The planning commission acts in an advisory role for the Board of Supervisors, so when it votes it is a recommendation. The planners can recommend the BOS approve the application with conditions, or recommend that the application be denied. At courtesy of the floor on April 17, Pen Argyl legal counsel Peter Layman stated "In my opinion, Synagro has shot itself in the foot, if it wanted to have its application approved." This observer agrees - Synagro has forced the township into denying its application.
Synagro's application must be denied
Synagro first submitted a site plan for this operation in October 2016. It was quickly discovered that the site proposed was not zoned to allow it, and most of 2017 was spent reviewing a site plan for a new site. Synagro had no idea what it was doing - the operating hours were a moving target, amount of storage of raw material (shit) had not been thought through, there was a wastewater treatment plant that later disappeared. They had no idea how the site would be accessed, and to this day have not made this clear. In November 2017, Synagro announced that they would be submitting a land development plan that would comply with zoning and not require variances.
In February 2018, a land development plan was submitted, but it was deemed to require four zoning variances. Changes were made to cure the need for two of these, but two others remain. Synagro has refused to admit the variances are needed, and accordingly has shown no interest in applying to the Zoning Hearing Board for relief which is the body to adjudicate disagreements of interpretation.
The PA Municipalities Planning Code dictates that interpretations of the opinion of the zoning officer are appealed to the local Zoning Hearing Board. It is the lowest "court" to determine if the zoning officer made the correct interpretation, and its decisions may be appealed to the county court. You can't skip the lowest court and go to a higher court first. But the lack of Synagro addressing required zoning variances, while inexplicable, is the tip of the iceberg in understanding why the land development application must be denied.
1. Failure to provide adequate access to the proposed site
The proposed site is not being accessed from an arterial or collector road, with a separate 30' wide entrance and exit as required by the ordinance.
Also, Synagro waited until the last few months to discuss access to its site from Pen Argyl Rd with PennDOT, and PennDOT informed Synagro that it would not issue a highway occupancy permit for access from Pen Argyl Road.
Also, Synagro waited until the last few months to discuss access to its site from Pen Argyl Rd with PennDOT, and PennDOT informed Synagro that it would not issue a highway occupancy permit for access from Pen Argyl Road.
2. Siting of parking area and driveway in a freshwater pond
The ordinance requires a setback from ponds, and Synagro proposes to place its operation in the pond by partially filling it, and then claiming it left a buffer around the remaining boundary. Multiple planners laughed out loud at the review meeting where this was revealed.
At the April 17, an 11th hour proposal by Synagro was discussed, to route runoff from the parking area and driveway to a catchment basin, but township consultants panned the proposed alteration. Correspondence in which this modification is proposed is on page 25 of the document attached below. A completed site plan depicting this alteration was never submitted - in fact no new site plan materials have been submitted by Synagro for the April or May planning commission meetings - signalling they may be ready for a decision based on the volumes of crap already in the planners' possession. Whatever was going to stick to the wall already has, but look out for the heaping pile of shit that slithered towards the floor.
At the April 17, an 11th hour proposal by Synagro was discussed, to route runoff from the parking area and driveway to a catchment basin, but township consultants panned the proposed alteration. Correspondence in which this modification is proposed is on page 25 of the document attached below. A completed site plan depicting this alteration was never submitted - in fact no new site plan materials have been submitted by Synagro for the April or May planning commission meetings - signalling they may be ready for a decision based on the volumes of crap already in the planners' possession. Whatever was going to stick to the wall already has, but look out for the heaping pile of shit that slithered towards the floor.
3. Refusal to submit an Environmental Impact Statement
The Plainfield Township zoning ordinance provides for studies to be conducted on request to demonstrate that environmental standards be met. Township legal consultant Jack Embick prepared a legal opinion that the township's request for an EIS is justified both by the zoning ordinance as well as the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Mr. Embick's opinion is located at page 29 of the document below. The CliffsNotes version is that without an EIS, the planning commission should recommend rejecting the application - which he has stated at multiple meetings.
4. Refusal to conduct a hydrogeological study of a pond adjacent to proposed plant
For the past year, planners have been requesting that Synagro do a hydrogeological study of Sedimentation Basin #2, which is a freshwater pond within 10' of the proposed plant that is connected with the adjacent Little Bushkill and Waltz Creeks. Initially, Synagro hid behind a DEP ruling that the basin could be partially filled under continuation of a DEP waiver granted over 10 years ago, and as such no study was required to determine the impacts on groundwater quantity or quality of filling it. The DEP withdrew this ruling under appeal by the township, yet Synagro has continued to refuse to have a hydrogeologist assess the pond. On multiple occasions, planners have made clear their concern over the possible impacts on water quality and rate of flow of water into and out of the pond, yet Synagro has refused to to a study to satisfy these concerns.
At the April 17 meeting, Thomas Pullar of Earthres for Synagro stated "we think we now have a pretty good estimate of the depth of the pond," and he then came out with a new value - different than the one (actually two different ones, as DEP pointed out in its deficiency letter) Earthres submitted to the DEP in its permit applications. When challenged, Pullar said "we'll get you the depth." When?
It is very clear that Synagro does not want to do a study of the pond, because the results could open up a whole new can of worms.
At the April 17 meeting, Thomas Pullar of Earthres for Synagro stated "we think we now have a pretty good estimate of the depth of the pond," and he then came out with a new value - different than the one (actually two different ones, as DEP pointed out in its deficiency letter) Earthres submitted to the DEP in its permit applications. When challenged, Pullar said "we'll get you the depth." When?
It is very clear that Synagro does not want to do a study of the pond, because the results could open up a whole new can of worms.
5. Refusal to do an alternatives analysis to justify violating riparian buffer requirements
The township ordinance requires an alternatives analysis be done if the required riparian buffer can not be met. Since Synagro is proposing to construct a parking lot and maneuvering area in the existing pond, the buffer can not be met. But Synagro has refused to conduct said alternatives analysis.
6. Remaining lack of agreement on Nuisance Mitigation Control Plan
At the April 17 review meeting, Trudy Johnston of Material Matters reported that there remains lack of agreement on certain standards and methodology as pertains to the Nuisance Mitigation Control Plan. While 90% of the issues have been worked out, the most contentious remain. Additionally, Ms. Johnston commented on a newly proposed method of monitoring odors put forth by Synagro, called Odor Intensity Reference Scale or OIRS. She had concerns that Synagro had failed to identify field practices that would result in an effective program. She also had concerns that Synagro personnel who would be responsible for "self monitoring" odors under the proposed protocol might have trouble detecting nuisance odors since they work all shift long around poop odors and dried poop dust. Ms. Johnston stated during a break "personally, I would not use the OIRS system myself," which calls into question whether it should be considered at all. Ms. Johnston/s detailed response to Synagro's proposal to use OIRS is on page 5 of the document below.
Conclusion
Simply put, Synagro has acted in bad faith. When a planning commision requests something, applicants ordinarily do it. Instead, in the case of multiple items listed above, Synagro's attorneys have stepped in and said "we don't believe we should be required to do this". Therefore, a conditional approval is out of the question. What would be the point to set conditions that Synagro has already refused such as "Do a hydrogeological study, do a riparian alternatives analysis, provide compliant access, don't build in the pond"? No - this is not an option. You didn't do what we asked for over a year, so that we could make an informed decision to approve your plan. Your attitude sucks, your plan sucks, you aren't complying with the township's requests, you don't comply with the ordinance. Take your shitty plan elsewhere.
Below are letters received from consultants submitted prior to the April meeting, comments in some of which are referenced in the discussion above.
