Eldred Township Planning CommissionMONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

E. Ann Velopolcek::;ecretary

March 18, 2016

VIA HAND-DELIVERYZoning Hearing Board of Eldred Townshipc/o E. Ann VelopolcekAdministrative AssistantEldred Township

Re: Nestle Waters North America, Inc.'s Application for Special ExceptionApproval/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 propertyowned by Gower Estates, LLC and located at 122 Sandy Hill Path, Kunkletown, PA18058 (the "Gower Property" or "Property"). In accordance with the Township's ZoningOrdinance, the Application was referred to the Planning Commission for advisoryreview. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Application, and held severalpublic meetings on the Application, including presentations by Nestle. As part of thepublic meetings, many hours of public comment on the Project were received. ThePlanning Commission has also received review letters from the Township Engineer,dated February 15, 2016, on the Application. The Planning Commission now submits tothe ZHB this First Advisory Review.

The Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommends DENIAL of Nestle'sApplication. In the event that the ZHB were to grant the Application, the PlanningCommission finds that certain reasonable conditions and safeguards should beattached to the approval, as allowed by Section 912.1 of the PennsylvaniaMunicipalities Planning Code ("MPC"), in order to implement the purposes of the MPCand the Zoning Ordinance. These recommendations are discussed in more detailbelow. Before that discussion, the Planning Commission desires to note threeadditional preliminary matters.

First, Nestle has now filed two supplements to their initial Application. The firstsupplement (the "First Supplement") was received on January 14 or 15, and was limitedto surveys and a determination letter in regards to Bog Turtles. The second supplement(the "Second Supplement") was received on March 14,2016, and contains voluminousmaterials. Nestle's transmittal letter states that the Second Supplemental materialsaddress the Township Engineer comment letters, and comments or questions thatPlanning Commission members have made in regards to Nestle's initial Application.

P.O. Box 600 • 490 Kunkletown Road, Kunkletown, PA 18058T~1:~9~3\Q}381-4252ext. 3 • FAX 610-381-4257 • I • www.eldredtwp.org

Nestle's First and Second Supplements are referred to, collectively, as the"Supplement". Due to time limitations, the Planning Commission's review of theSupplemental is not complete and, as a result, those materials are not addressed in thisFirst Advisory Review, except to the extent noted. The Supplement may be the subjectof an additional Planning Commission Advisory Review, when and if the PlanningCommission deems that appropriate.

Second, as Nestle appropriately observes in its Application, even if the ZHB wereto grant special exception approval, Nestle could not move forward with landdevelopment improvements associated with the Project without Township approvalunder its Subdivision and Land Development and Stormwater Ordinances, among otherapprovals. Nestle has not made application for those approvals. The comments in thisAdvisory Review do not constitute the Planning Commission's comments as to anyfuture Nestle application under those Ordinances. The Planning Commission reservescomments on any potential application under those Ordinances until such time as anapplication is actually made.

Third, the Township Engineer has been engaged to review Nestle'sEnvironmental Impact Statement. The Planning Commission has not received theEngineer's report yet. Once it is received, the Planning Commission may issue anadditional Advisory Review based on the report, when and if the Planning Commissiondeems it appropriate.

I. REASONS FOR DENIAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION

Nestle is required to supply evidence regarding compliance with the expressstandards and criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance; and data or evidence may beaccepted from protestants. Such evidence shall be evaluated relative to the injuriousimpact on the health, safety and welfare of the Township.

The Planning Commission recommends the ZHB deny Nestle's Application forthe following reasons:

A. The proposed use is not in harmony with purposes, goals, objectives andstandards of the Township Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance and all otherordinances of the Township.

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

{00295348} 2

Nestle's proposed Project involves constructing water extraction facilities at the GowerProperty, including boreholes, piping storage tanks, truck loading infrastructure, andthereafter withdrawing groundwater from the boreholes at the rate of 200,000 gpd. Thewater will be trucked to Lehigh County, outside of the immediate watershed from whichit was taken. The extracted water will not be available for current or future Townshipdevelopment use.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan notes that Eldred Township contains the largest amountof rural land in the Region, and the Village of Kunkletown is the main commercial areain the Township. Page 2-2. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 2020, referencedin the Township's Comprehensive Plan, identifies several goals for the Pleasant Valleyarea, including Eldred, and these goals include preserving and protecting the highquality of existing water resources, preserving and protecting natural features, andattracting non-residential development to enhance the tax base and provide jobs forlocal 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 thecurrent character and natural environments of their communities; highly support jobcreation and retention; are concerned about transportation and traffic congestion; chosewater supply, water quality, farmland and natural resource protection as very importantareas 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 JointComprehensive Plan. Pages 4-2,3. One of the objectives of the Joint ComprehensivePlan 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 objectivesare: 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 theattractiveness of the Region to desirable firms. Pages 4-6,4-12. These objectives arenot served by the Nestle Plan, but instead defeated.

The foregoing are simply examples from the Joint Comprehensive Plan. Numerousother inconsistencies between the Nestle Project and the Plan could be given, but forthe sake of economy will not be done so here. The Planning Commission concludes, asa general matter, that the Nestle Project is inconsistent with the Joint ComprehensivePlan.

2. The area of the Gower Property only represents a fraction of the recharge area forthe aquifer being used (the "Recharge Area") and only a fraction of the surface waterdrainage area for the unnamed stream that will be affected by the water withdrawal (the

{00295348} 3

"Surface Water Area"). Nestle's proposed water withdraw amount is disproportionateto the land area of the Gower Property relative to the Recharge Area and Surface WaterArea. Thus, the water withdrawal will create a disproportion limitation on theTownship's future planning and development.

3. The Recharge Areas and Surface Water Areas are not controlled by Nestle in theirentirety, which may result in uncoordinated use, and the inability of Nestle to mitigatenegative impacts of its use.

4. The Project is expected to result in additional average truck traffic of 30 trucks perday (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). TheTrucks when full are expected to weigh approximately 80,000 Lbs. The path of trucktraffic will be Chestnut Ridge Drive, Kunkletown Rd, and Silver Spring Blvd .. The trucktraffic will pass through the heart of Kunkletown Village. The truck traffic will diminishthe desirability of Kunkletown Village as historical, residential and commercial townarea. The Planning Commission also notes that if Nestle were to receive permission inthe future to withdraw the entire purported capacity of the aquifer, truck traffic couldincrease to in excess of 162 vehicle trips a day.

5. The establishment of the Project on the Gower Property will result in futuredevelopment restrictions in the Township under the wellhead protection regulations inthe Township's Zoning Ordinance. Nestle does not dispute that there will be additionalrestriction on uses in the wellhead protection zones, but minimizes the impact of therestrictions. As discussed below, the Planning Commission concludes that the Projecthas no apparent public benefit in the Township. As a result, any increases in zoningrestrictions in the wellhead protection zones that will result from the Project are notjustified.

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 additionaltax revenues. Numerous residents commented that the Project would result indiminishment of property values in the Township, resulting in diminishment of taxrevenue, as opposed to enhancement. Thus, the Project indisputably will have a netnegative effect on the Township and its future. Nestle representatives have madepublic statements indicating Nestle will pay the Township a one-time "CommunityBenefit Fund" of $750,000. The Planning Commission finds such statements a clearindication of Nestles' recognition of the negative impact its proposed businessoperation, current and future, will have on our Township. Moreover, the potential impactof such an offer would be to induce favorable Township action for the benefit of thegeneral public at the expense of the property owners and business owners in theimmediate vicinity of the Project. These individuals are more likely to be adverselyimpacted. We do not consider this good planning, or an acceptable way to developrevenues for Township operations, and as a result do not endorse Nestle's concept.

{00295348} 4

Lastly, it is should be noted that Nestle's purported offer to pay the Township $750,000is not included in its Application for Special Exception. Similarly, Nestle has maderepresentations about well protection agreements for the Township or neighboringproperties to the Gower Property. These agreements are not part of the Application,either. As a result, the mentioned Community Benefit Fund and well protectionagreements should have no bearing on the consideration of the appropriateness of theApplication. The ZHB should base its decision on the merits of the submittedApplication, and not unenforceable Nestle comments made outside of the Application.

7. The Township Engineer's review letters, both dated February 15, 2016, notenumerous deficiencies and omissions in Nestle's Application and supporting plansunder the Zoning Ordinance. The Engineer's comment letters are attached andincorporated by reference as reason for denial.

8. Importantlv. Nestle's Application does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance'srules regarding multiple uses on a single lot. Section 502.1 provides, in pertinentpart:

A. Development Standards - Two (2) or more principal buildings or uses locatedon a parcel in single ownership shall conform to all the requirements of thisOrdinance which would normally apply to each building or use if each were on aseparate district lot, including but not limited to setbacks, parking, lot coverage, andsewage disposal requirements.

Nestle's Application proposes three uses, including buildings, consisting of a waterwithdrawal facility, trucking facility and residential house-on a single lot. The uses donot conform to all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which would normally applyto each building or use ifeach were on a separate lot. Although this was brought toNestle's attention in the Township Engineer comment letters, and through comments atpublic meetings, Nestle has not corrected the deficiency in its Supplement. Forexample, Nestle has not attempted to demonstrate compliance through pro forma lotsassociated with each proposed use. As result, the plan merely represents a generalconfusion 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 itsemployee parking. The uses and buildings do not adhere to the requiredsetbacks that would be required if they were on separate lots.

(ii) The loop drive for the Nestle water trucks goes around the truck businessgarage, and between the garage/truck business parking, and its employeeparking area.

{00295348} 5

(iii) The water extraction business and the trucking business share a single sewagedisposal system. There is no indication of whose "lot" it would be on, or who isresponsible, or who is entitled to enforce maintenance.

(iv) The configuration of drives, access ways and parking for the multiple uses on theProperty is confusing and potentially hazardous, contrary to the requirements ofSections 700 C and D of the Zoning Ordinance. The employee parking, waterextraction loop drive, and the trucking business trucks all merge to a commonaccess point at minimal angles. Other than large areas of depressed curb, thereare no apparent traffic controls or signs to regulate traffic on the loop drive, oringress or egress to the loop drive. Person unfamiliar with the site would notunderstand the arrangement. The plan does not prevent a commingling of driveuses at the site. Residential users are expected to travel through commercialareas. Residential users are apparently expected to use the paved loop road foraccess to the residential area, but exit through the employee gravel lots.Residential users include not just the occupant of the house on the GowerProperty, but also the users of the neighboring Buskirk property, who use theGower Property as an access way to Chestnut Ridge Drive, and of course all ofthose persons' guests and invitees. Visitors to the site could find themselvesstuck between two water trucks, because the visitor did not understand theaccess routes. Employees of the trucking business are expected to cross theNestle loop to get to their trucks. Adding to the confusion, there is also anapparent access point nearby for maintenance of an overhead utility.

(v) The Nestle's Plans appear to indicate that the two well house structures will bebuilt 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 insteadcommingled. The various uses and buildings, for instance, could not be subdivided inthe future to allow transferability of the use/buildings to separate owners.

Nestle's Option to Lease Agreement does not provide any further clarity. TheAgreement Exhibit B indicates that Nestle is leasing the entire Project Site (less theresidential home area and some wetlands) with no exclusion for the area associatedwith the trucking business use

9. The Township Ordinance, pages IV -11 & 12, provides the following regarding theCommercial and Industrial Zoning Districts:

Commercial Zoning District - INTENT: to provide areas within the Township forthe location of businesses and commercial enterprises of all types catering to theneeds of local residents as well as surrounding communities, the region andtravelers.

{00295348} 6

Industrial Zoning District - INTENT: To reserve those areas in the Township bestsuited for manufacturing and industry, uses with potential for greater communityimpact, 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 thatthe proposed Use is not compatible with the intent of the Commercial District, but iscompatible 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 isappropriate to be located in the industrial district. Furthermore, the PlanningCommission notes that the similar use of a distribution center/trucking terminal is notpermitted anywhere in the Township.

Next, the Planning Commission notes that water extraction is a Use that is consideredindustry in the other 4 townships that share a comprehensive plan (CJERP) with EldredTownship, and only permitted in industrial districts in these townships. The eleventhhour amendment to the 2014 Eldred Township Zoning Ordinance that changed waterextraction from an "industry" use to a "manufacturing, light" use was not the result ofproper planning, but instead the efforts of a few, limited interested parties. The validityof the amendment is now the subject of an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. If theappeal is sustained, the Planning Commission finds that Nestle Applicationautomatically denied, or revoked if approval is given, as it was filed under an invalidamendment. The Planning Commission concludes the use and Project areinconsistent with the intent of the commercial zoning district, and it is impossible toplace sufficient conditions on the Applicant to prevent residents from harm to theirhealth, safety and welfare. Allowing this use will result in multiple violations of Sec1208.4(C) of the Ordinance.

Lastly, the Planning Commission further points out that while Nestle's terms its use aWater Extraction/Bottling use, their Project involves more than simply pumping orremoval of water from ground water sources. The Project is more in the nature of WaterWithdrawal Facility, which the Planning Commission finds more appropriate to theIndustrial District. See Definitions of Water Extraction/Bottling and Water WithdrawalFacility, Zoning Ordinance Page 111-47. While the previously referred to amendmentprocess may have resulted in the reclassification of Water Extraction and its allowanceas a special exception in a Commercial District, it does not necessarily follow that aWater Withdrawal Facility is permitted by special exception in the Commercial District.

10. The Nestle Application, and supporting Plans, alters the circumstances of theexisting 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 forthe trucking business, decommissioning of the old septic, a new bathroom addition tothe garage, demolition of an existing building, reconfiguration of truck parking andemployee parking, reconfiguration of an access way for the residence and Buskirk

{00295348} 7

properties, new gravel areas for the employee/residential access use, and even anotation to future truck parking spaces, where they were none before. However, to thePlanning Commission's knowledge, the landowner has not applied for any zoningapproval in connection with these regulated activities.

B. The proposed location is unsuitable for the proposed use in terms of thephysical characteristics of the site.

The location of the proposed Project is incompatible with the surrounding geographicalarea, 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 applicableRecharge Area, and Surface Water Area. The use will be utilizing and impactingconnected, off-site resources, with no control over uncoordinated use.

C. The proposed use at the proposed location will result in a substantial orundue 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, andgeneral welfare, either as they now exist or as they may in the future bedeveloped as a result of the implementation of the Zoning Ordinance, or anyother plan, program, map or ordinance of the Township or other governmentagency having jurisdiction to guide growth and development.

1. Under test conditions, the proposed Nestle water withdrawal diminished flow in theunnamed stream by 12%, and also resulted in a drop of two wells monitored onadjacent property.

2. By Nestle's calculation, there are at least 16 residences that depend upon theaquifer for future water use.

3. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Delaware River BasinCommission (DRBC) are charged with the responsibility of water quality protection,water supply allocation, and regulatory review (permitting). The "standards" that allowthese agencies to approve and regulate were established in the early part of the 20th

century. Algorithms are used to determine the allowable extraction volume as well assustainability. The standards, as they were originally implemented, did not take intoaccount current residential and commercial water uses as well as climate change. Nospecial exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, andunless, Nestle, with a third party observer selected by the Township and paid for byNestle, performs an evaluation under current standards and best practices, and takinginto account existing water consumption usage and climate change.

4. The DEP and DRBC "Standards" call for a 72 hour pull down test. This does notreflect the impact of continuous pumping. Nestle wishes to extract water for 25 years.

{00295348} 8

No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, andunless, (1) a review by the Township's Hydrogeologist is done to determine what testingis necessary to assure that water quality and sustainability for 25 years, (2) such testingis undertaken, and (3) such testing conclusively establishes that water quality andsustainability 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 inPalmerton. "Monroe County Water Quality Study" is published by the County. Thisdata includes information on the Buckwha Creek. Nestle has not incorporated thisavailable data in its application. No special exception approval for Nestle' proposedProject should be given until, and unless, in collaboration with the Township'sHydrogeologist Nestle shall incorporate "Monroe County Water Quality Study" as wellas perform additional testing as required resulting in additional protection of theBuckwha 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 havewells in close proximity to the referenced dump. No special exception approval forNestle's proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle, with the assistanceof residents, shall locate the dump and in collaboration with the Township Engineer andHydrogeologist determine if there is any need for remediation efforts to protectresident's water supply. All costs to be borne by Nestle.

7. Several property owners have noticed changes in their water supply. Some havedetected sulfur or a change in iron content. Nestle has failed to address these issuesindicating a lack of concern for the affected wells. No special exception approval forthe proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shall first engage, at itscosts, a hydrogeologist, acceptable to the Township, to evaluate the residents'complaints, and determine conclusively that the change in water quality is not the resultof Nestle's actions to date. If a conclusive determination cannot be made, no specialexception approval shall be given.

8. Nestle's Application provides insufficient data on water quality in regards to both thepertinent wells and streams. No special exception approval for Nestle's proposedProject 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 offerslittle data in regard to water quality. Nestle has no reported experience with anextraction operation in close proximity to a town. No special exception approval forNestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless, monitoring, specific to waterquality and volume, at a distance from the bore holes as recommended by theTownship Engineer/Hydrogeologist first be performed at the expense of Nestle.

{00295348} 9

Frequency of the monitoring will also be as recommended by the TownshipEngineer/Hydrogeolog ist.

10. Some residents bordering the Buckwha Creek have stated that they have deededwater rights to waters associated with Nestle's area of involvement. No specialexception 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/orthe 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 theextraction 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 specialexception 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" andmonitored by "Earth-Res" or whoever the subcontractor was during all draw downextraction tests. The list shall include complete data, specifically, data not referenced inthe application. The Township's Hydrogeologist shall review Nestle's data and report tothe ZHB.

12. As of 8/30/2012 the US Fish and Wildlife Service identified a "Potential Impact" andadvised that "Further Review is "Required". No special exception approval for Nestle'proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shall advise the ZHB whenthis review will take place and be complete. If actual impact is found, Nestle'sApplication should be denied.

13. Comments have been made questioning the accuracy of the flood plain datareferenced in the Application. No special exception approval for Nestle' proposedProject should be given until, and unless, the Township Engineer has conducted athorough review to assure that the presented data is accurate and Nestle is incompliance with all procedures affected by this flood plain data.

14. Located on Nestle proposed extraction site there may be potentially hazardousmaterials buried, including the following:

I1l Former sand extraction, crusher and quarry operationI1l Stockpiles of sediment from crusher operation within the wellhead protection

zone 1I1l Stockpiles of industrial waste buried within the wellhead protection zone 1I1l Stockpiles of residential waste buried within the wellhead protection zone 1

{00295348} 10

No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, andunless, Nestle has located the referenced areas and submitted a remediation planincluding 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 WellheadProtection Zone 2. No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project shouldbe given until, and unless, Nestle provides a detailed list identifying the properties andresidents located in Zone 2. Nestle shall also provide references and examples of otherresidents at another extraction site that are within one quarter (1/4) mile of public watersupply wells. This information shall be specific and detailed and shall include thedistance from the residents' dwelling/well to the extraction well(s). Also included shouldbe depth and rating (gpm) of residents' well, and their distance to the affectedspring/stream. The purpose is to have Nestle offer experience with the extractionprocess located in close proximity to a residence. The Township Hydrogeologist shallreview this request and may have additional questions/requirements. After the reviewthe hydrogeologist will offer his/her opinion as to the Project's impact on possible Zone2 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 "deededwater rights" and currently possess connectivity through underground pipeline fromsprings that will be affected by the water extraction project. No special exceptionapproval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shallidentify these properties and offer its opinion on continuity of these deeded rights. TheTownship Engineer and Hydrogeologist shall also review the information, and offer theiropinion at the cost of Nestle. If, in their opinion, continuity will be impacted, Nestle'sApplication should be denied.

17. According to Nestle's documentation, "The current landowner (Gower) operates asmall trucking parking area and maintenance garage.... The current trucking business,including parking area, is located in the "Commercial Zone". The PlanningCommission's understanding is that this is not a permitted use under the current Zoningordinance. Gower would have had to apply for a "non-conforming" use permit. ThePlanning Commission has not been advised whether a permit was applied for andprovided to the landowner upon the onset of Zoning or whether this use arose afterZoning regulations were adopted. No special exception approval for the Project shouldbe given until, and unless, the Eldred Township Zoning Officer investigates and makesa determination, as to whether there was a zoning violation, if a permit was properlyapplied 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, andPlanning Commission.

{00295348} 11

18. Appendix B - Traffic Count Data, Traffic Impact Study - Section 703.2 of theZoning Ordinance empowers the ZHB to require other information necessary for theTownship 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 otheradditional information or any level of detail deemed necessary to determinecompliance with this Ordinance or to identify any impacts of the proposed use.

3. A description of any proposed non-residential operations and storage insufficient detail to indicate potential nuisances and hazards regarding noise,large truck traffic, glare, odors, dust, fire or toxic or explosive hazards or othersignificant public health and safety hazards.

The Traffic Impact Study offers ADT (vehicles per day) figures. The referenced Section1202 allows for the ZHB to require additional information in order to detail potentialnuisances and specifically references "large truck traffic".

According to Palmerton Borough Manager, Rodger G. Danielson, an ongoing projectinvolving non-hazardous waste generated by Hurricane Sandy in New York and NewJersey is being transported to Palmerton, PA. This high frequency of traffic woulddiminish the referenced percentage increase of vehicular traffic. In addition, Nestlereferences 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, andunless, Nestle provides the same level of detail for large truck traffic as offered forvehicles per day.

19. The truck route details traveling 4.2 miles on Silver Spring Blvd and exiting EldredTownship and entering into Polk Township. Have residents in Polk Township beenmade aware of the noise impact and advised of their right to make application to appearin front of the ZHB? No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project shouldbe given until, and unless Nestle should identify and contact residents of neighboringTownships of conditions that would affect their environment.

20. Nestle offers a tanker load volume of 6,500 gal or 54,145 Lbs. PA allows 80,000Lbs. which allows 25,855 Lbs. for the tractor and tank trailer. No special exceptionapproval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and unless, Nestle shoulddetail the type/model of tractor and trailer whose weight is less than 25,800 that iscapable to safely pull and brake 54,145 Lbs. Lbs.

21. Although not in Eldred Township, numerous references have been made to theintersection of Silver Spring Boulevard and Interchange Rd aka PA Route 209".

{00295348} 12

The concern is with the ability to make a safe left off Silver Spring Boulevard or a rightturn onto Silver Spring Boulevard due to lack of sight distance and limited space tomake the turn without traveling off the road surface. No special exception approval forNestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless Nestle, in coordination withthe applicable PA State authorities, and the Township Engineer shall re-visit this itemand make a recommendation to assure safety and negate property damage. Thisshould have been identified and addressed by Nestle's traffic expert and referenced inthe Application. Polk Township should be informed and allowed to participate in theinvestigation. Costs associated shall be borne by Nestle.

22. Drawing SP-1 in the submittal identifies a septic system on the Gower property. Nodata on impact of the operation on the septic system is discussed in the application. Nospecial exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, andunless 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 assurethe owner/user that the system will not be compromised.

23. There is a reference in the application where a Township Employee / TownshipZoning 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, nospecial exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be given until, andunless, 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 wassubmitted? Did the Zoning officer provide a written report? Did the Zoning Officerreport in writing or in person to the Board of Supervisors stating whether the proposalcomplies with this Ordinance? Did the Zoning Officer request a review by the TownshipEngineer? No special exception approval for Nestle' proposed Project should be givenuntil, and unless Nestle shall provide clarification on this matter and submit to thePlanning Commission any applicable documents pertaining to this issue for review.

25. An Emergency Mitigation Plan should be made a part of the application. No specialexception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, and unlessNestle should prepare an extremely detailed plan, acceptable to the Township Engineeror hydrogeologist, addressing the issue of no water or a change in water quality. Theactions and financial responsibilities of both the resident (or affected party) and Nestleshould be identified. The Plan should include but not be limited to supplying thefollowing:

1. Contact information including name and telephone number - 24/72. Anticipated time of response3. Source of an immediate temporary water supply4. Notification of applicable government agencies

{00295348} 13

5. Notification of residents in close proximity to the issue

26. Specific to Page 5 of the Application Narrative, Nestle's Application fails to detailhow the resident residing at 152 Sandy Hill Path will have access or egress to his/herresidence if Nestle's Application is approved.

27. Specifically related to the last sentence on page 5; "The access road to this home isalso from the driveways connected to the unnamed Township Road and Chestnut RidgeRoad. The "unnamed road" being referred to is named, "Sandy Hill Lane". This is not atownship, state or privately owned "road". The naming of this pathway is currently underinvestigation due to the circumstances of how it was issued a name.

This pathway is currently under review as to possible trespassing violations. The area inquestion traverses two other properties, not owned or controlled by Gower. The currentadjoining 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 GowerEstates LLC, 286 Chestnut Ridge Drive. PIN: 06/7/1/55. Chestnut Ridge Drive is StateRoute PA 30001.

In addition; there is a fourth (4) property owner who utilizes "Sandy Hill Path" as a rightof 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 toaccess and egress to this residence.

28. Nestle's Hydrogeological Report states that a baseflow separation analysis usingUSGS HYSEP program was completed for the Upper and Lower Flumes to assess thebaseflow of the Unnamed Tributary and groundwater recharge to the site for the wateryears 2012 through 2015 (October 2011 through September 2015) at the site location.The Planning Commission, however, has never been informed of any notice provided tothe township of such testing over the period of time stated, and if approval for suchtesting was granted and approved.

29. If water extraction was not a permitted and approved use at the time of testingstated (2011/2012), and the intent of the testing was to enable the new, as yetunapproved use of land for water extraction at the site, the testing activity wasperformed without a required Township zoning permit. (See Eldred Township ZoningOrdinance 1200.3(b) (change in the type of use or expansion of the use of a structure orarea of land) If it was performed (as stated) but did not go through the appropriatepermitting and review process, then any subsequent, related activity should be deniedand refused a permit, as the activity was not performed per Eldred Township ZoningOrdinance and requirements. Intent for this land use change is confirmed as the testingdata commenced in 2011 at the proposed site location.

{00295348} 14

30. No related Land Development Plan submission has been made and approved asrequired by the Eldred Township SALDO. If there was a previous Land Developmentplan in place for the proposed Site and Lot, did it include and identify this requested useby Nestle Waters and Gower Estates prior to 2014? The Planning Commission expectsthat it would have not shown such use because Water Extraction was not a permissiblespecial exception use.

31. The Project will require land development approval, including Planning Commissionreview. No land development plan has been filed.

32. In regards to Non-Conforming Use - §707.5 Potential for Contamination (ZoningOrdinance), the land uses, physical facilities and activities listed below have thepotential to contaminate surface soils, surface water bodies, and groundwater, and areregulated by this §707.

Per the Ordnance - Item C. - Light manufacturing and manufacturing and industry

Storage tanks, abovegroundZONE 1prohibited

ZONE 2prohibited

No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, andunless, Nestle shall confirm, to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer, if StorageTanks are permitted.

33. The purpose of §707 of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the public health, safetyand welfare through the preservation of the municipality's major ground water resourcesto ensure a future supply of safe and healthful drinking water for the Township, localresidents and employees, and the general public. The designation of WellheadProtection Areas 1, 2, and 3 and careful regulation of land use, physical facilities andother activities within these areas can reduce the potential for ground watercontamination.

34. In addition to the special exception requirements contained in §1208, therequirements in §707.8 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to the specified uses. Inapproving any special exception, the Zoning Hearing Board shall attach all necessaryconditions to ensure the protection of groundwater and otherwise accomplish thepurpose of this §707. Should the Zoning Hearing Board find that the proposed usepresents the potential for groundwater contamination which cannot reasonably bemitigated by conditions of approval the use shall be denied.

35. The Application fails to identify all bore holes and offer detailed data associatedwith the identified bore holes. In addition, the application fails to identify the springimpact on all bore hole testing. The application fails to offer a mitigation plan in theevent the spring fails to run or the volume is reduced affecting the water source of

{00295348} 15

residents. Specific to residents who receive water directly from the spring; Nestle is tobe responsible for continuity of water supply to these residents regardless ofcircumstances leading to the stoppage of flow.

36. A County map shows an easement coming over the closed bridge betweenKunkletown General Store and references the Old Mill. The easement is deeded withthe Old Mill. It goes over the bridge and onto the Gower property. The proposed truckentrance travels over the easement. Gower may have an easement by prescription.However, there may be a Highway Occupancy Permit requirement that requires anotification to the easement land owner. No special exception approval for Nestle'proposed Project should be given until, and unless, the Township Engineer shall firstconfirm the existence of an easement, review Eldred Township Resolution 91-3 dated12/4/1991, and advise any required action.

37. Section 702.1 of the Zoning Ordinance references Wellhead Protection Zones thatare identified as follows:

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

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

C. Well Head Protection Zone 3 - Shall include all land within the borders of EldredTownship.

No special exception approval for Nestle's proposed Project should be given until, andunless, 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 depictsmultiple uses on a single lot, but fails to demonstrate (in violation of the ZoningOrdinance) that each use complies with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as ifeach was on a separate lot.

39. The combination of multiple commercial and residential uses, which areinconsistent land uses, is generally disfavored. In this case, the problem is beingexacerbated.

40. The co-mingling of truck traffic and residential car traffic is dangerous, particularlyto those unfamiliar with the site. The occupant of the residential house on the Property

{00295348} 16

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 beforeaccessing a public road. Use of the separate outlet for residential purposes is notshown on the site plan. Nestle has not demonstrated an approved way of travel for theresidential 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 thecurrent 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 severaldecades to access Chestnut Ridge Rd. The site plan fails to mitigate the inconsistentBuskirk residential auto use and tuck traffic. Safety concerns are for travelers who areunfamiliar 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 accesslanes 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 anyprovision for the continued use of the lane for passage.

43. The plans do not delineate current on lot septic system on the Property anddrainage areas for the residential use.

44. Many residents commented that they believed that the Project would result indiminishment of property values in the Township. No special exception approval forNestle' proposed Project should be given until, and unless, an appropriate authoritysuch as a certified appraiser, approved by the Township, shall review applicable dataand make report detailing the effects of the water extraction use on property values. Ifthere is any anticipated decrease in property, special exception approval should bedenied.

D. The proposed use will impose an undue burden on any of theimprovements, facilities, utilities, and services of the Township, whether suchservices are provided by the Township or some other entity. Nestle shall bewholly responsible for providing such improvements, facilities, utilities, orservices as may be required to adequately serve the proposed use when thesame are not available or are inadequate to serve the proposed use in theproposed location. As part of the application and as a condition of approval of theproposed use Nestle shall be responsible for establishing ability, willingness andbinding commitment to provide such improvements, facilities, utilities andservices in sufficient time and in a manner consistent with this and otherordinances of the Township. The permit approval shall be so conditioned.

The magnitude of the proposed water withdrawal could limit the ability of the Townshipto develop a public water supply system in the same area. The Planning Commissionrecommends that the Township undertake the necessary evaluations to ensure that

{00295348} 17

Nestle's use will not compromise the Township's ability to provide public water in thefuture to neighboring Township residents at an economical cost.

E. In reviewing an application, the following additional factors have beenconsidered:

1. Location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility ofbuildings, lighting and signs. The proposed uses for the Gower Property are notcompatible, and also interfere with the Buskirk's use of their easement. Further inviolation of the Zoning Ordinance, the uses are not shown to be compliant with theZoning Ordinance as if on separate distinct lots. The plans also do not show the leaseareas 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 trafficcontrols. The plans are not consistent with current vehicle access on the property forthe residential use or the neighboring Buskirk use. The Plans do not account for futureuse by Buskirk, or potential prohibited use by the residential home occupant of accessto a public road through neighboring private property. The roads to be used by thetrucks are off-site are not designed or built for substantial truck traffic. Further, the trucktraffic is inconsistent with the village nature of Kunkletown.

3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking andloading. The Plans proposed parking for employees of the trucking business that isincompatible with water extraction business infrastructure.

4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation,walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overallpedestrian convenience. The Plans do not address the intersection of the Buskirkresidence and the Property's residential use with the water extraction and truckfacilities. The Buskirk and residential use should not travel through the water extractionand truck facilities to access a public road. Next, the proposed circulation of truck trafficthrough Kunkletown Village and surrounding residential areas is inconsistent with theuses 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 septicsystem for two uses. The application does not contain information on maintenance andwho would bear the costs. The planning Commission generally disfavors such planningunder those circumstances, as its leaves the non-owner user potentially vulnerable toinadequate maintenance and service.

{00295348} 18

F. Nestle's Application shall be denied because, in addition to not complyingwith each of the standards enumerated above, the Application does not complywith any of the applicable standards contained in this Ordinance.

The Application does not comply with the rules regarding multiple uses on a single lot.

II. MINIMUM CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS FOR ANY APPROVAL

In the event the ZHB were to approve Nestle's Application contrary to thePlanning Commission's recommendation, the following reasonable conditions andsafeguards 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 inproposed operations shall be made without further special exception approval beforethe ZHB, after advisory review by the Planning Commission. The property owner, andany other user of any portion of the property shall be likewise limited to therepresentations 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, thenumerous neighboring residences, and local school bus transportation runs, operationsat the site, including loading and truck traffic, shall be limited to the hours of 9 am and 2pm, 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 withdrawalaspects of its operation, such as modifying the number or location of boreholes, Nestleshall first be required to engage a professional hydrogeologist, at its expense, andacceptable to the Township, to evaluate the proposed modification and its impact onneighboring wells and stream quality or volume. No modification shall be allowedunless it is conclusively establishes the modification will have no negative impact onexisting wells, streams, and anticipated future development.

5. Water withdrawal shall be limited to an amount that is proportionate to Nestle'scontrol of the Recharge Area or Surface Water area, whichever is smaller.

6. Once set, the water withdrawal amount should not be increased without furtherapproval by the Township.

7. Future water withdrawal shall not exceed a level that results in a diminishment ofany well, or stream.

{00295348} 19

8. Nestle shall engage a professional hydrogeologist, acceptable to the Township, tomonitor all existing neighboring wells within the aquifer, and within 1,000 ft., todocument the impact of withdrawal on the wells. Both water quantity and quality shallbe monitored, and the results of monitoring shall be reported to the applicable propertyowner and the Township. If monitoring evidences a diminishment of water quality orquantity 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, tomonitor stream flow on the Buckwha Creek above and below the point of withdrawal todetermine long term impact on the stream. Both water quantity and quality shall bemonitored, and reported to the Township. If monitoring evidences a diminishment ofwater quality or quantity in the stream, water withdrawal shall cease except to a levelthat shows no impact.

10. According to the USGS (United States Geological Survey) aquatic insects play animportant role as bio-indicators of water quality. Aquatic insect sampling would be agood indicator of the Buckwha's current state in regard to stream quality and establish abaseline. After a set time determined by a stream quality expert, new data would becollected and compared to the base line data and offer a professional response inregard to the effects of the water extraction. Nestle shall incorporate an aquatic insectstudy in coordination with the Township hydrogeologist with costs for this study beingborne by Nestle. If monitoring evidences a diminishment of water quality or quantity inthe 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 posta financial security, acceptable to the Township, to cover cost to engineer, design, andbuild a central water system with the possibility of a waste treatment facility. Theamount of the bond is to be determined and approve by the ZHB prior to allowing theproject 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. TheWater 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 tosupply every residence, single or multiple family dwellings, as well as anycommercial buildings that will be impacted from the onset and for perpetuity.Said water system shall not be exclusive to just Eldred Township. Said designdrawings shall be and remain the property of Eldred Township.

(b) Concurrent with this action a "Board of Trustees" shall be appointed by theEldred Township Supervisors whose responsibility shall be to manage this

{00295348} 20

process. No actions and or actives shall be initiated without the engagement ofsaid "Board of Trustees".

(c) Once budgetary costs are submitted to Eldred Township Municipal Officials bythe BCRWA, the total amount of capital shall be secured (bond, cash, letter ofcredit) in order to guarantee that the required funds to facilitate a central waterdistribution system will be available in perpetuity regardless of Nestle's financialstanding and/or the sale or elimination of Nestles Waters. Any and all costsincluding "connection fees" and maintenance shall be covered by the financialsecurity.

(d) The amount of the financial security shall increase accordingly in anticipation ofcost escalations with regard to construction of this project. The BCRWA shall bethe sole entity who will determine any escalation cost estimates. Control of saidfunds shall be made by the Board of Trustees.

(e) Once the extraction process begins and any negative impact, to any extent, onany well that is identified and certified by the BCRWA, the BCRWA shall be thedeterminer of the action required to mitigate any impact.

(f) The BCRWA shall provide and facilitate the installation, operation andmaintenance of said water system.

(g) The Planning Commission recognizes the extent and impact of thisrecommendation. Nestle has engaged considerable resources with the primaryintent to provide assurances to the Township. If Nestle's confidence issteadfast, the financial impact would be minimal.

12. "Responsible Parties" necessitates a clear definition. Nestle Brands are diverseand may be structured to limit liability. Nestle Waters North America Inc. is identified inthe Application. ZHB should be clear as to the limits of liability of Nestle Waters NorthAmerica 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, theuse of compression release engine brake (Jake Brake) shall be prohibited.

14. Nestle must provide separate vehicle access to a public road for the residential useon the property, and the Buskirk property.

15. The Project involves the use of several separate parcels. The property ownershould be required to file a lot consolidation plan, or the ZHB should impose restrictionson the use of all the parcels, such that there will not be any future use or developmentof the various parcels beyond the current/proposed use without ZHB approval, afterPlanning Commission review.

{00295348} 21

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 propertyowner cannot unilaterally change the areas of each use.

17. The ZHB should require a common access and maintenance agreement for anycommonly 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 onproperty values. If there is any anticipated decrease in property value, a remediationplan is to be addressed by Nestle and the harmed residents will receive compensationaccordingly.

19. The Gower Property has been used for various purposes over the years. Plans orphotographs as part of the plans show various abandoned buildings or other previouslyused areas. In order to provide clarity as to the future use of the property, Nestle/Gowershall confirm abandonment of all other uses on the Property not identified in theApplication.

20. Occupancy of the house on the Property should be limited to an employee of oneof the businesses

21. Due to the proximity of the use to the Kunkletown village area, Nestle shall preparea decommissioning plan for the water withdrawal facility, and provide financial securityfor the costs.

22. Nestle's original application states that the trucking facility will remain withapproximately 15 trucks and 15 employees. However, in its Supplement plans, only 12truck parking spots are provided, with a notation for an area of possible future truckparking. The recalculation seems to be a convenient paper revision. If Nestle expectsthat the diminishment of trucks to be a basis for approval, the ZHB should limit thenumber of trucks on the property connected to the trucking facility to no more than 12 atone time; allowing others would be unpermitted expansion of the use. Further, Nestleshall be required to provide 3 parking spots, in addition to 15 for its employees (Le. onefor each employee). Providing only one parking spot for each employee is insufficient toaccount for visitors to the site, business principals/assistants, and those working in thegarage. Potential offsite parking is at a distance and the plans do not make provisionsfor pedestrians. Thus, all reasonably required parking should be available on-site.

23. Signage should be erected on Chestnut Ridge Drive warning of the truck entranceand exit. Signage should also be provided at the sharp turn west on Kunkletown Roadwarning of truck traffic.

{00295348} 22

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 andallow any fire department access to said hydrant for fire suppression activities on a 24hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year basis. The hydrant pump shall beinterfaced into an emergency power source in the event of a utility failure as a backup..!.!Specifications for the hydrant:

(i) Size: six (6) inch pressure line to the hydrant(ii) Flow: not less than 1,500 gallons per minute(iii) 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 thepiping to the top of the backfill.

(iv) Shut off "curb box valve" and "stop box".(v) To shut off the pressure feed to the hydrant; valve installed before the

hydrant.(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 ZoningOrdinance:

Transportation Network - Existing network traffic volumes and capacities and need forimprovements required by the project. In the case of PennDOT roads a copy of thetraffic study required by PennDOT shall be submitted and in the case of Townshiproads, 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 isa "commercial use", it is the intent of §700 to provide standards for the design ofcommercial establishments and nonresidential uses (referred to as commercialestablishments) to assure the compatibility of the nonresidential development with thesurrounding character of the Township. §700 notes one is to consider the impact ofnoise and traffic. The proposed extraction rate of 6.2 million gallons per month equatesto 60 truck trips per day. The application, if permitted, would require Nestle to limit theextraction to 60 trips per day as detailed in the application.

This is also consistent with section §1208. There is a requirement for the Applicant toprovide "A description of any proposed non-residential operations and storage insufficient detail to indicate potential nuisances and hazards regarding noise, large trucktraffic, glare, odors, dust, fire or toxic or explosive hazards or other significant publichealth and safety hazards." Nestle has provided this information with their Application.

{00295348} 23

Again, the application calls for 60 trips per day. Any additional frequency would be asignificant nuisance and not compliant with the proposed submittal.

26. Nestle shall obtain all necessary federal, state and local permits and approval priorto 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 wefailed to comment on the pending litigation against the Township questioning themethods and motivation of a Zoning Ordinance change that took place in 2014.Through Nestle's application, it is documented that Nestle committed resources andmade application to government agencies knowing that the intended property was notzoned, and was never zoned for water extraction. It is difficult for us to accept that aprudent company such as Nestle Waters expended funds without knowing it was a non­permitted use and had confidence and assurances that the existing Zoning Ordinancewould be changed to facilitate their plan. These actions constitute cause for concern indealing with Nestle Waters and the Planning Commission encourages the ZHB toemploy their available resources to protect the residents of Eldred Township.

Very truly yours,

PLANNING COMMISSIONELDRED TOWNSHIP

By:~;c.&d<:UU j!r/fLobertBoileau, Chairman

cc: Michael A. Gaul, Esquire, King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLCTownship Planning Commission Solicitor

Mary Anne Clausen, Chairwoman - Township Board of SupervisorsChad Martinez, Esquire, Township Zoning Hearing Board SolicitorRonald Karasek, Esquire, Martino & Karasek, LLP - Township SolicitorPaul R. Cohen, Esquire, Curtin & Heefner LLP - Township Special CounselBrien Kocher, PE Hanover Engineering - Township Planning Commission EngineerTimothy B. Weston, Esquire - K&L Gates LLP. (Nestle Waters North America, Inc.)

{00295348} 24