Board of Supervisors Agenda

MINUTES
Upper Saucon Township Board of Supervisors
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 15, 2009 – 6:00 P.M.
Township Municipal Building

Members Present:
Miro A. Gutzmirtl, Chairman
Stephen Wagner, Vice Chairman
Joseph M. Horvath
John E. Gilda, Jr.

Members Absent:
Joaquim (Jack) DeMatos
                                   
Staff Attending:
Thomas F. Beil, Township Manager
Robert E. Kassel, Jr., Asst. Township Manager
Maria Mullane, Special Township Solicitor
Ronald Gawlik, P.E., Township Engineer
                                                                                     
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Gutzmirtl called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room of the Upper Saucon Township Municipal Building, 5500 Camp Meeting Road, Upper Saucon Township, Lehigh County, PA.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Gutzmirtl asked all in attendance to stand and recite the “Pledge of Allegiance.”

PUBLIC COMMENT
David Beecham, 5738 Apple Butter Hill Road – Mr. Beecham inquired about the Supervisor’s positions on age-qualified communities, particularly those with full care facilities. Mr. Beecham noted that he read that full-scale facilities were a trend in the housing market. Chairman Gutzmirtl replied that the Board has no opposition to reviewing such proposals. Mr. Wagner commented that a proposal for an over-55 community, without nursing/health facilities, had been made at some point in the past year, but market conditions ruled out moving forward with it at this time.

CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS
Mr. Gutzmirtl noted that the Board passed the revised zoning ordinance at a special meeting. During the course of the presentation, Mr. Gutzmirtl thanked many of the staff for the effort required to put together the massive rewrite of the ordinance. He made a special effort at this meeting to thank Township Manager Thomas Beil for all his efforts. Mr. Beil was responsible for coordinating the effort and was an essential part of the process.

Mr. Gutzmirtl reported that Family Fun Day appeared to be a great success in spite of the weather interruption. The event has grown considerably over the past few years which Mr. Gutzmirtl attributed to the efforts of Heather Scattergood and her Park and Recreation Commission team. Zoning Officer Trent Sear was also thanked for his assistance.

SUBDIVISIONS & LAND DEVELOPMENTS
None

MINUTES
Motion made by Mr. Horvath and seconded by Mr. Wagner to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 6, 2009.

Motion adopted by a vote of 4 to 0.

COMMITTEE REPORTS
None

ORDINANCES
None

RESOLUTIONS
Motion made by Mr. Horvath and seconded by Mr. Wagner to adopt Resolution Nos. 2009-34, 2009-35, 2009-36, 2009-37, and 2009-38 reaffirming depositories for Township funds and revising the list of officials authorized to sign checks.

Motion adopted by a vote of 4 to 0.

MOTIONS
Motion made by Mr. Wagner and seconded by Mr. Gilda to approve payment to Structural Maintenance Systems, Inc., Certification No. 6, in the amount of $2,000.00 for repair work completed on the Secondary Clarifier at the Sewage Treatment Plant.

Motion adopted by a vote of 4 to 0.

CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
None

DIRECTION / DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mr. Gutzmirtl determined, after consultation with the Township Manager, that the Board meeting scheduled for the first Monday in July be cancelled. The next regular meeting of the Board will held on July 20th.

BILLS, PAYROLLS, AND COMMISSIONS
Motion made by Mr. Gilda and seconded by Mr. Horvath to approve the prepaid invoice List #06152009, dated 06/12/2009, for $110,089.03 and the Warrant List #06152009, dated 06/12/2009 for $615,150.26.

Motion adopted by a vote of 4 to 0.

ADDITIONAL BUSINESS

None

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR
None

HAROLD AND ANN DIETERLY  – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE   APPROVAL – BRINLEY COURT
This public hearing is a continuation of the previous public hearings held on April 20, 2009 and May 15, 2009.  The purpose of the public hearing is to accept public comment and input on the conditional use application of Harold and Ann Dieterly for the construction of  215 single family attached dwelling units in the form of a townhouse development on 41.34 acres located at 7537 S. Main Street and 7611 S. Main Street.  The applicant requests conditional use approval pursuant to Sections 602.B.15, 1702 and 1704.A.1-10 (as amended by Ordinance No. 79-JJ) of the Township Zoning Ordinance.  The subject properties are zoned R-3 Multi-Family Residential District. 

Mr. Gutzmirtl introduced the application for conditional use and the parties involved. He then turned the hearing over to Special Township Solicitor, Maria Mullane.

Attorney Mullane handled the proceedings on behalf of the Township reading into the record exhibits T-11 through T-14. Attorney Mullane also indicated that documents referenced by Attorney Gundlach at the previous hearing had been submitted to the Township. The documents were disseminated to the objectors, but not to the Board of Supervisors. Each member of the Board affirmed that they had not received any biased information. It was agreed that the hearing would start with testimony from Mark Bahnick, P.E., in order to clarify certain statements made at the previous hearing.

Mr. Bahnick stated that upon review of the transcript from the last session, there was a need for clarification on the testing of the wells on the subject property. Mr. Bahnick did not have the water quality and pumping test reports with him at the last session. He submitted the reports as applicant exhibits A-34 through A-39. Attorney Gundlach also presented agreements between the applicant and the Borough of Coopersburg which were labeled exhibits A-40 and A-41. Based on the information in the reports, Mr. Bahnick testified that wells on the property were capable of supporting the proposed development and water quality was within acceptable criteria. Mr. Bahnick also testified that surrounding wells would not be affected by the full use of a dedicated well on the applicant’s property.

After Mr. Bahnick’s testimony, Ms. Patti DeCray, 504 Linden Street, Coopersburg, spoke in opposition to the testimony citing letters dated 9/18/1989 from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that questioned some of the reports, specifically referring to the high level of selenium and turbidity.

Mr. Bahnick testified that follow up testing was done and confirms the testimony he provided. Mr. Bahnick testified that additional testing may be required by the DEP once the application is approved. Ms. DeCray also questioned the results of the pumping test as explained by Mr. Bahnick based on DEP information. Ms. DeCray asserted that the pumping test did have a negative effect on surrounding wells.

On cross-examination, Attorney Stover asked Mr. Frederick Ebert a series of questions. Mr. Ebert responded to Attorney Stover’s questions.   

Mr. Fred Coughenour questioned whether odors would emanate from the open air tank.  Mr. Ebert explained the odors would be minimal and virtually undetectable due to aeration.  Mr. Ebert stressed that the waste water by definition would consist mostly of “gray” water or that which is used in bathing and cleaning rather than pure sewerage.

Ms. Patti DeCray asked about the distance the tank would be from the well. Mr. Ebert stated that the tank would be outside the well head protection zone which he estimated at 100 feet. Ms. DeCray also questioned the potential of erosion on the 30% slope. Mr. Ebert said that the slope would be stabilized according to existing requirements.

Attorney Gundlach presented applicant exhibits A-42 through A-44. According to Attorney Gundlach, a letter from Schreiter Engineering Associates (SEA) confirms that there is treatment and conveyance capacity in the system. Mr. Ebert explained that the Township could reallocate capacity to meet the peak load for the project, but the Township has made no effort to do so.

Attorney Stover questioned Mr. Ebert about the details of the capacity calculations. He followed with questions about a solution designated as a “pump around” which permits sewerage to be pumped along a new line along Gun Club Road to bypass the Borough of Coopersburg. Mr. Ebert did not endorse the plan because it added more infrastructure cost and, in his estimation, did not eliminate the need for off- line storage.

Attorney Gundlach introduced Kenneth Amey, a professional, certified land planner with experience working in various municipalities. Mr. Amey stated that in his review of the plans and the zoning ordinance, the proposed plans were appropriate under existing municipal requirements. Mr. Amey also agreed that the sewerage proposals would meet the needs of the new community and could be accommodated on the site.

Attorney Gundlach introduced a letter from the Upper Saucon Township Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) directed to the applicant asking the applicants to consider their land for a conservation program. Attorney Gundlach contended that this letter indicated that the Board of Supervisors was not a neutral party in the decision-making process. Attorney Mullane objected to the implication that the Board, or any of its members, acted improperly. Mr. Gutzmirtl contended that the letter was part of a legitimate mass mailing campaign and that all property owners who had property over 10 acres were on the mailing list. Each member of the Board of Supervisors stated that they had no part in preparing the letter.  Mr. Beil confirmed that no member of the Board was involved in preparing the EAC form letter.

Ms. Patti DeCray questioned the requirement for open space around a development as required in the Township zoning ordinance. Mr. Amey explained that the requirements for open space were met by incorporating land in Springfield Township into the plan.

At the end of the questioning, Attorney Gundlach offered that the applicant had no further witnesses at this time. Attorney Mullane verified that Attorney Gundlach was resting his case subject to rebuttal. Attorney Gundlach agreed.

Attorney Stover called Karl Schreiter, P.E., as a witness. Attorney Stover questioned Mr. Schreiter on his qualifications and experience.  Mr. Schreiter provided testimony concerning his background and experience.  Attorney Gundlach questioned Mr. Schreiter on his qualifications and experience.  None of the parties had an objection to Mr. Schreiter being recognized as an expert in civil engineering in the field of water and sewer services. 

Mr. Schreiter explained that PADEP modified the moratorium ruling which would now allow the Township to issue building permits provided the Township had a connection plan to deal with sewerage capacity. The Township received approval from PADEP for the connection plan as submitted in April, 2008. Attorney Stover introduced his exhibits and labeled them as TO-13 and TO-14.  Mr. Schreiter summarized the sewerage capacity problems in the Township and Borough systems. Mr. Schreiter stated that there are a multitude of actions taken to correct identified problems in the Township’s system which included slip-lining, removing root intrusions and replacing entire sections of pipe. Mr. Schreiter explained that the latest Brinley Court plan presented involved off-line equalization tank with sewerage transported through Coopersburg lines and then through Township lines to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Schreiter was not able to confirm that capacity existed in the Coopersburg sewer system to handle the Brinley Court development. Mr. Schreiter contended that the theoretical capacity of the lines presented by Mr. Ebert could be limited by uncontrolled inflow in Coopersburg. Coopersburg is working on their Corrective Action Plan to improve capacity. Attorney Stover introduced the 1970 agreement between the Township and the Borough of Coopersburg as exhibit TO-15.

Attorney Stover suggested that the hearing be suspended at this point. Mr. Gutzmirtl agreed and announced that the hearing would resume on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 6:00 pm.   

A stenographer was present to record the proceedings.  A copy of the transcript from the hearing is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Attachment “A”.
 
EXECUTIVE SESSION
None

ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

                                                                       
Secretary