BY SUSAN BRYANT

sbryant@tnonline.com

Lowhill supervisors’ Oct. 12 meeting began with township Solicitor Attorney David Brooman providing an update on all three warehouse litigations.

“In no particular order, he said. “The Core5 at Route 100 appeal motion for pre-emptive judgment in mandamus, action was denied by the judge and the trial was set for Oct. 23.

“There is a request for continuance because many of the witnesses are not available on the 23rd, but that motion has not yet been acted on.”

Supervisor Curt Dietrich interrupted Brooman saying sometimes people get confused on these titles and everything.

“That’s the 7503 Kernsville Road property. They call it Core5 at Route 100 but it’s the one on Kernsville Road,” Dietrich stated.

Resident Jack Iantuanno then asked what the appeal was for.

Brooman responded saying there was no appeal.

“Well, they filed an action in mandamus against the township, which is basically a request to order the township to approve the plan,” Brooman said. “The judge denied that and then set the trial date.

“She denied it because there were facts that were in dispute.

“Whenever there are facts in dispute, you have to deny it and then hold a trial.”

Dietrich asked Brooman if he was going to discuss the Feb. 14, 2024, case, saying people are following that - the land use appeal.

“Supervisor Dietrich is absolutely correct,” Brooman said.

“These Core5 appeals, because there are three of them, are very confusing.

“At least in our office, you see it on the bills.

“We now call them Core5 one, Core5 two, and Core5 three to avoid that confusion.

“What Supervisor Dietrich was referring to was that we appealed in that case, as well, because the applicant considered it to be deemed approval and published a deemed approval in the newspaper.

“That then forced the township to appeal, which we did.

“The judge has set out a briefing schedule with that and it’s Feb. 14, 2024, for oral argument and then gave 30 days for each of us and that’s when our briefs are due.

“That’s purely on the record, there’s no trial. The Feb. 14 date is for oral arguments.

“I consider that to be Core5 two.

“The CRG cases - there’s two. One of them is the land use case. The judge issued a mandamus in that case.

“That’s been appealed up to the Commonwealth.

“The Commonwealth Court has not yet sent out a briefing schedule; it will.

“Then there’s also the CRG Office of Open Records appeal. There was a request for the right to know.

“Jill (Open Records Officer Seymour) diligently got it together and submitted it.

“She may or may not have left out two pages and they appealed to OOR, arguing it was bad faith.

“They lost that case, so they have now taken it to the Court of Common Pleas.

“You have to realize there is about 1,000 pages produced, but two pages may have been omitted by accident, so it’s in front of the Court of Common Pleas.

“Then there’s the last one, which is the denial of the final approval in the Core5 three case.

“That, too, is pending in the Court of Common Pleas. And that’s where it all is.

“Everything except the deemed approval cases is being handled by Tony Sherr, because it’s being covered by the insurance carrier.

“Tony and I have known each other for years and he keeps me informed of everything going on.”

Brooman added Core5 two is what his firm is handling, which is the deemed approval.

“On Nov. 13, we have to submit the administrative record to the court, Brooman said. “Then our brief is due in December, and we have the argument in February.”

In other business, the Department of Environmental Protection comment and public hearings on Oct. 25 were discussed.

Dietrich began by asking Brooman to summarize what the hearings are about and what role township officials might take at the hearings.

“To my understanding there are two public hearings on Oct. 25 for two of the proposals and they concern what is called the NPDS permit, the stormwater permit to discharge water off site,” Brooman said. “There was a lot of public interest and, often, when there is a lot of public interest, the DEP will schedule a public hearing.

“Hearing is a little bit of a misnomer as it is run more like a public meeting, but it is an opportunity for members of the public to say whatever they want, preferably tied to the regulations.

“In addition to the public hearing, there is also a public comment period which extends beyond the public meeting, in this case until Dec. 9.

“Whether you attend the public meeting or not, you can still submit public comments.”

Brooman said roughly 30 days after the public comment period ends, the DEP will issue a public comment and response document, which contains the public’s comments and the DEP’s response.

He added the developer does not have to respond to the public comment.

They wait for the DEP to respond and that may create more items for the developer to adjust or modify.

“The two properties to be discussed at the hearing are the CRG and 7503 Kernsville Road proposals,” Brooman said.

“There is one other thing I wanted to say, because I know there is interest with respect to this experience.

“After the DEP finally issues or doesn’t issue a permit, that’s appealable to the environment hearing board.

“That’s a hearing; that’s a trial discovery, which, if you’re inclined to do, has to be done within 30 days of issuance permits.”

Dietrich then said he put this on the agenda because he wanted to know what role we might play in providing input to the DEP on the environmental issues on these properties.

“Is it something that I can have authority to speak on at the hearing,” Dietrich asked. “Would it be better served if we arranged a meeting with representatives of the DEP and had a supervisor who was able to provide input there?”

Brooman responded.

“Certainly, if you are authorized by the supervisors to go to the public hearing, provide comment, then you are certainly authorized to provide comment.

“If you are not, then you’re speaking in your individual capacity.

“I would wait until after Dec. 9 when the public comments end and then focus frankly with Ryan Christman, township engineer, and see if there are legitimate issues.”

Chairman Richard Hughes questioned Brooman.

“So, nothing at the Oct. 25 hearings?” he asked.

Brooman responded.

“No, I’m not trying to talk you out of it. I don’t encourage you to spend much money, like sending me or written comments with Ryan,” Brooman stated. “I will speak to Ryan about whether there is anything we should submit in writing regarding either one of them.”

After further discussion about the timing of the announcement and location for the hearings, Hughes made a motion for Christman, as he is going to the hearings on Oct. 25, to represent the township.

Seconded by Deitrich, the motion carried.