Synagro once again delays review of controversial biosolids plant (Slate Belt Heat Recovery Center) in Plainfield Township - will not appear July 24

On June 12, 2017, Plainfield Township's Zoning Officer sent a lengthy letter to Synagro, finding multiple deficiencies in its application for a Zoning Permit to locate a crap bakery in the township.  Also in that letter were determinations of the Zoning Officer that Synagro's proposed plant requires eight specific variances.

Boat slip access will be possible at Synagro's State of the Fart facility

Later on June 12, at the planning commission meeting to review Synagro's site plan, Synagro counsel Matthew Goodrich addressed the commission and took the position that Synagro's application requires no variances, and thus Synagro must be granted a permit since its use is permitted.  The latter part no one can deny - Synagro's use is permitted on the site proposed.  However, the former is clearly in dispute - Synagro is attempting to build a $20m+ state of the art crap processing plant in a pond.  That's going to be a problem, and its current proposed project does not come close to complying with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

For all of Synagro's bluster that it has a right to a permit, they are apparently in no rush to prove they deserve one.  They have not appealed the Zoning Officer's June 12 determination, and have not responded to address other deficiencies in their site plan enumerated in the June 12 correspondence.  Here is a sample:

• Synagro has not proven that the naturally occurring slopes on the site where development is proposed were less than 15%.
• Synagro has not presented proof of equitable ownership (eg a lease agreement)
• Synagro has not stated its operating hours on the site plan, as required
• Synagro's site plan does not show the adjacent land parcels as required (including the critical parcel that Plainfield Township owns, which Synagro plans to use as an access drive/street.

During discussion at the June 12 meeting, Synagro could not even opine on the amount of waste water it will generate, which will be discharged into either the Little Bushkill or Waltz Creek.  This is non-trivial - on a suggestion from a planning commission member, it was agreed that it will be in excess of 80,000 gallons per day.  Synagro appears to have a great plan in mind, but no attention to the details needed for it to be approved.  Most importantly, they appear to believe for some unknown reason that they require no variances.  If this is true, why haven't they appealed the Zoning Officer's June 12 decision to the Zoning Hearing Board?

A new development is that Synagro has tabled its plan for July, and will not appear before the Planning Commission for continuation of the review, as scheduled on July 24.  There is no further information available at this time regarding the delay.  Stay tuned...

Grand Central Landfill (Waste Management) in Plainfield Township reportedly withdraws permit modification request to solidify and dispose of liquid waste

As reported first on this blog, Waste Management/Grand Central Sanitary Landfill submitted a permit modification request to the PA DEP in the spring of 2016, to solidify and dispose of liquid waste. This is a lucrative business area, and glutton Waste Management clearly wanted an even bigger slice of the waste disposal pie than it already has.  It is also attempting to lease a portion of its property to Synagro, to locate a crap bakery on the parcel of land currently used for the landfill.   The surrounding communities are uniformly opposed to this project, as well as Plainfield Township.  16 jobs and $50,000 a year in tax receipts for one community has been deemed to be a horrendous trade off for reduced property values and a near certain guarantee of odors, not to mention 80,000 gallons of waste water a day discharged into high quality streams.  The proposal requires eight zoning variances that have been identified thus far, and despite Synagro not being able to demonstrate the necessary hardships to be granted zoning relief, this project is still scheduled for review.  Greed has no bounds for Waste Management, which should have retracted its offer to Synagro months ago.  There is no apparent lease- Synagro has failed to submit evidence of equitable ownership to the the township, which is required for such an application.

At tonight's Plainfield Township Board of Supervisors meeting, a scheduled agenda item was:

• Notification of PA DEP Minor Permit Modification Application Withdrawal - Solidification Plan Modification - Grand Central Sanitary Landfill/Waste Management (underline added)

A DEP representative informed this blogger two months ago that the DEP was concerned about this permit modification request, and was not inclined to grant it, but no detailed discussions had taken place at that point..  Apparently either the application was pursued by Waste Management in the last few months, and it was determined they could not be successful in obtaining the modification, or the scrutiny that came with the request becoming public was not desired.  Either way, this chip has reportedly been removed from the table.

Now all that remains is for Synagro to realize it can't possibly be successful, literally pack its shit up and go the hell away.  It was a bull shit plan from the start, and once it didn't get rammed through in a single night in November 2016 (by none other than Green Knight member and Planning Commission member Robert Cornman Jr) this became obvious.  Quite simply, there was an attempt made to cornhole the residents of Plainfield Township, Wind Gap and Pen Argyl - and it failed.  Those involved should be ashamed, including Synagro legal counsel Matthew Goodrich, who misrepresented at the November 2016 planning commission meeting that the application met the zoning ordinance.  That proposal is currently not even being discussed because it was/is in direct conflict with the uses allotted in the ordinance.

Synagro requires eight variances for Plainfield Township site, but fails to apply for them ahead of July 24 review

Synagro is non responsive to the need for zoning relief

As reported on this blog, Plainfield Township notified Synagro on June 12, 2017 that its current site plan under review to place a crap bakery in the township requires eight variances.  As of today July 10, Synagro has submitted no applications for any variances, nor any response to the township's June 12 letter.

Per Section 802.(A) (2) (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, an application for variance involving any use shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission meets on July 24 to continue review of Synagro's application.  There is a 21-day period prior to a Planning Commission meeting in which to file new materials.  There are now 14 days remaining.

Synagro has made a big deal out of the fact they have a permitted use on the current site.  See an intimidating letter their legal representative submitted to Plainfirld Township here.  However, they seem curiously mum on several details.  At the June 12 review, they had trouble even stating what their operating hours will be - which is required to be on their site plan, but is not.

These eight variances are another detail - a major one.  Synagro does not have the hardships necessary to be granted zoning relief.  Could this be why they are dragging their heals in acknowledging they are needed?  In any event, the Planning Commission can not recommend approval of the Site Plan until such time these variances are attended to.  Not having proper access lanes, not having a proper front yard, not having a street to be located on - these are significant deficiencies.  Here are quotes from the June 12 letter informing Synagro of the deficiencies:

• Page 5
  “Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 315 (B) (35), the proposed entrance and exit to the facility are not separated and clearly designated and they are not located along either an arterial or collector road. The entrance and exit to the facility is located along an interior access road of the Grand Central Sanitary Landfill. Therefore, the conditions and provisions associated with this additional requirement are not being met. A Variance is required from Section 315 (B) (35) (b) of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance.”
• Page 13
  “All areas within fifty feet (50’) of the banks of any streams, lake or pond shall be in open space. It is the determination of the Zoning Officer that a Variance is required for Section 505 of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance.”
• Page 13
  “The Front Lot Line (Street Line) does not meet the definition as set forth in the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance as follows: “A lot line separating the lot from a street right-of-way. The front lot line shall be the same as an existing or future right-of-way line (whichever establishes a greater width).” The lot line is not shown as separating the lot from a street right-of-way, as required by Section 201 B of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance. Therefore a Variance is required from the Front Yard setback as set forth in Section 318 (I) of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance.”
• Page 19
  “The proposed loading and offloading road encroaches upon the proposed
  Green Knight lot (5.18 acres). The setback requirements for the rear yard
  for both proposed lots and the front/side setbacks of the Green Knight lot
  are therefore not being met as currently proposed on the Site Plan, as
  determined by the Zoning Officer. The Applicant is representing that a cross access agreement between the two (2) tenants will be submitted. A cross access agreement is not specifically defined with the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance as a way to gain relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance;
  therefore, a Variance is required from Section 704 (B) (3) of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance.”
• Page 24
  “The definition of a Street as set forth in the Plainfield Township Zoning
  Ordinance specifically precludes an access drive from being designated as a
  Street. The access drive does not contain a right-of-way area. Indeed, a
  portion of the access drive is owned in part by Plainfield Township (Tax Map
  Parcel ID# E8 14 IA 0626E). The proposed principal building is not proposed
  to be built upon a public or private street that meets the definition of a Street
  as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The access drive does not meet the
  requirements of a Street as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, and is not
  designated as any of the following: Arterial Street, Collector Street or Local
  Street. Both the proposed Synagro lot and the proposed new Green Knights
  lot do not front upon a street as defined by the Plainfield Township Zoning
  Ordinance. Therefore, a Variance is required from Section 402 (A) of the
  Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance.”
• Page 24
  “An access drive does not meet the requirements of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance for the definition of a Street. It is unclear to the Zoning Officer
  how a private street right-of-way could be created to the west of the Green
  Knight lot, as a portion of that access drive is owned by Plainfield Township
  (Tax Map Parcel ID# E8 14 IA 0626E). Further, it is unclear to the Zoning
  Officer how the Applicant would extend the proposed facility’s lot to the
  right-of-way of Pen Argyl Road. Said extension to Pen Argyl Road is not
  shown on the proposed Site Plan. Therefore, the Front Lot Line (Street Line)
  does not meet the requirements of the Plainfield Township Zoning
  Ordinance. A Variance would be required in order to configure the lot in its
  current proposed configuration, pursuant to Section 201 (B) of the Plainfield
  Township Zoning Ordinance for the definition of a Front Lot Line.”
• Page 29
  “The Applicant is representing that they are entitled to relief from Section 703 G (1) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow open cross access between
  the proposed facility and the Green Knight LFGTE Plant. “Open cross access” is not defined within the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance as warranting relief from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, especially considering that the proposed facility does not front upon an Arterial, Collector, or Local street. Neither the Zoning Officer nor the Planning Commission has the authority to grant relief from the Zoning Ordinance- only the Zoning Hearing Board has such
  authority. Therefore, a Variance is required from Section 703 G (1) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance.”

Quite simply, Synagro is in a corner.  The ball is in their court and it's time to poop or get off the pot....