PROFITS WAS DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT HAS RETAINED OUR RURAL CHARACTER.
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS THRIVED CREATING A STRONG TAX BASE THAT HAS ALLOWED US TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND FACILITIES FOR THE CITIZENS OF UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS YIELD YIELDED A WELL-BALANCED MIX OF MANY LAND USE DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP.
THE MOST DENSELY DEVELOPED PART OF THE TOWNSHIP IS APPROPRIATELY LOCATED ON MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS NEAR AN INTERCHANGE PRIMARILY OF 4 22.
WE ALSO PROVIDE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A MAJOR REGIONAL SHOPPING DISTRICT KNOWN AS PROVIDENCE TOWN CENTER.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING DOES NOT SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'LL HAVE A TREMENDOUS NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THIS AREA.
OVERLOADING THE RURAL ROAD SYSTEM, INCREASING SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE TOWNSHIP, IMPACTING THE AESTHETIC AND RECREATION OF THE SCHULE RIVER CORRIDOR, POTENTIALLY BURDENING, BURDENING THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND ULTIMATELY INCREASING OUR TAXES.
THIS AMENDMENT HAS ONE BENEFACTOR AND THAT IS THE DEVELOPER.
THE CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY ARE PROPERLY APPLIED AND ADHERED TO WILL HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON THIS PRISTINE RURAL PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS, HELPING TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER BROKER.
UH, YOU KNOW, UH, MR. BRESNAN HAD MENTIONED R ONE AS A POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT THERE, AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT R ONE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE UNIT PER ACRE.
IF, IF WE HAD ONE UNIT PER ACRE, WE'D BE LOOKING AT WHAT 170 UNITS.
AND IF THE DEVELOPER WERE TO CLUSTER THOSE, WHICH I WOULD GUESS HE WOULD PREFER TO BECAUSE OF THE COST OF CURBS AND SIDEWALKS AND BLACKTOP AND GAS LINES AND SEWER LINES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, WE WOULD HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
SO WHY, WHEN THE WHOLE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AROUND PARKHOUSE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS R ONE, WHY DO WE WANT TO ALLOW SOMETHING AROUND FOUR UNITS PER ACRE? OW.
SO, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, UM, THE FIRST GENTLEMAN SPOKE AWESOMELY.
UM, HE COVERED A LOT OF MY POINTS, SO I'LL BYPASS A LOT OF WHAT I WANTED TO SAY OTHER THAN I STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY, UM, ZONING CHANGES.
I DO RESPECT THE BUILDER'S, RIGHT TO BILL ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCES, WHICH HE HAD CLEAR VISIBILITY TO WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE.
[01:20:01]
THINK THIS GUY'S A SCUMBAG, TO BE HONEST.I HOPE I DON'T GET IN A LITTLE TROUBLE FOR SAYING THAT, BUT, UM, I THINK HE'S BEEN VERY DISHONEST BECAUSE HE'S HIS FIRST PLAN.
BACK TO THAT BEAUTIFUL WILLIAMSBURG THING, SHOWED HIS TRUE INTENTION, HE WANTED RESIDENTIAL, HE GOT PUSHED BACK.
SO HE CAME BACK WITH THIS OBNOXIOUS 1200 SOME UNIT PLAN THAT HE KNEW WOULD GET REJECTED, BASICALLY FORCING US TO DO EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED, WHICH IS TO COMPROMISE AND GIVE HIM WHAT HE WANTS.
OKAY? SO HAVING SAID THAT, WE'LL RAMBLE, I JUST WANNA SAY, UM, HONESTLY, I'LL REMIND ALL YOU GUYS, UM, AND
I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CHOOSE TO HONOR THESE, THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK IS, ANYBODY THAT VOTES IN FAVOR OF THIS TO PLEASE STATE CLEARLY WHAT YOUR NUMBER ONE REASON IS FOR VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE OR, YOU KNOW, AMENDMENT.
AND SECOND, GO ON RECORD TO SAY THAT YOU PERSONALLY WON'T DERIVE NO PERSONAL BENEFITS BY UH, VOTING BOARD.
CHIEF, I DON'T KNOW YOU, UH, BUT THANK FOR WHAT YOU DO.
UM, I, I HEARD WHAT A LOT OF THE, THE RESIDENTS SAID TODAY, AND YOU MAKE A LOT OF GREAT POINTS, OKAY? UM, AND TO THE PARK HOUSE.
OKAY? THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE FOR, JOE.
JUST LIKE THE TOTALLY FULL PROJECT.
LAST TIME YOU TRIED TO SICK THE POLICE ON ME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
OKAY? UM, I CARE ABOUT MY COMMUNITY, OKAY? THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY.
OKAY? I CARE ABOUT THE POLICE, I CARE ABOUT OUR RESIDENTS, I CARE ABOUT OUR TAXPAYERS.
OKAY? THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS, NOT THE BIG DEVELOPER.
OKAY? THE BIG DEVELOPER IS FRIENDS WITH JOSH SHAPIRO.
OKAY? HIS DAD'S A DOCTOR, OKAY? THESE GUYS HAVE TIES TO THAT, OKAY? SO THAT THEIR NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE PARKHOUSE MOVES FORWARD.
YOU DID NOT SEE MR. BRENAN LIST, MR. SHAPIRO, IN ANY OF HIS DOCUMENTS.
OKAY? SO I'M GONNA READ SOMETHING AND I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT MY SITUATION.
THERE'S STUFF FLOATING AROUND THE ROOM.
AS MR. BRES SAID EARLIER TODAY.
PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OPINIONS OF THEM.
THESE AREN'T MY OPINIONS, THESE ARE FACTS.
OKAY? SO THERE'S REPRESENTATIVES IN HERE FROM TOLL BROTHERS, JUST LIKE THE, THE DEVELOPER FROM, UH, THE, THE PARK HOUSE, OKAY? THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU, OKAY? THEY'RE ABOUT THEIR BOTTOM LINE, THE METRICS.
AND IF IT INVOLVES BREAKING ZONING AN ORDINANCE AND NOT INSPECTING PROPERTIES, THIS SHOULD BE THE CASE STUDY IN UPPER PROVINCE TOWNSHIP.
I WENT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OKAY? 'CAUSE I UNCOVERED A SCALABLE AMOUNT OF FRAUD THAT AFFECTS THIS TOWNSHIP, OKAY? AND ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN THAT WENT TO THE SEC USED TO WORK WITH A GENTLEMAN SITTING OVER HERE FOR TOLL BROTHERS.
OKAY? BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
SO I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THE SHOPPING CART OF THEORY AS YOUR LAUGH, JOE.
THE SHOPPING CART IS THE ULTIMATE LITUS TEST FOR WHETHER A PERSON IS CAPABLE OF SELF-GOVERNING.
OKAY? SO RETURN A SHOPPING CART IS EASY, IT'S CONVENIENT.
TASK ONE, WHICH WE ALL RECOGNIZE AS TO BE THE CORRECT, APPROPRIATE THING TO DO TO RETURN HER SHOPPING CART IS OBJECTIVELY RIGHT.
THERE ARE NO SITUATIONS OTHER THAN DIRE EMERGENCIES IN WHICH A PERSON IS NOT ABLE TO RETURN HER CAR SIMULTANEOUSLY, IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ABANDON YOUR SHOPPING CART, OKAY? THEREFORE, THE SHOPPING CART PRESENTS ITSELF AS THE APEX EXAMPLE.
WHETHER A PERSON WILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO DO IT.
NO ONE WILL PUNISH YOU FOR NOT RETURNING THE SHOPPING CART.
NO ONE WILL FIND YOU OR KILL YOU FOR NOT RETURNING THE SHOPPING CART.
YOU GAIN NOTHING BY RETURNING THE SHOPPING CART.
YOU MUST RETURN THE SHOPPING CART OUT OF GOODNESS OF YOUR OWN HEART, OKAY? YOU MUST RETURN THE SHOPPING CART 'CAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
A PERSON WHO'S UNABLE TO DO THIS IS NO BETTER THAN AN ANIMAL, AN ABSOLUTE SAVAGE WHO CAN ONLY BE MADE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT BY THREATENING WITH THE LAW AND THE FORCE THAT STANDS BEHIND HIM.
JOE, THE SHOPPING CART IS WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER A PERSON IS GOOD OR A BAD MEMBER OF SOCIETY.
AND JOE, YOU'RE A BAD PERSON, EXCUSE ME, SAYS, THANK YOU.
AND YOU SHOULD BE LIKE RESIGN.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, UH, WELCOME NEW SUPERVISORS.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MEETING AND, UH, FOR
[01:25:01]
THE BOARD OF 2024, WE'VE GOT SOME WORK TO DO, UM, AS RAY SAID, AND I'M NOT GONNA, UH, YOU KNOW, REITERATE MANY OF THE TOPIC POINTS TONIGHT, BUT I AM GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT.AND AGAIN, MR. BRESNAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INVITING THE, OUR CAST FRIENDS ADVOCACY GROUP FOR INVITATION MEETING TO HEAR A WEEK AGO WHAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT.
I ONLY WISH WE WOULD'VE HAD MORE TIME TO KIND TAKE IN ALL OF THIS, UM, OVER THE COURSE OF TIME.
BUT I UNDERSTAND NEGOTIATIONS HAPPEN.
I'M A PROFESSIONAL THAT I HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THINGS WITH OTHER PROFESSIONALS ALL THE TIME.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT.
SO I RECOGNIZE THAT THE, THE DILEMMA THAT WE ARE FACED WITH IS WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING DEVELOPED THERE.
OKAY? THIS DEVELOPER BOUGHT A, A PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED SPECIFICALLY AND HAS BEEN ZONED SPECIFICALLY FOR OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY.
ALL WE'RE ASKING IS SHOW US THE FACTS THEN OF HOW YOU WOULD DEVELOP ON THAT.
AND I THINK MR. WELLING HAS INDICATED THAT THE ORIGINAL FACTS OF WHAT THAT 1203 PLAN, IT WAS NEVER FEASIBLE TO GET WITH FROM THE BEGINNING.
THE BUSINESS MODEL IS NOT FEASIBLE.
NOW, I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT TOWNSHIPS DO.
THEY DON'T SCRUTINIZE THE BUSINESS MODEL.
YOU HOPE THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME DEVELOPMENT, IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY, IT'S GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SAFETY, HEALTH WELFARE WITH THE COMMUNITY.
BUT WHAT WE WERE SEEING BEFORE WAS THIS HORRIBLE PLAN.
THE QUESTION IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT CAN WE TAKE THAT DEVELOPER BACK? WHEN WE SAY WE'RE GONNA VET A NEW PROCESS, IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE WE PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
WE'RE CREATING A NEW ZONING PROCESS SO THAT HE CAN BACK INTO IT.
WHEN IN FACT WE SHOULD HAVE FROM, I THINK, AGAIN, MR. BRESNAN, YOU'VE RESPONDED TO ALL THESE ISSUES ABOUT THE APPRAISAL, THE OPEN SPACE REFERENDUM, THE DONATIONS FOR THE TAX BREAKS, THE SCHOOL IMPACT.
THE ONE THING THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY RESPOND TO WAS OUR OWN ZONING AND BUY, RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M CHALLENGING AS REQUEST THAT WE LOOK AT IS LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL ZONING DEFINITION, THE BUY RIGHT.
LET'S TAKE THEM TO CONDITIONAL USE.
LET THEM SHOW WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY.
IF IT IS 1,203, IT'S 1,203, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP.
NOW, I'M NOT A BETTING PERSON.
PEOPLE MIGHT, YOU KNOW, GET ME OUT OF THE COMMUNITY IF I, IF THIS ACTUALLY COMES TO BE, BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO, TO GO WITH THE PROCESS.
SO TO THE, TO THE BOARD, LET THE PROCESS UNFOLD THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO.
IF I CHANGE PLANS TO MEET WITH THE, THE, THE DEVELOPERS OR TO MY, MY BUSINESS PARTNERS AHEAD OF TIME, THAT REALLY IS A KIND OF A BIASED KIND OF BACKDOOR KIND OF SETUP.
AND THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK.
THE ONLY THE ONLY THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, BUT AT, AT THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE FEASIBILITY OR EVEN HOW THEY WOULD NECESSARILY ENGINEER THE UNITS.
I THINK YOU'RE SAYING YES, BUT THEY DO HAVE THE BURDEN OF, I I MEAN, IF, IF EVERYBODY, LIKE I'M, AND I'M HOPING THIS ALSO HELPS WITH OTHER PEOPLE MAKING COMMENTS, NOT TO CUT ANYBODY OFF, BUT I, WHAT I'M SORT OF HEARING IS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THEY WANT TO MAKE THEM, MAKE THEM FIGHT FOR IT.
AND THAT'S FINE AS LONG AS THE, THAT AT THE BACK END, IF THEY WIN AND IT'S 1203, THAT YOU REALLY FIND THAT EVERYBODY IS FINE AT 1203 BECAUSE AS LONG AS YOU MADE 'EM FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE WHO, WHO WOULD SAY I'D RATHER GET SOMETHING BETTER FOR MY COMMUNITY THAN THAT BECAUSE IT IS GONNA BE HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE THING ABOUT MAKING THEM FIGHT AND NOT GIVING THEM THE EASY WIN, BUT THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS THAT WE WERE OVERWHELMED WITH WAS, PLEASE, PLEASE GET US OUT OF THIS AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER.
WE DIDN'T JUST DECIDE TO DO IT OF OUR OWN.
SO, SO IN THE END, THE ZONING STAYS THE SAME AND YOU NEGOTIATE A DEAL.
NEGOTIATED ZONING, THAT IS HOW IT WOULD GO.
THE ZONING IS IN PLACE, THEIR APPLICATION IS PENDING WHILE IT'S PENDING WE, OR NEGOTIATING SOMETHING, YOU MEAN, YOU MEAN WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE HEARING AND HOPE YOU PREVAIL AND THEN NEGOTIATE HARDER BECAUSE YOU WON.
[01:30:01]
YOU LOSE, THEY'LL NEGOTIATE HARDER.SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS ZONING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TEAR UP THE OTHER, THE ONLY OTHER THING, AND, AND MR. BREMOND, YOU HAVE MADE, UM, QUITE CLEAR THAT THERE IS MISTRUST IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR YOU.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO, TO HOW I PERSONALLY FEEL.
THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT THERE HAS, THERE HAS BEEN CLEAR FOR THE LAST 12, 14 MONTHS STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PUBLIC ROOM WHERE THERE HAS BEEN BIAS BY ALL OF US.
BRING IN AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY, HAVE SOMEBODY GIVE US AN OPINION, THIS IS ATTORNEY OTHER THAN THE SECOND OPINION THAT MR. BRANDT HAD GIVEN, BRING IN AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY AND JUST HAVE THEM LOOK AT OUR ZONING AND THIS APPLICATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
THERE WILL, OKAY, THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.
BUT THERE WILL BE A SECOND ATTORNEY PRESENTING EVIDENCE.
SO THERE IS ANOTHER ATTORNEY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.
AS FAR AS YOUR LACK OF, UH, FAITH IN ME, I, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE UNDERPINNINGS OF IT HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE BASIS IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.
I'M NOT YOUR LAWYER, I'M NOT THE CITIZEN'S LAWYER.
YOU SAY YOU HAVE NO FAITH IN ME IS LIKE A DIVORCE IN WHICH THE HUSBAND SAYS HE DOESN'T TRUST THE WIFE'S LAWYER, SO SHE HAS TO GO GET ANOTHER ONE.
IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
I UNDER I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I'VE TRIED TO RESPOND TO IT AND I MADE EVERYTHING AS OPEN TO YOU AS I COULD TO DIVERT IT.
YOU STILL HAVE THE OPINION, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IT, BUT WE'RE MOVING ON.
LET'S FOCUS ON THE ORDINANCE AND, AND, AND I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS, IS WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR A SECOND OPINION OF THE PEOPLE TRUST JACK? OKAY.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE, BUT MY THING IS LIKE, SO YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU WANNA CHANGE THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE NEGOTIATING WITH THE DEVELOPER.
AND I GET THAT I THINK THAT THAT WAS A SMART DECISION ON YOUR PART.
AND IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE FAITH IN YOU, I DON'T HAVE FAITH IN HIM.
HE SAID WHEN HE BOUGHT THE LAND, IT'S A QUOTE FROM A ARTICLE THAT HE SAID THE LAND RESTRICTIONS PUT IN PLACE.
WE ARE FINE WITH THAT SAID, MID ATLANTIC, CEO SCOTT KIN, WE HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WE ARE NOT LAND DEVELOPERS.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WHEN HE BOUGHT THE LAND, THEY PUT IN RESTRICTIONS FOR FIVE YEARS THAT HE COULDN'T DO CERTAIN THINGS WITHOUT ASKING HIM LIKE THE BOY OF IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH MAKES SENSE.
IT WAS FIVE YEARS, LESS THAN 10 YEARS AFTER BUYING IT, AND LESS THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FIVE YEARS ENDED, HE TRIED TO DEVELOP IT.
IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN A DECADE, BUT HE'S, BUT HE'S OWNED ATLANTA FOR A THIRD OF MY LIFE.
HE OWNED IT TO THE 14, BUT HE ONLY, HE ONLY TOOK LIKE SEVEN YEARS.
HE TOOK TWO YEARS AFTER HE WAS ALLOWED TO DECIDE IF HE WANTED TO DEVELOP IT.
SO AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIM SOMETHING LESS, SOMETHING MORE, AND WHY, I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.
SOME OF THE STUFF IN THIS WOULDN'T HELP BUT THIS, UM, NO TRAFFIC STUDY THERE IS NOT YET, BUT IT'S PREPARED.
IT'S NOT ANYMORE, BUT IT DOES, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY.
SO DID HE ALREADY, SO HE ALREADY DID A TRAFFIC STUDY? YES.
HE'S WAITING TO PLUG IN THE NUMBERS.
THAT WOULD BE FROM THE FINAL ORDINANCE, BUT YES.
SO, AND THEN LIKE MY QUESTION, SO WOULD HE BE IN CHARGE OF FIXING THE ROAD OR IS THAT YOUR JOB? WHO'S GONNA FIX THE BRIDGE? WHERE'S ALL THE TRAFFIC GONNA GO? LIKE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT LIKE YOU WANTED SOMETHING BETTER AND IT IS BETTER.
IT DOES CONSERVE MORE OPEN SPACE.
BUT YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT HE IS HONEST IN HIS OPINION AND HONEST IN WHAT HE SHOWED YOU.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE THAT FAITH IN HIM BECAUSE WHEN HE BOUGHT IT, HE SAID THEY WEREN'T LAND DEVELOPERS AND IT TOOK HIM LESS THAN 10 YEARS TO DECIDE, OH YEAH, LET'S DEVELOP IT.
SO AS MUCH AS I HAVE FAITH IN YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU PUT IN AND THAT, LIKE, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU ARE A BAD PERSON.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE DISHONEST.
[01:35:02]
YOU KNOW, AND IT IS BETTER.BUT LIKE YOU TRIED WITH SOMEONE WHO I DON'T NECESSARILY TRUST TO BE IN WITH.
SO I TOLD YOU I APPRECIATE IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT ACTUALLY HELPS.
ALL RIGHT, SO FIRST OF ALL, UM, I MEAN SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
UM, MY FIRST MEETING THAT I'VE ATTENDED, IT WAS CERTAINLY VERY HELPFUL AND INFORMATIVE TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY AND THE PERSPECTIVE.
UM, THIS CAME, BUT I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE FIGHT AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, JUST RIGHT NOW, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE FIGHTING.
IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS
AND YOU KNOW, I I LOOK AT THE MAP OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND SOMEBODY BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER
AND YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THAT AND I SAY, WHAT IS IT THAT BROUGHT ALL OF US TO UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP? WHAT DO WE WANT THIS TOWNSHIP TO LOOK LIKE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND FOR THEIR CHILDREN? YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO RECREATE THE EYES SOURCE OF THOSE HIDEOUS BUILDINGS WE SEE COMING UP ALONG 4 22 NEAR KING OF PRUSSIA AND NOW NEAR WEGMANS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY LOOK LIKE THE SOVIETS DESIGNED TO BACK UP
UM, I CERTAINLY DON'T ENVY YOUR JOBS AT ALL.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THE PLATFORM YOU RAN ON, SOME OF YOU KNOCKED ON MY DOOR.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS WAS ABOUT HAVING THAT FIGHT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO NOW YOU, YOU YOU ARE ALL GATE.
YOU HAVE TO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AND NOT A FINANCIAL SPECULATOR WITH NO CONNECTIONS TO THIS AREA OTHER THAN HOW MUCH MONEY CAN I MAKE OFF OF YOUTH SUCKERS
AND I DON'T KNOW IF OR NOT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PAPER, MAYBE IT'S NOT, I'M HEARING MIXED MESSAGES.
UM, BUT IF, IF THIS HAS RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES, YOU'RE GONNA BE IN A REALLY HARD SPOT WHEN SOMEBODY ASKS YOU, WELL, WHAT ARE WE HIDING
UM, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WAS MENTIONED.
HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE ZONING WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IF HE FAILED TO DO HIS DUE DILIGENCE.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IF HE CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT WITHOUT ZONING RELIEF AND EXEMPTION FROM IMPACT STUDIES AND THIS AND THAT, YOU KNOW, HE CAN DONATE THE LAND TO THE OPEN SPACE CONSERVATIVE SEAT, TAKE A TAX WRITE OFF, HAVE A NICE LIFE.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, DO WE WANT TO LOOK LIKE KING PRESSURE NORRISTOWN OR DO WE WANT LOOK LIKE THE UPPER PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY WE ALL CHOSE TO MOVE TO WITHIN? SO I'M SURE YOU'LL ALL LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE THAT YOU RAN ON.
MAYBE THE LAW PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING THAT.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, MAYBE MAKE A STATEMENT AND JUST DISSOLVE THE WHOLE, UH, SUPERVISOR BOARD AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE NOW OWNED BY, UH, BIG DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY DO OUR ZONING FOR US.
SO, UH, BUT AGAIN, THE KEY MESSAGE IS, UH, PLEASE FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
CLINTON JACKSON, UM, MIKE KAJA, K-A-J-A-L-E.
CAN YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME FOR ME? MIKE KJA.
AND FOR US, WELCOME MS. SADLER.
WE TRUST THE FIVE OF YOU TO REPRESENT US THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE, AND WE TRUSTED OUR MONTGOMERY COUNTY SOLICITOR BACK IN 2013 THAT ONLY 15 ACRES OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPED.
AND I WILL QUOTE, IF ANY DEVELOPMENT EVER HAPPENS THERE, UPPER PROVIDENCE IS IN 100% CONTROL OF THE PROCESS.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY SOLICITOR, RAYMOND MAGAR, OR MAGAR, SORRY, ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN ELECTED FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
BIOS ON THE, UM, TOWNSHIP WEBSITE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MS. SADLER.
SO, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT YOU, BUT AGAIN, WELCOME.
[01:40:01]
BILL STAR QUOTE.AS A TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR, BILL'S FOCUS IS ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INCLUDING IMPROVING EMERGENCY SERVICES AND UPGRADING ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS.
HE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PROVIDE MORE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TACKLING THESE ISSUES REQUIRING, WHICH REQUIRES SPEND IN TAX DOLLARS WISELY AND FRUGALLY ONE 13 IS A STATE ROUTE.
IT HAS BEEN DISREPAIR FOR OVER A DECADE.
OUR SINGLE LANE BRIDGE HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH 2D UI ACCIDENTS.
NOW THERE'S FOUR CONCRETE BALLARDS HOLDING UP ONE WALL.
WHERE'S THE COUNTY MONIES? WHERE'S THE STATE MON MR. TOM YEAGER? AGAIN, ALSO WELCOME TOM YEAGER'S INTERESTS ARE IN SERVING THE TOWNSHIP TO USE HIS LEADERSHIP SKILLS, BUSINESS RELATED SKILLS TO HELP MANAGE THE TOWNSHIP'S REVENUES IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS, AND FOCUS ON KEEPING THEM SAFE BY SUPPORTING OUR STATE-OF-THE-ART EMERGENCY SERVICES, FOCUSING ON SMART GROWTH WHILE PROTECTING OUR OPEN SPACES AND KEEPING OUR TAXES.
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE WITH YOU, TOM.
I'VE LIVED IN THIS TOWNSHIP FOR 11 YEARS.
MY TAXES ARE $400 MORE PER MONTH THAN WHEN I MOVED INTO MY HOME WITHOUT ANY PERMANENT RENOVATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SHED, WHICH INCREASED IN A $75 TAX BURDEN PER YEAR.
I LOVE OUR NEW FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT IN SINK, WHERE'S THE STORM? WATER MANAGEMENT ON ONE 13 SECOND AVENUE, YEAGER OLD STATE.
ALL THESE ROADS ARE GONNA BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT.
CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS ARE REGULATED AND THERE'S A SERIES OF WAIVER REQUESTS THAT CAN BE PUT IN PLACE.
NONE OF THESE WAIVERS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO US, SHARED WITH US, AND A MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC IS GONNA BE COMING ON THE ONE 13.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT YOU REFERENCED, MR. RESIDENT.
THE WAIVER WAIVERS ARE FOR THES ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD THAT COMES AFTER THE CONDITION USE.
BUT YOU STATED THAT THEY WERE ALREADY COMPLETED OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
I HAVEN'T STATED THEY YOU STATED THAT YOU ALSO STATED ABOUT LAWYERS.
YOU SAID THEY WERE WAITING FOR HIM TO PLUG THE NUMBERS.
WAIT, LET, LET JOE, HE, HE, HE, MY TIME IS RUNNING.
WELL, WE'LL GIVE YOU 10 SECONDS.
HE SAID HE HAS A TRAFFIC STUDY READY TO GO, EXCEPT THAT HE HAS TO PLUG IN THE FINAL NUMBERS DEPENDING ON HOW THE ORDINANCE TURNED OUT.
BUT THE REST OF IT IS ALREADY DONE.
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT ALREADY SHARED.
KELLY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENT EXECUTION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR CURRENT FOCUS AREAS INCLUDE ADVOCATING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE, FOSTERING TRANSPARENCY, AND PROMOTING UNITY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
IT IS YOUR SEVENTH DAY POSITION.
I TRUST THAT YOU ARE GONNA HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYERS HERE, BUT NOT BE SINGLE TAXPAYER FOR THE REMAINING 170 ACRES THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED BY MR. SCOTT RIFKIN.
I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN TO MR. RIFKIN.
HE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS PROJECT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS AMBER GRU AND MAXWELL MULLIN LUPIN IS ANOTHER STORY.
THEY'RE PUSHING AND ADVOCATING FOR THE MOST DENSE POSSIBLE DIRECTION THEY CAN.
MR. RIFKIN FREQUENTLY IN SAN DIEGO AND SAN FRANCISCO WITH HIS GRANDCHILDREN.
AGAIN, I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN WITH HIM.
HE'S NOT AWARE OF THE EXTENT OF THIS PROJECT.
HE'S NOT, HE'S NOT IN CONTROL OF THAT LLC ANYMORE.
HE'S NOT THE CONTROLLING MEMBER OF THAT LLC ANYMORE.
AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF TAXPAYERS THAT ARE TRUST IN FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO REPRESENT US.
AND WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
THANK YOU THAT THE LAST, LAST COMMENT WELL OVER WHEN MR. SHAPIRO RAN FOR GOVERNOR, HIS PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT MR. RIFKIN CONTRIBUTED TO THAT CAMPAIGN.
BEFORE THIS PERSON MAKES A COMMENT, I JUST WANNA ADD THE VERY, THE WHOLE REASON THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED WAS BASED ON THE PEOPLE A YEAR AGO WHO SAID, DO SOMETHING SO THAT IT'S NOT THIS.
A LOT OF PEOPLE APPROACHED ME WITH THAT.
DO, LET'S FIND SOMETHING ELSE.
IF EVERYBODY HAD SAID A YEAR AGO AS THEY'RE SAYING NOW, MAKE 'EM GO THROUGH THE HEARING AND DON'T MAKE A COUNTER OFFER.
I WOULD NOT TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING THE THE TARGET HAS MOVED A LITTLE BIT.
I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE ORDINANCE WAS PREPARED, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT.
IT WAS PREPARED BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE SAID, HELP US WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AND YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEADS.
I'M TELLING YOU PEOPLE HAVE, THEY CAME UP TO HERE, THEY CALLED.
SO THE, SO THE ORDINANCE WASN'T DRAFTED OUT OF AN INTENT TO HELP THE
[01:45:01]
DEVELOPER OR, OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER KIND OF MOTIVE.IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE WERE BEING ASKED TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT, UH, OPTION.
AND THAT'S WHY THE LETTER WAS SENT.
THANKS, MARLENE LASKA, UM, 1142 EGYPT ROAD.
UM, I'M BRINGING UP THE, THE END, UM, SO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO HOPEFULLY I CAN, UH, I CAN DO IT.
WELL
UM, FIRST WANT TO THANK THE, UM, TOWNSHIP SOLICITOR, TOWNSHIP MANAGER, THE TOWNSHIP PLANNING, UH, COMMITTEE COMMISSION FOR DOING A GOOD JOB IN, IN WORKING TO FIND A WIN-WIN SOLUTION, UM, FOR UPPER PROVIDENCE AND HIS RESIDENTS RELATIVE TO PARK HOUSE.
SIGNIFICANT WORK HAS BEEN DONE FOR WHICH I, AND HOPEFULLY ALL RESIDENTS ARE APPRECIATIVE AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, TWO OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE CONTINUE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION, WHICH ALLOWS BERMAN INTEL, UH, UH, TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR PLAN TO USE THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY, UH, DISTRICT IN TO PROPOSE A, UH, 1203 UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, WHICH IS CONDITIONALLY ALLOW PER ORDINANCE OR TO APPROVE THE UPDATE OF THE OSS TWO OSS R TO OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, UH, ORDINANCE AND LET BERMAN ATEL DEVELOP A CONVENTIONAL RESIDENT, UH, RE AS CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTS.
UH, APPROXIMATELY HALF THE UNITS SUBMITTED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION WITH THE UNITS NOT BEING TIED TO ANY SORT OF HEALTHCARE OR ANY CONDITIONAL USE.
UH, FOR ME, THE BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT IS THE FOCUS ON SCHEDULING A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING SO THAT BOTH THE TOWNSHIP AND THE RESIDENTS CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND FOR WHERE THE APPLICANT IS COMING.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT BOTH THE FEAR OF A HEARING AND THE FEAR OF LITIGATION ARE GROSSLY MISGUIDED.
THE REASON A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING IS IN THE CODE IS TO GIVE BOTH THE TOWNSHIP AND THE RESIDENTS THE ABILITY TO, TO HEAR, TO LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT'S PLANS TO NEGOTIATE AND TO OFFER CONSTRUCTIVE OPTIONS.
THE TOWNSHIP, THE RESIDENTS, AND THE APPLICANTS ALL HAVE VESTED INTEREST.
NO ONE WANTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE ORDINANCES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
ALSO, THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS PREMATURE.
UM, THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION WAS FILED IN MAY OF TWO, UH, 2022.
AND ACCORDING TO SECTION 1, 80 10 0.2 4, 2 40 A, THE BOS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SH SHALL SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING OR SET APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS.
EVEN THOUGH WE DO APPRECIATE THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO MINIMIZE, TO MAXIMIZE OPEN SPACE BY POTENTIALLY REZONING THE, THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FEWER UNITS SET FORTH IN THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.
HAVING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WITH CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS WOULD ALLOW POTENTIALLY THAT THAT WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING WOULD HAVE ALLOWED, POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT LESS TIME.
ALSO, THE CODE HAS NO LIMITS AS TO THE NUMBER OF HEARINGS THAT CAN BE HAD ON, ON TOPIC.
THERE COULD BE AS MANY AS NEEDED BEFORE A BOS RULING.
LASTLY, GOING STRAIGHT TO A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE HAS LONG TERM REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE REMOVAL OF A TRAFFIC STUDY AND COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY, ALLOWING OVERALL HIGHER DENSITY, INCLUDING HIGHER HEIGHT, WHICH MOST EGREGIOUSLY TAKE AWAY.
WALL, WALL SLASH OPEN SPACE LOOK AND FEEL TIME.
I I JUST HAVE ONE, ONE LAST PARAGRAPH.
UH, THE RECO IS, IS THE SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONAL USE HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND NOT JUMP TO AN ORDINANCE CHANGE THAT WILL HAVE LASTING IMPACTS ON THE FABRIC OF
[01:50:01]
OPERA PROVIDENCE.AS NEGOTIATIONS PROCEED, THERE ARE CERTAIN TO BE OPPORTUNITIES TO COMPROMISE.
BELIEVE THE UPPER PROVIDENCE IS PRESUPPOSING THE OUTCOME OF COULD GET ADDITIONAL USE HEARING.
AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE ASSUMES.
LET'S SCHEDULE THE HEARING AND SEE WHAT COMPROMISES CAN BE MADE.
JOE HANEY,
I WISH UPPER PROVIDENCE IS STILL LIKE IT WAS WHEN I MOVED HERE IN 2001 BEFORE ALL OF THE TOLL BROTHERS DEVELOPMENTS, GABO DEVELOPMENTS, WHITE SPRINGS, WEGMANS, POPE, JOHN PAUL, WHERE MANY PEOPLE LIVE.
I WISH THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT, BUT HERE WE ARE.
I SAY IT AS FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
I SAY THAT'S THE ORDINANCE CHANGE.
GO TO PLANNING WHERE IT CAN BE VETTED OUT TO THE BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO.
ONLY THEN WILL WE HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT WE ARE SAYING NO TO TILL IF THE PLAN IS THEN INSUFFICIENT, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THEN CAN VOTE NO ON THE ORDINANCE CHANGE AND WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE, IF WE VOTE NO NOW, THEN IT WILL COST TAXPAYER MONEY.
THE COURT WILL DECIDE AND TELL THE DEVELOPER WHAT HE CAN DO.
WE WILL HAVE LESS LEVERAGE WHITE CUT OUR OPTION SHORT.
NOW WHEN WE HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.
FOR ME A WIN IS NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE NATURAL LANDS TRUST.
GREEN AREAS FOR ME, A WIN IS THE NATURAL LAND TRUST.
GREEN AREAS BECOME TOWNSHIP PROPERTY CHANGE OF DEEDED.
NO MORE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT, ON THOSE ON THAT PROPERTY.
I EXPECT THE TOWNSHIP STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS TO BE TOUGH NEGOTIATORS DRIVE A HARD BARGAIN AND BRING THE BEST POSSIBLE PLAN BACK TO US FOR A VOTE.
I KNOW IT'S VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
I ELECTED YOU GUYS TO MAKE THE TOUGH CALLS, NOT TO TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT.
BE THE LEADERS WE ELECTED YOU TO BE.
NOT TO BE CONVENIENTLY TAKEN BY THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.
SAYING NO AT THIS JUNCTION IS NOT LEADERSHIP.
WE'VE COME TO THE END OF OUR, OF OUR UH, THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP.
IS THERE ANY OTHER, DO YOU EVER FROM NOW ON I WILL NEED PEOPLE'S ADDRESSES.
PRIOR TO THAT I DIDN'T, BUT I DO NEED YOURS SIR.
JAMES HOFFMAN, 1199 SECOND AVENUE, RIGHT ON THE CORNER, UH, OLD STATE ROAD AND SECOND AVENUE.
MATTER OF FACT, MY DRIVEWAY WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE OTHER END OF OLD STATE ROAD.
UM, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1999.
MY FIRST, UH, KNOWLEDGE OF THIS TOWNSHIP STARTED MUCH, MUCH EARLIER WITH THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT WAS STERLING PHARMACEUTICAL, WHICH IS NOW GSK BROOK ELEMENTARY.
I WAS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES THAT BUILT SOME OF THOSE THINGS IS UM, WHAT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY AND I THINK WHAT I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE WOULD SAY IS LET'S MAKE THESE GUYS GO FOR THE 1200 UNITS.
OH GOD, LET'S FORCE THEM TO MAKE IT HAPPEN FINANCIALLY.
THEY'RE GONNA WANT TO CHANGE IT.
THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO US AND MAKE CONCESSIONS.
[01:55:01]
NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO DO THIS OR WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEVELOPMENT.SOMETHING'S GONNA HAPPEN THERE.
WE WE'RE LOOKING AT IS HOW MUCH MONEY WE, THE PEOPLE OF THIS TOWNSHIP ARE WILLING TO SPEND VERSUS THE MONEY THAT THE DEVELOPERS HAVE AND WHO'S GONNA WIN.
COMPROMISE ONLY IS COMING BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANNA SPEND THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
IS IT GONNA BE US OR IS IT GONNA BE DONE? I SAY, LET'S GO FOR THE 1200, LET'S GO FOR BROKE.
IF WE GET 1200, SO BE IT TO THE SPOILS, GO THE VICTOR, LET'S FIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE? I AM HELEN HOLLAND.
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS.
HOW DID IT GET TO A ZONING WARDENS CHANGE? DO YOU DO THAT FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT? PARDON? THAT'S WHY 22.
BUT HAVING IT, UH, TAKEN AWAY CONDITION, UH, TRAFFIC IMPACT AND COMMUNITY IMPACT, DON'T WE DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT BEFORE? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT'S IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT AS FAR AS AN IMPACT.
I THINK THAT CAME OUT WHEN WE REMOVED THE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND THAT WAS POINTED OUT BY A COUPLE PEOPLE THAT IT NEEDED TO BE ADDED BACK INTO THE ORDINANCE AND THE DEVELOPER AGREES WITH THAT AND HAS ALREADY START, DID THEIR, UH, TRAFFIC STUDY.
AND THE DEVELOPER ARE ONE OFF THE TABLE AND THEN WE GO BACK TO WHAT HE IS ALLOWED TO DO.
I LET HIM PLAY, PUT BALL ON HIS COURT.
I HOPE IT DOESN'T COME, YOU KNOW, TO THAT, BUT I CERTAINLY COULDN'T SEE THIS AS WRITTEN.
WHO DID WHAT BARB? UH, IT WAS A COMBINATION OF ME, JEFF, MR. MULLIN.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, UM, I THINK I'M GONNA PUT THIS MOTION FORWARD.
UM, DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE IT? IT'S ACTUALLY NUMBER FOUR BUSINESS.
ITS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN VOTE AGAINST IT? I THINK SO.
YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST IT OR VOTE.
NOTED THAT MOTION AS EXPORTED THE MOTION? NO, THE MOTION AS IT'S WRITTEN AND I WILL SAY IT IS TO EITHER VOTE TO SEND IT TO PLANNING COMMISSION OR NOT.
RIGHT? IT'S TO CONSIDER FORWARDING A SO I WILL, I WILL RAISE THE VOTE MOTION TO FORWARD A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL TWO TO THE UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION.
ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, WELL WE NEED A SECOND.
OH, WELL WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I'M SORRY.
OKAY, SO THERE'S THE MOTION AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND UH, SO THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY RESIDENT IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO, I JUST WANT TO HEAR THE REST OF ALL THIS.
[02:00:32]
I ALL RIGHT FOLKS, YOU COULD START THE MEETING AGAIN.SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE CLEAR THE ROOM.
IF YOU'RE DONE, PLEASE CLEAR THE ROOM.
ALRIGHT, SO WE CAN FINISH UP THE MEETING.
THOSE OF YOU IN THE BACK CHATTING AT BACK, BACK DOOR, PLEASE GO IN THE HALLWAY.
WE NEED TO CONDUCT THE REST OF THE BUSINESS PLEASE.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION REPORT]
WE HAD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TONIGHT THAT WAS HELD, UH, PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S MEETINGS.THE TOPICS DISCUSSED FOR FIRST DOWN LITIGATION AND REAL ESTATE.
ALRIGHT, NOW I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO
[APPROVAL OF BILL LIST ]
THE APPROVAL OF THE BILL LIST.I NEED A MOTION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 25TH TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2023 BILL LIST IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,913,567 AND 67 CENTS.
AND IT'S NOTED THAT THIS IS ABNORMALLY VERY HIGH BECAUSE OF, UH, WE HAD AGREED TO FORWARD FEMA MONEY AND THEN ONE FEMA GETS IT BACK, WE'LL, WE'LL REPLENISH IT BACK INTO OUR ACCOUNTS.
SO IT'S AN ABNORMALLY VERY HIGH.
YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PIE CHART HERE, THAT THE 6.5 OF THAT IS ALL FEMA RELATED JUST TO KEEP OUR BILL LISTING CONTENTS.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.AND I THINK WE COULD DO THESE TOGETHER IN ONE MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 4TH, 2023 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AND THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[OLD BUSINESS (ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS) (Part 2 of 2)]
DOWN TO NUMBER FIVE.UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR A MOTION TO APPOINT GERALD FERRARI TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A FOUR YEAR TERM.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT GERARD FIOR AND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A FOUR YEAR ATTORNEY.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
ALRIGHT, SO THE NEXT ONE, NUMBER SIX IS, IT WAS STAFFED INCORRECTLY, LISTED THE WRONG NAME FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND THE JANUARY 2ND.
UM, SO NOW MR. GREEN DID NOT APPLY FOR THIS APPOINTMENT.
DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE THAT OFF? OH, NEXT ONE IS THE MOTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT KEN CAMPBELL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION REPRESENTATIVE
[02:05:01]
FULFILL FULFILLING THE REMAINING TERM THROUGH DECEMBER, 2024.OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALRIGHT, THE NEXT ONE IS TO ADOPT.
IT'S, UH, RESOLUTION 2024 DASH FOUR.
MICHAEL, UH, KEY AS MEMBER OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF FIVE YEAR TERM IS ITCHIO CICIO.
I'LL MAKE IT MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION 2024 DASH OH FOUR APPOINTING MICHAEL CICIO AS A MEMBER OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM.
ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALLERS OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ALRIGHT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT BLAKE WELLING AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE ZONING.
THAT MOTION IS THERE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024 DASH OH FIVE APPOINTING BLAKE WELLING AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE ZONING HEARING BOARD FOR A THREE YEAR TERM.
ALL THIS OPPOSED MOTION, CARRIE.
ALRIGHT, THE NEXT ONE DOWN IS, UH, RESOLUTION 2024 DASH ZERO EIGHT GRANTING FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE TO HOUSE ROAD.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE OWE? UM, SO FOR THE BENEFIT BEFORE ALLISON SAYS ANYTHING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW SUPERVISORS, UM, IN THE, IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THERE'S, THERE'S TENTATIVE APPROVAL, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, AND FINAL APPROVAL.
PRELIMINARY IS REALLY THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IN THE SENSE THAT FINAL IS JUST CONFIRMING ALL THE I WERE DOTTED THAT THEY TOLD THEY HAD TO.IN THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL.
UM, EVERYTHING APPEARS TO BE IN ORDER ON THIS ONE.
ALISON AND Z ON BEHALF OF TOLL BROTHERS.
UM, I KNOW SOME, WE HAVE SOME NEW FACES TONIGHT, SO I'LL JUST GIVE YOU SOME BRIEF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLAN.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY, WE, WE CALL THE ONE SIDE OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD, THE NORTH SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE, THE SOUTH SIDE.
ON THE NORTH SIDE, UM, VALLEY VIEW ROAD IS TO THE NORTH OR WEST I SHOULD SAY.
UM, AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS, UM, POP JOHN PAUL SECOND HIGH SCHOOL ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
UM, SO AS MR. BROON MENTIONED, UM, THIS, THIS PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH, UM, A COUPLE OF APPROVALS.
UM, IT'S PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE CLUSTER OPTION OF THE R TWO WITH 54 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, UM, ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
UM, AND YOU'LL SEE THE PLAN ON THE SCREEN.
UH, YOU'LL SEE RITTENHOUSE ROAD SORT OF BISECTS THE SITE, UM, IN THE MIDDLE THERE.
AND, UM, ON BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES.
THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY ABUTS LAND THAT'S OWNED BY THE TOWNSHIP THAT IS CURRENTLY USED FOR PARKLAND.
SO AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, CONNECTIONS FOR THE TRAIL NETWORK, BOTH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND THEN ALSO ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
UM, YOU'LL SEE THIS VIEW OF THE PLAN IS SORT OF BLOWN OUT AND THAT SHOWS YOU A TRAIL CONNECTION THAT WOULD ALSO BE UTILIZED AS EMERGENCY ACCESS THAT WILL CONNECT DOWN TO SOUTH LEWIS ROAD.
UM, SO WE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS PREVIOUSLY ABOUT ALL THE CONNECTIONS THROUGH THE SITE, UM, AND AS PART OF THAT NETWORK, AND THAT IS STILL BEING PROPOSED, UM, THE ACCESS ON THE SOUTH HAS ALSO BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF, UH, YOUR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
AND THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS REVIEWED THAT AND PROVIDED HIS INPUT ON THAT.
THE OTHER THING I WILL MENTION IS THAT AT THE, UM, INTERSECTION OF TWO OF THE NEW ROADS WITH RITTENHOUSE ROAD, UM, THERE WILL BE A PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK, UM, THAT WILL HAVE A RE A RAPID FLASHING DEACON, UM, ALONG WITH PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS.
UM, THE SUGGESTION OF YOUR TOWNSHIP CONSULTANTS AND DISCUSS PREVIOUSLY, UH, WITH THE TOWNSHIP IS THAT THE HOA WOULD REIMBURSE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT, UM, AND THE, UH, DEVELOPER WOULD ENTER INTO A FORMAL AGREEMENT FOR THAT.
HOWEVER, TOWNSHIP, UM, CONSULTANTS AND STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE HOA NOT ACTUALLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PHYSICAL MAINTENANCE THAT, THAT ACTUALLY BE HANDLED, UM, BY, UH, THE TOWNSHIP FOR I THINK, I THINK GOOD REASONS.
AND THEN THE HOA WOULD REIMBURSE.
UM, THE OTHER THING I WILL MENTION IS THAT, UH, THERE IS, AND IT'S NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, BUT OFFITE AT RITTENHOUSE ROAD AND TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, UM, THERE IS WINDING THAT'S PROPOSED AS WELL AS AN EXTENSION OF THE RIGHT TURN LANE, UH, WHICH BOTH AND THE SIGNAL RETYING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
UH, WE DID RECEIVE, UH, UPDATED REVIEW LETTERS FROM YOUR TOWNSHIP CONSULTANTS.
WE APPEARED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DECEMBER.
THEY DID UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN.
AND WE HAVE RECEIVED UPDATED REVIEW LETTERS FROM GILMORE
[02:10:01]
DATED JANUARY 11TH, AS WELL AS BOWMAN CORAL MCMAHON DATED JANUARY 11TH, 2024.UM, AND THEY BOTH CONFIRMED, UM, ESSENTIALLY THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE COMPLIED.
THE FINAL PLANS ARE, ARE READY TO PROCEED.
UM, I NOTED GILMORE'S LETTER WE'RE STILL REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, UM, AND SECURE REMAINING THIRD PARTY PERMITS, UM, THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW.
THE ONE ITEM I DID WANT TO MENTION IN ADDITION TO THE OVERVIEW IS THAT, UH, THIS BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY GRANTED A WAIVER PERTAINING TO THE ROAD, THE INTERSECTION OF ROAD A AND ROAD B, UM, TO BE A GRADE OF 8%.
UM, WE HAD TRIED TO MAKE THAT WORK.
THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERE TOPICAL TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS ON THE SITE.
UM, SO WE ARE PROPOSING THAT GRADE AT 9.5%, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT WAIVER.
UM, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THAT, UM, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I KNOW IT'S A LONG NIGHT, SO I TRIED TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A QUICK SUMMARY.
BUT ANY QUESTIONS? UM, I HAVE JOHN ANO OUR CIVIL ENGINEER HERE AND BRIAN HERE FROM TO BROTHERS THAT IT'S SOMETHING I CAN'T ANSWER IS THE, IS THE CROSSWALK THAT YOU EXPLAINED SIMILAR TO WHAT'S OUT HERE? YOU SAID THERE'S A, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN ISLAND, THERE'S, IS THERE ANY CROSSWALK TODAY? THERE'S NOT.
SO THIS WILL BE, BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY DEVELOPMENT.
YEAH, THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY TODAY IS OWNED BY, UH, THE FOLEY, THAT FOLEY AND THERE'S AGRICULTURE ON THE SITE AND THE BUILDINGS, BUT THIS WOULD BE AT THE NEW ROAD INTERSECTION OF THE TWO NEW ROADS.
SO THIS WILL BE FORMALIZED AND YES, IT WOULD SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE OUTSIDE, BUT IT'S AT THE INTERSECTION.
SO IT IS WHERE SOMEONE HITS A BUTTON AND I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT HOW DO YOU SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN.
SO THAT'S WHY IT, IT'S AT THE INTERSECTION.
AND THEN THIS RAPID FLASHING BEACON IS ALSO THERE TO WARN CARS AS THEY'RE COMING SINCE IT IS, IT'S AN INTERSECTION CROSSING, BUT IT IS NEW TO YOUR POINT.
UM, WE DID WORK ORIGINALLY ON THE PLAN.
A DIFFERENT LOCATION WAS PROPOSED.
EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE AND THAT THAT IS WHERE WE ENDED UP AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH ZERO, IS THERE ANYTHING TO SLOW THE TRAFFIC GOING INTO THAT CROSSWALK? 'CAUSE I, I KNOW WE RECEIVE A LOT OF, UM, CONCERN ABOUT, IS THAT OUR CO ROAD THAT'S RUNNING UP BEHIND YOU GOT THE CIRCLE BEHIND, UH, THAT'S OUR ROAD.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE CROSSWALKS THERE AND THERE'S NOT A LIGHT, BUT PEOPLE FLY THROUGH THERE.
SO I KNOW THE RESIDENTS IN THAT, IN THAT AREA ALWAYS RAISE CONCERN ABOUT THE SAFETY OF WALKING JOBS.
AND SO I'M JUST THINKING THIS IS KIND OF SETTING UP THE SAME SITUATION.
IS THERE, IS THERE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION TO SLOW TRAFFIC BEFORE THAT CROSSWALK? UM, JOHN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT OR, I MEAN ARE, I'M NOT, I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER, NOT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT YEAH, I'M JOHN MYO, A CIVIL ENGINEER, UM, NOT TRAFFIC EXPERT.
UM, I'D SAY I WASN'T PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATIONS EARLY ON ABOUT THE NEED FOR THIS CROSSWALK.
UM, SO I REALLY CAN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, EVEN BRIAN, I'M NOT QUITE SURE I CAN WING IT.
AS FAR AS EARLY CONVERSATIONS, I DON'T KNOW, HISTORY ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT FROM A STRIPING AND PAINTING STANDPOINT ONCE THE ROAD IS, 'CAUSE WHEN TOLL COMES IN THERE AND THEY'RE GONNA BE MOVING A LOT OF DIRT, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA DO A LITTLE BIT OF DAMAGE TO, TO AU ROAD PROBABLY, I DON'T WANT TO QUOTE ANYTHING, BUT THERE, THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE DAMAGE TO WRITTEN OUT ROAD WHEN THEY'RE, THEY'RE DOING THEIR DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEY COME IN AND THEY FIX THAT, WE CAN LOOK AT PAINTING POSSIBLY HAVING THOSE, THOSE STRIPES LIKE YOU'RE COMING DOWN, UM, LEWIS ROAD, THE LITTLE BUMP STRIPES THAT WE PUT IN ON LEWIS ROAD PAST THE HIGH SCHOOL OR THE REFLECTOR STRIPES THAT SORT OF POINTS YOU AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A VISUAL SLOWDOWN WE CAN WORK WITH WITH OFFICER RIO AND, AND PUBLIC WORKS AND FIGURE OUT HOW THAT BEST CAN WORK FOR THE STRETCH OF, RIGHT.
IT'S GONNA BE THE SAME AS THIS ONE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING HERE BECAUSE IT'S A TRAIL CROSSING AS WELL AS A CROSSWALK.
AND THEY'RE PRETTY LONG SIGHT LINES.
THAT'S A STRAIGHT ROAD AND IT'S NOT NO TURNS THERE.
LIKE YEAH, I DUNNO ABOUT TRAFFIC
BUT YEAH, THIS IS GONNA BE BETTER
YEAH, I I MEAN, TO YOUR POINT, MR. STARLING, WE ORIGINALLY, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS TO ACTUALLY BRING IT OFF THE EXISTING ROAD IN THE NORTH AND CONNECT OVER TO POPE JOHN PAUL.
AND THAT IS MORE ON THE CURVE AND THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
PLUS THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING OVER TO THE HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY HAVING TO MAKE YOUR WAY DOWN PEOPLE.
IT WAS EXPECTED THAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO CROSS BACK AND FORTH AND THIS IS SORT OF IN THAT, THAT CENTER STRAIGHT PART OF THE ROAD.
YEAH, I MEAN, JUST AS A NOTE, 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT I APPRECIATE THAT IF WE READ ANY, IF WE RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK, IT'S WHEN THINGS ARE DEVELOPED, THAT'S THE FEEDBACK THAT COMES RIGHT AWAY IS MY PARENTS ARE AFRAID TO CROSS THE STREET.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.
SO IS THAT LIKE NOTED FOR LIKE, I'M NOT GONNA
[02:15:01]
REMEMBER AND THEN, AND I REMEMBER IT.ANYTHING ELSE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR SITTING THROUGH.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, THE BOARD OF ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024 DASH ZERO EIGHT GRANTING FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR TOLL SLASH FOLEY RITTENHOUSE ROAD.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[NEW BUSINESS (ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS)]
TO NEW BUSINESS AND, AND JOE, REMIND ME, DO I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE NUMBER 10? UM, YOU, IT BEEN TABLE, SO NOW IT TABLE, OKAY.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO APPOINT RE TO THE MUNICIPAL PARTY FOR FIVE RETURN.
LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR DEMOLITION OF 1350 AND 1362 BLACKROCK ROAD.
CAN WE GO OVER THIS FIRST AND EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS? YEAH, CAN YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, BRIAN? THANK YOU.
UM, THESE ARE TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
ONE IS, UM, CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL CAMPUS HERE, AND ONE IS, UH, JUST ONE DOOR DOWN, UM, SEPARATED BY ONE, UM, OTHER PROPERTY IN BETWEEN.
WE ACQUIRED THEM IN 2008 AND 2012, UM, THROUGH A LIFE ESTATE AGREEMENT, UM, WHEREIN THE THEN OWNER SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE TOWNSHIP AND UPON THEIR DEATH, ANY OF THEIR, UM, UH, RELATIVES THAT WERE RESIDING IN THE PROPERTY UPON THEIR DEATH WERE PERMITTED TO LIVE THERE FOR ANOTHER PERIOD OF TIME.
I THINK ONE WAS FIVE YEARS AND ONE WAS THREE YEARS.
UM, THE TERMS OF THOSE LIFE ESTATES HAVE NOW EXPIRED.
WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE IN THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL RENTAL BUSINESS AND REPAIRING WATER HEATERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UM, AND WE THINK THE TOWNSHIP IS BEST SERVED BY, UH, DEMOLISHING THESE PROPERTIES AND KEEPING 'EM AS GREEN SPACE.
UM, SO THE CAPITAL COST FOR THIS PROJECT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2024 BUDGET, AND WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD'S AUTHORIZATION TO, UH, SOLICIT FOR BIDS TO DEMOLISH THE TWO PROPERTIES.
AND THEN THERE'S JUST THE ONE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THEN, CORRECT? YES.
WHY ALSO THE PROPERTY, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MAP OF THE CORNER, IT'S SORT OF, WE DON'T OWN THE FIRST PINK HOUSE.
WE DON'T OWN THE, THE THIRD PINK HOUSE.
AND WE DO OWN, THE FOURTH PINK HOUSE WENT FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.
WHY, WHY THE, AND I'M JUST ADDING, WAS THERE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR WHAT TO DO WITH THIS LAND? I MEAN, WHY COULD WE, I CAN SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT.
IT WAS PRIOR TO THIS ADMINISTRATION, UM, IT WAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAD AN OPEN SPACE FUND AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DRAW MONEY FROM THAT.
AT THE TIME THE PARK AND REC DIRECTOR AT THE TIME USED THIS MONEY TO LEVERAGE TO BUY THE PROPERTIES AND SHE GRANTED A LIFE ESTATE.
AND AT THE TIME THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOARD AT THE TIME FELT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.
AND IT SAYS WE'VE PROGRESSED THE SAME THING WITH THE JOYCE PROPERTY.
WE'VE, AS IT'S GOTTEN LONGER AND LONGER, AS BRIAN SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE REAL ESTATE RENTAL BUSINESS, BUT WE COULDN'T SELL THE PROPERTY.
NO, WE CAN'T, WE CANNOT, CAN'T SELL, WE CANNOT SELL THE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY, UM, THEY WERE BOUGHT UNDER CERTAIN FUNDING MECHANISM SUBJECT TO OPEN SPACE.
SO THEY, THEY HAVE TO BE OPEN SPACE.
WE CAN MAKE THEM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY DO CONNECT IN THE BACK, THEY WILL CONNECT IN THE BACK TO BLACKROCK PARK AND ASSUMING WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT TO WHERE WE HAVE A FULL CONNECTION, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO FIELD BACK THERE.
WE CAN DO SOME PARKING, WE CAN DO SOME OTHER.
MARIA MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK BETTER TO THIS ONE.
I CAN, BUT THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME PARK USES BACK IN THAT AREA.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF 1350 AND 1362 BLACKROCK ROAD.
NEXT ONE UP IS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT LAW AT FISCAL SCHOOL YEAR 2023.
DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT? THIS IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE.
UM, IF WE DON'T USE OUR BOARD OF AUDITORS, WE, UM, SECOND CLASS TOWNSHIPS HAVE THE ABILITY TO AN INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL
[02:20:01]
AUDITOR.UM, WE'VE BEEN USING DBD FOR, UH, OUR 22 AUDIT AND, UM, WE WOULD ASK THAT THAT ENGAGEMENT CONTINUE FOR 2023.
WE WERE THINKING ABOUT NEXT YEAR DOING AN RFP, BUT I THINK IT'S BEST THAT WE CONTINUE WITH, UM, BBD CURRENTLY.
USUALLY WE PUT THESE ON THE REORG AGENDA FOR ANNUAL APPOINTMENT AND I THINK WAS AN OVERSIGHT.
MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 20 24 0 6, APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.
ALRIGHT, THE NEXT ONE, UH, THE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF, UM, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, MODIFYING THE CONTRACT WITH, UM, IT'S, IT LAFF LOCAL 53 67.
IT'S, IT'S IAF OH, I COULDN'T SEE.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION COULD HAVE BEEN AN IRON ANALYSIS.
MY BUDDIES, MIKE, DID YOU WANT TO TALK TO THIS ONE? THIS IS JUST A, UM, MINOR, UH, CHANGE THAT, UH, AFFECTS ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S, UH, WORKING ON A MODIFIED SCHEDULE FOR 10 WEEKS AND THE CONTRACT ALLOWED THAT HAS IN THERE THAT THEY WORK A 24 48 SCHEDULE, UH, ON A 21 DAY WORK PERIOD.
AND, UH, ONE OF THE FIREFIGHTERS HAD TO WORK, UH, IS WORKING IN MODIFIED SCHEDULE, UH, JUST FOR A 10 WEEK PERIOD.
AND, UH, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SIGNING HERE IS JUST ALLOWING THAT, UM, MODIFICATION TO THE CONTRACT JUST FOR THAT ONE PARTICULAR PERSON FOR THAT 10 WEEK CYCLE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF MEMORANDUM OF A MEMORANDUM, UNDERSTANDING AND MODIFY THE CONTRACT WITH IAFF LOCAL 53 67.
ALRIGHT, THE NEXT ONE, I THINK IS ALSO FOR MIKE.
THIS IS A MOTION TO DOT RESOLUTION 2024 DASH SEVEN APPROVING THE INITIAL AND BACKUP RESPONSES OF EM, UH, EMERGENCY, UH, UH, SERVICES FOR EACH OF THE 14 EMERGENCY SERVICES ZONES IN THE TOWNSHIP.
I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK TO THIS.
SO, UH, WE HAVE THE TOWNSHIP FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR THE AMBULANCES BOUGHT INTO, INTO 14 DIFFERENT ZONES, UH, PRESENTLY RECOVERED BY, UH, LOWER PROVIDENCE AMBULANCE, FRIENDSHIP AMBULANCE AND FREEDOM VALLEY AMBULANCE.
FREEDOM VALLEY WAS, UH, USED TO BE TRAPPED AND THEN THEY COMBINED HARLEYSVILLE CAME THE FREEDOM VALLEY AMBULANCES.
FREEDOM VALLEY, UH, CURRENTLY HAS FOUR STATIONS.
ONE IN HARLEYSVILLE, ONE IN TRAP, I'M SORRY, ONE IN HARLEYSVILLE, ONE IN COLLEGEVILLE, ONE IN GREEN LANE AND ONE IN LIMERICK.
THEY'VE GIVEN THEIR 90 DAY NOTICE THAT THEY WILL BE CLOSING THEIR GREEN LANE STATION AND THEIR COLLEGEVILLE STATION.
UM, SO THAT PURPLE AT THE TOP, IT SAYS 68 2 5 1 9 IS THE AREA THAT'S PRESENTLY COVERED BY FREEDOM VALLEY ON THE COLLEGEVILLE STATION.
AND THE AREA THAT'S UP IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER KNOWS THE PANHANDLE IS ALSO COVERED BY FREEDOM VALLEY.
MY, UM, THE RESOLUTION ALLOWS AND, AND BASICALLY THE COUNTY SETS THE BACKUP UNITS UNLESS WE DIRECT 'EM OTHERWISE.
UM, WE DON'T ALWAYS LIKE THE DIRECTION THE COUNTY CHOOSES THE BACKUP UNITS.
WE WOULD RATHER HAVE, UH, THE DISCRETION WITH DOING THAT.
UH, SOMETIMES THERE ARE NUMBERS AND OUR NUMBERS DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE.
SO WE'VE MET WITH THE AMBULANCES AND WE'VE COME UP WITH THE BACKUP WITH THE 10 BACKUP AMBULANCES FOR EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL ZONES MOVING FORWARD.
UH, THE PURPLE ZONE, THE 68 25 1 0 9 WILL BE MOVED OVER TO FRIENDSHIP OUT OF THE, ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THE, UH, PANHANDLE WILL GO TO FREEDOM VALLEY OUT OF THE LIMERICK STATION BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL THE CLOSEST AMBULANCE TO THAT AREA OF THE TOWNSHIP.
AND THAT RUNS BASICALLY FROM TOWNSHIP BLIND TO GREENWOOD AND FROM BOARDMAN DOWN TO RENTON HOUSE.
AND THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY SECTION THAT WOULD BE LEFT AT FRIDA VALLEY WOULD BE HANDLING.
BUT, UM, THEY ARE TWO AND A HALF MILES CLOSER TO THAT AREA THAN ANY OF THE OTHER AMBULANCES.
SO BY DOING THIS, IT IT INSTRUCTS THE COUNTY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, UH, HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO, RATHER THAN ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THE DECISION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024 DASH OH SEVEN, APPROVING THE INITIAL AND BACKUP RESPONSES OF EMERGENCY MENIAL SERVICES FOR EACH OF THE 14 EMERGENCY SERVICE ZONES IN THE TOWNSHIP.
ALRIGHT, NUMBER 16, WE ARE IN WITHDRAWAL AND THAT TAKES TWO MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS.
[02:25:03]
TIM, WOULD THAT BE, OH, GO AHEAD.I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE STATEMENT ON WHY 16 WAS WITHDRAWN.
THERE'S THE ZONING HEARING BOARD MADE A DECISION TO GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR LOVER, I BELIEVE LOVER'S LANE AND AM JUST LOVER'S LANE AMELIA'S PAST RIGHT PAST THE TIMING.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME ON THIS ONE IS WE'RE PLANNING TO CHANGE THAT ORDINANCE.
UM, ORIGINALLY I WAS CHALLENGE IF THIS WAS MADE TO RAISE THIS MOTION, SO I'LL JUST MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT I WAS CHALLENGING THE, THE GRANTING OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS AS YOU CANNOT CHANGE AN ORDINANCE ONCE AN APPLICATION IS LIVE.
SO THEREFORE THE, THE APPEAL HAS NO GROUNDS FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, BUT I DO BEHOOVE OUR TOWNSHIP TO MAKE THAT ORDINANCE CHANGE RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE THERE'S A CHANGE TO UPDATE THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT MOVING FORWARD WE DON'T RUN INTO, UH, OR, OR WE UPDATE IT MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH WHAT'S LEFT TO DEVELOP IN THE TOWNSHIP.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'LL RAISE THAT CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE THEN I GUESS THAT THE LOVER'S LANE STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH A BUNCH OF PLANNING.
AND THE NEW AND THE NEW ORDINANCE IS, IS NOT PENDING ADVERTISED, BUT ABOUT TO BE.
JOE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE YES.
THE EXISTING ORDINANCE ALLOWED STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ANYTHING GREATER THAN 15%.
THE NEW ORDINANCE, UM, STILL ALLOWS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM 15% UP TO 25%, BUT FOR ANY GRADE GREATER THAN 25%, IT'S PROHIBITED, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE.
UM, A VARIANCE IS A TOUGHER BURDEN REQUIRES A PROOF OF A HARDSHIP RATHER THAN JUST A CRITERIA IN THE ORDINANCE AND BETTER FACILITATES THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS TO IT.
AND WOULD THAT HAVE TO COME BEFORE US OR IS THAT STILL STAY IN ZONING STAYS WITH ZONING SPECIAL SOM SORRY.
SO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE THOUGH, COMES TO US.
YES, YOU WERE JUST, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ASKING? I JUST, THE ORDERS DIS COMES HERE, BUT THE FUTURE APPLICATIONS WILL GO TO THE ZHB STILL AND IT WILL HAVE MORE POWER OVER BECAUSE THE, THE APPLICANT HAS TO PROVIDE PROOF.
AND THERE WAS CONDITIONS PLACED ON THE LOVER'S LANE APPLICATION ON, ON THE THREE RECENT, ON THE THREE OR FOUR ON THE FOUR STEEP SLOPE APPLICATIONS THAT ALL ROLLED IN THAT CAUSED US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
THE CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED THAT WERE, I I PARTICIPATED IN ONE ERIC FRY COVERED FOR ME ON ANOTHER ONE, PARTICIPATED.
UM, WE REQUESTED AND OBTAINED, UM, CONDITIONS TO ASSURE THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UH, ON SITE HAS TO BE INSPECTED EVERY YEAR.
THE REPORTS SENT TO THE TOWNSHIP MONEY HAS TO BE KEPT IN ESCROW BY THE HOA FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO THINGS TO REALLY BUTTON DOWN THE, THE GRANT OF THE RELIEF.
AND WHAT STAGE IS THE, THOSE PLANS? IS IT SO YOU, IT IS UP TO AN APPLICANT HOW THEY WANT TO DO THE TIMING OF IT, BUT MOST PEOPLE LIKE TO GET ZONING RELIEF EARLY IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE WHY ENGINEER A BIG SET OF PLANS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ZONING RELEASE.
SO IT'S JUST THAT SKETCH RIGHT NOW OR GO TO UH, WELL IT DEPENDS.
IT DEPENDS WHICH ONE YOU MEAN.
FOR LOVER'S, FOR LOVER'S LANE, WE HAVE A A, WE HAVE A A TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATION.
WELL, WE'VE HAD ONE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
THEY AT THAT POINT SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO GO AND GET THEIR ZONING RELIEF FIRST.
THAT'S TAKEN SIX MONTHS, NINE MONTHS.
I THINK ALLISON'S THEIR ATTORNEY.
THAT'S WHY
UM, THAT'S BEEN SIX TO NINE MONTHS NOW THAT THEY HAVE THIS RELIEF.
AND THEIR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, I HAVE NOT COORDINATED WITH ALLISON ON WHEN THEY'RE COMING IN FOR THEIR NEXT STEP.
I'M ASSUMING THAT IT WILL BE RELATIVELY SOON AND THEY PROBABLY NEED TO ISSUE A NEW PLAN.
THERE'S SOME REVISIONS TO THE PLAN AND SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE RE-REVIEWED, PUT BACK TO THE PROCESS, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO THE BOARD, AND THAT'S TENTATIVE.
AND THEN FROM THERE THEY WOULD GO TO PRELIMINARY AND TO FINAL THREE SEPARATE STEPS.
AND, AND THE CONDITIONS PUT ON ARE AROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THIS AREA OF OUR COMMUNITY.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN PAID OUT FEMA YET.
WE JUST APPROVED $6 MILLION TO PAY OUT OUR RESIDENTS WHO HAVE SUFFERED FOR TWO YEARS AND WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP ON TOP OF THEM.
AND I I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AREA OF OUR TIME.
THE MAIN, WHEN THE, THE CITIZENS WHO ATTENDED THE HEARINGS, THE RESIDENTS WHO WERE LIVED NEARBY, THEIR MAIN OBJECTION TO DEVELOPING IN THE STEEP SLOPE WAS STORMWATER.
UM, AS IN FACT, THE FIRST WOMAN WHO SPOKE TONIGHT, IF SHE STILL I HERE WAS WERE WERE YOU AT ONE OF THE HEARINGS RIGHT? I WAS HERE AT ALL OF 'EM, ABSOLUTELY.
SO, SO WE WERE TRYING TO FOCUS ON STORMWATER IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS.
[02:30:01]
YEAH.BUT NOT JUST STORMWATER FLOODING JUST IN GENERAL.
AND THEN ALSO THE CEMETERY BUILDING THROUGH A CEMETERY, WHICH THEY'VE KIND OF DECONSTRUCTED, BUT IT WAS ALSO TRAFFIC.
STORMWATER WAS JUST ONE PART OF IT.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE MAIN TR THE OTHER, THE OTHER, I'M NOT SAYING STORMWATER WAS THE ONLY CONCERN.
IT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN THAT LENT ITSELF TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WE COULD ASK FOR THAT TO BUTTON IT DOWN.
BUT THIS WILL GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND, AND THERE'LL BE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, AND DISCUSSION AND ALL OF THAT.
JEFF, WHAT KIND OF PLAN? I MEAN, WELL AGAIN, WE HAVE A, WE'LL HAVE A TENTATIVE PLAN, WHICH IS GONNA BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT YOU'VE SEEN FOR, THEY CAME WITH THE ZONING THAT I'VE GIVEN YOU COPIES OF THE FOUR PAGE PLAN SET.
UM, I ASSUME THERE'S THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO ADJUST AND THEY HAVE TO FIX, BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THAT PLAN WILL BE PUT IN, I'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET A COPY OF IT.
I HAVE YOUR EMAIL AND I'LL GIVE YOU A CALL AND LET YOU KNOW IT'S HERE.
AND THEN, UM, THAT WILL BE PUT IN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFTER JEN REVIEWS IT.
I REVIEW IT, TRAFFIC REVIEWS IT.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION THOUGH.
IF THERE'S, WHY IS THERE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ON STEVE SLIPS THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, I MEAN, I'M NOT BEING IGNORANT ABOUT IT.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WOULD BE SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PROBABLY ADOPTED WELL BEFORE I, I WAS HERE.
BUT MY GUESS IS THAT IT WAS A MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR A VERY LONG TIME HAS MODELED ORDINANCES FOR FLOODPLAINS, FOR STEEP SLOPES, FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND THE TOWNSHIP, MOST TOWNSHIPS WENT THROUGH AND ADOPTED THESE BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST A LEGAL STANDARD THAT MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUT TOGETHER.
BUT IT IS AFFECTING EVERY ONE DOWN STREET.
AND THAT'S WHY I, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE AND I I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT TRYING TO PICK YOU.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH EITHER.
BUT, AND THAT'S WHY WE REALIZE THE FLAW IN THE ORDINANCE WHEN WE HAD THE BEFORE THAT SORT OF CAME IN TOGETHER BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT NOW IN THIS TOWNSHIP IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.
IT'S GONNA BE ON STEEP SLOPE, IT'S GONNA BE ON WE PROPERTIES.
THAT'S THAT IS A REALLY STEEP SLOPE.
I MEAN YOU'RE TALKING IIII DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU.
AND, AND NOW WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT.
A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS OUR ORDINANCE IS DATED.
IT, IT ADDRESSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETIES AND THE TWO THOUSANDS AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT AS IT IS NOW.
AND THAT MEANS DEVELOPMENT ON 10 ACRE PIECES, ON 15 ACRE PIECES THAT ARE HALF WET AND HALF STEEP AND, AND OR THAT DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ACCESS OR OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT FROM WHAT WE HAVE LEFT.
BECAUSE TAKING PARKHOUSE OUT OF THE EQUATION WE'RE 95% BUILT.
AND NOW YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE IN LOWER MONTCLAIR, WHICH I HAVE A PASSION FOR, THEY GET FLOODED.
I MEAN, JUST THIS PAST WEEK, OUR LOVER'S LANE, I GOT FLOODED AND THAT BORDER IS COMING RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
I, AND I THINK, I THINK THIS IS THE CASE THAT YOU MAKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THIS BOARD WHEN THEY HAVE THAT APPLICATION.
WE CAN GO ROUND AND ROUND ABOUT, AND I DON'T MIND IT, BUT IT JUST, I I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.
IT IT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE TO TALK ABOUT.
IT ABSOLUTELY IS PLANNING COMMISSION.
SOMETHING'S THE NEXT STEP TO TAKE THIS STEP.
AND, AND WE HAVE TO TIGHTEN, I CONSIDER IT APPEALING, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE DON'T HAVE GROUNDS TO APPEAL.
SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS WITHDRAWN.
SO I WAS JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT.
IS THERE OTHER THINGS IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT WE NEED TO TIGHTEN UP AS WE GET INTO THESE SMALLER AND SMALL? THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.
'CAUSE WE, YES, AND WE BUMP INTO THIS BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER BEEN IN A SITUATION WHAT OTHER THINGS ARE HIDDEN? TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK, SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE MUCH ON THE AGENDA NOW, SINCE SOMETHING WAS NOT GIVEN TO US, I, MY PLAN IS TO NOW ROLL BACK INTO THE ROLL BACK INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT AREAS OF THE TOWNSHIP THAT STILL NEED TO BE, THAT ARE GONNA BE DEVELOPED REDEVELOPED AND HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTS TO APPROACH THEM.
'CAUSE THAT'S SORT OF THE FIRST ADVISORY LEVEL.
PART OF THAT IS ALSO ME COMING UP THE ACTION ITEMS AND MY LIST OF ACTION ITEMS INCLUDES A LOT OF ORDINANCE CHANGES AND ORDINANCE UPDATES.
IT'S GOING TO BE CODIFIED RECOMMENDED IN THE POLICY DOCUMENT THAT A, THAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SINCE I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE MARK HOUSE THINGS NOW
SO HOPEFULLY YOU WILL BE SEEING THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER TIGHTENING UP THE ORDINANCE.
WELL WE GET THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS FIRST.
IT BASICALLY SAYS THIS IS ALL THE ORDINANCES WE WANT TO RECOMMEND.
AND ONCE WE SORT OF HAVE THAT LIST IN THE POLICY DOCUMENT, THAT'S WHEN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE START ADOPTING THEM STORMWATER, THE SEED SLOPE ONE IS ALREADY WRITTEN.
THAT ONE'S DIFFERENT, BUT THE LIST OF EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WOULD THAT APPLY PARKHOUSE, WHATEVER WE DO? OR IS THAT ALREADY IN? THAT'S ALREADY IN AS A, AS AN ACTIVE APPLICATION.
[MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS]
ON TO MANAGER DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS.TIM, IS THAT FOR YOU? THAT'S ACTUALLY, THAT'S THAT FOR ME.
SO, UH, THIS IS A MARKETING PITCH.
UH, LAST YEAR, AT THE END OF JANUARY, UM, WE HAD THE BATTLE OF BADGES, BLOOD DRIVE FOR THE RED CROSS BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
[02:35:01]
AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.UM, THE CHIEF FREEMAN AND I TALKED ABOUT 'CAUSE THE TWO DEPARTMENTS WEREN'T AS CLOSE AS WELL AS WE DO.
WE FELT THAT WE WOULD RATHER, WE WOULD RATHER APPROACH THIS ON A UNIFIED FRONT.
UH, SO WE ARE ON JANUARY 30TH HERE FROM 1:00 PM TO 6:00 PM WE'RE DOING THE UPPER PROVIDENCE POLICE FIRE ANNUAL BLOOD DRIVE.
UH, WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT LEAST WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR OR BETTER IT.
SO THERE ARE, IF YOU GO ON TO OUR WEBSITE, TOWNSHIP WEBSITE, YOU CAN SIGN UP TO DONATE BLOOD.
UM, WE WOULD LOVE TO, LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE'RE AT 67 UNITS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO COLLECT FROM US.
THEY BELIEVE THAT WE CAN DO IT AGAIN THIS YEAR.
AND SO THIS IS A FIRST OF MANY MARKING PITCHES THAT WE'RE PUTTING OUT.
UM, I WISH I HAD EVERYBODY HERE EARLIER TO
WE'RE GONNA PUT YOUR FIRST BLANK, DIFFERENT KIND OF BLOOD WE WERE DRAWING.
[CONSULTANT REPORTS]
UH, JEN, DO YOU AN UPDATE.I WILL BE VERY BRIEF
THAT IS THE PROJECT CURRENTLY OUT TO BID.
AND THEN THE 2024 ROAD PROJECTS A THE FIRST ONE, UM, SHOULD BE POSTED ON PEN BID BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
AND SO THESE HOMES FOR FEMA WOULD DO WILL AT THE TIME SCHEDULE, IS THAT SPRING THAT THEY'LL COME DOWN OR WHAT'S SO THE BID WILL BE OPEN IN FEBRUARY, HOPEFULLY AWARD IN FEBRUARY.
UM, AND THEN MONTHS AFTER THAT.
ONE IS FOR OXFORD, UH, LEAVE RELEASE AND THE OTHER ONE IS FOR MEADOWS AT LONGVIEW.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MONTHLY DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT GUARANTEE REDUCTION LIST AS FOLLOWS.
ITEM A OXFORD LEE RELEASE NUMBER 9 160 $4,247 AND 5 CENTS.
ITEM B MEADOWS AT LONGVIEW RELEASE NUMBER TWO IN THE AMOUNT OF $472,454 AND 80 CENTS.
[SOLICITOR REPORT]
SOLICITOR DID PLENTY OF TALKING TONIGHT.SO THE, YOU WANNA TELL WHAT
UH, WE, I DID BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THESE THREE LAWS WITH THEM.
THIS IS JUST THE WHOLE EIGHT TRIO OF LAWS, THE MAIN ONES THAT ARE GONNA APPLY TO THAT.
THE SUPERVISORS WANT TO BE AWARE OF, UM, SUNSHINE LAW.
DON'T DELIBERATE IN A QUORUM ABOUT TOWNSHIP BUSINESS.
JUST BE AWARE THAT WHAT CAN BE REQUESTED FROM YOUR RECORDS.
THEY IT OR THE IT PERSON WILL RUN A CHECK OF THE HARD DRIVE FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE THAT'S RESPONSIVE TO A RIGHT TO KNOW, UH, REQUEST.
SO, YOU KNOW, USE CARE KEEP SEPARATE YOUR PERSONAL ACCOUNT FROM YOUR TOWNSHIP ACCOUNT AND DO ALL YOUR TOWNSHIP EMAILS ON YOUR TOWNSHIP ACCOUNT AND THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY.
UM, ETHICS ACT, YOUR FORMS ARE DUE AT THE END OF THIS QUARTER, YOUR ANNUAL FORM.
UH, THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL SAY ABOUT THAT ONE IS, UH, IF YOU THINK YOU'RE GONNA BE NOT VOTING DUE TO A CONFLICT, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MEMO IN THE FILE AHEAD OF TIME.
AND THEN WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU RECUSE, UH, DUE TO THE CONFLICT, YOU JUST SAY WHAT THE REASON IS.
BUT WE ALREADY HAVE A MEMO OF IT IN THE DETACHMENT MANAGER'S OFFICE.
UM, OBVIOUSLY EACH OF THESE IS A TOPIC THAT YOU COULD GO ON ABOUT AND THAT I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT FOR THE WHOLE DAY.
BUT I THINK WE'RE GONNA SKIP THAT FOR TONIGHT.
SO JUST BE AWARE OF THOSE LAWS AND THINK ABOUT WHETHER THEY MIGHT BE IN PLAY AND GIVE YOU A CALL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO, SO IF WE'RE NOT GONNA BE PRESENT FOR A BOARD MEETING, WE THERE HAS TO BE A LETTER SUBMITTED IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE PRESENT.
WELL YOU SAID IF WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE, IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, NOT IF YOU'RE NOT.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, PHIL? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY MARIA AND I TOOK PSATS TRAINING AND WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS RECENTLY.
I HAD A QUICK QUESTION, SOMETHING KELLY BROUGHT UP THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK PEOPLE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESSES AT PUBLIC COMMENT IF THEY DON'T GO AHEAD.
BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE THEM WRITE THEIR ADDRESS DOWN AND CAN IT OVER.
I IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE RECORD IS ALL, YOU KNOW THAT FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR YOUR MINUTES.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO TELL THE THEY HAVE TO TELL THE WORLD THEIR ADDRESS IF THEY OBJECT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TOWNSHIP RECORD, THE TOWNSHIP,
[02:40:01]
UH, RECORDER, DEEDS AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT WERE THEIR SOFTWARE WAS CHANGED.SO YOU CAN'T SEARCH PEOPLE, UH, FOR THEIR, UH, TO GET THEIR ADDRESS THERE.
YOU CAN'T SEARCH 'EM BY NAME YOU SAID TO GET THEIR ADDRESS.
SO IT'S BE BEING TREATED MORE PRIVATELY ALL THE TIME.
IT WOULD BE IN THE MINUTES THOUGH.
NO, YOU CAN REDACT, YOU CAN REDACT THAT INFORMATION IF YOU WANT.
I MEAN I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THAT.
I'LL PULL UP TO TALK TO CHERYL AND WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
RIGHT NOW I HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF NEIGHBOR'S ADDRESS.
[SUPERVISORS COMMENTS]
UP OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS.UM, I REALLY WANTED TO GIVE THEM NEW SUPERVISORS A SHOUT OUT 'CAUSE THIS WAS THEIR FIRST REAL SUPERVISOR MEETING AND WHILE IT WAS, THANK YOU FOR HANGING IN THERE.
UM, ANYBODY ELSE? OTHERWISE I'LL GO THROUGH THIS LIST.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I MISS LAURIE'S
[UPCOMING EVENTS]
MEETING SCHEDULED TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH AND MARCH 18TH.THEY BOTH START AT 7:00 PM UM, SO WE'RE MAKING A NOTE.
BECAUSE IT'S PRESIDENT'S WEEKEND.
PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED JANUARY 17TH AT 7:00 PM IT'S RESIDENCE IS AT PROVIDENCE REVISED FINAL FUTURE USE OF QUEST BUILDING.
1201 SOUTH COLLEGEVILLE ROAD AND FEBRUARY 7TH AT SEVEN IS TO BE DECIDED.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULES JANUARY 17TH AT SIX PARKS AND RECREATIONS.
COMMITTEE MEETING IS FEBRUARY 14TH AT 6:00 PM A MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY MEETING SCHEDULES FEBRUARY 1ST AT 7:00 PM ZONING.
HEARING BOARD IS TO BE DECIDED.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTIVE APPLICATION ON THAT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION AND A SECOND.