Synagro submitted new materials on August 30, 2019 at the end of the day and the beginning of the Labor Day holiday. It is pointed out in a letter (below) by township manager Tom Petrucci that the materials the submission contains are dated August 13. This is a really shitty move - and designed solely to pressure the township since the meeting date of September 9 was chosen weeks earlier, and Synagro controls the deadline for a decision by the Board of Supervisors - currently September 30. Consultants did not receive the packet until September 3, giving them a whopping 3 business days to submit a review to the township so that planners would get it prior to this weekend. At a recent meeting, Planning Commission Chairman Levitz commented that this practice had to end, but Synagro did it again - and apparently is unwilling to approve an extension of the September 30 deadline. Applicants that pull these stunts are shitty (no pun intended) businesses you do not want in your town.
To the township and its consultants' credit, reviews were completed by the end of business on September 6. These reviews and a memorandum by Manager and Alternate Zoning Officer Petrucci are contained in the document below, which you may download as a PDF. This file is text searchable, so you can look for text such as "quarry", "pond", "basin", "environmental impact statement", etc. A non text-searchable, higher resolution version is here.
Of particular note is an item presented without explanation - the "Facility Enforcement/Shutdown Provisions Protocol" on pages 6-7 of the Material Matters submission (PDF pages 27 and 28). This appears to be a new document, which assesses monetary penalties for failure to comply - including up to $4000 a day maximum for a problem left unresolved. Nice work Material Matters!
Note that Mr. Pertucci's memorandum contains Sections A, B and C across 16 pages, and is a guide to two possible actions by planners (in sections A and C):
- A. Recommend denial of the application for reasons set forth herein (p, 2)
- B. Environmental authority (p. 10)
- C. Recommend approval of the application with conditions set forth herein (p. 10)
OCR version Slate Belt Heat... on Scribd
Another new item for planners to discuss is that PennDOT has apparently reversed course and approved a driveway from Pen Argyl Road, for use by cars and light trucks. The review letter by Benchmark addresses this update.
Note that in one evening, planners will have to talk about the changes and updates in the August 30 submission, consider whether to conditionally approve or deny the application, and discuss ramifications of each of these approaches. Recall that Environmental Counsel Embick previously stated that in his opinion, planners must vote to deny the plan - due to Synagro's repeated refusal to do an Environmental Impact Study. If this is still his opinion, it will carry weight, In reading over Mr. Petrucci's letter, see if you could vote to approve this project regardless of conditions - taking into consideration that Synagro has refused to to an Environmental Impact Study, and has refused to apply for variances it needs. Try to ignore the fact that the DEP has attempted to influence Plainfield Township to approve the plan - since DEP has no right to do interfere with the local approval process. DEP should be protecting the air and water, and lacking this the township has to step in and do that job.
