Present: ---- Councilmen Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus; J. Jackson Eaton, III, Esquire; Frederick W. Haye, P.E.; -------------------- Sandra A. Pudliner; Vicky Roth

Absent: ------------------ Councilwoman Hayden

Attendance: ---------- 30

Courtesy of the Floor: None

Approval of Minutes: ------ January 9, 2006 Reorganization Meeting
-------------------------------------------- January 9, 2006 Special Council Meeting

Motion: --- I move we waive the reading of the Minutes of the January 9, 2006 Reorganization Meeting and accept same as presented.

Paulus, Kovacs: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

Motion: --- I move we waive the reading of the Minutes of the January 9, 2006 Special Council Meeting and accept same as presented.

Paulus, Kovacs: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

Reports:

1. Sandra A. Pudliner
Township Manager

The Township Manager advised the Board that she had no report to offer at this time. However, upon questioning there was a discussion involving the debris behind the Valley Plaza Shopping Center which is being caused by dumpster lids being opened, storage of items outside of the dumpsters, etc. The Township Manager noted that she in conjunction with the Code Enforcement Officers will be advising all the tenants of this unacceptable condition and issuing appropriate citations if necessary. In attendance at the meeting was Attorney William Malkames who advised the Board that he represents Valley Plaza Shopping Center and would relay to the owner the problems noted by the Township in the hope that they can be resolved.

2. Frederick W. Hay, P.E.
Township Engineer

With respect to the issue involving grease in the lines from Hanover Township, Northampton County, entering into Pump Station No. 1 in the Township, Council should be advised that I had a phone conversation with Mr. Bryan Catone of Liberty Property Trust, the owners of the properties, and he has advised that they will clean the lines and that the grease trap has been cleaned. Further, they will be supplying the Township with copies of the grease cleanouts each time that occurs.

3. J. Jackson Eaton, III, Esquire
Attorney's Report

1.) The Township Attorney advised that he has provided Council with a copy of correspondence involving the hospitalization of Councilwoman Hayden and her authorization to participate in meetings while hospitalized.

2.) In the matter of the Township versus Central Plains, relative to the violation of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Council should be advised that the District Justice found in favor of the Township. Attorney Eaton noted that there is a period of time for an appeal. The Township Engineer noted that they have made the repairs and that the pump station is working as of today. Mr. Hay further noted that the station is not manual and that they have fixed the alarms, which include a light and horn and that a telephone line has been hooked up. Councilman Kovacs questioned how long the appeal period is and Attorney Eaton noted that it is 30 days from the date of the decision.

4. Maintenance Report (Written)

5. Fire Company Report (Written)

6. Code Enforcement Officers' Reports (Written)

7. Building Inspector's Report (Written)

Chairman Paulus acknowledged receipt of a written Maintenance Report, written Fire Company Report, written Code Enforcement Officers’ Reports, and written Building Inspector’s Report and same were noted for the record. With respect to the Maintenance Report, Councilman Atkinson questioned the extent of the problem involving the repair of the 10 Ton Truck and the Township Manager advised that she would have to check on same. With respect to the Fire Company Report, it was noted that the total calls for 2005 were 312, which the Township Fire Chief, Robin Yoder, who was present at the meeting, indicated was an all time high.

With respect to the Code Enforcement Officers’ Reports, Mr. Paul Whiting of 1826 Sherwood Street approached the Board at this time to voice his complaint regarding the noise disturbance coming from the U.S. Foodservice facility located within the Township. Chairman Paulus advised Mr. Whiting that the Township has been monitoring the noise decibel levels periodically and that they had been in compliance until recently when a reading was taken from the property of a Township resident and at that time it was found that they were over the allowable decibels. At that time, a meeting was held with the Township Engineer, Township Manager and myself with representatives of U.S. Foodservice and as a result of that meeting, U.S. Foodservice redid their buffer zone and planted trees on the new portion. Chairman Paulus also noted that at the time of the meeting they assured the Township that they would not park trucks on that side of the building and that they were changing their operation to move the trucks quickly in and out. Chairman Paulus did note to Mr. Whiting that the Township can do another noise level test from his property. Mr. Whiting noted that the trucks can be plugged in and that in his opinion they are wasting fuel. Chairman Paulus and the Township Engineer indicated that they were unaware that there was the possibility of plugging the trucks in to electricity but that they would check into the problem and in addition Chairman Paulus indicated that the Township Engineer would perform another noise test at Mr. Whiting’s property in the near future.

With respect to the Building Inspector’s Report, Council noted that the report still shows an outstanding violation at 171 Lloyd Street and that the Township Manager should check and determine why that situation has not been corrected.

8. Treasurer's Report (Written)

Motion: --- I move we accept the computer printouts dated January 18, 2006, for the General Fund Account, Capital Reserve Account, Escrow Account, Liquid Fuels Account, Sewer Account and Water Account subject to audit.

Paulus, Kovacs: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

Unfinished Business:

1.) Resolution No. 2006-19, A Resolution Granting Preliminary Land Development Approval to Airport Center, 1820 Airport Road, Allentown, PA 18109 (Vote) (Time Extension Until Jan. 31, 2006)

The Township Engineer prefaced the discussions by advising all present that the developer had submitted revised plans to his office and that the Board has the comment letter of the Township Engineer dated January 16, 2006. Mr. Hay further noted that he has met with Councilmembers and some of the residents with respect to concerns that have been raised. Mr. Hay further noted that one of the big comments involves the stormwater calculations, which his office just received yesterday and has not yet had an opportunity to review.

At this point in the meeting, Councilman Dreisbach requested that the Township Attorney explain to the audience the process as same relates to land development. Accordingly, Attorney Eaton advised all present that the proceeding this evening is land development not zoning. This is not a proceeding where the Township decides if something is appropriate. What is before the Board this evening is a use that is approved for this area. Attorney Eaton further stated that the land development process determines essentially how a use fits in with the Township’s infrastructure, stormwater, sanitary, traffic and other matters. It is not a question if a use should be permitted or not. It is an issue as to whether or not a proposed development is consistent with the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The process begins with a review after it is submitted to Township staff. The plans are presented to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, the Lehigh County Soil Conservation District and the Township’s own Planning Commission and after the Hanover Township Planning Commission reviews the Plan, then it comes to the Township Council. This Board saw the developer’s plan for the first time at the last meeting. At this point in the process, Attorney Eaton advised that the governing body has the opportunity should they so choose to make a decision this evening. Attorney Eaton again noted for all present that this is not an approval of the use.

At this point in the meeting, Chairman Paulus indicated that he would follow a procedure for discussion of this subject matter to include hearing from the developer and after that presentation is made then there would be questions from Council, residents, business owners, and other interested parties in that order.

Attorney James Broughal, the Attorney for the developer, advised Council that they are prepared to put on a full presentation should Council desire as they had done at the last meeting. The Township Engineer noted that the scope and layout of this plan has not changed. Attorney Broughal also acknowledged receipt of the Township Engineer’s letter dated January 16, 2006. Mr. Broughal noted that the vast majority of the comments of the Township Engineer rest with outside agencies and permits, which will be required before final plan approval. The remainder of the comments, Attorney Broughal felt, dealt with engineering details and will not affect the ultimate layout of this plan including the stormwater comments on the plan. Attorney Broughal noted that the stormwater management issues will follow the requirements of Act 167 and will be in accordance with the Township’s own ordinances and will be reviewed by the Lehigh Planning Commission. He indicated that the engineering comments deal with the size of pipe outlets, but those issues will not affect the layout of this plan. Accordingly, Attorney Broughal requested that the Board consider granting conditional preliminary plan approval at this time.

Chairman Paulus questioned the Township Engineer as to his feelings regarding approvals for this project. The Township Engineer advised that officially he has not had the opportunity to review the offsite stormwater. However, he noted that in discussions with the developer’s engineer, we have agreed to the game plan, but he has not reviewed the submission as of this time. Mr. Hay noted that his firm’s review of the plans indicate that they have not changed the layout of the plans by way of any revisions that have been made. He indicated that they have revised the plans and addressed the previous comments but that also generated new comments. There was discussion with respect to the comment on the Township’s letter requiring signalization at the Downs Drive-East Road intersection. Attorney Broughal noted that signalization would not be a problem with the developer if it meets PennDOT warrants. Councilman Atkinson commented that he was of the opinion that most of the comments are engineering plan issues. Attorney Broughal advised that they have not moved on the special exception approval which will be required because they don’t know who the tenants are going to be at the present time and knowing that will determine the parking requirements. It was noted for the record that the issues of great concern to the Township involve parking, stormwater, pedestrian access and permanent access utility easements.

At this point in the meeting, Chairman Paulus advised that he would open the floor for discussion and questions from Township residents. Dana Cappel, 522 Cedar Hill Drive, approached the Board at this time questioning the issue of the bus stops and how that would be addressed and further that if crime goes up who would protect the residents of the apartment complex. Councilman Kovacs commented that the bus stop situation will not change. Ms. Cappel noted that she is a bus driver and that people don’t stop. She stated that after a first incident, an individual receives a summons and after the second incident, a higher penalty. The Township Engineer commented that the alignment of the roads in question is subject to safety issues, site distance, geometry, etc. He further noted that the Allendale entrance is on the opposite side of the road. Councilman Atkinson commented that this area is not off the beaten path. He further stated that if the analyst who did the traffic study and determined that the area in question would only receive 20% of the traffic from this development is incorrect, then the Township has the authority to install a four way stop sign in that area. Additionally, Councilman Atkinson noted that if the situation gets worse the Township can go for warrants from PennDOT to have a signal light installed. However, Councilman Atkinson did advise that they should be aware that PennDOT has control with respect to authorizing signalization at that intersection. Furthermore, Councilman Atkinson felt that the bus stop could be moved into the horseshoe if there is a problem. He noted it is not a logistics issue. The Township Engineer commented that in the past the Township has required large developers to do traffic studies after build out of their development. He felt that this is something the Township could consider.

Mr. Thomas Keim of 1635 N. Halstead Street approached the Board at this time and noted that he did not feel that the traffic study, which was done is appropriate and that it was too broad. Mr. Keim felt that the traffic study was limited in its scope and has a lot of flaws. Mr. Keim felt that further review should be done of the intersection of Lloyd Street and Irving Street. He indicated that no one knows how much traffic will be coming out of the back entrance of this shopping center. He indicated that interested parties are being told that 10% to 20% will be coming from this entrance. He also noted that they have been told that if there is more traffic then the Township can put up stop signs and that if there is still more traffic then the Township can look into signalization for the intersection. What Mr. Keim requested is that before any consideration for a preliminary plan approval for the shopping center is granted, another traffic study be completed. Mr. Keim also felt that before preliminary plan approval, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission should indicate to the Township that they have reviewed the plan and look upon it in a favorable manner. Mr. Keim also noted that the Township should not compromise the safety of its residents. At this point in the meeting, there was discussion regarding the issue of a traffic study. Mr. Keim advised that he could not understand how the Township can say that Irving Street will handle the traffic flow. The Township Engineer noted that a traffic study was performed in accordance with industry standards. There was a numerical analysis. Mr. Keim indicated that this Township is unique. He noted that there is no traffic going through the airport and that this limits the traffic flow. Mr. Keim felt that no other township is set up like this Township. The Township Engineer commented that you have a one-lane road onto Irving Street but four lanes onto Airport Road. In conclusion, Mr. Keim advised that he did not feel the traffic study was done properly. Mr. Thomas Lerch, of 2320 Grove Road, approached the Board at this time and advised that traffic is his main concern. He expressed his concern to the Board regarding the exits eastbound and westbound on Route 22.

Ms. Jill Salim of 1715 N. Irving Street approached the Board at this time. Ms. Salim advised Council that she has the same concerns as the two gentlemen who spoke before her. She indicated that she also felt the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission should review the plan and also shared concerns over the bus stop situation. She noted that cars are going through the bus stop. With respect to other unresolved issues that Ms. Salim felt needed to be addressed, she presented to the Board a type written statement noting all of her concerns. A copy of the statement is attached hereto and made a part hereof. A discussion ensued regarding Ms. Salim’s comments. Attorney Broughal noted that the boundary line dispute is a private matter and has no place in the zoning and planning process. The Township Engineer commented that the plan works for all parties despite how the property dispute is resolved. Chairman Paulus commented that he had an opportunity to review the driveway issue problem. Mr. Paulus felt that after reviewing same it would be the safest for all concerned to close that road. Chairman Paulus felt that if the lane remains open Ms. Salim and her family would have to go down and make a left hand turn where it would not be safe to do so.

Mr. Harvey Millhouse of 1725 North Irving Street approached the Board at this time. Mr. Millhouse indicated that his property survey in his opinion had been done properly and indicated that he was opposed to the developer taking any frontage from his property. Mr. Unangst of Hanover Engineering, the Developer’s Engineering Firm, advised Mr. Millhouse that they are not proposing to take any land from him. The Township Engineer noted that there will be some widening and Mr. Unangst indicated that they will not go out of the existing right-of-way. There was a discussion at this point in the meeting relative to the number of lanes proposed for Irving Street. Attorney Broughal noted that they are only changing Irving Street at the intersection to three lanes. He further noted that it is a two-way highway coming out of this project. The Township Attorney commented that when you are counting lanes, you are counting directions of traffic. If you are going into a normal intersection, you have 8 lanes of traffic coming in or out. Most municipal streets have two lanes in each direction. Mr. Millhouse concluded his comments by indicating that he felt that the developer’s exit onto Irving Street should be an emergency-gated entrance.

Mr. Joseph Feskanin of 1680 N. Irving Street approached the Board at this time. Mr. Feskanin noted that in a November 15, 2005 letter the last paragraph contained language stating that this office reserves the right to make additional comments and that Council has the right to impose additional conditions. Mr. Feskanin advised that in his opinion there are serious concerns over downstream water, which he felt Attorney Broughal had only given a cursory glance. He brought up an issue involving violations imposed on the Witko property and questioned whether the developer was aware of same. The Township Engineer noted that the prior owner, Mr. Witko, had been filling in on his property without a permit and that had stopped when it was discovered. With respect to pollutants governed under Act 167, Mr. Feskanin noted that he had an analysis done of downstream soil and found evidence of heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Mr. Feskanin felt that the airport and the Witko properties could have been storing lead batteries and other desirable things.

Mr. Leo Keim of 1620 North Irving Street approached the Board at this time. He advised Council that there are bus stops all along Irving Street and that there is a bus shelter on the corner. He advised there are little children in day care and that the bus comes at different times during the day. He felt that increased traffic will have a significant bearing on this situation. He noted they cannot pull into the apartment complex to load and unload. Mr. Keim noted that at a recent Planning Commission meeting the Board had looked at a plan for a proposed redevelopment of a property, which would increase the impervious surface from 60% to 75%. Mr. Keim felt that should be figured into the calculations for this development. The Township Engineer noted that the property in question is increasing their pond size to accommodate the additional impervious cover. Mr. Keim concluded his statement by advising that he is concerned over the traffic and stormwater issues and the school children and felt that another traffic study should be completed.

Bonnie Balliet of 1650 N. Irving Street approached the Board at this time. Mrs. Balliet noted that she is concerned over the construction of the bridge that will be built for the American Parkway. She felt that would generate more traffic. She was also concerned over the possible widening of Irving Street in front of her home. She felt that she did not want property taken from her front yard. She advised she already has a driveway problem and felt that this widening could decrease the value of her home. Mrs. Balliet also felt that there would be crime issues associated with this development.

Mr. Joseph Hook of 1690 N. Irving Street approached the Board at this time. He stated that he has issues with the bus stop situation and has witnessed problems currently. Mr. Hook also noted that he has a problem with the widening of the road and felt that it would decrease his property value. Mr. Hook also expressed his concern over garbage as a result of this development.

Mr. Paul Whiting of 1826 Sherwood Street approached the Board and questioned whether or not the traffic study took into consideration the potential for a ballfield to be built in Allentown.

Chairman Paulus noted that no businesses were present to comment on the proposal and proceeded at this time to hear comments from concerned parties. Attorney Kevin J. Kelleher of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, approached Council and advised that he represented a number of people in the Township. He noted that he was also present at the last meeting on this matter. Attorney Kelleher advised that he had spoken with Attorney Broughal and has informed him that his clients have commissioned a property survey to determine the impact of this development on the Millhouse and Salim properties. Attorney Kelleher noted that Chairman Paulus had indicated that the Township had looked at the private drive issue and felt that eliminating same was a safety issue. Attorney Kelleher noted that his clients’ position is that the private drive remains as it is and that one of the conditions for approval be that a satisfactory resolution to the property line and boundary dispute be effected before the project moves forward. Attorney Kelleher further noted that the Planning Commission did review this matter in November and that their conditions should be considered. Attorney Kelleher brought up an issue involving hours of delivery as same relates to the proposed businesses .

adjacent to the Salim and Millhouse properties. Attorney Broughal commented that the Township has an adopted Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Basically, if a developer comes in and complies with the requirements of those ordinances, the approval of their development occurs. With respect to the boundary line dispute, Attorney Broughal noted that his client has a property survey and will give same to their surveyor and that the matter will ultimately be resolved.

Mr. Chet Slaska of Hellertown, Pennsylvania, approached the Board and advised that in his opinion this project has substantial problems. He noted that the first traffic study was rejected by the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission as being incomplete. He indicated there was a second traffic study completed and felt that other development proposed for the general area to conclude a possible casino, ballfield and development of other properties on Airport Road were not included in the second traffic study. Accordingly, he felt that the projections made six months ago may not be accurate today. Mr. Slaska also initiated discussion with respect to flow rates and what information was used to establish those rates. It was noted that corings were taken where the detention pond is going to go and the Township Engineer stated that there is an impervious liner proposed in the detention pond. The Township Engineer further noted that Act 167 is the state law governing this matter and that the developer must meet the requirements of Act 167 for approval. Mr. Hay further noted that the Township is using the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission rates for the flow rates. The Township Engineer further indicated that there is a great gulf between final plan approval and conditional approval. Chairman Paulus noted that this developer will spend excessive monies for offsite improvements as a result of this development and the Township Engineer commented that the figure is approximately one half million dollars.

There was a short discussion involving the property boundary line dispute and Attorney Broughal noted that the developer’s property survey showed exactly where the property lines are and that all he requests from the other party is for them to provide us with their survey.

Ms. Lori Weisman of 574 Cedar Hill Drive approached the Board at this time. She advised Council of her concern over the safety of the children in the area and over increased crime. Ms. Weisman advised that she is a diabetic and had extreme concern over what would happen to her should the increased traffic because of this proposed shopping center cause a problem with an ambulance getting to her home if she is in serious distress. She felt that the traffic, including Christmas traffic, would cause such traffic tie-ups that an ambulance might not be able to get to her. Mr. Chet Slaska noted that about three years ago there was an incident where traffic was at a complete standstill involving westbound and eastbound Route 22. Airport Road traffic did not move for almost one and one-half hours and the traffic in front of Allendale was at a stop for one hour. Councilman Atkinson noted that he was of the opinion that he would never approve the widening of Irving Street all the way through because he felt that would bring more traffic.

Chairman Paulus advised all in attendance that the plan before the Board has been reviewed. With respect to all the conditions, it appears the developer is willing to meet the conditions. He noted that the Township Engineer has gone over all aspects of this project. The Township Attorney felt that an additional condition should be added to indicate that the language of all required easements is subject to the approval of the Township Attorney. Additionally, it was noted that an additional condition that the Township would like added would be that upon completion of the project, a new traffic study be completed one year after to see what the differences are. It was noted in the past, that the Township has asked some developers to cover the cost of a post development traffic study. Attorney Broughal noted that these two additional conditions would be acceptable to the developer. With respect to the issue of the location of Building 14, Chairman Paulus noted that issue had been addressed at the last meeting. Attorney Broughal commented that if the building were moved it would change the entire design of the project. Councilman Atkinson noted that the building does sit in a hollow and Attorney Broughal noted that they did put in extra berming in that area. With regard to the property line dispute, Council felt that those were private issues between the parties. It was noted that there was a longstanding road or lane which parallels the exit drive for the proposed shopping center which the neighbors claim they have a continued right to use even if it is on the property of the developer. It was noted that the Township Engineer has indicated that even if that were correct, he would make the same recommendation about the exit road.

In conclusion of this matter, Council made the following motion:

Motion: --- I move we accept Resolution No. 2006-19, Preliminary Plan Approval to Airport Center, subject to the following conditions:

Paulus, Kovacs: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

1.) Each condition must be rejected or accepted in writing by the applicant within thirty (30) days of the date of this approval, or in the absence of such acceptance, this approval shall be deemed rescinded as of the expiration of the thirty (30) day period or the date of receipt of the rejection of any such condition, whichever first occurs.

2.) A special exception approval is required for parking pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 600.

3.) All retaining wall designs shall be signed and sealed when submitted for review.

4.) A PennDOT H.O.P. is required for Airport Road. Approved plans shall be part of the record set.

5.) Lehigh Valley Planning Commission review shall be provided. (SALDO Section 401.2).

6.) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans shall be submitted to the Lehigh County Conservation District and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources for review and approval. Approved plans shall become part of the record set. (SALDO Section 301.5.D).

7.) Signalization will be required at the Downs Drive-East Road intersection.

8.) Permanent access and utility easements shall be provided to properties on the north and west, and the land exchange with the Downs must be completed prior to this office recommending to the Township that Steel Stone Road be vacated.

9.) Lehigh Off-Track Wagering, L.P. (The Downs):

A.) A separate subdivision plan shall be provided for the proposed land swap.

B.) Impervious cover calculations shall be provided. (Zoning Ordinance Section 400 lot coverage).

C.) Pedestrian access from proposed rear parking area including vehicular and pedestrian flow on the north side of the existing building shall be analyzed.

10.) SANITARY SEWER

A.) Sanitary sewer manholes shall have two coats of epoxy on the interior.

B.) Sanitary sewer laterals for S & E Properties and Joshi properties shall have a 2’ separation between wyes. The lateral for Sam’s Club shall be shown when known.

C.) Details of grease traps shall be shown on the detail sheets.

D.) List inverts of manholes with more than two inverts by directional compass points.

E.) The new pipe run from SMH-AC11A must enter SMH-AC11, not the pipe leading to SMH-AC10.

F.) The sanitary lateral schedule indicates two laterals at the same station (Joshi and S & E). Provide 2’ separation on schedule.

G.) Provide information on the tie in to the Downs facility (size pipe, etc.). Connection should be made with a manhole.

H.) Provide a detail of the concrete cradles for the sanitary and storm pipe crossings. This must be designed to support the storm sewer.

I.) Rim elevations for SMH-AC3 on the profile sheet does not match the rim elevation on the plan.

J.) Provide profiles for pipe runs AC-11 to AC-11C. Two manholes are labeled AC-11A.

11.) WATER SYSTEM

A.) A detail shall be provided showing the tie in northwest of unit #14.

B.) The fire hydrant detail should show Stortz connection and list the type of hydrant the Fire Chief requires.

12.) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

A.) The project is located in sub area 29 of the Catasauqua Creek & Lehigh River Sub-Basin 4 Watershed Act 167 Plan, which is a 30/100 release rate district. Since the plans propose more than 10,000 square feet of additional impervious cover, the plans and Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for review and comment. (SALDO §406.3.B & §405.2 App. C).

B.) The final Stormwater Management Report shall be signed and sealed by a licensed P.E.

C.) The storm sewer design calculations shall be revised to demonstrate a 100 year storm can safely be conveyed to the detention pond as modeled by the submitted pond routings as required by section 406(4)a. Please note that since this may significantly change the storm sewer design, we have not received the pipe calculations for this submission. (applies to comments O, R, S, T, U & V of the September 20, 2005 review letter) (SALDO 406.4.A.).

D.) The proposed 100-year floodplain downstream of the proposed 8’ X 12’ box culvert shall be included on the plans. In addition, all correspondence with Department of Environmental Protection for the waterway permitting shall be copied to the Township and the associated HEC-RAS Study shall be submitted. (SALDO §301.5.H).

E.) The plans shall include the locations of all roof leaders and the proposed connections to the storm sewer system including pipe sizes, type, slope inverts and design calculations. Building roof sub areas should be provided for all downspouts. Construction details for connections to the storm sewer system shall be provided.

F.) The following drafting issues shall be addressed:

1.) Anti seep collars shall be shown on the basin outlet; give location on the plan, there should be more than one.

2.) Anti seep collars shall be shown on the basin outlet; give location on the plan, there should be more than one.

3.) Several areas on the profile sheets are difficult to read. Lines are very light.

G.) HDPE pipe shall only be used when conditions are met for restrictive use. 54” and 66” HDPE pipe is not available.

H.) Downstream Stormwater conveyance shall be analyzed and submitted for review. (SALDO §406.1.F).

I.) Design and details for the box culvert bypass, including specific designs for the proposed manhole structures, shall be provided for review. (SALDO §301.5.H).

J.) The stream easement shall be shown pursuant to this office’s May 27, 2003 letter regarding the Cedar Hill Memorial Park Minor Subdivision.

K.) As-Built stage/storage and outlet structure information shall be included in the report for the Downs pond routing.

L.) Design calculations for the pond emergency spillway shall be submitted to demonstrate it can convey the 100 year peak pond inflow with a minimum freeboard of 0.5’ per Act 167. (SALDO §406.3.C.4).

M.) Sub area 2A on page 69 shows the data for the pre-development area from the Downs, but the inlet is located on Irving St. Clarification is requested.

N.) The locations of inlets 33, 35, 36 & 37 require the runoff to go around several curb islands to be intercepted, which is not a desirable condition. Additional inlets should be added on the parking lot side of the islands and detailed curb grades should be added to the plans.

O.) The inlet capture calculations submitted shall be revised for the 100 year storm, taking into account any system surcharges. The HGL calculations shall include the 100 year storm to ensure the inlet captures are accurate. (SALDO §406.4.A).

P.) We concur with the design flows for the bypass culvert shown on page 117; however, several discrepancies were noted in the calculations on page 120 that should be revised.

Q.) Design information and plans for the Irving Street culvert and Allendale swale shall be provided for review and approval. (SALDO §301.5.H & §406.1.F).

R.) The storm pipe from Inl. 23B to Inl. 23B-1 appears to conflict with SMH-AC-11.

S.) The slope is labeled incorrectly for MH-59C to inl. 59D. Invert of MH-59C is labeled incorrectly on the tabulation tables on sheet 9, 10 and 11.

T.) The type of pipe shall be noted on the tabulation schedule due to some of the HDPE pipe does not meet the restrictive performance requirements.

U.) A profile shall be provided for EW to OS-1. (SALDO §301.5.A).

V.) Show all utility crossing on all profiles.

W.) The invert for the 30” pipe shall be shown in inlet 26A. The slope is incorrect for 30” pipe. (inlet 26 to inlet 26A)

13.) The Township reserves the right to generate additional comments on future submissions.

14.) All required easements are subject to the approval of the Township Attorney.

15.) A post completion Traffic Study shall be conducted one year after final completion of construction at the expense of the Developer and monies for said Traffic Study shall be escrowed with the Township.

16.) The Developer shall execute the standard municipal improvements agreements and establish the required construction escrow account.

Atkinson, Dreisbach: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

At this point in the meeting, Chairman Paulus called a five minute recess. The recess occurred at 9:45 P.M. and the meeting resumed five minutes thereafter.

New Business

1.) Resolution No. 2006-20, A Resolution Designating an Area of Compliance in Accordance with Chapter 4, Part 4, Section 402, 104.3.2(B) of the Property Maintenance Code of Hanover Township (Vote)

The Township Manager advised that this Resolution deals with the Township’s reinspection on a five-year basis of various properties within the Township. This area of compliance includes the property of the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority. In resolution of this matter, the Board made the following motion:

Motion: ------- I move that Resolution No. 2006-20, A Resolution Designating an Area of Compliance in Accordance with Chapter 4, Part 4, Section 402, 104.3.2(B) of the Property Maintenance Code of Hanover Township be adopted as presented.

Paulus, Kovacs: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

Payment of the Bills:

Motion: ------- I move that Resolution No. 2006-20, A Resolution Designating an Area of Compliance in Accordance with Chapter 4, Part 4, Section 402, 104.3.2(B) of the Property Maintenance Code of Hanover Township be adopted as presented.

Paulus, Kovacs: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ------- Unan.

Courtesy of the Floor:

Mr. Bernard Nauroth of 2049 Troxell Street approached the Board at this time and indicated what he considered a serious problem involving a property owner on Pennsylvania Avenue who has shrubbery located at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Clarence Street, which presents a serious visibility problem at that intersection. Mr. Nauroth noted that it makes it extremely difficult for cars pulling out into the intersection and that serious accidents could occur as a result thereof. It was noted that numerous complaints have been received regarding this property and the Township Manager was directed to correspond with the property owner and advise the property owner that the shrubbery must be removed. It was further noted that said shrubbery is within the Township’s right of way and should the property owner not remove the shrubbery the Township could do so. Mrs. Joan Nauroth of 2049 Troxell Street advised Council that with respect to Valley Plaza Shopping Center, several of the dumpsters have been moved away from the building and requested that the Township contact the owner and asked that the dumpsters be placed next to the building.

Adjournment:

Motion: --- I move we adjourn this meeting of the Hanover Township Council at 10:05 P.M.

Atkinson: Moved

Respectfully submitted,

Sandra A. Pudliner
Township Manager

Return to Top