i i post say nay seven zero mr sylvester e next item would be special reports there are none ok third the third item would be audience comments this is the time where we  permit any member of the audience up to five minutes to speak to a non agenda item is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to a non agenda item questions but we provided a letter and i think the manager indicated that he passed it out to the board that you would need orphans court approval in order to swap this land out and there is a process in place  statute that we put together in the letter and it would need to be undertaken obviously there be fees and cost involved and you have to makes certain showings that the property is no longer used for its intended purpose mainly because you hold that property in trust for the public good and have to show a number of different factors so while the process could be undertaken my advice in here is that if the board was willing to entertain is i'm not sure you actually can meet the statutory guidelines to do it but if you want attempt to do that bad you would look to the applicant to undertake the fees and cost maybe so she would those proceedings would it be possible to grant some type of a license to use a piece of that open space rather than actually swap the property potentially as i was looking at the statue  that we looked at before the meeting started is a question of whether leasing the property or giving some additional rights of that property would constitute an action to need to be taken under with through the orphans court and i'd have to look at that a little closer the the act itself speaks to just a swap of the property or an exchange of the land given them a license and i think the applicant wants to extend a driveway or put some permanent facility it would he was in here we saw the photographs and i think they're in the docket i mean he you know when he backs out of where to draw edges or i mean it's you he'd probably need another five feet three to five feet that i think he envisioned at one point maybe cement in that you know it would but i don't you know i'm not a big proponent of swapping land and i agree with you i don't think we'd ever meet that burden if we have if we go to court in washington county is going to be hard for us to be proponent of this because there obviously is a use that remains in place from day one i think the major is line that we would also need approval from all the residents in order to undertake that task but i don't know that we would meet the burden now to i think the question i mean i don't think there's any question that the i don't think anybody on cuts almost somebody would say otherwise is willing to attempt i mean at least on but i why we could not get him to give him some sort of a license maybe you know we could build on that that's my concern is that obviously if you had over the structure if you have you had open space you wanted maybe utilize the yard or something like that the fact you're going to while they build it was own house there was a house there when you purchased it ok boy if the board inclined to be i did not research totally the idea that councilman ball brought up about a potential license agreement i  just looked at the statute itself not sure if there would be a way to circumvent the statute in that regard only again because he's going to put a permanent structure for some permanent disability on the property i don't know if would be in keeping with the statute but i don't know without looking again i'm pro choice to help him to be nice to be able to do something but it just seems very difficult the piece of property i think that would solve it easier because then the township is completely out of it it becomes his property and we're not swapping anything i did not look at that because i think the proposal was he was going to swap some million in the do situations like this where it's a not a wooded area but a grassy area where would be would have added to our list of most on our moving contract that we do a lot of open space parcels under our moving contract propose dedication of what for one seven in the great meadows plan to peters township yes we have a proposal a request by the developer  open space as frontage that the builder of that plan ryan holmes has chosen not to build on it it does have a string going through it and some storm stores in here and the in the future from building on as your question if we accepted this now that would not preclude us from selling it down the road and you come back to the previous resume the process would still be  next item on a new business would be an authorization to proceed with appropriate legal action to remove the gate on mott plane dr the issues obviously the council probably raises was raised by this council was the fact that this is a private road and there's no misunderstanding here that this is a private road in the township however as was discussed at the last meeting we believe i provided at the last meeting were that neither the fire police or ambulance were alerted to this fact by the individuals who decided to close that road other individuals who live upon their route raise concerns that their children get the bus at the end of that road have to go down stop their car walk down open the gate get through and it's been a public thoroughfare for a number of years so at the board's request the manager didn't fax and a letter asking them to take the gate down to restore the public safety feature of that roadway and as we talked about whether or not the plan of homes is ever the road is ever dedicated to the township the township again it's hard to speak back in the fifty's or sixty's but typically would approve a plan or approved homes being built with the understanding that a road would have a been ingress and egress and without inhibition and that was sort of the basis for this board advising the managers and the letter so i understand obviously the citizens are here with  they have asked me to come this evening and represent their interests with regard to this matter i have several points to bring up first of all we want to address some of the issues that were broached during the last meeting none of i did not have the ability to attend that meeting will we did not know that that issue was going to be brought up at the time it wasn't on the agenda it was the audience comment correct and that's the basis for my bifurcation of the two different parts of the road just to give a little bit of background with regard to this property this property was part of the plan of wats owned by the brown the issues that were brought up in the last during the conversation that took place during the last meeting the reason the the this group of the homeowners contacted me was based on the fact that they had been experiencing reaches nab and it makes a dogleg to the right and then continues on as mt blaine but a paved portion of mt plain and then extending up to an area eventually becoming jewel rich o so this little spur will call it between old oak and now been people were using as a thruway basically to to gain access to the neighborhood behind were to come from behind to the can eventually nineteen corridor due to this heavy use the cost of degradation of the road surface and the road surface is maintained by agreement by a mutual agreement that was entered into  legally in one nine hundred eighty six on april fifteenth one thousand nine hundred sixty eight property owners that bind a group together and voluntarily entered into a mutual maintenance agreement which i have copies of and i would be happy to time the other properties have been sold once or twice since then and one of those properties is the gentleman who brought the objections of the last meeting a fellow by the name of ronald i believe  again i was about to get into this but we done an extensive investigation of this issue based on that at the request of the property owners prior to taking the action that leads us to the hearing today of  placing the gate i'm not going to say that we restricted access because i'll get into that a few minutes but the point is that due to this excessive use for the roadway in the damage and direct relation to the road sort of protecting their neighborhood and then to making it more safe and prior to my involvement my understanding is that they did make efforts to contact the representatives of the municipality road and mentioned to the homeowners that it would be up to them that they would need to have a meeting and and have a case and elect in some manner the vote basically or in way to resolve this issue because of the fact it is a private road and the fact that the municipality really did not have any desire to be involved with with the matter they subsequently did have that meeting and they came to a determination that they would like to limit the access to the road and then again they came the second time to mr sorkin indicated to them that they didn't try to have the meeting based on his recommendation and that their desire was to limit access to the mr need is a member of that group and he was not there however in the past i believe that mr nihad been contacted by the members of the group to be a part of that yes i would say and more it is that that's the role of an issue because if there's a if there's a plane with a road through it then every homeowner every law or in that play and you correct me and they're there they're already improved why someone would want to use a non reused unproved third road when there's three other paved roads that are just as convenient if not more so because maybe they have the right to do it well that's right but they also have the right right comes along with an obligation and that's a very good point that right because in a company obligation an obligation is to maintain the property so to have a right to use something but not have an obligation to maintain it flies in the face of each other is not consistent and and therefore that is the whole problem here because all that burden of maintenance is falling upon this group of eight whereas the ability to use it is and is unlimited to everyone and the that's my understanding yes i have a document here from two thousand and seven that was provided by the township to one of the new property owners to whose owner in previous title was one of the signatories to the original agreement that's specifically set forth in this letter is dated february of two thousand and seven so obviously that that was never done and the these property owners have elected to to to to  assert their rights of ownership over the private fortune and they've done that consistently and uninterrupted lee from the beginning of the of the creation of the ro another question since two thousand and seven do you know how many of the original eight the five to change how many of them came in after two thousand and seven i can find i have the documents here i don't have it township did except those portions but the portion that remains private those roses did not want to turn over so we've never we never took that  maintain it they should be able to say who does or doesn't travel on it on the one hand while the other hand is there anybody in that area has a legal right to utilize the road as you're saying if you utilize it then you should pay for the maintenance but on the other hand if a group of people were to petition the township for paving the road to charge for that fall to the people that actually from the road is that correct yes ok so suppose very good point and i acknowledge the the the theoretical aspect of your question and i think it's a legitimate question however i think we've gone a little bit off point if if if if i don't if you don't mind me saying so i have a specific there's a lot of different issues here and i think that opened my my primary goal here tonight was not to necessarily dispute every possible issue in every different eventuality but simply to give an overview of the specific circumstances that led us up to being here and what what the goal was of what who leads us here today and then we can certainly get into all the other aspects at some point but sort of keep on the point and to keep it in to respect the time of the panel i would like to just make a few more comments with with regard to that and we'll certainly keep that in mind so understanding that we had the issues with the use of the of the property owner of people passing through there and basically disregarding it disrespecting the quiet and joint of the property if you're familiar with the real estate people that own property have a legal right to the quiet enjoyment of property and  had a lot of heavy vehicles going through there particularly landscaping vehicles heavy equipment and going through there we also had some of the neighbors children one one person in particular was kind of speeding through their young like a teenager was going through there speeding through their swinging gravel and so forth and sort of being disrespectful you know in making indecent hand gestures to the neighbors and so forth so there was quite a lot of issues with regard represent to to limit or restrict access to anyone to this property or to this road in any way particularly if they have legal rights do their duty to be there and to use it for their purposes such mail post office and so forth and perhaps this situation was exacerbated by the closure of valley brick road it's hard to say but we have a lot of people going through there and of story how do we deal with this they came to the township township really was not able to give them guidance through no fault of their own i don't think i just think that if it wasn't something that was on the radar at that time and therefore they they met as recommended they took action they  they did was they contacted me as someone who is knowledgeable in real estate matters and someone who is in tourney and able to give them guidance and my recommendation was to go ahead and and limit the access to that road ok in the with the way they did they had different means of doing that one was to put a permanent boundary there that wasn't i didn't think that that was a good option at that prior meeting someone talked about putting a boulder in the road and things like that of course that would not be an appropriate means of resolving that so the discussion came to about putting a gate that's movable that's able to be opened so that was being and it was the ultimately decided that that that would be a good solution and that the gate was installed but that the gate would never be locked and the gate never has been walked and no it's ever been restricted access to this area the road the gate is placed at the bottom of the road so people coming from all doak can have free access to the lower portion we refer to the unpaved portion of mt brain and also this is another issue that was brought up at the meeting so let's get back to what we said first of all it was said that the that the  notification that the gate was put up there were signs put up on the property indicating that the gate would be put up at a certain point on october the twenty eighth almost it was put on october eighth saying that the gate would be put up in october twenty eighth so there was put forth why the gate at the gate was put in such a manner because one of the homeowners didn't agree to having the gate put up that is incorrect this homeowner's here is present and the reason why the gate wasn't put at the end of the unpaved portion of mont blanc was specifically for public safety reasons because anyone opening the gate would have to park in the middle of my brain and get out and open the gate we moved the gate up so that someone could pull  safely not inhibiting traffic and then open the gate initiate an improper manner so it was actually very well thought out and and there were specific reasons for the manner in which it was done and we did see improperly in any way we're just simply sort of countering some of the statements that were made about why the gate was installed and how it was to be install could you clarify something sure if i may not have township approval yes well we'll that's not forthcoming but well we talked to mr zork and he said that it was not the township had no jurisdiction in the matter and they did are they they did not  complaining is was was mr nee unfortunately he's not here today i wish he was i don't know why he would not want to attend but we would certainly want to open a dialogue with him and to confer with him in fact my understanding that he daily uses the gate he daily takes his child to the bus stop and the child has never missed school missed the bus been late or there's never been a hardship as a result of this so the other issue was with regard to the pub public services at my recommendation prior to putting the gate up they contacted the police department and the fire department and  and fro and you know we can dictate who those people may be and that's really one of the issues of the township past putting aside all the prescriptive rights in the deed rights of other individuals may have some of just pure couch of steam point the health and safety issue that may happen you know what happens of opening up the gate in the snow mines cars lies down and not into the dish because we typically don't want our drivers probably in the middle of the road or out of their cars  and well i think that's a good that's a good point but it's the same time when i understand we get these issues all the time in this valley these people have the absolute right to you know protect themselves they feel an increase in traffic and it's a point well taken on lost on council but they've look at the township as a full in these situations and have to look at every circumstances that might happen well i agree with you and once again i think the big point here is that there are three other very accessible means to enter  i'm sure if someone were to come that was handicapped and try to use the steps if you came injured by not using the easier handicap means of doing that than then his apartment building and that's probably a likelihood that there would access there you know so we should in the end and that brings us to the next issue other than the this is probably the final point i'll bring up about the last meeting it was talked about that there was a sign put up and it was directed by the panel of the board to have the sign removed from the this is an actual sign and this is one of two there were had had been on the property at either end of the road in actually the identical location of the new s more than fifteen years and in fact that we have to remove the sign we would simply put this fire back up again which basically says the same thing on your differences the new sign probably incorrectly in my opinion says dead end of property access or whatever is used for a certain period of time without restriction it becomes public domain yes sir that's a very good point in fact i looked i researched that issue extensively and you were referring to prescri uninterrupted lee and they've consistently exercised their ownership rights over the pa property and they've done that every year by shutting down the road once a year for a block parties that they have and once a year that road is not accessible for far were to come or lease there's there's banners there's events there's booths set up in the road which is completely within the rights of a private drive to do and they've consistently done that so in order for a prescriptive easement to be valid there would have to be some open hostile and the tourists are use of the property in derogation and of the current owners use and the owners have consistently exercised their ownership  respectfully submit but just a virtue of the fact that they've refused to paving they have exercised their ownership interest over the property by by saying look we own this property we do not to have it  enter into dispute or argue with anyone in any way we're simply here to indicate the basis for our position and to give sort of an overview and to work with the municipality in every way to resolve this issue in an amicable fashion including with mr neat who appears to be the only person who's who's raised objections the other issue is if i may and i don't wish to belabor the point  however i have to say that unfortunately one of the main problems with the un you know disrespectful use of the property was arising from this particular gentleman's household of the person i referred to before the young gentleman with the vehicle operating it in a very careless manner and so forth and making rude obscene gestures to the homeowners was a member of  who is a signatory to the maintenance agreement so it's a very disturbing to us and concerning to us that he is the prime mover were as he appears to be the gentleman here and he's not even here to you know to to to assist us in resolving this tonight so i don't want to place blame and i would certainly you know want to extend all of branch to mr ne and other homeowners anyone who feels that they're wrong they're in some way inconvenienced and i think that's really the point here i think this comes down to a matter of being inconvenienced people do not want to take the extra few seconds of time to drive around and use the other means of access and t inconvenience is is the prime motivating and not spying as was mentioned in the previous meeting saying that this was a game of spite and so forth that couldn't be further from the truth none of these rumors were spiteful individuals merely wish to assert their rights are quiet enjoyment of their property and have done the only thing that they've really feel reasonably possible to do so they will respectfully submit to the panel to a system allow them to continue to exert that type of  control over their rightful property these issues related to speeding and access for discussions with the people instead of yours well i'm coming i'm just i'm trying to understand why it's come to this point well i'm kind of glad you brought it up once until this is necessarily the forum to discuss i just don't cheat to get into anything to work graphic here will basically there's been several instances where there's going to problem the police were contacted the police contacted these individuals who were  question and and then the activities continued and then eventually the police were contacted again and then the policeman unfortunately once again through no fault of their own indicated that similar to the township but it was not their jurisdiction they couldn't enforce it in such a manner unless they actually saw the conduct at that time and therefore basically brought us back to the situation where the homeowner said no choice but to take this type of action so that's that's a very relevant question thank you thank you fast and they did and that's why speed bumps are put in because there were there were complaints from the residents that people were going too fast up that hill to make a left and they come out on nineteen and that's why speed bumps were put  on all of that but i still there's there's a principle to me is that of any road this one or any other you have it has been in public domain for you know a long long time and people in the area  every right to use the road they do they do but what they don't have a right to do is to abuse it i agree they do it's gotten so bad the cars are passing each other on the ground ok so i was putting a fence there it discourages them temporarily they have other ways to go all they have to do is go down to the stop sign an old oak an oak would make a right and they're and they're on their way to sample i understand but it's  back portion is when the traffic flow really increase because now we give people a freeway just to fly through i would agree that we actually next year which leads me to next point is when you guys pay that back portion is my question is also petition from a majority of property owners we don't normally go out and solicit others to do it and where you know the general stanley was there residence on that portion of mount point did not want to have the road paved just part of  i'm sorry but that you know you guys have to understand traffic flow was never that bad on this road twenty years ago up until they paved this little seventy five your portion that they snuck up on us if all the sudden created a freeway well i'm not connector see how that would happen and that's why i'm trying to clarify because i know that when we try to do a traffic calming we ask everybody on the red so really if i can remember to use a card i thought we were of the understanding that everybody who had an street up until they paved this portion this is why we had to do a gate because we tried to traffic flow i tried putting little cheesy tacky signs up to tell people slow down but within you guys pay that route from there forward the past three years is why we are to this point it wasn't just you know more people houses being built it was simply pretty much from that portion being paved to create a freeway and then on top of that you know i don't know you know you guys talk about safety hazard for the past seven and  half years that i've lived in my house what if somebody would come down you know or road and wrecking crash in the swamp and they can legally sue us and help hold us liable i mean if i was on both ends and we would just like to request to keep it private you know mr his son to come on the open to get morning the he leaves the gate open ever since of this a major let me just get to the issues the first issue is obviously you know there's this issue of whether you want that portion of your road taken over or whatever and paved there's a mechanism for that and you can talk to mr sylvester or talk to mr and you know we'd be more than happy to entertain a petition if that's what you guys were interested in no we do it we don't want to dispute but for these potential overriding concerns of public safety ok with that said it's a private road i mean if the gentleman that's not here would file suit opinion you're going to lose that but that's just my opinion but the only other audience so would have really what we're here to determine is a is there some overriding public safety concern issue that we've identified because if there isn't then let's just not deal with this and that's why i was told from the beginning when i spoke to mr hill we had many conversations over the years he i was told to get a vote from the all of the landowners on the road that had you know land adjoining the road i did he said you know we can sum it up the council you know once you get the majority of the vote everyone who will submit the council i got the majority of the vote you know we wanted to do something to the route you know to prevent people from getting access or limiting at limiting which you know we're more than happy to settle among you know any of the other residents that want to bring a suit or whatever but you know from my understanding from beginning the township was you get involved is that what was going to do is that if the sol i kind of agree with them on this or at this point i tend to agree with mr siegel because for a couple of points if if there's only one president who has forced a concern and he's still getting around the issue because he can open the gate asked me more and there's and you've said you know  police you've said you're not in fact firing you have previous conversations with representatives of the town chairman who didn't seem to say that was an issue and that there were work arounds you know i appreciate your concern about speeding should just be done i'm not really had any specific discussions on longer position on our what i think you need to talk to the public safety people and see if this is a problem fix our problem there are three routes when you alter a street what is the ripple effect to the other routes typically there are traffic studies involved in terms of ingress and egress what does it does and what does it do to improve play and i think each individual got up to complain once you did x to one street y happened on this street do we know what happens now with x being close what happened with y good point and i don't know and that goes back to one of my initial point seen from the last meeting is i wish we could all go back in the township does have road closure it's really a you know a big speed bump but just the impact road obstruction yet it's an impediment to access so it's it's kind of in it's awkward hybrid situation where you're not denying access but you're just limiting it to able bodied people and you're limiting it to individuals who don't want to be i think counsel pointed out inconvenienced they're going to go another route but again if this was a new plan and somebody got approved by this board with  are thirty seven or thirty nine homeowners and to have a right to use that well if what you're saying is it is unreported plan as far as an on record plan x somebody could have made that up you can't use it on record plans for what i can figure they have the right to do they probably have the right by deed and they have the prescriptive right if they've been using it despite any ownership to the contrary for so many years and our issue isn't really and we raise it the last meeting that maybe their issue to take  depends on whether somebody wants to include the gist of the borders or where in the maintenance agreement i just looked at it briefly it does give the signatories and i believe the individual that objected a perpetual right to ingress egress and regress over across and through said private drive so that he said that that individual obviously has in any other individual even non signatories because this is really not binding if you're on a public road what if only two people decided they need to maintain it doesn't negate the six from use so the other people in the plan would have use as well but we're not here to referee your private fighting the issue that the board can look at is limited to does a closure of your road to me increase traffic somewhere else for the traffic study might have to be looked at or cause a public safety problem and those are issues that have been bantered around and i don't know if they've been resolved but they've been identified and the boxes will be if we don't have those problems then we wash our hands  to connect yeah there is a current road here now that connects in the peters to developers of form guys and what he's going to be doing is he's going to be bringing a road in here connecting to circle that goes up into the i don't know whether we have any authority in the matter at all because it's a private road there's no subdivision involved visited peters it's in peters what portion of it