March 30th, 2026 @ 6:30 p.m.
889 Fairyland Road Lehighton PA 18235
The meeting commenced with a call to order at 6:31pm, Monday March 30th, 2026, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The first agenda item was to review, discuss, and act on the Phifer Rental SALDO plan. A request for a time extension for this plan was noted.
Julie, representing the applicant, addressed the board regarding the Phifer Rental SALDO plan. She explained that a request for an extension had been made because the plan had been adjusted, but a previous Planning Commission meeting lacked a quorum. A review letter from Greg with additional comments was received, and the applicant is working on addressing these comments, particularly concerning secondary access to the property. The applicant noted that a previous plan had been supported by the Planning Commission with only one driveway access, and additional time is needed to engineer the secondary access in accordance with the salvo. They are requesting two additional months to respond to comments, allow for Greg’s review, and present the revised plan to the Planning Commission. They also reminded the board of Pennsylvania law requiring good faith engagement in reviewing and providing comments to move forward with a compliant plan.
Greg, the township engineer, was asked if a time extension would resolve the secondary access issue, given the current situation. Greg stated that the applicant cannot propose secondary access without requesting a waiver due to the required isolation distance from an adjoining street intersection. The property has approximately 150 feet of frontage, while 275 feet is required. The applicant’s engineer has revised the plan to provide secondary access, potentially off Fairyland Rd, and is confident in achieving the required offset, though Greg has not yet reviewed this revised plan. The discussion touched upon the feasibility of achieving the 275-foot offset given the property’s frontage and the potential impact on the plan. The applicant confirmed that the revised plan involves access off Fairyland Rd and that additional time is needed for the engineer and to present the alternate access. Greg emphasized the need for a sketch plan to be submitted to PennDOT for their consideration of the proposed access.
Julie reiterated that their engineer has created a sketch plan demonstrating that the required offsets for two access drives are achievable. They are requesting time to fully engineer this plan and present it for review. The discussion clarified that the 275-foot offset requirement would still apply to the intersection of Wagner. Greg noted that obtaining a highway occupancy permit from PennDOT is a preliminary plan requirement and would be a condition for conditional preliminary plan approval. He suggested that starting the scoping application with PennDOT is crucial to get initial feedback. The applicant expressed their need for additional time to engineer the plan based on recent feedback and is seeking an extension to work collaboratively with the township.
Greg confirmed that he has been working with the applicant on other comments, with some minor issues regarding stormwater routing and outlet pipe lengths. He believes these will be resolved once the applicant resubmits the revised plan and stormwater report. However, he acknowledged that the changes to the access could potentially alter the entire plan, requiring a fresh start.
The discussion then shifted to the implications of granting a conditional preliminary plan approval and what happens if the conditions cannot be met, including whether it would lead to automatic plan rejection or require a new submission. The complexity of major outside agency permits in the conditional preliminary plan approval process was highlighted.
Julie clarified that legally, a denial based solely on the failure to obtain a highway occupancy permit could be overturned in court if the SALDO is otherwise complied with. The plan approval would be conditioned upon obtaining the permit, and if it cannot be achieved, the plan would effectively be nullified, requiring the applicant to return to the drawing board.
The board emphasized that this is a standard process in Pennsylvania land development. The applicant is seeking an extension to work with Greg on modifying the access to comply with the code, not a waiver. They believe an extension is necessary for Greg to review the revised plan and for the applicant to engineer it properly.
Julie stated that Nate has been working on the plan and addressing comments. They are requesting time to resubmit a revised plan, which would allow Greg the opportunity to review it thoroughly against the entire code. The applicant believes that Greg’s review should not significantly differ from previous reviews by Carbon Engineer. They are seeking an extension to facilitate a dialogue where comments are provided and addressed, leading to a compliant plan and preliminary plan approval conditioned on obtaining agency permits. The applicant questioned the necessity of a formal meeting for an extension, suggesting it’s a standard procedure.
The discussion focused on the timeline for the extension and its impact on the Planning Commission meeting schedule. The applicant proposed a 60-day extension, aiming to present the revised plan at the May 14th Planning Commission meeting. It was noted that a 60-day extension would effectively shorten the review period before the meeting. Julie expressed their goal of presenting a plan that addresses all comments and complies with the code, allowing for informed decisions. Fred Kemmerer Jr believes Greg should have the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the resubmitted plan. The applicant disagreed with the characterization that the entire plan layout is changing, stating only the access points are being shifted. They believe a 60-day extension is reasonable for review and resubmission.
Greg expressed skepticism about PennDOT approving two access drives on the limited frontage along Fairyland Road, noting that PennDOT typically seeks to limit access. He suggested that obtaining feedback from PennDOT on the proposed access is crucial and could take four to six months. Julie questioned the harm to the township in granting an extension, as the applicant bears the burden of obtaining permits and the project timeline. Greg stated his goal is to avoid repeated discussions about extensions every two months. Julie reiterated that they are offering an extension and are open to further discussion on the duration, but do not believe six months is necessary for a preliminary plan review focused solely on access modifications.
Julie clarified that a sketch plan was provided for their engineer to review, and a resubmission with one review comment letter has been made. They are working on further resubmission. They stated that the staff was not ready for the resubmission, and the review letter was received very recently, which is standard for land development reviews. They reiterated that there is no harm to the township in providing the extension, as it allows time for resubmission and for the township engineer to provide feedback, with the applicant covering the associated fees.
Greg was asked about the timeframe needed for a top-to-bottom review of the plan once it’s submitted. He stated it would take a few days of effort and that SALDO requires submission 10 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Given his current workload, he would do his best to provide a letter for the next Planning Commission meeting. The discussion then clarified the dates for the Planning Commission and supervisor’s meetings in April and May. The applicant proposed extending the deadline to June 30th to allow sufficient time for resubmission, review, and potential incorporation of feedback from the Planning Commission and Greg. They aim to get on the May Planning Commission agenda but acknowledge that a June submission might be more realistic. The applicant believes a 90-day extension would provide ample time for a thorough review and informed decision-making. The applicant also noted that if the plan is resubmitted in 90 days without an extension, it would essentially be starting over, questioning the benefit of the extension in that scenario.
The discussion revolves around the possibility of providing a further extension for a plan review, with Nic Storm suggesting that 90 days should be sufficient for a thorough review by Greg. Fred Kemmerer Jr questions the benefit of a new submittal if the plan is essentially the same, suggesting it would be like starting over. Julie inquiries about the benefits of a new submittal, and Julie proposes that moving forward with the current plan demonstrates good faith under the law, implying that not doing so could lead to legal action. Julie also suggests that recommitting and starting over is undesirable for all parties involved. Greg Haas indifference. Julie reiterates that the offered time is reasonable and avoids unnecessary legal proceedings. Terry Shaner then asks the solicitor about the legal standing and questioning if she has a valid case or is attempting to manipulate the situation. Tom Nanovic indicates that he does not want to discuss it and offers to clarify the board’s advice in an executive session if needed, but states that the board is aware of their advice. Fred Kemmerer Jr confirms that the new engineer will conduct a top-to-bottom review and seeks Greg’s comfort with this. Nic Storm expresses concern about a resubmittal leading to Greg finding major issues that could be contested due to not being on the initial review, preferring a fresh start. Julie questions if this concern is a basis for a contested comment, stating that Greg’s comments should align with objective criteria from the SALDO (Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance), and if something was missed, it would need to be addressed. Julie expresses confidence that Greg will not find numerous issues given the multiple reviews already conducted by experienced individuals. Nic Storm then asks about the potential letter Julie might submit if Greg has comments, and Julie clarifies that additional comments are not an issue if they are based on the SALDO and zoning. Julie agrees that compliance would be necessary if comments were SALDO-based. Tom Nanovic confirms that Greg will review in good faith, and Julie anticipates this, stating that the number of comments is not an issue if they are legally sound. Tom Nanovic clarifies that while arguments might still occur, a lawsuit for bad faith due to additional comments would not be pursued. Nic Storm then proposes a motion to enter executive session due to a threat of litigation at 7:25pm.
Special meeting was called back to order at 7:54pm. The discussion begins with a clarification regarding an extension request. Tom Nanovic asks if, upon board approval of an extension to June 30th, the letter would be revised from May 31st to June 30th, to which Julie confirms. A second point of clarification is whether the township engineer would review the revised plans as a brand-new submission, if the extension is granted. Julie clarifies that it would be a resubmission, complying with local ordinances, and that the engineer would review the revised plans against the ordinances. Tom Nanovic confirms the understanding that the engineer would review them as new plans, and if Greg compared them against the law, Julie would not have an issue with that and Julie agrees, viewing it as a resubmission, not a new one. Then Julie states they do not object to the engineer comparing the entire submission to the SALDO to confirm compliance with local ordinances and provide a full review letter, which may include items not previously addressed by Carbon Engineering. Julie emphasizes that this review would focus on local municipal ordinances, and SALDO requirements. Tom Nanovic expresses satisfaction with this clarification. Nic Storm motioned to accept the extension with a revision to 90 days. Fred Kemmerer Jr seconded the motion. There was no discussion after. Nic Storm and Fred Kemmerer were in favor. Leroy Kemmerer Jr was opposed. Tom Nanovic then requests a copy of the letter to cross out May 31st and insert June 30th, and initial it to which Julie agrees.
Nic Storm made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Fred Kemmerer Jr. seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:02pm