Board of Supervisors Agenda

MINUTES
Upper Saucon Township Board of Supervisors
Regular Meeting
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 6:00 p.m.
Township Municipal Building

Members Present:
Stephen C. Wagner, Chairman
Miro A. Gutzmirtl, Vice Chairman
James H. White, Sr.
Joyce V. White
Joseph M. Horvath

Staff Attending:
Thomas F. Beil, Township Manager
Robert E. Kassel, Jr., Asst. Township Manager
Jeffrey Dimmich, Township Solicitor
Dennis Harman, P.E., Township Engineer

CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wagner 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 Wagner asked all in attendance to stand and recite the “Pledge of Allegiance.”

PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment is summarized as follows:

Joe Benyo – Land Development Manager of Westrum Development Company – Mr. Benyo said he would wait to speak until the issue concerning the dedication of roads in the Countryside Development was before the Board for discussion. 

Mark Havers – member of the engineering firm for the Mountain Glen II Subdivision – Mr. Havers said he would wait to speak until the Board was ready to consider the Plan for the Mountain Glen II Subdivision.  

SUBDIVISIONS AND LAND DEVELOPMENTS
Mountain Glen II – Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plans – Resolution No. 2006-57
Attorney Douglas Maloney was present on behalf of McGrath Homes and submitted to the Board that the developer intends to comply with all of the conditions set forth. He quickly reviewed the details of the development before stating that in his mind, there were no issues to address.

Mr. Harman told the Board that all the conditions of the August 31, 2006 letter had already been met leaving only the conditions of the December 1, 2006 letter. The conditions listed in the second letter were minor and should not impact approval of the plan.

A motion was made by Mrs. White and seconded by Mr. White to adopt Resolution No. 2006-57 approving the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plans of McGrath Homes for a three (3) lot residential subdivision on seventeen (17) +/- acres located at 3341 Oakhurst Drive and known as Mountain Glen II.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 24, 2006
A motion was made by Mrs. White and seconded by Mr. Horvath to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2006 regular meeting of the Upper Saucon Township Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Gutzmirtl commented that the minutes were well-written, had great detail, and were quite accurate.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

COMMITTEE REPORTS
None

ORDINANCES
None

RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. 2006-53 – Acceptance of Jasmine Drive, Apple Blossom Drive, and Huckleberry Drive into the Township Road Network
A motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mrs. White to adopt Resolution No. 2006-53 accepting the deeds of dedication for the rights-of-way of Jasmine Drive, Apple Blossom Drive, and Huckleberry Drive located within the Countryside at Saucon Valley Subdivision.

Mr. White said he had been involved with this project for years and had complained about the paving job in the past. He said he recently viewed the finished roads and found that all his concerns had been satisfied. He was now in favor of accepting the deeds of dedication for the roads.

Mr. Gutzmirtl said his concerns had to do with snow plowing and parking within the subdivision. Some of his concerns were addressed when he was told that certain portions of the development would be plowed by a private contractor. He had concerns as to what would happen to cars parked along the streets when snow plowing occurred. With parking on both sides of the streets, he was concerned that cars might be plowed in. On the other hand, if one side of the streets was designated as a “no parking” zone, where would residents park? He asked if there was a solution to these problems.

Mr. Beil responded saying there was no real solution, and snow removal in this development would prove to be a challenge.

Mr. Gutzmirtl inquired about requiring a solution to the problem before accepting the deeds of dedication.

Attorney Dimmich said by law, as long as the roads were constructed in accordance with the approved plan, the Township had to accept dedication and resolve the problems afterwards. Attorney Dimmich said these types of issues should be addressed before the Board approves the Plan.
 
Mrs. White said the plan claimed to have enough off-street parking for residents.

Mr. White asked Mr. Beil how the Township dealt parking and snow removal in the Waterford Court development.

Mr. Beil replied even though the construction of the homes in the two developments was similar, the dwellings in Waterford Court had longer driveways eliminating the need for on-street parking.

Mr. Benyo noted for the record, that the roads were built in accordance with the approved plan.

Mr. Gutzmirtl questioned if the roads would prove to be a hazard in terms of fire safety and whether or not the Fire Chief had been consulted.

Mr. Beil responded saying the time for input by the Fire Chief would have been prior to plan approval.

Mr. Benyo asked to discuss the eighteen (18)-month maintenance bond required from the developer by the Township. Mr. Benyo said the roads had been completed and were ready for dedication in November 2005 or sooner. He didn’t believe it was fair to expect the developer to provide funding for eighteen (18)-months from the dedication date because he had already maintained the roads for at least thirteen (13) months since completion. Mr. Benyo felt that the maintenance period should be waived or reduced to reflect this fact.
Attorney Dimmich provided the Board with a brief review of the requirement, saying the Board did have the power to waive or reduce the maintenance period or bond amount.

Chairman Wagner said he was sure that the delay in dedication was the fault of the Township’s former engineering firm, Keystone Consulting Engineers, but wasn’t sure that it would be fair to residents of the development to reduce or waive the maintenance period bond requirements.

Mr. Gutzmirtl agreed.

Attorney Dimmich asked the Board and Mr. Benyo if they would be more comfortable with the final inspection of the roads being performed by the Township’s new engineering firm, The Pidcock Company.

Mr. Harman said if that was the desire of the Board, his firm would have to examine the roads now, so that they had an idea of what they would be looking at come final inspection.

Mr. Benyo was okay with either firm performing the inspections, as long as it would not cause any additional delays for the dedication of the roads.

None of the Board Members advocated reducing or waiving the eighteen (18)-month maintenance period or bond amount, so the Board voted on the original resolution. 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Resolution No. 2006-55 – Acceptance of Lotus Lane into the Township Road Network
A motion was made by Mrs. White and seconded by Mr. Horvath accepting the deed of dedication for the right-of-way of Lotus Lane located within the Summit at Saucon Valley Subdivision (a/k/a Faith Ridge Subdivision).

Mr. White expressed his satisfaction with the subdivision.

Mr. Beil told Supervisors he had been contacted by several residents of the original section of the development who voiced concern over the gas line extension work for the new subdivision. They wanted to be sure that the road in their section would be restored after the project was complete.

Mr. Harman said that typically it was the gas company’s responsibility to restore the road.

Mr. Beil said the issue would be addressed at the next meeting when the request for the release of funds would come before the Board. He continued saying the Board should go through with the dedication approval because it was beneficial to residents to have the roads maintained by the Township. Then, to address the road restoration issue, he explained, the Board could withhold funds from the developer’s release of funds request.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Resolution No. 2006-56 – Acceptance of Patrick Circle into the Township Road Network
Mrs. White asked if there was a recommendation from the engineer.

Mr. Beil replied if the Board was to approve the resolution, a condition should be attached that a written recommendation for approval be obtained from Keystone Consulting Engineers.

A motion was made by Mr. Gutzmirtl and seconded by Mr. White to adopt Resolution No. 2006-56 accepting the deed of dedication for the right-of-way of Patrick Circle located within Phase I of the Locust Valley Estates Subdivision conditioned upon the Township receiving a letter recommending approval of the dedication from Keystone Consulting Engineers.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

MOTIONS
Release of Funds – Parkside Manor – Certificate No. 1
A motion was made by Mr. Gutzmirtl and seconded by Mr. Horvath to authorize the release of construction security in the amount of $42,374.31 for the Parkside Manor Subdivision in accordance with the Township Engineer’s recommendation made by a letter dated November 21, 2006.

Mr. White referenced two (2) letters from Mr. Harman, Township Engineer, dated November 15, 2006 and November 21, 2006 that stated he would be reluctant to release payment until certain outstanding issues listed in the November 15, 2006 letter had been resolved due to the fact that some of the items were not covered under the escrow. For that fact, Mr. White said, he would not approve the request.

Attorney Dimmich asked Mr. Harman if any of the items listed were part of the public improvements escrow, to which Mr. Harman responded no.

Attorney Dimmich said in reality, the Board could not hold the money being requested for release to address the outstanding issues.

A short discussion then took place that covered the consequences for the developer if the outstanding issues were left unresolved, how the Township could be affected by the outstanding issues if left unresolved, the Township’s options, and how the developer or homeowner would be able to resolve the outstanding issues down the road.

The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1 with Mr. White voting “no.”

Request for Payment – Barry J. Hoffman Company, Inc.
A motion was made by Mr. Horvath and seconded by Mr. Gutzmirtl to authorize payment in the amount of $27,331.50 to Barry J. Hoffman Company, Inc., for work completed on the Applebutter Hill Water Storage Tank electrical system.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Request for Payment – N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc.
A motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mrs. White to authorize payment in the amount of $80,178.93 to N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc., for work completed on the South Branch Sewer Interceptor Relocation project.

Mr. Harman commented that the project was complete, the appropriate tests were performed, and the interceptor was currently in use.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Release of Funds – Countryside at Saucon Valley, Phase I – Certificate No. 16
A motion was made by Mrs. White and seconded by Mr. White to authorize the release of construction security in the amount of $116,303.90 for Phase I of the Countryside at Saucon Valley Subdivision in accordance with Keystone Consulting Engineers’ recommendation made by a letter dated October 31, 2006.

Mr. White asked if the Township had received the maintenance bond associated with this phase of the project.

Mr. Beil replied, no, but it would be received as part of the deeds of dedication for the associated roads.

Mr. Benyo brought to the Board’s attention, as per the letter submitted by Keystone Consulting Engineers, no maintenance bond was associated with Phase I of the project. In addition, he asked if the money being requested for release for all three (3) phases had been placed in an interest bearing account, and if so, he requested the interest that accrued also be released at that time.

Mrs. and Mr. White amended their motion and second respectively to include a release of any interest that accrued relating to the account, as well as to add the approval was subject to the developer submitting the required maintenance bond for Countryside at Saucon Valley, Phase I.

Mr. Beil clarified the required maintenance bond would equal fifteen percent (15%) of the total cost for all public improvements.

A lengthy discussion ensued between Mr. Benyo, Attorney Dimmich, and Mr. Beil about the amount that should be required for the maintenance bond for Phase I. It was decided that the required maintenance bond would be fifteen percent (15%) of the total cost of public improvements as provided by Keystone Consulting Engineers.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Chairman Wagner restated the motion on the floor. The motion and the second was to authorize the release of construction security in the amount of $116,303.90 for Phase I of the Countryside at Saucon Valley Subdivision in accordance with Keystone Consulting Engineers recommendation made by a letter dated October 31, 2006 plus any accrued interest, subject to the developer providing a maintenance bond equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total cost of public improvements.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Release of Funds – Countryside at Saucon Valley, Phase II – Certificate No. 5
A motion was made by Mr. Gutzmirtl and seconded by Mr. Horvath to authorize the release of construction security in the amount of $54,202.32 for Phase II of the Countryside at Saucon Valley Subdivision in accordance with Keystone Consulting Engineers’ recommendation made by a letter dated October 31, 2006 plus any accrued interest, subject to the developer providing a maintenance bond equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total cost of public improvements.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Release of Funds – Countryside at Saucon Valley, Phase III – Certificate No. 6
A motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Gutzmirtl to authorize the release of construction security in the amount of $56,772.51 for Phase III of the Countryside at Saucon Valley Subdivision in accordance with Keystone Consulting Engineers’ recommendation made by a letter dated November 1, 2006 plus any accrued interest, subject to the developer providing a maintenance bond equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total cost of public improvements.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
None

DIRECTION / DISCUSSION ITEMS
New Traffic Signal on Route 309
Mr. Beil reviewed a draft letter from The Pidcock Company to PennDOT in support of a new traffic signal along Route 309 near the intersection with Huckleberry Road. The signal would hopefully relieve some of the congestion at the intersection of Route 309 and Center Valley Parkway by providing another access point to Route 309 North from the west side of the Township.

Mr. Harman said the traffic signal would also help keep the Pitt-Ohio trucks from utilizing secondary highways by providing an additional access to their facility.

Mrs. White asked if Pitt-Ohio would be contributing to the cost of the new traffic signal.

Mr. Beil said that had yet to be determined, but that it was unlikely.

A motion was made by Mr. Gutzmirtl and seconded by Mr. White expressing the Board’s support of a new traffic signal near the intersection of Route 309 and Huckleberry Road and authorizing the Township to pursue the matter with PennDOT.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Request for Reimbursement
The Board reviewed a request from Mr. and Mrs. Maragulia for reimbursement by the Township for the costs associated with identifying and correcting a problem with the public sewer connection at 2545 Ballybunion Road.

Mr. Beil provided the Board with the details of the Maragulia’s situation using a depiction of their property. For an unknown reason, a section of underground piping was missing between the sewer main and the sewer lateral on the Maragulia’s property.

A lengthy discussion ensued where details of the situation were thoroughly analyzed by Board members and Attorney Dimmich with the help of the Maragulia’s, who were in the audience.

Both Attorney Dimmich and Chairman Wagner asked how the Township or the homeowners could be sure that the mistake wasn’t made when the house was built and connected.

Mr. Harman reviewed the process by which sewer connections are installed, inspected, and approved.  Comments were made by the Maragulia’s, as well as Mr. Beil and Attorney Dimmich.

In the opinion of Attorney Dimmich, how the request should be handled should be determined by whether or not the Township could be held liable.

Mr. Maragulia told the Board he had spent nearly $10,000 to rectify the problem.

Mr. White added that the Public Works Committee had reviewed the request and recommended that the Board take action within thirty (30) days.

Attorney Dimmich said the Maragulia’s should be reimbursed for the sewer service that they did not receive, which Mr. Beil had already done. Then the question became does potential for liability exist for the Township.

A short discussion ensued regarding the responsibilities of the Township in terms of public sewer connections, and whether or not the Township could be held liable in the Maragulia matter.

Attorney Dimmich determined that the situation possessed potential liability for the Township and suggested the Board consider submitting a claim to the Township’s insurance carrier. He believed the true fault probably lies with the developer, but admitted efforts to pursue reimbursement via that avenue would most likely prove fruitless. In the end, it would be up to the Board of Supervisors to decide how to handle the situation fairly.

Mrs. White made a motion that was seconded by Mr. White to authorize the Township to reimburse the Maragulia’s in the amount of $9,709.96 for the costs associated with identifying and correcting a problem with the public sewer connection at 2545 Ballybunion Road. The motion also directed the Township Manager to pursue a reimbursement to the Township from either Keystone Consulting Engineers, the developer, or through an insurance claim.

Attorney Dimmich told Mr. and Mrs. White if the Township was to pursue an insurance claim, a reimbursement would have to be done following a determination by the insurance company.

Mrs. White amended her motion to authorize reimbursement contingent upon a determination by the Township’s insurance company.

Mr. White felt that the Maragulia’s should be reimbursed no matter what the insurance determination. Therefore, he withdrew his second.

After allowing ample time for a second to Mrs. White’s amended motion, Chairman Wagner declared the motion dead.

Another motion was then made by Mr. White and seconded by Mrs. White to authorize the Township to reimburse the Maragulia’s in the amount of $9,709.96 for the costs associated with identifying and correcting a problem with the public sewer connection at 2545 Ballybunion Road.

Mr. Horvath was concerned that at least three (3) parties had been identified as being partially at fault for the Maragulia’s situation, yet the Township would be alone in absorbing the cost.

Mrs. White said she felt action needed to be taken because the Public Works Committee recommendation had been made nearly three (3) months prior and nothing had been done since.

Before proceeding, Attorney Dimmich engaged in dialogue with the Maragulia’s asking them various questions which they promptly answered.

Mr. Gutzmirtl made a motion to table Mr. and Mrs. White’s motion until the next meeting.

Mr. Horvath seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

In the meantime, Mr. Gutzmirtl hoped discussions would continue between the Township and the Maragulia’s in an attempt to reach a solution suitable to all parties involved.

Zoning Hearing Board Agenda for December 18, 2006
Board members reviewed the three (3) appeals on the agenda for the December 18, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board.

The Board took no action with respect to the appeals scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Hearing Board on December 18, 2006.

Zoning Hearing Board Decision – Conference Center
Mr. Beil reviewed the Zoning Hearing Board decision to approve all variances requested by Sierra Management for a proposed Conference Center at 3200 Center Valley Parkway. The issue before the Board, he said, was whether or not to appeal the decision. He said the Planning and Zoning Committee had already decided they were interested in having the Township Solicitor pursue an appeal, and as long as the Board of Supervisors did not reverse that decision, the appeal process would move forward.

Attorney Dimmich requested a transcript from the Zoning Hearing Board meeting where the decision was made, so he could be fully prepare for the appeal.

Mr. Beil said some of the Committee’s concerns were the result of a letter from the Township’s Fire Chief that questioned whether proper access would be available to the building in case of a fire or other major emergency.

Mrs. White claimed the Fire Chief did not express concern at the Planning Commission meeting where the proposal was reviewed.

Mr. White said he saw no reason to appeal the decision. He said the Fire Chief’s concerns over access should be dealt with in the Preliminary Plan approval and should have no bearing on this decision.

Mr. Harman informed the Board that the applicant was aware of the Fire Chief’s letter of concern and was working to revise the plans to allow for improved access to specific areas of the building.

A motion was made by Mr. Gutzmirtl and seconded by Mr. Horvath to authorize an appeal of the Zoning Hearing Board decision dated November 27, 2006 concerning Sierra Management’s application for numerous variance requests necessary to construct a Conference Center at 3200 Center Valley Parkway.

Mrs. White asked Mr. Gutzmirtl and Mr. Horvath what they felt was wrong with the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision.

Mr. Horvath responded there were questions raised by the Fire Chief that had not yet been fully addressed. Additionally, Mr. Horvath told her, approval of the motion would merely reserve the Township’s right to appeal, since there is a thirty (30) day statute of limitations for appeals.

Mrs. White asserted if the Board objected to the waivers being approved, then an objection should have been made at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting where the waivers were discussed and granted.

Mr. Gutzmirtl said there were matters that necessitated further investigation, and therefore felt it was in the Board’s best interest to reserve their right to appeal the decision.

A roll call vote was taken, and the results were as follows:

Chairman Wagner: Yes
Mr. Gutzmirtl: Yes
Mr. Horvath: Yes
Mr. White: No
Mrs. White: No

The motion carried by a vote of 3 to 2.

BILLS, PAYROLLS, AND COMMISSIONS
Prepaid Invoice List #11282006 dated 12/08/2006………$769,083.84
Warrant List #12112006 dated 12/08/2006………………$495,934.54

A motion was made by Mrs. White and seconded by Mr. Horvath to authorize payment of the Prepaid Invoice List #11282006 and Warrant List #12112006 both dated 12/08/2006.

Mr. White had several questions about various invoices that were addressed by Mr. Beil and Mr. Kassel.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Gutzmirtl asked Mr. White if any of the invoices that he requested ever resulted in the identification of misappropriated funds or excessive spending in the Township.

Mr. White was pretty sure that was not the case, explaining his inquiries were mostly for his records and for future reference.

Mr. Gutzmirtl asked if Mr. White would, from now on, provide a list to his fellow Board members each meeting that showed the invoices requested at the prior meeting and what, if anything, they uncovered.

Mr. White agreed.

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR
David Van Arsdale – 6600 New St.  - Mr. Van Arsdale came before the Board to discuss Ordinance 79-SS, which would rezone his property, as well as Lisa Strzelecki’a property from commercial to residential. He presented the Board with a packet of information for their review and consideration before the January meeting where the ordinance would be discussed and possibly adopted. The packet provided Board members with a complete history of that corner of Route 309 and Passer Road and New Street and how it would be affected by Ordinance 79-SS.

Following Mr. Van Arsdale’s presentation, Attorney Dimmich, Board members, Mr. Van Arsdale, and Ms. Strzelecki’s engaged in conversation. Some of the topics mentioned were the process for rezoning, property values, and arranging a meeting to discuss the matter before the January 8, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Beil offered to postpone discussion and possible adoption of the ordinance until the second meeting in January to allow additional time for review.

The Board quickly discussed the suggestion and reached a consensus to postpone discussion and possible adoption of Ordinance 79-SS until the February 12, 2007 meeting. In the meantime, a meeting between the Van Arsdales, Ms. Strzelecki, and the Township would be arranged.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
None

ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mrs. White and seconded by Mr. White to adjourn the meeting.

The motion carried unanimously.

                                                                       
Secretary