Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
BEFORE
2
THE PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
3
4 Thursday, September 6, 2018
5
6 IN RE: Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
7
8 WIND GAP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1620 Teels Road
9 Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania 18072
10
11 PRESENT: PAUL LEVITS, Chairperson
ROBERT SIMPSON, Vice-Chairperson
12 THOMAS PETRUCCI, Township Manager
TERRY KLEINTOP, Member
13 ROBIN DINGLE, Member
JEFFREY BEAVAN, Member
14
JOHN LEZOCHE, Zoning Officer
15
PAIGE GERTSTENBERG, Secretary
16
DAVID BACKENSTOE, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
17
18
19
JASON E. SMITH, PSW, Senior Scientist
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 (Pages 2 - 5)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803·8830
Page 6 Page 8
I that stenographer can simply get a copy of it and groundwater connections of the pond to the nearby
2 transcribe it. And I'm going to ask Jason. is that 2 streams may be nexus qualifying the pond as a waters
3 \\'hat you're going to do at this point? 3 of the United States. As such. the proposed project
4 MR. SMITH: Yes. 4 would need to be in full compliance with all federal
5 MR. BACKENSTOE: In addition to any 5 regulations.
6 comments. 6 Number 3. based on the concern for
7 MS. WITMER: Thank you. 7 connection of the pond to groundwater and nearby
8 MR. SMITH: As requested. we have 8 surface waters. as discussed above in the prior
9 reviewed the most recent plan set that accompanies 9 comment. a hydrogeological study should be performed
10 the materials sent by EarthRes Engineering and 10 and provided to document what is happening to water
II Science with the above-referenced project. dated I I that is entering and leaving the pond.
12 February 6th. 2018. We offer the following comments 12 Number 4. based on definitions in the
13 related to wetlands. waters. and riparian buffer 13 Township's Municipal Code of Ordinances and
14 impact. 14 classification of the pond as a waters of the
15 U IDE TIFIED PERSON: We cannot hear 15 Commonwealth. the pond on site is regulated by the
16 you. 16 township's ordinances.
17 MR. SMITH: We offer the follo\\'ing 17 Therefore. the applicant's proposed
18 comments related to wetlands. waters. and riparian 18 project must be in full compliance with those
19 buffer impact concerns for the township's 19 ordinances. This includes proper delineation and
20 consideration. 20 documentation of all applicable wetlands and waters.
21 Number one. based on input from the 21 as well as protection by associated buffers of both
22 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 22 on and off-site wetlands and waters.
23 The PA DEP letter to Mr. Glenn Kempa at Grand 23 More specifically. A. based on
24 Central Sanitation Landfill dated August 10th. 2018. 24 Sections 22-1023.4.F and 22-1023.8 of the Plainfield
25 And as confirmed in correspondence from applicant's 25 Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.
Page 7 Page 9
I engineer dated July 31 st, 2018, the pond on the site I the applicant must provide a delineation of all
2 is regulated as a waters of the Commonwealth. The 2 wetlands and waters on the site. along with a
3 pond should be labeled accordingly on the plan. As 3 supporting report. In accordance with standard
4 such, the proposed project must be in full· 4 practices and procedures endorsed by the nited
5 compliance with all state regulations. 5 States Army Corps of Engineers. wetlands and waters
6 umber 2, based on available 6 delineations and reports must not be older than five
7 information, the pond on site may be regulated as a 7 years in order to be valid.
8 waters of the United States. The pond is shown on 8 The delineation of wetlands and waters
9 the United States Geological Survey and atural 9 must be conducted by a qualified professional. All
10 Resources Conservation Soil Survey, and it has a 10 delineated boundaries of wetlands and waters must be
II surface connection to the Little Bushkill Creek or I I submitted to the township. with field location
12 Waltz Creek via an emergency spillway shown on 12 defined by bearings and distances and tied to
13 several recent plan sets, including the currently 13 property corners at two points on a sealed plan by a
14 proposed plans and the previously approved and 14 professional land sur eyor.
15 constructed plans for the proposed sediment Basin 15 The plan shall also contain a
16 NO.2 for the Grand Central Sanitary Landfill 16 certification by a qualified professional
17 operations dated August 8th, 2000, last revised and 17 responsible for the field delineation. indicating
18 approved date of December 18th, 2007. 18 that he/she has viewed the plan and does hereby
19 Additionally, the applicant has 19 certifY to the best of hislher knowledge and belief.
20 indicated that the pond does not discharge, yet 20 it is a correct representation of the wetlands
21 there is a significant drainage area and stormwater 21 boundaries which he/she delineated in the field on a
22 directed into it, strongly suggesting that the pond 22 specific date.
23 has a direct connection to groundwater and nearby 23 B. based on definitions provided in
24 streams, including Little Bushkill and Waltz Creeks. 24 Section 22-1023.10 of the Plaintiff Township
25 These potential surface water and 25 Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. the
3 (Pages 6 - 9)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1 000 ~ 61 0-434-8588 ~ 302-571-051 0 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 10 Page 12
tmmship may require the applicant to submit a I that the proposed impacts to the ponds are waived of
2 current and valid jurisdictional determination from 2 permit requirements under Chapter I 05.12(a)(6) which
3 the nited States Army Corps of Engineers to verify 3 reads:
4 the finding of the delineation of wetlands and 4 A water obstruction or encroachment
5 \\aters on the site. A valid confirmation of the 5 located in. along. across or projecting into a
6 accuracy of the water and wetlands delineation is 6 storm\\ater management facility or an erosion and
7 necessary to help ensure that local. state and 7 sedimentation pollution control facility which mcets
8 federal regulations are properly being administered 8 the requirements of Chapter 102. relating to erosion
9 and enforced. 9 and sediment control. if the facility was
10 The township would be within its right 10 constructed and continues to be maintained for the
II to accept ajurisdictional determination from the II designated purpose.
12 United States Army Corps of Engineers for the 12 Based on the history of the pond
13 project site to verify the delineation of wetlands 13 developing in an old quarry. and not as a designed
14 and waters. noting the right to appeal the 14 and constructed stormwater management facility or as
15 determ ination. 15 an erosion and sediment pollution control facility.
16 C. based on Sections 22-1 023.4.F and 16 the \\"aiver of the permit requirements under Chapter
17 22-1023.8 of the Plainfield Township Subdivision and 17 105.2(a)(6) does not seem applicable. even though
18 Land Development Ordinance. the complete boundary of 18 the pond has been used for those purposes.
19 the Waltz Creek must be shown on the plan. 19 Further. in consideration of the
20 D. based on Section 22-1023 of the 20 aforementioned connection to the pond groundwater.
21 Plainfield Township Subdivision and Land Development 21 and likely to nearby surface waters. there is
22 Ordinance. the 50-foot open space and 100 foot 22 concern for potential effects upon safety or the
23 riparian buffers on the site and within the proposed 23 protection of life. health. property or the
24 project area for both on-site and applicable 24 environment. as provided in Chapter I 05.12(a). for
25 off-site wetlands and waters. must be sho\m on the 25 which the department may require the owner of the
Page II Page 13
proposed plan. I structure to apply for and obtain a permit under
2 E. based on Section 22-1023 of the 2 this chapter.
3 Plainfield Township Subdivision and Land Development 3 Therefore. the township should discuss
4 Ordinance. the currently proposed plan is not in 4 this concern with the PA DEP and request that a
5 compliance with requirements for open space and 5 formal permit be required for the proposed project
6 riparian buffer area protection. All open space and 6 impacts to ensure both the protection of both
7 riparian buffer areas must be protected from 7 surface and groundwater from the proposed activities
8 proposed project impacts. 8 at this site.
9 The current plan set indicates 9 umber 7. the proposed plans do not
10 considerable temporary and permanent impacts to open 10 include storm water best management practices. BMPs.
II space and riparian buffer areas by large quantities II designed to protect the water quality of the pond
12 of fill material. structures. parking lots. travel 12 and/or downstream waterways. as required under
13 lanes and utilities. which is not allowable per the 13 Chapter 102. noting proposed new discharges to the
14 ordinance. Specific areas of noncompliance include 14 pond. the Little Bushkill Creek. and the Waltz
15 riparian buffer for the wetland along the \\'estern 15 Creek.
16 edge of the site. the open space buffer around the 16 The pond and downstream waterways are
17 existing pond. and the riparian buffer along Waltz 17 waters of the Commonwealth and should be adequately
18 Creek. 18 protected from stormwater impacts to water quality
19 I umber 5. the proposed plan shows 19 and quantity originating as part of the proposed
20 significant impacts for filling of a portion of the 20 facilities.
21 on-site pond. The applicant should provide the 21 THE CHAIRMA : Okay. Thank you. Are
22 township \\"ith copies of all state and federal 22 there any questions from the board. clarifications
23 permits. approvals and/or formal correspondence 23 needed?
24 indicating compliance for the proposed impacts. 24 MR. KLEI TOP: o.
25 Number 6. the applicant has indicated 25 MR. SIMPSON: o.
4 (Pages 10 - 13)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 14 Page 16
MS. Of GLE: Regarding number 7. UNIDE TIFIED PERSOI : We cannot hear
2 Jason. can we be more specific regarding the water 2 you.
3 classification than Chapter 102? 3 MS. WITMER: Sir. with regard to your
4 MR. SMITH: At this time. Robin. I 4 question. the -- the quarry was converted into a
5 wouldn't be able to comment on that. 5 sedimentation basin and required permitting by
6 THE CHAIRMA : Jason. on page 2. (b). 6 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
7 the Township would be within its right to accept 7 as you surmised.
8 jurisdictional determination from the United States 8 Those permit documents are included in
9 Army Corps of Engineers. Explain how that operates. 9 the application. both in the original and in the
10 please. 10 resubmission in the stormwater submission. the
II MR. SMITH: Typically the PA DEP and 11 report that we made.
12 other agencies would recognize the Corps of 12 MR. GOODRICH: Appendix E.
13 Engineer's jurisdiction of determination for a site 13 MR. KLEINTOP: I have seen some of
14 as an official determination of the wetlands and 14 that. What I'm interested in. if anyone here
15 waterways boundaries from which state regulations. 15 representing Plainfield Township has happened to
16 local regulations and such would then be -- would 16 review any type of engineering plans that justify
17 then be regulated and enforced. 17 the distinction that the DE? made.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 18 MS. WITMER: The permit drawings are
19 MR. SMITH: Basically just providing a 19 included within our application and. you know. \\"ere
20 good definition of what the wetlands and waterways 20 available to the township both then and are
21 boundaries are for all levels of government. 2 I available now.
22 MR. KLEINTOP: Jason. did you review 22 MR. GOODRICH: Additionally. just
23 the engineering plans. the blueprints that converted 23 speaking to that as well. it's my understanding that
24 this into a sediment basin? I assume would be about 24 back when the application was made. the township
25 10 years old. 25 actually deferred storm water review with the DEP.
Page 15 Page 17
1 MR. SMITH: I did not conduct a formal I MS. 011 GLE: What was that application
2 review of those plans. but I am familiar with the 2 specifically for?
3 plans. And it's my understanding that there were 3 MS. WITMER: Do you want to just read
4 certain modifications made to the pond at that time 4 it?
5 to convert it for use as -- as a storm water basin. 5 MR. ?ULLAR: Tom Pullar. P-U-L-L-A-R.
6 MR. KLE TOP: The reason I ask is. 6 with EarthRes. We did respond to your comments. We
7 looking at this. the best that I can determine was 7 prepared a letter dated August 3 I st. which included
8 that they filled in a portion of the quarry. I 8 basically direct responses to your comments.
9 couldn't detect anything else which in my mind would 9 It also included a history of the
10 fit the bill of some type of engineering. 10 quarry. So that used to be Doney II. and we got a
1I MR. SMITH: I would agree that I I picture here which I understand you may not be able
12 reviewing the aerials it's hard to determine \\hat 12 to see. but we did provide copies in the submission.
13 would have actually qualified this as a conversion 13 that the lower one. which is in black and white. is
14 from what it was to a sediment basin for stormwater 14 the way it used to be and it also shows some of the
15 purposes. 15 other quarries in the area and that's when it was a
16 MR. KLEINTOP: That being said. if we 16 quarry.
17 haven't seen a set of plans. what did the DEP revie\\· 17 And then it was covered under DE?
18 in order to satisfy themselves and approve this as a 18 mining at the time. When the mining stopped. it was
19 sediment basin under Chapter I02? 19 closed out and it was converted. repurposed. into a
20 MR. SMITH: Terry. I cannot answer 20 storm water management sedimentation basin for the
21 that question. The review was conducted many years 21 landfill.
22 ago by DE? 22 So mining had jurisdiction. It
23 MR. KLEINTO?: Can anyone sitting at 23 basically closed it out. It released the bond for
24 the table in front of us answer that question? 24 that area. And permitting then went to DEP. the
25 MS. WITMER: Yes. sir. 25 waste management group. It was part of the
5 (Pages 14 - 17)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 18 Page 20
I stormwater management plan and erosion control plan I was at, the question was asked, do we have a letter
2 for the landfill. and that's how it's been -- that's 2 from DEP regarding the basin classification and
3 how it's been regulated and managed since then. 3 regulation. And so we made the inquiry to DEP and
4 So what we have done in this 4 they sent this letter and again --
5 case -- and the history is provided. 5 MR. KLEfNTOP: That was Roger Bellas'
6 MS. DINGLE: What I am trying to get 6 response. I have your June 26th letter. That
7 to. though. the requirements to be called a sediment 7 response letter is well prior to any submissions
8 basin has to fulfill Chapter 102 in order to 8 made by Plainfield Township because I think our
9 regulate as such. It sounds like in going over the 9 letters went out later in August.
10 stormwater process. you haven't fulfilled Chapter 10 MR. PULLAR: Correct.
11 102. And a lot of the drawings and information I've II MR. KLEI TOP: I don't know if those
12 seen. it is just labeled as a sediment basin. It 12 letters are going to have an impact or have
13 doesn't ever say we're applying for a permit. here's 13 any -- or cause Mr. Bellas to possibly change his
14 the overflow. here's how it satisfies the Chapter 14 mind or his matter on this particular subject
15 102 requirements. 15 because, as I see it, the impact of what they
16 It seems like you're doing more of a 16 approved years ago, when the Green Knight Energy
17 storm water management plan. this is where we're 17 Center went in, the impact now versus the impact
18 putting water. but you never did Chapter 102. 18 what has taken place over, say, the last 18 years
19 MR. P LLAR: The erosion control plan 19 when the Green Knight center has been in existence,
20 and approval was part of that submission. 20 the impact will be like night and day.
21 MS. DINGLE: Was that also in the 21 And the industrial activity that will
22 application? 22 be taking place very close to this pond has all the
23 MR. PULLAR: It was approved back in. 23 potential in the world to cause major disaster,
24 I believe. 2008 as part of the southern expansion 24 because you're, in essence, sitting right up at the
25 for the landfi II and then as part of this project 25 edge of this pond.
Page 19 Page 21
I the proposal is to modifY the design for the Slate I I would think that the DEP would take
2 Belt facility. And the modification was -- since it 2 a very good look at Plainfield Township's
3 was regulated by DEP waste management, the 3 correspondence and might have a reason to change
4 storm water management plan and the erosion and 4 their opinion in regards to -- when they get a
5 sedimentation control plan went to DEP. That's the 5 better understanding of what is proposed.
6 instructions we got. They told us in two separate 6 MR. PULLAR: The DEP, my
7 meetings that's how they want it regulated. 7 understanding, will take all comments into account
8 What they are willing to do, based on 8 during their review. So they -- you know, if you
9 communications with them -- we did get a letter from 9 submitted correspondence to them, they will take
10 them clarifYing how they are permitting this and 10 that into account I'm sure. That's been my
II what they are going to do. The erosion control plan II understanding, and the pemlitting that I have done
12 portion of it will be reviewed by the conservation 12 with the department, through the department, that's
13 district. 13 what they do. They will take that into account.
14 MR. KLEfNTOP: The letter you're 14 MS. WITMER: But, excuse me,
15 referring to, does that have a date of June 26 from 15 Mr. Pullar, has DEP indicated to the applicant that
16 Roger Bellas, one and a half pages? 16 they should change their application or apply for a
17 MR. PULLAR: August 10th, 2018. 17 different permit with regard to the sedimentation
18 MR. GOODRICH: Attachment C. 18 basin.
19 MR. PULLAR: We, at the last -- 19 MR. PULLAR: They have not. They
20 MR. KLEI TOP: That would be his 20 indicated that the determination in the August 10th
21 letter responding to you, I believe -- responding to 21 letter is the way they're going to proceed with
22 your letter of June 26? 22 their review.
MR. PULLAR: Yeah, we had made an 23 MR. KLEI TOP: I can't disagree with
24 inquiry based on, you know, the discussions we've 24 that, but on the other hand, we haven't heard from
25 had at previous meetings. And at the last meeting I 25 them, so we have no idea which way they're going to
6 (Pages 18 - 21)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 22 Page 24
I go on this. I It's what they did originally back in 2008. It's
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Robin. is your 2 part of the application package that the township
3 question answered') 3 has. and if it's something you need to revisit. all
4 MS. DINGLE: o. I'm not quite sure 4 the previous calculations. we can accommodate that.
5 still. I want to know specifically if the 5 But it's -- DEP -- again. I'm basing
6 engineering design and all the Chapter 102 6 it on their determination. We went in and asked
7 requirements for sedimentation basin are included in 7 them. We gave them what the proposal was. They
8 the application that you're referring to -- that's 8 told us on two different occasions. this is the way
9 including in your attachment C. 9 that it's regulated. This is the way we want you to
10 MR. PULLAR: That design was included. 10 proceed with the perm it. So I'm following that.
II It \Vas included in the minor modification that went II They \\"ill. again -- again. they'll
12 into DEP. the waste management program. And that 12 receive and consider input from the public and from
13 was included because the basin is part of Grand 13 the to\mship and -- but this is the way we're
14 Central's facility permit. So that's the permit 14 proceeding and this is our understanding of how it's
15 that had to be modified. And we submitted -- it W"as 15 permitted.
16 a minor permit modification for those changes. 16 MR. KLEINTOP: Mr. Smith. do have you
17 And that has been submitted. It 17 anything to add?
18 included stormwater management. It included erosion 18 MR. SMITH: I o. nothing to add
19 and sedimentation control. And that's what -- 19 necessarily. Terry. but my understanding is the same
20 MS. DI GLE: You submitted it as a 20 as what you had mentioned.
21 modification') 21 MR. KLEINTOP: How to evaluate the
22 MR. PULLAR: Yes. 22 current situation to have a change of heart?
23 MS. DINGLE: What I want to kno\\·. when 23 MR. SMITH: That's holY it's mitten in
24 the basin or pond originally was permitted under 24 that ection.
25 Chapter 102. ot modified. but permitted. 25 THE CHAIRMA ': Anybody else. comments
Page 23 Page 25
MR. PULLAR: I believe it was 2008. I on Jason's letter?
2 It was part of the southern expansion permit. 2 (No response.)
3 MS. DINGLE: Is that information 3 THE CHAIRMA : Moving on. Now, ladies
4 available to the township') 4 and gentlemen, representing Synagro, the floor is
5 MR. PULLAR: Yes. 5 yours.
6 MS. DINGLE: The 2008 application? 6 MR. HECHT: Good evening. My name Jim
7 MR. PULLAR: I believe a lot of that 7 Hecht, project developer for Synagro.
8 documentation has been submitted as far as the 8 Tonight we actually had a chance to
9 approvals and the conversion from when it was mining 9 review that letter and we have answers for our -- or
10 to the permitted basin that \Va in 2008. So. yes. 10 responses to the letter that was just read.
\I that has been provided. II MR. KLEINTOP: Can this screen be
12 MR. KLE TOP: The reason I ask is. 12 activated?
13 DEP's approval under Chapter 105.12 (A)(6). when 13 MR. HECHT: 0, we're unable to get
14 they were approving this as a stormwater basin or a 14 this to work. While they do that, we're going to
15 sediment basin for Green Knight Energy Center. as I 15 make a presentation and responses to the letters
16 understand that section. the DEP would have 16 that we've been receiving.
17 potential reason and would have leeway to change 17 We're going to include infonnation
18 their mind in regard to this based on what the 18 that we have been generating through the pennitting
19 environmental impact could be now versus what it was 19 process with DE? and we've also incorporated the
20 at the time of the energy center. 20 information we've got from the public hearings and
21 You may agree or disagree \\"ith that. 21 we received the zoning officer's letter today and
22 That's my understanding. 22 we've had a chance to look at it, at least briefly.
23 MR. PULLAR: You know. that's the 23 And we've also received as an
24 determination they'll have to make. I'm basing on 24 attachment to that, the nuisance prevention and
25 the determination that they've made to this point. 25 monitoring plan draft that was put together for us
7 (Pages 22 - 25)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1 000 ~ 61 0-434-8588 ~ 302-571-051 0 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 26 Page 28
I to look at in tenns of potential conditions for how I were raised both in the zoning ordinance and by the
2 we will be operating the plant. And we will review 2 engineer about nuances and operational controls; and
3 that. We had just a few hours today, but we did 3 all that has been submitted in a separate report
4 review it. 4 that was attached to the application.
5 We have some clarifying questions that 5 We also included a traffic report, and
6 we want to ask, some clarifications, and we will do 6 that is included.
7 that between now and the next meeting and provide a 7 And then just last -- late last week
8 response to that, but we do support that type of 8 we submitted responses to the two Hanover letters
9 interaction. 9 and to the township letter that was submitted in the
10 Our presentation wi II not take two 10 last couple weeks. So all that material has been
II hours, but it's unknown to us how long the questions II turned in. We'll be going over that as quickly as
12 will take from the commission and then we're setting 12 we can tonight so that the commission and the public
13 aside time for public comment and questions. 13 can be brought up to date to the current status of
14 At the suggestion or direction of the 14 the plans and the information and then, as you said,
15 commission, we did apply for all of our penn its that 15 have public comments.
16 involved three new permits, which was the general 16 So we thought we would start with the
17 penn it, which is for the processing facility itself. 17 zoning officer's letter. Elizabeth is going to go
18 The POES penn it, which is for the 18 through that. But we're going to start -- he refers
19 stonnwater management, that's the water that does 19 to Hanover's letter that we just read. So we're
20 not come in contact with the industrial operations. 20 going to go over that to get that done first and
21 The plan approval goes to the air 21 then continue through the zoning officer's letter
22 quality regulators. 22 and Hanover Engineer's letter.
We had to ask for a detennination for 23 MR. SIMPSO : Excuse me. We haven't
24 access from Green Knight Energy Center and that's 24 gone over the zoning officer's letter. I would
25 been submitted and has already been approved. And 25 prefer you to address Hanover's letter. You just
Page 27 Page 29
I as mentioned earlier. the existing Grand Central I said we're going to start with the zoning.
2 Permit is being modified because our facility will 2 MR. HECHT: We're going to go over the
3 be on the landfill site itself. 3 Hanover letter that he just read first.
4 As far as the other four permit 4 MS. WITMER: So I have the loudest
5 applications. they've been administratively accepted 5 voice so I was nominated to read our response to
6 as complete. and they're now in technical review. 6 Jason's letter. It was submitted on August 31 st,
7 And we have made it clear that we support DEP 7 2018. We respond point by point. Hopefully you
8 holding a public meeting on the application so that 8 have that in your packet. Hopefully it was provided
9 the public and the officials from Plainfield 9 to you so you can follow along. I'll read it so the
10 Township. anybody who is interested. can come and 10 public hears as well.
II share their views and opinions and concerns with Il I will not reread point number one in
12 them. 12 the letter. I'll simply read our response.
13 So before they respond to the issued 13 The appl icant agrees that
14 permits. there will be an opportunity to have an 14 sedimentation Basin 0.2 is regulated as a Water of
15 interaction with them. 15 the Commonwealth. Sediment Basin o. 2 is
16 As the comminee k.nows. we made a lot 16 appropriately designated as a sedimentation basin on
17 of submittals in the last month or so. We have done 17 the plans submitted to the township. The existing
18 a complete revision of the package. which 18 and proposed water boundary is shown. The project
19 incorporated the last several rounds of the 19 will be in full compliance with all state
20 Plainfield Township engineer's comments. the zoning 20 regulations applicable to the basin.
21 officer's comments. comments from the public 21 For context, Basin 0.2 is an
22 meetings that we've been at. 22 existing permitted, non-discharging engineered
23 We also included in that permit 23 stonnwater control basin that will be modified for
24 application a project performance review and 24 the Slate Belt Heat Recover Facility.
25 compliance report which answers the questions that 25 The applicant applied for an
8 (Pages 26 - 29)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 30 Page 32
I Individual ational Pollutant Discharge Elimination I DEP Mining Program I otice of Permit Correction
2 System called a PDES, permit for discharge of 2 related to Mining Permit umber 48820501 states.
3 stormwater runoff from their proposed faci I ity. An 3 that the post-mining land use is corrected from.
4 individual PDES permit is required as the facility 4 quote. water impoundment. end quote. to. quote.
5 is located in the Little Bushkill Creek watershed, 5 developed water resources. end quote. defined 25 PA
6 designated in Chapter 93 as a high quality, cold 6 Code Chapter 77.1 as. quote. land use for storing
7 water fishery. 7 warer for beneficial uses such as stock ponds.
8 As detailed more below, the project 8 irrigation. fire protection. flood control and water
9 includes numerous protections for the basin and the 9 supply.
10 area waterways. Most notably the project was 10 Subsequently. the former quarry was
II engineered to: umber one, eliminate all direct 1 I repurposed and engineered. permitted and constructed
12 discharges of industrial process water; and number 12 as a sediment basin and storm water control facility.
13 two, capture all stormwater runoff from the only 13 ediment Basin 1\0.2 under the PA DEP Waste
14 industrial activity areas at the site, the loading 14 Management Permit umber 100265 amendment issued to
15 and offloading areas. 15 Grand Central Sanitary Landfill on August I. 2008.
16 As a result, the only stormwater 16 Attachment B includes a timeline and
17 runoff from the SBHRC facilities to sedimentation 17 supporting documentation of the Basin No.2
18 Basin o. 2 will be sheet flow runofffrom 18 permitting and modifications. Significant
19 nonindustrial areas, such as the parking area for 19 construction effo'rts went into the development of
20 the facility. The limited runoff from the SBHRC 20 sedimentation Basin No.2. Specifically. large
21 facility will discharge to a proposed vegetated 21 portions of the high wall around the quarry pit were
22 swale adjacent to the Grand Central Sanitary 22 reclaimed and large amounts of fill consisting
23 Landfill's Sediment Basin o. 2 serving the adjacent 23 primarily of material from a former slate quarry and
24 Grand Central Sanitary Landfill. And the runoff 24 slate processing operation were brought into the
25 will be sampled by SBHRC to further ensure that it 25 former quarry.
Page 31 Page 33
I will not impact the quality of the stormwater in the I An emergency spillway was also
2 basin. 2 constructed and provided. along with a sediment trap
3 Sediment Basin o. 2 is the former 3 for sediment removal from landfill runoff prior to
4 Doney II Quarry. The quarry was initially excavated 4 discharge to the basin.
5 from dry land and was regulated by the PA DEP mining 5 Sedimentation Basin No. 2's original
6 program during its operational years until it closed 6 design included a discharge barrel identified as
7 in 2007. 7 outfall 012 in the GCSL PDES Permit lumber PA
8 Initial quarry activities commenced on 8 0074083.
9 site over 140 years ago as the slate quarry being 9 However, the basin never discharged to
10 depict -- is being depicted on the 1874 orthampton 10 surface water and the discharge barrel was never
II County atlas. II constructed. For this reason GCSL requested that
12 Based on review of publicly available 12 outfall 012 not be included in the 2016 NPDES permit
13 resources for the property. there has been 13 renewal.
14 documented industrial activity at the site with the 14 As confirmed by PA DEP during the
15 earliest record of activity dated 1914. A history 15 project pre-application meeting. and in a letter
16 of the Doney II Quarry is presented in Attachment A. 16 dated August 10. 2018. see Attachment C.
17 Following closure of the mining 17 Sedimentation Basin I o. 2 is considered a \\'ater of
18 operations. reclamation options available included 18 the Commonwealth under 25 PA Code Chapter 105. since
19 the completed backfill of the mine to pre-mining 19 it is a. quote. natural or artificial lake. pond.
9 (Pages 30 - 33)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 34 Page 36
I projecting into a stormwater management facility or I capacity to retain even large storm events.
2 an erosion sedimentation pollution control facility 2 otably, even in the unexpected event
3 which meets the requirements in Chapter 102 relating 3 that the basin were to discharge to Little Bushkill
4 to erosion and sediment control if the facility was 4 Creek or Waltz Creek, it would not affect the
5 constructed and continues to be maintained for the 5 exclusion of the basin from regulation as a water of
6 designated purpose. end quote. 6 the United States because the basin would still be
7 Therefore. while Sediment Basin o. 2 7 operating as a stormwater control feature.
8 is a regulated body of water. permit requirements 8 THE CHAIRMA 1 would like to
9 under 25 PA Code Chapter 105 are waived. 9 interrupt for a minute. I think at least one or two
10 Modification of the basin will be approved under the 10 of the board members had a question on what was
II minor permit modification submitted to PA DEP under II stated. It will give you a chance to catch your
12 25 PA Code Chapter 273 for GCSL under Permit umber 12 breath.
13 100265. 13 MS. DI GLE: Yeah, I still keep going
14 With regard to point number two in the 14 back to the sediment basin Chapter 102, and you
15 letter. SBHRC agrees that the project will be in 15 clearly read a response and identified your response
16 full compliance with all applicable federal 16 that it had to actively be permitted and designed
17 regulations. Sediment Basin No.2. is not. however. 17 under Chapter 102 and also continues to be managed
18 a quote. Water of the United States. end quote. 18 under such, maintained.
19 under the Clean Water Act or its implementing 19 I guess I just went through the
20 regulations. 20 information that we were provided on Friday,
21 First. the Clean Water Act expressly 21 regarding your Attachment B and nowhere in there is
22 limits its scope to discharged into. quote. 22 there any information on erosion control or Chapter
23 navigable waters, end quote. Sedimentation Basin 23 102. So I still do not feel that the Chapter 102
24 No.2 is a clo ed impoundment and not a navigable 24 requirements for sediment basin had been fulfilled,
25 water. 25 therefore, you cannot say that it was designed in
Page 35 Page 37
I Second, while the federal regulatory I accordance with the Chapter 102.
2 definitions interpreting the scope of the Clean 2 MR. ALLE : Dave Allen. project
3 Water Act and the term, quote, navigable waters, end 3 manager at Earth Res. Appendix E of the stoml\vater
4 quote, have been the subject of several revisions 4 management report that was submitted in February and
5 and court rulings lending confusion to the 5 last submitted in August included the previous
6 regulatory framework, the currently applicable 6 approval. so part of that is the DEP form for the
7 regulations plainly exempt both: 7 sedimentation pond and basin.
8 umber one, depressions created in dry 8 MS. DI GLE: I understand you guys
9 land incidental to mining or construction activity, 9 keep calling it a sedimentation basin pond. I want
10 i.e., the original quarry excavation; 10 to see the application and the actual 102. not the
II And two, form storm water control II permit or language from DEP. I want to see the
12 features, i.e., the currently perm itted and 12 actual drawing .
13 operational Sedimentation Basin o. 2. See 33 CFR 13 MR. ALLE : This is the supporting
14 Part 328.3. 14 calculations for sediment basin. This is the
15 As a result, regardless of any 15 original 2008 submission.
16 hydrogeologic nexus between the basin and nearby 16 MS. DI GLE: And that's the entire
17 creeks through groundwater flow. The basin is still 17 application with all the engineering design
18 not regulated as a Water of the United States. As 18 calculations. overflow. everything else')
19 detailed in prior submissions to the township. the 19 MR. ALLEN: Right.
20 basin has been a non-discharging basin throughout 20 MS. DINGLE: Because I know you've
21 its operation. 21 done some work in there. I don't kno\\' if it's been
22 There is no indication that the 22 permitted and defined under Chapter 102.
23 modification to the basin from the project will 23 MR. ALLE : This the pertinent
24 change this, as all engineering studies have shown 24 information from Sediment Basin No.2. when it was
25 that the basin will continue to have the needed 25 converted from a quarry to a sediment basin.
10 (Pages 34 - 37)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 38 Page 40
I MR. KLElNTOP: Does that include the I on annual basis and can we get their reports')
2 drawings') 2 MR. BALL: To be clear. I'm not
3 MR. ALLE : Yes. sir. 3 indicating that we have any maintenance records.
4 MR. KLElNTOP: Does that include the 4 I'm happy to follow up with the facility and see
5 drawings? 5 what additional records on the maintenance of the --
6 MR. GOODRICH: They were both attached 6 you know. the broad or storm water control features
7 to the February. as well as the most recent 7 of the landfill are and make them available to you.
8 submission. 8 In answer to your question. yes. DEP
9 MS. Dl GLE: All right. Then a 9 absolutely inspects the facility broadly and looks.
10 follow-up to that. the definition again requires -- 10 you know'. at the basins.
II I haven't reviewed these numerous documents and II MR. KLE TOP: Is that done annually?
12 drawings. It says it has to be constructed and 12 MR. BALL: I'm not sure about the
13 continues to be maintained. Do you have maintenance 13 frequency. I'm referring to Scott.
14 records for the basin') And. again. looking at the 14 MR. KLElNTOP: I'm assuming they would
15 aerial topography. it looks like there's been no 15 submit something to Waste Management saying -- on a
16 work there. 16 periodic basis aying \\"e're happy campers or we're
17 MR. BALL: Chris Ball. here on behalf 17 not happy campers.
18 of Waste Management. We can look at Waste 18 MR. PER : Scott Perin. former
19 Management's records. I think the important note is 19 district manager for Grand Central Landfill. but now
20 not whether or not monthly records are maintained 20 area director for Waste Management for multiple
21 here. but what is the function that the pond 2 I facilities within our area.
22 continues to serve. That's what DEP has looked at. 22 So water quality does inspect that
23 DEP reviewed all the submissions. reviewed the pond. 23 facility annually. It would include all PDES
24 and that's what the response we received back 24 discharge locations in their inspection.
25 indicated. they are very much comfortable when that 25 We do monthly inspections for all our
Page 39 Page 41
I pond was constructed and has been maintained and storm water basins. It's required under the I PDES
2 continues to be used as a sedimentation pond, 2 permit. so that we have a record. Solid Waste will
3 stonnwater control facility. 3 inspect those impoundments from time to time during
4 We can look and try to get you 4 their inspections or if they notice we're doing any
5 additional maintenance records with respect to the 5 sort of maintenance or cleaning work associated with
6 pond, but in terms of the regulatory definition, 6 the basin.
7 which is what's at issue here, that's what we raised 7 MR. KLElNTOP: You have those reports')
8 with DEP and DE? con finned that it was constructed 8 MR. SCOTT: We keep records of the
9 and maintained as a sediment basin. 9 inspections that were performed on file. It's there
10 MS. DINGLE: Most sediment basins they 10 for the department to review when they do their
II have gravel banks and clear travel. That's what II inspections.
12 they want, clear stonnwater retention. This seems 12 MR. KLE TOP: Including DEP's annual
13 to have developed a lot of wetland vegetation, 13 approval letter --
14 wetland characteristics around the edges and 14 MR. SCOTT: We would probably get
15 supports aquatic life. 15 issued an inspection report. Terry. that we would
16 It does not seem to be maintained as 16 have on file somewhere. but the department \\"ould
17 a, quote, sediment basin. It seems to be reverting 17 have a record of that inspection as well.
18 to a natural state of wetland and water. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
19 MR. BALL: I think I only say that the 19 MR. SIMPSOI : Just to review a few
20 facility very much continues to use it as a 20 things here. On page I you state project will be in
21 stann water control feature and sedimentation basin. 21 full compliance with all state regulations
22 And DEP very much considers it as operating as a 22 applicable to the basin. I guess that will be
23 sedimentation basin and storm water control feature. 23 determined as our engineer will review that. Has
24 MR. KLEI TOP: If you don't have 24 all that been completed yet?
25 maintenance records, is DE? inspecting it at least 25 MS. WITMER: o. Those are the permit
11 (Pages 38 - 41)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 42 Page 44
I modifications that were listed above that were we get a big rainstorm, can run into the basin? And
2 submitted to DEP. So we asked DEP, this is what 2 you stated that only runoff would be sheet flow from
3 we're going to do, what permit do we need to apply 3 just the normal parking area. That's what I heard.
4 for. They told us, we applied for it at your 4 MS. WITMER: That's correct. That's
5 request. We wouldn't necessarily normally do that 5 also the response to point number three in the
6 at preliminary land development, but we did it here. 6 letter.
7 Then we further followed up to 7 MR. SIMPSO : Right. And my last
8 make -- to have the department confirm that they're 8 comment, you know, it appears that there's a
9 treating this as a sedimentation basin, which they 9 disagreement between, you know. our consultant and
10 have now done. That is the application that is 10 you regarding the waters of the United States. How
II pending at DEP. II does that get resolved?
12 MR. KLEINTOP: I'm stating full 12 MR. SMITH: That's why we're
13 compliance with all state regulations applicable to 13 requesting the 1D from the applicant. Basically
14 the basin. Have you had a chance to review and 14 it's the applicant's position that it's not a Waters
15 verify that they have complied with that basin? 15 of the United States, and they're explaining why
16 MR. SMITH: They have what? 16 they feel that way. Without formal response from
17 MR.SIMPSO : Itsaystheprojectwill 17 the Corps of Engineers, it's just their opinion
18 be full compliance with all state regulations 18 versus the potential for it to be.
19 applicable to the basin, right here, under first 19 MR. SIMPSO : And that jurisdiction is
20 response. 20 coming?
21 So I assume that they submitted their 21 MS. WITMER: 0, we disagree. PA DEP
22 plans to the state and you looked at it. We haven't 22 is the regulating agency. Ifit was a Waters of the
23 gotten a response back yet from the state agencies, 23 United States, PA DEP would have to consider that.
24 but have you had a chance to review the plans to see 24 MR. BALL: I think, just to add some
25 if they're in compliance with the state regulations? 25 clarity on this too, there are two distinct
Page 43 Page 45
I MR. SMITH: Yes, we have reviewed the I questions. Whether or not ajurisdictional
2 plans that were submitted and that's how these 2 determination is needed or appropriate here with
3 comments were generated. We wanted just to put the 3 respect to the presence of any wetlands on the site.
4 applicant on notice that we recognize that there may 4 And second question is. is the basin itself
5 be this issue -- there may be an issue with the 5 appropriately categorized as a Waters of the nited
6 department reconsidering the township's position on 6 States.
7 requesting that a permit be required due to concerns 7 The regulations on the laner question
8 for water quality impacts that may occur as a result 8 can speak for themselves. to me. You know. DEP has
9 of proposed activities. It may not be within the 9 confirmed. you know. and we put forward information
10 scope of the waiver that has been discussed. 10 repeatedly showing that this is a basin that is from
II MR. SIMPSO : All right. I see it as II a regulatory perspective characterized as a storm
12 an important checklist item. I'm looking forward to 12 water control facility. DEP agrees with that.
13 make sure that you actually fulfill that. 13 Applying that under the federal basis.
14 Secondly, you have stated. and I don't 14 it is clearly under the exemption under the Waters
15 want to misstate this, that absolutely no runoff 15 of the United States question for those stormwater
16 from any of the truck delivery areas can make it 16 control facilities.
17 into this Sediment Basin No.2; is that correct? 17 We can certainly discuss more broadly
18 MS. WITMER: That's correct. And we 18 whether or not any additional jurisdictional
19 can address that -- we have a slide to review that. 19 determinations around perimeter wetlands are needed
20 Again, we can address that later. But, yes, that's 20 or appropriate. I don't believe that anybody has
21 correct. 21 identified any wetlands on the site. but we're
22 MR. SIMPSO : So you're going to 22 happy. I think. to cooperate to some degree and show
23 isolate a travel lane, a travel path of the trucks 23 you the background information that was provided on
24 where they're parked, unloaded, washed out, et 24 that -- on the wetlands question.
25 cetera, so that absolutely no storm water runoff, if 25 MR. SIMPSO : I'm just trying to bring
12 (Pages 42 - 45)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 46 Page 48
the two parties together if we can. We just got I we're happy to follow up with him. I just don't
2 this letter last Friday. and I don't think our 2 want the record to indicate we're dragging our feet
..,
3 consultant really had a chance to look at it yet. .) or not trying to be responsive. We try to be
4 It seems to be a disagreement. I guess what you're 4 responsive with the clearest provision of the
5 saying is that you will converse with our consultant 5 Federal Regulations that apply to that basin.
6 and possibly come to an agreement on this') 6 MS. WITMER: Understand, we just
7 MR. BALL: We're happy to have 7 submitted this on August 31 st responding to an
8 EarthRes talk directly to Hanover about what 8 August nnd letter. So we're -- again, we're
9 additional information we can find. If it makes you 9 providing our response to your consultant. I'm not
10 feel any better. the Supreme Court. you know. banged 10 sure that he does still disagree. We simply will
II heads. couldn't decide at all on what the right II have to get together and see.
12 definition of navigable waters or the Waters of the 12 MR. SIMPSO : I'm just pointing out
13 United States are either. They split off on three 13 there is a point of disagreement here that needs to
14 different directions and issued three different 14 be resolved.
15 rulings. And it's been one of the bigger messes in 15 MR. KLEI TOP: I do have a problem
16 environmental law for more than a decade. It is 16 with the disagreement that these are not Waters of
17 confusing and subject. 17 the United States. This isn't like a normal
18 One thing that is clear. though. is 18 sediment basin or detention basin where water goes
19 that within the regulations. and these are the 19 in and is absorbed and released at a certain rate
20 regulations that are currently enforced. that term. 20 over a given period of time.
21 Water of the United States. which was really meant 21 We may be calling it a sediment basin.
22 to cover rivers that are navigable and go through 22 But the reality of it is, the water within this
23 interstate commerce. does not apply to an individual 23 quarry regulate themselves. It's open-ended into
24 storm water control facility. That piece of it is 24 the groundwater. That's why you don't need a
25 really pretty clear. 25 spillway, at least up to this point, because it
Page 47 Page 49
I MR. SIMPSO : I have a review letter I adjustments itself accordingly based on groundwater
2 that says -- that disagrees with that. 2 level. There's water coming in and going out of
3 MR. BALL: Yeah. yeah. Again. \V-eire 3 this quarry as we sit here, and I don't believe you
4 happy to follow up and provide additional 4 can debate that with us.
5 information. 5 MR. SIMPSO: 0, no, not at all. My
6 MS. DII OLE: My question. we can both 6 only point was that under the federal regulations,
7 talk about this. but we have a difference of 7 that point, has no bearing on whether or not that
8 opinion. I think what we need to do is get a 8 pond is considered a federal water.
9 jurisdiction determination. if you are confident 9 Just to be clear, we're not -- we are
10 that it isn't Waters of the nited States. 10 openly acknowledging and agree that this is a water
II MR. BELL: I didn't indicate that we II of the Commonwealth. It's a state regulated water.
12 were. I'm telling as a matter of regulatory 12 But it's a separate question as to whether or not it
13 interpretation. we provided you the statute. It 13 comes under federal jurisdiction. And under the
14 plainly states that stormwater control facilities 14 federal regulations, regardless of whether or not
15 are exempt from the definition of the Waters of the 15 there's a tie-in between a stormwater pond and
16 United States. 16 groundwater, it doesn't matter. It is exempted
17 DEP has confirmed that this is a 17 under the federal regulations. That's the only
18 stormwater control facility. If we need to get 18 point that we were trying to clarify here.
19 together and talk about additional information that 19 MR. KLEI TOP: Well, based -- I think
20 can be provided. that's fine. We're just reading 20 we need an updated definition from the DEP what a
21 you our response which we thought was pretty cut and 21 sediment basin is. This is the most unique sediment
22 dry here. 22 basin or detention basin I have ever experienced.
23 MR. SIMPSO : But our consultant 23 THE CHAIRMA : I think we determined
24 disagrees. 24 there's a significant disagreement on the
25 MR. BALL: Understood. And. again. 25 interpretation of this right now. We're starting to
13 (Pages 46 - 49)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1 000 ~ 610-434-8588 - 302-571-051 0 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 50 Page 52
run in circles over the same issue. I want to keep I THE CHAIRMA Anybody on the board
2 things moving forward. Does the board have any 2 need any clarification or have any questions for
3 other questions on items one or two from their 3 that?
4 response? 4 (No response.)
5 What I would like to do. again. give 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Number four.
6 you a chance to take a breather. is cover your 6 MS. WITMER: umber four. It is
7 response based off of Jason Smith's letter. section 7 agreed that the project will be in full compliance
8 three. give us a chance to interact with you and 8 with the township's code of ordinances. While the
9 then we'll go on to section four and do it that way. 9 riparian buffer requirements of those ordinances do
10 okay? 10 not apply to Sedimentation Basin 0.2, it is also
II MS. WITMER: That's great. II agreed that any buffer requirements applicable to
12 THE CHAIRMA I: Any more on one or two. 12 other offsite wetlands and waters wi II be met.
13 board have any more new or different? 13 Waters of this Commonwealth are
14 MS. WITMER: The project has been 14 defined in PA Code Chapter 105 as, quote, rivers,
15 engineered to be fully protective of the water 15 streams, creeks, rivulets, impoundments, ditches,
16 quality of Sedimentation Basin o. 2. Steps taken 16 watercourses, storm sewers, lakes, dammed water,
17 in the design and planned operation of the facility 17 wetlands. ponds and springs and other bodies or
18 to protect storm water quality include: 18 channels of conveyance of surface and underground
19 umber one. the elimination of all 19 water or parts thereof, whether natural or
20 direct discharges of industrial process water: 20 artificial, within or on the boundaries of this
21 I umber two. the capture of all 21 Commonwealth, end quote.
22 storm water runoff from the only industrial activity 22 Basin o. 2 is an impoundment, as is
23 areas at the site. the loading and off1oading areas. 23 any storm water management device. However, it is
24 As a result. the only storm water 24 regulated by PA DEP under 25 PA Code 273, not PA
25 runoff from the SBHRC facility to Sedimentation 25 Code 105, as confirmed in writing by the department.
Page 51 Page 53
I Basin No.2 will be sheet flow runoff from 1 Watercourses are a specific subset of
2 nonindustrial areas. such as the parking area for 2 the broader waters of the Commonwealth and are
3 the facility. and best management practices will be 3 defined in 25 PA Code 105 as. quote. a channel or
4 employed by SBHRC to further eliminate the potential 4 conveyance of surface water having defined bed and
5 for any impacts to the stormwater flow to the basin. 5 banks. \\·hether natural or artificial with perennial
6 Importantly. that limited runoff from 6 or intermittent flow. end quote.
7 the SBHRC facility will discharge to a proposed 7 Consistent with the scope of. quote.
8 vegetated swale adjacent to the GCSL Sediment Basin 8 riparian rights. end quote. as applying to lands
9 o. 2. serving the adjacent Grand Central Sanitary 9 adjacent to the banks of flowed water bodies. such
10 Landfill. and the runoff will be sampled by SBHRC. 10 as a river or creek. the riparian buffers under
II In light of the elimination of the 1I state regulations apply only to those areas adjacent
12 direct SBHRC discharges. the capture of all 12 to flowed water bodies. Basin o. 2 does not meet
13 storm water from industrial activity areas. the use 13 this definition. as it is not a flowed body of water
14 of BMPs. and the sampling of stormwater flow to the 14 and does not channel or convey surface water from
15 basin. 15 the basin.
16 The project poses no threat to the 16 Consistent with the state regulations.
17 water quality of Sedimentation Basin o. 2. because 17 Plainfield Township Subdivision and Land Development
18 there is no anticipated change to the water quality 18 Ordinance. Chapter 22. Section 1023. similarly
19 of Sedimentation Basin No.2. It is not clear what 19 defines a watercourse as. quote. a channel or
20 benefit "'ould be served by conducting a 20 conveyance of surface water having a defined bed and
2 I hydrogeological study of any connection between the 21 banks. whether natural or artificiaL emphasis. \\·ith
22 basin and nearby surface waters. 22 perennial or intermittent flow. end emphasis. shown
23 Supporting calculations demonstrating 23 as hydrolog j
• blue lines. on the latest version of
24 basin capacity to contain a IOO-year storm event 24 the Plainfield Township's zoning map.
25 have also been provided to Plainfield Township. 25 Manmade swales constructed
14 (Pages 50 - 53)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 54 Page 56
I specifically for stonnwater management purposes are I questions.
2 excluded from this definition. As with the state 2 Back to item number three from the
3 definition of watercourse, Basin 2 also does not 3 Hanover letter. Hanover Engineering recommends
4 meet the township's definition since it is not a 4 hydrological study be perfonned. And your position
5 flowed body of water and does not channel or convey 5 is that you're not going to do that; is that
6 surface water from the basin. 6 correct?
7 Further clarifying the distinction 7 MS. WITMER: That's correct. It's not
8 between stationary and flowed bodies of water in the 8 needed.
9 township's ordinances, stationary bodies of water, 9 MR. SIMPSO : You think it's not
10 e.g., ponds, lakes, are not regulated by the 10 needed. He recommends it, so you're saying you
II township's watercourse provisions which require II won't do it?
12 riparian buffers. See Chapter 22 Section 1023 (4) 12 MS. WITMER: Well, again, we haven't
13 (A), but are instead protected in the ordinances 13 had time to talk about our response in the context
14 through the application of a, quote, open space, end 14 of his letter. We're saying it's not needed and
15 quote, setback. Applicable, quote, 50 feet of the 15 we're saying we will meet with them to discuss it
16 top of the bank of any pond or lake. See Chapter 22 16 and to discuss all of their comments. We think
17 Section 1023 (4)(B). 17 they're interpreting the watercourse provision
18 In this context the ordinance clearly 18 incorrectly, as I have just stated. We have to
19 states that the 50-foot open space requirement does 19 discuss that with them as well.
20 not apply to stonnwater management features such as 20 MR. SIMPSO : I'm just pointing this
21 Sedimentation Basin o. 2 that were specifically 21 out. I don't think we're going to solve it tonight,
22 constructed for stonnwater management. 22 but I would like to widdle it down so everybody can
23 As an additional point of 23 hear these direct requests from our consultant and
24 clarification, it is noted that many features are 24 your position.
25 shown as hydrology on the Plainfield Township's 25 So under umber four A, again. Hanover
Page 55 Page 57
1 zoning map. Attachment D. that are non-watercourse I recommends the plan shall also contain a
2 features. including other sedimentation basins and a 2 certification by the qualified professional
3 Grand Central Sanitary Landfill wastewater lagoon. 3 responsible for the field delineation, indicating he
4 Therefore. features shown on 4 or she has reviewed the plan -- they're recommending
5 Plainfield Township hydrology map are not 5 that a professional be obtained to certify to the
6 necessarily indicative of watercourses. Regardless 6 best of their knowledge that the correct
7 of clear inapplicability of the open space 7 representation of wetland boundaries be delineated
8 requirements to Sedimentation Basin I o. 2. SBHRC has 8 in the field.
9 modified the plans to provide 50 feet of open space 9 And, again, you're saying you don't
10 from the design water level in Sedimentation Basin 10 think that's necessary and you're not going to do
II NO.2 to address township comments. II that.
12 A copy of the site plan showing the 12 MS. WITMER: 0, no, I haven't
13 revised grading and the containment areas is 13 actually read that response yet. and we have
14 enclosed with this letter. Attachment E. Complete 14 actually done that most recently on March 14th,
15 revised plan showing the open space have been 15 2018.
J6 submitted to Plainfield Township. Supporting 16 MR. SIMPSO So you're going to
17 calculations of the basin capacity to contain a 17 comply with that?
18 100-year storm event have been provided to 18 MS. WITMER: Well, I'll read the
19 Plainfield Township. 19 formal language of our reply, but, yes, in response
20 THE CHAIRMA : Board. any comments. 20 to A, we confinn that we -- a survey was perfonned.
21 questions') 21 I'm happy to read the response to A, if you want me
22 MR. SIMPSO : Let me start. Ijust 22 to go ahead and finish up with four. I only read
23 want to -- there's a lot of words read and probably 23 the general response to four.
24 a linle confusing to the general public. I'm going 24 MR. SIMPSO Oh, I'm sorry. I'm
25 to widdle it down because [ have some very direct 25 jumping ahead. I'm sorry about that.
15 (Pages 54 - 57)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 58 Page 60
I MS. WITMER: So four, EarthRes I mitigation work was completed as part of that
2 perfonned present/absent survey of the property and 2 pennit. We pulled the application for that pennit
3 found no wetlands within the proposed property 3 and never completed that project.
4 boundary. Liberty Environmental, Inc., perfonned a 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?
5 wetlands presence/absence study and Phase I Bog 5 MS. DINGLE: I'm sorry. I'm looking
6 Turtle Habitat Assessments, conducted in accordance 6 at the number four, and there's a note that says
7 with u.S. Fish and Wildlife service guidelines for 7 exact location delineated. Wetlands are not
8 Bog Turtle Surveys from April 2006, at the proposed 8 depicted. So, again, this isn't really a wetland
9 SBHRC facility on May 4th, 2018, as required by the 9 delineation, per se.
10 Pennsylvania atural Diversity Inventory, P 01, 10 Also, I'm curious to know, it seems to
II Project Environmental Review Receipt received from II be driven -- the delineation of wetlands was driven
12 the online search perfonned on March 14,2018. 12 purely by the P DI response and wasn't a complete
13 That's PNDI Search Number 652302 and that's also 13 delineation of the investigation area or adjacent
14 attached as Attachment F. 14 area like over by Waltz Creek or anything like that;
15 One, wetland identified as wetland A 15 is that correct?
16 was identified to the west of the proposed project 16 MS. WITMER: It was the presence
17 area within 300 feet of the applicable study area, 17 absence detenn ination, and the del ineation isn't
18 and that was a mitigation area created for previous 18 shown because there's nothing to delineate on the
19 site development on an adjacent parcel. 19 property at issue; am I correct --
20 Based on the site work perfonned to 20 MS. DI GLE: o. I'm saying you show
21 date, a jurisdictional detennination from the United 21 in yellow the investigation area that is
22 States Anny Corps of Engineers is not required. 22 not -- doesn't include any Waltz Creek adjacent
23 However, a 1D can be requested and can be provided 23 areas or downgrading area or potential
24 by the final approval if required by the township. 24 hydro-connected areas. I'm just saying typically
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions or 25 you have to look at adjacent areas and adjacent
Page 59 Page 61
I comments? I properties when you're doing a delineation.
2 MR. KLEfNTOP: What I'm asking is. in 2 The figure is confusing. You have a
3 what you just read. the area that had been impacted. 3 site investigation area that has nothing in it and
4 the proposed -- the prior project that you're 4 then you show a wetland area outside of
5 referring to in this letter. would that be the Green 5 investigation area. So ['m curious as to why -- you
6 Knight Energy Center? 6 know, what was done in tenns of delineation --
7 MS. WITMER: The prior -- the study 7 MS. WITMER: We can --
8 was done this year in 2018 for this project. so it 8 MS. 01 GLE: -- and what areas.
9 wasn't a study performed for Green Knights. so it 9 MS. WITMER: We can clarify that in
10 was performed for this project on this 12-acre 10 our written subm issions.
II parcel. II MS. 01 GLE: Thank you.
12 The April 2006 reference is to the 12 THE CHAIRMA : Anybody else?
13 date of the regulation. not to the date of the 13 MR. S[MPSO : In your response here
14 study. 14 you say, however -- I'm reading the last paragraph
15 MR. KLEI TOP: I understand you're 15 in your response. Based on the site work perfonned
16 saying to the west of the proposed project. 16 to date, jurisdiction determination for the United
17 Accordingly. wouldn't the west of proposed project 17 States Anny Corps is not required, however, 1D can
18 area be the Green Knights? 18 be requested and can be provided by the final
19 MR. PERIN: The mitigation area is not 19 approval required by the township.
20 tied with the development of the Green Knight Energy 20 Are you asking a question as to our
21 Center. Terry. That mitigation area was for an 21 opinion, as to whether we would like that, would
22 access road that the facility was going to construct 22 require that?
23 out towards the western stockpile area which is 23 MS. WITMER: Well, this is a
24 just to the west of Diamond Quarry designated on the 24 preliminary land development and subdivision
25 map. That project was never completed. but 25 application. You are entitled to require conditions
16 (Pages 58 - 61)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 62 Page 64
I for final plan approval. If the applicant agrees I environmental consultants have been at the site,
2 with those conditions. then they become conditions 2 looked at the site, nobody has seen wetlands there.
3 of the plan. So we're saying we could request a JD. 3 It's not needed. But we're willing to cooperate to
4 we could get it by final land development appro al 4 the extent necessary.
5 ifrequired by the township. 5 Maybe this is a good thing to put in
6 Again. we don't think it is necessary 6 the category of items that we can follow up with,
7 or even a good idea because no one who has looked at 7 with Hanover.
8 this site has found any wetlands on the site and 8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. ext.
9 we're sure that's what the jurisdictional 9 MS. WITMER: Four B relates to Waltz
10 determination will say. but it takes a while to get 10 Creek. Waltz Creek is located across the Grand
II them. 11 Central Sanitation Landfill Road and Pen Argyl Road
12 MR. SIMPSO : Okay. We had this 12 from the proposed SBHRC facility. The majority of
13 discussion about 10 minutes ago when Robin made a 13 the SBHRC facility is located in the Little Bushkill
14 point. why would you want JD? I brought it up. 14 Creek Watershed.
15 Would you like our opinion as to whether we \\'ould 15 As requested, the attached site plan
16 recommend to the board that we would like to see 16 shows a IDO-foot riparian buffer from the stream
17 that at the final approval or not at this point in 17 bank of Waltz Creek and from the offsite wetland
18 time? 18 areas.
19 MS. WITMER: Well. when you vote on 19 That was requested that the buffers
20 your recommendation to the supervisors. you'll give 20 are shown on the plans and they are now on the
21 us those recommendations. 21 plans.
22 MR. SIMPSO ': Okay. We'll reserve 22 THE CHAIRMA : Any comments? Just,
23 that one. 23 Jason, are you making some notes for some of these
24 MR. KLEfNTOP: I thought Mr. Smith's 24 things to negotiate back and forth?
25 letter strongly suggested the jurisdictional 25 MR. SMITH: Yes.
Page 63 Page 65
determination be required. I THE CHAIRMA : Moving forward.
2 MS. WITMER: ow. remember. there's 2 MS. WITMER: And. Jason. you have our
3 different types of jurisdictional determinations. 3 response letter. right')
4 The one we're talking about here is whether or not 4 MR. SMITH: I never received your
5 there's a wetland present. We're -- that's an easy 5 response letter in the mail. I got it from the
6 question to answer because there aren't any wetlands 6 township two evenings ago. I haven't had a chance
7 on the property. 7 to review it yet.
8 MR. BALL: And in the application. the 8 MS. WITMER: Okay. Four C. as stated.
9 effort was just made to meet -- I believe it's in 9 Liberty Environmental. Inc.. performed a wetlands
10 the definitional section of the ordinances which 10 presence/absence study and a Phase I Bog Turtle
II talks about applicant needing to take a look and see II Habitat Assessment conducted in accordance U.S. Fish
12 if there are wetlands. you know. on a site. 12 and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Bog Turtle
13 So that's what was done. That's what 13 Surveys at the proposed SBHRC facility on May 4.
14 we pointed to in the context of the different 14 2018. as required by the Pennsylvania Natural
15 analyses that were done on this site. It certainly 15 Diversity Inventory Project Environmental Review
16 may be appropriate. and in that definition it says 16 Receipt received from the online search performed on
17 that the look at the property should be done 17 March 14. 2018. POI Search urn ber 652302. see
18 consistent with certain standards. We believe that 18 Attachment F.
19 those standards were mel. 19 One. wetland. Wetland A. was
20 You can go so far as to say you want 20 identified to the west of the proposed project area
21 the U.S. Army Corps to come in and follow up and do 21 within 300 feet of the applicable study area which
22 a formal federal jurisdiction determination. which 22 was a mitigation area created for previous site
23 is what that JD stands for. 23 development.
24 What you hear us saying is that based 24 I mean. we're essentially just
25 on everything that we've seen. the multiple outside 25 covering what we covered earlier.
17 (Pages 62 - 65)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 66 Page 68
I THE CHAIRMAN: Any comments or I requested. the attached site plan shows laO-foot
2 questions? 2 setback from the center line of Waltz Creek.
3 MS. DINGLE: I have one. Going back 3 Included in the laO-foot setback from Waltz Creek
4 to B. I was just looking at the 100-foot riparian 4 are Pen Argyl Road and the GCSL entrance road to the
5 buffer along Waltz Creek. I just want to ask you to 5 west and large slate spoil piles to the east.
6 double check. Would that be 100 or ISO feet? 6 The only activities proposed by SBHRC
7 MS. WITMER: It's actually 7 within the Waltz: Creek riparian buffer are
8 your engineer who asked us to show a IOO-foot 8 construction of water and sewer utility connections
9 buffer, so we did. That was the request in the 9 and driveway entrance. These activities are
10 letter. 10 permitted uses under the Plainfield Township Zoning
1I MS. DINGLE: Can we just double check II Ordinance.
12 that and make sure that complied with the water 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions')
13 classification requirement? 13 MS. DINGLE: I just want to clarify my
14 MS. WITMER: Okay. We can confirm 14 understanding of this. You keep saying 50 feet of
IS that. 15 open space from the design water level. In other
16 MS. DINGLE: Waltz Creek is also 16 words, you're still going to go ahead and fill it
17 classified as ED in certain areas. Just verify that 17 and then put the 50 feet on after that.
18 and make sure of the setbacks -- 18 MS. WITMER: Correct. There's nothing
19 MR. BALL: We agree we can certainly 19 in the ordinances that would prohibit that.
20 do that. So we're clear, the 100-foot line I 20 MS. DINGLE: Well. we disagree on that
21 believe the request was proposed because of the 21 still. Ijust want to make sure that's why you keep
22 ordinance, and the ordinance just says 100 feet. 22 adding design water level. that's post you're
23 MS. DINGLE: The township ordinance. 23 filling in modifications to the basin')
24 I'm thinking PA DEP. 24 MS. WITMER: That's correct. The
25 MR. BALL: We'll confirm that, but PA 25 basin has a certain shape and boundary today. which
Page 67 Page 69
I DEP does not regulate -- consistent with our I is going to be modified by this plan. The 50 feet
2 response earlier on in four. PA DEP would not apply 2 is from the modified basin.
3 a riparian buffer to a sedimentation basin. 3 MS. DINGLE: Okay. Thank you.
4 MS. DINGLE: I'm saying to Waltz 4 MR. BALL: And just from the landfill
5 Creek. Waltz Creek buffer comes how close to the 5 perspective, it might help to clarify that our
6 facility') 6 sedimentation basins throughout the state are
7 MR. BALL: I got you. I apologize. I 7 modified. They're modified. as we mentioned
8 understand. 8 earlier, under the solid waste permitting program.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions') 9 The state does not regulate them
10 Go ahead. 10 pursuant to individual Chapter 102, 105 pieces.
II MS. WITMER: D. as noted above the I I They are incorporated parts of our landfill
12 open space and riparian buffer requirements of the 12 permitted to handle the storm water management off
13 township ordinances do not apply to Sedimentation 13 the landfill. So that's how they're regulated.
14 Basin 0.2. although not required for permitted 14 They wouldn't typically go through the process
15 storm water management facilities, SBHRC has modified 15 you're suggesting.
16 the plans to provide 50 feet of open space from the 16 Every time we change the contours of a
17 design water level in Sedimentation Basin 0.2 to 17 sedimentation basin in one of our landfills, we
18 address township comments. 18 submit applications, permit modification to the
19 A copy of the site plan showing the 19 solid waste department and DEP reviews them in that
20 revised grading and the containment areas is 20 context.
21 enclosed with this letter. 21 MR. KLEINTOP: If so, how many times
22 The majority of the SBHRC facility is 22 is a sediment basin a quarry?
23 located in the Little Bushkill Creek Watershed. THE CHAIRMAN: Step up to the mic,
24 Waltz Creek is located across the GCSL Road and Pen 24 please.
25 Argyl Road from the proposed SBHRC facility. As 25 MR. BALL: I'm sure [ don't have an
18 (Pages 66 - 69)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 70 Page 72
answer to that. you know. I and erosion and sedimentation control facility
2 MR. KLEINTOP: To the best of your 2 engineered. permirred and constructed under Permit
3 knowledge. any of those sedimentation basins at 3 Number 100265. It is a BMP feature for GCSL.
4 quarries? 4 The SBHRC project has been engineered
5 MR. PERIN: So where the Doney I 5 to be protective of the water quality of the Little
6 Quarry arrow points out. where you see on the older 6 Bushkill Creek and Waltz Creek watersheds.
7 picture two open smaller quarries just to the 7 Basin o. 2 provides erosion and
8 northwest. Doney II. the quarry that was closest to 8 sedimentation control for SBHRC during construction
9 Pen Argyl Road actually is converted to a stormwater 9 and serves as post-construction storm water
10 basin. Stormwater Basin 7. under the landfill 10 management BMP for storm water runoff after
II permit. It's a backfilled quarry converted to a 11 completion.
12 storm water impoundment. 12 Steps taken in the design and planned
13 MS. or GLE: I just want to clarify 13 operation of the facility to protect stormwater
14 the previous gentleman what he said. You were 14 quality include:
15 saying your sediment basins are permitted under the 15 umber one. the elimination of all
16 waste management -- 16 direct discharges of industrial process water.
17 MR. BALL: Solid waste program of the 17 And. number two. the capture of all
18 Pennsylvania DEP. 18 storm water runoff from the industrial activity areas
19 MS. 01 GLE: This is where 1 was 19 at the site. the loading and offloading area. As a
20 trying to go before. I don't think you have gone 20 result. the only stormwater run from the SBHRC
21 through process one and two process for OEP through 21 facility to Sediment Basin I o. 2 will be sheet flow
22 other departments and other permits. And the 22 runoff from non-industrial areas such as the parking
23 language specific to your classification of sediment 23 area for the facilit;;.
2-t basin is related to Chapter 102. 24 Importantly. runoff from the SBHRC
25 I just II"ant to make sure you 25 building and driveway will be conveyed by a
Page 71 Page 73
understand where we're going with this. it has to be 1 vegetated swale prior to discharge to GCSL
2 permirred under Chapter 102. not solid waste 2 Sedimentation Basin No.2.
3 storm water management. 3 The runoff will be sampled by SBHRC as
4 MR. BALL: I am afraid all we can do 4 required by the site NPDES permit.
5 is provide you the full background on the 5 The following engineered and
6 administrative record. how OEP looked at it and 6 operational features. BMPs. will be employed by
7 characterized it. We have met with the department 7 SBHRC to further eliminate the potential for adverse
8 and they sort of repeatedl) recognized it as being 8 impacts to the stormwater quality from the site.
9 categorized as a sedimentation basin and as a 9 I 0 discharge of processed wastell"ater
10 storm water management facility. And we may have to 10 from SBHRC into nearby watenvays is proposed.
I 1 agree to disagree on that point. 11 Processed wastell"ater will be stored in an onsite
12 MR. PERIN: Yeah. just reference. 12 storage tank with secondary containment and hauled
13 because it was little hard to describe. That older 13 to approved permirred offsite disposal facilities.
14 basin or the older quarry. very close to Pen Argyl 14 Storm and tailgate wash water in the
15 Road. that was the one that was converted over to 15 truck unloading/loading areas will be contained in
16 storm water ba in. Sed Basin o. 7. It's actually a 16 concrete structures. drained to the collection sump
17 wet basin as well. It has standing water that sits 17 and conveyed to the II"astevvater storage tank for
18 in it. It never dries. 18 offsite disposal.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyother 19 Containment will be provided for
20 questions. comments at this time? Okay. 20 chemical and petroleum storage tanks at SBHRC.
21 MS. WITMER: Five and six are quick 21 Runoff from the developed SBH RC site
22 because they are see response to comment number one 22 will be managed following township and county
23 above. 23 storm water ordinance and discharged to the
24 Seven is as clarified by PA OEP. 24 Sedimentation o. 2 through the vegetated swales for
25 Sedimentation Basin 10. 2 is a storm water management 25 additional solids removal.
19 (Pages 70 - 73)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 74 Page 76
Stormwater runoff from the SBHRC site 1 MR. ALLE : The old quarry limits?
2 will be tested and reported in accordance with the 2 MR. KLElNTOP: Well, if your building
3 PDES permit when issued. 3 stood there today, without filling the quarry, if it
4 Stormwater runoff from GKEDe. which is 4 stood there -- if your building stood there today,
5 the Green Knight's facility. and GCSL. the landfill. 5 what would be the distance be from the closest point
6 entering Sediment Basin o. 2 will be monitored with 6 on your building to the edge of the quarry?
7 PA DEP requirements. 7 MR. ALLE : The old quarry limits are
8 Stormwater runoff in from the northern 8 approximately 5 to 10 feet from the building. That
9 side of the proposed facility will ultimately flow 9 has been filled over the last years and it's
10 into an unnamed tributary to the Little Bushkill 10 approximately 45, 50 feet maybe, approximately, to
I I Creek. Runoff storrnwater from the east side of the lIthe existing edge of the water.
12 proposed facility will ultimately flow into Waltz 12 MR. KLEINTOP: So you'd be going at
13 Creek. There are no industrial activities located 13 this point in time l4S feet in total with the
14 on the north or east side of the SBHRC facility. 14 addition of 100 feet?
15 Development and implementation 15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir, approximately
16 preparedness prevention and contingency. ppe. plan 16 measuring it.
17 for spill prevention at the SBHRC facility. The 17 MR. KLEI TOP: Thank you.
18 plan has been prepared and submitted to PA DEP for 18 MR. SIMPSO So you're filling the
19 approval. Plan implementation will be coordinated 19 quarry and increasing its capacity?
20 with local agencies following permit issuance. 20 MR. ALLE Were filling the sediment
21 I 0 degradation of surface water 21 basin and reducing the capacity.
22 quality in the Little Bushkill Creek and Waltz Creek 22 THE CHAIRMA : Hold on. Can you go to
23 watersheds will result. in fulfillment of the 23 the microphone, please. I don't think they can hear
24 anti-degradation requirements for the facility. 24 you.
25 Stormwater runoff quality will be 2S MR. SIMPSO I just have a question.
Page 75 Page 77
I monitored after passing through a vegetated swale I Are you filling Sediment Basin No.2.
2 that discharges to Sedimentation Basin No.2 in 2 and by filling it you are reducing its capacity')
3 accordance with the individual National Pollutant 3 MR. ALLE : Correct. And. I mean.
4 Discharge Elimination System Permit for SBHRC when 4 that's the main reason for the storm water quarry is
5 issued by PA DEP. 5 to show that the basin still functions. still holds
6 Please contact with any questions. 6 the I OO-year storm event and still de-waters and
7 The letter was actually issued by Tom 7 will activate the emergency spillway.
8 Pullar of EarthRes. who you heard from earlier. 8 MR. SIMPSO : You're doing this to
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now \\'e have 9 meet the buffer requirements for the open space?
10 number seven. If you want to back up to five or 10 MR. ALLE : In the current revision.
II six. also additional questions. I I yes. we have additional fill to meet that open space
12 MR. KLE TOP: What are you estimating 12 requirement.
13 the total distance will be to plan to fill the 13 MR. KLEI TOP: But we agree. it's not
14 quarry from where it is currently. 100 feet. 150 14 just to meet the buffer. You need to do filling in
15 feet') 15 order to. in essence. be able to navigate the trucks
16 MS. WITMER: I'm looking at the 16 around the building. I mean. at current time. if
17 engineers. 17 the building stood there. I don't think you'd be
18 MR. ALLE : 70 feel. approximately. 18 able to be operational.
19 MS. WITMER: Da e Allen says 70 feel 19 MR. ALLE : We were originall~"
20 (Pages 74 - 77)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 78 Page 80
1 MR. ALLE Yes, sir. jurisdiction?
2 THE CHAIRMA Any other comments or 2 MR. SMITH: To that I think in some
3 questions? 3 ways we're confusing two issues that we're talking
4 MR. SIMPSO Stay up there one 4 about. We're aying that the township's ordinances
5 second. The filling of this watercourse, I'm just 5 would apply to this pond if it is. indeed. a Waters
6 going to assume that you're getting permission from 6 of the Commonwealth. Has nothing to do with whether
7 the DEP and all the government agencies to fill in 7 it's under 102 or was it 273. if that's what we
8 water, the pond? 8 referenced.
9 MS. WITMER: First, I want to clarify, 9 The bottom line is. it's a Waters of
10 we take the position it's not a watercourse and DEP 10 the Commonwealth and. therefore. as your ordinance
11 agrees with us. It's an engineered Sediment Basin. I I reads. your ordinance applies.
12 And, yes, the perm it that we subm itted was actually 12 We're just confusing two issues in
13 one to modify -- remember, this is an existing 13 discussing this tonight.
14 sediment basin for the landfill. That's what it 14 MR. SIMPSO : Okay.
15 functions as today. That's what it will function as 15 MR. BALL: The only gloss that we add
16 when this project is built. 16 is we actually agree. absolutely a Waters of the
17 This is simply some additional 17 Commonwealth. It is regulated by the department.
18 stormwater into that basin from this new building. 18 In fact. that's \\'hy we go to the department and \\'e
19 And so what we are doing is we had to partner with 19 pursue the NPDES stormwater permitting process. et
20 Waste Management to modify their permit, which is 20 cetera.
21 the one that we reference that's in Exhibit B. C and 2I Then the secondary question is how is
22 E of the attachments that we provided to further 22 it categorized within the township's ordinances? Is
23 reshape the sediment basin. 23 it appropriately categorized as a watercourse or a
24 That's all we're doing. We're taking 24 pond? And as you saw in the submission that
25 an existing engineered basin and we're changing it 25 Elizabeth just read. it is pretty clear to us that
Page 79 Page 81
I again, modifying it. neither of those two provisions apply.
2 MR. BALL: And if it helps to clarify 2 Flowed water bodies such as creeks and
3 any further, if the basin was appropriately 3 rivers. this is clearly not one of those. The
4 characterized as a watercourse, it would be subject, 4 township has separate ordinances that apply to
5 I think as you're suggesting, to DEP's Chapter 105 5 ponds. lakes. stationary water bodies like the one
6 Regulations and would go through a Chapter 105 6 we're dealing with here.
7 permitting process. 7 In that context the ordinance very
8 That's why we talked to the 8 clearly says. the same way that the state
9 department, we initially met with Mr. Petrucci and 9 regulations do. that the open space setback does not
10 Mr. Backenstoe and they encouraged us to get some 10 apply to stormwater facilities. That's the only
II further clarification as to whether or not the II distinction we're trying to draw.
12 department would view it in that context or view it 12 MS. WIT 1ER: But nonetheless. because
13 as a storm water management facility that is exempt 13 of concerns. perhaps we look a little frustrated.
14 from those provisions of Chapter 105 and that's why 14 we're trying to respond to your concerns. Even
15 we reached out to them and got the response back 15 though we don't believe it's a pond under the
16 confirming, no, they agree it is a stormwater 16 to\\'nship ordinances and. thus. the 50-foot setback
17 management faci I ity. It is not subject to the 17 would not apply. we went ahead and we redesigned yet
18 specific permitting provisions that would otherwise 18 again to add the 50-foot setback. That isn't what's
19 apply to fill. 19 in the latest plan.
20 Instead, though, they do review it and 20 MR. SIMPSO, : You add the setback by
21 review it under the solid waste program as to 21 filling the pond. That's where I'm going with it.
22 modification of the landfill's permit. So there are 22 MS. WITMER: It's a storm water
23 a lot of eyes from DEP on that permit. 23 management facility. Clearly you are not the one
24 MR. SIMPSON: Jason, this is for you. 24 who regulates the shape of the slormwater management
25 What's your permit on filling the basin and 25 facility. PA DEP does that. We have applied for a
21 (Pages 78 - 81)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 82 Page 84
I permit to change the shape of our storm water I feet because of the comments that we received from
2 management facility. 2 the planning commission, which we appreciate. We're
3 MR. BALL: It really was an effort to 3 trying to get your comments and make the changes.
4 try and address concerns here. The ponds all along 4 MS. DI GLE: You're misinterpreting
5 in the earlier applications was always going to be 5 our -- I'm going to speak for myself. not the board
6 subject to some modification, that's why we went to 6 here. There was never an intent for you to add more
7 DEP, submitted a permit modification. That's not 7 fill. Our intcnt is to try to protect this resource
8 new to this latest iteration. 8 and not fill more of it.
9 What did happen was some 9 I don't understand how you won't get
10 reconfiguration of the structure just to try and 10 an open space now and recognize after that you
II address the concerns that the zoning officer had II design it and fill more feet. you're giving 50 feet
12 raised about that setback. That's the on Iy sort of 12 back. That's a no win for us or anyone.
13 new wrinkle. It's just another effort by SBHRC to 13 So there must be another reason that
14 try and address concerns that are being raised. 14 you're filling and putting all that additional time
IS MR. KLEINTOP: I'd like to -- if this 15 and costs into material. Why would you fill 50 feet
16 truly is a captive sediment basin, when you fill it 16 to give us back 50 feet open space?
17 in, we -- if it is truly a sediment basin where you 17 MS. WITMER: Because your job and my
18 accumulate storm water, when you fill it another 100 18 job is to make sure that this preliminary land
19 feet, you'll find out, because if it captive 19 development meets the requirements of the zoning
20 sediment basin, you will need an overflow. 20 ordinance and the subdivision ordinance.
21 MR. BALL: [would just say from Waste 21 MS. D[NGLE: I understand that.
22 Management's perspective, that's exactly our focus 22 MS. WITMER: The subdivision ordinance
23 and our concern. We want to make sure that no 23 requires a 50-foot buffer from a pond. We happen to
24 changes to the basin were going to threaten its 24 disagree that it is a pond, but rather than fight
25 abilities, its capacity to handle all the model 25 that fight. we gave you 50 feet.
Page 83 Page 85
I storm events. I MS. DINGLE: After the fact. That's
2 The EarthRes folks took detailed looks 2 what ['m saying. You're only giving us 50 feet.
3 at that, provided the calculations. We provide the 3 After you fill the 50 feet, you give it back to us.
4 them to the department and all, all showing that 4 That doesn't make sense.
5 capacity of the basin still greatly exceeds the 5 MS. W[TMER: We were always going to
6 needs to meet the 100-year, 200-year storms. 6 fill the pond.
7 I absolutely agree with what you're 7 MS. D[NGLE: You said you were going
8 saying. We got a lot of comfort by talking to the 8 to fill an additional 50 feet.
9 engineer and having them show us the capacity of 9 MS. W[TMER: Not an additional 50
10 that basin. 10 feet. The fill in the original plans would have not
II MS. DINGLE: [just have one question. 11 provided exactly a 50-foot buffer. So we added an
12 The additional fill to meet the 50-foot open space 12 additional 16,000 cubic feet of material so that if
13 requirement, if you didn't put that fill into the 13 you went out with a measuring stick and measured it,
14 sediment basin pond, would you have run into the 14 instead of being 40 feet, it's now 50.
15 drainage swale that you keep referring to in the IS MS. DI GLE: That's what I'm trying to
16 plans? 16 say. [t sort of defeats the purpose. You're
17 MS. W[TMER: Yes. The swale was 17 recognizing the ordinance after the fact.
18 always there. [t wasn't quite 50 feet, so we just 18 MS. W[TMER: That is the point of
19 added this relatively small amount offill to ensure 19 SALDO. We're supposed to design to the ordinance.
20 that, in fact, it measures 50 feet now. The swale 20 You asked us to design to ordinance. We did. You
21 was always there. 21 can't fault us for designing to the ordinance. This
22 Look back at the early iterations of 22 is a structure, just as the building is a structure.
23 the plan, the swale is there, the pond was always 23 MS. D[NGLE: You don't recognize the
24 going to be filled and modified. We just changed it 24 pond before -- you're recognizing the ordinance and
25 yet again. We tweaked it so that it would be 50 25 complying with it after the fact, rather than prior
22 (Pages 82 - 85)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 86 Page 88
I to. How can it work both ways? I short. please.
2 MS. WITMER: Maybe I'm missing -- 2 MS. WITMER: So \\-e appreciate that we
3 MR. BALL: I do think something is 3 got through the Sedimentation Basin 0.2 letter and
4 being lost here, because this was meant as a good 4 we will talk with the engineer and see if we can
5 faith gesture to try to address the township's 5 come to a consensus on that.
6 comments. 6 The other variance that is raised in
7 To be clear, as a pennitted element of 7 the zoning officer's letter involves the entry and
8 Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, the landfill itself 8 exit to the facility.
9 could make modifications to that basin and our 9 I just want to highlight for everyone.
10 landfills make modifications to the basins all the 10 because it seems pretty clear that not everyone has
II time, certainly without ever applying a 50-foot II read all of the submissions that we've made in
12 township setback to them. They're regulated at the 12 August that we have modified the entrances and
13 state as elements of a solid waste landfill. 13 exit to the facility. We're now showing a low
14 And, again, we sat down and talked 14 volume on Pen Argyl Road that would not be the main
15 with the zoning officer and the solicitor and said, 15 entrance to the facility_
16 look, we've looked at this. The setback does not 16 We also continue to maintain that the
17 apply to this sedimentation basin. Your ordinance 17 main entrance to the facility should be on Route
18 clearly say that that open space setback does not 18 512. We continue to disagree with Mr. Petrucci that
19 apply to stonnwater management facilities. That's 19 a variance is required. We think we clearly meet
20 what this is. DEP agrees that that's what this is, 20 the pecific requirements of the zoning ordinance.
21 but what can we do and try to address your concerns? 21 which. by the way. have no requirement that the
22 And this is the approach that we 22 primary entrance be on an arterial or collector
23 suggested. We're trying to establish a 50-foot 23 road. although that word appears many times in his
24 setback even though, to be clear, we really do not 24 letter. It's not in the ordinance.
25 believe that that provision applies to that 25 We also submitted a traffic study to
Page 87 Page 89
storm water management facility_ I support the engineering behind the entrances and
2 MS. DINGLE: Thank you. 2 exits that we're now showing on the plan. So I just
3 THE CHAIRMAI : Okay. We're bumping up 3 wanted to highlight that. because there are now only
4 to 9 o'clock already. By a show of hands in the 4 two variances that are even potentially at issue
5 public. ho\\- many -- we only have a half hour left. 5 here. One of them involves the sedimentation issue.
6 How many people would like to make a public comment 6 and one of them involves the entries and exits. So
7 tonight by a show of hands? 7 I expect we'll be discussing that in detail at the
8 So in synopsis you're going to be in 8 next meeting.
9 more communication with our engineer? 9 THE CHAIRMA : All right. Public
10 MR. BALL: Absolutely. 10 comment. I had a gentleman dead center to the back.
II THE CHAIRMA ow. to the public. II if you want to come forward. please.
12 just for a general bit of knowledge. this -- this 12 fNTERESTED CITIZE : Chris Zurga. I'm
13 discussion tonight was based off the three-page 13 actually brand new to the community here. I came
14 review letter by Hanover Engineering. There i also 14 here for the first time in October of last year and
15 yet to be finalized or finished or further discussed 15 I fell in love with this place. It's just
16 a 27-page letter from Hanover Engineering. I don't 16 this -- I'm from Southern California. by the way.
17 know how many pages on the Plainfield zoning 17 And it was about the third month here I discovered
18 officer. looks like 40. Tom? 18 the dump.
19 MR. PETRUCCI: Yes. 19 And then [ staned to hear the stories
20 THE CHAIRMA We have 40 pages yet to 20 of the people in this community. which I've yet to
21 review there also. Again. we are not near the end 21 meet anybody from the community that actually is for
22 of this process. It doesn't look like too many 22 this sludge plant. I've heard the stories of all
23 people that do want to speak. 23 the school children choking from the existence of
24 Would you like to make a quick summary 24 the dump now.
25 statement or closing statement? Keep it fairly 25 What is a sludge plant going to do to
23 (Pages 86 - 89)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 90 Page 92
Pen Argyl High. to this community and this I flow from -- I think there's two parking areas. One
2 neighborhood') How is this even a starter based when 2 off to the side that's isolated and one adjacent to
3 you can walk outside and smell this dump tonight') 3 the driving area of the building.
4 What's the impact beyond the water? I have talked 4 Are the comments made about sheet flow
5 to farmers who basically don't like to drink their 5 solely for the isolated parking lot or do they
6 own well water because they live down below what 6 include the parking area that's going to be built in
7 would be the plume or whatever it is. 7 the boundary of the pond?
8 I see this place as an incredibly 8 Is the sheet flow comments about the
9 beautiful place. Perhaps this -- I wonder if the 9 only water going into the pond would be sheet flow
10 township and the supervisors that originally letthe 10 from the parking area. Is the parking area in
11 dump come in here. what they would think if they saw II question the one off to the side only? That's my
12 it today. 12 question.
13 If they knew that people who I talked 13 MR. HECHT: It's the one basically by
14 to in the city who used to be able to look across 14 the building, not the one to the side.
15 and now they can't see over the mountain. Is this a 15 INTERESTED CITIZEN: Not the one to
16 no ending -- is there no end in sight for bringing 16 the side. Well, isn't the one adjacent to the
17 in garbage and filth and now human feces by the 17 building the one that the trucks are going back and
18 truckload? 18 forth and are being washed and the wash area? I
19 There's people from the community that 19 assumed it would be the other one.
20 have told me that they have seen these trucks 20 The sheet flow is going to be from the
21 leaking driving through Wind Gap. How is it okay') 21 parking area that's adjacent to the building into
22 How is it okay that the children of this city have 22 the pond?
23 sat to the point of choking? I mean, there's never 23 MR. HECHT: It will run over land flow
24 been talk of maybe moving the school for them? Or 24 across the parking lot, through the parking lot,
25 is it just -- this isn't normal, folks. But I guess 25 into the vegetated swale, into Sedimentation Basin
Page 91 Page 93
I it's normal here. I No.2.
2 I think this place is an incredibly 2 INTERESTED CITIZEN: That's a surprise
"-' beautiful place with a lot of potential. I think if 3 to me. That sounds like there's risk.
4 you start letting more and more of this stuff being 4 And I guess to my last question or
5 trucked in, you might as well throw the last pop at 5 comment. it's just a comment. It's rhetorical. It
6 any potential it has to be anything else in the 6 sounds like there's no accidents possible at this
7 future. 7 facility. and I find that odd. I find that
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Somebody over here on 8 suspicious.
9 my far side raised their hand at one point. 9 For example. and I didn't anticipate
10 INTERESTED CITIZEN: Don Moore. 10 that you would say that sheet flow from the parking
II just had a couple short questions. I heard II area is going to be the one where all these trucks
12 reference to many engineering studies that had been 12 are driving through with loads of crap and wash
13 done around the pond area. Is there any engineering 13 area. and that this is all going to be somehow
14 study that shows the interaction between the aquifer 14 contained in there and then coming off of that area
15 that it's connected to and the water in the pond and 15 that's going to go through a vegetated buffer that
16 its relation to the creeks? The flow that would be 16 we're never going to have pollution of that water
17 in and out of the pond to the creeks possibly 17 that's connected to the aquifer. I appreciate the
18 through the aquifer? 18 time. Thank you.
19 Is that for Dave, probably? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: My left midway. come on
20 MS. WITMER: The letter speaks for 20 up.
21 themselves and identify the studies that have been 21 INTERESTED CITIZE : My name is Jerry
22 done. 22 Lennon. Plainfield Township for 32 years. I'm here
?"
--' fNTERESTED CITIZEN: I guess that's a 23 asking that Plainfield Township seek all necessary
24 no. 24 actions needed to have the easement agreement for
25 The parking area there will be sheet 25 the recreation trail revoked so that -- so that the
24 (Pages 90 - 93)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 94 Page 96
old trail would again be in Plainfield Township's I erosion. On some of the hills the slurry from what
2 trail. Why') Because of the following several 2 they used to put down has become very slippery.
3 factors: J" dangerous, and you can actually see and I have
4 I'm not going to read it all because 4 pictures. of bicycles that slid on that. It's an
5 of time. but my biggest -- one of the questions I 5 accident waiting to happen. And when it does, it
6 have. is when this agreement was agreed to back in 6 could be a fatal, get an emergency vehicle or get
7 1997. I think it was between Plainfield and Grand 7 help to carry maybe a half ami Ie out.
8 Central. there was a mention in the agreement about 8 Besides that, the road that they
9 Conrail. the owner and operator of said quarries. 9 basically say they had to use is so overgrown that
10 has the right to make use of ponions of the trail 10 no truck or no vehicle could even get there as a
II for access to these quarries. II shortcut to that area.
12 My question is. in 2007. when Conrail 12 The parking lot also basically says
13 went bankrupt. how did the ownership get transferred 13 had to have the ability for 10 cars. Again, I ask
14 to Waste Management? Does anybody know that answer? 14 you to go out there, look at parking lot, park your
15 Because I cannot find a transfer of deeds. IS car and tell me that you can get 10 cars in there,
16 In that case it means names would have 16 because it's grass overgrown most times. It does
17 had to change in the agreement and also means that 17 get manicured, I will say that. And I think
18 it was still covered with water rights of 18 Plainfield actually does that manicure.
19 Pennsylvania. 19 But that trail is somewhat dangerous
20 In other cases it would also be 20 because it's now being recovered -- reverted back to
21 covered by a utility water rights. And those rights 21 nature.
22 don't just disappear. 22 And in closing, it's -- that trail was
23 Point number two would be. in the ?"
_J supposed to be 20 feet, not 8, not 10, and I can
24 construction of the nell' trail. it basically says 24 almost say, I don't think that's 6
25 that it was a minimum of -- had to be a minimum of6 25 inches -- remember it says 6-inch minimum -- was
Page 95 Page 97
I inches of2A stone and the I\-idth -- minimum width of 1 ever done. And it also says should be levelland or
2 the trail of 8 feet. in addition a 6-foot barrier on 2 leveled. It's anything but level. Thank you.
3 each side of the centerfold of said 8 feet. It 3 MR. LA YMA : Thank you. Mr. Levits.
4 means that it should have totalled out at 20 feet. 4 Can everybody here hear me') I assume so.
5 I have walked that trail. I have 5 First I want to compliment the
6 measured that trail. It varies from 13 feet to 6 planning commission on continuing to have a very
7 maybe 8 feet. 7 thorough review of that project. We appreciate it.
8 The -- the 2A stone that they're 8 We especially appreciate knowing that those members
9 talking about is nonexistent. The most I could find 9 of the commission are essentially volunteers. On
10 is a one-inch base and no more than three or four 10 behalf of the borough we definitely appreciate the
II foot. I I time and the thoroughness that you're devoting to it
12 An emergency vehicle is mentioned. 12 as well as the township's consultant.
13 Well. as you come in off of I think it was Rutt and 13 Because of the lateness of the hour
14 make the first right. there's two large trees. 14 and because there's so much more that you have not
15 Measured from one to the other is 13 feet. None of 15 yet been able to review from your own consultant's
16 our emergency vehicles could ever make that swing 16 letters. I'm going to be fairly straightfomard and
17 because it's a dowll\yard 90-degree tum besides. 17 to the point.
18 With all that said. I have traveled 18 All the issues are important. The
19 and walked other trails. Out in Wind Gap there's a 19 Waters of the Commonwealth issue. the wetlands
20 trail. It's stone based. And that's been there 20 issues. they're all important. What's of paramount
21 almost 20 years. 21 imponance to Pen Argyl. which we will get to in
22 Point C is that storm water and runoff 22 funher review. is the nui ance issues. the odors.
23 for the facility. I walk that -- I can't find any 23 the vectors. the other things that are addressed in
24 diversion ditches. I cannot find any piping going 24 the tOll"llship's -- in the nuisance of the township's
25 across the road. but what I have found is a lot of 25 zoning ordinance and that are addressed in
25 (Pages 94 - 97)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Page 98 Page 100
I Mr. Petrucci's latest review. We would just ask tell me that now. but. honestly. would you really
2 that when you come to that. you pay special 2 want to do that?
3 attention to the attachment. which is the nuisance 3 So my simple concerns are water.
4 monitoring and prevention measures that Ms. Johnston 4 because water is life. It's our health. The air
5 has developed so that in the event. and we're a long 5 that we breathe and smell. traffic. the school
6 way from this. the developer is able to meet the 6 buses. are they going to be affected? Our kids are
7 other requirements. that there be very powerful 7 on those school buses. The roads themselves. what
8 nuisance control measures put in place so that any 8 are they going to look like after a while?
9 effect. if this was finally approved. would be 9 The value of our houses. our homes. is
10 minimized. 10 that going to go down? I think maybe they already
\I You have the power to do it under the I I have. just because of where we live in relation to
12 ordinance. She's written a several-page letter on 12 Waste Management. Add this into the mix. is the
13 the way to implement that. We may never get that 13 value of my home going to be less than it was
14 far because they have a lot of other hurdles to 14 before?
15 cross. 15 But I would also like to know the
16 But those issues are the ones that 16 public officials whp are in support of this project
17 will most affect the residents of Pen Argyl. and 17 and if you support the project. vote for them. If
18 frankly. the residents of Plainfield who live nearby 18 you don't support the project. then don't. That
19 this facility. Thank you very much for the 19 seems pretty simple.
20 attention you're devoting to this and your 20 I'm \\'ondering what the -- what the
21 thoroughness. 21 benefits are. And. again. we listened to a very
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Was there anyone else 22 long transcript. [would like some answers as short
23 that would like to make public comment? Ma'am. 23 as the questions. You know. not part A and part B
24 INTERESTED CITIZE : Hi. I'm Patty 24 and number one and number three. but. you know. one.
25 Williams. Can you hear me? We had a problem with 25 two. three. four. five questions. one. two. three.
26 (Pages 98 - 101)
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
Page 102 Page 104
standing up against this as Pen Argyl is. because 1 MR. KLEI TOP: Aye.
2 the nuisance is Slate Belt wide. 2 MR. SEAVAN: Aye.
,.,
3 Other communities are dealing with the J (Proceedings concluded at 9:24 p.m.)
4 impacts of dirty dirt. which we had the hearing here 4
5 several months ago. But we're seeing the truck 5
6 traffic on our rural streets. Obviously the truck 6
7 traffic will be regulated. But if it's forced to 7
8 come off Pen Argyl Road. it will be coming down back 8
9 roads. 9
10 And. again. I would just like to say. 10
II that we've had enough. We don't want it. We II
12 appreciate the fact that they're fighting for it. 12
13 but \I"e really don't want it. 13
14 THE CHAIRMA : Anybody else? Seeing 14
15 no one else. just a couple points. The engineers 15
16 for both parties will be communicating with each 16
17 other to go further. 17
18 I made a note that we try to improve 18
19 the audio for the next meeting or meetings going 19
20 forward. 20
21 Also made a note. and I agree that 21
22 it's nice to have things in lay terms. and I know 22
23 several questions or many of the questions that were 23
24 asked up here we're trying to cut through a lot of 24
25 the technical and hard-to-understand concepts and 25
Page 103 Page 105
break them down to a common lay person's 1 CERTIFICATE
2 understanding. We tried to do that. A couple of 2
3 the members tried to do that as best as possible. 3 I do hereby certify that the
4 We have a lot of review left as we 4 aforesaid testimony was taken before me. pursuant to
5 spoke to a few minutes ago. 5 notice, at the time and place indicated; that the
6 Do we have any other order of business 6 testimony was correctly recorded in machine
7 from anyone? 7 shorthand by me and thereafter transcribed under my
8 supervision with computer-aided transcription; that
8 MR.BACKENSTOE: No.
9 the hearing is a true and correct record of the
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to thank
10 testimony; and that I am neither of counsel nor kin
10 everybody for attending. I thank you for your
11 to any party in said action, nor interested in the
II input. I \\'ould like to thank you for your
12 outcome thereof.
12 cooperation. I think it was a good meeting. Again.
13
13 it was a short letter. We spent all night on it.
14
14 We'll be moving forward and the date for next
15
15 meeting will be set when everybody gets an agreeable
16
16 date.
17 Charleen A. Eyer
17 Do I have a motion to adjourn. Registered Professional Reporter
18 MR. SIMPSO : I'll make that motion. 18
19 THE CHAIRMA : I have a motion. Do I 19
20 have a second? 20
21 MR. KLEINTOP: Second. 21
22 THE CHAIRMA : All those in favor say 22
23 Aye? )"
--'
2-l MS. DINGLE: Aye. 24
25 MR. SIMPSO Aye. 25
-
months 102:5 needing 63: 11 noting 10:1413:13 officer's 25:21
moore 91:10 needs 48: 13 83:6 november 3:14 27:2128:17,21,24
motion 4:3,5,6 negotiate 64:24 4:1,3 88:7
103:17,18,19 neighborhood npdes 26: 1830:2,4 official 14:14
mountain 90: 15 90:2 33:7,1240:23 officials 27:9
move 5:4 neither 81: 1 41:1 73:4 74:3 100: 16
moving 25:3 50:2 105:10 80:19 offloading 30: 15
65:1 90:24 101:8 never 18:1833:9 nuances 28:2 50:23 72: 19
101:8103:14 33: 10 59:25 60:3 nuisance 25 :24 offsite 52:1264:17
multiple 40:20 65:4 71:1884:6 97:22,24 98:3,8 73:13,18
63:25 90:2393:1698:13 102:2 ob 57:24
municipal 8:13 new 4:22 13:13 number 6:21 7:6 okay 3:15 13:21
n 26:1650:13 78:18 8:6,12 11:19,25 14:1822:241:18
82:8,13 89:13 13:9 14:1 29:11 50:1052:562:12
name 25:6 93 :21
94:24 30:11 1232:2,14 62:2265:866: 14
names 94:16
nexus 8:235:16 33:734:12,14 69:3 71:2075:9
national 30:1 75:3
nice 99:2 102:22 35:844:5 50: 19 80:1487:3 90:21
natural 7:933:19
night 20:20 103: 13 50:21 52:5,6 56:2 90:22 99: 18
39:1852:1953:5
nominated 29:5 56:25 58: 13 60:6 old 12: 13 14:25
53:21 58:1065:14
non 29:22 35:20 65:1771:22 72:3 76: 1,794:1
nature 96:21
55:1 72:22 72:15,1775:10 older 9:6 70:6
navigable 34:23
noncom pliance 94:23 100:24,24 71:13,14
34:2435:346:12
11: 14 numerous 30:9 ones 98:16
46:22
nonexistent 95:9 38:11 online 58: 1265: 16
navigate 77: 15
nonindustrial o onsite 73: 11
near 87:21
30:1951:2 open 10:22 11 :5,6
nearby 7:238:1,7 o'clock 87:4
normal 44:3 48: 17 11:10,1648:23
12:21 35:1651:22 obstruction 12:4
90:2591:1 54:14,1955:7,9,15
73:1098:18 33:24
normally 42:5 67:12,1668:15
necessarily 24: 19 obtain 13:1
north 74:14 70:7 77:9,11,23
42:5 55:6 obtained 57:5
northampton 81:983:1284:10
necessary 10:7 obviously 102:6
31: 10 84:1686:18
57:1062:664:4 occasions 24:8
northern 74:8 openly 49:10
93:23 occur 43:8
northwest 70:8 operates 14:9
need 3:198:424:3 october 89:14
notably 30:1036:2 operating 26:2
42:347:8,18 odd 93:7
note 5:21 38:19 36:739:22
48:2449:2052:2 odors 97:22
60:6 102: 18,21 operation 32:24
77:1482:20 offer 6: 12, 17
noted 54:2467: 11 35:2150:1772:13
needed 13 :23 office 2:4
notes 64:23 operational 28:2
35:2545:2,19 officer 1: 14 82: 11
notice 32: 1 41:4 31:635:13 73:6
56:8,10,1464:3 86:15 87:18
43:4 105:5 77:18
93:24
Veritext Legal Solutions
215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830
[operations - phase] Page 16
- -
operations 7: 17 owner 12:25 94:9 particular 20: 14 permit 12:2,16
26:2031: 18 ownership 94: 13 parties 46: 1 13:1,5 16:8,18
operator 94:9 p 102: 16 18: 13 21: 17 22: 14
opinion 21:444: 17 partner 78:19 22:14,1623:2
p 17:5
47:861:21 62:15
p.c. 2: 12 parts 52: 19 69: 11 24:1026:17,18
opinions 27: 11 party 105:11 27:2,4,23 30:2,4
p.m. 104:3
opportunity 5: 11 passing 75: 1 32:1,2,1433:7,12
pa 2:5,10,146:23
5:1527:14 path 43:23 33 :22,23 34:8,11
13:414:1131:5
options 31: 18 patty 98:24 34:1237:1141:2
31:2532:5,13
order 3:2, 12 4 :23 paull: 11 41:2542:343:7
33:7,14,18,21 34:9
9:7 15:18 18:8 pay 98:2 60:2,269:18
34:11,1244:21,23
77:15 103:6 paying 101: 16 70: 11 72:2 73:4
52: 14,24,24,24
ordinance 8:25 pen 1:9 2: 15 64: 11 74:3,2075:4
53:3 66:24,25
9:25 10:18,22 67:2468:4 70:9 78: 12,20 79:22,23
67:2 71 :2474:7
11:4,1428:1 71:1488:1490:1 79:25 82:1,7
74:1875:581:25
53:1854:1866:22 97:2198:17102:1 permits 11 :23
package 24:2
66:22,23 68: 11 102:8 26:15,1627:14
27:18
73 :23 80: 10,11 pending 42: 11 70:22
packet 29:8
81:7 84:20,20,22 pennsylvania 1:9 permitted 22:24
page 14:641 :20
85: 17,19,20,21,24 6:22 16:6 58: 10 22:2523:1024:15
87:13,1698:12
86: 17 88:20,24 65:1470:1894:19 29:2232:1135:12
101:17
97:2598:12 people 87:6,23 36:1637:2267:14
pages 19:1687:17
ordinances 8:13 89:2090:13,19 68:1069:1270:15
87:20
8:16,1952:8,9 99:20 71:272:273:13
paige 1: 15
54:9,1363:10 perennial 53:5,22 86:7
paragraph 61: 14
67: 13 68: 19 80:4 performance permitting 16:5
paramount 97:20
80:2281:4,16 27:24 17:24 19:1021:11
parcel 58:1959:11
original 16:933:5 performed 8:9 25:1832:1869:8
park 96:14
35:1037:1585:10 41:9 56:4 57:20 79:7,1880:19
parked 43 :24
originally 22 :24 58:2,4,12,20 59:9 person 6:1516:1
parking 11: 12
24:1 77:1990:10 59:1061:1565:9 person's 103: 1
30:1944:351:2
originating 13: 19 65:16 perspective 45: 11
72:2291 :2592:1
outcome 105: 12 perimeter 45: 19 69:5 82:22
92:5,6,10,10,21,24
outfall 33:7,12 perin 2:2040: 18 pertinent 37:23
92:2493:1096:12
outside 61 :4 63 :25 40:1859:1970:5 peter 2: 13
96:14
90:399:22 part 13:19 17:25 71: 12 petroleum 73 :20
overflow 18: 14 period 48:20 petrucci 1: 12 79:9
18:20,24,25 22: 13
37:1882:20 periodic 40: 16 87:1988:18
23:224:235:14
overgrown 96:9 permanent 11: 10 petrucci's 98: 1
37:660:1 100:23
96:16 permission 78:6 phase 58:565:10
100:23
y
yards 77 :20,22
yeah 19:2336:13
47:3,371:12
year 51:2455:18
59:8 77:6 83 :6,6
89:14
years 9:7 14:25
15:2120:16,18
31:6,9 76:9 93 :22
95:21
yellow 60:21
z
zoning 1: 14 25 :21
27:2028:1,17,21
28:2429: 1 53:24
55:1 68:1082:11
84:1986:1587:17
88:7,2097:25
zurga 89:12