PALMER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2002

           

 

A regular meeting of the Palmer Township Board of Supervisors was held on Monday, February 18, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room with all supervisors in attendance.  Also present were the Solicitor and Public Services Director, the Manager was absent.  News media was represented by William Ford of The Morning Call and Ed Sieger of the Express/Times.  Chairman Colver convened the meeting and led those present in the Pledge to the Flag.

 

2.                  APPROVAL OF DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS – FEBRUARY 4, 2002 AND FEBRUARY 11, 2002

 

INFORMATION

 

The reports will be provided at the meeting.

 

DISCUSSION

 

            On motion by Mitchell, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the Board voted to approve the February 4, 2002, and February 11, 2002, disbursement of funds.

 

           

3.                  APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 29, 2002 AND FEBRUARY 11, 2002

 

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Lammi, and agreed by all, the Board voted to approve the minutes of January 29, 2002.

 

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the Board voted to approve the minutes of February 11, 2002.

 

4.                  RECOMMENDATION OF URDC AS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSULTANT

 

INFORMATION

 

Bob Lammi, Ron Grandinetti, Ted Sales and Bob Anckaitis interviewed three consultant companies and analyzed proposals.  It is their unanimous recommendation that the Board contract with Urban Research Development Corporation.  The board needs to approve/disapprove hiring URDC to update the Comprehensive Plan.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Lammi stated that the committee sent out requests to three firms asking for proposals to assist with updating the township Comprehensive Plan.  The committee interviewed each firm and unanimously agreed to recommend the township contract with URDC.  He noted the cost is $26,900, which was the lowest bid, however, was not the reason that they chose URDC.  Lammi stated that URDC has a lot of experience and has worked in Pennsylvania (Bethlehem Township) and Maryland and that they’re familiar with Palmer Township.  Lammi and the committee feel URDC can offer innovative thinking to our plan.

 

Rickert asked what is the anticipated timeframe.  Lammi responded that the process would begin in May and URDC requires a forty-five day period for them to send information to surrounding municipalities and the school district, which would take us into the early part of July.  Lammi added that they would be coordinating a focus group who would brainstorm a variety of issues and that the group would include 25 to 30 residents.  The committee already sent letters to residents asking for a response by February 28, 2002, and the focus group sessions would begin the following week and take approximately one month to complete.  Lammi also noted that the budgeted amount for this project was less than the $26,900, however, there was $17,000 budgeted for the township website that won’t be used and can be transferred to cover these costs. 

 

On motion by Lammi, seconded by Rickert, and agreed by all, the Board voted to approve the contract with URDC as noted above.

 

5.                  PRESENTATION OF SECOR ASSOCIATES - RE:  FUNDRAISING

 

INFORMATION

 

            Please refer to the enclosed draft contract agreement from Secor Associates.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Ed Newcomb from Secor Associates made a presentation to the Board on how his organization can assist the township with fundraising for the proposed community center.  He noted his company has been in the Allentown area since 1987 and they have extensive experience in the Lehigh Valley area.  He said his group partnerships with the PA Recreational and Parks Society who assists them with planning.  Newcomb mentioned to begin the project, Secor would submit a report to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Charitable Organizations and that it would be necessary for them to begin another feasibility study identifying where the money would be coming from and what type of pledges would be made.  He feels that the previous study didn’t acquire enough information and also noted that a lot has changed since September 11, 2001, and the decline in the economy.  Newcomb stated he brought clarification and presented it to the Solicitor in response to the Solicitors previous questions.

 

Colver asked why a report gets submitted to the PA Bureau of Charitable Organizations.  Newcomb responded the organization provides services to the public by being able to justify charitable organizations.  His report would include what the project is, how much is projected to be donated, and the duration of the project.  Colver asked how long this process takes.  Newcomb stated the turn around time to be approximately one week.  Colver also inquired what the standard monthly fees would run the township for administrative services that aren’t covered in Secor’s $48,000 fee.  Newcomb responded, approximately $100 a month until we get to the point of large mailings, which could run up to $6,000 for that month.  Newcomb projected total costs for administrative tasks and his fees should be approximately $60,000.

 

Colver then mentioned his concern for what happens after Secor has completed their services.  Newcomb stated that a typical campaign runs three to five years and said that Secor will work with the township to insure that proper computer software is installed so proper tracking and follow-up can continue.  Colver asked what is the average return of pledges.  Newcomb stated 95% or greater is what they typically see.

 

Lammi then asked if the agreement would be cancelled, is the township only liable for work up to that point in time.  Newcomb mentioned that he also clarified this for the Solicitor and said if the agreement is cancelled the financial liability also ends.  Lammi asked how long would it take Secor to update the feasibility study and Newcomb stated he would anticipate it being completed before the end of June.  Lammi confirmed that would be if the project started March 18 as stated in the proposed contract and Newcomb stated that was correct.

 

Bruno will review Secor’s responses to his inquiries and this item will be added to the February 29, 2002, meeting agenda for the Boards approval/disapproval.

 

6.                  ACCEPTANCE OF DEBBIE MCINTYRE’S RESIGNATION FROM THE RECREATION BOARD

 

INFORMATION

 

      Please refer to Debbie’s resignation letter enclosed.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Rickert stated that Debbie was active for a long time and did a fine job.  On motion by Rickert, seconded by Lammi, and agreed by all, the Board voted to accept Debbie McIntyre’s resignation with regret from the Recreation Board.

 

7.                  ACCEPTANCE OF BOB LAMMI RESIGNATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION

 

INFORMATION

 

      Please refer to Bob’s resignation letter enclosed.

 

DISCUSSION

 

            Colver asked Lammi to acknowledge his resignation and Lammi stated that he had agreed to stay on the Planning Commission until a replacement was located to provide a smooth transition.  He noted that his resignation will give another resident an opportunity to serve on the commission and said he would remain active in his role as a Supervisor.  Bruno stated that he understands why Lammi is leaving the commission and said Lammi had a good grasp of issues and ran smooth meetings, which he hopes the new Chairman has learned by Lammi’s good example.  Rickert stated that she would accept Lammi’s resignation with regret and is indebted to him for his service on the commission. 

 

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Mitchell, and agreed by all, the Board voted to accept Lammi’s resignation from the Planning Commission.

 

8.                  APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

 

INFORMATION

 

            Please refer to Ron Grandinetti and Bob Anckaitis’ recommendation letter enclosed.  The board needs to approve/disapprove the appointment of Bob Smith.

 

DISCUSSION

 

On motion by Lammi, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the Board voted to accept the appointment of Robert Smith to the Planning Commission.

 

9.                  RECOMMENDATION FROM PTMSA – RE: SELLING OF SEWER CAPACITY

 

INFORMATION

 

Recommendation is made by The Palmer Township Municipal Sewer Authority (PTMSA) not to sell any of their present capacity to a non-EAJSA member party or any member of the EAJSA.  The board needs to approve/disapprove the recommendation of PTMSA.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Rickert stated that our excess capacity is dwindling and she suggested the Board agree not to sell excess.  Lammi stated that Kevin Shannon and Paul Hosking told him that our current usage is 1.5 million gallons with an excess of 1 million and their recommendation is not to sell one gallon of the excess.  Shannon and Hosking also mentioned to Lammi that they might want to consider buying more in the future.  Per Lammi, Shannon will hold off on conducting his study until July to be able to review changes made to the Comprehensive Plan.  Bruno recommended that Anckaitis send a letter to the EAJSA indicating that we are not interested in selling excess capacity.

 

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Lammi, and agreed by all, the Board voted not to sell excess capacity to a non-EAJSA member party or any member of the EAJSA.

 

10.              VICTORIA PLACE SUB- DIVISION @ STONES CROSSING

 

INFORMATION

 

            The board needs to approve/disapprove the maintenance agreement and pass the resolution for acceptance of Fleetwood Street and detention area.

     

DISCUSSION

 

Bruno stated that there are two parts to address, one is to pass resolution to accept Fleetwood Street and detention area, and the second is to authorize maintenance agreement.  Rickert asked if we have the resolution.  Bruno responded yes but it hasn’t been assigned a number yet.  Rickert requested the length of Fleetwood Street.  Bruno responded 7,652.57 square feet.   On motion by Rickert, seconded by Lammi, and agreed by all, the Board voted to adopt resolution for acceptance of Fleetwood Street and the detention area into the township road system. 

 

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Lammi, and agreed by all, the Board voted to enter into a maintenance agreement with Victoria Place Inc. for an 18-month period.

 

11.              VICTORIA SQUARE IV SUB- DIVISION.  PRELIMINARY/FINAL SUB-DIVISION PLAN.

 

INFORMATION

 

            Attorney DeEsch sent a letter to the Solicitor requesting to appear before the Board to address issues in the approval letter. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Bruno opened by stating that the developer has the right to agree to conditions discussed at a prior meeting.  The developer granted an extension until March 1, 2002 to address issues stated in Bruno’s letter to Pugliese dated February 6, 2002.

 

Bruno stated regarding #4 that the township is requiring the developer to pursue Act 2 relief based upon the Department of Environmental Protection’s recommendation and stated that this should be done before the permits are acquired.  DeEsch stated that this created a timing issue and that Fidler’s letter dated November 6, 2001, second paragraph, states it is a recommendation not a requirement.  DeEsch stated that to make this a requirement is another step that becomes detrimental to the developer and it isn’t warranted.  Colver asked for clarification on Act 2.  Bruno responded that a certificate from DEP would be issued to the developer and it would protect subsequent buyers of these properties.  Lammi agreed with Bruno that the township should have protection but he doesn’t want to hold up the developer.  Colver asked DeEsch what the timing is on the project.  DeEsch stated that the developer intends to pursue Act 2 and if the township says it’s a requirement and DEP doesn’t, it could take up to two years before we can do the plan.  Lammi asked if we could allow the developer to continue and also begin Act 2 processing.  Rickert asked if we should be recommending or requiring DEP Act 2 relief.  DeEsch again stated that the developer intends to go ahead with DEP recommendation.  Mitchell asked if the people buying the property would be told about this issue.  DeEsch said yes they would receive a letter.  Colver stated that he didn’t believe it was fair to hold up the plan not knowing if the process could take six months or six years.  Sales noted that there are 28 units being build and we don’t want the developer to stop the process and walk away.  Colver asked the Solicitor to restate in letter.  Bruno commented that he would restate to initiate and continue to pursue Act 2 clearance in good faith.

 

In reference to #5, Bruno stated that he asked for the $1,000 traffic contribution per unit be paid in full in the amount of $28,000 prior to the recording of plans, per the township ordinance.  DeEsch stated that the developer always paid per unit in the past.  Colver stated that up until two years ago the township accepted these fees per unit, however, the ordinance was changed to be paid in full upon recording of the plans.  Colver stated he didn’t have a problem with the developer paying per unit, four units each time.  The Board agreed.

 

Regarding #6, the storm water management plan and the necessity for basin regrading, DeEsch stated that this was discussed with the Planning Committee and when the developer turned over the pond to the township they understood that was the end. Bruno stated that the completion of the recess basin regrading would be confirmed by the township engineer.

 

In reference to #7, proposed parking area, DeEsch stated that he misread this paragraph.  Don Frederickson stated that the conditional use request would be noted on the plan.

 

Regarding #8, rezoning to CR, Bruno noted this is currently in the appeal period and will be fine if rezoned to CR, however, if it isn’t rezoned to CR the developer must comply. 

 

Bruno then noted that #9, appropriate building setback lines, ties into #8.

 

In reference to #10, location map, DeEsch noted that the township didn’t want that large a map and they agreed that it wasn’t necessary.

 

Reference #17, existing and proposed grading, DeEsch stated that the engineer has the information and was okay with it.  Bruno stated this was taken care of.

 

Regarding #12, lighting plan for parking area, Bruno stated the township engineer wants to approve the plan.  DeEsch stated this was approved at the planning meeting and the developer was told where to put the light.  Colver stated there was no need to submit a plan for one light.

 

Reference #14, architectural renderings of facade, DeEsch stated this one should be removed from questioning.

 

In reference to #20, deed restrictions noted on plans, Bruno stated he would check to see that they are recorded.

 

Reference #22, plan shall receive satisfactory review by lighting consultant, Bruno stated he believed the lights needed approval and asked the Board if they required approval.  Sales stated that they are currently working on an ordinance regarding streetlights.  Lammi stated they only needed a lighting plan for parking areas not streetlights and the Board agreed that they didn’t require this.  Bruno stated he would remove it.

 

Bruno then noted that he would send DeEsch a revised letter and DeEsch acknowledged an extension until March 1, 2002.

 

12.       T & S DEVELOPMENT

 

INFORMATION

 

Request is made by Amato and Margle, P.C. on behalf of Stephen Selvaggio to rezone property located at William Penn Highway and Kingwood Street from High Density Residential to General Commercial.  The Board needs to decide whether to entertain a petition from T & S for a zoning amendment.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Bruno stated that this request was to entertain rezoning of property located at William Penn Highway and Kingwood Street from High Density Residential to General Commercial.  Colver asked if the property was sold and Bruno stated he believes it is under agreement.  Lammi stated that the township engineer is in agreement with doing this because it would be difficult to layout if we were fitting into two zoning districts.  Dillman feels by rezoning it will make the buildings more attractive instead of cramming them into the area.  Lammi noted he supports also.  Colver asked if the Board wanted to entertain rezoning this property.  On motion by Lammi, seconded by Mitchell, and agreed by all, the Board voted to entertain the request from T & S Development to rezone a small piece of property on William Penn Highway and Kingwood Streets from HDR to GC.  Lammi modified motion to include an escrow fee of $7,500.00 be required for the review process.  Mitchell amended his second and motion was approved.

 

13.       PUBLIC COMMENT

 

None

 

14.       REPORTS

 

SOLICITOR

§         Palmer Hotel L.L.C. agreements are close to expiring and they have requested an extension until September 1, 2002, securities have been posted.  On motion by Rickert, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the Board voted to authorize the chairman to execute this agreement.

§         Nick Zawarski & Sons has submitted a resolution to accept roadways in Woodridge Falls, Section 2B, Grandview Drive, Forest Line, Ridge Line Lane and Grandview Drive East Extension.  On motion by Rickert, seconded by Mitchell, and agreed by all, the Board voted to accept these roadways into the township road system.

§         One personnel and two litigation items for executive session.

 

MANAGER

 

None

 

PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR

 

None

 

SUPERVISORS

 

§         Rickert asked Sales if Young’s Medical had requested for expansion of use.  Sales noted that he was aware of a request for additional parking.  Rickert asked if they have enough room and Sales replied he didn’t think so.  Colver asked Sales to get clarification from zoning and asked if they are only adding ten to fifteen parking spaces if it needs to go through planning.

§         Rickert asked the Solicitor if Palmer Nursery leases their land to Keystone Savings Bank would they be allowed to raise a building on the land.  Bruno responded that the court allowed the Nursery to use the land is for nonconforming use.  If the land is used for any similar or less intense purpose it should be allowed.

§         Panella distributed a chart showing township demographics in response to a question raised at the February 18, 2002, special meeting where a resident asked for a breakdown of township age groups so they could identify the largest group that would support the proposed community center.

 

On motion by Rickert, seconded by Panella, and agreed by all, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. with three items for executive session.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Virginia Rickert, Supervisor