10 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA RE: Public Hearing and Meeting Relative Transcript to Solid Waste Zoning of Amendment and Compre- hensive Plan Supplement : Rearing hela at Wind Gap Elementary School Wind Gap, Pennsylvania Thursday June 30, 1988 7:30 Dem, BEFORE: ROBERT F, TENGES, Chairman MARK W. POWELL, Vice Chairman MARIE MORYKIN, Board Member CAROL J, KRACHT, Secretary JOHN MOLNAR, ESQUIRE, Solicitor RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 INDEX SPEAKERS Mark Powell Sohn Molnar Thomas Palmer Robert 3. Sugarman Nolan Perin Edward Prout Charles Siebert Anita Bray Jane Mellert Fred C. Phillips, 111 Bonnie Ruddic Sairanne Albanese Ernest Albanese John R. Kmetz Jefé Gunn Nancy Hughes Katherine Bond David Humphrey Vince Greggo Pat Tomko Richard T, Rutt vicki Velopolchek RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Sorntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; 17 32 50 90 95 100 106 110 li 117 123 123 124 128 131 132 133 133 135 150 Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PEAKERS (continued) Richard Cortright EXHIBITS T-1 letter dated June 21, 1988 T-2 letter dated May 27, 1989 T-3 newspaper advertisement 1-4 proof of publication T-5 minutes of meetings of study group T-6 list of names Bray 1 letter dated June 29, 1988 Ruddic 1 documents Velopolchek 1 articles RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660 PAGE 158 14 14 14 103 116 15710 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. POWELL: I'd like to call tonight's meeting to order, This is a public hearing and a meeting relative to a solid waste zoning amendment and comprehensive plan supplement. MS. KRACHT: Chairman Robert Tenges? MR, TENGES; Here, MS, KRACHT: Vice Chairman Mark Powell? DR, POWELL: Here, Ms, KRACHT: Supervisor Marie Morykin? MS. MORYKIN: Here, DR, POWELL: Before we get started, I'd like to welcome everybody tonight and thanks for coming out. It's a very important meeting tonight and everybody wili have an opportunity to speak that wants to. Ifd like to make a few brief comments and some of what I say will be echoed later by both our solicitor, Mr. Molnar, and Tom Palmer from Urban Research and Development who has been instrumental in helping us develop this ordinance. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 25 What is a solid waste zoning amendment, what is it that we're looking at tonight. It creates a well defined zoning district for solid waste processing and disposal facilities that may operate in Plainfield Township. Well defined is very important and we'll see tonight just what those definitions are. It also sets down the fact that solid waste processing and disposal facilities may not operate anywhere else in Plainfield Township, It sets down a lot of specific conditions which must be met by an operator of a solid waste processing and disposal facility. Some of these include volume of waste disposed of for process must not exceed certain limits. Only certain types of facilities will be permitted. Incinerators will not. Hazardous and infectious waste will not be permitted, There will be tough setback standards. We will inspect -- we will hire inspectors to help us meet these and other conditions, JI believe that it's an enormous improvement over the current ordinance. For those of you who don't know, the current ordinance is the farm and forest district where solid waste RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 processing and disposal occurs as a special exception use. The solid waste zoning amendment is a joint effort by the present board of supervisors, the 1987 board of supervisors, the solid waste study group, Tom Palmer of Urban Research and Development, and Grand Central Sanitation. Some brief history. The solid waste zoning amendment was conceptualized by the Previous Plainfield Township board of supervisors and Urban Reasearch and Development. It was done So as a response to growing concern among the residents of Plainfield Township regarding the solid waste industry. In order to develop this ordinance, the solid waste study group was formed and the solid waste study group worked closely with Tom Palmer of Urban Research and the Plainfield Township board of supervisors. The solid waste study group was composed of citizens from Plainfield Township. Also, a moratorium was placed on all development of solid waste facilities in Plainfield Township. This moratorium was to be in RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 25 effect until December 31, 1987. However, the previous board of supervisors extended the moratorium so that the new board of supervisors could be involved with its development of the solid waste zoning ordinance. This moratorium was extended once again in April so that further development of this solid waste ordinance could take place. That extension goes until tonight. I'd like to make some brief personal comments. I would like to -- I'm speaking for myself and the board, I'm sure, when I would like to thank the solid waste study group for its commitment to develop a strong and fair solid waste zoning amendment. I think all of our hats should go off to them. Many long nights, lots of reading and just tireless effort on their part. I would also like to thank Larry Bahn and Nunzio Cerino for their efforts regarding the development of the solid waste zoning amendment. I would also like to thank Mr. Hahn for agreeing to extend the moratorium to allow further development of the solid waste zoning amendment. I think I would also like to recognize RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Tom Palmer, I think that his commitment and dedication has gone well beyond the call of duty. He, too, has been willing to spend countless hours to help us develop this amendment. Mr. John Molnar, our solicitor, be has worked very closely with the board of supervisors. His commitment to Plainfield Township has been complete and he's maintained the highest ethical standards. I'd also like to thank Grand Cnetral Sanitation. They have been willing to work with us on this amendment. When IT have and when the board has and when Tom Palmer has regueste@ information from their company, they have been willing to provide that to us. I think the solid waste zoning amendment that we have in front of us tonight -- we have a draft. We have not enacted it. But we have one in front of us tonight. I think it's a modern, strong, and fair ordinance. It meets the concerns of the residents of Plainfield Township. It meets the constitutional rights of Grand Central to do business in our township. It's been a very difficult, emotional, and draining struggle for myself RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595~7361; Estn 253-2660lo 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personally and I'm sure for many members of the board of supervisors. However, I think it's been worth it. with those comments, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Molnar. MR. MOLNAR: Thank you, Doctor Powell, Since you covered a number of areas that I planned to cover, I'll just f£il1 in some appropriate dates. For the information of the audience, the moratorium was first enacted as a legislative resolution by the board of supervisors on March 3, 1987. That moratorium resolution required three things to occur. One, it instructed the zoning officer of Plainfield Township to refrain from issuing any land use permits for solid waste land uses until the moratorium was concluded. The moratorium originally was planned for December 31, 1987 as the cut off date. However, the board of supervisors, in December of 1987, decided to extend that until April 15, 1988 and it later was extended to June 30, 1988, today's date. The second point that the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Eetn 253-266010 LL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 moratorium resolution required was that the land use consulting firm of Urban Research in Stroudsburg would be retained to assist the township in drafting solid waste legislation. The third point of the resolution was that the land use consulting firm and board of supervisors would form a study group consisting of citizens, Those citizens that served on that, 1 think we ought to acknowledge of record. Jane Mellert, Patricia Tomko, Denice Kalver, William Cooper, Albert Toth, Floyd Cullen -- Mr. Cullen later moved out of town and Charles Hughes replaced Mr. Cullen. All study group members served with distinction, The study group meetings, there was, I would say, never -- very little unanimous agreement. There was good debate, the study group took different positions. The study group was formed for one purpose, to give insight and input to the board from the citizens of Plainfield Township. I think each study group member effectively gave that input, That input occurred throughout eleven meetings that were all advertised and were attended by the study group members along RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660 110 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 QL 22 23 24 25 lL with the supervisors and Tom Palmer. The Plainfield Township planning commission has also had an opportunity to review the zoning ordinance amendment as well as the comprehensive plan and the joint planning commission has reviewed the comprehensive plan. The planning commission's letter, which we'll make part of this record tonight and we'll mark it as township exhibit one. (Township Exhibit Wo, 1, letter dated June 21, 1988, was marked for identification MR, MOLNAR: It's a letter dated June 21, 1988 from the Plainfield Township planning and zoning commission, I'll read that letter. "Dear Supervisors: The Plainfield Township planning and zoning commission in regular session on June 20, 1988 has reviewed the solid waste zoning district amendment and planned supplement. The planning commission recommends to the board of supervisors that the proposed amendment and plan supplement be approved as drafted with one specific change. "The planning commission recommends that the wording as it relates to a RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 local inspector be changed to require a local inspector. Sincerely yours, Carol 3. Kracht, secretary for the Plainfield Township planning and zoning commission.” The letter was dated June 21, 1988. The joint planning commission of Lehigh Northampton Counties has also had an opportunity to review and their review is dated May 27, 1988. We'll mark that as township exhibit two. (Township Exhibit No. 2, letter dated May 27, 1988, was marked for identification.) MR. MOLNAR: ‘The letter is addressed to Robert F. Tenges, Chairman of the board of supervisors. "Dear Mr. Tenges: The joint planning commission considered the above referenced matter at your request at the May 26, 1988 meeting, The commission voted to return the following comments for your use. “The Pennsylvania municipality is planning zoning to exclude any use or demonstrate that their use is unsuitable within its bounds. The supplement recommends that incinerators be excluded from the township. The recommendation is based upon a statement that incinerators can cause RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 at 22 23 24 25 13 hazardous conditions. "Incinerators are regulated by the Department of Environmental Resources. The regulations are promulgated by the department to protect public health. Unless credible technical evidence is presented to the contrary, one must assume that incinerators designed to operate in accord with DER regulations do not degrade the environment. “The supplement presents no technical information to the contrary. As such, we can not believe that the supplement justifies the decision to exclude incinerators, The township's comprehensive plan should be revised to provide for incinerators, "Phe above recommendations are not intended to indicated JP support for any particular incinerators that may be proposed within the township, Please call if you have any questions about this review, Kindly notify us upon the adoption of the supplement so that our understanding of the township comprehensive may remain current, "Sincerely, Fredrick , Kracht, assistant director of joint planning commission, RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 lL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25 14 Lehigh Northampton Counties." The township proceduraliy has also, as required under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, has advertised the comprehensive plan supplement and the zoning ordinance amendment. This has been advertised in the Baston Express. It was advertised on June 15 and June 22, advertisements appearing in the Easton Express and proof of publication. We'll ask the township secretary to mark those as township exhibits three and four. (Township Exhibit No. 3, newspaper advertisement, was marked for identification (Township Exhibit No. 4, proof of publication, was marked for identification. MR. MOLNAR: Also to make part of tonight's record, we have eleven study group meeting minutes that were taken and we'll make that part of tonight's record, the study group minutes. (Township Exhibit No. 5, minutes of study group, was marked for identification.) MR. MOLNAR: Let me just now at this point in time explain what a comprehensive RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595~7361; Estn 253~266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 15 plan is and what the zoning amendment is to Plainfield Township. Mr, Palmer will explain in greater detail as far as the meat of both of those documents. The comprehensive plan is a document that is required by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. ‘The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code is the state legislation that enables local legislation for zoning and planning. Comprehensive plan is the foundation to the zoning ordinance or the zoning ordinance amendments. It is essential for any municipality that has a zoning ordinance to have a comprehensive plan that will back the regulation of the particular zoning ordinance. It is important in the beginning to a major issue, as solid waste zoning, to supplement the comprehensive plan. Urban Research has undertaken that and will explain the comprehensive plan supplement, The comprehensive plan supplement must be consistent with the zoning ordinance amendment, otherwise the zoning ordinance amendment is subject to attack. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 If you have a comprehensive plan that indicates one particular direction and the zoning ordinance goes off on the other, the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance could be attacked and could be overturned for that reason. So it's important that the comprehensive plan is paid particular attention to by the board of supervisors and anybody that's interested in this particular solid waste zoning amendment because if the comprehensive plan is off base, the zoning ordinance amendment could fall for that reason, As far as the procedure on tonight's hearing, this is not a judicial hearing, it is a legislative hearing. No one will be subject to cross examination. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak. We have a list outside the auditorium and would request anybody who would like to be heard tonight to sign that list. We'll be picking up that list right before Mr. Sugarman's comments. I£ anyone has not signed that, please do so before Mr. Sugarman begins speaking, At that time, we'll pick it up. Anybody that has comment, we'll try not to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 17 have any time limits for anybody. However, we would appreciate everyone to give courtesy to everyone else as far as not being repetitive so that we could hear everyone tonight. we'll go through the list, anybody that has any particular questions, the board, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Sugarman, and I will try to answer any questions that you may have on it. There will be no questions between the audience because we're not going to have cross examination by anyone. So everyone can feel comfortable that you'll not be subject to cross examination by opposing parties. You'll have an opportunity to speak and state your concerns and then sit down. We'll turn it over to Tom at this point in time and, Tom, you can go through your highlighting of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance amendment. MR, PALMER: Thank you, John. As Mr. Molnar pointed out, we're really talking about two documents tonight, a forty page comprehensive plan supplement which provides the policies and the background information that enabled the study group to provide additional comments and input and RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estp 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 u7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 18 allowed the supervisors then to develop an ordinance to implement these policies. What I'd like to do first is to briefly go through some of the aspects of the comprehensive plan supplement and then talk a little bit more about the major features of the proposed zoning ordinance, I'll start with talking a little bit about the plan supplement. The first part of that plan supplement was really to look at different background information. As part of that, the first twenty pages or so of the plan supplement dealt with looking at the existing condition and background study dealing with natural features, existing land use, and circulation. Based on these studies that were done in these three areas, we were able to develop some ideas regarding where a logical location for a proposed solid waste district would be in the township. It's very important to do this back up information very early. We also, as part of that, needed to look at the legal aspects relating to how communities can plan for solid waste disposal. In doing that, we tried to summarize the major aspects RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 lg 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 related to this. I realize that you probably can't see or read any of this so I'm just going to go through it very briefly. What I'm talking about here is information that's in the plan supplement. so if you have a copy of that or you can get a copy of that, you can review that. There are limitations of regulations on the local communities. I'd like to go over some of those main limitations. It's really four different categories. uocal regulations, township regulations, can not conflict with DER regulations, especially in regard to operating a landfill. There are several court cases. Monroville versus Chamber Development Corporation is a prime example of where a community tried to regulate the operating hours of a landfill and they were over- turned by the courts. Cole versus Pennsylvania is also another example though where the courts upheld the municipal power to regulate landfills as long as there's in the rgulation the means upon which the landfill disposes of waste. In that particular court case, and Mr. Sugarman will probably elaborate on some of RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 20 these, but in that particular court case, they allowed the community to determine where the logical place for the use should be and to deal with land use compatibility aspect. There are some regulations that we as a local government can use, But again, we have to be careful that we disturb the the DBR regulations. Aliso, local government can not explicitly or implicitly, for that matter, exclude legitimate land uses, The courts have said that solid waste disposal uses are legitimate land uses that must be regulated by communities, An example of communities that try to exclude, Falls Township back in 1986 totally excluded landfills and they were challenged. They lost the case because they do not provide for landfills. General Batton Corporation is a court case back in 1977 versus the zoning hearing board of Alsaics(ph) Township. The court ruled that waste disposal uses under DER regulations are legitimate businesses, the total exclusion of which can not be done, So there's some real hard hitting court cases that we used in developing our regulations. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 lt 12 13 14 15 16 17 168 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 21 The third item has to be that the regulations can't be so unreasonable that it would restrict a business that's in operation or that would be a defacto exclusion. For example, if you were to establish setback areas of one thousand feet or two thousand feet, chances are that it would be considered a defacto ordinance. Our provisions are so restrictive that it's impossible for an operation such as a landfill or some other type of solid waste disposal use to actually come into the township. Just because of the regulations, the ordinance could be viewed as being exlusionary. So these are things that we had to wrestle with and the board of supervisors had to wrestle with. The fourth major item -- these are just some of the summaries of the plan -- is that we really can't regulate waste in terms of restricting interstate commerce. A lot of people out there would like to see facilities in the township dealing only with Slate Belt or Plainfield Township waste. It's very similar to having an auto parts store in the township and limiting the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25 22 amount of generators he can sell. $o we can't regulate where the trash -- where the solid waste comes from. There are some pending Senate bills that may allow us to do that down the road a bit; but right now, we're limited by that. Those are some the limits and the regulations that we have to deal with, I think it's important to talk about those. The other part of this, I just want to go over the major policies of the plan because they set the policies that are actually included in the zoning ordinance. So I'm going to quickly go through the policies. The township is committed to regulating solid waste disposal facilities in order to minimize the negative impact on the adjacent land uses in the township. That's one policy. Types of waste, the plan supplement is saying we have to permit processing and disposal uses in the community. Not just landfills, but processing uses euch as recycling centers, material separation uses, things like these, We are saying in the plan RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253~266010 ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 supplement that we want to prohibit processing and disposal of hazardous waste and infectious waste. I think there was a concensus reached among the special group that these are things that we want to regulate in the ordinance and we want to prohibit. In terms of the type of facilities, we want to allow certain types of processing facilities, recycling centers, material separation facilities, and sanitary landfill. We're making a statement in the comprehensive plan supplement that we want to prohibit incinerators. We can go on and on about the reason why it's important to prohibit incinerators given the fact that they are provided for in the plan, in the ordinance, sanitary landfill. we're saying that it's important to use local zoning regulations as the key way to implement these policies. We're saying that the establishment of a zoning district dealing Primarily with solid waste use is far better than dealing with a floating kind of concept where solid waste disposal and processing used to flow throughout the farm and forest district which represents approximately seventy~five percent of RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266024 1 the entire township or approximately twelve 2 thousand acres. 3 We're saying the plan is that 4 approximately three hundred acres of land more or 5 less should be set aside for solid waste, not 6 twelve hundred acres. And that should be done 7 through a zoning district. 8 we're also saying that the 9 location of a district needs to be considered and 1o the comprehensive plan supplement recommends the uy area between Wind Gap and Pen Argyl where there are 12 accessible roads, where there is an existing 13 orientation to solid waste industries, where there 14 is very little farm land in this particular area. 1s Again, looking at those maps that 16 we had discussed earlier, we were able to determine ay that that area was best suited. We'll have some 18 other maps that you can take a look at. 19 We also have provisions in the 20 supplement requiring compliance with all state and a1 Federal regulations. The proposed area, target 22 area, is outlined on this map and I’11 go -- this 23 is the area that's targeted in the comprehensive 24 plan supplement. 25 It represents approximately three RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 hundred forty acres of land. It's bounded by the Plainfield Trail on the west, by Pen Argyl Road on the east, and Grand Central road on the south. The aerial photograph that I have here, I think it shows it a little bit better. By the way, the scale of this map is one inch equals eight hundred feet so a square inch would be about fourteen -- almost fifteen acres of land; whereas a square inch on this map, which is one inch equals four hundred feet is a little bit less than four acres. So again, this is the outline of the district, Plainfield Trail, Grand Central Road, Pen Argyl Road. The intersection of Pen Argyl Road and Delabole Road is about two thousand feet to the south, The area that's being proposed for this district is an area that includes the existing Grand Central Sanitation landfill, approximately one hundred three acres of land. The area in green we'll talk about a little bit later. One of the major features of the ordinance, as you'll see when we go through this is that it retains the five hundred foot setback which is the area outlined in green. That gives you some perspective. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 It's a big district in terms of the area, in terms of acreage. About one hundred acres are devoted to the existing landfill, another large area is going to be devoted to the setback or buffer area leaving approximately seventy acres or so for potential new landfill. Again, one of the things in the plan supplement is that we have to look at the whole thing in toto in terms of the land use proposed, the legal aspects, the existing character of the area, the existing facility that's there now, something we can't ignore, All of these factors in toto need to be looked at. It truly is a comprehensive plan supplement. At this point, I'd like to briefly touch upon the ordinance. The ordinance MR. MOLNAR: Before you go on to the ordinance, let me just remind everyone that would like to speak during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, please go to the rear of the auditorium, right outside the auditorium, there's some sign-up sheets and we'll be picking those up during Mr, Sugarman's presentation. 60 if anyone has not signed up, please go back and sign. ‘Thank you. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 MR. PALMER: Briefly about the proposed ordinance and some of the major features of the ordinance. Again, remember, it's part of the comprehensive plan supplement. The major feature is that we're now having a more Comprehensive approach to solid waste disposal and processing uses. Whereas in the existing regulations, we're dealing with one page of regulations, we're dealing with approximately twenty pages of regulations under the new ordinance. So it's much more comprehensive yet at the same time we believe it's a fair ordinance and that it can be implemented and procedures and regulations are objective. In other words, if the township supervisors are reviewing the use on an application, they can systematically go down the list and objectively determine whether or not the Proposed use is in compliance. So it's a lot more comprehensive but still it's fair. The terms and definitions used in the ordinance are basically the same as DER uses in their new regulations which were adopted April 9, So there's consistency here with what DER has in RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 terms of terminolgy. Probably the most important aspect is that it deletes the solid waste facilities and processing uses from the farm and forest district rather than allowing them to flow as a special exception use within the farm and forest district. Now we're saying only these uses can locate within the solid waste district. So from twelve thousand acres to approximately three hundred acres in size is the area that will be subject to a landfill ordinance and a solid waste process use. Major change. We're establishing a new solid waste processing and disposal district which youtll see is designated as an SW district. We're prohibiting incinerators, we're prohibiting hazardous and infectious waste in the ordinance, we're using a different approach in terms of how it's reviewed and approved. Rather than a special exception use which is reviewed by the zoning hearing board, a landfill would have to come under a conditional use procedure and the planning code provides a basis for this conditional use approach. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 There's a whole host of provisions that have to be met for a sanitary landfill in this new ordinance. The township supervisors, rather than the zoning hearing board, will be making the review and approval of that. Rather than the zoning hearing board. The planning commission would be involved in making a recommendation to the board of supervisors prior to taking any action on that. That's a major change. The supervisors now rather than the zoning hearing board, Another thing is we're retaining the fifty foot setback distance, we feel that fifty foot setback is what is needed to provide the land use compatibility that we have in the farm and forest district and that's been retained. Important feature. Regarding landfills, the proposed ordinance calls for more comprehensive environmental monitoring; and to assist in this, the ordinance establishes a local inspector to assist in making inspections of the landfill and to carry out other responsibilities. Very similar to a sewage enforcement officer. The local inspector would be RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 trained and certified by DER but would be appointed by the township. That would help communicate and to carry out some of the duties that the study group members were concerned about in terms of making sure things are being done the way they should be done. The ordinance requires fences, truck wash facilities, provisions there for visual screening, litter control. A lot of things that DER is requiring, the township wants to see how that is going to be treated as well, Some of these regulations in the ordinance are in for informational purposes so that they know how some of those items will be handled. We're also calling for a traffic impact study to determine if there's going to a traffic impact as a result of the proposed use. The ordinance establishes average daily and maximum limits regarding the tonnage that can come into the landfill. In regard to the solid waste processing facilities, recycling facilities, the material separation facilities, we've written in requirements that say it has to be a three acre lot size for these. Again, they would locate in the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 zone called solid waste. All loading and unloading and all storage of waste must be done inside. So essentially, we're looking at the processing facilities as being industrial uses so the standards that are in the industrial zone, basically the same standards that are required in terms of the setbacks and the yard requirements for some of these other processing uses, we're requiring the sane performance standards that an industry must meet coming into the township must be met by the processing facility. So those are some of the key features of the ordinance. As Mr. Powell pointed out earlier, it is a major difference from the existing ordinance that we have now. At this point, I'll turn the meeting back over. MR, MOLNAR: ‘Thank you, Mr. Palmer. The next portion of the agenda, the township is fortunate to have been working with Robert Sugarman, an attorney from Philadelphia, who has been helpful to the township in drafting and coming up with ideas for the solid waste zoning amendment as well as the comprehensive plan. Before I turn it over to Mr. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Hstn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 Sugarman, I ask anyone who wants to sign up, please do so now. I'11 be going in a couple of minutes to pick up the sign-up sheets for the public hearing portion, Mr. Sugarman, MR. SUGARMAN: Thank you, John. What has evolved of the approximately eighteen months that I have been associated with this effort in Plainfield Township has been a gradual evolution of the ability of the township to make a reasonable decision based on a solid comprehensive planning effort as to what the concerns of the township are, what the constraints of the law are, and what the needs of a responsible operation are so as to assure that something can be put in place which will have the maximum ability to achieve the objectives of the residents of Plainfield Township within what the law allows. What I'd like to do is give you a brief overview to the extent that I can clarify for you as to what the law allows a municipality such as Plainfield to do with respect to the limitations on and the regulations of a solid waste disposal facility. I think you probably heard ad naseum by now of the doctrine of the Pennsylvania RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Supreme Court which has been in effect now for some nineteen years which says that municipal ordinance is exclusionary if it does not allow for every use which is considered a legitimate use within the overall state. That means that such uses as gas stations and multiple family housing and the like which are generally regarded as viable uses, although they may not be pleasant uses for everybody, must be provided an opportunity in each township. That doctrine has now fairly well been recognized throughout the Commonwealth to the point where people who go around looking for ordinances that are attackable are finding it harder and harder to find the basis for attacks on ordinances as being exclusionary. The issues are getting more and more subtle. The procedure for attacking an ordinance is called a curative amendment. We're seeing that curative amendments are becoming more and more esoteric, The problem is that the scope of a curative amendment for an exclusionary use and the doctrine itself is becoming more and more difficult to pin down. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 The issues are no longer black and white. You have to get down to details and try to make an estimate from the cases as to what the scope of the municipality's obligation is, Just to give you an illustration s0 you will get a proper perspective of it, as the courts began to say that multiple housing had to be Provided for in each township, they then began dealing with whether town houses or row houses as a separate type of housing had to be provided in every township. They held that indeed they did. 80 the developers started coming up with all kinds of variations like quardriplexes and multiplexes and octiplexes and said that every type had to be provided for, Ultimately, it reached a point of ridiculousness so that the courts said that you don't have to imagine every type of housing that you can think of and provide for. So there are limitations on how far the courts can require the municipality to go. But it is very clear that the exclusionary zoning doctrine is a very real consideration that any township has to take into account. Then you get to the issue of what RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 do you do when a use like a quacry or a landfill or some other kinds of uses that inherently involve the consumption of additional amounts of land over time. Is an ordinance that provides for such a use exclusionary when the amount of land that was originally provided for in the ordinance for that use runs out as applied to a particular use which is expandatory by nature. While there are no ~~ again, no yardsticks as to exactly how far that goes, the courts have answered that as to landfills, an ordinance is exclusionary if it does not allow for the continuation of the landfill use. Not necessarily that particular landfill, but the continuation of landfill use where landfills are expanding to the point that there is no more land available for landfills in the township because the land that was available in the ordinance is all used up. That is another consideration that forces the township to do what Plainfield Township has been painfully doing at this point in time which is to consider how far does it have to go to continue a use which may or may not be desired by a lot of people. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 23 24 25 36 If the township had free choice, it might make a decision in one light, but given the way the law is, how do we make sure that the township is not opening itself up to some curative amendment which could be a major problem. So that's one major area that forms the background for this whole effort. ‘There is another area that also has to be taken into account. Or two other areas. One is called fair share doctrine which has not necessarily been fully applied to things like landfills but which is always out there in the background as a possible concern. The fair share doctrine is another doctrine of the Supreme Court. This has developed in the housing area, It says that every municipality has to assume a, quote, fair share of the need of the district for and people of the district for expansion. You can see how that would come up as it applies to housing, Don't confuse it with low income housing, by the way. The fair share doctrine has been applied to -- has been considered to be satisfied by houses that would make most of us feel like paupers. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 37 So it's not an income based doctrine, it's a people doctrine and whether it makes any sense or not is another fact that we have to live with. The third concern that we have to live with is a doctrine that says that the local government can not regulate something which the state has preempted regulation of. That means that if the state has indicated that it wishes to be the sole regulator of a given subject, the local government can no longer regulate it. In the solid waste area, once again, the courts have thrown us a softball meaning we can't find the edges of it by saying there's limited preemption as to solid waste. Which means partial preemption which means that you have to guess how much preemption there is. We know the local government can not regulate the hours of operation of a landfill. At least apparently the local government can not. There is some possible disagreement with that but I think it's fairly well established that at least at the present time, the local government can not regulate the hours of operation of the landfill, Nor can it regulate, say, for RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scentn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 example, the type of lining or what have you that goes with the construction of this. ‘That is a function for the state Department of Environmental Resources under this doctrine of limited preemption. That means there are some issues, obviously, that are in the border or in the never never land of uncertainty as to whether the local government can regulate. The key issue that has come up in Plainfield's consideration, as you would expect, is the issue of traffic volumes. To what extent can Plainfield regulate the volumes of traffic or of tonnage. In my judgment, the township can act to ensure that a solid waste facility does not exacerbate traffic conditions in a municipality. Since the traffic -- since the traffic conditions are reflected most in terms of ease of regulation, practicability of regulation, traffic conditions are reflected in tonnage. The most effective way to regulate traffic is by regulating tonnage. So in my opinion, the township can regulate the tonnage as a means of regulating traffic into the landfill, This is not a question RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660 ilo ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 of operation of the facility, this is a question of | the normal function of zoning. | Iwas pleased the other day to read a recent case out of the Commonwealth court just within the last few weeks which states that a township can appropriately deny conditional use approval where one of the standards of the ordinance was that there would be no substantial | increase in traffic congestion as a result of the special condition. The evidence in that case was that there would be seventy percent increase in traffic. Although traffic is not considered to be | a basis for finding adverse affect under general terms, the court says where the ordinance says that you specifically have to turn down a conditional use where it's going to have an adverse traffic affect, that the towsnhip can turn down the conditional use because the use doesn't qualify if it's going to have an adverse traffic affect. So that would give us as a township a fair amount of confidence that such a condition would be upheld in the courts. The final point that I want to speak to is, as Tom indicated, the draftsmen of RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 al 22 23 24 40 this ordinance, myself included, recommended to the board of supervisors that the township take a conditional use approach. ‘The conditional use approach is a fairly modern development as a wide spread thing. Conditional uses have been around for a while; but in terms of their increasing use, that's a very modern development. It's based on the recognition that the special exception approach, which doesn't really mean special exception. Those of you that have been involved in zoning will know what I mean. For those of you who haven't, let me just give you a quick two sentance course in special exceptions. A special exception is not a special exception, they're the general rule. so that is the first thing to know about them. The way it evolved is that you write standards for special exceptions, If someone wants one and they comply with those standards, then they're almost entitled to the special exception. So that's why I say it becomes a general rule. But the problem with special exceptions is that they go to the zoning board and RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-26601. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 the problem with that is that with increasing complexity of uses and standards, zoning board proceedings have turned into marathons which become extremely expensive for everybody and being litigation are not really the best way to work out a complex planning process. It's much better to work out a complex planning process without a record, without the cross examination, without a lot of the legal Paraphernalia in informal meetings with the planning commission and the board of supervisors because things can be done a lot more quickly. There would be a lot more give and take, You can try out concepts without the same kind of fireworks. $0 conditional uses have become a modern approach in recognition of the fact that you just can't have uses as of right all the time because a lot of them are so complex and the factors are so complex that there's no way to write an ordinance that would anticipate all of the facts. Special exceptions are just a way of moving those complexities over into a lawsuit, The best thing to do is say you can have this use if you can satisfy the supervisors that you can RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meet the standards. what this ordinance does is to do that. Zt can still turn into lots of litigation, no question about it, and some of the procedural and legal implications of conditional uses are still to be completely worked out. In general, you can say that if you write your conditional use ordinance such that the applicant has to comply with the kinds of standards that you set out, and if the standards are meaningful and not just vague standards, then it gives the applicant the advantage of having a good road map of what he has to do. It gives the township the advantage of being able to deal in a factual and practical way which access of it might not have been totally understood or anticipated at the time that the standards were written. It gives everybody the advantage to sit down and try to work it out on the table. I'm an advocate in this kind of situation of use and conditional use approach. found in the townships that I have seen it, recommended it, it has been adopted, it has made it a lot easier, faster, and cheaper to reach a RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660a 10 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 43 reasonable degree of concensus over some very difficul planning issues. Certainly a landfill does represent that. I just want to say one word about something that's not in the ordinance and that is incinerators. You heard the comments of the county planning commission ané I want to make two comments sbout them. Cne is that county planning commissions do not have lawyers participating in their reviews for the most part. Although I don't necessarily hold with lawyers as arbitrators of everything, I do think county planners are way off base when they try to practice law. It's hard enough for lawyers to practice reasonably qualified law and I don't think planners in a lot of cases know what they're talking about when they're practicing law. The county planning commission reviewers, in my judgment, are making categorical statements in a situation where they the law just doesn't support that kind of a categorical statement. For example, what they're saying in essence is that incinerators are another form of disposing of waste and the Supreme Court says it's RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 al 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2a 25 44 exclusionary not to have all legitmate uses; and therefore, they question whether Plainfield can exclude incinerators. I want to say that to me, incinerators are sort of like quadriplexes and multiplexes and octiplexes. If you think of enougk ways of disposing of solid waste and you want to make the contention that the township has to provide for every one, then you have to deal -- if you're making that contention, you have to deal with court cases that say that the township does not have to provide for every conceivable type of housing. Therefore, I think, moreso today than eighteen months ago, and hopefully moreso a year from now, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the courts are not going to be unreasonable and require every township to accept every form of every use. If we start thinking about waste -- of disposing of solid waste, as 1 said before, we can think of a lot of different ways of disposing it, Some of them could be quite silly. Some of them are very serious potential implications. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 a 12 13 14 15 16 uy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 I think that if the township like Plainfield provides for landfill, provides for resource recycling, provides for landfills to a very relatively generous extent, I don't think the court is going to say that Plainfield has to provide for incinerators. So that I think the county planning commission should in cases -- other cases that I've been involved in in other counties have withdrawn their comments when it's pointed out to them that they've been making pronouncements about matters of law. I said that was all I had to say but I see in my note there's one more point TI wanted to mention and that is the issue of setbacks. Although I don't know if it's a serious issue in this ordinance at this time, T just want to say that once again, the courts recently, within the last few weeks, reaffirmed the fact that a township can regulate setbacks. Can even regulate setback where there is an existing non-conformity. That is where the setback before the ordinance was in place, where the use in question did not allow the setback that the ordinance now requires, the township can RENICK REPORPING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 al 12 13 14 25 16 uy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 prevent that existing non-conformity from getting any worse. extending horizontally or getting whatever road or adjoining use it think the effort here has been to In other words, from either closer to might be. So I responsibly respond to the law so as to maintain a maximum degree of control over the use to insure minimum impact on the township. To establish the degrees of additional control that the law would permit where there is a need for that kind of control in the township. And in general, to protect the township's ability to make these decisions and to control some destinies as best they could. I feel that this ordinance draft does that to the best and optimum degree, That 1 could recommend any further degrees of limitation that we have considered would it being held non- been struck of trying to do the job without risking something that could be constructive. Sugarman, We'll move to the public hearing portion RENICK REPORTING Serntn 348-0223; increase the risk of effective or invalid. I think that a good balance has MR. MOLNAR: Thank you, Mr. Strdsbrg 595-7361; SERVICE Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 of tonight's meeting. I brought from the back of the room two pages marked page one and page two. We're going to ask the township secretary to mark that as township exhibit six. Township exhibit five, by the way -- I don't think I mentioned that -- was the study group minutes of the eleven meetings that the study group had over the last eighteen months. (Township Exbibit No. 6, list of names, was marked for identification.) MR. MOLNAR: This portion of the public hearing, as I indicated earlier this evening, is for comments from the audience, the people that have signed up. Tonight is a legislative hearing, as I indicated, not a judicial hearing, No one is subject to cross examination by witnesses or attorneys that may be Present tonight. After you are concluded speaking, you're not going to subject yourself to cross examination by anyone and can simply sit down and be seated. At that point in time, we'll go on to the next person, We're going to go in the order the way the people have signed up starting RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266012 13 14 15 16 17 18 1s 20 21 23 24 25 48 with page one which has twenty-three names on, and page number two has two names on. We'll probably be taking a break probably in midstream, We want to give our stenographer a break because she has to pay attention every single moment and continue to take down all the notes of testimony that's given this evening, So the first entity on the list is Grand Central Sanitation, Inc., Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, and Grand Central Real Estate. I assume someone will be speaking on behalf of all three. So who will be speaking on behalf the Grand Central corporations? We'll ask you to come to the podium, please. MR. ZITO: Good evening, Mr. Solicitor, members of the board of supervisors, madam secretary, my name is Leonard Zito. I would like the hearing record to reflect my appearance on behalf of the Grand Central companies that you've indicated have signed exhibit number six, Grand Central Sanitation, Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, and Grand Central Real Estate Company, all of which are remotely or RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo lL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 repletely interested in the ordinance and are operators of the currently landfill ané fertilage areas. This is a legislative hearing and since we will not be following the rules of the judicial hearings for cross examination, I'm going to introduce the speakers the Grand Central companies have here this evening which will address their concerns and their critique with respect to the ordinance. Nolan Perin, the chairman of Grand Central Sanitation will speak on behalf of all the Grand Central companies and he will outline his critique and his suggestions of the ordinance as it's been proposed. Thereafter, Edward Prout of American Resource Consulting will speak and he, too, will offer his comments and his critique on those sections of the ordinance which effect the Grand Central companies. Finally, we will offer Charles Siebert of Martin and Martin, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who is a partner in a firm specializing in planning and specializing in landfills and specializing in landfill ordinances. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 23 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 50 With that, I would ask the panel to first hear olan Perin, chairman of the Grand Central companies. MR, PERIN: Good evening. My name is Nolan Perin. As Mr. Zito pointed out, I'm the chairman of Grand Central Sanitation and related companies which include Grand Central Real Estate, Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, and Pocono Independent Paper Stock Company, all of which are directly affected by this proposed ordinance. In addition to being active in the waste business, my experience through the years is that I have testified before various state Senate and house committees, both in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, before members of congress, before the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Resources, the various other regulatory bodies concerning waste issues. Xam a former board member of the National Solid Waste Management Association which is, generally speaking, the leading industry association and I'm a former chapter chairman in Pennsylvania of that association. It's my company's position that what is being proposed tonight is selective legislation. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 at 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 51 That is that it's strictly aimed at the operation of the Grand Central companies. As so, our position is that it may be unconstitutional, it may be spot zoning. However, I guess that's an issue we'll have to let the lawyers decide. Grand Central and related companies have brought industry experts which have been introduced to you earlier and they will be presenting some testimony after me. In conclusion, which I want to read to you first before I go through a page by Page critique of this proposed ordinance, I would like to say that the township must enact an ordinance which will allow Grand Central to operate by being able to control both its expenses and its revenues. What this really means to us is that we as a company must have control over our operating hours, control over incoming tonnages of waste, the ability to quickly -- and I want to underline that -- permit accessory facilities necessary to conduct its business as it is legally entitled to do so in Pennsylvania. These areas must address areas RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 like leachade collection and treatment, landfill gas control, the use of -~ and use of this valuable commodity, maintenance and repair facilities as deemed necessary by Grand Central, and the ability to install without delay any device, improvement, or structure and all other improvements either required by the Federal and state agencies which regulate this business, Further, as an evolving industry, Grand Central needs the ability to install and operate innovative devices and improvements in order that this company may continue to lead in this much needed service area. In addition, Grand Central must at times meet demands of the insurance industry which assume certain liability by insuring such a business, Knowledge and direction from the insurance industry is usually the result of having an avoidable situation which costs the insurance company through losses from the claim. The resolution of the issues here can not occur simply with the enactment of this ordinance. I suggest that the only resolution is in once again obtaining the posture between the township officials and Grand Central which allows RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 25 53 for and obtains a free exchange of information on the first name and informal basis. Any reasonable dialogue between Plainfield Township and Grand Central can only be achieved after all litigation is stopped and all areas in which the litigation is taking place, including those areas outside the township. I have quite a bit of material to go over tonight and I apologize in the beginning for the amount of time that this is going to take but it's a rather lengthy proposed change, One of the comments and one of the first comments that I have on this ordinance is that some of the definitions as I read them in the proposed ordinance do not parallel those which are used by DER, For example, class one and class two demolition base are no longer regulated in the business. There should be no exception to the rule of following DER guidelines which are appropriately spelled out in the april 9, 1988 legislation regarding landfills, I heard earlier that the ordinance met all of those guidelines but I disagree. Permanent uses must include not RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 only disposal but the generation and treatment of all types of waste whether they're infectious, hazardous, or municipal and residual. Ash residue as spelled out in the ordinance, again must be spelled out according to the DER regulations of April 9, 1988. What I'm simply saying to you is that you've proposed an ordinance which does not at all address the generation of these wastes in the township which is taking place on a continuous basis, Various businesses in the township generate and store, maybe not infectious waste, although there is some of that. Not on a large scale basis, But there is hazardous waste being generated and stored in the township which is not addressed in the ordinance. The deletion of the special exception of the farm and forest district is not objectionable except that Grand Central does not want to use off site cover material to be interpretted as a waste activity. In other words, Grand Central intends to take soils from adjacent and remote areas ought of the proposed new district and use it RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 qi 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 as 55 for cover material. We can not be put in a position where the use of that material becomes an issue in that the borrow area, if you wili, is not in the proposed district. I'd like to point out that any further regulation of the use of cover material from areas within Plainfield Township would only cause my company to have to truck material in from other communities which would increase the truck traffic throughout the community. With respect to page four of the ordinance, proposed ordinance, section three eighteen, part A, we have no objection. Part B, however, is objectionable in that it excludes incinerators, landfills which take over one hundred tons a day, transfer stations, and any and all other waste activities which might arise as a result of Grand Central pursuits. This must be amended to allow for unrestricted landfill tonnages, the operation of the transfer station, except a transfer station should be a permitted use in a highway industrial district. This type of activity is more suited to a highway industrial district in that RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Stcdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 road access both in and out of the facility is more or legs ideal. This ordinance must allow for incineration and other forms of waste processing to include but not limited to shreading, autoclaving, and liguid waste treatment. Item C of that section, special exception uses is virtually useless. Anyone who wants to live or operate a business other than a waste business in a proposed district should be allowed to do so. There is no useful purpose for prohibited uses in the district in that the industry being proposed is one of the most Obnoxious uses and that's already approved in the district. Zé there is to be a prohibited use, it probably should be housing of any type. The fact that these people -- that people want to make agriculture -- or I should say the board wants to make agriculture a special exception use also bears no merit. Grand Central is pursuing the possibilty of having a green house operate in the setback zone which is an agricultural use in that the proposed landfill will generate a great deal of RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 energy in the form of landfill gas which is basically methan and heat sources are essential for green houses. The conditional use part of the ordinance is completely objectionable to Grand Central because the Grand Central companies and other people in the landfill business must have an economy scale to operate. Obviously, Grand Central can not afford to operate, or anyone else for that matter, to meet the regulatory requirements imposed upon companies like ours by DER and 8.P.a. and only operate on one hundred tons a day. The truth of the matter is that under this ordinance, the proposed ordinance, we will be at it full time just to please the township and overcome the bureaucratic mess which will be created by the conditional vse. In earlier discussions with the township, I pointed out that I think what would make a conditional use acceptable would be a Precise spelling out of all of the requirements that are necessary in order for my company to operate. I don't believe that that's been accomplished in this proposed ordinance. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strasbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 I can point to a number of various areas where it has not. On page five, eight E, Grand Central has no problem except that the uses should be allowed in a disposal zone as the area is closed, So that the language should say in "disposal zone or portion thereof.” The township attempts in its language to limit uses in the disposal zone to closed landfills. Grand Central takes a position that a portion of the closed landfill is effectively a closed landfill and therefore those uses should be allowed. In the setback zone for the landfill, any industrial use of the township which is allowed in the industrial area should be allowed in the setback zone, including mineral extraction. Incidently, mineral extraction will become an issue in that DER now defines all commercial uses of dirt, rock, et cetera, as requiring a mining permit if a solid waste permit does not address the operation. What this basically means is that mineral extraction should also be at least a special exception use, if not a permitted use, in the farm and forest district. I think what the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo ut 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 township has ignored in the formulation of this language for this proposed ordinance is the fact that the landfill is not the only use in the township which requires the use of dirt, rock, and soil. Home builders require this material, contractors, people doing development, and people simply wanting to fill in a hole on their property, people requiring top soil for their yards. The township has made no provisions in this proposed ordinance to control or Provide for those services except that the intent here appears to be to restrict the landfill company from being able to use that soil for one specific use. On page seven, there is a list of accessory uses. This list appears to be insufficient and it must include monitoring wells, sedimentation basins, any and all devices necessary to conduct a landfill operation. Included in that list but not limited to the list would be maintenance buildings for landfill equipment, areas for processing extracted materials, office space, and various other uses that were outlined earlier RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 in my testimony. The minimum lot area of fifty acres is not objectionable except for an expansion of an existing facility in that fifty acres is acceptable for the basis of starting a landfill operation; I believe an expansion of that operation should be allowed in smaller increments. I'm not sure that the ordinance forbids that but it doesn't spell it out in language that I feel is clear. The setbacks proposed in the minimun lot restriction shouid be reduced to those allowed in the April 9, 1988 DER regulations and the proposed ordinance must parallel those regulations, Basically what DBR says is one hundred feet from property line in terms of setbacks. A number of other instances where landfills are prohibited including wetland areas, within certain distances of streams, three hundred feet from an occupied dwelling if the facility was permitted before April of this year and five hundred feet from an occupied dwelling if it's permitted after April of this year, I believe that the propased ordinance should at a maximum mirror those things. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; #stn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 The minimum required yards must be amended to allow for a setback consistent with DER regulations. This is spelled out in the proposed ordinance on page seven, This is especially true for this site in that it is bordered by blighted properties and most of the bordering property belongs to Grand Central and related companies or the Grand Central owners. There doesn't appear to be any justification for making life difficult with the five hundred foot setback given the rules under section two seventy-three point two oh two in the new DER regulations, The three hundred foot setback from an occupied dwelling is acceptable as it's spelled out in those regulations. The notation that accessory uses be prohibited in the first one hundred feet of the required setback is also without merit. Setback should be the same as those allowed in the general industrial district in that none of the proposed uses in the setback are more obnoxious than those allowed in the general industrial district. Ido not take issue with the fact that the township wants to prohibit buildings in RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 the first one hundred feet from the disposal zone but this right is one which should be regulated by DER. Incidently, the suggestion for doing that came from Grand Central, Not something the township thought of. Page eight, section five, the minimum three acres, subsection A is acceptable but the size should not be dependent on the tonnages to be processed if the applicant can otherwise meet the minimum front, side, and rear yard setback. I don't know the basis for the calculations, but facilities such as these operate on much smaller parcels of property. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the size of a piece of property and its ability to serve the function. Unless there are physical limitations which don't allow that to be accomplished. Subsections B through I, Grand Central has no objection. Subsection J, article five, should be disregarded in this instance in that the environmental affects of a facility like this, like the landfill, are adequately covered by DER regulations. Any further regulations of this RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 lL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 type of facility will be duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome. Item K appears to be just a reiteration of all of the above and I don't really know why you have it in there, on page nine, the -- under the Sanitary landfill section, there are general comments. Subsection A, Grand Central has no objection except that expansion should not have minimum requirements. Subsection B, again, the hundred foot property line and three hundred slash five hundred setback from occupied dwellings should be adhered to. Those are spelled out in the DER regulations. Item C, we have no objection. Item D is a duplication of the language in the previous section five on page eight. Again, article five should be disregarded in this instance in that environmental effects of a facility like this are adequately covered by DER regulations. Subsection E, no objection, Nor F. Subsection G, litter control. It's adequately spelled out in section two seventy-three point two two oh in the DER regulations. Grand Central takes the position that no township involvement is RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 1¢ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 necessary on this particular item. Incidently, your language appears to be very similar to theirs and I don't really understand why you have it in there because it doesn't seem to be an attempt to further regulate that area. Subsection H, this is the area, the berming, which is spelled out in the proposed ordinance. This item is objectionable in that Grand Central has established this as its policy and the township has no definitive direction as to how it will comment on this plan. There are no guidelines, no standards, and no basis for the planning commission of Plainfield Township to make a decision or even to ask questions. Again, this area is adequately covered by DER and it simply should be removed from the ordinance. While we're on that subject, Grand Central has no objection to cooperating with the township in educating the township or any of its citizens or any of the neighboring citizens, for that matter, as to how it intends to operate this proposed expansion and minimize the impact on the community by the use of such berming. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 But since its a very complicated issue, I simply don't see how the township can expect to lay this to writing at this late date without doing a lot more work than has already been done in this area. Subsection I and J, we have no objection. Subsection K, which is the burning subsection, Grand Central would like to point out that landfill gas or methane gas is burned at the facility currently; and also, Grand Central may want to employ a waste fire boiler to heat its facility or to otherwise provide energy to this facility. This might include options like a tire burning facility, a wood burning facility, and other facilities which use waste products to generate energy. This section should be deleted from the ordinance. Further, it's interesting to note that Plainfield Township has a burning ordinance that does allow burning within its borders, Grand Central would be more than happy to comply with that ordinance but it doesn't feel that it should be in a position where it should be further regulated. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 Subsection L, cover material is spelled out specifically by DER in its regulations under section two seventy-three point two thirty- two. The ordinance becomes even more impractical as proposed in that the township is not taking into consideration the DER requirements for cover material. Cover material should be obtained from the waste processing district, from the farm and forest district, any general industrial district, without regard as to whether it is class one or class two soils but with regard to whether or not the soils meet the requirements of DER. Again, the township has not provided its citizens with an area within the township where soils can be purchased within the borders of the township. Item three under that subsection is not objectionable only that a soil erosion plan is required by the conservation district and the township will receive a copy of it. In addition, Grand Central's interpretation is that off site borrow areas for cover material will need to be licensed as non-hole surface mines, and therefore, similar public RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 1e 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 notice, township and county notice, and public participation will apply. Subsection M, Grand Central has no objection, Subsection N is adequately covered in DER regulations under chapter two seventy-three two fifty-one. Subsection 0 is covered in my earlier testimony in the first paragraph on page three. Subsection P -- if you'll bear with me one second, Subsection P in the proposed ordinance says that "All incinerator ash to be disposed in the landfill shall first be tested for hazardous materials and substances, Any ash found to be hazardous shall be rejected and shall not be disposed of at the facility." Again, this is adequateiy regulated in the DER regulations of April 9 of this year under section two seventy-three point five fourteen and needs no further regulation from the townsh Subsection Q, all incinerator ash should be disposed of in a safe manner in accordance with the regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources is not a necessary item to this ordinance. Subsection R, which proposes that RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 the township hire a local inspector is objectionable in that the towns p has no way of educating such an inspector unless the inspector is trained by the very same industry that the township is trying to regulate. Further, in this ordinance, no duties or powers of the inspector are identified. in addition, who will bear the burden of paying for the inspector? Who will be responsible for administering the hours of inspection? Grand Central will not allow an inspector on the property unless it has complete indemnification from the township as it relates to the inspector's safety, workplace environment, et cetera, Will the inspector need office space to perform his or her job and who will supply that? I would like to point out to you that if Grand Central is an honest company, an inspector is not necessary. If Grand Central is not, then what prevents Grand Central, its successors, or any of its management from paying off said inspectors? Further, what is to be inspected? Grand Central does not mind cooperating with the township in sharing the information RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Stedebrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 requested, but it is not willing to accept a burden which it should not accept. Subsection S, the company has no objection. Subsection T is again duplicative, In the proposed ordinance, on page twelve, the conditional uses and procedure for conditional uses are spelled out. Section aA has been covered earlier in my testimony. Section B with regard to the subsections, the first four items, Grand Central has no comment. Subsection five, the zoning officer shall within thirty days of receiving site plan review the plan to determine the compliance with this ordinance and submit a written report to the board of supervisors. What happens if the zoning officer doesn't do that? Who bears the burden if the zoning officer doesn't do his or her job? on what basis does the zoning officer are make his or her determination as to what is going on and report to the supervisors? None of that is spelled out in the ordinance, Subsection five is the same -- six rather is the same comments as subsection five. Subsection seven is no comment. Subsection eight RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 says that "The board of supervisors shall review the submission of the proposed use and approve or disapprove the use within sixty days from the date an application has been properly submitted. "Approval may be made conditional upon the applicant's adoption of specified changes in the submission," Under this proposed ordinance, the supervisors retain the right to make determinations as to the approval or disapproval of a plan but no mention is made as to what they will base their determinations on. The submittal is spelled out adequately in the proposed ordinance in terms of number of copies, planning scale, et cetera, but no standards exist otherwise. What could be the specified changes listed in this paragraph? Subsections nine and ten, the company has no comment. On page thirteen, approval of conditional uses, item number one, the company has no comment, Item number two, which says: "In granting a conditional use, the board of supervisors may require such reasonable conditions and safeguards in addition to those expressed in this ordinance as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of this ordinance.” RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a5 7 Phe problem that we have with that is that there is a complete lack of standards in this section, The applicant is without any direction as to what the supervisors are looking for except that it becomes apparent to Grand Central that it's a smokey mirrors approach. All that appears to be intended by this section is to delay the application as long as possible. Item three, we have no comment. On page thirteen, item D, general standards, item one and two, the company has no comment. I do not know and have not researched at this point whether the township has Properly gone through the planning process as part of the proposed amendment of this ordinance in terms of amending its comprehensive plan. I will do some research in that area to find out whether or not the Municipalities Planning Code has been adhered to in terms of amending the comprehensive plan since that appears to be the basis for the zoning. On page fifteen, the top of the page, item four under your proposed ordinance which is subsection L, item five, the township says in its proposed ordinance that "A soil erosion and RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 23 24 25 72 sedimentation control plan that will fulfill the requirements of the Department of Environmental Resources under title twenty-five, chapter one oh two shal2 be submitted to the township and the Northampton County Conservation District. "Copy of the Northampton County Conservation Disctrict approvals of the plan shall be submitted prior to approval by the township." Suitability in this area is determined by DER in that criteria has been established which augments the township's existing Proposed ordinance. Compliance with the site criteria is assumed and any deviation from that criteria will become evident in the review process by DER. I'm sorry, I made an error in that past testimony. Item five is under subsection Boon page thirteen, Item six -- which is a section which addresses suitability for a particular location, Item six on page thirteen under section D, as a general standard, the township takes the position that the proposed use not be detrimental to the public health or welfare. Grand Central's position is that this is a matter of opinion and must be deleted REWICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 73 from the proposed ordinance. The intent of that is to protect the public, which Grand Central does not object toy What has been missed is the fact that an applicant will have to comply with the standards and regulations which adequately protect the public in a definitive manner as directed by DER and the Environmental Protection Agency and there is no further need to address this issue. Again on page thirteen, specific standards for conditional uses. Item one -- I guess I should say in advance of this that under your proposed ordinance it says that each conditional use shall comply with all the following specific standards listed for that use. A sanitary landfill involving the disposal of more than one hundred tons per day of solid waste shall be at least fifty acres and there are a number of other items which are listed here. Grand Central takes the position that it is not willing to comply with this item in that the item seeks to restrict Grand Central's income with the one Aundred ton per day level without restricting its expenses thereby setting the company up for financial default. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg $95-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 Under item one, subsection A, the company has no comment, Item B again addresses the township's proposed language the five hundred foot setback, Grand Central takes the position that the disposal zone should be parallel to DER's which adequately address this item, Subsection C, no comment. Subsection D was addressed earlier in that environmental regulations at this point are adequately addressed by DER and the Environmental Protection Agency and needs no further regulation by the township. Subsection E, the company has no comment, Subsection F, fences to control litter should be located downwind from the working area prior to the disposal activities. an eight foot high fence totally encompassing the landfill area should be required for safety and protection against unauthorized entrance. Again, the requirement for fencing around the landfill is covered adequately in the department's chapter two seventy-three point two two zero legislation, ‘The company has no objection to the eight foot perimeter fence requirement. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660 i10 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 subsection G would be the same as subsection F, Under subsection H, the township again tries to install language which requires berms to visually screen solid waste in the disposal zone when the landfill site is located adjacent to a residential district including farm and forest district or the borough of Pen Argyl. The plan for visual screening should be submitted by the owner for review by the | township. The company has the same objection, The berming technology is something that is new to the industry, something that's Grand Central's idea to begin with, and that all plans and proposed operations on the specific site or any site in Pennsylvania for that matter will automatically be reviewed by the township when the company makes its application to DER. Based on that application and what is written in that application, the township can comment to DER as to its satisfaction or lack thereof of what the application says. But again, Grand Central has no objection to cooperating with the township in making the proposed site as esthetically pleasing as possible. subsection E, the company has no RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 76 comment, Subsection F -- I'm sorry, I've covered that. Subsections 1 and J, the company has no comment. Subsection K was addressed earlier in my testimony which is the area of control over burning. It says burning of any kind of waste is prohibited. Again, earlier, Grand Central covered its position relative to being able to provide a source of energy from various types of waste. Subsection L says that all waste should be covered with a suitable earth cover at the close of operation each day. If off site areas are needed to obtain the required covering material, the following provisions shall apply. Again, the comments on taking material from off the landfill or out of the solid waste district as required for cover material were covered by me adequately, I believe, in earlier testimony. Subsection M, the company has no comment. That's the requirement for truck wash. I'd like to point out to you that I believe Grand Central's the first company in the Commonwealth to employ a truck wash at a landfill at its own expense without any requirement to do so and in REWICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 recognition of what it felt to be a problem in getting dirt on the streets. A need to address that requirement here no longer exists because DER now addresses the requirement for a truck wash, item N is that a double liner system be required in a disposal zone. Again, this is an item that's addressed by DER. Double liner systems are the basis for all landfill permits which will be issued after April 9, 1988 with the exception of demolition waste landfill permits. Subsection O is adequately covered in earlier testimony relative to accessory uses and how they should be allowed and where they can be installed and how quickly they can be installed. Subsection P again addresses incinerator ash. Again, the disposal of ash is regulated by DER and is adequately covered in their regulations, Subsection R says that the operator should cooperate with the township, and again, the township may want to appoint a local inspector. No one has been told what the duties of this inspector are to be. Again, who will be responsible to pay the inspector, how do we RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 395-7361; Bstn 253-266010 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 monitor the integrity of the inspector, and there are simply a whole bunch of questions about this right to have an inspector on site. That the operator shall cooperate with the township in environmental monitoring of the landfill is something that's already existed and practiced in the past. I don't believe any point in time the township has found itself in a position where it's been unable to get information from my company. Subsection T in the proposed ordinance says that the traffic impact analysis should be required in accordance with section fourteen of the proposed ordinance, The board of superivsors may use the results of that analysis to require off site traffic improvement in order to minimize the traffic congestion and to achieve a safe and physical circulation. I'd like to point out that the traffic impact analysis that's required by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for all types of business does apply to this. And for that matter, many other industrial facilities. Each should be such to adequately address the township's questions relative to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strasbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 traffic impact. I believe that the township has reviewed PennDOT's own standard forms and criteria for such a study and I think the township has set forward its own form and policies in order to further restrict the operation of my company. This is objectionable in that the township has not availed itself with all of the available information relative to a traffic study. In addition, Grand Central is already servicing as many as two hundred trucks per day and it does not intend to go beyond that point at this time making this an existing operation and not subject to further regulation, especially that which does not have standards. Subsection U of the proposed ordinance says that an overall phasing plan for the entire landfill submitted in a phase approach shall be required to minimize impact. The township supervisors, after review of site and phasing plans and other required information may set a maximum size for each phase prior to starting work in each full phase. The level of phase work shall be reviewed. Poor performance may be a basis for limiting work in other phases. Grand Central's RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 comments are that this item is not an area where the township bas any regulatory power. The plans and information submitted to the DER will be subject to township comment and in no instance does the township set any standard or regulation in making decisions in this area, There are no guidelines for an applicant to work from. Basically what the township appears to be saying to me is submit a plan and then we'll tell you what's wrong with it. Further, the township's desire to restrict further activity depending upon its determination of past performance is simply not achievable. Again, there are no standards and the township is trying to preempt DER's regulatory structure, Subsection v under the proposed ordinance says that the amount of waste disposal shall not exceed an average of fifteen hundred tons a day. The maximum amount of waste for any given day shall not exceed two thousand tons per day. My company's comments are, at this point, Grand Central will not agree to any cap on landfill volume. The extent of the amount of waste Grand Central wishes to dispose of will be RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 al 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 spelled out in its application to DER upon which the township can comment. The township has not restricted other operations within its borders by any volume effort calculation, and therefore, I don't believe it can set a precedent in this district. subsection W in the proposed ordinance says that the topographic provisions with respect to varying locations shall be submitted showing the unique features of the proposed landfill to the extent not represented by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. The township may require height limitations to protect scenic features and achieve land use compatibility. Maybe one of the slate quarries is a scenic feature, The township wants to allow itself to try to restrict the size of an operation without setting standards and further is trying to preempt DER's regulations. The township wants to burden an applicant with a cat and mouse game. Again, no guideline, no definitions, no standards and nothing but the emotional feelings of the then current board of supervisors in order to set an acceptable area for the proposed conditional use. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 What I'm saying to you time and time again is that you fail to set standards. on page sixteen under that same section, the criteria for solid waste transfer stations, subsection a, the township again wanting to limit the amount of business an applicant can expect to do is again without merit. It is simply impossible to make money with one of these facilities, that being a transfer station, without an economic scale in this area. It's just one more method of saying regulate out a legitimate business. Subsections B, C, and D, we have no comment, Subsection & with respect to transfer stations says that oversized items and items that can not be compacted because of their size or construction shall be stored in the building. These items shall not remain on the site for more than fifteen days. The fifteen day limitation simply isn't workable, The township would have an operator remove any material regardless of the economics of such a move and without regard to the environmental conditions of the transfer station process. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 What I'm saying is basically, you're promoting the use of fuels, equipment, and people without regard to the damage on the environment while trying to restrict an operator with a fifteen day rule to recover material from } the transfer station. | Again, economic scale, Not only in the economic area but the environmental area as well. Subsections F and G, the company has no comment, Subsection H, all loading and unloading shall be conducted within the confines of the building. It should be pointed out to this board that Grand Central already has a permit to transfer waste from its landfill to off site processing and disposal facilities. This permit does not restrict the company from performing these operations and Grand Central does not intend to stop this process which is currently being carried out successfully and being carried on out doors on the face of the landfill. Subsection I, the company has no comment. Subsection J says that each facility shall be operated and maintained in such a manner RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 as to prevent health hazards, odor, dust, noise, and various other items, The company takes the position that there's no activity, even as small as a residential unit that can prevent those things from happening. The word prevented must be removed and replaced with the word minimized, On page seventeen, under section four oh three B, accessory structures such as farm structures, silos, water towers, Church spires that create solar energy blankets and equipment used for the mounting or operation of such items like windmills, chimneys, or other apparent uses usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human occupancy shall not exceed one hundred €ifty percent of the maximum building standards specified in the relative district regulations of the ordinance provided that the structures shall not diminish the solar access of other properties. The company's comments are that the obvious intent is to prevent ash burning incinerators from being build in this district, The chimney height restriction is objectionable for that reason. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 85 The reference to solar access is simply another way to restrict the incineration, Solar uses are, at this time, not in vogue. On page seventeen under your item fourteen, section fourteen of the ordinance, again there is vague language. Subsection one says that -- the preamble to that says that no use shall be permitted in any district that is to be operated in such a manner as to create any of the following which could compromise the township health, safety, and/or welfare. Under subsection one is unsafe conditions which could cause danger or injury resulting from fire, explosion, or other dangerous results. The reference to unsafe conditions which could cause injury is objectionable. Again, this reference could apply to anything as a house or dog coop or a fence or any structure which is created by man, Or maybe even created naturally which could cause some detrimental affect to the citizens of the township. Again, the language is not definitive and lacks direction. Subsection two RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660210 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 23 24 25 86 says that @ significant adverse environmental impact is not permitted which will adversely affect the premises or the surrounding areas. The adverse environmental impact could result from the emission of smoke, dust, fumes, ash, particular matter, odor, noise, vibration, radiation, electrical emission, water run off, ground water polution, stream, channel, or flood plane changes, soil erosion, sedimentation, light, glare, historic impact, traffic impact, or any other adverse impact upon the environment. The reference is you continue to use the word significant. The decision made by the township as to whether or not a use becomes significant in its environmental impact is strictly emotional and without standards. Further on under that paragraph, the township in its proposed ordinance has said that a use shall become a prohibited use if the applicant can not or will not mitigate its adverse environmental impact so that those impacts are reduced to an insignificant level of impact consistent with an applicable Federal, state, and/or local regulations and standards. The zoning hearing board or the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Hstn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 board of supervisors shall make all determinations as to whether a use has a significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. The company's comments are that since the uses intended for in this proposed district are those which are regulated by appropriate state and Federal agencies, the intent and the purpose of the landfill which will be alluded to make it without merit, Again, no standards, no direction, no goals, The last item I would like to cover is on page twenty-one of the proposed ordinance which is a paragraph under the subsection H which says that a major traffic impact study shall be reviewed by the planning commission, zoning officer, zoning hearing board, or township supervisors in accordance with the special exception use or conditional use procedure established in these ordinances. The commission, zoning officer, zoning hearing board, or supervisors may request additional data or information to clarify the findings set forth in said study. The zoning officer, the zoning hearing board, or township supervisors shall not approve any such use if he or RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 they determine any traffic problems to be created by the proposed development can be adequately alleviated by developer. Again, this paragraph dealt out a vague framework for review of the traffic impact study. This does not make any definition of the standards, procedures, or the basis for decision making by the various reviewing persons or groups. The last sentance says that if the reviewing boards can not approve a project -~ that the reviewing boards can not approve a project which has any traffic problem which can not be alleviated by the developer. What does that mean? Wait ten seconds at a stop sign and I don't like it? I don't like that somebody went through a stop sign? What creates any traffic problem? Again, no definition, no guidelines, no performance charts, no standards. In closing, I'd like to say that I believe that the township has ignored an earlier zoning change which was proposed by Grand Central which encompasses the existing landfill operation and properties which were purchased by the townships contiguous to the existing landfill operation and that this proposed zoning change RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253~266010 1. 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 89 included some restructuring of the railroad right-of-way, some maintenance of a rather large portion of that track for farm and forest uses, and the proposal included that section of the track in question on the south side be re-zoned to include an industrial business park. A suggestion was made that landfills along with that zoning change be a permitted use in the industrial district. Part of the thinking behind that was that the rest of the industrial districts in the township are simply not physically adequate to support a landfill operation. Therefore, what was the original intent and purpose of the zoning change, that was to restrict the operation of landfills in the other seventy-five percent the area encompassed by the township would be accomplished and all landfill activities would be contained within the industrial district. And probably within the district that you have proposed in the ordinance. I have no further comment. MR. MOLNAR: Thank you, Mr. Perin. We'll here from Mr. Prout and Mr. Siebert. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 I would ask that both Mr. Prout and Mr. Seibert give consideration of the other people in the audience this evening not to be repetitive with any testimony that has been presented by Mc. Perin. MR. PROUT: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I'll try to be brief. My name is Edward Prout, I'm president of American Resource Consultants. I've been retained by Grand Central Sanitation to review the proposed ordinance and to provide comments tonight on areas which I feel are ultimately going to cause problems, they're going to cause confusion, By way of background, as I said, I'm currently president of American Resources Consultants. Prior to that, I was vice president of Agis Corporation, and prior to that, I was with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, From an educational standpoint, 1 have a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, a master in public administration, and I've done doctoral work in the area of political science and environmental regulatory affairs. In terms of presentations I have RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 91 given around the country, I've given presentations here in the Lehigh valley on foundary waste management, at Waste-Tech '85 on residual waste management. I've given presentations on industrial waste management, on hospital waste management, on infectious waste management, as well as on solid waste disposal facilities operating in the 1980's and 1990's with limited insurance available. What I'd like to do at this point, taking into consideration the depth which Mr. Perin went into in terms of his comments, is simply try to point up those things which, again, I feel are going to cause confusion and are going to cause problems in the future. Again, anywhere in the ordinance where there is a definition, that definition should be consistent with the DER regulations. Some of the definitions which you've used co-mingle various DER definitions, I think if it comes down to discussing a point or arguing a point, we have to then go back and decides whose definition is going to rule. Again, anywhere -- and this goes RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 92 back to the statement by your planner where you don't want to promote an ordinance which is going to conflict with DER regulations, which is going to be unreasonable or is going to in certain ways restrict interstate commerce. There are many places within the proposed ordinance where there's no need for these particular paragraphs. DER covers them adequately. Chemotherapeutic waste disposal, for instance, Chemotherapeutic waste can not go to a sanitary landfill. Chemotherapeutic waste can only be incinerated. Infectious waste can not go to a landfill until it's been processed. after it's processed, it's no longer infectious waste. Again, back to DER definitions and back to talking about apples and apples and oranges and oranges. You attempt to prohibit incinerators but you allow resource recovery facilities. You allow energy recovery facilities. It seems to me than an energy recovery facility is an incinerator with a heat exchange unit. Your solid waste processing district, you seem to make two levels of solid waste processing, less than one hundred tons a day RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 and greater than one hundred tons a day. At the same time, you expect the sanitary landfill operator to build a state of the art landfill, to build a double lined landfill, to build a double lined landfill with leachade collection. I tell you today that it's impossible to build a state of the art landfill and operate it at less than one hundred tons a day and stay in business. as a result of that, all landfills are conditional uses. Because it's not economically feasible to run what you want to run in here at less than one hundred tons a day. Again, a solid waste transfer station only after closure of sanitary landfill. As Mr. Perin mentioned, Grand Central currently has a permit to operate a transfer station off the working face of the landfill. Prohibited uses. This is on page seven. A dump and incinerator, DER already prohibits open dumps through their regulations. However, DER does permit incinerators. Your setback areas, as Mr. Perin pointed out, the setback areas should be consistent with the DER regulations. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 az 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 Time and time again you point out that the operation of the facility shall comply with all applicable state and Federal regulations. It seems to me that every time you use that statement, you can eliminate all those things in the ordinance which duplicate those things in the state or Federal regulations that you're talking about. Again, on page nine on the bottom, burning of any kind of waste is prohibited, On the face of it, you're preventing Grand Central from extracting and burning methane which is required by DER. Cover material on page ten is regulated by DER. On page ten, you say that a truck wash shall be required. That's not a problem because G.C.S, has a truck wash. But what's a definition of a truck wash? A double liner system, there's no definition of a double liner system. Throughout the ordinance, there are phrases which have no substance and no meaning. For instance, on page fourteen, item E relative to how the facility shall be operated, it shall be operated so as not to impose an undue burden on the township. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo aL 12 23 14 15 16 17 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 We don't know what an undue burden is, I think what I want to point out one more time is that any time that there is a definition, it ought to be consistent the DER regulation. Anything that DER covers through its Permitting has no need in the ordinance. That's all I have. Thank you, MR. MOLNAR: Thank you. Mr. Siebert? MR, SIEBERT: ‘Thank you. TI hope you'll bear with me. I'm going to try to cut down some of my Comments because they have been covered and you're getting tied of hearing the same thing over and over, UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we are. MR. MOLNAR: Only one person has the floor at a time. Mr. Siebert, please continue. MR, SIEBERT: By way of background, I'd like to say that I am a partner in the Martin and Martin Corporation, an engineering and planning firm located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, It's a firm that has an extensive practice in a wide range of fields but we do RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg $95-7361; Estn 253-2660lo 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 96 specialize in solid waste disposal and we do specialize in community planning. I've been -- I have a bachelor of architecture degree from Carnegie Mellon University and a bachelor of urban redevelopment planning from Pratt Institute. My background includes development and the implementation of many zoning ordinances in this state and other states. I've practiced planning in this state and other states and abroad. Because of the unique charasteristics of our firm, I have a fair amount of experience in the area of zoning and solid waste. It's in that context I'd like to address a couple of the issues that have been raised before but I would like to address them in the context of how a municipality tries to deal with the landfill in its confines. I can tell you without question it is important that you design your ordinance in the context of DER's regulations. If you do not do that, you'll have insurmountable conflicts that will go on forever. If your setbacks are different than DER setbacks, you'll wind up, as one community in this state has wound up, with a landfill that is RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 permitted by DER in one configuration but permitted by the township in another configuration. As the township tries to implement its screening requirements, its buffering requirements, its berms that we talked about earlier, it becomes unbelievably difficult to try and administer this ordinance. I can only encourage you to parallel very carefully the DER's regulations and only apply regulations that are necessary to the township that DER doesn't control. Does not control. If DER controls it, you should parallel ite I'm not encouraging you to overlook things that are important to the community. I'm encouraging you to not get yourself in a jam with problems of apparently conflicting regulations, TI agree with your use of the conditional use procedure. I think that -- this is the way that we try to deal with landfills, we use conditional uses, But I disagree with your lack of specificity in the regulations. Let me quote to you from the Municipalities Planning Code. Tt allows you ~~ it enables you RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 lL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 2i 22 23 24 25 98 to write zoning ordinances which contain, quote, provisions for conditional uses to be allowed or denied by the governing body after a recommendation by the planning agency -- and this is the important part -- pursuant to express standards and criteria set forth in the ordinance, You do not do that. You do not set forth standards. You talk about screening. You talk about a visual screen. I was at a hearing two weeks ago where the issue came up about whether the landfill was going to be visible through the screening from an airplane. You have to set a standards. You have to say it's going to be six foot trees, ten foot trees, trees on top of a berm, no bern, screening. What do you want? Lay it down and make the guy do it. But don't open the door for confusion and for long, drawn out legal battles which only cost the tax payers money. You talk in your ordinance about the possibility of an inspector. I would caution against a township inspector for a number of reasons, the most important of which, it's going to be very, very difficult for you to get an inspector who is qualified to do proper inspections. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Seorntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 13 14 16 ly 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 I would urge you to monitor carefully everything that goes on at that landfill but don't put it in terms of an inspector. Put it in terms of requiring that the material submitted to DER is submitted to you. Do that in the permitting procedure and do that in the administration. As the applicant prepares Grawings and engineering, have it submitted to you. Review it and comment back to DER. Don't create an environment where you have two inspectors inspecting the same thing and maybe coming up with different conclusions. Again, it will only lead this township into a position of lengthy legal battles. There were a number of other things that I had marked down and I know you all are getting tired and there's twenty-three other people on the list, but let me tell you something that I know for sure. I know that when you have a single purpose zone as this is -- we all know that's what it is, it's a single purpose zone aimed at a single user, You have this user here. What you must do to get this to werk is you have to set up an arrangement were you can design this RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 100 ordinance in context of that user and his needs and DER's needs and the rest of the township‘s needs. I think it's unfortunate if the case is -- and it appears that it is - that this ordinance was drawn without the benefit of input from the user himself, We should -- as we develop these kinds of ordinances, we should realize the fact that the township does have the hammer. You have the hammer. DER gives you the hammer and you have other regulations that DER doesn't control which you can use as a hammer. Use that hammer to bring that developer in and work with him toward regulations that he can live with and that protect the township the way you want it protected, I urge you to defer action on this ordinance until you have worked out some of these issues that I finé -- I feel sure you'll be Sorry about at a later point. Thank you, MR, MOLNAR: Thank you very much. We will move on to Anita Bray. MS, BRAY: My name is Anita Bray and I'm president of S.0.L.E., save our local environment, I'm also a resident of Plainfield Township. We have a landfill in Plainfield RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strasbrg 595-7361; Bstn 253-266012 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 101 Township. But I think one problem you're avoiding is the issue of the water supply in Plainfield Township. We ere here tonight to oppose the solid waste zoning ordinance as it was proposed on June 14, 1988. Recent information backed by our suspicions that there are welis around the landfill that are polluted, The safety of our water supply could be at stake here tonight. We urge the study group and supervisors to invest that matter further. We have recently found out that several wells adjecent to the landfill have been polluted. Those people were given bottled water and sold their properties to the landfill. Now, only two days ago, we learned that one of our very dear friends, Florence Shlegel, has been drinking polluted water. After her pain and suffering for the last two years of constant illness ang infection, she decided to have her water tested. The report came back with a very high level of nitrate, The acceptable level is no wore than ten, preferred level is zero. Her test came back with a level reading of twelve, not RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25 102 acceptable to drink. Can you imagine the devistation of finding out that the water that you're drinking is now polluted. Is the fact of two years of ongoing infection and the pollution of her well connected? Also, a farmer downstream in Plainfield Township has in the past few years lost cattle to some sort of infection or virus, The cattle graze in the pasture and drink water from the Little pushkill Creek. Many dead fish have been seen floating down this same stream. How can we help but be suspicious? We are here tonight to ask the supervisors and the study group to reconsider allowing a landfill to expand. Let's just look at the pollation to the wells adjacent to the existing landfill. Look at the impact of those home owners such as the water supply and the develuation of property. The study group toured the lanéfill. Wow, let's have the study group tour the homes adjacent to that landfil. Also, as you drive down Grand Central Road, look and enjoy the beautiful mountains seen in the background of the landfill. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrgq 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1L 12 13 1a 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 103 You won't be able to see it much longer for a mountain of garbage will mar your view. Consider the truck traffic ané the road conditions if the volume is eliowed to mount to two thousand tons per day. We ask, what will be left to Plainfield Township when and if the pollution is allowed to continue. How many more homes will be affected by the pollution? We have allowed for the solid waste problem with a one hundred and two acre landfill in Plainfield Township. How much more can or should we sacrifice. I also have here a letter from cur lawyer, William Agnew. I'd like tc have it presented as an exhibit and also I woulé like to have it read at this time. MR, MOLNAR: We'll mark this as Bray exhibit one. (Bray Exhibit No. 1, letter dated June 29, 1988, was marked for identification.) MR, MOLNAR: I have a piece of correspondence which is dated June 29, 1988, a letter here from #illiam H. Agnew, attorney at law in Nazareth, It's a two page letter addressed to the board of supervisors. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 104 "It is most unfortunate that you are presently giving consideration to the adoption of the solid waste district that wi w Grané Central Sanitary Landfili to expand its landfill by approximately two hundred fifty acres for disposal of the chemical, industrial, and garbage waste at the rate of two thousand ton per day. "Adoption of a solid waste ordinance will effectively nullify two years of township and citizen effort to restrain the illegal expansion of the lanéfill which presents a definite threat to the environment and the comunity due to tons of garbage being trucked to the landfill generated from the states of New York and New Jersey. "Furthermore, passage of this ordinance will nullify the township and citizens cases presently pending in the Commonwealth court causing all money spent to date having been in vain, "The supervisors appear to have gotten results of the recent elections in which their constituents came out in record numbers because of the their concern for protecting the township environment. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 al 23 24 25 “Certainly supervisor March Powell has an obligation to the people who supported him and elected him not to allow a two hundred fifty acre landfill expansion. There is absolutely no need or legal justification for the supervisors to act in haste to adopt exclusionary zoning or otherwise. "To the contrary, since the proposed entire solid waste district will be owned by one legal entity or its affiliates, the township may very well be charged with acting in such a discriminatory manner by creating @ situation it intended to prevent. "At the moment, Plainfield Township's best course of action is to resolve its waste disposal situation and te allow the current court litigation to be the deciding factor to the reasonableness of the Grand Central right to expand its lanéfill. "Should this agreement of the board take upon itself to allow a two hundred fifty acre expansion, this decision will affect the people of this township for many decades to come. "The very least it can do is postpone a decision until the two newly elected RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 la 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 106 members take office on January 1, 1989 in order that the maximum representation is available to decide the most important matter in all probability that will ever be presented to the Pleinfielé Township board of supervisors. "Accordingly, the people of Plainfield Township plead with you not to ignore their wishes by passage of an ordinance that will adversely affect their environment," That's the end of the letter, We'll go on to Jane Mellert. MS, MELLERT: I was a study group member, I'm going to start with the comments I gave to the group several months ago. If the solid waste business privilege tax is not paid from November 1987 to present, then the expansion should not be considered. The expansion should be limited to the minimum amount of acreage that could be upheld in court, The present amount of acreage, sixty-six, is extremely excessive. Incinerator ash has to be kept separate, fly ash and bottom ash, and required to be chemically analyzed. If the analysis shows the ash to be hazardous, then it can not be disposed of in the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 107 Plainfield Township solid waste district, If the ash does not prove to be hazardous, then it should be disposed of in a separate cell. We strongly urge that no ash be allowed to be disposed of in this district. The amount of industrial waste should be discussed and limited, No provisions for a truck transfer station should be in this district. I'd also like to make a note that at one of the study group meetings, Mr. Perin had said he really didn't want a truck transfer station so IT don't know why we're even considering it in the district. 1 streams should be properly protectd with adequate setbacks such as five hundred foot minimum, Maximum precautions should be included in the regulations. A portion of the monies generated by the solid waste business tax should be set aside in a separate fund to offset any costs the township incurs for independent testing, environmental problems, et cetera. Residents within a one mile minimum radius of the solid waste district, whether residing in Plainfielé Township or Pen Argyl, should be guaranteed fair market value for their RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266013 14 15 16 17 18 24 25 108 property if they choose to move due to unbearable conditions the landfill has imposed on their quality of life, Example, odor or well pollutiony. Height of the landfill should be restricted to retain as esthetic beauty of our community. A fence ten foot high should totally encompass the landfill area. ‘That would guard against children, pets, and some wildlife entering. I'll also read the comments I just recently submitted. 1I'11 skip number one. Volume of waste should have a limit of one thousand tons per day and a maximum of twelve hundred tons per day, The term resource recovery should be defined clearly so that it does not allow for an incinerator. Material separation facilities should be defined clearly. Refuse derived fuel facility should be defined clearly. Uses permitted by right in closure landfill site should not include uses involving the general public in the @isposal zone or in the setback zone. 4 five hundred foot setback must be maintained and Plainfield Township streams must be protected with an adequate setback. I'd like to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1s 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 read from -- well, it's information that Urban Research had given us. Sunny Farms Limited versus North Padoris Township. Upheld, five hundred yard setback from any dwelling, church, school, or any other building used for human occupancy. Also, in a new DER requlations, it bas: "In response to numerous comments that the proposed three hundred foot isolation distance for occupied dwellings was too small, the BQB has amended that isolation distance. "The final regulations prohibit disposal areas of municipal waste to be located within five hundred feet from an occupied dwelling unless the current owner has provided a written waiver.® an expansion must take place, and I stress if it must take place, grant @ minimum parcel such es twenty scres and allow future boards to decide on future expansions after environmental impact is seen and any new DER legislation that may come into force in the future. I'd also like to say I think Pen Argyl really should have been involved in helping to decide on this solid waste ordinance or having RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 110 input into it because they're being such a close neighbor, it's truly going to impact them and I think to be a good neighbor and to get along with the community that's so close, we really should have included them. I guess that's a11 for now, Thank you. MR. MOLNAR: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mellert. Fritz? That would be Fredrick R. Phillips, the third. MR. PHILLIPS: Good evening. Thank you for letting me address the board. The Problem that I can foresee with this, and that is that during the rebuttie from Grand Central and the outlying tax payers and 011 the tax payers within the township, I have one major question ané that is: As the proposed amendment is written, is the board absoultely sure they can defend that in a court of law and beat Grand Central Sanitation. If your answer is well maybe, or no, we can't, I urge you to table this matter and move to further research and development until such time as you are absolutely sure this is defendable. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 uli Tax payers of this township do not want to spend another ninety-six thousand some odd dollars for further litigation trying to beat Grand Central Sanitation, we urge you to make sure that what you have proposed is absolutely defendable, Thank you. MR. MOLNAR: ‘Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Bonnie Ruddic. MS. RUDDIC: My name is Bonnie Ruddic and I'm here as a private citizen, I dontt live in Plainfield, Pen Argyl, Wind Gap, or Bushkill Townships, I live in Chestnuthill. What's being done here right now is going to impact on us if we have our dump turned in @ landfill. It's going to impact op @ lot surrounding areas and I feel what you're trying to do is extremely important, It could also set a very important precendent statewide for those areas that are being impacted with new landfills, incineration projects, and other forms of waste management. One of the concerns that I have is that basically as I looked through -- now I did not have a copy of your proposed ordinance before tonight. I looked through it. I went through it RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266015 16 iT 18 19 20 1l2 ang went tbrough the April 9 rules and regulations which I've read in the past. I know you paid this company because I asked someone, You paid Urban Research how much money to do this study? Do you know? MR. PALMER: Our contract was fifteen thousand dollars maximum not to exceed. MS, RUDDIC: I have a concern -- I don't know the company, i'm an outsider. I'm not affiliated with G.C.S., T'm not affiliated with S.0.L.E., I’m looking at what's done in thie particular study, the amendments to your ordinance and to your zoning plan. It looks to me like that was placed next to this and the two were incorporated without a whole lot of imagination, I'm concerned about what you spent for this study because I'm not sure that the study is at all resulting what you're trying to do. I would really ask that you look at that, I'm not an expert in the field, I'm just somebody who can research and can read and I'm comparing the two. When you go through this, for your sake -~ I'm not going to go through the items, I don't have the time and nobody wants to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE | Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 113 hear that again. The uses permitted by right in post closure landfill is all defined in here. Every bit of it. Conditional uses are defined. Every bit of it. Right in the DER regulations. I question the whole section three nineteen in your plan on conditional use because it's defined step by step. If you're going to be redefining what DER does, you're wasting your time and your money because you've got it all in those regulations anyway. If there's certain options that every citizen has, and there are, which can be exercised by myself or anybody else who is a taxpayer in any district dealing with a problem like this. One cf them is that house resolutions twenty-eight ninety-two which were proposed, I have copies of these, I have been following these for # number of months. I wrote to Camille George months ego. They were both so fer overdue. These were supposed to determine the impact of mass burn incineration ~~ incinerators, and the possible need for further RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 114 regulations such as incinerators. They sat in committee for a very long time. They did not come out of committee until they were -- I believe it was nine months and six months or so estimated overdue. Then something was issued to the press that these were out of committee. You have to get copies of these reports because these house resolutions mandated that reports were to be Cone that woulé stew you that impact. Maybe it's not as bad as people think, maybe it's worse. I don't know. But getting copies of it sure wouldn't hurt. Another thing that I have that I want to leave with you is a study that may be of interest and maybe it won't. It's called "A Peer review of Environmental Level and Health Affects of PCDE's and PCDF's,* It's something I came across, Also, an article called "Should Your Community Consider Landfill Cas Recovery?" This may be part of what you're going to be doing. when you lock at sections two seventy-one point one thirteen and two seventy-three point three twenty-one on closure plans in the DER regulations, it's all defined. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348~0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 al 12 1s 16 17 18 19 20 115 very clearly defined on how closure has to be done, permitting, the whole process. I question the part certainly, as I have many times, of legislators in dealing witb this issue because I feel that sometimes our local zoning people are not being backed up edequately in the state at the state level. I think that there sre some ways that you can hammer away at them, One of ther is get copies of those reports that were supposed to be done that nobody has seen yet. I'd really encourage you to do taht. Ash residue is defined in section after section in DER regulations. Since this is a legislative hearing, it really concerns me that your legislators aren't here because they could have input in this. They could tell you whether the interpretations are really effective. I'm talking about the representative, of course. Evt they covlé tell ycu if they're really effective or if they're duplication of what's slreacy been Gone ené enected formally. Water guelity monitoring, leachade, Everything is defined right here. Re @ RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 LL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 116 lay person, if I can find it, why can't a consulting firm see how clearly defined it is. Another thing is the landfill gas recovery. I gave you that. I want to read you ~~ because of what Mrs. Bray said -- the definition of pollution in here, Contamination of sir, water, land or other natural resources of this Commonwealth that will create or is likely to create @ pub © nusiance or to render the air, water, lené, or other natural resources bermful, detrinentel, or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare or to domestic, municipal, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses for the livestock, wild animal, birds, fish, or other life. I dontt think they missed a thing. 1% mean, they really hit them all. I'm concerned only because it's so important that your zoning ordinance -- I believe it's so important that It be the precedence for so many other areas that are going to need something like thet. If it's well done, and it falls into line within the DER regulations, you could really do a tremendous amount of good for your area RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 117 and for other areas that will eventually be affected by it. So that's all I want to say. rtil leave these with you. MR, MOLNAR: We'll mark those as Ruddic exhibit one. (Ruddic Exbibit No. 1, documents, was marked for identification.) MR. MOLNAR: Sairanne Albanese. MS. ALBANESE: In all that I'n hearing tonight, we're being very carful ebout e] of the legal aspects and we must be. Kr. Perin says that we con't think enotion proud of the fact that he feels thet DER bes adequately regulated everything sce that there is minimal impact on this community. Minimal impact, what does that mean? I am a resident of Plainfield Township. Tf don't live in some remote part of Plainfield Township, I live immediately adjacent to that landfill. You talk to me of minimal impact. I'd like to read you a little letter, if I may have the time, I've titled it, "Do You Know What It's Like Living Next to a Landfill?" You can say, well, they've got to be somewhere. Kew would you RENICK REPORTING SEEVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg $95-7361; Fstn 253-2660ul 12 13 le 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feel if that somewhere was right next to your home? A home that ycu worked hard for to save for a down payment. The home that has a thirty year commitment on your sweat and energy. The home that you dreamed of raising your family in, the home that would be paid for when you wanted to retire and your children and grandchildren would come to visit. Or perhaps you've dreamed of selling that home one day ang moving to a warmer climate. Well, you can forget those dream + Ny name is Sairenne Elterese. Ey husband Ernest built his dream home twenty-six years ego on a hill where as a young man he weulé bunt ané eit in the sun and drink in the view. It was ¢ magnificent view. Ag the song gces, on @ clear day, you can see forever. The land was part of a farm. Twenty-six years ago, three friends bought that farm and divided the land, They were Robert Perin, Prank Verot, and Ernie. Now Ernie's friend Bobby has a small garbage dump and excavation business adjacent to the farm but it was over the hill at the back of the property and it was not visible. nit mar RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strasbrg £$5-7361; Estn10 al 12 17 le 19 20 al 22 23 11g the view in any way. $0 Ernie spared no expense ond built his home carefully and well. Ee pleyeé bis friend Eokby in the construction of his home and Bobby's sons worked with him, All of Ernie's resources were directed at making this our permanent home where we would live out our lives bopefully in peace and harmony with our neighbors, But slowly, there were ominous signs that the garbage dump was becoming part of the landscape, So Ernie went to Bobby one day and seid, Bobby, what are you doing? To which Bobby replied with his arm around Ernie's shoulder, don't worry, Ernie, we'll never hurt you. Ernie sccepted that bis friend was as good as his word and waited and watched. Well, Bobby died and the garbage dump grew. Cnly now it was being called a landfill. We said, when was a permit issued to re-classify this garbage dump? Why were the adjacent land owners not notified of such a change? Why were we not given a chance to have our voices heard on this matter that has such a direct impact on us and our home? RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253~266010 il 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 Over ovr objections, the landfill continued to grow and grow. Looning over us like some prehistoric monster. This monster with the wind at its back spit out paper end trash all over our hill. It's appetite was insatiable. Trucks rolled in from all around to feed the monster. They were happy to feed it just so long as it didn't move to their homes. The sludge and decay it fed on emitted horrendous stench. So more lend was annexed and raped to try to cover the foul and suffocating odor of the monster's diet, The monster continved to grow and it was decided that it needed more room. So, Rokby's children, the new owners of the néfinl, had the power lines that cut through their property reloceted along the edge of the proeprty end erected a fence along the entire north boundary ¢f Ernie's property to contain the paper and trash, all nine hundred seventy-two feet of it. Now, when the wind blows, we had a view of the mountain divide at Wind Gap under~ lined with a fence totally plastered with paper and a mountain of garbage behind the fence. S0 Ernie went to his other friend RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Eetn 253- 66010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 121 Frank and said, Frank, we have a problem which should concern you, too. You're going to be affected by what's happening here. Frank seid, it doesn't bother me. I can't see it or smell it, So Frank dié nothing, That's the problem with most people, they think it can’t affect them and they do nothing. Well, the monster is outgrowing its boundaries again and its owners are asking you to give it more room, The area they are asking for will bring the monster right to your backyard. It's still very hungry. Let me give you a glimpse of what's in store. Ernie is now sixty-six years of age. It's an ege when you sho be able to relsx and enjoy the fruits of your lakers. He has becone @ prisoner in bie own home. He is not able to enjoy the sinple pleasure of country life such as sitting outsiée or opening his windows to a breeze or swimming in his pool or having guests for any outdoor activity. When you step oxtside, you're engulfed by biting flies, mosquitos, and bugs. The trash that flies over the fence seems to collect in the bottom of the pool. The noise of the diesel RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266610 1. 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 trucks wake him each morning at three a.m. By 5:36 a.m., the beavy equipment starts up and the back up warning signals and their incessant beep, b ep, beep continves until eeven or eight o'clock at night. The noise of the trucks haul Gay. ng the garbage and sludge continue al The landfill works six days o week; and lately, cn Sundays, too. The threatening monstrous mountains of garbage are twenty-five feet from our Property line. The stench is unbearable most of the time. There is constant noise, blowing paper and trash. And dust. Let us not forget the dust. The home and patio are constantly covered with dust. It's impossible to keep your windows clean so now he peers out at the road through @ leyer of dust. Seeguls come in in droves and leave their droppings everywhere. Rodents infest the lené. te worry all the time about contaminants in the well water, We worry constantly ebout the future repercussions on the land when this monstrous emination breaks through the liner meant to contain it and seeps into the soil that our children will have to live with. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Bstn 253-2660 t10 ul 12 13 14 16 17 18 24 25 123 Now the owners are using dynamite to blast their way even further into the land causing our home to tremble every day in the wake Tisrupteé cur lives of the blasts. It has tote ly and drained ovr enersy. You say, why don't you sell ené move away? Would you like to buy a home next to « lendf£ill? Our property end howe has been totally @evalued by this monster next to us. $0 if we can not sell oux home, how will we build another? We are bound to this land we can not sel + Our friend told us he would never hurt us and we believed him. Now his children are telling you they won't barm you. You who think this can not happen to you, just do nothing. Let them expand o11 they want to, It couldn't possibly harm you. Or could it? The monster still very hergry. MR, MOLNAR: Thank you. Mr. Ernest Albanese. &E. ALBARESE: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. hy name is Ernest Albenese. Being so close to the Janéfill, you must know how T feel. I think my wife explained it most admirably. All I can say is I do hope that a new RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253~266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 124 expansion will not be given to Grand Central. MR. MOLNAR: John R. Kmetz. MR. KMETZ: By way of background I'm Pen Argyl high school, class of 1972. 4 got a B in chemistry. I just want to repeat Ernie's words that I'w opposed to this expansion. 1 think your ordinance is poorly conceived, with respect, Ton. Thank you. RR, MOLNAR: th nk you very nuch, Mr. Kmetz, We'll take a recess for ten minutes tc allow the stenographer to have break. We'll get back in ten minutes for the remaining people. (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.) MR, MOLNAR: We'll reconvene, The next person is Ferne Nasatka, Is Ferne here? We'll pass on her and come back to her. Jeff Gunn? DR, POWELL: Apparently some of the folks in the back are having a hard time hearing so we'll ask the people to speak loudly. MR, GUNN: My name is Jeff Cunn, I live on Delabole Road adjacent to the Ianéfill, I'd like to point out thet New Jersey doesn't have any operating lenéfills now. They trock it all to RPING EEEVICE 595-1361; Elo ll 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pennsylvania, I think it's & real good ides to have an inspector at the landfill, You never know what those guys are going to let them dump in there. I agree that the hours of operation should be later in the morning because, you know, it's ridiculous to have that beeping and the heavy equipment running so early in the morning, It's all right for somebody who gets up early but somebody who wants to sleep in @ little bit, you can't even sleep with the winéows cpen. They really don't control the odor and fumes becavse when they're wor vy vE there and doing all that dumping, the fumes g¢ tp during the day when they're workd G+ Then when the aic cools off at night, the dew comes that stuff comes right down on evr pr it's pretty obnoxious. I don't think they should be allowed to take in more garbage than they can cover by the end of the working day. I think that ought to be a real important thing in the ordinance. It's going to cut back the amount cf garbage that they're going to be able to take in but I think RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 126 it's the only way to try to control the odor because that sludge 3 reall y stort I don't think they shevid be lowes to strip Jecel farm lené. They're buying up farm land now and they've said to ny neighLor that they plan to strip it eventually. bey ped eix hundred ten thovsand dollars for seventy-two acres. They admit what they're going to do with it, The land that they did strip over by Grand Central Road, they took off right down to bedrock and they put the top soil back. ‘The land is worthless now because whenever it rains, there's no place for the water to go. It washes off and it washes the top soil and there's big ruts in there. Mack's are farming that land. They wanted to use m try to close up the big ruts in there and they got stuck with it and stuff. s just pot worth anything. 1 don‘t think the large trucks should be ailowed to use Grand Central Road because that one lane bridge isn't wide enough for a bicycle to pass one of those large trucks. Somebody is going to get killed there some day. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660 |10 1. 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 127 Nolan said tonight that most of the property along Grand Central Road is owned by Grand Central now and that's just proof that the homes are unhabitable and worthless, Nobody would go in there and buy one of those homes except e.C.e. Phe valve of lend arouné here has gone up so much now but people who own land around the landfill will never be able te see thet as long as there's a landfill there. Maybe never because there is a landfill there and anybody would ever want to develop any of those properties around there. They're going to say, well, you know, what if one hundred years from now the water goes bad. ‘he damage already done and I think land owners should be compensated for that damage already, When they cover up their garbage, they don't plant any cover crops on there to control the soil from eroding. If any of you tock touz of that place, you'll see all these ditches where eli the soil has weshed off the bank end it's @ 2 ren Cowr the creek. Just walk down the creek semetime. Ke own land down there, too. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 1s 20 21 22 23 128 From twenty years ago, there's just -- the creek's been diverted by all the ground that's washed down there, It's just not the way it used to be. t's going to get worse though if you let them expand. Thank you. MR. MOLNAR: Thank you very much, Is Duane Dotta present? Joyce Dotta? Nancy Bughes? + EUG 8: fy name is Barcy Hughes and 1 am a resident of Plainfield Township. Hy husband is Charles Eughes and he is @ member of the solid waste study group, He was unable to be here tonight because of a work schedule but he asked me to read a letter. Dear Supervisors: As a member of the solid waste zoning amendment study group, I would like to offer the following comments and recommendations before the finalization of the solid waste district ordinance. After the most recent meeting of June 14, I feel other members of this committee and other citizens present were of the opinion that the latest ordinance draft by Urban Research ené Development Corporation should not be the final plen. I therefcre offer the Scrntn 348-02 RENIC! 23; 810 aL 12 13 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 recommendations: Number one, if incinerator asb is allowed, then the bottom ash and the fly ash should always be kept separate. Both the bottom ash and the fly ash should be analyzed for hazardous characteristics. Two, no chemotherapeutic waste, hazardous waste, or infectious waste should be permitted. Three, a solid weste transfer station as a post closure use should not be allewed. The nuis neces related to this industry should not continue indefinitely. Four, the term ource recovery facility should not be used in t ordéing Dee Five, grant twenty scres at th time and have €.C,S. re-apply for additicnal acreage i the future, This would allcew future boards to decide the environmental impact on this township. Six, a five hundred foot setback must be maintained and also the recrational trail remain in its present location. Seven, height should not be based strictly om base and slope requirements, eight RENICK REPORTING Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595. 253-266010 1d 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 130 shoulé also be based on local terrain and line of sight princip Finel site plens should show maximum height, The height requirements should be a conditi on for final approval. Eight, limit volume tc an averege of one thousand tons pex day with w nexinun of cre thousand two hundred tons per day. Please refer ti Mr. Sugarman's letter of dune 13, 1988. Number nine, hours of operation will be limited to eight a.m. to four p.m. as recommend in the Golden Helpern report. aiso please refer to the latest draft of the Senate bill five twenty-eight, section three oh four. Ten, the township shall appoint a Jocal landfill inspector, duties, training, responsibilities will be listed jn the ordinance currently designated in Senate bill five twenty- eight, section one one ch two. The size of the dispesel zone is the wost controversial issve invclving this ordinance. A partial expansion at this tine end allowing €.C.s. the right to ply for feture expansion will give future superviscrs the freeder to evaluate the environmental impact. This is not to limit G.C.s.’s RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 131 operation, but rather to give the citizens a future voice in critical township matters. We must not and should not make decisions now that could affect the environmental future of Plainfield Township. We must not forget that the appeal of the zoning hearing board's decisicn js still pending in Commonwealth Court and will net withdrawn until an oréin poe satisfactery te the township is agreed upon with G.C.s, I hope thet these recommendetions will aide you in drafting tke final ordinance. Yours truly, Charles Hughes. Thank you. MR, MOLNAR: Thank you. Katherine Bond? Is Katherine Bond present? MS. BOND: Good evening, everyone, My name is Katherine Bond, I live on the corner of Lower Kesslerville Road, I'm a resident of Plainfield Township. I oppose any further expansion, TI als wish that the boaré would wait until the court decision would come through and also until ovr two supervisors ere in office ane te keep the maximum tonnage at the present level. This desecration cf the township roads end the dust and the noise that they create is very obnoxious. Tes « Jove this RENICK REPORTING SE Serntn 346-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7310 ul 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 township, the people that are in it, and I'd like to remain here, But I don't really want this township to be known as the dump of Pennsylvania for all other cities. Thank you very much. MR. MOLNAR: ‘Thank you for your comments, Mrs. Bond. Robert Lennox, MR. LENNOX: I'll pass. MR, MOLNAR: Dave Humphrey? Is Dave Humphrey present? R. HUMPHREY: My name is Dave Humphrey and I sort of wish I would have had o tape recorder for that first portion. it woulé have been a cure for my inscmni My concern was covered quite wel} by Anita. The thing is, can they guarantee thet we are going to have « safe water supply? hatte far more important in our community than a landfill with such an expansion, Can they guarantee that the value of our properties that are in close proximity to that landfill are going to appreciate as they are in other areas? Or are they going to depreciate. They had mentioneé @ lot of good points es they mentioned them about their landfill. T knew one in perticular that RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbr¢ 595-7361; [stn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 they mentioned was they had a truck wash. Whenever it rains, there fs a lot of ped ovt there in the road and you can't go past there one tine without having to wash your vehicle. I had a windshield crack beceuse of the debris that was on there thet wes throvn up into my windshield right there in the area of the the landfill, Whether it came from that, I don't know, but it's there. So the thing is if they can guarantee us those things, it's quite different than if they can't. Beceuse our concern iz to the township, not for private industry. I would have you gentlemen to keep in mind that we have a government of the people by the people for the People ané not by private industry. Thank you. MR, MOLNAR: Thank you, sir. Vince Greggo. HE + GRECGO: by nane Greggo and you got to t ink sbout cur future. That's the whole thing here. Che isn't everything. Remember that. Thet want to keep our veting power in the township. £6 let's table this issue if we could. Thank you. MR, MOLNAR: Thank you for your RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266012 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 134 comments, Mr. Greggo. Pat Tomko? MS. TOMKO: I'm Pat Tomko and I live in Plainfield Township. I don't want to tie up a lot of time, Ionow there is a lot ef good speakers tonight that had a lot of important things to say. I really feel everything has been said. We talked about the roads, polluted wells, dynamit » stripping the lend, not ebiéin by the setbacks, outrageous hours of operetion, the trucks, hazardous trucks on the road. tune of these things are being taken care of new. I can't understand why we want to give an enormous expansion which is only going te bring on more problems. We can't take care of them now let's take care of this first and@ then, you know, check it out, If Pennsylvania needs landfills, why us? There's other areas. I don't want to push it in anyone else' back yard but I think we've done our fair share. We're taking a thousand tons a day now, I think it's just fine. = t think going to two thousand is outrageous. really think the whole thing ehevié be tabled RENICK REPORTING SERVICH Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-26604 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 until the two new supervisors are in, until more work has been done cn this. Obviously €.C.&. wasn't happy with it, we have a lot of people upset with it, so it's not ready to be passed. I hope you take that into consideration, Thank you. MR. MOLNAR: ‘Thank you for your comments, Mrs, Tomko. dames A. Sandt? Is hr. Sandt present? Edwin Gunn? Is Mr. Gunn present? The next name I'm not sure of the last name. Albert C. Greidaners? The next name Richard T. Rutt. MR. FUTT: hy name is Rutt. I have a bachelor of science degree in mechanical enigneering from Pennsylvania State University. I did post graduate civil engineering studies at Lafayette College. Re tered professional engineer in the state of Pennsylvanie. I am a@ registered professional land surveyor in the state of Pennsylvania. I'm a certified sewage enforcement officer in the state of Pennsylvania. I've taken varjous professional seminars in municipal engineering, I wes on the planning commission of Plainfield Township for approximately ten years. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266017 18 19 136 I was secretary to the planning infield 5 wosbip for approxinetesy ten years. I was township enigneer in Pleinfield Township fcr seventeen years. £ ve scene connents that I'd like to go over, Can I ask seme questions, gobn, c the people up here or am i limited just to comment? MR. MOLNAR: We can try to answer your questions. MR. RUTT: My first question is, the planning commission review of this just recently that took place, I wonder why that wasn't advertised so that the public would have had some knowledge of thet meeting and have some input into it? KR, MOLNAR: It was discussed during the regular meeting. It's not required under the Nunicipslities Plenring Ccée to bave a pablic hearing before the planning commiesion. SR. KUTT: 3 think that shew have been advertised though so that the public would bave had knowledge of it ond hee sone input. Attorney Sugarman, could I éirect @ question to you? You hed said earlier that you thought this proposal was the minimum that could be RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 il 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 137 defended in court, et cetera, and I wonder if the extent, the length, width, end breadth of this -- length, width, and height of this is the minimun that you think can be defended if it's ever challenged in court. + SUGARMAN: Well, it? crossing line is what it is. The lower amount the land goes, the t e the risk of loss gees. 1 wouldn't say this is the minim Tf the board -- what © saié wes, and I'd like to repeat it, as you increase the Gegree of restriction to a small degree, you increase the risk of loss of lawsuit to a somewhat higher degree at the level that wetre at. The question is, do you want to increase the © and run -~ as you increase the risk, you run the risk of a curative amendment proceeding on that particular issue es to exclusionary zoning. That's why that's a Particularly sensitive issue from a lege] stané- point just as it is from a community standpoint. It's a Cui board type of thing to try to figure out what you think you can yet away with in essence, you teke volune limitation and multiply it out into cubic feet end RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266014 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 138 into acreage and assume a slope and try to convert a number of acres into a number of years, then you can begin to make some judgments about where your point of diminishing returns is. The further problem I might say to you is that at this stege, youtre looking at e situation where if the law isn't changed over the pext ten to twelve yeers, you're looking et @ repitition of this situation ten to twelve yeare down the road, say the lew ine't going to change in ten to twelve years is to ~- as we deel in demographics and things like that. They say in demographics, ten years is a worthless -- you know, to try to project population for ten years is basically worthless. So to try to say that the law isn't going to change in ten years is just about as worthless, In this area especially. Hopefully, in ten years we'll have a lot more guideance and from that -- for that matter, hopefully in ten years, the municipalities will have a lot more flexibi than they do now. think the pe t that sonebody made in the audience that Pleinfield has had its RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266014 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 139 fair share of solid waste is an absolutely correct point. The problem is that the law has yet to recognize it. $0 you have to deal with the next short time frame, I have not multiplied out the volume limitations by the cubic footage that you could potentially get with the number of acres that we're talking about taking into account the setbacks, But I'm sure it s not more then ten or twelve yeare’ worth, T: This particule: ErOpes MF, SUGARMAN: Yes. Yeu c those numbers. MR, RUTT: I believe thet unéer no circumstances, given my knowleége of the demographics of this eres, that c ne square fact more than that which is legally required shoulé be given to the landfill people. Not one square foot more. MR, SUGARMAN: But what I'm saying to you, Dick, is nobody knows what that magic number is. Therefore, it's not @ question of choosing the minimum number, it's @ question of choosing the point of diminshing return at which RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdebre £95-7361; Eetn 2 - 266010 ll 12 13 19 20 al 22 23 24 25 140 the risk of losing all control expends fester then the reduc jon in tonnage. MR. RUTT: hat can we Go about that? EK. SUGARMAN: You pick s nurber where you want to place your risk. & five percent risk of loss. Something easy. But those percentage numbers are relatively worthless because the samples are too -~- I'm talking scientific language to you. The samples are too small, You're going to have one judge as opposed to what you're going to get on a panel and that's not something you can turn into statistical probability in any meaningful way. So it becomes @ question of judgment. KR. RET? In thet cese then, would say that based on your judgment ané dobn Molnar's judgnent ané wheever ¢ juégment you want to get for this particular sitvation, thet nct one more squere Foot then that which is ab allowable should be given now for the expansion of the landfill. MR. SUGARMAN: I'm not in a position to say if you give them one hundred acres it's not a zero risk. That's a double negative, RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 13 14 15 24 25 wal I'm not in a position to say it's a zero risk if you give them one Aundred acres. I'm in @ position to say in judgment the number thet they're at nov number that the proposed ordinance is ef is é number that bas @ very high likelihooe cf svecess of defense. To try to go to more acres to increase the likelihood of success is ¢ ving vp teo mech in terms of contro To try to reduce the number significantly will subsequently enhance the likelihood of losing in the courts, MR, RUTT: Another question, on the application that Grand Centra had in before the zoning hearing board which was appealed and then subsequently appealed by $.0.L.E., they applied for three hundred fifty-three acres of landfill area. Only approximately one hundred of which is included in this proposal and two hundred fifty of it or so is north of this acre recreation trail. What happens if that appect lost by S.0.L.F. and the township end Grené Centre also has the use of that two hundred fifty acres? Do they have two hundred fifty RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7362; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 a7 1e 19 20 al 23 24 25 142 acres plus this three hundred forty acres for a total of five hundred ninety acres of landfill area that can be used? MR. MOLNAR: In regard to the application that was filed, you're correct that three hundred fifty three plus cr minus ecres wes part of the application. Eewever, the 2 bearing beard did not grant that entire application, three hundred fifty-three acres. Whatever the amount that the zoning hearing board granted, I don't recall the precise number, but let's essume for this discussion it was eighty acres. Since Grand Central has not taken an appeal to that decision of the zoning hearing board, they are locked into that eighty acres the zoning hearing board granted. Just because their application was three hundred fifty-three acres does not mean that they received three hundred fifty-three acres eré. The from the zoning hearing bi board proceeding was -- I think I seié acres. That figure may net be correct, MR. RU : I understand. So the area north of the recreation trail then under re circumstances can be added to this present three RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 12 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs 143 hundred forty acres that Urban Research proposes now as a solid waste district? Is that correct? MR, MOLNAR: It's not part of the Urban Research proposal now, that is correct. And it was not granted by the zoning hearing board. MR. RUTT: So Grand Central has no way that they can say that is also part of the solid waste district by the default of appeal, et cetera? MR. MOLNAR: The answer to that question is yes. MR, RUTT: Plainfield Township has had to endure the garbage dump for a Long time. I know that as well as anybody. I think the goal of zero expansion for the garbage dump is a honorable goal for Plainfield Township. Ig this proposal is granted and that area becomes a filthy, stinking garbage mountain, in my opinion, that will cause the death of Pen Argyl borough, Wind Gap borough, and certainly Plainfield, The supervisors are under an Obligation to spare no expense to make sure that this area is the smallest that can possibly be defended with reasonable chance for success. The next thing I'd like to go RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 IL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 into is the water pollution in this area, I'm going to refer to the Rogers Golden Helpern report of the Grand Central sanitary landfill prepared for Plainfield Township board of supervisors dated October 14, 1986. I never heard anybody go over this data before so I'd like to read this into the record, I'll be reading three or four paragraphs. This is on page three of the Rogers Golden report. It has to do with the ground water monitoring data reviewed for the G.C.S, monitoring system, The data indicates that the well with the best water quality appears to be W6. This is a well by the Albanese property. This is to be expected since it is up gradient from the disposal area and is probably receiving quality ground water. As it interprets the concentrations from the various wells, analysts found that this well can be thought to be representative of up gradient ground water quality, The water in the well is good along the Albanese property. When a comparison is # mede between water quality in up gradient ané down RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 la 15 16 17 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 gradient wells, it becomes clear that several down gradient wells show elevated amounts of some form of element that suggests contamination by leachade. The down gradient wells, w2-a, W3-A, Wll, W12, and these are the wells in the area of the leachade collection basin, all show corresponding high levels of these contaminants in comparison to up gradient water quality. For example, W6, the well near the Albanese property. This ig not surprising given the underlying design of the original fil1 area and the length of time it has been in operation. Contamination of these wells would imply, however, that the perimeter drains installed around the landfill area are not one hundred percent effective in collecting all the leachade that continues to be generated by the landfill, ells W7-A and W8-A being up gradient wells -- these are the wells on the north side of the landfill -- should have water quality comparable with minor differences to W6 which is the good well at the Albanese property. However, W7-A and W8-A show high concentrations probably suggesting that these two RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 146 wells have been contaminated by leachade, and therefore, they may not be up gradient. hese wells could be intepreted to be contaminated from a source even more up gradient than the landfill by the course of elevated parameters between the wells and the leachade pond. Samples suggest that the leach field is the source. Under recommendations for ground water monitoring on page sixty-two of the Rogers Golden Helpern report it states: An additional monitoring point should be added to the north west of well W7-A or W8-A on the north to determine the nature and the substance of the contaminated ground supply in this direction. This is the direction that the new expansion is going to be placed in, we already beve contenineted water according to this; and in my opinion, we have maybe contaminated water, ground water, running into this new area already that we're going to place this new proposed expansion on. Although the study did not examine the location of all ground water users around the landfill. The water supply contamination located in the northern wells of the RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 lL 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 lendfill is real. Off site leakage remains and continues vnwonitored. This well should be located after several borings in the north west portion of the property beve been completed to determine the hydraulic condition of the ground water supply in this area. The well should be constructed and installed similarly to the existing monitoring well on site and should be added to the quarterly sampling program now in effect. This paragraph I quote directly out of page sixty-three of the Roger Golden report. Also, the quarterly monitoring program should be extended to include down gradient ground water users and nearby surface water since down gradient wells have been contaminated by leachade and there are no additional monitoring points between these wells and the residential wells, The drinking water supplies of these local residents should be monitored on a regular basis. Also, since there are no data points, for example, monitoring wells to indicate the relationship between ground woter end surface RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 23 24 25 148 water south of the site, nearby streams should be added to the quarterly monitoring program. Specifically the Little Bushkill Creek and the unnamed tributary southeast of the landfill should be sampled at upstream and downstream locations on a reguler basis. So in addition to the legal constraints that are placed on us to limiting the area of the proposed expansion, I would like to say that the additional information that I have presented here and the information that Anita had on polluted wells should be somehow taken into consideration and the maximum amount of legal and engineering data should be used to limit the expansion of this lanéfill to keep from killing the area in general. I like Chuck Hughes's proposal of a twenty acre expansion. I have said before and everybody has probably heard me say that this particular proposal is made without regard for the slate quarry lease areas on the property now owned by Grand Central. If the existing zoning was left in effect and the slate leases were adhered to of Grand Central's three hundred fifty some acres on RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Bstn 253-266610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14g the north side of the recreation trail, they would be allowed one or two acres to be used for landfill. On the south side of the recreation trail, they'd be allowed only six or seven acres to be used for the landfill. Now we intend to change the zoning and allow them fifty or sixty acres. If we don’t change the zoning, they're allowed only three hundred fifty acres that they own and that the slate quarry leases. That's only like six or eight acres. So we're changing the zoning now and saying now we don't know if we can control them or not, But if we didn't change the zoning -~ although I understand the need for the zoning -- they'd be contained to six or eight acres. Plus we'd still have what might be a ground water problem. I'd like to cbut what Nolan Perin said about the blighted area being the slate belt. In my opinion, the blighted property is the existing landfill and not the slate quarries. Also what I'd like to say is that what we're in the process of doing here is exchanging the slate belt for the garbage belt. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348~0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Eatn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 150 If we don't adhere to the slate quarry lease line and keep the garbage dump and keep the area that the lease lines occupy to be zoned for garbage dump, we will not be able to sustain the slate industry in that area because the velue of the land will go up in a way that will favor the use of the garbage dump. So therefore, I'm saying that this particular proposal should not include for zoning for solid waste that area which is presently under lease to the slate quarries. We need to maintain our slate quarry industry in this area and we need to keep ourselves a slate belt and not be known in the general northeast as the garbage belt. Also, in closing, I'd like to say I think more study is needed and I would like the Proposal held up if possible for -~ at least until January 1969 when the new supervisors are seated and further stuéy cen be had for this board and the new board at that time. Thank you. MR, MOLNAR: Thank you, Mr. Rutt. Vicki Velopolchek? MS. VELOPOLCHEK: My name is Vicki velopolchek, I live in Bushkill Township. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 151 I'm here in light of your amendment that states non-acceptance of hazardous waste. I would like to give you, the board of supervisors, this information from the Environmental Defense Fund which clearly states that the ash from incinerators is indeed hazardous. The data included in this handout I'll give to you states that the fly, bottom, and combined ash, the average of the all samples exceed the regulatory limits which define hazardous waste with lead and the fly ash, the average of all samples exceeded the regulatory limits. It goes on to state that the ash is indeed hazardous. Whether or not the politicians decide to regulate it or name it hazardous is one thing, but the fact is that it is hazardous waste and we're going to have to deal with that whether or not the law states that. I also have read some articles from E.P.A. that they said that all the landfills will eventually leak and these people's concern about their water becoming contaminated is a real Possibility or something that will occur. Not a possibility, it will occur. Tt's just how badly will it occur RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348~0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 la 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 basically depends on the type of garbage that you're going to allow to go into your landfill anda how well it's monitored and how large of an area it's going to consume. I also have an article here, newspaper article, from Massachusetts about a trash plant agreeing to stop taking ash from the incinerator. It's just ironic that the trash plant was Ogden Martin, They own the landfill and they decided to no longer take the ash from another incinerator. Of course you know they're proposing to build an incinerator in Bushkill Township and send the ash here. So if it wasn't good enough for their landfill, it shouldn't be good enough for Plainfield Township's landfill. 1 will leave that article here with you. I'd also like to take the time to express my concern with regard to Grand Central's proposal for a sewage treatment plant and its end result of discharging the treated water in the Little Bushkill, < have read the materials from a Robert Smith who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he testfied that the dioxin will become released into the water. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 The chemical will not remain bonded with the large particles as Odgen Martin of Grand Central will have you believe. But his finding is that it will become released into the water and could contaminate the water if the sewage treatment plant is not housed with a technical ability of removing the dioxin. So I would urge that in the event the ash is accepted into Grand Central -~ which I understand they are excepting ash now -- that we require a sewage treatment plant that will have the Capability to remove the dioxin before it is discharged into the Little Bushkill Creek or else you're going to find more fish floating around there dead. That information I gave to you the last time I met with the Department of Interior about what effect d{oxin has on acquatic life and the food train. On the side, Mr. Perin made some conflicting comments or opinions. It seems funny that when he's here in Plainfield he's saying one thing but when he's on the opposite side in Bushkill Township, he's saying different. Like he's telling you that RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 154 there's no need for an inspector. But over in Bushkill Township, he‘s telling them that they need an inspector and that the inspector will insure that the tresh plant will be operated properly. Of course, he's needling along the supervisors to think that they will be the inspectors and that they will keep the trash plant running properly. But over here, he's telling you you don't need an inspector because he's going to keep it running right, That's a little ironic, Also in regards to his comments that the conditional use ordinance fails to spell out everything, I can only say that even though the people here in Plainfield Township are not satisfied with the conditional use ordinance as it's being proposed, I can only say it's a lot more clear than the conditional use ordinance that Nolan Perin was backing in Bushkill Township for the trash plant. He also had a lot to say about relying on DER for guidance and terminology and such. I just wanted to tell you that our supervisor, Joe DiGilando, he says that DER is incapable and that is why they, the Bushkill supervisors, must step in to be reassured that RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Bstn 253-266010 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 155 public safety is met. So there again you have another conflict of opinion, Here they're saying DER is your answer, over there they're saying DER is not qualified and that's why our supervisors must have this trash plant in Bushkill to make sure it's run right. I understand that you have a very difficult job but you should remember as the gentleman pointed out that you're here to represent the people of today and tomorrow and not Grand Central or DER. I have noticed one thing that in your proposed ordinance that you have not addressed recycling in that I think that you should have the ability to mandate that Grand Central recycle anything, recycle everything, before any type of burying occurs. I don't see why the laws wouldn't uphold your decision on that. You would want to try to prevent your landfills from housing hazardous waste. Recycling, going through a recycling procedure, would help you spot check and make sure that hazardous waste wasn't snuck in. It will come in in various ways. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 There's no use saying it's not permitted. It will also prevent the landfill from filling up faster and prevent some of these other chemical reactions occuring like getting the lead out before you bury it or you burn it. I don't see why you don't step in and say that we mandate that you recycle to the greatest extent, sixty-five, seventy-five percent, before you bury or burn anything. This is your township. You know, you should have a say over it to protect your people and you shouldn't have to be worrying about one industry or one man's claim that you're too restrictive. That he's not going to make as much money this year because you're hurting him. If he really was in the business to solve the waste management, okay, he would look to recycling and I think we all know that here in the audience that recycling can be achieved. You're in a position where you can mandate it. You could make him sort separate and recycle before any burying or burning. That's where the answer is. I really think you should look into trying to incorporate that into your RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361;10 1. 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ordinance. I also would want to say to the people here that Attorney Sugarman's here saying that there's no limits yet. The law hasn't established a limit for a community saying that you had enough, you know. That you don't have to take any more, I think it's time that the community stands up and says, you know, we have a right to preserve our rural way of life, to protect the quality of life for us now and for our children in the future. You have the responsibility to listen to them demanding that right, you know. The people here are saying they had enough, you've got to represent that. You're their only tcol. ‘here's no other way. Youfre the government that's supposed to be effective for them, You got to start listening to the people. I'd just like to leave you these couple articles. MR, MOLNAR: We'll mark that as Velopolchek exhibit one. Thank you for the materials and comments. (Velopolchek Exhibit No. 1, articles, was marked for identification MR, MOLNAR: Richard Cortright, RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 16 19 20 2n 22 23 24 25 158 MR. CORTRIGHT: Good evening. My name is Richard Cortright, I'm a resident of Bushkill Township, a member of the concerned citizens of Buskkill Township, and we're also involved with a common, let's say, foe. I'd like to make a comment on a few of the things that was presented by Nolan Perin et al this evening and then also a few other comments. Mr. Perin said that the ordinance as Proposed is selective legislation aimed at Grand Central Sanitation companies. It's strange that Mr. Perin on one hand complains of selective legislation in Plainfield Township and applauds contract zoning in Bushkill Township when it's to his advantage ané augments his profits, It seems like Mr. Perin is interested only in his only gains and profit with no regerd to the effect of those actions on the environment. It is true garbage and waste must be disposed of but the consequences of this ordinance and what is happening in this particular situation very weil will come back and haunt us generations to come. Another section that Mr. Perin RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 346-€223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ai 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 made reference to or something else was that he refers to -- I think it was either section six or page six of the ordinance where other uses may or may not be allowed, Then he refers to his landfill as the most obnoxious and offensive use already in operation in the proposed area under consideration, He admits this his operation is a nusiance and a threat to the quality of the environment and the way of life for local people and their children and their children and their children. Finally, there's something that I can agree with with Mr, Perin. Also, Mr. Perin says that he has two hundred trucks now with no plans to expand at this time. Remember that, at this time. What about Grand Central Sanitation's proposed incinerator ip Busbkill Township? That will create the need for fifteen to twenty-five more trucks instantly just to handle the ash when the unit is in operation. When the unit is not in operation, you'll have possibly one hundred, one hundred twenty-five, maybe one hundred fifty trucks that will be going to Grand Central Sanitation to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Bstn 253~266010 1. 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 dispose of the raw material that can not be disposed of in the incinerator. So that's one area where immediately you have a tremendous increase in traffic, As well as the man obviously, through his Bast performance, has shown that he is expension oriented, I have no doubts -~ r don't think anybody else in this crowd will have any doubts -- that he plans on continuing to expand as rapidly as he possibly can. He also made a reference to the economy of scale transfer stations which to me personally is a line of garbage since any astute businessman cap gear his operation to be successful within known, defined parameters established in advance. Again, he's just giving a line to make it sound as good as he could possibly make it sound to get you to agree to what he wants. Then he'll just continue down the road doing whatever he can to expand and expand and to create more and more problems, Also it seems like the three speakers from Grand Central Sanitation kept urging you to conform your definitions and requirements to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266016 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 161 DER standards. One of these speakers was a former DER official, These people are being paid by Grand Central Sanitation to be here tonight and to say these things. Maybe they're afraid your ordinance will cost them profits, but more importantly, they are aware that DER is incompetent, behind on current technology, and understaffed. Sounds like that's just what they were looking for. The last thing I'd like to comment on would be Anita Bray's information, and what Kk Rutt © telkedé about, which would be the polluted wells. If you stop and look around this particular room that we are in right now, which is a very large auditorium, it's a very large area. Tt would take a lot of anything to fill this particular room up. Just to give you an idea of the amount of garbage that is already in Grand Central Sanitation, multiply this room several hundred times. Now that's getting pretty darn big. But think again how big an area would be needed to hold all the garbage if the RENICK KEPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266014 15 16 17 18 1g 20 162 expansion as proposed is admitted. It would take thousands and thousands of this size rocm to hold it all. Filled with many substances that would Sooner or later end up in the above and below the ground water stratas. If you think a half dozen polluted wells around your existing landfill is bad, wait until hundreds or thousands of polluted wells and municipal water sources are shut down and lawsuits come pouring in by the score. Femenber what is put into the pile will continue to leach out for generations to come and no double liner in the world or collection system is going to stop it. If Grand Central Sanitation or anyone else claims it will, they are either a liar or an idiot or both, The only thing I can do is to urge you to stop this ordinance right now in its tracks. This pile of garbage that is there is bad enough as it is, You have to take a totally new approach to the situation, In Bushkill Township, we are faced with a situation where our leaders think that an incinerator is a great idea. They want to introduce more and more toxin and poisons and RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 163 problems into the environment, inte the air as well as into the land. The land part of it is going to end up here in your backyard, 1 think what you should do, and I would be provd to be a citizen of Plainfield Township and to support you in doing this all the way, would be to say no to this ordinance, let Nolan Perin and his associates sue you. Fine and dandy. Let them sue you until the cows come home, And I'd be glad to organize a group to stop paying taxes in Plainfield Township, let the township go bankrupt and then let him decide bow he's going to tum this whele plece and see how it ends up. Something has got to be changed. The way things are going now, he's got everything in his corner. He's doing it the way he wants, he's got all the laws and everybody backed up against the wall and scared and saying we can't do this because he's going to sue us here or we're going to violate this or some other idiotic idea. I think the time has come to say no, start all over again, rethink the entire RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595~7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 process. Start with basics such as recycling, resource recovery, reuse, re-education of adults and education of children in school, and then you can use a landfill only as a last resource to satisfy whatever else has to be disposed of. I think you have the opportunity to be able to start the ball rolling. Thank you. MR. MOLNAR: Thank you, Mr. Cortright, Let me just go over the names of the people that were not here when I called them to see if they've arrived. Ferne Nastak? Duane Dotta? Joyce Dotta? James A, Sanét? Edwin Gunn? Albert C. Greidaners? No one here. #e'll move to the public meeting phase of this public hearing, a meeting that's been scheduled tonight and let me just adéress the board at to what the options of the boeré are this evening. The board can enact the ordinance as is one option that has been advertised. The board also under section ten six zero nine of the Municipalities Plenning Code can enact an oréinence tonight with amendments if it so chooses. If the board chooses to enact with amendments under the township code, it has a RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266014 15 16 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 165 duty to advertise any substantial amendments within a ten day period and they become effective five days thereafter. The third option the board has is to not make a decision tonight under section ten six zero eight of the Municipalities Planning Code. It has ninety days after the public hearing in which to vote on or make a Gecision with regard to the enactment of the ordinance pending at this moment. I turn it over to Doctor Powell to proceed with any deliberations of the board or any decisions they care to make this evening. DR, POWELL; Thanks, Mr. Molnar, I don't have any specific comments. Before we start deliberating for the -~ to determine if we'll enact or enact with amendments or not make a Gecisicn tonight, I'd like to say to the board it wasn't too long ago that I was standing at the podium and I know what many of the people are feeling tonight. I felt it once. 1 was there once. Now I'm here. Now I'm here six months into being a supervisor and realizing now that the responsibility of the township is what we're faced with, Every one of our actions is going to have RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595~7361; Estn 253-266018 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 166 repercussions. The action of drafting this zoning ordinance tonight and taking this ordinance and enacting it, repercussions will be perhaps some disappointed citizens because we weren't able to stop the expansion. The repercussions of changing the ordinance so that there is virtue little, if any, landfill space will indeed most certainly end up in months and years of litigation with the sanitation company. The repercussions certainly would be some very angry tax payers in our township. we bave to find ovt whet the best covrse is for Plainfield Township tonight. As I said at the beginning of the meeting, if we can end up with an ordinance that gives us some degree of control, ise. with setbacks, with inspectors, and with volume limitations, I think we've come a long way from where we may have been say a year ago. I think the volume is probably key. I'll have to say, obviously, very personal remarks to the board then I'll turn it over to the board, very personal remarks. One of the concerns that I had when I was at that podium was what is Grand Central to become. REWICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 167 What is solid waste in this township to become, The landfills in New Jersey are closing at a remarkable rate and I heard one speaker say that there were none to be found in New Jersey. Visions of lines of trucks on our highways cause me great concern, Tonight we have an ordinance in front of us that might have some volume limitations on that. Tt takes away, I think, a great deal of Concern of mine, Other concerns have to do with setbacks and with the actual size. Se I'é like to jump right in with one recommendation with some thoughts as to the ordinance making amendments and that is I'd like to -- I'm just going to toss a stone in, 1'@ like to suggest that perhaps fifteen bundred to two thousand tons a day as a volume limit is perhaps excessive and numbers that stick out, perhaps maybe twelve hundred to fifteen hundred ton, First number being an average daily tonnage and the second number being an instantaneous tonnage that will allow for some margin of error. R, SUGARMAN: The average over a year? RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Fstn 253-266010 un 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 168 DR. POWELL: As we were looking over these numbers, I asked why two numbers, The first number is an average daily. MR, SUGARMAN Over a year? DR. POWELL: Yes, And then you have instantaneous. That will do the peaks and valleys. MR. SUGARMAN: This is a six day average or a seven day average? MR. MOLNAR: Tom, what is the average? NR, PALMER: Looking at the records that were given to us, there was a period -- I believe it was in June -- where the -- MR, MOLNAR: The question that Mr. Sugarman asked was is it @ ix Gey everage or -- MR, PALMER: You mean in the ordinance? MR. SUGARMAN: Yes, What I'm saying, if it's a daily average of a thousand tons, is that a total annual volume of three hundred sixty thousand or a total annual volume of three hundred thirty thousand? Wait a minute. Fifty-two Sundays in a year. Is RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266012 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 21 22 24 25 169 it a total annual volume of two hundred nine thousand? MR, PALMER: It would be the average of all of the days in a particular month. MR. SUGARMAN: Is the monthly average based on thirty days in a month? MR. PALMER: Yes. MR. SUGARMAN: It's to you, Mr. Chairman, I'm just telling you what it means. DR, POWELL: 1 appreciate that. I think he's been operating -- I think I saw some numbers go as high last year as fourteen ninety- seven as an average daily tonnage. I've seen them as low as seven hundred. Again, let me emphasize that there are two main concerns and that is volume and size. I think addressing the volume so that we don't end up in a situation where some landfills in the state have been where they've had a landfill operator going at six or seven hundred tons a day. Then you see a landfill in New Jersey closing and all of a sudden, they're bringing four or five thousand tons a day. I think this ordinance, if it bas a tonnage limit on that, we'll go a long way to help some of those fears. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ui 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 170 MS. MORYKIN: I'm very concerned about the landfili. I'm the new kid on the block as far as being a supervisor but I have been a resident of the township for twenty years. I've watched Grand Central grow and I know that there has to be an end somewhere. We also have to be able to control the possibility of having any solid waste in other areas of the township. So I do feel that it's important that we look to some sort of an ordinance. I think that, you know, I am very, very concerned with the quality of our water supply. I think that Grand Central perhaps has tried to, you know, comply with some of the requirements that they've been put upon by the state and also some of the suggestions years ago that the township had made to them. I'm also concerned about the traffic problems that we have. You know, just the general all around safety. I certainly do sympathize with Mr. and Mrs. Albanese in the monster that they are living along side of. We are going to have to take some sort of a stand sooner or later, Whether it's through the courts or through an ordinance. MR, TENGES: TI don't have too RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 many comments because the chairman and Marie has said what everyone has been saying here tonight. I feel as if I'm willing to go along with the way it's been presented. MR, MOLNAR: Mr, Palmer, have you heard any further amendments after the study group meeting? MR. PALMER: We had a study group | meeting two weeks ago approximately, on June 14, and ¢ lot of the comments that came up tonight were similar to the comments that were raised at that meeting. Anticipating the need to maybe make some changes to the draft ordinance, we prepared a listing of possible changes. I'd like to pass these out to the members at the table here and review these with the group. MS. BRAY: Can I say something? MS. MORYKIN: Go ahead. MS. BRAY: I do not believe that the supervisors of Plainfield Township are sitting up here and they're actually going to pass this ordinance the way it was presented when there was so much opposition on both sides, Iocan not believe that you can not go back to the drawing RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253~266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 25 172 board for another -- if it's ninety days and try to go through this ordinance again. MS, SMITH: I'd like to say something, too. I am embarrasseé about my supervisors and my solicitor after what has been Presented to you tonight. You put the cart before the horse which is what you've been told right along. You're basically uninformed because you did not go down the right path. Thank you, MR. PALMER: I would like at least to go over these changes, then maybe we can decide what course of action to take. Page three of the ordinance, a change that was considered, definition of resource recovery facility. List the following facilities as separate -- individual separate uses with their own definitions. Composting facility, recycling facility, material separation facility, an refuse derived fuel facility. The idea there is to delete resource recovery facility entirely. It's not interpreted as being an incinerator. Page three, revise the definition of refuse derived fuel RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrmtn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 li 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 173 facility to read as follows: An area of land or facility where solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel is produced from solid waste by means other than incineration, The last phrase was added to the draft. add the following new definition regarding post closure. The date on which new municipal waste processing or disposal facility permanently ceases to accept waste and meets all the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources! regulations and requirements relating to post closure. A new definition was added. Page five, delete resource recovery facility and the following and add the following uses: Composting facility, recycling facility, material separation facility, and refuse derived fuel facility. Page five, delete solid waste transfer station from the list of conditional uses, I'd like to make one comment about that. Grand Central indicated that they wanted to continue to see a use such as a solid waste transfer station. Their existing use right now on the permit for that facility, if this is adopted RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 174 and we prohibit that type of a use, they still will be considered a non-conforming use and could operate that facility. This is saying no new transfer stations could come into the township. There's some concern about the public uses, MR. SUGARMAN: It may also be permitted as an accessory use depending on the facts which shovld be a use which would be as of right. MR, PALMER: At the June 14 meeting, there was some concern about public reuse of the landfill, 2 think there was pretty much of a concensus at that meeting to delete golf course, picnic grove, public recreation, and township park from the list of uses that would be permitted in the solid waste district even after post closure. So that was a change. Page seven add solid waste transfer station and junk yard to the list of prohibited uses. Another change on page seven, delete resource recovery facility and solid waste transfer station in the table regarding the minimum lot sizes and replace them with the following uses Composting facility, recycling RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 175 facility, material separation facility, and refuse derived fuel facility. ‘Then the same thing on the table on page eight regarding the yard requirements, Delete resource recovery facility and replace it with the following uses: Composting facility, recycling facility, material separation facility, and refuse derived fuel facility. On page nine, section eight where we talk about plant materials, Marie had a good comment to add the word evergreen in front of plant materials when we talk about using berms and plant materials for visual screening. So the word evergreen would be added. x + RUTT:; How are you going to screen it from the top of the mountain? You'd have to a have a thousand foot high screen. MR, PALMER: The ordinance requires that there be a plan submitted to address the landscaping requirements and it may be a case where berming is better suited in one location or a buffer with evergreens would be better in another location. Depending on the actual site plan that's submitted. MR, RUTT: How are you going to screen something twenty stories high? RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg $95-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 176 MR. PALMER: Pages nine and fourteen, section K, revise the section to say burning of any kind of waste is prohibited except for the burning of methane gas for odor control when approved by the Pennsyivania Department of Environmental Resources. The section dealing with -- on page ten, section L, dealing with the off site removal of the material for cover, at the June 14 meeting, I believe there was some discussion about maybe keeping those provisions as a basic ordinance rather than including them in the solid waste district only, provisions that could apply to other uses. Therefore, 1 think the ea was to draft those as a separate ordinance and take action on those as a separate and distinct ordinance, If that would be the case, we would want to delete that section with the exception of the first sentance which required daily cover. Page ten, this gets at one of Chuck Hughes's comments regarding the local inspector. Elaborating on the responsibilities and other information about the local inspector. On page ten, section R and page RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 177 sixteen, section R, they would be revised to read the operator shall cooperate with and involve the township in the environmental monitoring of the landfill, To assist in this monitoring, the township shall appoint a local inspector. This inspector shall be trained and certified by tke Pennsylvania Department of Environmental] Resources. Certified municipal inspectors shall be authorized to enter property, inspect only those records required by the department, take samples, and conduct inspections. The municipal inspector has the right to halt operations of the facility if the inspector determines that there is an immediate threat to the health and safety. MR. MOLNAR: The only comment I would have on that, since there is no certification Procedure at the present, perhaps you'd want to add in language, the inspector shall be trained and certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources if available. In the event that certification procedure is not available by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the township shell obtain ell necessary training from private RENWICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbre 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 178 entities in order to properly train the landfill inspectors. MR. PALMER: We can still have a local inspector if that Senate bill does not pass. MS. ALBANESE: May I interject something? You were talking before about limiting hours that they mey work, You're talking about covering every day. I'm telling you you have already defeated yourself because they can not and do not cover in those hours on the limit they're taking it right now. They work until seven or eight at night to cover, They can not cover. You have already defested yourself, It's unenforceable. MR. MOLNAR: Bob, you had a comment? MR. SUGARMAN: It's not directly responsive. MR, MOLNAR: We were on the inspection. MR. SUGARMAN: I had = not on the inspection. I had two other very minor technical recommendations as to the language here just to clerify it. Let me propose -- for nechanics, let me suggest adding it to Tom's list RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223) Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-26601s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 179 for consideration. One is on page twelve, I believe it is, section G, approval of conditional uses. Let's see. I'm working from an earlier draft here. It's on page thirteen now, It's section C-1. It's subsection B under that. Tom, if I'm not mistaken, I think we would want te include at the end of that sentance where it says all the specific standards for the proposed use listed in section three fifteen E, just for total clarity -- I think it's already implicit -- I would add and subsections D and E of this section. So that it’s clear that all of those standards in D and B have to be complied with, Especially the one about volume limitation. Then in the section on volume limitation, subsection V, I would add the reference to an average of one thousand tons per day, or whatever number the board adopts, whatever that number is, so many tons per day over any calendar month. DR. POWELL: Does that mean you're going to average that over a month period then? MR, SUGARMAN: Yes. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 180 DR. POWELL: So that when they use -- when we look to see whether or not they're conforming, then you're going to look at an average daily tonnage for the month of, say, May. MR, SUGARMAN: Right. Otherwise they could begin to go really high for a few months and then balance it off with some low months. DR, POWELL: That, I think, would fit in well with DER, TI know that they put together charts for reporting purposes and they're on a monthly basis. They don't have an average daily ton for each month. I agree with that. I'a like to make a general comment based both on what Mrs, Albanese and Mrs. Smith have said. Repeatedly, over many times, we had asked Grand Central to comment on this wording and on these -- what they went ad nauseum about earlier today. It was our impression -- I think it's safe to say it was our impression that we had worked with them to clarify some of the vague language that they were complaining about. so I'd have to say that we really have made a very serious effort to meet that and that's the result of what we have here, RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 181 I think we could go into the 1990's with experts talking to us about language and whether or not we're superceding DER or not superceding DER. The law is clear, It's DER, then that's what goes. If it's not DER, than we have the control here in this ordinance. MR. PHILLIPS: May I have the floor? DR. POWELL: Yes, please, MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Powell, you made the statement earlier that you said that you stood out behind that same podium that I just stood behind earlier. Would you have accepted the ordinance the way it is written if you were standing out here behind this particular podium? DR, POWELL: Would you believe me whatever I said? MR, PHILLIPS: Yes, I would believe you, I'm an educated man and so are you. DR. POWELL: Yes. MR, PHILLIPS: However, with all the excess rebuttle that you have received, don't you think it's quite obviovs that you have been voted along with the two other members on this boer@ te representative the people? RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 182 DR. POWBLL: That's correct. MR, PHILLIPS: Then why does it seem like it's so imperative that you must pass this ordinance tonight? DR, POWELL: Because that's what the people of Pleinfield Township want. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: No, they don't. DR. POWELL: Order. Order. Mr, Phillips has the floor. MR. PHILLIPS: This is what I've been hearing throughout the entire township, Mr. Powell, I've been going out door to door with my campaign and you know that I'm running for township supervisor. DR. POWELL: Why don't you come to the podium. MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to say that the people of Plainfield Township are going to be duly represented. By that I mean I would like to see their will being done and it seems -- DR. POWELL: I agree one hundred ten percent, sir. And please do not infer that I moved, §0 let's talk as a person who is wanting to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266017 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 183 represent Plainfield Township and people that are. I am willing to work in a spirit to work together on this. MR. PHILEIPS: $0 I am. DR. POWELL: So I would be interested in any insight that you gained on the campaign trail. MR, PHILLIPS: The township tax payers that I've been talking to have made it known to me that they would like to see that the board Pass an ordinance that can be fully defended. DR, POWELL: That's exactly right. I agree with you one hundred ten percent once again, Mr. Phillips. MR, PHILLIPS: I'm glad to hear that. I just want to make sure that everyone here understands that what you're trying to do is for the betterment of the tax payers. DR, POWELL: That's correct. and the tax payers being the residents of Plainfield Township. MR, PHILLIPS: Then why do I still hear rebuttle when I go out door to door or I'm out on the street -- DR. POWELL: What is your RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266020 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 184 rebuttle? MR. PHILLIPS: That the township supervisors are really not doing the will of what the tox payers reslly would like. I keep heering that. MR, SUGARMAN: I would like to perhaps help to put some -- directly responsive to what you're saying into some perspective as it relates to what we heard tonight. Obviously you had three people there in the front row who had gone over this thing and knit picked it to death. It's hard for you sitting out there to know how much of what they're saying has any validity and how much of it is knit picking. 1 made notes and I can say that just about everything that they raised is something that had been considered, if not in the meetings of the task force that I attended, then in the groups -- the meetings that John Molnar and Ton Palmer and I had in the course of drafting this thing over a long period of time. I started out my cemarks earlier tonight by saying I've been involved for eighteen months and I've seen this process evolve into a tighter and tighter ordinance. TI also should RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 qd 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 185 mention for those who don’t know, that Perin was a member and his organization was a member of the task force. So they sat and they made a lot of the these comments as time went along. A lot of comments they made were made earlier by them or by somebody, one of us, and were considered. It was Gecided that they were not valid. I could go down them one by one. Iocan, but I think that would be -- it would take me as long as it took Mr. Perin to state his comments for me to respond to them one by one so let me respond to them in a much more concise way. One condition or claim that was made by him was that we might be engaging in spot zoning. MR. PHILLIPS: That's correct. MR, SUGARMAN: Spot zoning is one of those canards that gets thrown around whenever you don't like an amendment. MR, PHILLIPS: I know about that so you don't -- MR, SUGARMAN: Okay. There is a case called West Allen Township where a township zoned a specific property for quarrying to RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 accommodate a quarry expansion and the citizens attacked it as being spot zoning. The Commonwealth court says it's not spot zoning. You had a situation where there is a quarry expansion doctrine, you were faced with a need, legally speak,ing to accommodate that quarry. You looked at specific properties. It wasn't just picking out a spot on the map and saying this is going to be a quarry. That's spot zoning. This has a valid, meaningful, rational, relationship to the facts, and therefore, it's not spot zoning. No case could more carefully fit this one than that one. And as far as you can judge anything from what the courts have done before, this is not spot zoning. As it might be attacked from either side, and the fact that Perin is running the only landfill in Plainfield, is not -- can not be used to create a spot zoning problem for the township. The real issue in a spot zoning is whether the township has to continue to allow landfills in seventy-five percent of the township or some large number. Or conversely, if you take it out RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 a. 22 23 24 187 altogether, whether the township can be hit with a curative amendment that would allow landfills in one hundred percent of the township. Or to put another way, in any area of the township where any land owner, including Perin who happens to own land all over as he said before, where he happens to have land. So instead of worrying about taking the top soil off the farm a mile away from the landfill, you can start worrying about heving a landfill there on whatever farm that is. The people who say we'll take our chances, we want you to you defend it in court, it just reminds me of President Carter when they said you're bringing the Shaw into the country -- he said to his advisors, you tell me to bring the Shaw into the country. What are you going to do when they take over cur embassy? I say to the people who want us to defend them in court, what are you going to say to us when we lose and you have landfill all over the township. You do one thing if you're in litigation. 1111 defend the township's ordinance and John Molnar will defend the township's ordinance to the death. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 188 But when youtre planning and you have the opportunity to make your plans, you take a @ifferent approach and you try to do the thing that is the wisest instead of defending what you have. Here you have the luxury of being in that position because you don't have a curative yet. he day you have a curative, it's too late to say we'll go back to doing it the other way. The question has been raised about ground water and water quality contamination. It's unlikely, in my judgment, that you could directly regulate a landfill, first of all, based on past leaching, that you could regulate future landfill use. Let me put it this way: If we were to ban eny expansion of the landfill on the basis of past practices relating to water quality, the first curative that comes in through the door will be a mile, two miles away and they'll say, what does Perin's water quality contamination over there have to do with the fact that you have an exclusionary ordinance in not allowing any landfills in Plainfield Township, gq.e.d., give us our permit. That's the problem with using RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 189 water quality as a basis. That's one problem. Another problem is that is a subject that is very close to the heart of DER's operational responsibility, and therefore, an area that you have a particular problem in trying to regulate. If you didn't have a risk of having a curative, I would say go ahead and regulate water quality. The nice thing about this ordinance, the way it's drafted, it's got a good idea, I think it's Tom's idea, It has water quality regulation as a basis for shutting down an existing landfill. If you read the section that relates to the environmental impacts, performance impacts. The nice thing about that idea is that there's no risk. Nobody can claim exclusionary use based on trying to shut down a landfill and yet it directly addresses the uncertainty or the risks of a landfill in operation. So that if -- to read the language of the ordinance precisely, if the applicant can not or will not mitigate it's adverse environmental impacts so that these impacts are reduced to an insignificant level of impact -- it's consistent with standards -- the use will become a RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1 12 13 14 15 16 iT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 prohibited use. The zoning board is to make those determinations. That undoubtedly will be litigated by anybody that you try to shut down. But there you have the one kind of township control that you could probably get away with, number one; and number two, you can do it in a way that doesn't risk having a curative somewhere else in the township. So there is a lot of skillful, subtle planning that has to be done to get the maximum amount of protection. The things that you heard, the comments that you heard, from Grand Central were responsive to the fact that it's pinching their toes. MR, PHILLIPS: I understand that, What you're basically telling me and everyone else that's here is that you believe that this particular ordinance, proposed ordinance, the way it is drafted, is in fact defendable? MR, SUGARMAN: Yes. This is a maximally defendable -- defendable, absolutely. But that's not really -- I'm going to answer the question I think you're really asking, will we win? I'll say, as good as you can get in this world and RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23 24 25 191 having something that's effective. If we had the laxest ordinance in the world, it would win. Nobody would challenge it. But coming down from that and trying to reach the point of getting the maximum degree of control with the minimum amount of risk, I think this ordinance does it. I'm not saying some slight variation on it or some other approach might not also achieve the same objective, but this does it and it does it in a way that's responsive to the concerns that have been raised by the members of the board of supervisors and by members of the task force and by S.0.L.E. over the various months. You remember we had a lot of comments from Grand Central about setbacks. That to is an area where we don't risk anything by regulating it in terms of having created an invalid ordinance. At the most, that provision could become invalid. In my judgment, that provision will not become invalid because there are cases that relate to quarries that directly support the township's ability to continue to enforce its zoning ordinance. So in my opinion, we'll RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 192 succeed. A couple of questions that were raised that I think deserve further consideration down the road that are not within the township's zoning province but could be the basis of some other treatment. One of them is the fair market value issue and the impact on the immediately surrounding neighbors. There's a number of ways to deal with that. Traditionally, where a use has an adverse impact on an adjoining use, nuisance law is available to the adjoining owner on his own individual, private basis. Here because of the potential for wide spread effect, whether it be above ground impacts or whether it be water quality impacts, the ordinance has a built in procedure which 1 described before in the water quality area for in effect an effort to enforce the nuisance law, The township has the right to go to court to enforce both the nuisance law and the zoning law. The zoning ordinance. That is something that the township can do without Prohibiting the use so that you don't get into the legal question of exclusionary zoning. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ai 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 193 So it's a harder thing to do, to win a nuisance case or to win an enforcement case that actually shuts something down if that's what's necessary. But it is a possibility and it is -- the threat of it is something that will help to keep the facility more honest, and I'm using that in the -- so that I don't get sued for libel -- more honest in the figurative sense of word, not in the literal sense, and it's something that can also be used if necessary. The neighbors can honestly say that it may be impossible to have the landfill that actually is not a nuisance. The problem with that is that the law just doesn't allow us to say that a tandfill is a nuisance per se. If you understand what the phrase per se is, and I'm sure you do, It means at all. We have to allow them. We have to try to find ways of tightening the screws on the areas of nuisance to minimize them to the extent possible. The ordinance gives us some tools to try to enforce further cutbacks on some of those problems, The last area is the height RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 LL 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2a 25 194 limitation. The ordinance does have a height limitation that is functionally related to the surrounding vistas and the surrounding areas. In my judgment, it's not that -- it's something that might do with some fine tuning once this is in place but I think it doesn't have to hold it up unless the board decides to. It's up to them. Right now, I think it's defensible on its own merits; and if it's not defensible, it won't cause the rest of the ordinance to go down. But I think it is defensible because it has related functional purposes and I've seen ordinances sastained on that basis. Although it is hard to write height ordinances that are in terms of vistas that succeed. It can be done and I think this is as good a chance of getting one through as anything. There's no risk to any other thing if there's a problem with that, And it can be fine tuned, 1 guess in summary what T want to say is that this is a quality ordinance and that the comments that have been made on it, in my judgment, do not -- have not succeeded in raising any red flags in my mind of RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 a3 14 15 16 17 1e 20 21 22 23 24 25 195 any vulnerable areas that are not inherently vulnerable in any ordinance you write. I think that it's hard for you to do, but I'm trying to tell you that from my perspective, what you've seen as a large quantity of criticism, especially from the landfill side, but that should not convince you, just because somebody has twenty complaints, that some of them must be valid. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. Mr. Molnar, do you believe the ordinance to be satisfactory and defensible? MR, MOLNAR: In terms of satisfactory, I assume you mean defensible. Satisfactory is a legislative question that only the board of supervisors can answer tonight. 1 believe that it is defensible. There's no guarantees if we go to court but I think the chances of winning a lawsuit would be good if it would be challenged. MR, PHILLIPS: That is a satisfactory answer. Again, Mr. Powell, 1 would like to apologize if you were offended in any way. I did not mean to do that, DR, POWELL: The hour is late, RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scentn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ut 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 196 and quite frankly, I've been eating, drinking, and sleeping this for the last six months. MR. PHILLIPS: JI understand that. DR. POWELL; And the question that I ask myself every day on getting up is, is this defendable? Is this something that will bring the township together? I am in your court. I am in everybody's court. 1 represent the township. MR. PHILLIPS: I think that's what the tax payers are looking for and that it is an ordinance that can be defended. Thank you. MS. SMITH: Doctor Powell, may I please? Mr. Sugarman let the cat out of the bag inadvertently, It's on the court record now that he said he drew this up and worked with you people to please the supervisors and I believe then, I'm not sure about this, Mr. Molnar and S.0.L.E. MS, BRAY: That is not -- I'm president of 8.0.1.8, and ~~ MS, SMITH: It's on the court record. DR. POWELL: I would like to move on. MS. SMITH: It's on the court record. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 14 15 16 uy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 197 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a waste of time. What dia we come here for comment then? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nobody spoke for the garbage dump except for the three. Would you want to drink a quart of that water that's contaminated up there? MS. BRAY: I didn't see anybody here tonight that was for the solid waste ordinance the way it is except for the Grand Central representatives. Everyone else in this audience was opposing it. DR. POWELL: No. They're probably more opposed to it than you are. For an hour I think we heard -- MS. BRAY: I'm saying that I didn't hear anybody that was here -- you're saying the residents want it, The residents don't want it, You're not listening. You're going to be in litigation again with Grand Central anyway. And maybe -- MS. SMITH: And it's going to cost us more money. DR. POWELL: At some point the board is going to have to make a decision and that RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 198 there is -- MS, BRAY: Delay it. DR. POWELL: we've been delaying and we have -- (Inaudible outburst from the audience.) DR, POWELL: 1 have the floor floor, please. MS. SMITH: But you're spending our money. DR. POWELL: Mr, Phillips made a very good point - MS. SMITH: And Mr. Molnar -- DR. POWELL: I have the floor, Mrs. Smith. MS. SMITH: So dor. DR. POWELL: I£ I do not get order, I will ask to have you removed. One of very important issues here tonight is do we have a constitutional ordinance. That is the issue. The issue is what is best for the township. What is best for the township is what can bring us the control that we need and what will end the litigation and not bring us up into expense and long and drawn out legal battles. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ll 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 199 Mr. Sugarman, Mr. Molnar, the board of supervisors have been working diligently towerd getting a constitutional ordinance together. I would like to make @ motion to the board or ask if I hear any motion from the board that we enact the ordinance as it is before us with the amendments that Tom Palmer presented and my suggestion of volume limitations of twelve hundred to fifteen hundred tons per day. Do I hear a motion on that? MS. MORYKIN: Can I make a comment? DR. POWELL: Go ahead. MS, MORYKIN: I have a problem with ashes being dumped from any incinerator. As far as the volume, you know, I can go along with the volume, DR. POWELL: That's a DER issue, is it not? MS, MORYKIN: The problem with that is that it's impossible to moniter and I don't have that much faith in DER's monitoring. I agree with everyone else that they're totally and completely understaffed. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595~7361; Estn 253~266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 200 DR. POWELL: Can we again defend an ordinance that excludes ash? MR, SUGARMAN: I think that you can defend it, The more things that you exclude, you increase losing that particular exclusion or possibly something else. You have the option of -- if it's the same individual, you have the option of settling by changing the ordinance at some point down the line if you have to. But of course, if some other individual comes in and applies for ash as a curative amendment saying you don't allow anybody to dispose of ash in the township, you know. But is anybody going to do that? You have to look is somebody going to do that, how long are they going to do it for. So it's a judgment call and it depends of whether you dislike ash strongly enough to take that risk, It's a judgment call. MR. MOLNAR: 1 think it's certainly a judgment call and it would certainly add more risk, I think, to the ordinance than it now has to it in being challenged. The reason is that DER regulates incinerator ash and the question of preemption of DER versus municipal regulation, RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Serntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 201 you get into the question of the Nonroville case. MS, MORYKIN: Can we say that somebody is there on a daily basis to monitor that? MR. MOLNAR: One the things that the board -- this is certainly not an approval of a landfill site. The board will have an opportunity if there is ever an application filed to put conditions and limitations on the conditional use application after the public hearing. The question of incinerator ash could come up at that time and the board may choose to put some certain types of conditions or limitations. MR. SUGARMAN: You could ban hazardous ash, MR. PALMER: DER already does, DR. POWELL: ‘That's hazardous waste. MR, SUGARMAN: Yes, it is. 1 meant you could try to make your own definition of what's hazardous but I think you might get hairy in that. DR. POWELL: I think it will. 1 think that -- I agree with Mr. Molnar and Mr. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 1a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 202 Sugarman and I think that may increase the risk. If that's what the board is interested in doing, I'm certainly willing to go along with it. We want an amendment that's going to fly. MR, TENGES: Are you asking for a motion? MR. SUGARMAN: Let me put it this way: You have a handle for dealing with hazardous ash through the fact that you ban all hazardous waste. To the extent that ash becomes characterized as hazardous, you've got a handle on it. You have your own definition of hazardous waste in here now. To the extent that somebody can show that ash is hazardous as the ordinance reads now, it would not be allowable. DR. POWELL: So we will be excluding hazardous ash. Does that come to at least halfway? MS, MORYKIN: Yes. But isn't all incinerator ash is hazardous? DR. POWELL: The fly ash is and the bottom ash is not, The way that DER has been getting around that -- and again, you're getting into the province of DER -- they have been RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660lo ly 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 203 combining the two. In other words, when fly ash and bottom ash come together, it's not a hazardous product. But if you separate it out, then the fly ash will test hazardous and the bottom ash will not. For that reason, incinerators will not have any place to put their ash if they separate it so they keep it together. MR, SUGARMAN: You have a handle if you can make a showing - DR. POWELL: If we can show that the ash coming in is hazardous. The motion that I am asking, I guess it's before us, is to enact the ordinance with the amendments that Tom Palmer presented to us tonight, with the amendments that Robert Sugarman and John Molnar presented in addition, as well as changing the volume limitation to twelve hundred to fifteen hundred tons. MR. TENGES: I'11 make that motion. MR, MOLNAR: Prior to that motion, we can have a joint motion, but the comprehensive plan should be -- the resolution should be adopted first to the comprehensive plan. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 204 DR. POWELL: I'll make the motion to adopt the comprehensive plan resolution. Do I hear a second? KR, TENGES: Second, DR, POWELL: All in favor of that, say aye. MR. TENGES: Aye. MS, MORYKIN: Aye. DR. POWELL: aye. MR, RUTT: Are you -- could I ask one last question before the vote is taken? At the risk of being redundant, it's late and everything, can we attempt to quantify the risk to the township of a curative amendment succeeding based on reduction in size of this area? Can we take it down fifty percent or is our risk going up fifty percent? DR. POWELL: My sense from again being involved in it and day in and day out involvement and speaking with all parties, quite frankly, I think if we make any sort of change in size, that our risk will go up dramatically for a curative amendment. I have struggled with that and I know it doesn't make it any easier for you but I RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 205 have struggled with that. So the adoption of -- the resolution has been adopted, Now we move on, Bob, you have made the motion to enact the ordinance with the amendments of Tom Palmer, Rob Sugarman, and John Molnar, with volume limitations at twelve hundred to fifteen hundred tons? MR. TENGES: Yes, I have. DR. POWELL: Do I hear a second? MS. MORYKIN: I'll second, DR. POWELL: All in favor, vote aye. MR. TENGES: Aye. MS, MORYKIN: Aye. DR. POWELL: Aye. The amendment is passed. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Do I a hear a second? MR. TENGES: I'll second. DR. POWELL: All in favor, vote aye. MR. TENGES: Aye. MS, MORYKIN: Aye. RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-266010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ig 20 21 23 24 25 206 CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately inthe notes taken by me on the above cause, ang that this is a correct transcript of the same to the best of my ability. ALM KAREN M, KALBES RENICK REPORTING SERVICE Scrntn 348-0223; Strdsbrg 595-7361; Estn 253-2660