before building permit for the building without the forms to drive through with that change we need to revise those plans which are being worked on right now you know the fuel is actually fairly far ahead but our view is that  open that fuel up until we have mostly the whole site fully developed although we do have a time frame with the the current location where a lease expires at the end of this year where we don't want to renew it for five years and there's other development that's over a year ago i think the original program was essentially the same plan as this one here  consuming approximately twenty of their existing parking spaces and the ramp to nine thousand is moving approximately one hundred fifty feet closer to their driveway as well as this is able driveway and this intersection is moving from here all the way up to here this left turn lane for southbound traffic on route nineteen is well march nineteenth meeting did grant a variance to allow this wall that is needed to be built in order to construct an access drive off of the expanded parking area behind this  the wall variance was granted by the zoning board to allow it to be thirty three feet high in certain locations that it winds its way down here to almost less than two feet here so the zoning hearing board as you know and i did issue mr mrs a bow a highway occupancy permit to allow this driveway to connect to the new ramp in it's a right out on the on tonight on to the  the cast in property as you know when we brought this for you back in march township staff feels very strongly that the two property owners kasten zabel need to work together in creat  cross access to allow shared movement between vehicles between both parking lots they both parking custom property parking is here parking is all for both of these property owners to work together in this connection between these two properties because if you will be very difficult using both zabel driveway and the cast and drive there's recommending approval subject to the eight nine conditions listed in my report and specifically calling out conditions nine which which reads the ribeye so i played comply with section three with regard to the recommendation of the planning of the staff i think we can all agree that the all of the other condition seem reasonable and that it is the last step where the last issue which needs to be resolved has need to look back a little bit here at the history the point is that this is not a classic development that i believe this section of your ordinance is addressed to and it's been our position from the beginning that because this is a eminent domain matter and it's a condemnation that was really forfeited on the day blows initially that they're not in the position of a typical commercial developer who comes in and can pass the costs associated with cross access and building that kind of a of a access road in a situation like this this is a situation where penn doj has created this situation and my clients really not in the position to to undertake or to absorb the stream cost associated with building that kind of an act of across access my client doesn't and  by the way this was initially a recommendation of staff when this was proposed as part of the variance request to the zoning hearing board and at that point we made the same or him into the zoning hearing board which was by attaching this condition to the variance that it was creating a reasonable burden on a single property owner who was the subject of an eminent domain or a condemnation proceeding we or not opposed in the least with coming up with some type of an arrangement with our neighbors for access and for maintenance and for making this is safe of a of a situation as we can but we do believe that by imposing this as a condition either on the variance or on the grant the final approval plan approval that that does create an undue burden on a single property owner in situation and so we are opposed to incorporating that as a condition we think its own reason for the freeways that cost on my clients especially where is the one who's causing the situation and as i said we don't think that section of the zoning ordinance applies in situations like this we're not home you know as a developer with a big commercial development where we can recoup those costs and as we do the construction we have no who left that condition that recommendation staff out of there there granted a variance so this is been a bit of a ping pong ball i would say to you that the body here that's responsible for  same request staff there rejected that that condition so i would urge you to do the same thing and not come up with a opinion or a decision that would run counter to the decision of yours owning hearing the cross access they couldn't see the connection and two they were fully aware that it was a requirement in order and felt that they were not the seeking a variance so here's a here's what here's the anomaly with all due respect here's the anomaly anomaly that would occur if you were to impose that condition number nonspecifically which is part of the zoning ordinance then or what we would end up doing is appealing that or having and we would be back in front of the zoning hearing board and the zoning because the zoning hearing for asked it has to decide whether or not that section applause or doesn't apply so we're back in front of the zoning hearing board and they refused to apply the last time we were there with respect to the variance application they're certainly not going to apply again after after we kick it back or you give back to them for an interpretation of whether applies to this situation so what i'm suggesting is one that we we can finish this tonight we can go along with everything  except for number no nine that number nine has already been properly presented to the zoning hearing board and they refused to impose that as a condition and i'm suggesting that for you to take the zoning worden and and the  start interpret the zoning ordinance as part of the subdivision approval would be inappropriate because the appropriate thing for you to do would be to send this back to the zoning hearing board for an interpretation as to or as to whether this would violate or whether we would be in violation of that section of the zoning ordinance in which case the zoning hearing board i suggest would do the same thing they did last time which is decide that this isn't applicable and that it shouldn't be a condition of the approval this particular but i agree with i agree with we can we can agree to that but what i'm what i'm saying is when a plant when a plant comes into the planning commission initially you're looking at it and one of the first things that your engineer and your consultants do is say whether there's a zoning violation on the plan as submitted and if there is you typically and i don't know how you do it but typically you would refer that to the zoning hearing board you would tell the applicant you've got clean up your zoning issues and then will deal with the planning issues in the in the plan issues later so in this case had that been done this would have been referred to you would have said you had a problem with your zoning go clean this up with  zoning hearing board we would have been entitle to claim a variance or a waiver from that section of the zoning ordinance we would have done that in front of the zoning hearing board had we been given that opportunity and the your game and we would have made would have been to the same effect that i'm making in front of you tonight i suggest that by virtue of the fact that the zoning hearing board didn't impose that at the zoning hearing board level that had we gone through the normal process and you told us you know go to the zoning hearing board that they would have done the same thing now week what i'm saying is we can't we can't do it both ways if if we're going to impose sections of  my client my client has a right to seek a variance from those sections and i suggest that that would be futile in this situation because we've already been to the zoning hearing board they've had the recommendation and ask you to give us the opportunity to make the argument that this section doesn't apply and we're entitled to a variance from that section of the ordinance so if you're already has questions i like that we should go back to go back to the before you come here we can do that i'm suggesting tonight that it was done it would you say i'm saying that that's ultimately where we wind up because my client doesn't feel that the costs are appropriately imposed on him of the access for the well there would be other cost them again as i said would be prepared you know once it's installed once it's constructed we do understand why it's important that the neighbors in the property owners agree on maintenance arrangement on an easement so that access is always guaranteed so those kinds of costs once the construction is complete we understand and we would be responsible for working something had some difficulties working with panda one major difficulty is they want to build the one wall and after they build it then we have to mine under their wall to do the wall that we're talking about that cost is probably three quarters of a million dollars can do both of those walls for less money i'm sure we do have a contractor here and god hasn't gotten back with fish in anything they haven't even settled with us in anything we would be very very happy to howard kerry and he's been a neighbor for forty years the pm darkish not doing anything where i think peter's township needs to apply we would like to have the variance in the same thirty six foot wall because you're going to bury part of the wall which they don't need to bury because they don't need to build a wall that big to start with but if they don't do the second vague for a commission of of those purposes a bat but the idea here is don't make it a condition of the approval which is why we didn't want to see it be made a condition of the variance don't talk to your approval if you don't it will be up to the parties to have to negotiate for that anyway and if we're free to negotiate without the condition being imposed it will be a much better be a much more fair or fair and negotiate negotiations then if you force it as a condition on this proposal on this plan and so that's that's what i said before what we're looking for here is not that we don't want to cooperate with a neighbor where we don't want because that light is going to be right at the corner of the first property going in north the second property is only several feet away what i would like to propose or what i would like to see is that i would like to see that we have some sort of an agreement the cost of doing this as i understand from mr is a bow is a two hundred seventy five thousand dollar bill which is a lot of money the additional cost in order to connect our property with those able property is going to be very little you're paid you basically have a grass strip between the two parking lots that exist at the present time i'm not exactly sure with that measurement of that grass strip but if i were guessing i'm going to say it's probably thirty feet so you've got thirty feet that a dr needs to go from kasten property to zabel property i also understand that there's maintenance cost on it i also understand there's insurance costs involved i'm willing to work and resolve those problems i'd really did none whatsoever but you were willing to war with them in address these issues and purchase not the only the only additional conversation was after the last meeting we met  door here and talk very briefly minister is a bow indicated that he would provide for us access from our property to his property but that's not written in stone that that's that's that's that's what businesses and if he feels there's a number of ways to deal with it but he's spending a big bill to build that wall and to say this property or next to a mill just gets to use it because we've got an ordinance how can you say that that's but i would i would say that none of the new situation i mean th fifty feet from the intersection and even right even fifty feet in my my concern is i agree with you know a lot of do a lot of my customers make a left turn a lot of a lot of our customers are in tears down chip and the current the new traffic patterns are going to  i understand that i did talk to john maher's office when they were making a recommendation that they that they alter the white a little bit to give people time to get in if that's a possibility don't have a need any word on that however so i'm concerned about that from a liability standpoint because at some point it's going to come back on me or it's going to come back on iran or it's going to come back on the township or something drastic happens or it's going to come down and it's something that  could be avoided if we work hard enough so the connection of the logs i think is very important from my point of view i don't know what the impact on my business is going to be during this eighteen months of construction i have no idea you know and i'm a small business and you know very possibly i could be gone because people are just they're just not going to want to deal with it life our driveway maintained we will recommend you know i'll even pay to put up the no turn on one sign because i don't want anyone to get hurt but once they get in their cars it's entirely up to them what they do cars so i just want to point out two things one again going back to penn dot being the primary developer mover in this project before this project could have been approved hand off would have been before you with their own site plan for the parking lot and for what they were what they were proposing and at that time you had this body where the zoning hearing board whoever tried to impose section three one sixty two on penn dot we wouldn't be faced with the with the problem that we have here now which is the person that are the entity that really should be paying for this is  commission approve the site plan for the expanded parking area but it was a good point is what i just want to fit it is the idea is the the body that has but you're talking them in your conditions your your mate your to your putting them together and by by making them all conditions that we must comply with in order to get your approval you're making a steel with those on normally unrelated things and you're forcing us to negotiate them simultaneously and when you do that again you tie our hands and we can't we can exert that pressure on pandora once representing the information that mr zabel was presented to me from his engine is to build his portion will just want to clarify that i don't want to make it sound like it's a dangerous thing we're not undermining that wall what it would be is need right play a commission cycling approval tonight on with the condition without the condition whatever you guys we we would be very happy to do it's necessary to get  approved we would be very receptive to having mr casting huge to right away is very difficult for us to communicate with people are telling me the project is starting the saudi newspaper it very well may i don't know what legal grounds that i have but i've been in this township for nearly fifty years in the same location when we first go t building we used to be used to provide employment he we employ sixty five people in that location we're trying to keep that we're trying to keep it safe it's a known fact that this is the reason we're doing it they want to take it all they can buy it all pushing it through very much like and not seem like the chinese government right now that stealing money stealing property from the farmers exactly the way this is going through and being in you for your process just like i mean basically that's what we have we have do is deal with the eminent domain process and i think by and again i think for purposes of tonight's meeting the discussion regarding the wall is interesting it's cry agree it's really not germane to the revised plan which is limited to imposing the cross access road so if we get if we get back to the cross access road as being the issue that's in front of you  zabel is able is asking for is just drop number nine from the condition list and allow this thing to run its natural course because if you do there will be greater powers that b that will take care of that and it will be in a market in a free market context where the negotiations can take place and not be imposed or not be done under the garner the duran's of not getting reason why we can't show it in other words if the condition is to show it but not necessarily to conclude it are recorded and he so for your purposes you just want to see where it would go i think that that's reasonable a five thousand dollar bill  live off the line i don't like the beginning language because it's suggesting that you have to do it new when you put in just the second in when you put in when i just read it's just saying if you do it when you do it there's a provision made in the plan for where  eliminating that first sentence starting with the second sentence that they're going to show us on a play and where this connection is going to occur and you know we don't have anything as a condition but you know we're hearing tonight we're going to have like i when i guess this article when the paper about to propose changes and i had already had one of the churches call me and one and now if i could put something up on my sinuses i would love to but i don't have the signing at if i don't know if th