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

It should be noted for the record that Councilwoman Hayden attended the meeting via telephone conference as a result of a disability, which does not permit her attendance in person.

Absent: ------------------ 0

Attendance: ---------- 7

Courtesy of the Floor: None

Approval of Minutes: ------ April 18, 2007, Regular Council Meeting

Motion: --- I move we waive the reading of the Minutes of the April 18, 2007 Regular Council Meeting and accept same as presented.

Paulus, Hayden: Moved and Seconded
Atkinson, Dreisbach, Hayden, Kovacs Paulus: ------- Aye

Reports:

1. Sandra A. Pudliner
Township Manager

1.) Council should be advised that on April 26, 2007 the Hanover Township Zoning Hearing Board heard the appeal of Tri-Outdoor, Inc. All testimony was accepted at the time of the hearing on behalf of the Applicant, the Township, and Adams Outdoor Advertising. Counsel involved requested that the court stenographer transcribed the testimony and provide each party with a copy of same. After that time, the Board would accept submission of Memorandums of Law on behalf of all the parties. A continued hearing has been scheduled for July 10, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. to conclude the matter.

2.) Council should be advised that the Township’s Fire Company has advertised for sale the old squad truck which the Township has replaced with the new truck just purchased. In that regard, Council should be advised that the publication in which the fire company has advertised covers a five state area and an issue arose as to any further advertising requirements. The Township Attorney is checking on that issue at this time. Council commented that it was their recollection that the local advertising requirements still apply. In any event, the Township Manager advised that whatever would be necessary with respect to advertising will be accomplished in order that bids can be opened on June 6, 2007 at 7:30 P.M.

3.) The Township Manager advised the Board that the brush, which had been left along Irving Street has been cleaned up by Township staff. PPL had been contacted and it was finally determined that they, not a subcontractor, had trimmed the tree line in that area. Township Manager advised that she had contacted the PPL representative for the Township and indicated to her that this condition was unacceptable and that in the future should tree trimming occur, the Township would expect that PPL would clean up the area.

Vice Chairman Atkinson questioned the Township Manager as to the status of grass cutting with respect to the Airport Centers property on North Irving Street. The Township Manager advised that she would check with the Township’s Code Enforcement Officers to determine if notification has been provided to the property owner and if not would see that same is accomplished.

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

1.) The Township Engineer advised Council that he has spoken to Mr. Krauter of the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority with respect to the erosion on the bank on Dauphin Drive. Mr. Krauter felt that this was probably caused by PennDOT and that they have done that before when clearing the bank. Mr. Krauter indicated he would get back to the Township Engineer on this matter.

3. J. Jackson Eaton, III, Esquire
Township Attorney

1.) The Township Attorney requested an executive session with the Board indicating that he has received a response back from Mittal Steel on the real estate issue before the Board.

Chairman Paulus determined to address the items of New Business at this time since the item under Unfinished Business might require a lengthy discussion.

New Business:

1.) Resolution No. 2007-32, A Resolution Granting Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval, Millhouse/Salim/Airport Center Lot Line Adjustment, 1820 Airport Rd./Irving Street, Allentown, PA 18109 (Vote).

Charles Unangst, P.E. of Hanover Engineering Associates appeared before the Board on behalf of Airport Center with respect to the proposed lot line adjustment. In that regard, Council reviewed the plan presented to them for the lot line adjustment. It was noted that in addition to the standard condition, a condition for approval, was a note to be added to the plan stating that when Downs Drive is operational the existing driveway onto Irving Street shall be closed off and owner shall access Irving Street utilizing the new roadway. Council determined that this language should be amended to read: A note shall be added to the plan stating that when Downs Drive is operational to its connection to North Irving Street, the existing driveway onto Irving Street shall be closed off and owner shall access Irving Street utilizing the new roadway.

Upon questioning the developer acknowledged that the conditions for approval were acceptable. In resolution of the matter, the Board made the following motion:

In resolution of the matter, the Board made the following Motion:

Motion: --- I move that Resolution No. 2007-32, A Resolution Granting Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval, Millhouse/Salim/Airport Center Lot Line Adjustment be adopted as presented.

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

2.) Resolution No. 2007-33, A Resolution Granting Preliminary/Final Subdivision/Land Development Approval, New Pro II, 1835 N. Dauphin Street, Allentown, PA 18109 (Vote).

Rocco Caracciolo, P.E., of Pennoni Associates, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Developer. With respect to the conditions set forth for approval, Mr. Caracciolo advised that the Developer has reviewed all the conditions and the conditions for approval are acceptable. In resolution of this matter, the Board made the following motion:

Motion: --- I move that Resolution No. 2007-33, A Resolution Granting Preliminary/Final Subdivision/Land Development Approval, New Pro II, 1835 N. Dauphin Street, Allentown, PA 18109 be adopted as presented

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

Unfinished Business:

1.) Bill No. 2007-4, An Ordinance Amending the Statutory Code of Hanover Township to permit signs for changing images or messages in PIO and PC Zones (Public Hearing).

The Township Manager/Zoning Officer advised Council that due to the nature of this proposed bill in that same represents a Zoning Amendment, a Public Hearing cannot be held on this matter at this time. Mrs. Pudliner noted that under the Township Zoning Ordinance, a zoning amendment requires a review by the Hanover Township Planning Commission and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. Notice of the proposed amendment must also be forwarded to adjoining municipalities. The Township Manager indicated that since the present bill has been substantively changed and will continue to change per the desires of the Township, this matter will not be forwarded to the Planning Commission and other parties until a final draft has been prepared.

In attendance at the meeting on behalf of the Township was Attorney James Bartholomew who has been handling this matter due to the fact that the Township’s Attorney has a conflict of interest regarding the matter. Attorney Bartholomew advised the Board that he has provided the Township Manager a memorandum under date of April 26, 2007 setting forth comments regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, as well as a revised proposed ordinance. Attorney Bartholomew noted that it was his understanding that the Township Manager has provided that material to the Board. Initially, Attorney Bartholomew noted that possibly the Township would like to hold a workshop session to review the matter in depth, and that, in any event, he would appreciate guidance from the Township with respect to finalizing this process. Attorney Bartholomew also indicated that, as a result of the Zoning Hearing Board hearing held last week involving the billboard companies, the Township may or may not want to look at other sections of the ordinance dealing with nonconforming signs.

Attorney Bartholomew advised the Board that the Township may want to revisit the section of the ordinance which requires 4,000 feet between billboards. In that regard, Attorney Bartholomew provided the Board with a drawing depicting all the existing billboards in the Township between the Lehigh River and Airport Road. He noted that there are a total of 16 billboards. Estimating the distance involved in this section of Route 22 Attorney Bartholomew felt that it is approximately 8,000 feet. Utilizing the 4,000 foot separation he noted that you can only have possibly three billboards within the Township’s portion of the roadway. In other words, Attorney Bartholomew noted that there were 13 or 14 nonconforming billboards. He further advised that if at any time there would be a need to rebuild such billboards they would need to come down all together because in order to be rebuilt under the ordinance the billboard must conform to the 4,000 foot separation which cannot be accomplished at the present time. Utilizing the drawing provided to the Board, Attorney Bartholomew noted that currently Tri-Outdoor has billboard numbers 14 and 9 and the Adams Outdoor billboards, that are in contention under the Zoning Appeal, are billboards no. 8 and 7. Tri-Outdoor has obtained a lease and has proposed to relocate its two signs to the Adams location. In order to do so, Tri-Outdoor would need to reconstruct and rebuild those billboards. Attorney Bartholomew stated that the history of how the Township has dealt with these issues could be a problem. He indicated there have been occasions before the Zoning Hearing Board where applicants had been permitted to relocate nonconforming signs. He indicated the only difference between those instances and the Tri-Outdoor instance is that the Township has not allowed the rebuilding if the company doing so was not the prior owner. In the case before the Zoning Hearing Board, Tri-Outdoor is requesting a relocation to the site where the Adams billboards are located and Adams Outdoor has been requested to remove its current billboards which it has not done as of this date. Attorney Bartholomew noted that there were instances before the Zoning Hearing Board as a result of the widening of Route 22 where the Township allowed the relocation of the billboards out of the PennDOT right of way. Attorney Bartholomew also reminded the Board of the case which came before the Commonwealth Court as a result of Adams challenging the validity of the ordinance with respect to the 4,000 foot separation requirement. In that instance, Adams had taken a position that the distance requirement in the ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable. However, as Council is aware, the Commonwealth Court sustained the Township’s 4,000 foot requirement; however, it specifically noted that it was not ruling upon whether the 4,000 foot requirement was reasonable or unreasonable.

Attorney Bartholomew advised Council that another issue would be whether or not the Township wishes to look at the provisions providing for a rebuilding as set forth in the ordinance. He noted that because of the nature of these new digital-type billboards to install such a billboard would require a substantial rebuild.

Attorney Bartholomew advised Council that he has attempted to address the Township’s issues in the new proposed ordinance he has prepared. He did indicate that he did not feel it necessary to differentiate between the Planned Commercial and the Planned Industrial Office Districts. He noted that each one has its own size requirements. He did note that he could foresee a problem in the Planned Commercial District with respect to distance between EMS signs. For example, in that district you could have a business next to a business, next to a business, etc. Attorney Bartholomew further indicated that in the Planned Industrial Office District with the current distance requirement of 4,000 feet, it’s possible that the first digital billboard could exclude all others.

Vice Chairman Atkinson felt that his matters of concern involved dwell times and fade in and fade out times. He felt that the 10 second dwell time might be appropriate and that the changes be instantaneous.

There was a discussion with respect to the public message aspect on the digital billboards. Attorney Bartholomew noted that each loop has a 60 second cycle and if you allow it to change every 10 second there would be a 10 second dwell time. Attorney Bartholomew felt that one out of every six changes should be dedicated to a public message, and, additionally, in any case Amber Alert overrides all.

Attorney Bartholomew also raised the issue involving signage in the Planned Commercial District. He advised the Board that he assumes that the signage allowed in the Planned Commercial District would only be relating to free standing signs and not wall signs. Council indicated that they agreed with that assumption and that it was not their intent to allow electronic message signs on buildings.

There was a discussion with respect to how the proposed ordinance would relate to shopping centers and strip malls. Attorney Bartholomew noted that the current ordinance allows free standing signs for a shopping center with only the names of the businesses located within that shopping center. Additionally, each business is permitted to have a wall sign. Attorney Bartholomew also indicated that he felt the distance requirement in the Planned Commercial District would be a big issue. He also advised the Board that in all the cases that went before the Zoning Hearing Board addressing this issue, only one exists where the Township opposed the application and that related to the case which ultimately resulted in a challenge to the 4,000 foot requirement which was upheld by the Commonwealth Court.

After considerable discussion, Council determined that with respect to the proposed ordinance they felt that the change in messages in both the Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial Office District should occur 10 seconds apart. They felt that there should be a one second fade in, fade out time. Vice Chairman Atkinson expressed a concern over the definition of property and businesses. He noted that a single property could lease out five spaces to five different businesses. In a case like that, Vice Chairman Atkinson felt that he would like to see one free standing EMS only. Attorney Bartholomew noted that Council should address the issue of how EMS affects shopping centers and strip malls. He again reiterated that the current ordinance only allows free standing signage which identifies the businesses within the facility. Council determined that in the case of shopping centers or strip malls, it was their opinion that no EMS signage should be allowed. Attorney Bartholomew again revisited the issue of 4,000 feet as it applies to the separation between billboards. Council determined that the 4,000 feet could be changed to 1,500 feet. With respect to the issue of the distance between EMS signs in the Planned Commercial Zoning District, Council determined that there should be no separation distance requirement.

EMS affects shopping centers and strip malls. He again reiterated that the current ordinance only allows freestanding signage, which identifies the businesses within the facility. Council determined that in the case of shopping centers or strip malls, it was their opinion that no EMS signage should be allowed. Attorney Bartholomew again revisited the issue of 4,000 feet as it applies to the separation between billboards. Council determined that the 4,000 feet could be changed to 1,500 feet. With respect to the issue of the distance between EMS signs in the Planned Commercial Zoning District, Council determined that there should be no separation distance requirement.

In conclusion of the discussions, Attorney Bartholomew advised that he would provide a redraft of the proposed ordinance for Council to consider at their Wednesday, May 16, 2007, meeting.

Courtesy of the Floor: NONE

Chairman Paulus advised that the Board would now be going into Executive Session for discussion of a real estate matter and would not be returning to the meeting with any decision.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandra A. Pudliner
Township Manager

Return to Top