Eldred Township voters reject remnants of corrupt administration that would have allowed Nestle Waters to extract 200,000 gallons of water a day

In a stroke of unparalleled gall, two officials from an administration that the evidence shows conspired to lay out the red carpet to water scavenger Nestle Waters ran for office this year.  Darcy Gannon, the mother of former Supervisor Gretchen Gannon Pettit (the girlfriend of Nestle lease holder Rick Gower), was the Planning Commission secretary during the time a critical and illegal zoning change was made that allowed Nestle to file its application.  Ellerslie "Bub" Dimwit Helm was the zoning officer when Nestle's application was filed.  These two specimens got on the ballot this year, Gannon for Tax Collector and Helm for Supervisor - apparently as some sort of payback to the forces that rose to defeat Nestle as well as sweep the trash out of the township offices.

This blogger met Helm in December 2015, prior to Nestle filing its application.   He came across as a bit of a buffoon, but on the subject of the Gower property he had an opinion and he wasn't hesitant to express it - Gower had extra water and he had a right to sell it.  Helm's job is not to opine on what he feels someone has a right to do.  His job is to enforce the zoning ordinance, but he clearly did not understand this. A few weeks later, Nestle submitted its application, and Helm issued a one paragraph review that he didn't even sign his name to, finding no deficiencies.  The township engineer's reviews found numerous deficiencies, one being that Nestle and Gower had already blocked a road across the property used to access lots off site.  Helm was on the Gower property, and either didn't notice this or didn't care.  Having met the man, both are possible.  Helm is the 10 watt bulb that slipped into the 100 watt package.  Helm was unceremoniously and abruptly shown the door once the stark discontinuity between his "review" and that of the engineer was observed.

Gannon is a horse of a different color.  Let's talk about her daughter first - mother's pride.  Gannon-Pettit called the county in her role as supervisor, and directed them to name a path that traveled off her boyfriend's property and onto a neighbor's property, continuing to a public road.  The boyfriend was issued a sign by the county and he erected it.  This illegal "road" was intended as a second access to the boyfriend's lot so he could lease the rest to one of his failed business ventures - in this case Nestle.  OK, so Ms. Gannon thence conspired with the lawyer representing her cherished Gretchen's boyfriend, who appeared before the Planning Commission and made misrepresentations on behalf of his client.  Gannon surreptitiously transmitted draft minutes of this meeting to the lawyer, who altered them to misrepresent what transpired during the meeting and returned them through the daughter's email to Gannon, with a note "thanks, let's get together and do lunch."  Gannon adopted the lawyer's alterations verbatim.  Once Gannon's actions were discovered, she was shown the door.

This story would be incomplete without mentioning another member of the conspiracy, Supervisor Sharon Solt.  Solt was the township Treasurer, Secretary, Supervisor, etc etc.  She was in a position to get whatever needed getting done, done, for the right people.  It was just recently discovered that she failed to send W-2s for township employees to Social Security in 2011 and 2012, resulting in fines to the township of $2807.70.  Solt and Gannon-Pettit successfully pushed through the purchase of the Eldred Township School, which came with roughly $50,000 per year operating costs, to use as a community center.  Only over a year later would the community be told that Nestle would give it about $30,000 per year - which one can easily surmise Solt and Gannon-Pettit had secretly planned to use to help defray costs.  Solt and Gannon-Pettit, as supervisors, were instrumental in passing the illegal amendment that allowed Nestle to pursue an application for the boyfriend's property.

Gannon-Pettit and Solt attempted unsuccessfully to replace long time treasurer and hater of this blog author Helen Mackes, who retired as of Dec 31 2015, with Gannon in the last 2 month's of the outgoing administration.  This attempt was blocked by people who knew enough about Gannon's actions to create a public spectacle and that cronyism was halted in its tracks.

The crowning achievement of the conspiracy to bring Nestle to town was that someone, and it could have only been one of a few people, called the Pocono Record advertising department and requested that the authorized text of a legal notice of the amendment in question be altered in a manner that concealed its effect to the public.

On just June 8 last year, Nestle withdrew its application as its deficiencies were becoming crystal clear during zoning hearing board review.  It is hard to believe that Gannon and Helm thought the community had forgotten the expensive and painful mess that their malfeasance and incompetence had caused.  It has not.

Here are the results:

Supervisor (vote for 1)
Gary Hoffman (D)  86 votes
Ellerslie "Bub" Dimwit Helm (D)  54 votes

Tax Collector (vote for 1)
Lenna Kuehner (D) 58 votes
Mindy Harris (D) 45 votes
Darcy "Lets Do Lunch" Gannon (D) 40 votes

It is frightening to see that Helm and Gannon received as many votes as they did.  Those who voted for them are the kind that would change the ordinance to allow forest near residential areas to be plowed down to put in race tracks and gun ranges, and abandon an easement to the township from the Rod & Gun Club for a Rail Trail.  In other words take Eldred Township back 10 steps.

The voters have spoken.  They have not forgotten what you did.

Review of Synagro Crap Bakery before Plainfield Township Planning Commission (Slate Belt Heat Recovery Center) moved to June 12, 2017

Synagro's Crapshit Plans A and B

The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 19, 2017 to review Synagro's two grossly deficient site plans (Crapshit Plan A and Crapshit Plan B) for a 400 ton per day crap bakery has been moved forward to June 12, 2017.  It will be held from 7:00pm to 10:30pm at the Wind Gap Middle School.

Crapshit Plan A

Synagro's first site plan, submitted in October and updated in December, proposes to locate a solid waste biosolids plant in Plainfield's Commercial/Industrial zoning district, on a property that already has a principal use - Waste Management's business and logistics operations for its landfill.  As one might expect, Synagro's proposed use is permitted in Plainfield's Solid Waste zoning district (duh), not in the Commercial/Industrial zoning district.  Why Synagro's engineer was foolish enough to propose a solid waste use not in the Solid Waste district is one of those mysteries of life.  He's supposed to be a professional.  A clue is this dumb ass works for EarthRes, which prostitutes itself for some really controversial companies, such as Synagro and Nestle Waters - so incompetence or willful deceit are not out of the question.

Synagro has submitted a variance application to add a principal use, but it has NOT filed a variance application for a non-permitted use - the most difficult variance of all to be obtained.  Locating a solid waste use outside the solid waste district is similar to setting up an offtrack betting parlor in a residential zone - ain't gonna happen.

There are at least two more variances Synagro would need for this Site Plan to be approved - for less than the required acreage and having only one access drive instead of the two required.  To see how and when Synagro's Crapshit Plan A went down the crapper, click here.

Crapshit Plan B

Synagro's second site plan, submitted in March, takes Crapshit Plan A to a whole nother level.  While the proposed use is on subdivided portion of the Waste Management landfill parcel in the Solid Waste zoning district (a permitted use), it would:

• Locate a parking lot and access drive over a pond (zoning ordinance requires a 50' setback)
• Require development on over 1 acre of steep slopes (not permitted).
• Provide bidirectional access paths (not permitted) and only one to a road.  The other would be via a neighboring lot through the backyard (not permitted).
• Require using a neighboring parcel for loading and unloading operations (not permitted).
• Relocate an accessory use of a business in the Solid Waste District to a lot in the Commercial/Industrial district (accessory uses are accessory to a principal use on the same lot)
• Only provide 1.7 acres of usable space, while the Ordinance requires 5 acres

Synagro has filed 0 variance requests for Crapshit Plan B, even though it appears to need about 13 variances.  To see a breakdown of the variances required click here.

The zoning officer and alternate zoning officer issued a scathing 16-page review of this site plan on April 11, and as of today over a month later no response has been received from Synagro.  Nada.

Purpose of reviews on June 12

In light of the gross lack of compliance of Synagro's proposals with the Ordinance, and virtually total lack of hardship to obtain needed variances, a very fair question is "what is the purpose of Synagro appearance on June 12?"  Damned good question! (to see an analysis of how the variance hardships are not met for either proposal, click here)

A variance requires Planning Commission review prior to being heard by the Zoning Hearing Board.  Thus, applicants typically have their variances reviewed while before the Planning Commission with their site plan.  Why would they want to come back, and spend more money on lawyers and engineers?  As of this date, Synagro has filed no additional variance requests, and it will need to.  Edit: The deadline for filing new paperwork is 3 weeks prior to the meeting - Monday May 22 in this case.  Given the absurdly non-compliant nature of both site plans, it is expected something additional will be filed by Monday. Perhaps a withdrawal of the plans, but don't count on it.  Waste Management wants this very badly, for reasons unknown.  More than just rent.

Looking at Synagro's two site plans, each is what is in the state of what would be considered to be a "sketch plan".  A plan that presents a concept, and asks for a review but not approval.  There is simply no way either one of these plans can obtain approval on June 12, or any other night for that matter. The purpose of Synagro's appearance on June 12 is is a mystery to this author.  Maybe they want to talk crapshit, or sling some crapshit around and see if any cling-ons stick to the walls.  It will be interesting.

Synagro and Waste Management plot for a windfall, yet they have

no site to hatch the dirty egg and the fantasy is about to evaporate before their eyes

Township notice of June 12 Planning Commission meeting

Waste Management quietly files application for expanded operations to add liquid waste processing/disposal to Plainfield Township/Pen Argyl Grand Central landfill

On March 29, 2016 Waste Management quietly submitted an application to expand its Plainfield Township landfill's operations to include the disposal of virtually any liquid waste.  Currently WM can only dispose of solid waste and sludge.  This plan (described in the document below) involves mixing the liquid waste with a solidification agent in a huge vat on the landfill site prior to disposal. 

A DEP spokesperson said that there have been a few meetings to discuss this application, and the DEP has not taken official action but has serious reservations of Synagro's plan to conduct these operations at this site.

Bend over and grab yer ankles, Slate Belt residents.  Waste Management is on a never ending quest to truck in the most profitable and objectionable waste that it can, and dispose of it in your backyard.

Waste Management Files Application to Expand Plainfield Township/Pen Argyl Permit with Solidification of L...

Plan B for biosolids plant in Plainfield Township hits skid mark row, as Synagro requests yet again for its plans to be tabled

Synagro has submitted site plans for two different sites proposed to be leased from Waste Management, to locate a 400 ton per day crap (biosolids) plant.  These sites are near the Green Knight Energy Center's methane to electricity plant, which is on a parcel also leased from Waste Management.  It was just announced that Synagro will again delay review of its plans.

According to press releases, the Synagro plant represents a "17 year effort by Green Knight Economic Development Corporation to make use of waste heat at the Green Knight Energy Center."  In fact, the plan lasted less than a few years, because it was never intended to locate a consumer of the waste heat on Waste Management property - the plan was to miraculously find a consumer who would locate on one or more parcels on the land now owned by Techo Bloc.  When Techo Bloc announced it had no use for the Energy Center's waste heat, and that it wanted all three parcels, the plan died.  Now we are asked to believe Green Knight has been working diligently since 2000 to find the right customer for the waste heat, and that shoehorning a biosolids plant into 1) where it isn't permitted or 2) where it is permitted but only 30% of the required space is available is the culmination of that hard work, which is a load of hooey.

For Synagro's part, they misrepresented at the November 2016 Planning Commission meeting that their proposed plant "meets all zoning requirements", yet oops, it isn't even a permitted use where they proposed it.  They are supposed to have professional engineers that check minor details like that.

In March, Synagro announced in a press release that they submitted a "building permit" which isn't even possible, for a new site where their use is permitted (congratulations for getting that part right), and that after a "three month ... comprehensive redesign" they have arrived at a new application in "that fully complies with the zoning officer's determination" the first plan was a non-starter.  That may be true, but the press release omits the fact that the new design deviates significantly from several other requirements of the Ordinance.  This is brought to Synagro's attention in the township's 16-page response to the new application.  It requires approximately 13 variances, most of them use variances - not minor dimensional shortcomings.  And Synagro does not have the hardships to merit the variances.

Synagro's misleading press release for Plainfield Township biosolids plant claiming building permit sought on Scribd

On April 19, Synagro announced it will table both Plan A (October/December site plan for first site) and Plan B (March site plan for alternate site).  What will they do next?  Fill in the quarry hole on the alternate site?  That will solve some issues, but they still have a major problem - access.  The Ordinance requires access to this plant be via an Arterial or Collector road.  Neither plan satisfies this requirement, and furthermore the new and improved plan requires use of Plainfield Township property as an access drive to access the site.  Synagro's site plan doesn't even show that Plainfield Township owns this land.- a deficiency (label added by blogger showing owner and tax parcel).  Another crappy plan from a company that specializes in crap.

A road runs through it -Synagro rep Jim Hecht stated April 5 that he is unaware that the yellow shaded area is to be returned to Plainfield Township's use when the landfill closes, and Synagro plans to continue operating after that.  Note Synagro's trucks must use township property.  Bummer, dudely.

No one except Waste Management, Green Knight and Synagro wants this plant in Plainfield Township.  There is no site that satisfies the Ordinance.  Pack it in and descend on another community where you are wanted - if you can find one.

Synagro announces it will not appear at May 2017 Planning Commission meeting for review of its two Site Plans

Analysis: Synagro can not meet variance criteria for Plainfield Township Slate Belt biosolids plant sites

The whimsically named "Slate Belt Heat Recovery Center," which would be more aptly named "Synagro Biosolids Plant" has been proposed for two sites in Plainfield Township.  Both are owned by Waste Management, are located on parcels divided by a former rail trail that is owned by Plainfield Township and currently being used as a Waste Management and Green Knight Energy Center service road, and it is proposed that the land for either site would be leased to Synagro.  One site is in the Commercial Industrial Zoning District, on a parcel on which Waste Management has its offices and truck terminal, and the other is in the Solid Waste Zoning District spanning parcels on which the landfill and Green Knight Energy Center are located.  Lot lines are proposed to be removed and redrawn as shown:

Lot lines for each proposed Synagro site

Obviously, both of Waste Management's parcels (In Commercial Industrial and Solid Waste) are being put to very productive and lucrative use.  The landfill operation generates 10's of millions of dollars a year between the two parcels.  On its own small parcel, the Green Knight Energy Center clears about $800,000 a year on $1.8m of revenue..

We will examine the statewide criteria to be granted a variance, as specified in the Municipalities Planning Code.  It is important to understand that in Pennsylvania, a variance is intended to prevent an undue hardship on the property owner that makes it impossible for him to make use of his land.  A variance is not to be granted simply so he can make greater economic use of the land, and a variance is not to be granted if it is not in the public interest O'Neill vs. Zoning Board of Adjustment.  Additionally to achieve a variance "the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, the public health, safety, and general welfare secured and substantial justice done" Richman vs. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment.  In short, a variance is to be granted in extraordinary circumstances.  Under the MPC, the Zoning Hearing Board "may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue."

Remember, all of these criteria must be met.  We'll look at each proposal, and the problematic criteria.

Proposal for site in commercial industrial zoning district (October site plan)

The Site Plan for this site was previously found to require two Use variances - one for multiple uses on one lot, and one for a non-permitted use.  It actually needs more relief - the area allotted is less than four acres, and five are needed (Dimensional Variance), and there is only one access and two are needed (Use Variance).

1. There are no unique size, shape or topographic characteristics of this site.
2. Reasonable use is already being made of this lot - it houses the administrative and truck terminal operations of the landfill
3. Any "hardship" argued is self-inflicted.  The sections of the Ordinance relief is needed to were in place when Waste Management bought the property from Grand Central.
4. A variance would change the character of the neighborhood and impair adjacent uses and be detrimental to the public welfare.  The planned land use in the Comprehensive Plan for this site does not include solid waste processing; in fact this site is on land intended to be a buffer between solid waste uses and commercial and industrial uses along Route 512.  The Zoning Ordinance implements this land use goal in the uses permitted in the Commercial Industrial district.  A solid waste use past the lifetime of the landfill, currently estimated to be 2035 - would also have an impact on the public use of the adjacent township property (Recreational Trail) after the landfill closes.

Note that Synagro has been (the evidence suggests desperately) trying to find an alternate site for months, so they must believe they can not meet the criteria..

Proposal for site in solid waste zoning district (March site plan)

This site plan needs an Easter basket full of variances - thirteen by this blogger's count.  Nine Use Variances and four Dimensional Variances.

1. There are unique characteristics on this portion of the lots proposed to be resubdivided.  However, this is less than 1% of the area of the Waste Management parcel that would be subdivided to create the site.
2. Reasonable use is already being made of this lot - it houses the landfill.
3. Any "hardship" argued is self-inflicted.  The sections of the Ordinance relief is needed to were in place when Waste Management bought the property from Grand Central, and before the last landfill expansion.
4. A variance would change the character of the neighborhood and impair adjacent uses and be detrimental to the public welfare - by extending a solid waste use past the lifetime of the landfill, currently estimated to be 2035.  One element of this is the inability of the public to use the adjacent township property (Recreational Trail) after the landfill closes, as agreed to.

No relief is justified for either site

Let's return to the Supreme Court's opinions, cited above.  

• The proposed plant is not in the public interest, on either site
• Relief is only needed to make greater economic use of either plot of land, not to prevent the owner from enduring the hardship of owning an unusable parcel.
• Both of these sites require variances that would result in a use that is not compatible with the spirit of the Ordinance.

Statutorily, as shown above of the five criteria that need to be satisfied, three are not satisfied on either site, and the fourth is arguable as satisfied on only one site.  Since all criteria must be met, neither proposal may be granted the requested relief.

Plainfield Township rejects Synagro permit request - issues scathing 16-page response letter to new biosolids plant application

The Easter Bunny lays an egg on Synagro's latest site plan

Synagro first filed a Site Plan in October 2016 to locate a biosolids processing facility where it is not permitted in Plainfield Township.  Synagro filed an updated version of this plan in December, and was informed shortly afterwards that this Site Plan requires two Use Variances.  The plan has been tabled since that time and is scheduled to be continue to be reviewed at the May 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.

Proposed Synagro sites depicted at upper and lower left of center (click to enlarge)

On March 31, 2017 Synagro filed another Site Plan, for a different site several hundred feet away.  A review of this Site Plan was done on this blog, is found here, and identified eleven variances this blogger feels will be needed by Synagro.  On a good day, a Zoning Officer will rule variances are needed, and the Zoning Hearing Board will actually evaluate the criteria needed to be granted said variances.  This Site Plan is also on the agenda to be discussed at the May Planning Commission meeting.  Here is a diagram in which topographic lines from sheet 3 of the Site Plan are superimposed on sheet 2.  It is obvious that the property is almost entirely steep slopes, and that the proposed traffic pattern across what Synagro claims is the rear yard (but is actually the side yard) to a neighboring property is nonsensical and does not comply with the Ordinance:

Synagro's new proposed site is covered with steep slopes... and a 90' deep quarry

Where do the cars and trucks go? (click to enlarge)

A review/response letter was issued by Plainfield Township on Tuesday April 11, 2017.  The letter addresses several points:

• A Zoning Permit is denied
• Several potential deficiencies are itemized, which are similar to those noted in the review done on this blog - steep slopes, setbacks, yards, loading/unloading, parking, access drives
• Synagro is put on notice that proof of compliance with the standards of the Ordinance, including professional testing and results, may be required in order for a permit to be issued

Notable additional variances would be needed

On this blog, it was proposed on April 11 that based on the March 31 Site Plan variances will be needed to Sections 503.J.1.c, 503.J.1.d, 318.I, 201.B, 703.A.7, 703.D, 704.B.2, 704.B.3, 704.B.6, 315.B.35.a, 315.B.35.b of the Zoning Ordinance in addition to a SALDO waiver of 10.7.D.

The review letter identifies an additional issue which may result in a variance - the proposed use modifies the bank of a water body that is identified on Synagro's own site plan as an "existing pond", and creates a parking lot within 10' of the new bank.  Section 505 of the Ordinance states that all areas within 50' of a pond shall be "open space" - which the Ordinance states shall not include parking areas.  Thus a dimensional variance of Sec 505 would be needed, and also trigger a variance to Sec 315.B.35.g which requires that this Use meet all requirements of Article 5 of the Ordinance (which contains Sec 505).  This brings this blog's grand total of variances needed to 9 Use variances and 4 dimensional variances - lucky 13.

The review letter does not specifically state that variances are required, but takes a more laid back approach of "this is not permitted by the Ordinance - show us how you will address it."  The letter is what one might expect in response to a Sketch Plan being submitted for an informal review, which is what the March 31 plan appears to be.  If Synagro continues to press forward with this rubbish as a Site Plan, they will be notified of variances required.

Here is the Zoning Officer's review letter, co-authored by Zoning Officer John Lezoche and Alternate Zoning Officer/Township Manager Tom Petrucci.  It is addressed to Synagro's local legal representative, Matthew Goodrich.  Mr. Goodrich appeared to blow a head gasket following the December 2016 Plainfield BOS meeting in which is was discussed that Synagro's use is not permitted on the original site (despite Mr. Goodrich's representation at the Nov 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting that Synagro's use satisfies the Ordinance in every way - it does not).  He is unlikely to feel much better after reading the review of the new plan:

Synagro Alternate Site Zoning Review Letter- 4.11.2017 Plainfield Township biosolids plant on Scribd

Synagro's latest proposed biosolids crap bakery in Plainfield Township requires 11 variances - review of March 31, 2017 Site Plan

In yesterday’s post, we reviewed the kinds of uses (Permitted by Right, Special Exception, Conditional) and variances (Use, Dimensional, De Minimus), as well as the standardized criteria to obtain a variance and the difference in how the criteria may be evaluated depending on the type of variance.

Today we will look at the variances that may be required because Synagro’s Site Plan is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.  There are several, and every one is needed because of the postage stamp of land that Synagro is attempting to locate its plant on is comprised of 80% steep slopes and a former quarry.  Everything that could go wrong does. As a preview, employee parking is so close to "unloading" (bwa ha ha) that the employees may get a poop spritz facial whilst going to or coming from their cars as trucks are washed - assuming they are.

Before we get technical on the merits, why on Earth is Synagro still here?

Let’s get two unrelated but significant details out of the way.  First, not one person this blogger has met or heard from, other than someone with a connection to Waste Management, Green Knight or Synagro, is in favor of Synagro’s proposed plant.  The governments of Plainfield Township and Pen Argyl have voted to oppose the project, while Wind Gap’s government has remained silent.  Second, Waste Management’s predecessor Grand Central signed a legally binding agreement with Plainfield Township, on file with Northampton County, in which Grand Central (now Waste Management) is to return land of the township’s that is currently being used by the landfill and energy center (and which Synagro would use) to the township when the landfill closes.  Synagro has announced it plans to remain long after the projected date of the landfill closing,  approximately 2035.   Waste Management apparently has neither alerted Synagro to this agreement, nor alerted Plainfield Township to its plans to possibly violate the agreement.  Yo! Yo!  Mr. Hambrose - WTF, do you have our back or are you looking use it?  OK, now that we see that in a normal situation, the Applicant would have folded his tent and left months ago,  let’s see what a cluster Synagro’s latest application is.

Where to find the Ordinance and SALDO that are used to determine compliance

First, you need to know where to go to find a few things:

• The Zoning Ordinance is here.  
• A comprehensive amendment to the Steep Slope section of the Ordinance is here.  
• The SALDO is here.  
• The Site Plans are at the bottom of this post - sheets 2 and 3 are the most helpful.

Note. A reference such as "Sec 318.x" refers to an article in the Zoning Ordinance.  All references to Sec 503 require using the Steep Slope amendment linked to above in lieu of the no longer applicable text in Sec 503 at the link to the entire Ordinance.

Warning: The Ordinance (3+ Mb) and SALDO (7+ Mb) are large files.  They are also text only and tedious to search through.  No pain, no gain.

 Synagro’s March 31 Site Plan requires 11 variances and a SALDO waiver

This blogger believes that Synagro’s March 31 Site Plan for the site on which it is a Permitted Use by Right will require nine Use Variances, two Dimensional Variances, and a SALDO waiver (granted by Supervisory body).

Steep Slopes (2 Use Variances)

Sec 503.J.1.c & 503.J.1.d   Pockets/areas of land 1000 sq ft or more with a slope 25% or greater were identified in order to locate Class A slopes.  The following was found:

• 13180 sq ft of contiguous Class A slope under the proposed  plant, driveway and parking area (5260 + 7920 on diagram)
• 1040 sq ft of contiguous Class A slope under the WWTP accessory building, as well as an additional 170 sq ft with slope greater than or equal to 25%.
• 51300 sq ft of Class A slope in the “sediment basin” to have fill added @ plant
• 4480 sq ft of Class A slope in the “sediment basin” to have fill added @ WWTP

It is proposed to develop driving and parking areas as well as the plant and accessory building on Class A slopes, as well as to grade and add fill to Class A slopes  – these are all prohibited activities.  A total of approximately 70000 sq ft of Class A slopes are proposed to be developed in a manner prohibited by the Ordinance.

Front yard as proposed for Synagro lot (1 Dimensional Variance or SALDO Waiver)

Sec 318.I & SALDO 10.7.D It is proposed to eliminate the existing lot that the Energy Center is on and to re-subdivide.  The proposed yards (front, side, rear) for the 7.01 acre lot are not in accordance with the SALDO – at a random point the front yard inexplicably changes to the side yard.  Laying out a new lot not yet developed would call for starting from scratch, and that the front yard would extend all along the paved road – through the curve.  Side lines would be perpendicular to the road, and in this case meet such that there is no rear yard – as provided for in the SALDO.  A proper layout would result in the proposed plant being in the front yard by over 20’.

Note 1: To understand how yards are defined and determined, you will need to research the definitions of Lot, Lot Line, and Yard in SALDO section 2, as well as SALDO 10.7.D

Note 2: The keen observer will note that the Energy Center has only a 25’ setback from the road.  It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss how or why this happened or who (initials R.C. Jr) was involved in 2000.  It is submitted that during re-subdivision the Energy Center should become a nonconforming use with a 25’ front yard setback.

Accessory Use of GKEC (1 Use Variance)

Sec 201.B An accessory use to the Green Knight Energy Center (Switch gear - interface of GKEC to power grid) is proposed to be located not only not on the proposed GKEC lot, but in another zoning district altogether and with another property owner’s land (Plainfield Township) in between the two.  An accessory use must be on the same lot as the principal use.

Off-Street Parking (2 Use Variances)

Sec 703.D The access drives for Synagro's lot are not at least 10' from the rear lot line, and there is no way to screen the drive since it passes over the lot line

Sec 703.A.7 The GKEDC and Synagro parking areas depicted on Site Plan Sheet C-02 are interfered with by the truck traffic of another use - Synagro's loading/unloading truck traffic.

Off-street Loading (3 Use Variances)

Sec 704.B.2 The parking space maneuvering room is in conflict with off-street loading on both Synagro and GKEDC's lots

Sec 704.B.3 The maneuvering area for unloading is not entirely on the lot being served, so the "yard area" boundaries are exceeded

Sec 704.B.6 The traffic pattern constitutes a hazard to vehicles accessing or departing parking areas, and trucks entering and departing are in conflict with each other.

Additional Standards for a Material Separation Facility (1 Dimensional and 1 Use Variance)

315.B.35.a The proposed 7.01 acre site has only 1.65 acres of usable area, due to a former quarry being located in the center of it.  The proposed area is clearly not in accordance with the intent of the Ordinance to provide an additional 2 acres for each additional 100 tons capacity over 300 tons per day.

315.B.35.b The entrances and exits are not separated as depicted on the site plan. The two proposed accesses are bidirectional – not in accordance with the requirement.  One of the access drives is not located along the road, but rather across the proposed lot adjacent and sharing that lot’s access drive.

edit 4/16 - Plainfield Township's review letter published after this post details an additional apparent deficiency - parking areas, driveways, buildings must be set back at least 50' from a pond.  This would create a need for variances from Sec 505 and Sec 315.B.35.g, bringing the total to thirteen.

Site Plan Sheet 2

Setback, traffic patterns and parking shown on this diagram

Site Plan Sheet 3

Lime green outline and emphasized elevation lines indicate proposed 7.01 acre lot boundary

Site Plan Sheet 1

This sheet depicts wetlands - the only level area left in Solid Waste is wetlands - at lower left

What are the chances Synagro can prove it has a hardship?

Let’s cut to the chase and look at one criteria to grant a variance.  Waste Management’s property on which the landfill is situated generates untold millions in profits a year.  The land on which the Energy Center is located generates a net of over a million dollars each year, and the Energy Center is a non-profit.  It simply is disingenuous to argue that the land owner (WM) or equitable owner (GKEC) as the case may be is not making productive use of his property – one of the hardships that must be proven.  There is no justification to grant this colossally ill-conceived project zoning relief.  This applies also to Synagro's first site plan, for a site where its use is not permitted.  That lot is also owned by WM and has operations on it that are generating phenomenal income.  You don't deserve no relief, you big dummy!

What if Syangro argues that all the land in the Solid Waste district is used?

Tough poop.  The zoning has not changed since 1989 for this use - it was permitted then.  So Grand Central planned poorly when they used every last square foot of space, and WM bought that and did its own expansion.  Greed is a horrible thing.  If a measly 5 acres had been set aside for this use, Synagro would be all set to fling the poop at the fan.  Pardon me whilst I locate a Kleenex - I'm all choked up.  That's called a self-created need for a variance.

What is next?

The township Zoning Officer will issue a response to Synagro by the end of this week, and the township engineer will weigh in with a review prior to the review in May.  In the case of Steep Slopes, it is likely Synagro will be asked to denote on the Site Plan where they are, as provided for in the ordinance.   They may be asked for other additional details of as well.