Present: ---- Councilwoman Hayden, Councilmen 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: ---------- 4

Courtesy of the Floor: None

Approval of Minutes: ------ October 17, 2007, Regular Council Meeting

Motion: --- I move we waive the reading of the Minutes of the October 17, 2007 Regular Council Meeting and accept same as presented.

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

Reports:

1. Sandra A. Pudliner
Township Manager

1.) The Township Manager advised the Board that she has provided them with copies of various correspondences, as well as a copy of the 2006 Audit. Should the Board have any questions with respect to the correspondence, she would be happy to address same. Should there be any questions with respect to the audit, the Township Manager advised that the Auditor has indicated that he would be more than happy to review same with the Board at their discretion. Chairman Paulus acknowledged that the Township Manager has provided them with a copy of correspondence from Primo Produce with respect to the ongoing issue of tractor-trailers attempting to reach their facility from Troxell Street. He noted that the problem appears to be with Map Quest. The Township Manager advised that the Code Enforcement Officers are continuing to monitor that situation. Councilman Kovacs questioned some of the information contained in the report received from Northampton Regional Emergency Medical Services. Councilman Atkinson advised that some of the information Mr. Kovacs questioned was contained in the report and Councilman Kovacs indicated that he would again review the report. With respect to a discussion regarding the monies paid to NREMS, the Township Manager advised that on average NREMS requests an inflationary increase each year of approximately 3%.

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

1.) The Township Engineer advised the Board that the Race St./Willowbrook Rd. signal light issue is on the agenda and that he would speak to the Board regarding the status of the matter at that time.

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

1.) The Township Attorney advised the Board that state law will require an Airport Hazard Ordinance. Municipalities in which an airport is located are now required to do this. In order to prepare this, Attorney Eaton noted that he would set up a meeting with the Township Engineer and the Township Manager to review this matter. He further indicated this would be an overlay to our existing Zoning Ordinance. Our ordinance would stay as it is and the Airport Hazard Zone would be shown on top of that.

2.) The Township Attorney advised that with respect to a Flood Plain Ordinance, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has provided a new form draft Flood Plain Ordinance. Attorney Eaton advised the Township already has one and his office is in the process of trying to determine if we need to adopt a new one.

3.) With respect to proposed coin toss legislation, Attorney Eaton advised that he had provided that information to the Township Manager and it was his understanding that the matter was discussed at a prior meeting.

4.) The Township Attorney advised Council that he has received correspondence from PennDOT regarding the Airport Centers construction. Part of what the developer has to do is to reconstruct infrastructure in Airport Rd. as same relates to the existing drainage facility. PennDOT has sent a letter saying that they do not own the drainage facilities in the road and that same is the property of the Township. Attorney Eaton advised that his office has reviewed the statutes and he does not agree with PennDOT’s assessment. Attorney Eaton indicated that the Township’s position is that the Township did not build the facility and never maintained it. PennDOT has suggested that the Township make some provisions with the Developer so that the Developer will be responsible for all maintenance charges going forward. Attorney Eaton advised Council that his conclusion regarding this matter is that the Township does not agree with PennDOT and has no interest in taking over the drainage facilities. He noted that he does not know what effect that will have on the development in the short term as to the timing. Unless Council feels otherwise, Attorney Eaton advised that he would respond to PennDOT with his assessment. The Township Engineer noted that this has happened before. PennDOT does not want to take the responsibility. Mr. Hay also indicated that the Township does not receive Liquid Fuels monies for maintenance of these types of facilities. He indicated that some townships do comply with PennDOT requests. The Township Engineer indicated that he can sympathize with the Developer on this matter.

The Township Attorney advised the Board that he has received a request from the Developer of Airport Centers and would like to get a nonbinding sense from the Board if their proposal is acceptable to the Township. Attorney Eaton noted that the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance requires the Developer to put in certain improvements and post security for same, i.e. letter of credit, etc. Normally, Attorney Eaton noted that as the project moves forward, the Developer may request that the amount of that security be lowered. If the Developer defaults, the Township can demand that the bonding company complete the work or pull the letter of credit, whichever is the case. In a development of this size, Attorney Eaton indicated that the tenants also require the Developer to post a letter of credit. The Township has been approached by the Developer with the request to enter into an agreement, which would allow a single letter of credit for both the Developer and the tenants. The way this would work is that any time during the construction of the project whether there is default or not, Target could elect to complete the improvements. In that event, Target must complete all of them. At that point, the letter of credit would be drawn and placed in an escrow account. When completed, the Township Engineer would determine the value in cost. If there is a default, then they would have the option to complete. However, everything must be completed. If they don’t complete everything, then it falls back to the Township. This type of situation would result in more parties with an interest to get the job completed in a timely fashion. Attorney Eaton noted that the improvements involved in this project will be in excess of $16,000,000. The Township Attorney advised that he indicated to the Developer that he would bring this scenario to Council. He indicated that this is not a vote for approval. If the Township does not want to proceed in this fashion, we would go back to the normal agreements. At this point in the meeting, there was discussion as to the fact that this is a single letter of credit covering all parties. It was noted that this was strictly for infrastructure and that the Township Engineer will approve any monies to be paid out or reduced. Councilman Atkinson commented it is the same thing we have now with a single letter of credit, but that there are different signatories. Attorney Eaton noted that there are more people involved to complete the project. Councilwoman Hayden questioned whether or not there was liability to the Township. Attorney Eaton noted that the liability remains the same. Under the Municipalities Planning Code, the Township gets security for recorded plans for required improvements. What this does is put several other parties besides the bonding company interested in getting the project completed as quickly as possible. The Township Attorney noted that the biggest problem with an agreement like this is getting caught in between parties. However, Attorney Eaton felt that he did not see any significant additional liability to the Township by going this way. When a final agreement is prepared, Attorney Eaton indicated he would review same with the Board very carefully. Overall, the Board did not have a problem with the new scenario.

4. Maintenance Report (Written)

5. Fire Company Report (Written)

6. Code Enforcement Officers' Report (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.

There was some discussion regarding the new curbing installed in Canal Park in lieu of the landscaping ties. There was also discussion with respect to the removal of 55-gallon drums from the lake area. This was as a result of a cleanup of that area. There was discussion with respect to garbage uncontained at Valley Plaza Shopping Center. The Township Manager advised that she has instructed Code Enforcement Officials to give those individuals a verbal warning followed by a citation. However, the Township Manager noted that she is unsure as to whether or not all the Code Enforcement Officers know the proper way to complete a citation and that she had indicated to them that she would be more than happy to review that process with them. There was also a discussion with respect to the fact that in the Carmike parking lot along the fence area the Township Code Enforcement Officers have discovered that tractor trailers from U.S. Food Service have been parking there and when the drivers are questioned they have indicated that they were directed to do so by U.S. Food Service. In that regard, the Township Manager advised that she has spoken to U.S. Food Service indicating her understanding of this situation. U.S. Food Service has indicated that they would immediately look into the matter and make sure it is resolved amicably. The Township Manager also noted that she had been in touch with Carmike Cinema’s manager and indicated to him what the situation was and that, in effect, they are trespassing on Carmike’s property. The Township Attorney commented that the Township may be able to change the ordinance to prohibit using private parking lots for commercial uses. He would be in touch with the Township Manager to review that matter.

8. Building Inspector's Report (Written)

Motion: --- I move we accept the computer printouts dated November 20, 2007, 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, Hayden, Kovacs, Paulus: ------- Aye ---------- Unan

Unfinished Business:

1.) Bill No. 2007-12, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18, Part 3 (Sewer Rates, Rents and Charges), Section 303 of the Statutory Code of Hanover Township (Introduce).

The Township Engineer commented that this change in sewer rates is as a result of the Budget Hearing with respect to the Sewer Budget for 2008. Chairman Paulus introduced Bill No. 2007-12 at this time with a Public Hearing on same to be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, at 7:30 P.M.

2.) Bill No. 2007-13, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 26, Part 1B (Water Rates, Rents and Charges), Section 124, (Meter Rates) of the Statutory Code of Hanover Township (Introduce).

This revision to the Water Rates is as a result of the Budget Hearing regarding the Proposed 2008 Water Budget. Chairman Paulus introduced Bill No. 2007-13 at this time with a Public Hearing on same to be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, at 7:30 P.M.

3.) Bill No. 2007-14, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Part 1, Section 101 of the Statutory Code of Hanover Township, Known as Open Fires, to Prohibit Open Pit and Campfires Within Certain Areas of the Township (Introduce).

Attorney Eaton opened the discussion relative to Bill No. 2007-14. He noted that the Township currently has an ordinance, which is a general prohibition against open burning and that Council had asked him to prepare an ordinance for adoption, which would essentially prohibit campfires. The Township Attorney indicated that he had discussions with the Township’s Fire Chief regarding this proposed ordinance. He has been advised that Mr. Yoder has looked at the International Fire Code. That has a section on open burning and recreational fires. It restricts open burning. Attorney Eaton noted that it may be in conflict with the proposed ordinance as we have it now. Since the Chairman had already introduced Bill No. 2007-14, the Township Attorney felt that it should be tabled and should not be considered at the next meeting. He felt it might require substantive change and accordingly it should be placed on the agenda for discussion at the December 19, 2007 Council meeting. Action on the ordinance could take place at the Council meeting in January 2008. There was some discussion on the proposed ordinance and the Board felt that there should be no distance requirements which would permit chimneys and that the chimneys should be prohibited everywhere.

4.) Bill No. 2007-15, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 21, Part 1 of the Statutory Code of Hanover Township to allow for Temporary Memorial Displays Within the Public Right of Way (Introduce).

Bill No. 2007-15 was introduced at this time with a Public Hearing on same schedule for Wednesday, December 5, 2007, at 7:30 P.M. At this point in the meeting, there was discussion regarding this proposed ordinance. Councilman Kovacs indicated that he is not in favor of adoption. Chairman Paulus commented that the Township’s Fire Chief had explained at a previous meeting that in many cases the firemen respond to these situations and in the event of a fatality these firemen have to drive by that location over and over and this could create an emotional situation for the firemen involved. Councilman Atkinson indicated that he was in favor of adopting this ordinance. He noted that he read an article where these types of memorials were discussed. The article indicated that very often they are not maintained properly, they are placed in areas where there is a high accident count, and sometimes you could have six to eight of these memorials in one single area. Councilman Atkinson indicated he didn’t understand why people want to do this. He would think that most people do not want to remember how and where a loved one was killed. Councilman Kovacs commented that his brother was killed on a highway and he knows exactly where it happened. Councilman Dreisbach felt that these memorials could prevent safety issues. Councilman Kovacs noted that in Hanover Township there is only one small memorial that he is aware of. The Township Attorney noted that this ordinance only deals with placing memorials in public right-of-ways. For example, if a private property owner would permit it, then the individual could place a memorial at that location. The Township Engineer commented that one of his brother’s house was an area where children were killed in front of his property. He noted that his brother’s family basically became hostages to all sorts of memorials at that location. Finally, the families involved came and cleaned it up. Councilwoman Hayden commented that she felt that the Township should not set a precedent. It was her feeling that the Township should not allow it now, then you don’t have to worry about it in the future.

5.) Resolution No. 2007-41, A Resolution for the Application for a Permit to Install and Operate Traffic Signals (Vote).

The Township Engineer advised Council that the Township Manager and he had met with PennDOT regarding the status of the Race Street/Willowbrook Road signal light. Mr. Hay felt that the remaining conditions had been worked out with PennDOT and PennDOT had indicated that if the consultant meets the conditions set forth in the latest review letter then PennDOT would approve the installation. Mr. Hay indicated he had taken the plans to the traffic engineer and indicated that the Township wanted them to submit revised plans to PennDOT within two weeks. That should have been submitted today he noted. With respect to this Resolution, PennDOT had sent this to us for adoption by the Township. Councilman Atkinson commented that there have been very close calls at this intersection. The Township Engineer commented that PennDOT started subbing out a lot of their reviews to outside consultants and that may account for some of the delays. He advised the Board that he would check on whether or not the consultant had submitted as promised and report back to the Board. In resolution of this matter, the Board made the following motion:

Motion: --- I move that Resolution No. 2007-41, A Resolution for the Application for a Permit to Install and Operate Traffic Signals be adopted as presented.

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

Payment of the Bills:

Motion: --- I move Council authorize payment of Payroll (10/19/07); Payroll (11/02/07); Payroll (11/16/07); Voucher Nos. 12974-12980 (10/31/07 Prepaids), Voucher Nos. 12981-12986 (11/21/07 Prepaids), Voucher Nos. 12987-13042, from the General Fund Account in the amount of $114,564.56; Voucher Nos. 1787 (10/31/07 Prepaids), Voucher Nos. 1788-1791 from the Capital Reserve Account in the amount of $298,794.23; Voucher Nos. 1745 (10/31/07 Prepaids), Voucher Nos. 1746-1751 from the Escrow Account in the amount of $32,925.76; Voucher Nos. 1797-1802 from the Water Account in the amount of $578.99; Voucher Nos. 2927 (10/31/07 Prepaids); Voucher Nos. 2928-2942 from the Sewer Account in the amount of $71,424.71 for a Grand Total Expenditure of $518,288.25.

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

Courtesy of the Floor: Mr. Joseph Feskanin, 1680 N. Irving Street, appeared before the Board and indicated that on Monday he had received a preblast survey notice. The Township Engineer commented that this is normal procedure relative to a major development such as Airport Center. Mr. Feskanin noted that apparently his property is within 300 feet of the blasting site. He questioned whether or not in the construction phase the detention pond was one of the first things. The Township Engineer indicated he would look at the plans. He could not answer his question right now. Mr. Hay did note that normally storm and erosion sedimentation control is first. Right now the Developer is finalizing their DEP permit. He indicated that a preblast survey is a very good thing for both the property owner and the Developer. Mr. Feskanin indicated that there is a state permit required for blasting but questioned whether or not the Township had any involvement. The Township Engineer noted that the Township does not have a permit. We request the preblast survey. Mr. Feskanin questioned what level of participation the Township will have in this process and the Township Engineer indicated that the Township is not involved in the blasting process but does get copies of the surveys. Mr. Feskanin commented that if there are large areas of limestone he knew that predrilling would also take place. He questioned how long of a process this could be and noted that he had been told the blasting will commence December 17. The Township Engineer indicated he was not aware of the date of commencement and that he would get in touch with the contractor to discuss the matter.

Councilman Kovacs questioned the Township Manager as to whether or not she has received a response from Ford Motor Company with respect to the Township car. The Township Manager indicated that no response has been received as of this date.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandra A. Pudliner
Township Manager

Return to Top