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.

How the Zoning Ordinance dictates the course Synagro's Site Plans for a biosolids plant in Plainfield Township will take moving forwards - uses and variances

Artist's conception of Synagro's two proposed sites (Click to enlarge)

1. The Zoning Hearing Board, Uses and Variances

If you have ever attended your town's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB") for a variance hearing, you may have walked away thinking "Pffft, that's a kangaroo court!  They just vote the way they want to and don't consider the evidence."  Maybe you are lucky and your ZHB isn't run that way.  The fact of the matter is, it is your local court - the ZHB is a "quasi-judicial" body and its decisions are appealed to the court of common pleas.  Testimony is under oath, there is an official transcript, and exhibits are put into evidence.  If you remember nothing else, remember that the record of the ZHB's hearing is the most critical element of the ultimate outcome of your case either for or against a matter heard by the ZHB.  The reason is, the vast majority of appeals of the ZHB's decisions do not allow any new testimony or evidence to be entered.  They are appealed on the basis of an abuse of discretion or an error of law.  Thus, during the ZHB hearing, any objectors need to appear and speak to put their objections into the record.  Any supporting documentation should be entered as an exhibit - you must request the board to do this and not assume that something you left on the table will become an exhibit.  And, objectors are able to cross examine witnesses.

While you may believe your town's ZHB is a kangaroo court, if evidence and/or testimony is put into the record and the ZHB does not make a defensible determination based on the record, that decision can be overturned on appeal.  This is where the strength of opposition testimony, evidence, and cross examination come into play.  Sadly many towns allow their ZHB's to be dysfunctional, and force residents to fend for themselves;  in these situations, the only way to get a fair hearing is to hire an attorney so the ZHB knows you are serious.  Plainfield Township has in recent history been one of these towns.  In fact, if not for the ZHB's granting of an unjustified and indefensible "use variance" (explained below) in 2014 that was related to a natural gas pipeline being extended to Waste Management's property, Synagro would likely not even be pursuing the Waste Management sites.  Natural gas is not only an alternate fuel now, it will be the only fuel source for Synagro once the landfill closes and ceases to generate methane.  The availability of natural gas means Synagro could be here 40, 50 years or more. Corrupt behavior has consequences.  "Corrupt: change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations."  When Waste Management requested this variance in 2014 ostensibly so it could receive $2m in state grants to convert its trucks to natural gas, don't you think they had this little sludge factory in the hopper?  Come on now...  Cha-ching!!!  Look at the green multiplying while the surrounding area gets the brown.  Note: Some in the community have incorrectly stated "because WM was granted that 2014 variance it means now they can add uses and do whatever they want on that property."  If someone tells you this, inform them they are full of shit - variances are on a case by case basis and not precidential and you read it on the poop blog.  Unfortunately the Zoning Officer incorrectly took this position initially.

"Standing" determines the weight the ZHB may give your objections, and is often determined by how far you live from the location of the property that is requesting zoning relief (the variance).  In a case like Synagro, where odors, suspended particulates, and waste water disposed of in creeks may affect citizens far from the site, standing may be more easily granted.  At the end of the day, the ZHB should allow all objectors to speak, and their testimony given weight determined by their location.

The Zoning Hearing Board, the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plan - these are all provided for and procedures governed by the PA Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC").  Along with these procedures are specific time frames in which advertising, decisions, actions and responses must take place. Plainfield Township, Wind Gap and Pen Argyl have a joint Comprehensive Plan, which is an advisory document that lays out the vision for land use and economic development in the community(ies).  The Zoning Ordinance should ideally implement this vision, and is statutory - it's articles and standards shall be enforced by the supervisory body through the Zoning Officer.  Variances or relief from the standards is administered by the ZHB, which also hears appeals of the Zoning Officer's decisions.

1.a Uses (Principal Use)

The land use envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the creation of zoning districts.  In "Euclidean" zoning, uses are listed for each district that are compatible with each other and ideally do not adversely impact uses in adjacent districts.  This is an important consequence of your community adopting zoning - you give up the right to host certain uses on your land, in exchange for a "greater good" of compatibility of uses in a well designed community.  In PA, there are 1) Uses Permitted by Right, 2) Special Exception Uses, and 3) Conditional Uses.  A use Permitted by Right is a use that the ordinance explicitly permits.  As long as the proposed project conforms to all the ordinance performance standards, setbacks, etc the landowner is entitled to develop that use.

A Special Exception Use is often a use that the Zoning Officer determines is similar in character to the permitted by right uses in that district, but there may also be a list of Special Exception Uses for the zoning district.  The utility of a Special Exception is that it permits one or more conditions to be placed on the Applicant to protect the health safety and welfare of neighboring residents.  The Planning Commission makes recommendations, and the Zoning Hearing Board via a hearing hears testimony, considers the Planning Commission's recommendations, and determines whether any conditions will be placed on the proposed project (eg operating hours, special screening, security measures, etc).  A Conditional Use is identical in spirit and is reviewed and approved in the same manner as a Special Exception Use, except the supervisory body assumes the role of the Zoning Hearing Board.

1.b Accessory Uses

Each zoning district has a list of accessory uses.  An accessory use is either explicitly permitted, or one that is customary in support of a Principal Use.  For example, a garage would be an accessory use in a rural zoning district.  For a gas-to-electricity conversion plant (eg Green Knight Energy Center), the switch gear that delivers the electricity to the grid is an accessory use.

2. Variances

A variance is an approved deviation from the hard and fast standards of the Ordinance.  The MPC specifies criteria that every variance in every municipality in the the state must satisfy in order to be granted.  This sounds objective, but sadly the knowledge is often lacking at the local level to properly evaluate the criteria and therefore carry out the dictates of the MPC.  This is why making the record is so critical - in case it is necessary to get a higher authority to overturn a poorly rendered decision.

2.a Variance criteria

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."

2.b The difference between Use Variances and Dimensional Variances

There are two kinds of variances, a Use Variance and a Dimensional Variance.  A Use Variance is needed if the proposed use is prohibited or not provided for, for example a garage in the front yard or a use in a zoning district where it is neither a permitted use or similar to one.  Every use must be provided for somewhere in every municipality with some exceptions, or the ordinance could be found to be "exclusionary".  If the use proposed is permitted elsewhere but not in the district you target, you need a Use Variance.

A Dimensional Variance is what it sounds like - a request for a building higher than permitted, a building or improvement that is a few feet in violation of a yard setback.

2.c De Minimus Variances

If the relief requested by a Dimensional Variance is minor, the Courts have allowed for the strict Ordinance requirements of height, setback, area etc to be deemed met, as long as there is not shown a detriment to the public, health safety and welfare.  For example, a 25' setback is required, but the proposed use is only setback 24.5'.  Building height will be 36' and the Ordinance limit is 35'.  There is no prescribed percentage in the MPC or law of what constitutes de minimus.  Research of case law shows it typically to be less than 5%, but a 10% deviation was found to be de minimus in the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County case Renzi v. ZHB Concord Township.

3. The difference in how PA case law treats Use and Dimensional Variances

Use variances are rarely granted - less than 10% is a reasonable measure - for the simple reason they arise when a proposed use violates the intent of the Ordinance.  Dimensional Variances are more commonly granted - perhaps 60 to 70% of the time by a ZHB that is functional.  Note that the criteria above are used for both.  However, there has been some judiciary tweaking and differentiation of the standard of "unnecessary hardship" through the years, between one and the other.

In the 1998 seminal opinion of Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh , the PA Supreme Court found that when determining hardships in the case of Dimensional Variances, the following may be considered:

• Economic detriment if the variance is denied
• The financial hardship required to bring the building into strict compliance with the Ordinance

You should ask, does Hertzberg mean Dimensional Variances can be handed out like cotton candy merely by showing not being granted a variance will create a financial burden?  No - Hertzberg involved re-purposing an old vacant building for a new use as evidenced by this quote in the Court's opinion:

"To hold otherwise would prohibit the rehabilitation of neighborhoods by precluding an applicant who wishes to renovate a building in a blighted area from obtaining the necessary variances."

In other words, to obtain a Dimensional Variance it is not sufficient for the Applicant merely to demonstrate that he will incur a financial hardship if he can't do what he plans to with the property.

4. How Synagro has been affected thus far by Uses and Variances

In its first Site Plan for its plant in the Commercial Industrial zoning district, submitted October 31, 2016, Synagro stated it was an "Agricultural Use" - a Permitted by Right use.  The Zoning Officer responded with a letter indicating he felt this is not an agricultural use (it clearly is not), but is similar to Permitted by Right uses of recycling (which is also not true - recycling in the Ordinance is paper, glass, metal, etc).  Since he ruled (which stands unless an appeal is filed with the ZHB) that it is not identical to a permitted use, but similar, he found that it is a Special Exception Use.  Following Synagro's appearance before the Planning Commission, the Zoning Officer changed course and determined that Synagro's use is Permitted by Right in the Solid Waste district, and therefore can not permitted to be in the Commercial Industrial zone as "similar" to any listed use.  Note: In Euclidean zoning the "best fit" must be chosen across all zoning districts when determining which use in the Ordinance matches the proposed use.  Synagro's use was planned for and permitted to be in the Solid Waste zone as far back as the 1989 Ordinance.  Thus, the Site Plan for the CI district is technically no longer a Special Exception, but rather a Permitted by Right use but in a different zoning district.

Synagro submitted a Site Plan on March 31, 2017 for a site in the Solid Waste district, so this is a Permitted by Right use and will not be heard at all by the Zoning Hearing Board unless Synagro needs one or more variances - which this blogger believes is the case.  The significance of this is twofold - most importantly, if a required variance is denied it would stop the project.  Secondly, the court appeals process described in 1. above will be available to objectors if one or more variances were to be approved.  The ZHB issues an opinion within 45 days of a decision, and there is a 30 day period to appeal the written decision.

Synagro's tabled Site Plan is for a use that has been determined to be not permitted on the target site, so a use variance is needed.  Also, it would be a second Principal Use on the site WM uses for its Administrative and trucking operations - a second use variance.  Additionally, only 3.7 acres is provided for in the Site Plan, and 5 acres is required, so a third (dimensional) variance is needed.

Synagro's new Site Plan submitted March 31, 2017 has yet to generate an initial response from the Zoning Officer, which may contain findings that Synagro requires one or more variances..  There is a 15-day time limit, which would place the deadline for his response approximately Friday April 14.

Click here for an analysis of the variances this blogger believes Synagro's March 31 Site Plan will generate, as well a first glimpse of how the variance criteria in 2.a may be argued before the ZHB

(An understanding of everything above is needed to understand the course forward for both Synagro's use as well as any variances that are required)

Is Synagro's new application to locate a biosolids crap bakery in Plainfield Township a "done deal" because it is a permitted use? Absolutely not.

Synagro emailed a press release to a couple of local reporters on Friday afternoon March 31 at about 3:30pm.  At this very same time, a new site plan was dropped off at Plainfield Township by a Synagro representative.  Perhaps the press release was emailed by this person as he departed the municipal building.  The press release stated that Synagro worked hard to relocate its plant in the Solid Waste zoning district, where it is a permitted use.  Of great interest to this observer is that this press release still has not been posted on Synagro's website - not in the general area for press releases or the page for this project.  They may have worked hard, but they didn't work smart.  You will marvel at how they squashed their plant into a slice of land too small for even a house, and a waste water treatment plant on one of the only small areas not fully containing steep slopes at the southern boundary.  Perhaps not being proud of the result explains why this new plan is not advertised on Synagro's website.  And perhaps there is a more sinister explanation.

"I heard Synagro filed an application for a building permit.  Does this mean they are "in" and will start building soon?  Preposterous.  One Plainfield Township procedure that initiates a Site Plan review is to file a form titled "Building Permit Application," which results in a Zoning Officer response.  Synagro didn't do this for its first application - it chose to try to slam its Site Plan through by filing on the deadline and simply showing up and attempting to get planning commission approval in one night. They did this time however - and it may be that they were hoping for what is called "deemed approval" if the zoning officer fails to respond in 15 days.  The first thing that happens if your use requires a Site Plan approved is the zoning officer responds with a rejection letter indicating he can't issue you a permit..  A building permit isn't even in the picture until the Site Plan is approved.  If Synagro were to ever obtain approval from Plainfield, they then would have to get permits from DEP and Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and a building permit.  Nobody's building as much as a tree fort any time soon.

This is a portion of the form Synagro filed - this will generate a denial of building permit

letter from the Zoning Officer and cause the Site Plan to be put on the schedule for review

Here is an artist's depiction that includes both the initial site as well as the new one.  The first site required two use variances - one for multiple uses and one for a non-permitted use, and a third variance (dimensional) because the area proposed is less than required.  Note that the two sites are adjacent to each other, and are separated by an old railroad bed (yellow area) that is owned by Plainfield Township. The railroad bed divides the Commercial Industrial and Solid Waste zoning districts in Plainfield Township.

Artist's rendering of Synagro's two crappy proposals

Location relative to zoning districts and tax parcels

Below is one sheet of Synagro's new site plan, and it depicts a proposed berm that will keep cars, trucks, storm water runoff and such from falling into the Doney Quarry #2.  You can't tell in this particular diagram, but the parking lot for employees is located on a slope of over 70%. We'll see that later.

Sheet 2 of Synagro's March 31, 2017 Site Plan, with overlay of usable/unusable portions of proposed site

The zoning ordinance requires a five (5) acre lot for Synagro's use.  Note that only about 1.65 acres of 7.01 acres is accessible and/or usable in the proposed plan, and as a result Synagro's trucks will be taking a novel route across a new proposed footprint of the existing energy center property for loading and unloading.  Jesus H. C. (my dad's favorite expression RIP) - you can't even park one of Synagro's trucks on this postage stamp without blocking employees or other trucks from coming/going.  How do you wash a truck after it dumps its "load"?  While unloading, trucks will be sitting within the rear yard setback, as well as maneuvering back and forth on the neighbor's property.

This plan will require multiple variances in this observer's opinion - both use and dimensional variances.  Just because you are a permitted use does not mean you can waltz in the door slinging crap around some big shit shot.  The need for these variances will be detailed in a post tomorrow.  Simpy put, this plan is a pile of crap befitting transport in one of Synagro's sludge trucks - which if you look closely are depicted in the picture at the top.  This is fairly clear from just the diagrams above, without going into further analysis.  Your BS alarm should be sounding before cracking the ordinance open - mine did.  Pardon me sir, would you like a vomit bag while you browse?

Plainfield Township is to be returned use of its property after the landfill closes per a legally recorded agreement - something Synagro representative Jim Hecht recently stated he is unaware of.  Did Waste Management tell Synagro about the agreement?  More importantly, why didn't Waste Management approach Plainfield Township to discuss the agreement prior to allowing Synagro to pursue the new plan - which unlike the first plan requires use of township property that Waste Management (Grand Central) has committed to relinquish?  Mr. Hecht said Synagro plans to run its plant for long after the landfill's anticipated closure in roughly 2035, depending on the rate of disposal.  That may create a wrinkle, since the new plan would require continued use of Plainfield's property... more to follow.

Synagro is going nowhere with either of their site plans.  The new one is a Hail Mary Queen of Craps.  How a professional engineer could send the latest doo-doo out the door is beyond belief.  Perhaps Synagro believes that the groundswell of support from the community (which thus far consists of Wind Gap council remaining oddly silent, and Pen Argyl and Plainfield essentially voting against the proposal) will give planners and zoners cause to approve this "plan".  Luckily Plainfield Township has committed to fighting this project by hiring their Solicitor and as many experts as needed.  Plan C will likely be Plan A - after Plan B is exposed as being dung, Synagro may attempt to pursue the site where they are not a permitted use and where they really want to be.  And that will be fun if that is their plan.  Why Syngaro has not walked away from this project has a lot of people scratching their heads.  And Green Knight hasn't said what it is getting out of this deal that as a non-profit they should be returning to the communities of the Pen Argyl Area School District.  Green Knights' donations have dropped and it isn't clear what if anything they will be distributing to the communities in the future.

Why hasn't Wind Gap council joined Pen Argyl in objecting to Synagro's 400 ton per day biosolids crap bakery proposed for Plainfield Twp?

Synagro proposed it's crap bakery at the November 21, 2016 Plainfield Township Planning Commission meeting.  A few weeks later at its December meeting, the Plainfield Board of Supervisors voted to hire a solicitor and expert(s) to testify at an anticipated zoning hearing associated with Synagro's application.  In essence, Plainfield Township opposes the sludge plant without explicitly saying so - which it can't do.  Taking a pro or con stance would open the township to litigation and corrupt the review process.  The supervisors and town manager must appear to the public to be unbiased.

On the other hand, neighboring municipalities Wind Gap and Pen Argyl, each of which border the proposed sites (there are currently two, within a few hundred feet of each other) can take a stance.  Pen Argyl has done so - Mayor Mikal Sabatine and borough council wrote a letter dated March 1 addressed to the Plainfield Township Planning Commission in March, objecting to the project.

"[Our] primary concerns are, but not limited to, traffic from vehicles passing through the borough, odors, pollution, the impact to public health and quality of life"

The borough stated that it opposes the plant due to its effect on the borough and residents, as the proposed site is very close to the borough's boundary and residents' homes.

Pen Argyl Letter to Plainfield Township Planning Commission opposing granting Synagro biosolids a variance by Dick on Scribd

OK, Plainfield Township and Pen Argyl oppose Synagro's plan.  WTF is Wind Gap?

This blogger's question is where the hell is Wind Gap's letter?  Are they reluctant to express an opinion because Green Knight is currently pursuing a boondoggle to redevelop the Howard Beers property spanning Wind Gap, Plainfield and Bushkill Twp???   This project has more problems than Iraq.  Just recently, Wind Gap became aware of all the corners Green Knight is attempting to cut on this project, as its engineer wrote a lengthy letter addressing deficiencies.  Plainfield's consultants have as well.  Objectors to Green Knight's inexplicable continued support of Synagro would be well advised and served to attend the April 17 Plainfield Township Planning Commission meeting, where this abortion will receive the next in a series of reviews because of Green Knight's nonstop rejection of satisfying standards and unending requests for waivers.  You will see Green Knight member Peter Albanese in action and get a better flavor of the half-assed manner in which Green Knight operates.

Back to Wind Gap.  Your residents need to pressure your council into standing up for you, your quality of life, and your health and well being, and explicitly object to this project - if they have not already done so.  Pen Argyl and Plainfield Township have put their markers down, both on red - get the hell out of town Synagro.  Wind Gap can not stand idly be and remain silent.  And while you are addressing them, ask them if Green Knight has demonstrated in its handling of the proposed project on the Beers property that it is the kind of economic development partner Wind Gap deserves.  You simply must attend the April 17 Plainfield meeting, to see how Green Knight operates.  It is likely Synagro delayed to May's meeting so as not to be associated with the fallout of the Green Knight/Beers project.

Synagro announces it plans to operate Plainfield Township / Wind Gap / Pen Argyl biosolids sludge plant 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Hidey ho, neighbor - Pull up a chair and let's talk about shit

Tonight at the Plainfield Township Fire Hall Synagro hosted what was advertised as a "Q & A session".  Attendence was moderate but not overwhelming.  Synagro provided a panel of what apparently was at least half made up of employees, including project manager Jim Hecht.  There was one paid consultant.  In the audience were two representatives of Waste Management, including John Hambrose.  Carlton Snyder and Robert Cornman Jr of Green Knight were in attendance. Questions had to be submitted on index cards, avoiding what would have been a zoo. To Synagro's credit, most of the questions that were submitted appeared to be at least read out loud. Some answers were non-responsive.

This blogger was honestly not interested or concerned with hearing about the science of crap.  We know it smells, we know there will be fifty 20+ ton trucks a day arriving at and departing this facility, adding to the already overburdened Wind Gap and Pen Argyl corridor, and we know there is a hell of a lot of readily available farmland to spread it on. The intent of the panel seemed to be primarily to talk about the science of crap, so this blogger had to wait for the good stuff that was in between the lengthy orations about how shit is so great, the distinction between shit in the garden versus shit in the crapper, etc etc

A few highlights:

• Synagro plans to operate 24/7 and process 400 tons of crap a day
• Synagro plans one product only - Granulite.  Representative Hecht said this is primarily a "wholesale product".
• There is a contract in place for Green Knight to receive payment from Synagro for waste energy, but neither Mr. Hecht or Mr. Snyder could say how much this crappy operation would benefit Green Knight per month ($$$) and in turn possibly local citizens if Green Knight chooses to pass some green on to benefit the community.
• One question was how can Green Knight call itself a non profit, when in 2015 it had $3.8m in the bank, had revenues of over $1.8m, and distributed a paltry $20,000 to the community.   Excellent question and neither Mr. Snyder or Mr. Cornman stepped forward to answer it.  This blogger found out from The Foundation Center, a well known database of non profits, that they do not list Green Knight Economic Development Corporation in their "grant maker" database because they do not believe GKEDC's level of grant making is consistent with its net income. GKEDC is listed in the online free version of Foundation Center, but not the Professional version. Basically they list it as a non-profit, but do not believe it deserves to be one is what a representative stated after the technical team investigated the listing discrepancy.
• Synagro is pursuing both its original Site Plan for the CI district, currently tabled, as well as its new site plan submitted March 31, 2017 to see which one "sticks" (this blogger's term).
• Synagro claims it will not produce odors greater than those already present in the area.  Think about this folks - if this plant goes in, complaints about odors will result in Synagro and Waste Management pointing fingers at each other.  And..after the land fill closes,  Synagro will no longer have WM to hide behind.
• There is a an agreement in place for Waste Management to return use of the Plainfield Township Recreational Trail to the township after the land fill closes - and the trail will be used by Synagro's trucks in the latest site plan filed.  Mr. Hecht said he is unaware of this agreement, but that "Synagro will not cease use of its plant after the landfill closes."  (Synagro will shift to natural gas for heat after the land fill stops producing the gas that the energy center turns into electricity and heat).
• Jim Hecht reported that Synagro was approached by either Waste Management or Green Knight to pursue this project about 1.5 years ago, but he could not remember which.
• Mr. Snyder's recollection after the meeting is that Waste Management brought the project to Green Knight after Synagro was already involved.
• Mr. Hecht could not name one organization, such as the Chamber of Commerce, that supports this proposed plant.  He garnered several catcalls from the audience when he added that Synangro has been busy on its plans and not reaching out to the community.  You just could not make this shit up, people.
• A few panel members insisted on not only answering a question that was asked, but droning on for minutes afterwards about why this project is good in theory - totally unrelated to the question asked.  They spoke as though they live in a bubble, totally unaware that community members have minds of their own and uniformly are in opposition to this project.

Observations

Snyagro is known to give Granulite away for free to whomever will take it.  With the tremendous amount of farmland in the area, think of the incentive for farmers to use a free fertilizer instead of paying for one.  How can Synagro afford to do this?  They get paid up front $85 to $120 a ton to haul this crap away as class B biosolids.  Getting paid for your raw product - not bad, eh?  Granulite could be coming to the farm next to your house soon.  Back er up!

Mr. Hambrose and Mr. Snyder entertained questions from audience members following the meeting, and this blogger observed that they both feel this project is the best thing since sliced bread, and are unphased (ie tone deaf) by the unified objections of the community, and total lack of support.

There most certainly is an agreement between Grand Central (Waste Management) to return use of land Synagro plans to drive trucks over, and which Plainfield Township owns, to the township when the land fill closes.  This will be a wrinkle since Mr. Hecht implied Synagro plans for the proposed plant to remain in operation for many years after the land fill closes:

Easement Agreement- Plainfield Township Recreation Trail- Grand Central-03.11.1997 by Dick on Scribd

Synagro's new Site Plan

We'll take a close look at the Site Plan later, and for now it will simply be posted without comment.  It is currently in the pipeline to be reviewed by the Zoning Officer and Township Engineer in preparation for the May 15 Planning Commission meeting.

Sheet 1

Sheet 2

sheet 3

Sheet 4

Synagro Site Plan Narrative submitted March 31, 2017 for biosolids sludge plant in Plainfield Township PA by Dick on Scribd

West Penn residents appeal zoning permit for agricultural water extraction that Jay Land's Ringgold Acquisition Group II LLC is attempting to convert to commercial use

West Penn residents have filed an appeal to have this permit for "water harvesting" revoked

A hearing before the West Penn Zoning Hearing Board has not yet been scheduled

Background

In January 2015, Jay Land's Ringgold Acquisition Group II LLC was granted a permit to locate what the West Penn Township zoning officer called a "Water Harvesting" use on the leased Knoedler property on Fort Franklin Road.  Land stated multiple times that his use was agricultural only, and for delivery to lands he personally owned or leased.  He estimated at one point that he was not taking more than 1000 gallons a day.  There is no such use of "water extraction" in the West Penn zoning ordinance for the site in question.

Meanwhile, two miles away, Land's MC Resource Pine Valley Springs operation on the leased Hower property is embroiled in a lawsuit with the DEP, being heard before the PA Environmental Hearing Board.  The issues are DEP suspended Land's permit because he is running a commercial water extraction operation and not fulfilling the terms of the permit - he is not monitoring bypass flow to ensure a spring maintains minimum flow, and he is not treating the water extracted with UV light as required.  If he treats the water, then he has to maintain records which has an expense, and he can be held accountable if the metrics aren't met.  To put it succinctly, Land is trying to operate the Pine Valley operation without satisfying DEP permitting requirements.  His appeal before the Environmental Hearing Board is grinding along, and it has become common knowledge that once the Pine Valley lease expires (in the next year), Land intends to shift production to the Fort Franklin location.  He's biding his time at Pine Valley to run out the clock, but the resolution of the issues at Pine Valley may affect future Fort Franklin operations.  If you read the docket (linked to above) unfortunately you will find the DEP is dragging its ass, and Land has been having his way with them for years.  It is not dissimilar to the circle-jerk with the West Penn Supervisors, as will be seen below.  Land has gotten his way until now, and apparently only legal action by concerned citizens will stop him because West Penn Supervisors are doing anything and everything to be deaf, dumb and blind.  More about that is below as well.  Let's get the party started.

Increase in activities at Fort Franklin in October 2016, destruction of guardrail and reckless and dangerous tanker movements

Back at Fort Franklin, Land is up to his usual tricks.  In October 2016, he quickly ramped up production to approximately 100,000 gallons of water extracted daily - and remember this water is allegedly being used for irrigation.  This is a magic number, because at over 100,000 gallons, additional DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission) and DEP permits and regulations kick in.  Land's ultimate production is planned to be over 500,000 gallons a day.  Now, Land never met the requirements of the January 2015 water harvesting permit he was issued, and received a violation notice in March 2015 that he had not filed a land development plan.  He did not respond to this notice and today has still not filed one.

50-ton tanker that requires special permitting from both PADOT and West Penn Township (but has neither) loading at Fort Franklin site in October 2016.  A 2015 Road Study found that the road from this site should be posted at 15 tons, and will require improvements to even withstand that loading.

Truck traffic associated with the October increase in activity at Fort Franklin was disruptive and extremely dangerous to residents along the route, and furthermore the extraction of 100,000 gallons of water daily was associated with at least one nearby resident's well water turning brown and becoming laden with sediment.  When the trucks leaving the Fort Franklin site make the turn from Blue Mountain Drive onto Route 309 South, they engage in extremely reckless and unsafe maneuvers which involve crossing the center line of Blue Mountain Drive, crossing the center line of Route 309 and both lanes of oncoming 50 mph traffic, or both.  Some of the tankers leaving the Fort Franklin site in October and November were 50-ton units, which require a permit from both the state of Pennsylvania and West Penn; these tankers are believed to have neither.  The guardrail along Blue Mountain Drive at Route 309 was destroyed by water tankers making the turn too tightly.  It was hit at least three times from October through November 2016.  West Penn supervisors have not and will not discuss why they have not issued a cease and desist order to Land for the Fort Franklin operation.

Guardrail destroyed by water tanker at Blue Mountain Dr/Rt 309 intersection in October 2016 making extremely dangerous and reckless turn onto Route 309.  All lanes of traffic in both directions on Route 309 must be blocked to make this turn with a slowly moving water tanker, starting from a stop.  What could go wrong?

Residents' legal actions against Jay Land's operations begin piling up

On January 13, 2016, a group of West Penn residents filed a lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Jay Land, MC Resource Development Company, Pine Valley landowner Larry Hower, Hower's company Snow Green Acres, Ringgold Acquisition Group II LLC and Fort Franklin landowner David Knoedler, arguing nuisance and negligence due to truck traffic, degradation of wells, etc.  In September 2016, Hower filed a cross-claim against MC Resource, confirming that Mr. Hower and Mr. Land's futures in cahoots is short-lived.

On August 29 2016, residents preserved their right to file a lawsuit against West Penn Township in relation to Land's water extraction operations by filing a Writ of Summons against WPT in the Schuykill County Court of Common Pleas. To date, the residents have not exercised the right preserved by the Writ.

West Penn Township Writ of Summons filed August 29, 2016 related to Jay Land's water extraction on Scribd

West Penn residents put township on notice on August 29, 2016 that they intend to sue its ass over inaction on water extraction

Land's Fort Franklin site supplies Niagra Bottling non-permitted sediment-laden water for one month, causing failure of Niagra's filtration equipment and pollution of resident's water

From mid-October to mid-November approximately fifteen 40 to 50 ton tankers daily traveled from Fort Franklin to Niagra Bottling.  A bottler is supposed to accept untreated (raw) water only if the bottler owns the extraction operation.  Niagra does not.  It is rumored that Land's non-permitted and unregulated raw water fouled Niagra filters and caused $30,000 of damage.  Resident Jim Hehn near the Fort Franklin site reported his water went from clean to brown and heavily laden with sediment.  Production at Fort Franklin was suspended.  In November, Land had two new wells drilled at Fort Franklin - he's trying to get deep enough to get clean water.  Not "spring water", mind you - that is closer to the surface.

West Penn Supervisors fail to act on Bonding and Posting of roads to protect township residents health, safety and welfare

In November 2015 the West Penn Supervisors received the results of a study of the roads Jay Land's operations are and were anticipated to use, including Blue Mountain Drive.  The study found that Blue Mountain Drive (and other roads) should be posted with a 15-ton maximum gross weight limit, and that even at this limit Blue Mountain Drive requires upgrading to a thicker surface. This would preclude the 40 to 50 ton tankers that Land uses.  The supervisors then proceeded to ignore the results of this study.  Under pressure from residents to get off their asses (legal pressure through lawsuits - the only kind these look-the-other-way do-nothings appear to understand), a workshop on Bonding and Posting is scheduled in West Penn Township on March 27, 2017 from 8am to 12pm.

West Penn Supervisors fail to file cease and desist order for violation of Land's permit requirements

The letter below was sent multiple times to Ringgold Acquisition Group II LLC, to notify them that the lack of filing a Land Development Plan was in violation of the January 2015 permit.  However, a cease and desist was never filed.  What part of "not doing your jobs" do you not understand, supervisors?  For whom are you working?

Land Development Plan Violation - Ringgold Acquisition Group water extraction in West Penn Township on Scribd

 Zoning Officer Anders, the same genius who issued the Jan 2015 use permit for a non-listed use

filed this notice of violation on March 18, 2015, as well as followup letters.  They were not responded to, and no further action has been taken by West Penn Township.  Fail.

Residents stage protests against water extraction

West Penn residents want action, not willful ignorance

West Penn residents staged peaceful protests against water extraction on January 3, 2017 and on February 6, 2017.  Each of these protests was held prior to a Board of Supervisors meeting.  West Penn Supervisors have dragged their feet, giving residents virtually no support at all.  This blogger heard a recording of Supervisor James Dean on July 2, 2016 stating that the West Penn Zoning Officer was drafting a cease and desist order for Land's Fort Franklin operation due to failure to file a Land Development Plan.  Rest assured we're doing all we can to protect our citizens health, and safety and welfare.  Bull shit, Mr. Dean.  The cease and desist was never filed.  Talk and no action - disgraceful.  How much is it worth for supervisors to ignore their residents' health, safety and welfare on behalf of one unscrupulous operator?

Appeal of January 2015 permit for "water harvesting" - hearing date TBD

On February 28, 2017, West Penn residents filed an appeal with the West Penn Zoning Hearing Board, demanding that the permit for "water harvesting" issued to Ringgold Acquisition Group II LLC be revoked.  Their argument is:

• The permit was issued in error, because "water harvesting" is not a use in the zoning district(s) where the Fort Franklin site is located.
• The permit expired on January 17, 2017, because multiple requirements associated with the permit were not completed/satisfied.

Appeal of permit for water extraction granted to Jay Land (Ringgold Acquisition Group LLC) at Fort Franklin... on Scribd

West Penn residents appeal of water extraction permit issued using argument that water extraction is similar to an agricultural use

The legal opinion referenced in the residents' appeal is below.  It is significant, in that the Commonwealth Court found that water extraction is a more intense use than agriculture, and more similar to mineral extraction.  West Penn's Zoning Officer, its solicitor and certain BOS members have stated water extraction is similar to an agricultural use.

Eagle Springs Appeal of denial for water extraction permit in Bethel Township, Berks County, PA on Scribd

Commonwealth Court finds that bulk loading of water is not similar to an agricultural use

It is more similar to a mining operation in intensity (see Page 10)

Protest scheduled for March 6, 2017 from 6:30pm to 7:30pm @ WPT Municipal Building

prior to regular Board of Supervisors meeting