Present: ------------ Bean; D’Ambrosio; Hess; Keim; Paulus; Thomas; Susan G. Maurer, Esquire; Frederick W Hay, P.E.
---------------------------- Sandra A. Pudliner: Vicky Roth

Absent: 0

Approval of Minutes: - May 16, 2007 Special Planning Commission Meeting

Motion: --- I move we waive the reading of the Minutes of the Special Planning Commission Meeting of May 16, 2007 and accept same as presented.

D'Ambrosio, Bean: Moved and Seconded ----------------------------- Unan.

Correspondence:

1. Letter dated June 7, 2007 to B. Braun Medical Inc. from Sandra A. Pudliner, Township Manager in re: Preliminary/Final Plan Approval, B. Braun Medical, Inc., Campus Expansion Phase I.

2. Letter dated May 29, 2007 to the Hanover Township Planning Commission from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission in re: Review of B. Braun Campus Expansion Phase I.

New Business:

The Township Manager addressed the Board and asked if Item No. 2 could be moved ahead of Item No. 1 since Item No. 1 relates to a matter which the Township is bringing before the Board relative to the adoption of a proposed Zoning Ordinance change. Chairman D’Ambrosio agreed to move forward with Item No. 2 on the agenda at this time.

2. Preliminary/Final Land Development Review, B. Braun Medical, Phase 2, 901 Marcon Blvd., Allentown, PA 18109 (Review and Recommendation)

Mr. Jim Rothdeutsch of the Pidcock Company appeared before the Board and provided them with a drawing relative to the proposed development. Mr. Rothdeutsch noted that also in attendance were representatives from the Pidcock Company, from B. Braun Medical, Inc., and B. Braun’s Attorney. Mr. Rothdeutsch opened the discussions by advising the Board that as they will recall, they had been before the Board previously for a parking lot expansion on this property and since that time the parking lot expansion has been approved by the Hanover Township Council. At that time, when the prior review was conducted before this Board, Mr. Scott Pidcock of the Pidcock Company may have alluded to Phase 2 of the B. Braun project, which consists of two buildings on the campus. With respect to the new buildings, Mr. Rothdeutsch noted that one would be located on the north end of the campus for an ejection mold facility. The facility would be a two-story building of approximately 20,000 square feet. On the first floor of the building would be the machinery for the ejection mold process and on the second floor mechanical equipment that feeds the process. With respect to the other building addition, Mr. Rothdeutsch noted that there would be two wings. The OEM part would be 72,000 square feet for a manufacturing facility and a two story office building for support staff which would be approximately 24,000 square feet. There would be a modest parking lot reconstruction at the northeast corner of the existing building. The purpose would be to provide a longer throat at the driveway moving traffic from the intersection. There would be additional parking for visitors and a construction of a fire lane on the east side of the building. Additionally, there would be a truck dock for deliveries of large equipment or equipment that needs to be delivered when the freight elevator is out of service. Mr. Rothdeutsch noted there would be a detention pond for stormwater management and a minor modification of the existing pond. There would be new sanitary sewer services to provide the utility to the injection mode facility. In conclusion, Mr. Rothdeutsch commented that his office has received the Township Engineer’s comment letter dated June 19, 2007 and after reviewing same it is their feeling that the issues raised are drafting errors, a few minor details and a few engineering comments. Mr. Rothdeutsch did advise that all the comments and conditions set forth in the Township Engineer’s letter were acceptable to the developer.

Mr. Keim noted that there are quite a few comments. The Township Engineer indicated that the majority is drafting and there are some stormwater comments. Mr. Keim questioned Mr. Rothdeutsch regarding the detention basin on the north side of the facility and what has to be done in that area. Mr. Rothdeutsch advised that there would be some minor grading and that the outlet structure gets adjusted. Mr. Keim questioned whether or not there would be landscape screening in place. Mr. Rothdeutsch noted that they will be adding that screening in that area. Mr. Keim questioned whether or not the size of the pipe changes and Mr. Rothdeutsch indicated it does not.

Chairman D’Ambrosio questioned Item No. 7 on the comment letter, which reads, “use updated details”. The Township Engineer advised that the reason for the comment is that the Township’s requirements have changed and we will provide our requirements to the developer for compliance. The Township Manager noted that an additional comment should be placed on the plan regarding the execution of the standard municipal improvements agreements. Mr. Keim questioned Item No. 20 on the Township Engineer’s comment letter, which reads, “A post construction stormwater management plan shall be submitted.” Mr. Rothdeutsch noted that will be submitted with the Lehigh County Conservation District submittal. That submittal is normally made after Township review.

With respect to the detention pond on the property, Mr. Keim questioned the detention pond showing on the left of the plan provided to the Board. He questioned whether or not the water would run north. Mr. Rothdeutsch indicated that the water runs into the detention pond on the Airport property then back through LVIP and ultimately to the Dillon Floral property pond. Mr. Rothdeutsch advised that the other detention pond runs east and then south. Mr. Thomas questioned Item No. 16 on the Township Engineer’s comment letter, which reads, “The storm sewer calculations shall be signed and sealed by a Pennsylvania Professional Engineer. The Dillon detention pond outlet control structure shall be analyzed/routed with the increase in the acre-feet. The predevelopment tributary area plan was missing from the stormwater management report. The free board requirements (1.5 feet) are not met for detention pond ‘D’. The stormwater review will be completed upon receipt of this information.” Mr. Thomas felt that this comment indicated to him that all the stormwater reviews have not been completed. Mr. Rothdeutsch indicated that they have been completed. The Township Engineer noted that what they really need is another calculation for the Dillon pond. Mr. Keim questioned whether or not they could run water north rather than south and Mr. Rothdeutsch indicated that what you have is just an existing basin connected to one running down Postal Rd. now. Mr. Keim questioned whether or not there would be a lot of runoff and Mr. Rothdeutsch indicated that the bulk of the runoff goes into the other detention basin. Mr. Thomas commented that he felt that there were a lot of comments and that he would feel more comfortable with a preliminary plan recommendation. Mr. Hess questioned whether there would be a substantial increase in water usage for these facilities and it was noted by the developer that the water usage projected is minimal. Attorney Charlesworth, Council for B. Braun Medical, Inc. questioned whether or not there was anything specific in the comment letter regarding which his client would need direction from the Planning Commission. The Township Engineer advised that he thought that the issues involved here are basically drafting and that there are no zoning issues. In resolution of this matter, the Board made the following motion:

Motion: --- I move that the Hanover Township Planning Commission recommends to the Hanover Township Council that Preliminary/Final Plan Approval be granted for the B. Braun Medical, Inc. Campus Expansion Phase II subject to satisfaction of the following conditions:

1.) Proposed curb reveal shall be 7” and 22” deep.
2.) All proposed sanitary sewer pipe shall be 8”. Pipe shall be SDR-26.
3.) Label inlet #206 a doghouse inlet.
4.) Two manholes are labeled #201 proposed and existing.
5.) Existing inlet #109 has 5 pipes connected. Verify that the inlet can handle the addition.
6.) Provide all sanitary sewer profiles. Show all utilities on the profiles.
7.) Use updated details.
8.) Provide pipe-bedding details for RCP and DIP.
9.) Fire hydrant to be Kennedy with 5” Stortz connections and Bethlehem standard threads.
10.) Fire Chief to review plans.
11.) Permeability spec is 1 x 10 or 40 ml PVC liner.
12.) Show trench restoration details, permanent and temporary. Show restoration for Postal Road.
13.) Show gradual dip in the water line under the storm sewer.
14.) Show the cooling tower pipe and discharge sizes, materials, inverts, slopes, etc. Detail of the pump intake structure shall be shown on the.detail sheet. Pump specs, alarm, size of cooling tower, etc. shall be provided.
15.) Note the process for the demolition of existing parking lot. Removal and disposal of bituminous material in an approved manner.
16.) The storm sewer calculations shall be signed and sealed by a Pa. Professional Engineer. The Dillon detention pond outlet control structure shall be analyzed/routed with the increase in the acre-feet. The predevelopment tributary area plan was missing from the stormwater management report. The freeboard requirements (1.5’) are not met for detention pond “D”. The stormwater review will be completed upon receipt of this information.
17.) LVPC and LCCD approvals and or reviews shall be forwarded to the Township.
18.) The City of Bethlehem shall provide approval for the future water usage.
19.) The DEP planning module shall be submitted.
20.) A Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted.
21.) Vegetative screening shall be provided around detention pond “D”.
22.) An overall site plan shall be added to the plan set showing existing and proposed.
23.) All fees shall be paid to the Township and Developer shall execute Land Development Improvement, Maintenance and Security Agreements to secure the construction and maintenance of required improvements in a form satisfactory to the Township Attorney.

D'Ambrosio, Hess: Moved and Seconded
Bean, D’Ambrosio, Hess, Paulus: ----------- Aye
Keim, Thomas: -------------------------------------- Nay

At this point in the meeting, the Planning Commission moved to Item No. 1 on the agenda.

1.) Bill No. 2007-4, An Ordinance Amending the Statutory Code of Hanover Township to Permit Signs with Changing Images or Messages in PIO and PC Zones (Review and Recommendation)

The Township Manager/Zoning Officer provided the Planning Commission with an overview of the history of the proposed ordinance before them. Mrs. Pudliner noted that the proposed ordinance involves a Zoning Ordinance change and in accordance with Township regulations requires a review by the Hanover Township Planning Commission for recommendation to the Hanover Township Council. Additionally, the Township Manager noted that Attorney James Bartholomew is present here at the meeting representing the Township regarding this proposed ordinance. Attorney Bartholomew advised that as a result of the Township Attorney having a partner in his firm who represents a billboard company, there arose a conflict of interest and accordingly Attorney Bartholomew was contacted to represent the Township in this matter. By way of background, Attorney Bartholomew advised the Board that this ordinance deals with the concept of electronic message signage. Electronic message signs are changing images and he noted that there is a possibility of billboards becoming EMS signs. Attorney Bartholomew noted that there are already some EMS signs in the Township in the Planned Industrial Office District. It is the intent of the Township by way of this ordinance to amend the Township’s Ordinance to regulate this type of signage. Attorney Bartholomew continued that because of past history with billboards in the Township, this ordinance attempts to adjust some of the areas involving billboards. He noted that in the last several years there have been challenges to the 4,000 foot spacing requirement of the ordinance. He indicated that matter went through the court system and was upheld by the Commonwealth Court. However, in their decision, they stated that they were not looking at the 4,000 feet because the Township had numerous signs closer than that in the Township. However, Attorney Bartholomew felt that this could raise a question as to whether the 4,000 feet which is much more restrictive than other ordinances should be retained. For example, Attorney Bartholomew noted that the PennDOT spacing requirement is 500 feet and that the neighboring townships, to his recollection, are between 1,000 and 1,500 feet separation distances. Attorney Bartholomew indicated that there are 16 billboards in the area of Route 22 within Hanover Township, Lehigh County’s borders. He indicated these billboards predate the Township Zoning Ordinance and are nonconforming. He also noted that the spacing between these billboards is all over the place. There are spans where spacing ranges from 500 feet to 300 feet to 3,000 to 1,200 feet to 1,000 feet, to 75 feet, to 1,000 feet and to 250 feet on the one side of Rt. 22 and on the other side the spacing ranges from 500 feet to 1,500 feet to 600 feet to 700 feet to 800 feet to 3,500 feet. If these signs were not nonconforming, Attorney Bartholomew noted that since the Township’s area of Route 22 is approximately 8,000 feet, you could only have a few billboards, possibly three in that area. In that regard, Attorney Bartholomew advised that one of the changes proposed in the ordinance is the spacing requirements to change from 4,000 feet to 1,500 feet. Still under the new scenario most of the signs would be nonconforming. What the ordinance says is that at any time a billboard owner takes down a sign which is nonconforming he cannot replace the same with a new billboard unless he meets the spacing requirements and under that scenario you might only have five or six signs. Furthermore, Attorney Bartholomew noted that currently the billboard ordinance says a nonconforming sign can be repaired as long as it is not moved. Historically, Attorney Bartholomew advised that the Zoning Officer has had difficulty with the definition of repair and how extensive a repair can be. Rebuilt signs have been allowed as long as they have not enlarged the size and were not relocated. Additionally, Attorney Bartholomew noted that there have been instances where the Zoning Hearing Board has allowed the billboards to be moved. One of the reasons for that was the widening of Route 22. It was felt that the ordinance needs to give more definition as to what is permitted in terms of a repair. Obviously, if EMS signs are permitted in the Township, the structure needed to support such signage needs to be much stronger and therefore the sign would have to be reconstructed or rebuilt.

At this point in the meeting, Attorney Bartholomew reviewed in detail Bill No. 2007-4 with the Hanover Township Planning Commission. The first section Attorney Bartholomew noted is the definition section as to what exactly electronic message signs are. The next section reviewed involved the requirement the Township is placing that permits issued for this type of signage shall have construction commenced and completed within six months of issuance or shall automatically expire. This section will prevent instances where the sign company would pull a permit just to be first in line and then hold onto it for an extended period of time without building the sign. Attorney Bartholomew went on to indicate that there is language in the ordinance concerning repair and rebuilt. Attorney Bartholomew reviewed with the Board language as placed in the ordinance regarding regulations involving shopping centers. Attorney Bartholomew reviewed with the Board language regarding the type of EMS signage allowed in the Planned Commercial Zoning District. As previously discussed, Attorney Bartholomew advised the Board that language has been placed in the ordinance to reduce the spacing between signage from 4,000 feet to 1,500 feet.

At this point in the meeting, Attorney Bartholomew reviewed the section, which sets forth the rules for electronic message signs. He noted that the change in graphics is set at once every 10 seconds. The change in an image (fade in, fade out time) is set to occur within one second or less. There is a definition for the change of an image. The 1,500 foot spacing requirement is set forth. There is a requirement that the signs be equipped with automatic day/night dimming software to maintain a constant illumination intensity or contrast of light level. Finally Attorney Bartholomew noted that there is a requirement in there regarding community service which sets forth that each EMS owner must devote at least one message per 60 second loop for community service and it is further stated that priority over all messages shall be given to emergency alerts as directed by federal, state and local authorities. Each owner must notify Amber Alert and register its location for use if needed. Attorney Bartholomew indicated that possibly the Board would like the Planning Commission Attorney to provide her comments to them prior to their making a decision with respect to a recommendation. Attorney Bartholomew did note that the first reading of the ordinance by the Hanover Township Council is scheduled for Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at 7:30 P.M.

Mr. Hess commented that he has a problem with the billboards in that there are two billboards in the Township that are adjacent to a residential development. Attorney Bartholomew noted that these signs are nonconforming. The Township Manager advised that the development in question is not zoned Residential but rather zoned Planned Industrial Office. On the property, there were some nonconforming residential dwellings, and the developer of this property for a townhouse development sought relief before the Hanover Township Zoning Hearing Board and was granted a special exception to enlarge the nonconforming use.

In attendance at the meeting on behalf of Adams Outdoor Advertising was Mary Crocker and at this point in time she provided comments to the Board regarding this proposed ordinance. She noted that her company is in favor of the ordinance adoption; however, Ms. Crocker did raise issues with respect to constitutionality in terms of taking from the billboard companies their ability to sell their signs by restricting that one loop be devoted to community service. She further questioned how community service is determined, i.e. is it dictated by the Township or at the discretion of the sign owner, etc. Additionally, how often would the community service message change? She indicated you could result in overkill with respect to the community service messages on EMS signs. Ms. Crocker did indicate, however, that if any EMS board had unsold time her company would have no problem utilizing the unsold time for a community service message. Economically, Ms. Crocker indicated that devoting one-sixth of a loop to community service impacts their ability to sell their signs. There was discussion with respect to eliminating the community service requirement and limiting the emergency alerts to Lehigh County Emergency Management and the Pennsylvania State Police. Attorney Bartholomew noted that the problem you have as a drafter of an ordinance is that the more specific you are, the higher the chances you are going to be wrong. He noted there might come a day when Lehigh County Emergency Management is not the entity in charge. Chairman D’Ambrosio commented that he agreed with the emergency alerts, but didn’t really feel it is necessary to have the community service aspect in place. Attorney Bartholomew noted that at the time of drafting the ordinance he didn’t think about the taking away of the advertising abilities. He noted that he has a concern over that issue and didn’t feel that zoning should be doing that. He indicated that he could delete the provision about one loop being public service and leave it up to the sign companies to determine if they would like to devote unsold time to community service messages. Mrs. Paulus agreed with that concept.

The Planning Commission Attorney, Attorney Susan Maurer, commented that this ordinance takes care of future billboard signs that will be very limited because of the ordinance provisions. She noted that for the future this ordinance will limit the number of billboards the Township has. Attorney Maurer also felt that there would be a problem with the community service requirement and that it should not be in the ordinance. Mr. Thomas questioned the 4,000 foot spacing requirement. Attorney Bartholomew noted that he does have a concern over the current 4,000 foot requirement. He felt that it was really never dealt with in the prior court case because the Township had so many signs in the Township already and that in the future the court could at some point find that 4,000 foot spacing unreasonable.

In conclusion, Attorney Bartholomew again advised the Planning Commission that they could consult with their attorney and then determine a written recommendation to the Hanover Township Council. He again noted that the Board will look at this ordinance for a first reading on Wednesday, July 18, 2007. However, in resolution of the matter at this time the Board took the following action:

Motion: --- I move that the Hanover Township Planning Commission recommends to the Hanover Township Council the adoption of Bill No. 2007-4, An Ordinance Amending the Statutory Code of Hanover Township, to Permit Signs with Changing Images or Messages in PIO and PC Zones with a change regarding Section 27-711 to eliminate the community service obligation with respect to dedicating one loop for such service and inserting language to indicate that an EMS owner may give consideration to devote unsold message time to community service messages.

D'Ambrosio, Thomas: Moved and Seconded
Bean, D’Ambrosio, Paulus: Thomas----------- Aye
Keim, Hess: -------------------------------------- Nay

.

Adjournment:

Motion: --- I move we adjourn this meeting of the Hanover Township Planning Commission at 9:10 P.M.

D’Ambrosio, Paulus: Moved and Seconded ------- Unan.