Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning MCTI topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs rezoning of four MCTI lots; resident asks for soil and wetlands testing
Summary
The commission voted to recommend rezoning four MCTI lots (revising an earlier 18‑lot proposal). An online resident asked that soil and wetland testing be performed; the township solicitor said development plans and required tests are handled during later land‑development and permitting reviews.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning MCTI topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Pocono Township Planning Commission voted to recommend rezoning four lots owned by MCTI, a scaled‑back plan from a previously proposed 18‑lot amendment, and forwarded the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
The solicitor explained the current action was a zoning‑map amendment affecting only the four blue‑hatched lots; earlier proposals that included 18 lots were revised and the process restarted. Kyle moved to recommend approval and Christina seconded; the commission approved the recommendation by voice vote.
During the public‑comment portion, online participant Patrice Lanucci asked that soil testing for wetlands be completed for the lots, noting fencing and unclear activity on the site. Lisa Pereira, the township solicitor, responded: "This what is before the planning commission this evening is an amendment to the zoning ordinance in all the plots that are owned by MCTI. However, the planning commission is not reviewing any plans for the development of those lots. Those would have to file applications with the township for any work to be done or any buildings to be constructed on those lots." Pereira added that development plans, any required wetland delineations or soil testing, and building permits would be handled later through the land‑development process or by the zoning and code‑enforcement office.
The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action; site‑specific development proposals would trigger any required technical studies and permit reviews.

