DEP Opposition Form Letter

THIS FORM HAS BEEN REMOVED. TO READ THE LETTER, PLEASE SEE BELOW.


Re: 2951 Betz Court, Lowhill Township, Lehigh County
DEP Code No. 2-39914076-2

Dear Mr. Scott Novatnak & Mr. Robert Corby of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,

I, (Your name and address will appear here), a resident of Northwestern Lehigh County, am adamantly opposed to the private request of warehouse developer CRG Services Management, LLC to enlist DEP to mandate Lowhill Township officials to change the current sewage disposal codes/ordinances to suit the petitioner’s warehouse development plans, which would lead to unchecked industrial growth and permanently alter the integrity of our rural community.

I respectfully submit the following reasons for denial of this request:

  1. A municipality’s official sewage plan “needs to be no more than ‘adequate’ with respect to a particular resident’s sewage disposal needs.” Gilmore v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. (filed Sept. 20, 2006), EHB Docket No. 2005-328-L, “The resident need only have feasible disposal alternatives [,]” and “the burden remains on the resident at all times to produce evidence that the alternatives available under an official plan are infeasible.”  In this case, the current use of the property is a landscaping business with offices and a propane storage facility.  The petition for this request is simply to intensify the existing small commercial use into a heavy industrial use, which is inconsistent with the current zoning and subdivision and land development ordinances requiring public sewer and public water infrastructure to be in place for such an intensive industrial land use.  The petitioner wishes to have only one primary septic system, without a required alternate system as well.
  • We understand that PADEP has the authority to approve a Private Request under Section 5(b) of the Sewage Facilities Act in two circumstances: (1) where it is shown that the municipality’s sewage plan is not being implemented, or (2) where it is shown that the municipality’s existing sewage plan is inadequate to meet the requestor’s sewage disposal needs. (Id.; see also Gilmore,) In the case of this private request, the petitioner has failed to document that the 1966 Official Act 537 Plan of Lowhill Township is not actually being implemented nor is inadequate to meet the existing sewage disposal needs of the property, as required by Section 5(b) of the Act and Chapter 71, Section 71.14(a) and furthermore, (3) Lowhill’s Township’s Official Act 537 Plan, 2004 and 2022 Multi- Municipal Plan has designated this area as an exurban rural village with no public sewer service area and no public water available for a proposed intensive heavy industrial warehouse use that proposes no secondary on-lot septic system and is located within an EV wetland and HQ watershed.
  • We insist that private requests to the townships Act 537 Plan should challenge the application of an official 1966 Lowhill Act 537 Plan sewer plan to any petitioner’s individual circumstances under this Private Request. To go beyond those circumstances, as in this case, indicates an attempt to use the private request process to improperly argue other land development issues and misleading facts for the approval of the petitioner’s project that have no relevance and do not apply to individual circumstances involving the economic viability of the petitioner’s project as it applies to the environmental constraints of the existing soil limitations of this area and how it affects the overall current Lowhill Act 537 Official Plan. In summation, the petitioner has grossly failed to provide substantive proof that the petitioner’s industrial warehouse project cannot comply with the existing Lowhill Township Act 537 Plan. 
  • Again, in the Gilmore case, before the township would approve a sewage planning module, the Act 537 Plan in question required the performance of in-depth topographic, soil, geological, hydrological, and hydrogeological analysis. It has now been depicted by the results of these studies, that the existing and already disturbed soils contained in this HQ and EV wetland watershed are at best, marginal, with a very high percentage of the proposed primary on-lot septic system to eventually fail. High-loading soil ratios as shown in the petitioner’s geologists reports for nearby proposed stormwater facilities, the potential for groundwater mounding and poor infiltration profiles have demonstrated the absolute requirement for a secondary absorption field and or secondary septic system. The petitioner has refused to provide this secondary system and has, in fact, demanded the township sign a long-term Management Agreement for this inadequate primary system for the industrial warehouse use.  With the very rural character of the township, a population of less than 3,000 people and insufficient funding and staffing to provide central sewer and public water for this proposed heavy industrial user, the township is in no position to accept such an intensive industrial use without the proper sewer and water systems and infrastructure in place to serve such use. This ill-fated philosophy is very inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the 1966 Lowhill Act 537 Municipal Plan, the Lehigh County Comprehensive Plan as stated in the LVPC review of the petitioner’s current sewer module, the Lowhill Planning Commission’s Board of Supervisors’ review of the petitioner’s current sewer module, and most importantly, the 2004 and 2022 Northern Lehigh Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 
  • PADEP, in making a decision to force Lowhill Township to accept this petition must take notice that the Petitioner has clearly not proven that the Township is failing to implement its own Act 537 Plan. The petitioner is actually filing this private request because Lowhill Township is properly implementing its Official Act 537 plan by issuing sewer module denials and taking the LVPC recommendation and other factual information that the proposed primary only septic system is completely inconsistent with the Lowhill 1966 Act 537 Plan. Therefore, the issue in this case is whether Petitioner has proven that the Township’s Official Act 537 plan is actually inadequate to meet its sewage disposal needs.  The Petitioner has failed this important test according to previous written decisions by the PADEP Environmental Hearing Board and the PA Commonwealth Court on a Private Request petition.
  • If PADEP approves this petition for a Private Request, PADEP is opening a floodgate of heavy industrial users in a rural township to completely destroy the goals and objectives of the Act 537 Municipal Planning for these rural municipalities and the legal intent of the 1966 PA Sewage Management Act.
  • Under Section 71.74 and 71.75 – Department responsibilities to require sewage management, the petitioner has not demonstrated compliance with any of the following sections: (a) The Department will require municipalities to revise their official plan to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a sewage management program or the inclusion of sewage facilities in an existing sewage management program whenever the Department determines that one of the following exists: (1) Existing sewage facilities within the municipality are not being properly operated and maintained under this part. (2) A revision for new land development is submitted which does not adequately address the administrative, technical, nor legal functions needed to conduct operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities. (3) The official plan or revision shows that existing or new sewage facilities need periodic inspection, operation, or maintenance to provide long-term proper operation. (N/A) The petitioner does not have a proposed secondary septic system, nor a proposed sewage management agreement signed at this time, nor do they have an actual sewage facility.  They are proposing a simple on-lot sewage system for a heavy industrial use that is grossly inadequate for protecting the health, safety, welfare, and financial well-being of Lowhill Township residents and for the environment of the HQ watershed /EV wetlands.
  • Section 71.53.f – Municipal administration of new land development planning requirements for revisions. The petitioner’s request has already been denied for component 4a Sewer Modules for the petitioner’s proposed industrial warehouse use by Lowhill Township for the following reasons and other environmental and planning reasons:

(f) A municipality may refuse to adopt a proposed revision to its official plan for new land development for the following reasons, including, but not limited to: (1) The plan cannot technically nor administratively be implemented. (Yes) (2) Present and future sewage disposal needs of the area, remaining acreage or delineated lots are not adequately addressed. (N/A) (3) The plan is not consistent with municipal land use plans and ordinances, subdivision ordinances or other ordinances or plans for controlling land use or development. (Yes) (4) The plan is not consistent with the comprehensive sewage program of the municipality as contained in the official plan. (Yes) (5) The plan does not meet the consistency requirements of § 71.21(a)(5)(i)-(iii). (Yes)

  • Finally, the sewer modules and the petitioners Private Request to change the 1966 Lowhill Act 537 Plan all lie within the Cherith Brook HQ and plan (EV wetland watershed). Under 93.4.c.(c) as seen below, please note that SEJ impact analysis has not been prepared by the petitioner and supplied to PADEP or the municipality and a public hearing has not been held on the proposed sewer modules for this petition. The petitioner is attempting to bypass this public hearing requirement by petitioning this Private Request to Official Plan to PADEP.  By initiating this process, the petitioner is further demonstrating the petitioner’s attempt to circumnavigate current PADEP regulations involving the anti-degradation statues, the 1966 Lowhill Act 537 Plan, Chapter 71 of the PA code, the municipal and county comprehensive plans and the legal intent zoning and subdivision ordinances of Lowhill Township 

(c)  Special provisions for sewage facilities in High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.

   (1)  SEJ approval in sewage facilities planning and approval in High Quality Waters. A proponent of a new, additional, or increased sewage discharge in High Quality Waters shall include an SEJ impact analysis as part of the proposed revision or update to the official municipal sewage facilities plan under Chapter 71 (relating to administration of sewage facilities planning program). The Department will make a determination regarding the consistency of the SEJ impact analysis with subsection (b)(1)(iii). The determination will constitute the subsection (b)(1)(iii) analysis at the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review stage under Chapter 92a (relating to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting, monitoring and compliance), unless there is a material change in the project or law between sewage facilities planning and NPDES permitting, in which case the proponent shall recommence sewage facilities planning and perform a new social or economic justification impact analysis.

   (2)  SEJ for sewage facilities in High Quality Waters correcting existing public health or pollution hazards. A sewage facility, for which no environmentally sound and cost-effective nondischarge alternative is available under subsection (b)(1)(i)(A), proposed to discharge into High Quality Waters, which is designed for the purpose of correcting existing public health or pollution hazards documented by the Department, and approved as part of an official plan or official plan revision under §  71.32 (relating to Department responsibility to review and act upon official plans), satisfies the SEJ requirements in subsection (b)(1)(iii).(3)Public participation requirements for official sewage facilities plans or revisions to official plans in High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters. A proponent of a sewage facility in High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters seeking approval of an official plan or revision shall comply with the public participation requirements in § 71.53(d)(6) (relating to municipal administration of new land development planning requirements for revisions).