Board of Supervisors Agenda

MINUTES
Upper Saucon Township Board of Supervisors
Special Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 – 6:00 P.M.
Township Municipal Building

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

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, May 15, 2009, and June 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 noted parties present: Attorney John Stover, Attorney Robert Gundlach and identified objectors in the audience as Matt Boyle, 7619 S. Main Street; Bob Holland, 7619 S. Main Street.; and Joe and Peg Volk, 125 S. Main Street. Attorney Mullane updated the Board and the interested parties on the status of the conditional use hearing to date. She introduced Township exhibits T-15 through T-18 dealing with notification of this hearing. She also admitted exhibit T-19 granting a time extension by

Attorney Gundlach on behalf of his client. Because of time commitments from the Board of Supervisors, no additional hearings on this matter can be scheduled until September, 2009. After
clarifying the administrative tasks, Attorney Mullane permitted Attorney Stover to continue his questioning of Karl Schreiter, Township Sewer Engineer.

Attorney Stover introduced Township Objector exhibits labeled TO 16 through TO 29.

Mr. Schreiter verified the location of the project under discussion. According to Mr. Schreiter, sewerage from houses in the sewerage area outlined on the map and pertinent to the project, is sent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant via sewer lines that are in the Borough of Coopersburg. Mr. Schreiter verified that a project called Hillside Manor was proposed for this location in the 1990’s and testified that he reviewed the plan for Hillside Manor. In his testimony about the proposed Dieterly project, Mr. Schreiter testified that the expected peak flow is estimated at 185,000 to 186,000 gallons and that capacity exists in the Upper Saucon Township wastewater system to handle the capacity given his analysis of the latest projects available for review. He testified he did not know if capacity existed in the Coopersburg system. Mr. Schreiter identify that the connection point for sewerage lines from the proposed Dieterly project has a capacity of 554,000 gallons. By inter-municipal agreement, Upper Saucon has reserved 139,000 gallons and the remainder is reserved for the Borough of Coopersburg. Mr. Schreiter testified that the existing homes and businesses in the area use approximately 38,000 gallons of the allocated capacity. The Dieterly project will require 186,000 gallons peak capacity where only 101,000 gallons of capacity remain. Mr. Schreiter testified that his engineering calculations must use peak capacity because the system relies on gravity flow. According to Mr. Schreiter, peak flows are calculated under existing DEP regulations by multiplying average anticipated daily flows by four. Mr. Schreiter testified that the applicant’s engineer, Mr. Ebert, has proposed a technical solution, off-line equalization, and based on the documents submitted earlier as Township Objector exhibits, it was Mr. Schreiter’s opinion that DEP would not approve the technical solution.

Mr. Schreiter proposed an alternate solution that would involve installing a pumping station at the project site and pumping sewerage to a connection point at Gun Club Road. The proposal would by-pass the Coopersburg sewer lines. Mr. Schreiter also testified that any additional capacity in the original proposed connection point was a matter for Coopersburg engineers to determine. Mr. Schreiter also testified that the proposal by Mr. Ebert did not comply with existing regulations within Upper Saucon Township. As requested by the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Schreiter presented a detailed description of the maintenance required for off- line equalization tanks. Mr. Schreiter further questioned some of the projects that Mr. Ebert addressed in the prior session of June 15, 2009. Mr. Schreiter contended some were not in operation, some were cancelled. Based on questioning by the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Schreiter contended that he proposed two options – one would be to obtain more capacity from the Borough of Coopersburg at the original connection point and the other option would be the “pump around” option discussed earlier.

Attorney Gundlach began his cross-examination by addressing the documents submitted as Township Objector exhibits TO 16 through TO 29. He stated that he would need time to review the submitted exhibits with his expert witness.

Attorney Gundlach asked Mr. Schreiter to verify on the map that the numbers listed at each connection location were peak flows and not average flows. It was confirmed during questioning that there was no designation of the flows as either peak or average. Attorney Gundlach also confirmed that the text of the inter-municipal agreement does not identify the calculated capacity as peak or average. Attorney Gundlach also verified that capacity for the Dieterly project has not been certified or held in reserve. In addition, he verified with Mr. Schreiter that a DEP plan for a similar development had been approved and that DEP plans do not have an expiration date. Attorney Gundlach contended that since the DEP approved a similar plan, capacity must have existed in the system. Mr. Schreiter argued that there could be some changes and new definitions of the data used. However, Mr. Schreiter noted that he was not a party to the original planning for the former project.

Attorney Gundlach clarified the capacities available, both dry and wet weather and that Mr. Ebert has proposed off- line equalization to handle both wet and dry weather capacity variations. He also stated that there is a difference of opinion between Mr. Ebert and Mr. Schreiter as to the viability of the proposed solution.

Attorney Gundlach proposed that the Dieterly project be phased to use the existing, available capacity and forestall completing the project until more capacity was available. Mr. Schreiter agreed that the approach was feasible, but the approach would require approval from Coopersburg.

Attorney Gundlach then reviewed the alternate “pump around” option identified by Mr. Schreiter and identified problems with private party land acquisition and other issues with a new sewer line to a connection location on Gun Club Road. Attorney Gundlach reviewed a letter prepared on April 17, 2009 by Mr. Schreiter and submitted as a Township Objector exhibit. According to Attorney Gundlach, two resolutions to the problem were proposed – reallocation of capacity or the purchase of additional capacity from the Borough of Coopersburg. He also stressed that the proposed “pump around” option was not addressed as a solution. Attorney Gundlach also asked if the proposed Dieterly project could connect to the existing sewer main that runs along South Main Street. The general agreement is that it can be done with appropriate permits and installing a pump station, but would require reallocation of existing capacity by the Township or the purchase of additional capacity from the Borough. Attorney Gundlach proposed that capacity could be reallocated by the Borough of Coopersburg without agreement from Upper Saucon Township. Mr. Schreiter testified he was not sure of the procedures. Mr. Schreiter also confirmed that he was never asked to submit a request to the Borough of Coopersburg asking them to reallocate capacity.

Attorney Gundlach disclosed that the applicant met with the Borough of Coopersburg to discuss reallocating capacity or purchasing additional capacity. Mr. Schreiter confirmed that he was aware of the meeting based on a letter from Attorney Gundlach. Attorney Gundlach stated that additional capacity could be added without a financial commitment from the Township. Mr. Schreiter disagreed and cited examples of situations where the Township was required to pay for capacity. There was no documentation readily available to support Mr. Schreiter’s claim.

Attorney Gundlach reiterated that capacity does exist for the Dieterly project to go forward as a phased project. He proposed that as a part of the project, the developer could delay constructing some of the townhomes until the Borough and the Township approved additional capacity. As part of his review of the project, Attorney Gundlach requested a copy of a special study prepared by Mr. Schreiter which addressed capacity issues in connection with the proposed Locust Valley Singles development. The Township Manager agreed to provide the study. Attorney Gundlach reviewed documents submitted in the prior sessions and confirmed with Mr. Schreiter that all plans for development contemplated using the Main Street sewer line.

Attorney Gundlach suggested that the hearing be suspended at this point while he reviewed the testimony and the documents submitted. Attorney Mullane and Chairman Gutzmirtl agreed and will notify all the parties of the next meeting contemplated in September.

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