WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

7171 ALLENTOWN BOULEVARD, HARRISBURG, PA 17112

MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001, 7 P.M.

WORKSHOP MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Zimmerman called the workshop meeting to order at 7:04 p.m., followed by the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Gloria J. Zimmerman, Chairman

Kenneth W. Gross, Vice Chairman

Earl B. Hoffman, Sr., Assistant Secretary/Treasurer

Robert R. Jones

Stephen L. Millard

WORKSHOP BUSINESS FOR DISCUSSION

Development Improvements – Meadows of Fort Stewart. Richard Yingst and Jim Cieri were present for the discussion. Mr. Yingst indicated that he was present to discuss contributions to off-site improvements for the intersection at Piketown Road and Linglestown Road.

Mr. Brulo explained that there might be several items that could be discussed as off-site improvements including Piketown Road near the Kelemen property where there was a sharp turn where the guardrail was very close to the road and created a blind curve. Further, along Sandy Hollow Road there were some areas where the roadway should be improved, where the base was cracked and the road had failed in a number of areas. Mr. Brulo went on to explain that relative to the proposed Central Dauphin school, there had been some discussion between the Township staff and district staff relative to what the school district proposed to do at Piketown and Linglestown Roads and whether a signal would be warranted or that perhaps one of the lanes should be offset. He indicated that as it stood, the school district would likely end up doing was moving Linglestown Road far enough apart that both sides could be signalized.

Mr. Jones asked why the south side of Linglestown Road would not be moved east and then create an intersection that would go straight across. Mr. Brulo indicated that from the Township’s point of view that would be the most desirable solution, but that idea would also necessitate a new structure over Beaver Creek and would involve wetlands.

Mr. Brulo also indicated that the other intersection in question would be Blue Ridge Avenue and Jonestown Road. He further indicated that Mr. Yingst was already making improvements south of Blue Ridge but that where Blue Ridge Avenue and Jonestown Road met, the Township would like to have that area straightened as well.

Mr. Yingst explained that one of the main reasons he was present at the workshop was to inform the supervisors of what had already been done at the intersection of Jonestown Road and Route 22. He went on to say that the original agreement called for him to fix everything south of Route 22 and install the traffic signal and that future development would take care of the north side of Route 22. However, he explained that when he went to PennDOT, they would not entertain any improvements to the intersection without doing both sides. Mr. Yingst advised the Board that up to the present time, he had expended approximately $85,000 for improvements to the north side of Route 22, which had not been part of the original agreement. He indicated that he believed he had already made a major contribution and did not plan to make any other contribution for the Fort Stewart project.

Mr. Cieri explained that what Mr. Yingst proposed doing on Sandy Hollow Road was to improve the entire length along his property to Township standards by widening the road to 28 feet and installing curbing. He indicated that Mr. Yingst did not plan to make any improvements to Sandy Hollow Road beyond what the Township ordinance required him to do for The Meadows at Fort Stewart. Mr. Cieri went on to say that he believed Mr. Yingst’s contribution of $85,000 was much more than other developers had put in thus far and suggested that it was time for the school board and some of the other developers to put up some funds as well.

Mr. Millard said that he believed Mr. Yingst had also made a substantial contribution by agreeing to run the sewer lines and install the pump station to benefit the residents on Sandy Hollow Road, Terrann Drive, and Hollow Drive. Mr. Cieri said that by Mr. Yingst making that contribution, the residents in those areas would be able to obtain sewer service for the same cost as other residents in the Township.

Mr. Yingst went on to update the supervisors on the progress of the intersection at Route 22 and Jonestown Road. He informed them that the intersection he was responsible for would be totally paved by the end of October, the light was scheduled to arrive in mid-November, that it would be blinking by the beginning of December, and that it would be fully operational by December 15.

Mr. Jones asked if curbing was proposed for the south side of Sandy Hollow Road or whether a bank would be installed there. Mr. Brulo said that the Township Ordinance required that the roadway be widened and that curbing be installed on Sandy Hollow Road as well as Piketown Road. Mr. Jones went on to raise the question of whether or not curbing should be installed in that area. Mr. Brulo indicated that if the Board felt that curbing was not necessary, then the dollars could be put into upgrading the road itself. Mr. Jones said that instead of curbing he would rather see a bank there with nice plantings. Mr. Cieri indicated that the dollars were there and suggested that the Board spend them elsewhere. Mr. Brulo also indicated that one of the comments to the Planning Commission was that there were several areas for improvement and that even though the ordinance required curbing and fill-in paving that it made sense to put the dollars into the roadway itself. Mr. Cieri said that if the Board wished to waive the curbing, he would remove it from the plan. [NOTE: Although Mr. Jones asked for the feelings of the other Board members, there was no definitive decision made by the Board relative to the installation of the curbing.]

Mr. Yingst said that he was continuing to work with the two other developers in the area and the Sewer Authority to get Terrann Drive sewered. Mr. Yingst asked whether or not the Board would be willing to have the Township’s Public Works Department repair approximately 3,000 feet of trench on Sandy Hollow Road, Terrann Drive, and Hollow Drive if the sewer installation could be arranged. Mr. Yingst indicated that it would cost approximately $15,000 and clarified to the Board that the figure given was only an approximation. Mr. Yingst indicated that he was in the process of canvassing the neighborhood to determine how many residents would be interested in obtaining public water at no cost to them. Following a brief discussion, by consensus, the Board indicated it would be willing to have the road repaired following sewer installation.

Mr. Millard asked whether or not Mr. Yingst would consider granting an easement to run a ped path in the development. Mr. Yingst responded saying that he would not have a problem granting an easement as long as it was off the lots. Mr. Millard asked that a note be added to the plan to that effect.

Mr. Yingst indicated that he wanted to make the Board members aware of some of the costs involved in developing property. He went on to explain that he was the first developer to go through the process of meeting with the Park and Recreation Board relative to fee in lieu of monies and that the outcome was a cash contribution of $40,000. He also indicated that in addition to the $40,000, he would also have to pay an additional $300 for each home at the time he obtained the building permit. He said that added approximately $1,000 to the cost of the home just for park fees. He clarified for the Board that he did not have a problem with contributing some money toward parks, but that he felt $300 for each home plus the $40,000 was a bit much. He further indicated that he just wanted to make the Board aware of the costs involved.

Mr. Jones asked whether Mr. Yingst’s $40,000 contribution could be used to purchase land, to which Mr. Rimer responded that it could and that indeed the Park and Recreation Board was moving in the direction of establishing a centralized park somewhere in the Township. Mr. Rimer also explained that the use of the money collected for park and recreations fees were limited in how they could be used and that perhaps Mr. Yingst’s contribution could benefit his development by installation of a ped path. In response to a question from Mr. Jones, Mr. Rimer said that if the money were not used within three years, it would have to be returned to Mr. Yingst.

A brief discussion followed regarding the ped path project wherein Mr. Yingst expressed some concerns relative to the construction of a ped path in The Meadows at Fort Stewart due to the secluded area it would most likely be located in and whether or not vandalism could become a problem. Mr. Yingst also indicated that residents in Brynfield were anxiously awaiting the construction of ped paths.

Mrs. Zimmerman asked about the eight or nine acres in the Brynfield development that Mr. Yingst had agreed to donate to the Township for a park. Mr. Yingst indicated that the property had not yet been turned over as he was working to mitigate the wetlands and have it leveled off prior to dedication.

Mr. Jones indicated, and the other Board members echoed, that what Mr. Yingst had already done satisfied them.

Mr. Yingst indicated that he had one additional issue to raise with the Board and that was the Environmental Overlay. He further indicated that the first time The Meadows at Fort Stewart plan went before the Planning Commission two lots were lost, which he agreed with totally. He went on to say that when he went back to the Planning Commission the following month, he lost two more lots because there was a question raised by the EAC relative to whether or not there should be a 50 or 100 feet distance from the creek and how many trees were four inches or larger.

Mr. Yingst suggested that perhaps developers should meet with the EAC separately prior to going before the Planning Commission. He indicated that it was difficult to stand before the Planning Commission and tell the members that everything was fine with the plan and then have the EAC raise its issues, in which case the plan was usually tabled. He said he would much rather deal with the issues at a separate meeting.

Mr. Cieri said that he believed it came down to interpretation of the ordinances; Mr. Rimer agreed. Mr. Yingst said he was not complaining but simply raising a concern. A brief discussion ensued wherein Mr. Rimer indicated that the final interpretation was to be made by the zoning officer and that if interpretation became too much of an issue, the matter could go before the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Rimer added that the zoning officer had the final say and had more authority than the EAC.

Developer Improvements – Townes at Hershey Road. Ken Myer, Mr. Troutman, and Ms. Molinari were present for the discussion.

Mr. Myer explained that he was present to discuss a contribution to the light at Routes 22 and 39. He also explained that the developer would be going through the Planning Commission at the October 18 meeting for both preliminary and final approvals. He went on to say that he was present to determine an equitable amount to be contributed by the developer.

Mr. Jones questioned why the Townes at Hershey Road would contribute to an existing traffic signal at Routes 39 and 22. Mr. Myer indicated that it was his understanding that PennDOT was going to “beef up” the signal and construct a left turn lane. Mr. Brulo added that he was relatively certain that PennDOT was going to proceed with upgrading the signal with or without a contribution from the Townes at Hershey Road. He indicated that he thought perhaps a contribution should be discussed for Manor Drive and stated that Manor Drive was one of the roads being considered for improvement in 2002. Mr. Brulo said he believed that it would be in the Township’s better interest to look for a contribution to Manor Drive.

Mr. Jones raised a question relative to access to Route 39. Mr. Brulo indicated that when the developer came in with the preliminary plan he had gotten approval from the Board for access on to 39 near the Dauphin County Animal Hospital and that, at that time, the developer had proposed a left turn on to 39 northbound and all of the lane improvements would be on the side of the development, which would have meant a full lane shift for vehicles heading southbound on 39. He also indicated that a driver would have had to make one full lane shift to go around the left turn lane, which the Township never really supported and the developer was asked to do equal widening—to put the center lane in the middle and offset equally on both sides so that a vehicle would only have to make a half lane shift on both sides.

Mr. Jones asked if there was enough room for a right-of-way. Mr. Brulo indicated that the developer had proceeded with the Township’s suggestion but discovered that they could not negotiate with the owners of the animal hospital or other neighbors across the street. Meanwhile, the plan went through the Township and received approval with the condition of getting PennDOT approval. PennDOT would not allow the proposed design and it required equal widening on both sides; therefore, the developer has now moved the entrance drive further north and negotiated with a property owner across the street for a right-of-way. Mr. Brulo pointed out that the property owner who granted the right-of-way also owned the property where the Townes at Hershey Road were going to be built.

Mr. Brulo indicated that the developer had a Highway Occupancy Permit before PennDOT for equal widening a little bit further north than before. Mr. Brulo also indicated that the preliminary plan and the final Phase I plan would be going through the Township’s approval process concurrently but that staff would ensure that the preliminary plan would receive approval before the final plan did.

Mr. Millard asked if there was sufficient sight distance at the entrance. Mr. Brulo indicated that was one of the questions raised by the Planning Commission since it was not clearly shown on the plan. He assured the Board that PennDOT would pay close attention to the sight distance before approving the Highway Occupancy Permit.

Mr. Millard asked whether or not PennDOT had approved what was shown on the plan. Mr. Brulo said that PennDOT had not approved it. Mr. Troutman indicated that a list of comments had been received from PennDOT and that those comments had been addressed. He said that as soon as the signed Deeds of Dedication and waivers from the property owner were received, the permit would be resubmitted to PennDOT for final review. Mr. Troutman said that in addition to the requirements that had to be met with the property owner on the east side of 39, a grading easement was also obtained from another property owner, Mr. Featerman, to grade the bank on the north side to accommodate the permit.

Mr. Millard asked Mr. Brulo whether he had ever compared PennDOT’s required sight distances with those of the Township. Mr. Brulo indicated that PennDOT’s sight distances were also the Township’s.

Mrs. Zimmerman asked Mr. Brulo if he had any suggestions relative to a contribution for Manor Drive. Mr. Brulo explained that Manor Drive would have to be reclaimed and refinished. He indicated that Manor Drive was a major collector through the Township and that it cut through the most developed areas of the Township. He suggested that the Board might want to consider that Manor Drive should be widened and have sidewalks constructed on one side to facilitate pedestrian movement, as it was a major corridor through the heart of the Township.

Mr. Rimer said that the Ped Path Study had shown in preliminary review that Manor Drive was identified as a collector of vehicles as well as people. He also said that the Ped Path project was in its infancy stages and that it was really too early to determine whether or not sidewalks would be feasible. Mr. Brulo suggested that since The Townes at Hershey Road plan would progress through the system prior to the finalization of the 2002 road program and the Ped Path program, that perhaps the Board should consider a cash contribution towards those improvements on Manor Drive. Mr. Millard concurred saying that he didn’t believe that the traffic signal at Routes 22 and 39 was relevant and that the development would have little or no impact.

Mr. Jones asked if Manor Drive would be widened where it came out from the development. Mr. Brulo indicated that there would be a left turn lane in and that the shoulder would be widened to facilitate a right turn in. He also indicated that Manor Drive would be a right turn in and out. Mr. Brulo went on to explain that Manor Drive had a serious sight distance problem where the entrance came out and that it was an old right-of-way that was set aside years earlier and that the proposed entrance was at the crest of a hill—that was why it would be limited to right in and right out on to Manor Drive. He said that the plan reflected a mountable curb (or “pork chop”) that would make sure that cars could only go right in and right out and that there would be no cross movements to Northstar on the other side.

Mr. Brulo said that if the Board wanted to consider a cash contribution towards Manor Drive, it would have to be determined what type of improvements would need to be done and then the developer would be asked for a proportional contribution toward those improvements.

Mrs. Zimmerman asked Mr. Brulo to calculate a preliminary number for the Board meeting scheduled for October 15. Mr. Brulo said he would do so. It was pointed out that if a preliminary number could be ascertained, the matter could be discussed prior to the Planning Commission meeting on October 18. Mr. Rimer was instructed to add The Townes at Hershey Road to the October 15 agenda for discussion of a contribution towards off-site improvements.

Developer Improvements – Ray Funck of Funck’s Texaco LD Plan. Ray Funck was present for the discussion. Mr. Rimer stated that he had discussed the possibility of a contribution from Mr. Funck towards the Route 39 Corridor project and that Mr. Funck had indicated that he did not wish to contribute to the project.

Mr. Funck indicated that he was suffering some financial hardship with the business located on Linglestown Road and he also indicated he was awaiting approval of a permit from PennDOT. He further indicated that PennDOT was unclear whether or not Mr. Funck would have to change the location of a culvert located at the driveway on his property. Mr. Funck said he was concerned about the cost of having to do that project and did not believe he was in a position to contribute to the Route 39 Corridor project.

Mr. Jones explained that many of the businesses in the area had already committed dollars to the project and that the Township had to put up $860,000 of the $8.6 million project. Mr. Jones added that Route 39 was a state road and that he believed that the Township residents would not really benefit from the project.

A lengthy discussion ensued wherein Mr. Funck did agree to make a contribution of $5,000 towards the project.

Mr. Gross moved, seconded by Mrs. Zimmerman, to accept the $5,000 contribution.

A brief discussion followed as to whether or not the Board could take action to approve Mr. Funck’s plan due to the manner in which the workshop had been advertised. Mr. Yost suggested that it would be best for action to be taken at the October 15 meeting.

Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Millard, to table the matter until October 15. The motion was approved 3-2, with Mrs. Zimmerman and Mr. Gross voting nay.

Township/Authority Grease Trap Inspection and Enforcement Program. Mr. Jones said he did not believe that working with the Authority was a good idea.

Mr. Millard said that it was up to the Township to enforce the BOCA Code relative to grease traps and that he thought it was something the Township should do.

A brief discussion ensued, following which Mr. Rimer was instructed to place this item on the October 15 agenda for action.

Discuss Road Inspection for 2001 – Road Projects for 2002. Mr. Rimer said it was projected that the 2001 road repairs would be completed by October 31, 2001 in accordance with the contract and suggested that the Board set a date for road inspection at the November 5 meeting. He suggested that perhaps the Board should consider Saturday, November 10, for road inspection. Mr. Rimer was instructed to add this item to the agenda for November 5.

Mr. Rimer also reported that Richard Roberts of Roberts Homes paid the sum of $13,814.40, which was the cost to pave the new section of Althea Drive.

The Board members reiterated that they believed it was important to draft the specs for the 2002 road project so that they would be available no later than March 2002.

Discuss Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance. Following a brief discussion, it was decided that the Board members should review the single purpose ordinance and that the Planning Commission should receive a copy for review as well. Mr. Rimer said he would pass it on to the Planning Commission.

Township Secretary/Treasurer. Mr. Jones said he believed it was time to move forward with hiring a new Township Secretary/Treasurer and suggested that the Township Manager be given the authority to hire someone of his choice. Mr. Hoffman raised a question as to whether the Township Manager should hire someone without the Board meeting that person. Mr. Jones said he did not believe the Board needed to meet that person if it was someone already interviewed by the Board.

Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Millard, to authorize the Township Manager to hire a secretary/treasurer of his choosing. The motion was approved with a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Gross and Mrs. Zimmerman voting nay.

Joint Meeting with Central Dauphin School Board. Mr. Rimer said he did not receive an agenda outlining the issues to be discussed at the meeting on October 9. He indicated that he thought that they probably wanted to discuss the conditional use for the school.

Pilot Oil. Mr. Millard said he had some concerns about the roadwork being done by Pilot Oil’s contractor on Jonestown Road. He said he did not believe that it was being constructed in accordance with the specifications approved by the Board. He also indicated that Mr. Miller from the Township’s engineering firm did not appear to be enforcing those specifications. A brief discussion ensued. Mr. Millard suggested that perhaps someone should be required to furnish a 20-year written guarantee to the Township that the road would withstand the truck traffic. Mr. Rimer said he would look into the matter and report back.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Gross, to adjourn the workshop. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail A. Martin

Township Secretary