You are on page 1of 24

Eldred Township Planning Commission


E. Ann Velopolcek

March 18, 2016

Zoning Hearing Board of Eldred Township
c/o E. Ann Velopolcek
Administrative Assistant
Eldred Township

Nestle Waters North America, Inc.'s Application for Special Exception

Approval/Planning Commission First Advisory Review

Dear Zoning Hearing Board Members:

On or about December 30, 2015, Nestle Waters North America, Inc. ("Nestle")
filed an application (the "Application") with the Township Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB")
for special exception approval for a water extraction use (the "Project") on property
owned by Gower Estates, LLC and located at 122 Sandy Hill Path, Kunkletown, PA
18058 (the "Gower Property" or "Property"). In accordance with the Township's Zoning
Ordinance, the Application was referred to the Planning Commission for advisory
review. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Application, and held several
public meetings on the Application, including presentations by Nestle. As part of the
public meetings, many hours of public comment on the Project were received. The
Planning Commission has also received review letters from the Township Engineer,
dated February 15, 2016, on the Application. The Planning Commission now submits to
the ZHB this First Advisory Review.
The Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommends DENIAL of Nestle's
Application. In the event that the ZHB were to grant the Application, the Planning
Commission finds that certain reasonable conditions and safeguards should be
attached to the approval, as allowed by Section 912.1 of the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"), in order to implement the purposes of the MPC
and the Zoning Ordinance. These recommendations are discussed in more detail
below. Before that discussion, the Planning Commission desires to note three
additional preliminary matters.
First, Nestle has now filed two supplements to their initial Application. The first
supplement (the "First Supplement") was received on January 14 or 15, and was limited
to surveys and a determination letter in regards to Bog Turtles. The second supplement
(the "Second Supplement") was received on March 14,2016, and contains voluminous
materials. Nestle's transmittal letter states that the Second Supplemental materials
address the Township Engineer comment letters, and comments or questions that
Planning Commission members have made in regards to Nestle's initial Application.
P.O. Box 600 490 Kunkletown Road, Kunkletown, PA 18058
T~1:~9~3\Q}381-4252 ext. 3 FAX 610-381-4257

Nestle's First and Second Supplements are referred to, collectively, as the
"Supplement". Due to time limitations, the Planning Commission's review of the
Supplemental is not complete and, as a result, those materials are not addressed in this
First Advisory Review, except to the extent noted. The Supplement may be the subject
of an additional Planning Commission Advisory Review, when and if the Planning
Commission deems that appropriate.
Second, as Nestle appropriately observes in its Application, even if the ZHB were
to grant special exception approval, Nestle could not move forward with land
development improvements associated with the Project without Township approval
under its Subdivision and Land Development and Stormwater Ordinances, among other
approvals. Nestle has not made application for those approvals. The comments in this
Advisory Review do not constitute the Planning Commission's comments as to any
future Nestle application under those Ordinances. The Planning Commission reserves
comments on any potential application under those Ordinances until such time as an
application is actually made.
Third, the Township Engineer has been engaged to review Nestle's
Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Commission has not received the
Engineer's report yet. Once it is received, the Planning Commission may issue an
additional Advisory Review based on the report, when and if the Planning Commission
deems it appropriate.


Nestle is required to supply evidence regarding compliance with the express

standards and criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance; and data or evidence may be
accepted from protestants. Such evidence shall be evaluated relative to the injurious
impact on the health, safety and welfare of the Township.
The Planning Commission recommends the ZHB deny Nestle's Application for
the following reasons:
The proposed use is not in harmony with purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Township Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance and all other
ordinances of the Township.

1. It should be initially noted that public comment at the Planning Commission's public
meetings on Nestle's Application was unanimously, and vociferously, in opposition to
the Project, and its expected negative impact on current and future uses in the
Township and the desirability of residing and doing business in the Township. The
Planning Commission places great weight in the public comment that was received, and
believes it is representative of general public sentiment in the Township on the Project.


Nestle's proposed Project involves constructing water extraction facilities at the Gower
Property, including boreholes, piping storage tanks, truck loading infrastructure, and
thereafter withdrawing groundwater from the boreholes at the rate of 200,000 gpd. The
water will be trucked to Lehigh County, outside of the immediate watershed from which
it was taken. The extracted water will not be available for current or future Township
development use.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan notes that Eldred Township contains the largest amount
of rural land in the Region, and the Village of Kunkletown is the main commercial area
in the Township. Page 2-2. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 2020, referenced
in the Township's Comprehensive Plan, identifies several goals for the Pleasant Valley
area, including Eldred, and these goals include preserving and protecting the high
quality of existing water resources, preserving and protecting natural features, and
attracting non-residential development to enhance the tax base and provide jobs for
local residents. Kunkletown is identified as only one of two areas designated as
"Village", which contain historic character and serve smaller "nodes". Pages 2-3,4.
Resident surveys in the Joint Comprehensive Plan indicate that residents like the
current character and natural environments of their communities; highly support job
creation and retention; are concerned about transportation and traffic congestion; chose
water supply, water quality, farmland and natural resource protection as very important
areas of concern for the future; and supported historic preservation. Pages 3-7,8.
Nestle's Project is inconsistent with the Natural Resource, Historic, Water Resources,
Land Use, Transportation and Economic Development Goals contained in the Joint
Comprehensive Plan. Pages 4-2,3. One of the objectives of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan is to protect and enhance the character of the Villages, not diminish them. Page 45. Another is to avoid overextending groundwater, encourage groundwater recharge,
and protect high yield groundwater areas. Pages 4-5, 6. Other important objectives
are: protect existing living environments in the community from incompatible land uses;
enhance Kunkletown and support revitalization and appropriate additional development;
and protect natural, historical, cultural and recreational resources to enhance the
attractiveness of the Region to desirable firms. Pages 4-6,4-12. These objectives are
not served by the Nestle Plan, but instead defeated.
The foregoing are simply examples from the Joint Comprehensive Plan. Numerous
other inconsistencies between the Nestle Project and the Plan could be given, but for
the sake of economy will not be done so here. The Planning Commission concludes, as
a general matter, that the Nestle Project is inconsistent with the Joint Comprehensive
2. The area of the Gower Property only represents a fraction of the recharge area for
the aquifer being used (the "Recharge Area") and only a fraction of the surface water
drainage area for the unnamed stream that will be affected by the water withdrawal (the

"Surface Water Area"). Nestle's proposed water withdraw amount is disproportionate

to the land area of the Gower Property relative to the Recharge Area and Surface Water
Area. Thus, the water withdrawal will create a disproportion limitation on the
Township's future planning and development.
3. The Recharge Areas and Surface Water Areas are not controlled by Nestle in their
entirety, which may result in uncoordinated use, and the inability of Nestle to mitigate
negative impacts of its use.
4. The Project is expected to result in additional average truck traffic of 30 trucks per
day (or 60 vehicle trips) going through the Township. By Nestle's own reckoning,
additional truck traffic could be as high as 47 on a single day (or 94 vehicle trips). The
Trucks when full are expected to weigh approximately 80,000 Lbs. The path of truck
traffic will be Chestnut Ridge Drive, Kunkletown Rd, and Silver Spring Blvd .. The truck
traffic will pass through the heart of Kunkletown Village. The truck traffic will diminish
the desirability of Kunkletown Village as historical, residential and commercial town
area. The Planning Commission also notes that if Nestle were to receive permission in
the future to withdraw the entire purported capacity of the aquifer, truck traffic could
increase to in excess of 162 vehicle trips a day.
5. The establishment of the Project on the Gower Property will result in future
development restrictions in the Township under the wellhead protection regulations in
the Township's Zoning Ordinance. Nestle does not dispute that there will be additional
restriction on uses in the wellhead protection zones, but minimizes the impact of the
restrictions. As discussed below, the Planning Commission concludes that the Project
has no apparent public benefit in the Township. As a result, any increases in zoning
restrictions in the wellhead protection zones that will result from the Project are not
6. The negative aspects of the Project will not be offset by any long term public benefit.
The Project, according to Nestles, will not create any jobs in the Township or additional
tax revenues. Numerous residents commented that the Project would result in
diminishment of property values in the Township, resulting in diminishment of tax
revenue, as opposed to enhancement. Thus, the Project indisputably will have a net
negative effect on the Township and its future. Nestle representatives have made
public statements indicating Nestle will pay the Township a one-time "Community
Benefit Fund" of $750,000. The Planning Commission finds such statements a clear
indication of Nestles' recognition of the negative impact its proposed business
operation, current and future, will have on our Township. Moreover, the potential impact
of such an offer would be to induce favorable Township action for the benefit of the
general public at the expense of the property owners and business owners in the
immediate vicinity of the Project. These individuals are more likely to be adversely
impacted. We do not consider this good planning, or an acceptable way to develop
revenues for Township operations, and as a result do not endorse Nestle's concept.

Lastly, it is should be noted that Nestle's purported offer to pay the Township $750,000
is not included in its Application for Special Exception. Similarly, Nestle has made
representations about well protection agreements for the Township or neighboring
properties to the Gower Property. These agreements are not part of the Application,
either. As a result, the mentioned Community Benefit Fund and well protection
agreements should have no bearing on the consideration of the appropriateness of the
Application. The ZHB should base its decision on the merits of the submitted
Application, and not unenforceable Nestle comments made outside of the Application.
7. The Township Engineer's review letters, both dated February 15, 2016, note
numerous deficiencies and omissions in Nestle's Application and supporting plans
under the Zoning Ordinance. The Engineer's comment letters are attached and
incorporated by reference as reason for denial.

8. Importantlv. Nestle's Application does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance's
rules regarding multiple uses on a single lot. Section 502.1 provides, in pertinent
Development Standards - Two (2) or more principal buildings or uses located
on a parcel in single ownership shall conform to all the requirements of this
Ordinance which would normally apply to each building or use if each were on a
separate district lot, including but not limited to setbacks, parking, lot coverage, and
sewage disposal requirements.
Nestle's Application proposes three uses, including buildings, consisting of a water
withdrawal facility, trucking facility and residential house-on a single lot. The uses do
not conform to all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which would normally apply
to each building or use ifeach were on a separate lot. Although this was brought to
Nestle's attention in the Township Engineer comment letters, and through comments at
public meetings, Nestle has not corrected the deficiency in its Supplement. For
example, Nestle has not attempted to demonstrate compliance through pro forma lots
associated with each proposed use. As result, the plan merely represents a general
confusion of uses.
The Planning Commission notes the following issues:
(i) The water extraction use and the trucking use are overlapping, not separate.
The Tanker loading facility itself is in between the truck facility garage and its
employee parking. The uses and buildings do not adhere to the required
setbacks that would be required if they were on separate lots.
(ii) The loop drive for the Nestle water trucks goes around the truck business
garage, and between the garage/truck business parking, and its employee
parking area.


(iii) The water extraction business and the trucking business share a single sewage
disposal system. There is no indication of whose "lot" it would be on, or who is
responsible, or who is entitled to enforce maintenance.
(iv) The configuration of drives, access ways and parking for the multiple uses on the
Property is confusing and potentially hazardous, contrary to the requirements of
Sections 700 C and D of the Zoning Ordinance. The employee parking, water
extraction loop drive, and the trucking business trucks all merge to a common
access point at minimal angles. Other than large areas of depressed curb, there
are no apparent traffic controls or signs to regulate traffic on the loop drive, or
ingress or egress to the loop drive. Person unfamiliar with the site would not
understand the arrangement. The plan does not prevent a commingling of drive
uses at the site. Residential users are expected to travel through commercial
areas. Residential users are apparently expected to use the paved loop road for
access to the residential area, but exit through the employee gravel lots.
Residential users include not just the occupant of the house on the Gower
Property, but also the users of the neighboring Buskirk property, who use the
Gower Property as an access way to Chestnut Ridge Drive, and of course all of
those persons' guests and invitees. Visitors to the site could find themselves
stuck between two water trucks, because the visitor did not understand the
access routes. Employees of the trucking business are expected to cross the
Nestle loop to get to their trucks. Adding to the confusion, there is also an
apparent access point nearby for maintenance of an overhead utility.
(v) The Nestle's Plans appear to indicate that the two well house structures will be
built partly on existing access lanes. (Sheet WT-1)
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project, and its associated plans,
represents poor planning. The uses are not separated from each other, but instead
commingled. The various uses and buildings, for instance, could not be subdivided in
the future to allow transferability of the use/buildings to separate owners.
Nestle's Option to Lease Agreement does not provide any further clarity. The
Agreement Exhibit B indicates that Nestle is leasing the entire Project Site (less the
residential home area and some wetlands) with no exclusion for the area associated
with the trucking business use
9. The Township Ordinance, pages IV -11 & 12, provides the following regarding the
Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts:
Commercial Zoning District - INTENT: to provide areas within the Township for
the location of businesses and commercial enterprises of all types catering to the
needs of local residents as well as surrounding communities, the region and


Industrial Zoning District - INTENT: To reserve those areas in the Township best
suited for manufacturing and industry, uses with potential for greater community
impact, and other offensive uses based on location, existing uses and facilities,
and the relationship to other land uses.
Examining the intent of the commercial and industrial zoning districts, it is obvious that
the proposed Use is not compatible with the intent of the Commercial District, but is
compatible with that of the Industrial District. The Use in no manner is "commercial,"
and it will provide no service to the public. Due to impact on the community, it is
appropriate to be located in the industrial district. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission notes that the similar use of a distribution center/trucking terminal is not
permitted anywhere in the Township.
Next, the Planning Commission notes that water extraction is a Use that is considered
industry in the other 4 townships that share a comprehensive plan (CJERP) with Eldred
Township, and only permitted in industrial districts in these townships. The eleventh
hour amendment to the 2014 Eldred Township Zoning Ordinance that changed water
extraction from an "industry" use to a "manufacturing, light" use was not the result of
proper planning, but instead the efforts of a few, limited interested parties. The validity
of the amendment is now the subject of an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. If the
appeal is sustained, the Planning Commission finds that Nestle Application
automatically denied, or revoked if approval is given, as it was filed under an invalid
amendment. The Planning Commission concludes the use and Project are
inconsistent with the intent of the commercial zoning district, and it is impossible to
place sufficient conditions on the Applicant to prevent residents from harm to their
health, safety and welfare. Allowing this use will result in multiple violations of Sec
1208.4(C) of the Ordinance.
Lastly, the Planning Commission further points out that while Nestle's terms its use a
Water Extraction/Bottling use, their Project involves more than simply pumping or
removal of water from ground water sources. The Project is more in the nature of Water
Withdrawal Facility, which the Planning Commission finds more appropriate to the
Industrial District. See Definitions of Water Extraction/Bottling and Water Withdrawal
Facility, Zoning Ordinance Page 111-47. While the previously referred to amendment
process may have resulted in the reclassification of Water Extraction and its allowance
as a special exception in a Commercial District, it does not necessarily follow that a
Water Withdrawal Facility is permitted by special exception in the Commercial District.
10. The Nestle Application, and supporting Plans, alters the circumstances of the
existing truck use, and residential use, on the Property, including area of land use.
Obvious examples are changes in the septic system, and location of drainage field for
the trucking business, decommissioning of the old septic, a new bathroom addition to
the garage, demolition of an existing building, reconfiguration of truck parking and
employee parking, reconfiguration of an access way for the residence and Buskirk

properties, new gravel areas for the employee/residential access use, and even a
notation to future truck parking spaces, where they were none before. However, to the
Planning Commission's knowledge, the landowner has not applied for any zoning
approval in connection with these regulated activities.
The proposed location is unsuitable for the proposed use in terms of the
physical characteristics of the site.
The location of the proposed Project is incompatible with the surrounding geographical
area, which is mostly residences, small businesses catering to local residents. Further,
the water extraction use will occur on a property that is only a fraction of the applicable
Recharge Area, and Surface Water Area. The use will be utilizing and impacting
connected, off-site resources, with no control over uncoordinated use.
The proposed use at the proposed location will result in a substantial or
undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood,
traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rights-of-way,
adjacent property values, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and
general welfare, either as they now exist or as they may in the future be
developed as a result of the implementation of the Zoning Ordinance, or any
other plan, program, map or ordinance of the Township or other government
agency having jurisdiction to guide growth and development.
1. Under test conditions, the proposed Nestle water withdrawal diminished flow in the
unnamed stream by 12%, and also resulted in a drop of two wells monitored on
adjacent property.
2. By Nestle's calculation, there are at least 16 residences that depend upon the
aquifer for future water use.
3. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC) are charged with the responsibility of water quality protection,
water supply allocation, and regulatory review (permitting). The "standards" that allow
these agencies to approve and regulate were established in the early part of the 20 th
century. Algorithms are used to determine the allowable extraction volume as well as
sustainability. The standards, as they were originally implemented, did not take into
account current residential and commercial water uses as well as climate change. No
special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, Nestle, with a third party observer selected by the Township and paid for by
Nestle, performs an evaluation under current standards and best practices, and taking
into account existing water consumption usage and climate change.
4. The DEP and DRBC "Standards" call for a 72 hour pull down test. This does not
reflect the impact of continuous pumping. Nestle wishes to extract water for 25 years.

No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, (1) a review by the Township's Hydrogeologist is done to determine what testing
is necessary to assure that water quality and sustainability for 25 years, (2) such testing
is undertaken, and (3) such testing conclusively establishes that water quality and
sustainability is assured for 25 years.
5. The stream that will be most affected by the extraction will be the Buckwha Creek.
Much of the data used is based on the flow of the Aquashicola as measured in
Palmerton. "Monroe County Water Quality Study" is published by the County. This
data includes information on the Buckwha Creek. Nestle has not incorporated this
available data in its application. No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed
Project should be given until, and unless, in collaboration with the Township's
Hydrogeologist Nestle shall incorporate "Monroe County Water Quality Study" as well
as perform additional testing as required resulting in additional protection of the
Buckwha and the species and vegetation it supports.
6. Several residents have stated that the site contains a previously utilized dump.
These residents would be able to approximate the location. The same residents have
wells in close proximity to the referenced dump. No special exception approval for
Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle, with the assistance
of residents, shall locate the dump and in collaboration with the Township Engineer and
Hydrogeologist determine if there is any need for remediation efforts to protect
resident's water supply. All costs to be borne by Nestle.
7. Several property owners have noticed changes in their water supply. Some have
detected sulfur or a change in iron content. Nestle has failed to address these issues
indicating a lack of concern for the affected wells. No special exception approval for
the proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shall first engage, at its
costs, a hydrogeologist, acceptable to the Township, to evaluate the residents'
complaints, and determine conclusively that the change in water quality is not the result
of Nestle's actions to date. If a conclusive determination cannot be made, no special
exception approval shall be given.
8. Nestle's Application provides insufficient data on water quality in regards to both the
pertinent wells and streams. No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed
Project should be given until, and unless, further data is supplied.
9. Specific to Section 707 of the Zoning Ordinance - "to protect the public health,
safety and welfare
future supply of safe and healthful drinking water", Nestle offers
little data in regard to water quality. Nestle has no reported experience with an
extraction operation in close proximity to a town. No special exception approval for
Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless, monitoring, specific to water
quality and volume, at a distance from the bore holes as recommended by the
Township Engineer/Hydrogeologist first be performed at the expense of Nestle.

Frequency of the monitoring will also be as recommended by the Township

Eng ineer/Hyd rogeolog ist.
10. Some residents bordering the Buckwha Creek have stated that they have deeded
water rights to waters associated with Nestle's area of involvement. No special
exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless,
Nestle shall procure a ruling, by the appropriate authority, to clearly define Nestle and/or
the property owner's responsibilities and liabilities in regard to said deeded water rights.
Cost of this investigation to be borne by Nestle.
11. Nestle's contractor, "Earth-Res" has demonstrated and documented that during the
extraction tests two (2) residents' wells were negatively impacted: (1) Timothy Tanzosh,
323 Chestnut Ridge Drive, PIN/06/7/1/57 well dropped 10.4 feet; and (2) James A.
Cogan, 327 Chestnut Ridge Drive, PIN/06/7/1/57 well dropped 9.6 feet. No special
exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless,
Nestle shall provide a list of any/all residents who participated in said "test" and
monitored by "Earth-Res" or whoever the subcontractor was during all draw down
extraction tests. The list shall include complete data, specifically, data not referenced in
the application. The Township's Hydrogeologist shall review Nestle's data and report to
the ZHB.
12. As of 8/30/2012 the US Fish and Wildlife Service identified a "Potential Impact" and
advised that "Further Review is "Required". No special exception approval for Nestle'
proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shall advise the ZHB when
this review will take place and be complete. If actual impact is found, Nestle's
Application should be denied.
13. Comments have been made questioning the accuracy of the flood plain data
referenced in the Application. No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed
Project should be given until, and unless, the Township Engineer has conducted a
thorough review to assure that the presented data is accurate and Nestle is in
compliance with all procedures affected by this flood plain data.
14. Located on Nestle proposed extraction site there may be potentially hazardous
materials buried, including the following:

Former sand extraction, crusher and quarry operation

Stockpiles of sediment from crusher operation within the wellhead protection
zone 1
Stockpiles of industrial waste buried within the wellhead protection zone 1
Stockpiles of residential waste buried within the wellhead protection zone 1



No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, Nestle has located the referenced areas and submitted a remediation plan
including the applicable costs associated with the remediation process.
15. There are numerous residences and businesses located on Kunkletown Rd,
Chestnut Ridge Drive, and border the Buckwha Creek which are within Wellhead
Protection Zone 2. No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should
be given until, and unless, Nestle provides a detailed list identifying the properties and
residents located in Zone 2. Nestle shall also provide references and examples of other
residents at another extraction site that are within one quarter (1/4) mile of public water
supply wells. This information shall be specific and detailed and shall include the
distance from the residents' dwelling/well to the extraction well(s). Also included should
be depth and rating (gpm) of residents' well, and their distance to the affected
spring/stream. The purpose is to have Nestle offer experience with the extraction
process located in close proximity to a residence. The Township Hydrogeologist shall
review this request and may have additional questions/requirements. After the review
the hydrogeologist will offer his/her opinion as to the Project's impact on possible Zone
2 uses, at the cost of Nestle. If it is concluded that future uses will be restricted,
Nestle's Application should be denied.
16. Residents have commented that there are existing properties that have "deeded
water rights" and currently possess connectivity through underground pipeline from
springs that will be affected by the water extraction project. No special exception
approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shall
identify these properties and offer its opinion on continuity of these deeded rights. The
Township Engineer and Hydrogeologist shall also review the information, and offer their
opinion at the cost of Nestle. If, in their opinion, continuity will be impacted, Nestle's
Application should be denied.
17. According to Nestle's documentation, "The current landowner (Gower) operates a
small trucking parking area and maintenance garage.... The current trucking business,
including parking area, is located in the "Commercial Zone". The Planning
Commission's understanding is that this is not a permitted use under the current Zoning
ordinance. Gower would have had to apply for a "non-conforming" use permit. The
Planning Commission has not been advised whether a permit was applied for and
provided to the landowner upon the onset of Zoning or whether this use arose after
Zoning regulations were adopted. No special exception approval for the Project should
be given until, and unless, the Eldred Township Zoning Officer investigates and makes
a determination, as to whether there was a zoning violation, if a permit was properly
applied for, and if the property is currently in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The report should be completed expeditiously and submitted to the ZHB, BOS, and
Planning Commission.



18. Appendix B - Traffic Count Data, Traffic Impact Study - Section 703.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance empowers the ZHB to require other information necessary for the
Township to evaluate the proposed use for its effect on the community. Section 1202,
Item C states .....the Zoning Hearing Board, as the case may be, may require any other
additional information or any level of detail deemed necessary to determine
compliance with this Ordinance or to identify any impacts of the proposed use.
A description of any proposed non-residential operations and storage in
sufficient detail to indicate potential nuisances and hazards regarding noise,
large truck traffic, glare, odors, dust, fire or toxic or explosive hazards or other
significant public health and safety hazards.
The Traffic Impact Study offers ADT (vehicles per day) figures. The referenced Section
1202 allows for the ZHB to require additional information in order to detail potential
nuisances and specifically references "large truck traffic".
According to Palmerton Borough Manager, Rodger G. Danielson, an ongoing project
involving non-hazardous waste generated by Hurricane Sandy in New York and New
Jersey is being transported to Palmerton, PA. This high frequency of traffic would
diminish the referenced percentage increase of vehicular traffic. In addition, Nestle
references ADT (vehicles per day), the traffic study should be specific and address
"large truck traffic" as referenced in the Ordinance.
No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, Nestle provides the same level of detail for large truck traffic as offered for
vehicles per day.
19. The truck route details traveling 4.2 miles on Silver Spring Blvd and exiting Eldred
Township and entering into Polk Township. Have residents in Polk Township been
made aware of the noise impact and advised of their right to make application to appear
in front of the ZHB? No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should
be given until, and unless Nestle should identify and contact residents of neighboring
Townships of conditions that would affect their environment.
20. Nestle offers a tanker load volume of 6,500 gal or 54,145 Lbs. PA allows 80,000
Lbs. which allows 25,855 Lbs. for the tractor and tank trailer. No special exception
approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle should
detail the type/model of tractor and trailer whose weight is less than 25,800 that is
capable to safely pull and brake 54,145 Lbs. Lbs.
21. Although not in Eldred Township, numerous references have been made to the
intersection of Silver Spring Boulevard and Interchange Rd aka PA Route 209".


The concern is with the ability to make a safe left off Silver Spring Boulevard or a right
turn onto Silver Spring Boulevard due to lack of sight distance and limited space to
make the turn without traveling off the road surface. No special exception approval for
Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless Nestle, in coordination with
the applicable PA State authorities, and the Township Engineer shall re-visit this item
and make a recommendation to assure safety and negate property damage. This
should have been identified and addressed by Nestle's traffic expert and referenced in
the Application. Polk Township should be informed and allowed to participate in the
investigation. Costs associated shall be borne by Nestle.
22. Drawing SP-1 in the submittal identifies a septic system on the Gower property. No
data on impact of the operation on the septic system is discussed in the application. No
special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and
unless Nestle shall identify and notify the owner/user of the system of Nestle's plans.
Further, Nestle should undertake additional applicable tests that are required to assure
the owner/user that the system will not be compromised.
23. There is a reference in the application where a Township Employee / Township
Zoning Officer was permitted to do a "site visit" as part of this application submission.
Did Nestle offer a written invitation for a site visit? Was there a site visit? If yes, no
special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, Nestle shall provide date, time and a copy of the notes.
24. The Planning Commission desires to know whether the Zoning Officer, at any time,
met with either Nestle or the property owner prior to or after the application was
submitted? Did the Zoning officer provide a written report? Did the Zoning Officer
report in writing or in person to the Board of Supervisors stating whether the proposal
complies with this Ordinance? Did the Zoning Officer request a review by the Township
Engineer? No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given
until, and unless Nestle shall provide clarification on this matter and submit to the
Planning Commission any applicable documents pertaining to this issue for review.
25. An Emergency Mitigation Plan should be made a part of the application. No special
exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and unless
Nestle should prepare an extremely detailed plan, acceptable to the Township Engineer
or hydrogeologist, addressing the issue of no water or a change in water quality. The
actions and financial responsibilities of both the resident (or affected party) and Nestle
should be identified. The Plan should include but not be limited to supplying the

Contact information including name and telephone number - 24/7

Anticipated time of response
Source of an immediate temporary water supply
Notification of applicable government agencies

5. Notification of residents in close proximity to the issue

26. Specific to Page 5 of the Application Narrative, Nestle's Application fails to detail
how the resident residing at 152 Sandy Hill Path will have access or egress to his/her
residence if Nestle's Application is approved.
27. Specifically related to the last sentence on page 5; "The access road to this home is
also from the driveways connected to the unnamed Township Road and Chestnut Ridge
Road. The "unnamed road" being referred to is named, "Sandy Hill Lane". This is not a
township, state or privately owned "road". The naming of this pathway is currently under
investigation due to the circumstances of how it was issued a name.
This pathway is currently under review as to possible trespassing violations. The area in
question traverses two other properties, not owned or controlled by Gower. The current
adjoining landowners are: Diana A. Laudenslager, 254 Chestnut Ridge Drive. PIN:
06/8/1/8-4. The second landowner is Lehigh Portland Cement Co. PO BOX 52427,
Atlanta GA. PIN: 06/3/1/33. Finally the area in question also traverses on to Gower
Estates LLC, 286 Chestnut Ridge Drive. PIN: 06/7/1/55. Chestnut Ridge Drive is State
Route PA 30001.
In addition; there is a fourth (4) property owner who utilizes "Sandy Hill Path" as a right
of way to a residence, and where "Sandy Hill Path" ends. The owner is; William J.
Buskirk Jr, 522 Belvidere St Nazareth, Pa. The physical address of the residence is:
"338 Sandy Hill Path". PIN: 06/3/1/28. Mr. Buskirk will need a legal right of way to
access and egress to this residence.
28. Nestle's Hydrogeological Report states that a baseflow separation analysis using
USGS HYSEP program was completed for the Upper and Lower Flumes to assess the
baseflow of the Unnamed Tributary and groundwater recharge to the site for the water
years 2012 through 2015 (October 2011 through September 2015) at the site location.
The Planning Commission, however, has never been informed of any notice provided to
the township of such testing over the period of time stated, and if approval for such
testing was granted and approved.
29. If water extraction was not a permitted and approved use at the time of testing
stated (2011/2012), and the intent of the testing was to enable the new, as yet
unapproved use of land for water extraction at the site, the testing activity was
performed without a required Township zoning permit. (See Eldred Township Zoning
Ordinance 1200.3(b) (change in the type of use or expansion of the use of a structure or
area of land) If it was performed (as stated) but did not go through the appropriate
permitting and review process, then any subsequent, related activity should be denied
and refused a permit, as the activity was not performed per Eldred Township Zoning
Ordinance and requirements. Intent for this land use change is confirmed as the testing
data commenced in 2011 at the proposed site location.


30. No related Land Development Plan submission has been made and approved as
required by the Eldred Township SALDO. If there was a previous Land Development
plan in place for the proposed Site and Lot, did it include and identify this requested use
by Nestle Waters and Gower Estates prior to 2014? The Planning Commission expects
that it would have not shown such use because Water Extraction was not a permissible
special exception use.
31. The Project will require land development approval, including Planning Commission
review. No land development plan has been filed.
32. In regards to Non-Conforming Use - 707.5 Potential for Contamination (Zoning
Ordinance), the land uses, physical facilities and activities listed below have the
potential to contaminate surface soils, surface water bodies, and groundwater, and are
regulated by this 707.
Per the Ordnance - Item C. - Light manufacturing and manufacturing and industry

Storage tanks, aboveground



No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, Nestle shall confirm, to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer, if Storage
Tanks are permitted.
33. The purpose of 707 of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the public health, safety
and welfare through the preservation of the municipality's major ground water resources
to ensure a future supply of safe and healthful drinking water for the Township, local
residents and employees, and the general public. The designation of Wellhead
Protection Areas 1, 2, and 3 and careful regulation of land use, physical facilities and
other activities within these areas can reduce the potential for ground water
34. In addition to the special exception requirements contained in 1208, the
requirements in 707.8 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to the specified uses. In
approving any special exception, the Zoning Hearing Board shall attach all necessary
conditions to ensure the protection of groundwater and otherwise accomplish the
purpose of this 707. Should the Zoning Hearing Board find that the proposed use
presents the potential for groundwater contamination which cannot reasonably be
mitigated by conditions of approval the use shall be denied.
35. The Application fails to identify all bore holes and offer detailed data associated
with the identified bore holes. In addition, the application fails to identify the spring
impact on all bore hole testing. The application fails to offer a mitigation plan in the
event the spring fails to run or the volume is reduced affecting the water source of


residents. Specific to residents who receive water directly from the spring; Nestle is to
be responsible for continuity of water supply to these residents regardless of
circumstances leading to the stoppage of flow.
36. A County map shows an easement coming over the closed bridge between
Kunkletown General Store and references the Old Mill. The easement is deeded with
the Old Mill. It goes over the bridge and onto the Gower property. The proposed truck
entrance travels over the easement. Gower may have an easement by prescription.
However, there may be a Highway Occupancy Permit requirement that requires a
notification to the easement land owner. No special exception approval for Nestle'
proposed Project should be given until, and unless, the Township Engineer shall first
confirm the existence of an easement, review Eldred Township Resolution 91-3 dated
12/4/1991, and advise any required action.
37. Section 702.1 of the Zoning Ordinance references Wellhead Protection Zones that
are identified as follows:

Wellhead Protection Zone 1 - Shall include all land within four hundred (400) feet
of any public water supply wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as


Wellhead Protection Zone 2 - Shall include all land within one-half (%) mile of
public water supply wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, and within fifty (50) feet of any 1OO-yearfloodplain, wetland or natural
water body.


Well Head Protection Zone 3 - Shall include all land within the borders of Eldred

No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and
unless, Nestle shall first supply a certified map identifying all properties, via property 10,
located in Zones 1 and 2.
38. The Project represents poor planning. Nestle's site plan for the Project depicts
multiple uses on a single lot, but fails to demonstrate (in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance) that each use complies with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as if
each was on a separate lot.
39. The combination of multiple commercial and residential uses, which are
inconsistent land uses, is generally disfavored. In this case, the problem is being
40. The co-mingling of truck traffic and residential car traffic is dangerous, particularly
to those unfamiliar with the site. The occupant of the residential house on the Property


has used a different outlet to the property (than the one used by current truck traffic).
That outlet requires the occupant to cross two additional private properties before
accessing a public road. Use of the separate outlet for residential purposes is not
shown on the site plan. Nestle has not demonstrated an approved way of travel for the
residential property owner to cross two private properties to access the public road.
Currently, it is untested as to whether residential car traffic would be compatible with the
current or future truck traffic, and compatibility should not be assumed
41. Nestle's site plan fails to reflect the Buskirk use of the Gower property for several
decades to access Chestnut Ridge Rd. The site plan fails to mitigate the inconsistent
Buskirk residential auto use and tuck traffic. Safety concerns are for travelers who are
unfamiliar with the inconsistent uses, whether they be new residents, or visitors.
42. Nestle's plans show two well house structures being partly built on existing access
lanes used by Buskirk and the occupant of the residential house on the Gower property.
Water pipeline will also be installed in or across one of the access lanes without any
provision for the continued use of the lane for passage.
43. The plans do not delineate current on lot septic system on the Property and
drainage areas for the residential use.
44. Many residents commented that they believed that the Project would result in
diminishment of property values in the Township. No special exception approval for
Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless, an appropriate authority
such as a certified appraiser, approved by the Township, shall review applicable data
and make report detailing the effects of the water extraction use on property values. If
there is any anticipated decrease in property, special exception approval should be

The proposed use will impose an undue burden on any of the
improvements, facilities, utilities, and services of the Township, whether such
services are provided by the Township or some other entity. Nestle shall be
wholly responsible for providing such improvements, facilities, utilities, or
services as may be required to adequately serve the proposed use when the
same are not available or are inadequate to serve the proposed use in the
proposed location. As part of the application and as a condition of approval of the
proposed use Nestle shall be responsible for establishing ability, willingness and
binding commitment to provide such improvements, facilities, utilities and
services in sufficient time and in a manner consistent with this and other
ordinances of the Township. The permit approval shall be so conditioned.
The magnitude of the proposed water withdrawal could limit the ability of the Township
to develop a public water supply system in the same area. The Planning Commission
recommends that the Township undertake the necessary evaluations to ensure that


Nestle's use will not compromise the Township's ability to provide public water in the
future to neighboring Township residents at an economical cost.
In reviewing an application, the following additional factors have been
1. Location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of
buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed uses for the Gower Property are not
compatible, and also interfere with the Buskirk's use of their easement. Further in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance, the uses are not shown to be compliant with the
Zoning Ordinance as if on separate distinct lots. The plans also do not show the lease
areas and access rights for the various uses.
2. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation,
including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic
controls. The plans are not consistent with current vehicle access on the property for
the residential use or the neighboring Buskirk use. The Plans do not account for future
use by Buskirk, or potential prohibited use by the residential home occupant of access
to a public road through neighboring private property. The roads to be used by the
trucks are off-site are not designed or built for substantial truck traffic. Further, the truck
traffic is inconsistent with the village nature of Kunkletown.
3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and
loading. The Plans proposed parking for employees of the trucking business that is
incompatible with water extraction business infrastructure.
4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation,
walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall
pedestrian convenience. The Plans do not address the intersection of the Buskirk
residence and the Property's residential use with the water extraction and truck
facilities. The Buskirk and residential use should not travel through the water extraction
and truck facilities to access a public road. Next, the proposed circulation of truck traffic
through Kunkletown Village and surrounding residential areas is inconsistent with the
uses of those areas, and will negatively affect quality of life in those areas.
6. Adequacy of sewage disposal facilities. The Plans provide for a joint septic
system for two uses. The application does not contain information on maintenance and
who would bear the costs. The planning Commission generally disfavors such planning
under those circumstances, as its leaves the non-owner user potentially vulnerable to
inadequate maintenance and service.



Nestle's Application shall be denied because, in addition to not complying
with each of the standards enumerated above, the Application does not comply
with any of the applicable standards contained in this Ordinance.
The Application does not comply with the rules regarding multiple uses on a single lot.


In the event the ZHB were to approve Nestle's Application contrary to the
Planning Commission's recommendation, the following reasonable conditions and
safeguards should be attached to the ZHB's approval:
1. Any approval shall be limited to facts of Nestle's Application and representations/
testimony before the ZHB, as modified by the conditions of the ZHB. No change in
proposed operations shall be made without further special exception approval before
the ZHB, after advisory review by the Planning Commission. The property owner, and
any other user of any portion of the property shall be likewise limited to the
representations contained in the Application and testimony even though they effect nonNestle uses. Otherwise, there could be uncoordinated use on the property by others,
beyond what Nestle has set forth in its Application.
2. In light of the travel of the trucks through the middle of Kunkletown Village, the
numerous neighboring residences, and local school bus transportation runs, operations
at the site, including loading and truck traffic, shall be limited to the hours of 9 am and 2
pm, Monday through Friday.
3. The number of trucks shall be limited to 30 per day (60 trips per day).
4. In the event that Nestle desires to make any changes to the actual water withdrawal
aspects of its operation, such as modifying the number or location of boreholes, Nestle
shall first be required to engage a professional hydrogeologist, at its expense, and
acceptable to the Township, to evaluate the proposed modification and its impact on
neighboring wells and stream quality or volume. No modification shall be allowed
unless it is conclusively establishes the modification will have no negative impact on
existing wells, streams, and anticipated future development.
5. Water withdrawal shall be limited to an amount that is proportionate to Nestle's
control of the Recharge Area or Surface Water area, whichever is smaller.
6. Once set, the water withdrawal amount should not be increased without further
approval by the Township.
7. Future water withdrawal shall not exceed a level that results in a diminishment of
any well, or stream.


8. Nestle shall engage a professional hydrogeologist, acceptable to the Township, to

monitor all existing neighboring wells within the aquifer, and within 1,000 ft., to
document the impact of withdrawal on the wells. Both water quantity and quality shall
be monitored, and the results of monitoring shall be reported to the applicable property
owner and the Township. If monitoring evidences a diminishment of water quality or
quantity in a well, Nestle must cease withdrawal except to a level that shows no impact.
Sulfur levels or change in iron content shall be among the criteria evaluated.
9. Nestle shall engage a professional hydrogeologist acceptable to the Township, to
monitor stream flow on the Buckwha Creek above and below the point of withdrawal to
determine long term impact on the stream. Both water quantity and quality shall be
monitored, and reported to the Township. If monitoring evidences a diminishment of
water quality or quantity in the stream, water withdrawal shall cease except to a level
that shows no impact.
10. According to the USGS (United States Geological Survey) aquatic insects play an
important role as bio-indicators of water quality. Aquatic insect sampling would be a
good indicator of the Buckwha's current state in regard to stream quality and establish a
baseline. After a set time determined by a stream quality expert, new data would be
collected and compared to the base line data and offer a professional response in
regard to the effects of the water extraction. Nestle shall incorporate an aquatic insect
study in coordination with the Township hydrogeologist with costs for this study being
borne by Nestle. If monitoring evidences a diminishment of water quality or quantity in
the stream, water withdrawal shall cease except to a level that shows no impact.
11. In order to protect against catastrophic failure of Township wells, Nestle shall post
a financial security, acceptable to the Township, to cover cost to engineer, design, and
build a central water system with the possibility of a waste treatment facility. The
amount of the bond is to be determined and approve by the ZHB prior to allowing the
project to proceed. Nestle is permitted to distribute this liability to DEP, DRBC,
EarthRes and any other party offering assurances of a 25 year water supply. The
Water Protection Agreement shall be administered as follows:
(a) Procure the Brodhead Creek Regional Water Authority (BCRWA), Stroudsburg,
Pa, to design a community central water distribution system with capacity to
supply every residence, single or multiple family dwellings, as well as any
commercial buildings that will be impacted from the onset and for perpetuity.
Said water system shall not be exclusive to just Eldred Township. Said design
drawings shall be and remain the property of Eldred Township.
(b) Concurrent with this action a "Board of Trustees" shall be appointed by the
Eldred Township Supervisors whose responsibility shall be to manage this



process. No actions and or actives shall be initiated without the engagement of

said "Board of Trustees".
(c) Once budgetary costs are submitted to Eldred Township Municipal Officials by
the BCRWA, the total amount of capital shall be secured (bond, cash, letter of
credit) in order to guarantee that the required funds to facilitate a central water
distribution system will be available in perpetuity regardless of Nestle's financial
standing and/or the sale or elimination of Nestles Waters. Any and all costs
including "connection fees" and maintenance shall be covered by the financial
(d) The amount of the financial security shall increase accordingly in anticipation of
cost escalations with regard to construction of this project. The BCRWA shall be
the sole entity who will determine any escalation cost estimates. Control of said
funds shall be made by the Board of Trustees.
(e) Once the extraction process begins and any negative impact, to any extent, on
any well that is identified and certified by the BCRWA, the BCRWA shall be the
determiner of the action required to mitigate any impact.
(f) The BCRWA shall provide and facilitate the installation, operation and
maintenance of said water system.
(g) The Planning Commission recognizes the extent and impact of this
recommendation. Nestle has engaged considerable resources with the primary
intent to provide assurances to the Township. If Nestle's confidence is
steadfast, the financial impact would be minimal.
12. "Responsible Parties" necessitates a clear definition. Nestle Brands are diverse
and may be structured to limit liability. Nestle Waters North America Inc. is identified in
the Application. ZHB should be clear as to the limits of liability of Nestle Waters North
America Inc. and that any remediation required is backed by the assets of Nestle SA.
13. In consideration of hazards regarding noise as referenced in the Ordinance, the
use of compression release engine brake (Jake Brake) shall be prohibited.
14. Nestle must provide separate vehicle access to a public road for the residential use
on the property, and the Buskirk property.
15. The Project involves the use of several separate parcels. The property owner
should be required to file a lot consolidation plan, or the ZHB should impose restrictions
on the use of all the parcels, such that there will not be any future use or development
of the various parcels beyond the current/proposed use without ZHB approval, after
Planning Commission review.


16. The geographic areas of each use should be defined through metes and bounds,
and defined access rights should be created for each use, such that a future property
owner cannot unilaterally change the areas of each use.
17. The ZHB should require a common access and maintenance agreement for any
commonly used amenities on the lot.
18. An appropriate authority such as a certified appraiser, approved by the Township,
shall review applicable data and make report detailing the effects of water extraction on
property values. If there is any anticipated decrease in property value, a remediation
plan is to be addressed by Nestle and the harmed residents will receive compensation
19. The Gower Property has been used for various purposes over the years. Plans or
photographs as part of the plans show various abandoned buildings or other previously
used areas. In order to provide clarity as to the future use of the property, Nestle/Gower
shall confirm abandonment of all other uses on the Property not identified in the
20. Occupancy of the house on the Property should be limited to an employee of one
of the businesses
21. Due to the proximity of the use to the Kunkletown village area, Nestle shall prepare
a decommissioning plan for the water withdrawal facility, and provide financial security
for the costs.
22. Nestle's original application states that the trucking facility will remain with
approximately 15 trucks and 15 employees. However, in its Supplement plans, only 12
truck parking spots are provided, with a notation for an area of possible future truck
parking. The recalculation seems to be a convenient paper revision. If Nestle expects
that the diminishment of trucks to be a basis for approval, the ZHB should limit the
number of trucks on the property connected to the trucking facility to no more than 12 at
one time; allowing others would be unpermitted expansion of the use. Further, Nestle
shall be required to provide 3 parking spots, in addition to 15 for its employees (Le. one
for each employee). Providing only one parking spot for each employee is insufficient to
account for visitors to the site, business principals/assistants, and those working in the
garage. Potential offsite parking is at a distance and the plans do not make provisions
for pedestrians. Thus, all reasonably required parking should be available on-site.
23. Signage should be erected on Chestnut Ridge Drive warning of the truck entrance
and exit. Signage should also be provided at the sharp turn west on Kunkletown Road
warning of truck traffic.



24. Nestle shall provide and maintain a live (pressure) fire hydrant, not less than six (6)
inches in diameter. The hydrant must allow year-round access and functionality and
allow any fire department access to said hydrant for fire suppression activities on a 24
hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year basis. The hydrant pump shall be
interfaced into an emergency power source in the event of a utility failure as a backup..!.!
Specifications for the hydrant:
Size: six (6) inch pressure line to the hydrant
Flow: not less than 1,500 gallons per minute
Burial: not less than four and one half (4 1/2) feet or deeper from the top of
the shutoff valve at the bottom of the hydrant where it connects to the
piping to the top of the backfill.
Shut off "curb box valve" and "stop box".
To shut off the pressure feed to the hydrant; valve installed before the
(a) 1- One (1) "Steamer" cap with a five and one half (5 1/2) inch "Stortz"
discharge fitting mounted on main discharge port.
(b) Two (2), two and one-half (2 1/2) inch "Stortz" discharge, fitting ports,
one on each side of the hydrant, right and left side.
(c) One (1), "Stortz" adaptor, size; five and one half (5 1/2) inch to a five
(5) inch hose adaptor.
25. The Planning Commission draws the ZHB's attention to Section 703.2 of the Zoning
Transportation Network - Existing network traffic volumes and capacities and need for
improvements required by the project. In the case of PennDOT roads a copy of the
traffic study required by PennDOT shall be submitted and in the case of Township
roads, the study shall be conducted in accord with PennDOT requirements.
Although the PC is not in agreement with the Applicant's submittal that the operation is
a "commercial use", it is the intent of 700 to provide standards for the design of
commercial establishments and nonresidential uses (referred to as commercial
establishments) to assure the compatibility of the nonresidential development with the
surrounding character of the Township. 700 notes one is to consider the impact of
noise and traffic. The proposed extraction rate of 6.2 million gallons per month equates
to 60 truck trips per day. The application, if permitted, would require Nestle to limit the
extraction to 60 trips per day as detailed in the application.
This is also consistent with section 1208. There is a requirement for the Applicant to
provide "A description of any proposed non-residential operations and storage in
sufficient detail to indicate potential nuisances and hazards regarding noise, large truck
traffic, glare, odors, dust, fire or toxic or explosive hazards or other significant public
health and safety hazards." Nestle has provided this information with their Application.



Again, the application calls for 60 trips per day. Any additional frequency would be a
significant nuisance and not compliant with the proposed submittal.
26. Nestle shall obtain all necessary federal, state and local permits and approval prior
to commencing the use, including land development approval for the Project.
27. Nestle's use shall be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, regulation,
and court decisions.

In conclusion, the Eldred Township Planning Commission would be remiss if we

failed to comment on the pending litigation against the Township questioning the
methods and motivation of a Zoning Ordinance change that took place in 2014.
Through Nestle's application, it is documented that Nestle committed resources and
made application to government agencies knowing that the intended property was not
zoned, and was never zoned for water extraction. It is difficult for us to accept that a
prudent company such as Nestle Waters expended funds without knowing it was a nonpermitted use and had confidence and assurances that the existing Zoning Ordinance
would be changed to facilitate their plan. These actions constitute cause for concern in
dealing with Nestle Waters and the Planning Commission encourages the ZHB to
employ their available resources to protect the residents of Eldred Township.
Very truly yours,



obertBoileau, Chairman
Michael A. Gaul, Esquire, King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLC
Township Planning Commission Solicitor
Mary Anne Clausen, Chairwoman - Township Board of Supervisors
Chad Martinez, Esquire, Township Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Ronald Karasek, Esquire, Martino & Karasek, LLP - Township Solicitor
Paul R. Cohen, Esquire, Curtin & Heefner LLP - Township Special Counsel
Brien Kocher, PE Hanover Engineering - Township Planning Commission Engineer
Timothy B. Weston, Esquire - K&L Gates LLP. (Nestle Waters North America, Inc.)



You might also like