WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
7171 ALLENTOWN BOULEVARD, HARRISBURG, PA 17112
FEBRUARY 20, 2001, 7 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Zimmerman called the February 20, 2001 regular meeting of the West Hanover Township Board of Supervisors to order at 7 p.m., followed by the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Gloria J. Zimmerman, Chairman
Kenneth W. Gross, Vice Chairman
Earl B. Hoffman, Sr., Assistant Secretary/Treasurer
Robert R. Jones, Supervisor
Stephen L. Millard, Supervisor
Beth Carricato, 699 Knight Road. Mrs. Carricato asked if the Board of Supervisors had any input into the report on the Act 537 Augmentation that CET Engineering was present to discuss. She also asked who would bear the financial responsibility for the study.
Mrs. Zimmerman said that the Board of Supervisors directed the project to be done. Mr. Millard said the Board had no input into the augmentation. Mr. Jones said the Township would pay the bill.
Mrs. Carricato said that she reviewed the plan in its entirety and pointed out that there was a discrepancy between what was said at prior meetings regarding the cost to the residents and what was shown in the report. She went on to say that according to the report, the residents in the affected area would be held responsible for the total cost of approximately $330,000 and that each property owner could be required to pay as much as $10,000. Mrs. Carricato said that the Board of Supervisors, including Mrs. Zimmerman and Mr. Gross, assured the residents that that would not happen.
Donald Steinmeier, 11 North Fairville Avenue. Mr. Steinmeier asked if any progress had been made in hiring a codes and zoning administrator. Mr. Rimer responded by saying that he had several candidates and that the advertisement would appear in the paper one more time.
Karen Wagner, Jonestown Road. Mrs. Wagner addressed the Board stating that the residents in the area of the proposed Pilot project had three major concerns including (1) the water situation, (2) the landscaping, and (3) the exit on to Jonestown Road. She went on to say that several residents in the area encountered well problems during the Summer of 2000 and that the residents were concerned about the proposed shower facilities to be added to the property. In addition, she said that the residents hoped that the Board of Supervisors would deny Pilot’s request for an exit on to Jonestown Road because it would compromise the safety of the residents who traverse the road on a daily basis.
Earl Hoffman. No comment.
Ken Gross. No comment.
Steve Millard. No comment.
Bob Jones. No comment.
Gloria Zimmerman. No comment.
Article 1-Title, Article 2-Definitions, and Article 5-FRA (Flexible Rural Agriculture). This item was tabled until the March 5, 2001 public hearing.
Article 17-Open Space Residential and Nonresidential. This item was tabled until the March 5, 2001 public hearing.
Jeff Wendle of CET Engineering was present to review the Act 537 Augmentation report. Mr. Wendle began his review by saying that the whole issue with the Act 537 Augmentation began with the proposed Millstone project. He highlighted the following:
· Figure 1 knows the area known as the Millstone development. It had been proposed that the developer would participate with other developers to run a gravity line to a pumping station located along Piketown Road. This would enable service to the existing homes as well as to future development. In order to proceed, DEP required that the augmentation plan be done.
· One of the first things that an augmentation plan requires is to look at the current on-lot systems. DEP said that if a pumping station was proposed, before it would approve such a plan, it wanted existing development to be addressed. That is one of the main reasons for doing the Act 537 Augmentation plan.
· Figure 2 shows the results of the SEO investigation indicating the lots that were surveyed—the lots with surface failures are shown in maroon and those without problems are shown in blue. According to the SEO, approximately half of the lots inspected showed evidence of surface failure.
· Figure 3 shows the well samples taken. A number of homes had total coliform and quite a few homes had both total and fecal coliform. Given the fact that there is not much farmland in that area, the fecal coliform would be a good indication that the wells are contaminated with some kind of sewage. Most of the residents were aware of their problems and had UV systems on their wells. There was one residence on Terrann Drive that had elevated nitrates in the water.
· Essentially, the conclusion is that the residences on Sandy Hollow Road on the north side to the east as well as the area on Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road are areas that should receive public sewer. The long-term solution would not be to replace the septic tanks especially on Terrann Drive because many of the lots are fairly small and they don’t have the room or the clearances with other wells. The issue is when it would be installed and what the costs would be.
· Along Sandy Hollow Road, the developers have proposed to construct a force main from the pumping station on Piketown Road to the east and connect with the pumping station at Manor Drive. The developers have proposed that when the trench is open that an interceptor would be constructed that would serve the pumping station and they would also install a gravity line in the common trench to serve those properties on the north side of Sandy Hollow Road. The homes on the south side of Sandy Hollow Road are more than 150 feet from the right-of-way, although they would be given the option of having sewer installed.
· The developers would also construct an interceptor to the west along the creek to the pumping station which would convey wastewater from Sandy Hollow Road as well as the Millstone development and other future tracts—Russell and others further to the north.
· Figure 5 shows two proposed manholes, one directly south of Hollow Drive and the other near the intersection of Piketown Road and Sandy Hollow Road. The farm in that area is slated for development and those manholes will be brought to that location within a 5-10 year planning horizon.
· The estimate for constructing the collection system, including the service laterals, in the Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road areas is $338,000. The cost of $9,600 was based on the number of properties to be served by public sewer. The cost of replacing a sand mound would be approximately $10,000. The cost per property is shown at the present time and can be addressed during the public comment period.
· The Authority has three options to pay for the extension of service: (1) charge tapping fees, (2) create special districts, or (3) charge front foot assessments. Currently, the report shows that it would be anticipated that either one or a combination of the options to those who would be served.
· The purpose of the public advertisement is to solicit public comment.
Mr. Millard said the service area would be going right around Houck Manor and suggested that perhaps that area should be considered for public sewer in conjunction with the present proposal. Mr. Millard said that the fire company needs to replace its septic system at a cost of approximately $30,000. He said that the taxpayers were going to pay that $30,000 and that if, in the next year, it was determined that the Houck Manor area should be sewered then the money spent on the septic system at the fire company would be lost.
Mr. Wendle explained that the area addressed by Mr. Millard was in a completely different drainage basin. He said that the Houck Manor area would be outside the scope of the proposed project. Mr. Wendle said that the Act 537 Augmentation was submitted to DEP through the Board of Supervisors and that the area addressed in his report was the area outlined as the study area. He said if the Township went back to DEP now, it would be talking about a whole other study area.
Mr. Millard said that the Board members were not asked for input. Mr. Wendle responded by saying that the augmentation was submitted to the Board of Supervisors and that the Township had to sign off on it before it could be submitted to DEP. Mr. Millard reiterated that no one had asked the Board what the service area was to be. Mr. Wendle again said that the study area and the scope of service had to be signed off by the Township and submitted to DEP.
Mr. Millard said the Board did not sign off on the service area. Mr. Rimer said the Board of Supervisors was provided a copy of the proposed service area with a memo from him several months ago, which included the Task Activity Report. Mr. Jones said the Board had no information when this was approved and that he didn’t know anything about it until the night it was voted upon. Mr. Rimer responded saying that there was no doubt that the process was expedited but that the Board was given the Task Activity Report. He said the Board did not deliberate or provide any direction on any other needs or any other service areas.
Mr. Millard said that to his recollection there was only one vote and that was the initial vote that was made when the project was assigned to the Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Rimer agreed that was what had gotten it started but went on to say that he then requested CET to provide something with the Task Activity Report to the Board.
Mr. Millard said the other issue he had was the possibility of creating sewer districts. He said the practice was bad for the elected officials and it was bad for the residents. Mr. Wendle said that creating sewer districts was only one alternative for the Authority. The Authority could also charge front footage assessments whereby each property owner would be assessed an amount based on the length of frontage on their property. Mr. Wendle said he was not suggesting one over the other but simply outlined the options available to the Authority through the Municipal Authorities Act.
Mr. Millard said that the proposed project was a major augmentation and that the Township should find out what was happening at Houck Manor. He asked if the Board members wanted to have taxpayers $30,000 for the septic system and then find out that the area had to be sewered and have that money thrown away. Mrs. Zimmerman suggested that service area could be addressed after the augmentation before the Board.
Mr. Wendle said that since DEP already approved the scope and the planning area for the current project, he did not advise going back to DEP to broaden the scope of the project. He pointed out that approximately a mile of interceptor would have to be constructed in order to service the Houck Manor area from the proposed pumping station on Piketown Road.
Mr. Millard said he did not agree with the projected 5-10 year plan to provide public sewer to the Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road areas. He said the augmentation study showed that over 71 percent of the properties currently have some type of failure and that the residents were drinking contaminated water even though it went through the UV system. Mr. Wendle pointed out that the water was tested before the UV and he assured Mr. Millard that the water samples were taken directly from the well—before going through the UV process.
Mr. Wendle went on to say that there shouldn’t be any bacteria in the water after it went through the UV. He said that most of residents that CET talked with were aware they had problems and were treating the problems with a UV system. He said that one of the reasons that the time frame was projected at 5-10 years was because it was dependent upon how fast the area was developed.
Mr. Millard asked about the fact that residents were assured that they were not going to pay more than the other residents do already on public sewer. Mr. Wendle said that the Township would be free to do what it wanted—it could choose to contribute money toward the project. He went on to say that the Authority could choose to contribute or pay for the project, but he said the Authority had not indicated it was prepared to do that. He reiterated the fact that the Authority had other options under the Municipal Authorities Act.
Mr. Millard said the Authority could only establish special districts with the approval of the Board. Mr. Wendle said they did not have to run the sewer to the service area and not charge for it. Mr. Wendle said he believed that was an issue that had to be resolved between the Board and the Authority.
Mr. Millard said he was confused because when the collection system was put all over the Township it was done so at one time and that the Authority put it all into one big pot and everybody paid equally for it. Mrs. Zimmerman pointed out that the Authority had to get a $14 million loan to do that. Mr. Gross said that wasn’t even equal and that only 25 percent of the people were paying for the whole thing.
Mr. Gross went on to say that he saw no reason why the Authority didn’t invest a quarter million dollars in the project because it would be a drop in the bucket to the Authority with all of the income it would realize from the three projects and the existing homes. Mr. Wendle said he could not speak for the Authority.
Mr. Gross asked Mr. Wendle where he got the information that was put in the report. Mr. Wendle said CET developed the cost information. Mr. Millard asked if it was Mr. Wendle’s idea to charge the people $336,000. Mr. Wendle said that the Authority had not given any indication that it was going to pay the money outright so CET outlined the options that the Authority had in order to pay for the project. Mr. Wendle went on to say that how it was finally paid for would have to be addressed at some point but that he hoped the Board would vote to advertise the Act 537 Augmentation Plan.
Mr. Millard said it was his understanding that if the Board advertised the plan and then changed how the financing would be done, it would have to be readvertised. Mr. Wendle said that public comment could be about that very issue. Mr. Millard reiterated that it understood it might have to be readvertised. Mr. Wendle said he did not believe that would be the case because the Township would be addressing public comment.
Mr. Gross said he didn’t see why the cost had to be put in the plan. Mr. Wendle said the reason why the cost was put in was so the public would know the potential. Mr. Gross said the costs paid by S&A Homes, Rustrum, and Mr. Yingst were not included. Mr. Wendle said the developers would be paying all the other costs.
Mr. Gross said he still believed that all costs should be in the report. Mr. Wendle said that DEP requires that the augmentation address the existing homes and how they might be affected. The public comment period is basically done for their benefit. Mr. Wendle went on to explain that if there were no homes in the area, an augmentation would not be necessary because future development would be handled through planning modules.
Mr. Millard asked if DEP would allow sewer to go into an area outside the 20-year plan. Mr. Wendle said that if the supervisors signed the planning module that would effectively amend the Act 537 Plan. If a developer presented a planning module to the Township that did not affect any other existing units, the Act 537 Plan would be amended via a planning module.
Mr. Millard said the cost per property owner was not in the advertisement. Mr. Wendle said the plan addressed the cost but that if the Board wanted that information in the advertisement it could be amended to reflect the potential costs. Mr. Millard said he believed it should be added.
Mr. Gross said that originally there were 900 people who didn’t pay for the sewer and why all of a sudden should 35 households pay for it. He went on to say that there were three large projects coming into the Township to help pay and that it ought to be paid off in a couple of years. Mr. Wendle said he could not speak for the Authority in terms of whether it was going to pay or not. Mr. Millard said the Authority had $1.5 million in its kitty.
Mrs. Zimmerman said that if the Board voted to advertise the proposed augmentation, then public comment could be held. Mr. Wendle said he would change the advertisement to reflect the potential costs to the residents on Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road. He went on to say that there would be a 30-day comment period after which the Board would have to address all public comments before sending it on to DEP for review. Mr. Wendle said there had to be some agreement regarding the financing. Mrs. Zimmerman said that would have to be settled between the two boards.
Mr. Wendle said that if it were not advertised, then nothing would happen. Mr. Millard asked Mr. Yost if Mr. Wendle was correct. Mr. Yost said he thought the Board could deal with the cost factors as part of the hearing process. He said he did not encourage the Board to vote to advertise it earlier because he had the feeling that the Board was unsure of what the plan would be; however, Mr. Yost said he had some concerns about nobody paying. He said his impression was that the Board of Supervisors did not want the residents on Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road to pay any more than the people on the original sewer system. He said he did not want anyone to leave the meeting thinking that those residents would receive their sewer connections for free.
Mr. Millard said he was still reluctant to advertise the plan having told the residents that it would not cost them $10,000 to connect. He said he did not want to face the public. Mr. Yost said that was all part of the process. He said the advertisement would now include the potential costs to those residents. He went on to say that he believed the Board of Supervisors could convince the Authority of the way it should be.
Mr. Wendle said all he was asking was for the Board to authorize advertising it. Mr. Rimer asked why there were no other alternatives provided to resolve the septic problems in that, similar to those alternatives given for Fox Mill Road, and why there were no other financial options offered. Mr. Wendle said that no other alternative systems were looked at because the houses would be along a gravity sewer line installed by the developers. Mr. Wendle said that regarding financial options, the Authority had the three options available that were discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Wendle said that typically when a sewer line was extended, there was some charge by the Authority for that sewer system. He said they would not ask the rest of the ratepayers to absorb the costs from the money already paid in. He went on to say that was why the plan was presented as it was.
Mr. Millard said he didn’t understand that concept. He then asked Mr. Gross if he would resent having other connections—like those on Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road. Mr. Gross said he would not resent them.
Mrs. Zimmerman said that the financing was not Mr. Wendle’s problem and that it would have to be worked out between the two boards involved.
Mr. Millard said that Jim Zeiters had gone over the report with a fine toothcomb and found quite a few areas on the map that did not agree with the table. Mr. Wendle said he would be happy to discuss the discrepancies with Mr. Zeiters.
Mr. Jones asked why the plan did not include Bolton Drive, Slate Ridge Road, and Wells Drive. Mrs. Zimmerman responded because it was not going up Manor Drive. Mr. Jones said that the line would be going right by that area and that the entire issue at hand was brought about because of S&A Homes’ proposal to run a line. Mr. Wendle said they were not included because they were already in the 20-year service area and that they didn’t have to be addressed because of the proposed sewer extension. Mr. Wendle said that the other area needed to be addressed because it was west of Manor Drive and that the proposal was to extend the existing service area.
Mrs. Zimmerman thanked Mr. Wendle for his time.
Regular Meeting, February 5, 2001. Mrs. Martin asked to have the Minutes for February 5, 2001 tabled until the March 5, 2001 meeting due to a computer problem.
General Fund Balance as of February 15, 2001 $646,467.03
Liquid Fuels Balance as of February 15, 2001 $274,212.59
Deposit on February 2, 2001 +$37,375.70
Deposit on February 9, 2001 +$13,672.73
Deposit on February 15, 2001 +$ 3,401.41
Less Payroll February 9, 2001 Net $24,385.12 Gross $ 28,392.66
Less Vouchers to be approved February 20, 2001 $ 53,887.60
Total Invoices that could be paid with Liquid Fuels Funds $ 2,858.75
Mr. Gross moved, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to pay the payroll. The motion was unanimously approved.
Mr. Gross moved, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to pay the vouchers. The motion was unanimously approved.
Mr. Millard asked about the costs for hooking up the compressor. Mr. Rimer said that some rewiring was required. Mr. Gross asked if the horsepower of the unit had been increased. Mr. Rimer said it was the same size. Mr. Gross said that the compressor cost $2,400 and that it cost $1,400 to hook it up. Mr. Rimer offered to look into the matter. Mr. Gross asked him to obtain a breakdown from Mr. Harman. Mr. Rimer concurred.
Mr. Rimer said that the oil bill presented at the last meeting was carried over from last year due to budget constraints. Mr. Gross said he could understand that but still questioned the high cost of the oil and transmission fluid when it could be purchased locally for half the cost. Mr. Rimer said he would ask Mr. Harman about it again.
Mr. Jones questioned the accounting charges of $1,550. Mr. Rimer said that in January the accounting firm had completed the year-end reports as well as prepared several of the annual reports.
Amendment to Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance-Article VI, Section 173.-37-Park and Recreation Land Dedication Requirements. This item was tabled until the public hearing scheduled for March 5, 2001.
Pilot Corporation – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Off-site Improvement Recommendations and Agreements from 2/12/01 Workshop Meeting. Mr. Rimer said that at the conclusion of the February 12, 2001 workshop, the Board had agreed to continue discussion with Pilot Oil.
Chuck Zaleski, the attorney representing Pilot, introduced himself to the Board. He said that he was present to address some of the questions and concerns raised by the residents as well as several Board members.
Mr. Zaleski said that Pilot’s concern was with regard to the access on to Jonestown Road. He went on to say that from an engineering standpoint, and that PennDOT agreed, that it was the safest way for the traffic to exit on to Jonestown Road and through a controlled intersection with a traffic signal. He said Pilot was proposing to install a temporary traffic signal until such time as the corridor project was completed and that it would then be installed permanently at Pilot's expense.
Mr. Zaleski said he understood one of the other concerns raised was for the water supply. He said that Pilot Oil would not have a problem with the Board imposing a condition on the approval of the plan that at such time as public water was available, Pilot would connect. He said he believed that provided a guarantee to the residents.
Mr. Zaleski said that the Planning Commission had reviewed the plan and recommended approval with the traffic exiting on to Jonestown Road and that Pilot would be responsible for the cost of that intersection improvement and the traffic signals. He said that he, as well as his client, were surprised to hear some of the objections that were raised. Mr. Zaleski said that in terms of public safety, the safest possible way was to enter the property off Route 39 and leave via the traffic signal.
Mrs. Zimmerman said the Board was weighing the safety against the inconvenience to the residents. She said that the engineer was also waiting for the road design.
Mr. Zaleski said that the information on the road design had been forwarded to Mr. Brulo for review. He said he believed there was only minor information missing.
Mr. Brulo said that ultimately he would need a design on Jonestown Road which would include a left turn lane, show the widening of the eastbound and westbound lanes and curbing, along with an upgrade of the pavement in that area sufficient to carry additional trucks. He said what he received was a pavement analysis for Jonestown Road which included a thicker pavement and that he also received a signal concept plan that was sent to PennDOT; it was about 40-50 percent complete. He said that basically it showed the signal and some of the lane configurations but no details regarding grades, utilities, or overall lane widths and right-of-way. Mr. Brulo said that was needed when the final plan was submitted. Mr. Brulo said that Pilot was basically telling the Township that it would build a left-turn lane from Route 39 to the exit driveway to Pilot, widen and curb the roadways in that area, and upgrade the pavement. He said he still did not have enough information.
Mr. Jones asked if it was proposed to be an asphalt street. Mr. Brulo said it was. Mr. Jones said he thought it would be better if a concrete street was installed.
Mr. Brulo said that definitely would be a good idea. He said one of the questions he had about the pavement analysis was that the proposed overlay would last eight years in the area where the existing roadway was and that the overlay where there would be widening would last ten years. He said the standard design for new roadways was 20 years and that the Township would like to see that upgraded to a 20-year term and that concrete would definitely last longer.
Chris Navitsky of BL Companies, Pilot’s engineer, said that the pavement analysis had been submitted to HRG. He said the proposal included two pavement sections and two analyses. He said cores were done on the existing section and there was 5 inches of concrete on top of 5 inches of existing bituminous over a couple inches of subbase which bears on rock. He said the proposed upgrade would be a 1 to 1-1/2 inches of overlay in an eight-year period. That pavement would be good for five years and then it would require another 1-1/2 upgrade for a continual eight-year upgrade after that. Mr. Navitsky said there was discussion about providing a 20-year pavement through that area. For the areas outside where the existing concrete is, Pilot proposed to upgrade that to approximately 19-20 inches of pavement, subbase and pavement, which would give a ten-year life period based on truck flows. He went on to say that the Planning Commission had requested a 20-year life be provided and that part of the agreements would be that an overlay would come in that eight-year period which would allow 1 to 1-1/2 inches of overlay to reinforce that pavement and then provide another overlay in the future. He said initially the design was not going to be for 20 years but that it was Pilot’s hope that an 8-10 year period with an overlay would be part of the final agreements to be discussed with the Township.
Mr. Navitsky also explained that the traffic signal plan was conceptual because there was a meeting between PennDOT, representatives from the Township, and representatives from Pilot. Pilot wanted to get comments up front because there were a number of issues with PennDOT and trying to coordinate with the corridor project and incorporate the turn lane, which PennDOT really didn’t see as warranted, but the Township believed that it was added to the plan and Pilot wanted to get their initial input before the final location of loop sensors, timing patterns, etc., which weren’t part of the physical geometry of the layout, were addressed. The conceptual plan was provided to Mr. Brulo for review and comment.
Mr. Zaleski said that the main reason for coming to the meeting was to get an understanding of how the Board was leaning. He said Pilot proposed access to Jonestown Road and that he understood there were some concerns raised by some of the neighbors and also some of the Board members. He said it made no sense for Pilot to continue to do designs and studies in regard to access on to Jonestown Road if that was not going to be approved by the Board. He said Pilot had the option to simply improve the existing access directly on to Route 39 but that was not what Pilot preferred but stated that if that’s what the Board wanted, then that’s what would be done with the plan. Mr. Zaleski explained that Pilot would like to get the project moving and that what he was seeking was some kind of consensus with the Board as to whether Pilot should continue and provide all of the details to Mr. Brulo so that Mr. Brulo could review them in order to finally recommend to the Board that everything was satisfactory with Jonestown Road or should the plans be modified for access from Route 39 with no exit on to Jonestown Road. Mr. Zaleski said that a development agreement had to be prepared by Mr. Yost in which Pilot would commit itself in a binding contract to make a financial contribution, some of which would be in the form of credits from the monies that would be expended on the intersection improvements.
Mr. McCahan, the Township’s Emergency Manager, spoke from the audience and asked if he understood that the trucks would exit on to Jonestown Road and travel to the stop sign on Route 39 (Hershey Road) and be required to make a left turn to get back to the Interstate. Mr. Zaleski said that was correct except that there would be a traffic light installed. Mr. McCahan asked if the traffic light would be installed at the same time, and Mr. Zaleski responded in the affirmative.
Mrs. Zimmerman asked if there was room for three lanes on Jonestown Road. Mr. Navitsky responded that 40 feet of pavement was planned, which would include two 14-foot lanes on the exterior with curb frontage, which was a PennDOT requirement, and a center turn lane of 12 feet. He said those dimensions were discussed and submitted to PennDOT for approval.
Mr. Millard said there has been incidences of fuel spills at some of the other truck stops and asked if Pilot had that contained. Mr. Navitsky explained that there currently was an oil and water separator on the property that was part of the storm management system. He said that another one would be installed as part of the upgrade. He further explained that all site runoff was collected on-site. He said there were special catch basins at the diesel fueling islands, which captured the runoff with sump pumps and then routed it to the oil and water separator before it was discharged into the stormwater basin.
Mrs. Zimmerman asked Mr. McCahan for his opinion—as to whether an exit on Jonestown Road and a traffic signal would make it better than coming out the present driveway across Route 39. Mr. McCahan said that a light at Route 39 and Jonestown Road would improve the intersection.
Mr. McCahan said he had an additional comment regarding the catch basins. He said the retention pond on Pilot’s property was a mess and an eyesore. He said it looked like it had not been maintained since it was installed. Mr. Zaleski said that was one of the reasons Pilot wanted to upgrade the facility.
Mr. Jones said he thought barriers might be constructed on Route 39 when the improvements were done prohibiting any left turns on Route 39. Mr. Zaleski reiterated that it was Pilot’s plan to exit on to Jonestown Road and utilize a new traffic signal in order to make a left turn. Mr. Navitsky said that cars could continue to make a left turn from the existing driveway on to Route 39 but that trucks would be required to exit on to Jonestown Road.
Mr. Gross expressed concern about the trucks in a stacking lane on Jonestown Road cutting off access to businesses on the south side of Jonestown Road, particularly The Ramada Limited.
Mr. Zaleski reminded the Board that the main reason for the meeting was to talk about basic concepts and not specific designs. He said it was important for Pilot to get some guidance from the Board.
Mr. Gross said he didn’t like the idea of exiting on to Jonestown Road because it created too much congestion at the corner and blocked off the businesses on the south side of Jonestown Road. He said that Pilot was getting too big and that it might be a good idea to look for another piece of property rather than attempt to put a mega business on a postage stamp property.
Mr. Zaleski said that Pilot had satisfied all of the ordinance requirements with regard to what it was proposing and that he was looking for some guidance from the Board of Supervisors. He said he didn’t believe the Board was willing to tell Pilot to shut down and move out.
Mr. Millard said initially he was against the Jonestown Road idea more than anyone else on the Board but that after thinking about it and talking to many people, he agreed that it was the safest way for the traffic to exit. He said Pilot was located in the Interchange District of the Township and that trucks were part of life in that area.
Mrs. Zimmerman asked if Mr. Zaleski was willing to accommodate the residents’ request regarding barrier between Pilot and abutting properties.
Mr. Navitsky said that there was already a steep bank on the property and the Pilot was requested to put in a conservation easement which did not allow disturbance to the trees along that area. He said he would be willing to determine if there was room available at the top of the bank to add some additional screening, although he pointed out that additional screening already was required by the ordinance.
Mrs. Zimmerman said she would like to see the retention pond cleaned up before anything else was done. She went on to say that it was a hard determination to weigh the convenience of the residents versus the safety factor, but she said she believed the safety factor was paramount. She said she did expect Pilot to do everything possible to accommodate the residents.
Mr. Jones said he also thought existing on to Jonestown Road was the safest remedy and he reiterated that he was concerned about the construction and maintenance of the road.
There was a brief discussion regarding a time extension for approval of the plan. Mr. Rimer said he would look into it. Mr. Zaleski said he would contact Mr. Rimer to discuss another appearance before the Board.
Mrs. Zimmerman directed Mr. Rimer to send a letter to Pilot about cleaning up the retention pond. Mr. Rimer said he would do so.
Schedule Workshop Meeting with Richard Yingst Regarding U.S. 22/Jonestown Road Intersection Signalization and Improvement Project. Mr. Rimer said that Mr. Yingst hoped to schedule a workshop to discuss some of the items regarding his Bradford Estates plan. By consensus, the Board agreed to add this item to the workshop agenda scheduled for March 12, 2001.
Hershey Road (SR 0039) Study Status Report. Mrs. Zimmerman asked James Zeiters for an update regarding this item.
Mr. Zeiters said the last meeting was held on February 12 and all of the municipalities were present, including East Hanover. Mr. Zieters said that the scope of the study group will encompass Route 743 also and that the group would be looking at two routes coming out of Hershey. At the meeting, it was requested that each participating municipality sign a resolution and that the group hoped to have all of the signed resolutions returned by the next meeting, which was scheduled to be held on March 12. The committee would also like a list of issues. He said he had spoken with Mr. Rimer and suggested that if any of the supervisors had issues, they should contact Mr. Rimer to have them added to the list.
Mr. Zeiters explained that the resolution basically stated that the municipalities were getting together to do a study. The committee was looking at a forum where it can discuss the issues and bring it together, as well as communications whereby it can let the municipalities know what was happening, and also to set up policies and priorities based on what comes out of the study.
At this time, no financial commitment was requested and depending on what funding could be acquired it may not be necessary. The DCED said it would put up $10,000 to go against a local match, in the event a local match would be necessary. The committee has been looking into various state funding programs to conduct the study. An RFP should be prepared in the near future to seek a consultant to conduct the study.
Resolution 2001-6, Appointment of
Township Auditor for 2000 Audit. Mr.
Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Gross, to adopt Resolution 2001-6 and that the
firm of Boles, Grove, and Metzger be engaged for the purpose of conducting the
audit for 2000. The motion was
unanimously approved.
Sewer Connection Enforcement Activities (Actions). Mr. Yost said there had been no activity since the last meeting.
Proposed Amendments to Chapter 85-Burning, Open. Mr. Rimer said that Mr. Millard had furnished a comprehensive review of the proposed amendments as had Tim Shatto. Mr. Rimer said he would now like to consolidate all comments into one document to present to the Board at the next meeting.
By consensus, it was agreed to table and incorporate all of the comments for the next meeting.
OLDS Ordinance Revision Related to Pumping Precincts and Timing of the Pumping Notices. Mr. Rimer said one of the concerns expressed at an earlier meeting by the supervisors was that the OLDS Ordinance which set the pumping schedules for the various areas of the Township might be tied to the Act 537 Plan. He said that the ordinance was referenced in the Act 537 but that it simply served as a link and did not spell out the precincts.
Mr. Hoffman expressed concern that the amendments to the Burning Ordinance and the OLDS Ordinance revision placed a hardship on the farmers in the Township. Mr. Yost said that Mr. Hoffman had asked him to work with Mr. Hoffman to ensure that was not the case.
By consensus, it was agreed that this ordinance revision would be tabled and that both the OLDS Ordinance and the proposed amendments to the Burning Ordinance would be considered at the same time.
Authorize Public Notice Advertisement for Act 537 Plan Augmentation. Mr. Millard expressed a desire to add the information of the bacterial percentage found in the survey to the advertisement. Mr. Yost said that he did not believe that was necessary and that the public would see that information when they came in to review the proposed plan.
Mr. Gross moved, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to authorize
advertisement of the Act 537 Plan Augmentation. The motion was unanimously approved.
Authorization for Manager to Begin Hiring of Full-Time Secretary/Treasurer. Mr. Millard asked if the time requirements had been met as far as Ms. Schildt. Mr. Rimer responded that they had. Mrs. Zimmerman asked Mrs. Martin if she would be interested in serving as the Secretary/Treasurer on a full-time basis. Mrs. Martin responded that she would be interested in discussing that possibility with the Board.
Mr. Millard moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, to begin the hiring process. The motion was unanimously approved.
Resolution 2001-25, Tire Recycling Program Permit. Mr. Rimer said he prepared a resolution to create the permit and the fees for the residential tire recycling program.
Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Gross, to adopt Resolution 2001-25. The motion was unanimously approved.
Violation at 1237 Glendale Avenue. – Authorization to Forward to District Justice for Further Action. Mr. Rimer said this was one of the issues pending and asked for permission to take the matter to the District Justice for resolution. A brief discussion ensued.
Mr. Millard moved, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to authorize the Township Manager to take the violation at 1237 Glendale Avenue to the District Justice. The motion was unanimously approved.
Authorize Lease Purchase of a New Copier Machine. At Mr. Rimer’s request, this matter was tabled until the March 5, 2001 meeting.
Authorize Conference Attendance List. Mrs. Zimmerman said that Carol Buskirk and Mr. Millard requested permission to attend a Land Use Seminar.
Mrs. Zimmerman moved, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to authorize attendance at the seminar. The motion was unanimously approved.
Authorize the Release of 2001 Fire Tax Funds for the West Hanover Township Fire Company-Article XVIII, Section 1803 of the Second Class Township Code. Mr. Jones said that the Board had done this previously. Mr. Rimer advised that action had to be taken each year to release the fire tax funds.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the report submitted by the Fire Company at an earlier meeting. The main issue was the format of the report and whether or not a separate bank account should be set up for the fire tax funds. It was suggested that representatives of the Fire Company meet with Mr. Rimer to discuss the format for reporting fire tax expenditures to the Township.
Mr. Gross moved, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to release the 2001 fire tax funds. The motion was unanimously approved.
Authorize Supervisor Hoffman to Prepare a Report on Municipal Building Addition. Mr. Millard asked what this item was about. Mrs. Zimmerman said that Mr. Hoffman was interested in exploring the feasibility of adding a wing to the Township Building or building another building for community recreation events.
Mr. Gross moved, seconded by Mrs. Zimmerman, to authorize Supervisor Hoffman to prepare the report. The motion was unanimously approved.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Rimer called the Board’s attention to the two letters written to Pilot Oil. Mr. Rimer also said that he would like to attend a demonstration for “Super Pave” at East Hanover on March 6. The Board agreed and suggested that Mr. Harman attend as well.
Mr. Gross suggested that Mr. Harman attend the Board’s first meeting every three months. Mr. Rimer said that he would have Mr. Harman attend the March 5 meeting.
No other business came before the Board.
Solicitor. Mr. Yost said he had no additional report.
Engineer. Mr. Brulo said the Board had his written report.
Roadmaster. Mr. Harman was not present.
Codes and Zoning Administrator. Mr. Rimer said he had received five resumes for the building inspector position, but that only one was really qualified based on the fact that he wanted that person to take over non-residential inspections. He said he also received calls from across the state regarding the zoning position. He said he hadn’t compiled that information as yet and that he was planning to advertise one more time.
Park and Recreation Coordinator. Mr. Rimer said that Ms. Fesig would be giving a summary report at the next Park and Rec meeting. He also said she would be including a written report in the Board packets.
Manager. Mr. Rimer announced that the newsletter deadline was March 2. He advised Mrs. Zimmerman that he had prepared an article for bingo promotion as well as the tire recycling program. He said there would also be a lot of information included for Park and Rec activities.
Bill McCahan, Jonestown Road. Mr. McCahan said that if Pilot was willing to contribute for a traffic light that perhaps it should be installed before the Jonestown Road and Route 39 intersection as it would also then service the Texaco and BP across the street.
Donald Steinmeier, 11 North Fairville Avenue. Mr. Steinmeier suggested that the Board work with the Water and Sewer Authority to resolve the financial problems. He said the ratepayers were paying their rates and that money was coming in as the Township continued to grow and believed that the Board should look to the Water and Sewer Authority for proper funding when certain problem areas had to be sewered. He discouraged the Board from establishing sewer districts or assessing front footage.
Mr. Steinmeier asked if he could address Mr. Zeiters for a question regarding the study group. Mrs. Zimmerman responded in the affirmative. Mr. Steinmeier asked Mr. Zeiters for an approximate timetable for correcting some of the problems. Mr. Zeiters said that if all the signed resolutions were received in a timely manner then it would be approximately three to four months to select a consultant for the study. He said the study would take about one year and that once the study was finished the recommendations would be referred to PennDOT and/or the municipalities. Mr. Zeiters said he did not foresee any physical changes for at least two years.
Mr. Steinmeier suggested that the Board work with DEP when making changes to the OLDS Ordinance. He said that ordinance was created at DEP’s insistence.
Beth Carricato, 699 Knight Road. Mrs. Carricato reminded the Board that at the regular meeting of December 18, 2001 the Board had agreed that the residents on Terrann Drive, Hollow Drive, and Sandy Hollow Road should not have to pay anymore money than the other residents connected during the initial sewer project. She said it would be a terrible injustice if the Board permitted those residents to pay $10,000 when they had been assured they would not have to pay that much.
Mrs. Carricato asked if the individuals affected would be notified individually. She said that Ms. Hardman had taken names and addresses at a prior meeting because the Board had assured those people they would be contacted. Mrs. Zimmerman directed Mr. Rimer to identify the property owners in the service area and provide them with a letter notifying them that the plan was ready for public comment.
Earl Hoffman. No comment.
Ken Gross. No comment.
Steve Millard. Mr. Millard asked about the status of Mione’s property. Mr. Rimer said that nothing had happened since the last time estimates were collected and that it had been put on the back burner. Mrs. Zimmerman asked if Mr. Oyer had ever responded. Mr. Rimer responded that he had not and that Ms. Hardman had made several attempts before she left to contact Mr. Oyer. Mr. Millard said something had to be done about the situation. Mr. Rimer said he had been receiving calls from people who did not live in the Township about the property. Mr. Rimer said the matter had to be revived and discussed. Mr. Jones asked if Bretz Drive was a Township road and suggested that if it was that it be shut down. Mr. Brulo said that Bretz Drive had not been dedicated to the Township.
Mr. Millard said he had received many complaints about the process used to make appointments to the various boards. He suggested that Mr. Rimer develop some type of policy. Mr. Millard said he would like to have people submit resumes and then have an interview with the Board, much like the process used by corporations when hiring someone. Mr. Rimer said someone had asked to see a resume of a particular board member and he discovered that the person had not submitted a resume. Mr. Yost said that if the practice would be to distribute resumes to the general public, the person applying for the board should be advised of that. Mr. Rimer agreed to draft a policy for the Board’s review.
Robert Jones. Mr. Jones asked if the Township was paying retail gas prices to Fleetshare. Mr. Rimer said that the Township did not pay federal tax. He said he had been working since he arrived at the Township to resolve the discrepancies in the Fleetshare bills and that the problems were ongoing.
Mr. Jones said it was his understanding that Mr. Harman would be present at the March 5 meeting to review the road projects for 2001. He said he hoped that Mr. Brulo had the engineering information and that the projects went out to bid prior to July 2001. Mr. Rimer assured him that the bids would be ready in the near future. Mr. Jones said once this year’s projects were bid out, then he thought preparation should begin for 2002 road projects. Mr. Rimer concurred.
Mr. Jones said that he believed a committee should be formed to look at long-range planning regarding the Township’s property. Mrs. Zimmerman asked Mr. Jones if he wanted to take charge of that project. Mr. Jones said he would report at the next meeting.
Mr. Jones said he believed that since the Township was responsible for the Pennvest loan if the Authority defaulted, the Township should be entitled to a copy of the year-end financial report. Mr. Jones asked Mrs. Zimmerman to request the information. Mrs. Zimmerman said she would do so.
Mr. Jones asked whether or not the project down to the Dermody property had been put on a back burner since Route 743 had been added to the project. Mr. Rimer said that he had been trying to meet with Barry Hoffman and Delta Development to find out what the Township’s financial obligation would be to the corridor project but that he had not yet been successful in scheduling the meeting. Mr. Zieters said that he thought if the Township did not receive any satisfaction from PennDOT in the next month or so, that Representative Marisco and Senator Piccola should be contacted to put pressure on to get it moving. Mr. Rimer said both gentlemen were supportive of the project and had written letters to the necessary entities at PennDOT.
Mr. Jones asked about the status on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Mr. Rimer said he was in the process of preparing an RFP, at the Planning Commission’s direction, to select a consultant. He said the issue was also going to be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jones said he hoped that at some point there could be a joint meeting between the Board and the Planning Commission regarding the zoning issues in the Township. Mr. Rimer said the consultant’s study would lay the foundation for zoning changes. Mr. Jones asked if it would happen this year. Mr. Rimer said that it would.
Gloria Zimmerman. Mrs. Zimmerman said that anyone interested in sweating should run for supervisor in the next election. She asked Mr. Rimer to have the HVAC system checked. Mr. Rimer said he was working on it.
Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Gross, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail A. Martin
Secretary/Treasurer