BY SUSAN BRYANT

sbryant@tnonline.com

The final subdivision and land development and sewage planning module plan dated May 8 for 2766 Route 100 Warehouse was a topic of discussion at the June 8 Lowhill supervisors meeting.

Supervisor Curtis Dietrich began the discussion.

“I do have some comments in that regard Mr. Chairman,” he stated. “We did request the representatives of Core5 be present this evening.

“I specifically asked for that because I have quite a few questions and am concerned about their final plan.

“They declined to attend this evening. Information returned from the communication Attorney (David) Brooman sent them indicated they would not be here this evening.

“I am quite concerned about that because I have quite a few questions for them.

“There are all sorts of issues with the final plan that was submitted and engineering comments that were submitted more than a year ago.”

Dietrich said as of May 2023, they have not seen a response to those issues or concerns.

“Furthermore, there were additional comments and questions the planning commission shared at their most recent meeting,”

“We have not seen those addressed either,” he stated. “I have a question that goes beyond those questions that were presented by the planning commission.”

Dietrich said he also knows Engineers Ryan Christman and Chris Noll had issued additional letters.

“The review letter from Keystone Consulting Engineers that Ryan Christman issued has 27 items,” Dietrich said. “And then, it has another additional six items regarding traffic.

‘So, there are total of 33 items Keystone Engineering underlined.

“Then Chris Noll, also from Keystone Engineering, offered four additional comments concerning the application for the sewage.”

Dietrich shared his concerns about the way the environmental protection area was calculated for the slope on the property, the stormwater management plan and retention basin in that area, the construction of the retaining wall and the ordinances regarding retaining walls, public water, and the number of employees Core5 is indicating in their plan he offered a final comment.

“As I said, I could go on and on about the concerns about the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission letters,” Dietrich said. ‘There are many, many issues that we have with this final plan.

“Now here comes the other interesting part of this. This same developer, Core5, this same attorney’s firm, is the firm that raised an objection when we took a vote on the Kernsville Road property, it is 7503 Kernsville Road property, right across from the day care, indicating it was their belief I was not properly appointed.

“In their belief there was a defect in the way supervisors appointed me to fill the vacant seat when Rob Werley had resigned his position.

“And subsequent to that, they published a deemed approval in the Northwestern Press claiming they had every right to proceed because I would not be properly appointed.

“So, I have every belief that it’s their intention to once again proceed with that plan of planning a deemed approval if in fact there was a vote taken this evening on their property there and it would be denied.

“So, with all of that in mind, in order to avoid that unnecessary cost, I am going to make a motion that we table this action this evening and that we take it up at our July (13) meeting. So that is my motion.”

The motion to table the decision on the warehouse was unanimously approved before public comment.

The first resident to address the board was Jack Iannantuono.

“With the tabling of the project this evening, can you explain the time frame if the developer comes back for the July meeting, what happens there, are there extensions after that or do those have to be granted, Iannantuono asked.

Brooman responded.

“If nothing changes, action on that final plan will need to be taken in 90 days from the planning commission meeting,” Brooman explained. “So, I did not do that calculation, but I think that is sometime in August.

“There are 10 extensions granted. The applicant could request an extension or supervisors could request an extension because they have not had enough time to review it, so that is to be determined.”

Chairman Richard Hughes said he was not in favor of more extensions.

Brooman said he understood before commenting further.

“I think it’s been made pretty clear that it is going to be taken up at the July meeting with the expectation that there will certainly be action at the July meeting and that is the assumption they should be working under as well.” he said.

Township Secretary Jill Seymour, told The Press on July 3 the actions that could be taken by the board at the July meeting will depend on whether the developer comes back with satisfactory answers to questions raised by township engineers Christman and Noll, and Dietrich about the final plan.