MINUTES

REGULAR SEMI-MONTHLY MEETING
February 13, 2007

The semi-monthly meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Hanover Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania was called to order by Chairman John N. Diacogiannis at the Hanover Township Community Center, 3660 Jacksonville Road, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 18017 at 7:30 P.M.

Present were Supervisors Salvesen, Nagle and Walbert, Engineer Birdsall, Solicitor Broughal and Manager Finnigan.

The Pledge of Allegiance was performed.

Upon motion of Mr. Salvesen, seconded by Mr. Walbert, the Board approved the Agenda with an addition to Appointments and Resignations and an addition of an executive session in regard to zoning issues and contract negotiations.

Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Upon motion of Mr. Salvesen, seconded by Mr. Nagle, the Board approved the minutes, as written, from the meeting of the Board of Supervisors dated January 23, 2007.

Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Upon motion of Mr. Salvesen, seconded by Mr. Nagle, the Board approved the List of Bills and Transfers dated February 13, 2007 as prepared by the Secretary/Treasurer and to enter the signed List of Bills by the Secretary/Treasurer and the Board of Supervisors as an attachment to the minutes.

Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Colon arrived at 7:36 P.M.

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Mr. Diacogiannis stated that in view of the fact that when the zoning ordinance amendment issue comes up there is no further testimony, the hearing ceased at the last meeting and there really wouldn’t be any opportunity for anyone to speak in regard to that, whether it’s pro or con, or questions and answers. If any one is here to speak about this issue, we will allow you some time to make a statement.

Mr. Broughal stated that if anyone is here tonight to speak on any issue of the zoning ordinance amendment you are free to speak, but the public hearing was at last month’s meeting and that is where testimony was taken and where a record was kept. Anything you say tonight will not become part of that record. That record was closed as of last meeting. The Chairman is giving everyone an opportunity to make a statement, but wants everyone to understand that the statements will not be part of the official record from last meeting.

Karen Dolan, City of Bethlehem resident requested that the Board of Supervisors take into consideration based on testimony at last meeting, the importance of the Monocacy Creek and the current dangerous conditions affecting the Monocacy Creek. The Comprehensive Plan tells this Board to take the environment into consideration and this Board has had a long history of preserving the creek. This development will cause more harm to the creek. As Vice-President of Monocacy Creek Watershed Association, Ms. Dolan referred to the Burtner letter that was sent to the Board and asked the Board to vote against the re-zoning.

Robert Oakley, resident of Harriet Lane, stated he lived along the creek for 16 years and asked the Board to consider another alternative. Commented that the Township is a great place to live and would hope that someday the issues that residents and the Board face can be solved by working together and would hope that the Board continues to do what is right for the Township and continue to make their decisions competently and intelligently as they have done in the past and would like to see cooperation amongst the older members of the Township, the Board and to potentially develop the land particularly as the owners of the property would like to have it done.

Arnold Kritz of Cross Creek Court stated he was told to go to the Planning Commission to voice his concerns, which I did. We heard all the issues regarding this development and respectfully asked that the Board turn down this re-zoning.

REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. Diacogiannis had nothing to report.

REPORT OF THE VICE-CHAIRMAN

Mr. Walbert had nothing to report.

APPOINTMENTS & RESIGNATIONS

Mr. Nagle moved that the Board approve to appoint Ms. Deborah S. Skeans, of Sperry Van Ness / Imperial Realty, to the Transportation Impact Fee Advisory Committee for the Township. Mr. Nagle further moved that the Secretary inform the Transportation Impact Fee Advisory Committee and Ms. Skeans of this appointment.

Mr. Walbert seconded the motion.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

PLANNING & ZONING

Mr. Walbert stated the following item is in regard to amendments to the zoning ordinance for Active Adult – St. Francis Property.

Mr. Walbert thanked everyone for their input over the past couple of weeks and had a tremendous amount of calls, emails, attendance at meetings, and letters and we appreciate all the input.

Mr. Walbert moved that the Board approve the following Ordinance No. 2007-02 and that the Chairman and Secretary be authorized to sign the Ordinance.

ORDINANCE NO. 2007-02

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE “HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE” TO PROVIDE FOR ACTIVE ADULT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IN THE RESIDENTIAL RURAL (R1-R) ZONING DISTRICT.

Mr. Nagle seconded the motion.

Mr. Nagle stated he reviewed the zoning amendment and in keeping in mind that this is only a text amendment, I looked at it in a lot of different ways, especially environmentally; I liked the fact that we are preserving 25 acres. The housing density is consistent to others in the Township. I think it has potential to save tax dollars because the roads will be upgraded as well as the intersection of Bridle Path and Jacksonville. This proposal allows for the upgrades with no cost to the Township. Additionally this proposal, with our largest tax being the school tax, with no children coming in to this development, it is going to help the school tax. In regards to traffic, there will be upgrades and I don’t believe people will travel Cross Creek Road to get to Macada Road; it’s only logical to take the main road. Mr. Nagle stated he now lives on Woodside Road and this development will be 100 yards from this development; development is development; our Township is being built up and it is what it is.

Mr. Walbert stated he has tried to analyze both sides of the issues to come to my conclusion. On the positive side of things, there will be less impact on the schools, less impact on the Township public works, less impact on Recreation because of the nature of the people that will be living there and it is also beneficial from a revenue standpoint. When you look at what is going to be developed, single family detached homes: I’ve heard comments through out the hearings that these are going to be too expensive for Township residents to other comments that this is going to be a “shanty town”. Those are the extreme views. When you sort through all the input on the negative side, it comes down to two issues: storm water and traffic. When you look at storm water, the impervious cover that this project would have relative to if it were built by current zoning, the amount of impervious cover is like a 3% difference. The issue of whether or not Bridle Path Road gets improved applies to either development, so that is not unique. There are concerns of how the storm water will get from the site to the Monocacy. Those are engineering issues, which quite frankly have not really been studied in depth. Storm water is controlled by Federal Law, Act 167, and the Monocacy Creek has its own set of rules and regulations as to how water goes into that creek. If you look at the overall Monocacy Creek watershed, it is huge, it is vast. In the overall scheme of the Monocacy Creek water shed, this development is not significant in impact. The critical factor is the impervious cover. In regards to the traffic concerns, it is somewhat of an issue, but the advantages of the development far out-weigh the detriment of the extra traffic that would be generated.

Mr. Salvesen stated the great interest in the Traditions of America request has allowed me to focus on the thought process that we as Supervisors should be, and for the most part, are doing as part of our process.

With any developer’s request there are certain questions that need to be raised and answered before a logical decision can be made. 1. What is the traffic impact and what are the required fixes the developer will need to supply both on-site and off-site? 2. What measures are needed to control water run-off? 3. What does the Township have to supply in terms of services and what is the net benefit that the entire Township can expect to receive?

In asking and answering these questions, I have been led to the following conclusions: 1. Although the traffic impact or more precisely the differential in the impact of the proposed development and a development that consists of single family homes seems to be a wash, I would respectfully request that the Board not act on the zoning text amendment until this Board has had a chance to review the entire development along with the traffic impact study and evaluate all off-site and on-site traffic improvements. Mr. Salvesen stated he believes that this more conservative approach is in the Township’s best interest. 2. The storm water run-off does not appear to be a problem in that both Township ordinances and State law requires that water not be released at a rate greater than would naturally occur. The additional water run-off that some have encountered over the last few years appears to be a very natural result from a great amount of rainfall in the past few years and we have seen a 100-year storm in the same period that has caused massive flooding along some rivers and streams in our area. 3. The assertion that a new development will lower surrounding home value is a fact that cannot be supported in Hanover Township. In the 23 + years that I have served on the Board, there is always someone that has predicted that “new development or industrial park” will lower my home value. It simply has not happened nor do I believe that it will happen here. 4. What differences do we see in density? With the inclusion of the buffer area, the density would be comparable to the traditional lot sizes required by Township Ordinances. 5. What additional services will the Township need to supply? There does not appear to be any additional services necessary and as a point of fact, the net benefit to each Township resident will be substantial. Since the development will not have any school age children, the school taxes that the new people will pay will act as a subsidy to each and every homeowner in the Township by keeping their share down.

Mr. Salvesen thanked all the residents of the Township who have supplied input and for getting involved in the process of government here in the Township.

Mr. Colon commented on J.B. Reilly’s statement that there is a need for senior development. Mr. Colon mentioned there are some senior opportunities with the Township already. There are quite a number of seniors already here. Mr. Colon stated he appreciates the earlier comments on the Monocacy Creek watershed; however I get this feeling that whenever Hanover Township decides to do something, we’re the enemy and we’ve caused the problem in the Creek. Mr. Colon reiterated the history of what the Township has done east of Route 512 and west of Route 512 to preserve the Monocacy Creek watershed and to keep it at its natural state. Mr. Colon stated that a lot of his questions and comments were already stated by his colleagues. The one thing that I find important is that the Nun’s gave 25 acres of non-buildable land. We need to look at the total piece of property, not just the 68 acres that Mr. Reilly wants to build on. That is 25 acres that will remain open space. In all the years I have been on the Board, no one has ever assigned the Township developer’s rights. We’ve had land donated to us and mandated that a portion of land be given, but no one has ever given developer’s rights and that is a compelling reason that this plan should go through. It also gives us access to the Creek which enhances our recreation activity in the Township.

Mr. Diacogiannis made the following statement “we have heard testimony from the developer, the landowner and the citizens both supporting and opposing this zoning amendment. We have received a letter from our Planning Commission informing us of a split vote against adoption of the amendment. Unfortunately, that letter does not provide an explanation of their position, or guidance of the issue. We have received a letter from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission indicating that this is a matter of local concern, but strongly suggesting that the density proposed is still too low. All of us have received numerous letters, e-mails and phone calls from very impassionate proponents on both sides of the issue. We certainly have not been devoid of opinions and suggestions.

Our personal feelings and desires aside, we as a Board must continue to do as we have for years – to consider this request on its merits and effect and not what we as individuals would rather have or not have.

Regardless of whether we consider wholesale zoning changes or an amendment such as we have here, I believe the real test is to compare the differences in the impacts that we are concerned about as well as how well the amendment meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, we can look back at the relatively recent rezoning that we imposed on this land to highlight the primary density impact issues of traffic and storm water management and the protection of the Monocacy Creek. From my point of view, those were the primary issues for the last zoning change.

My initial uninformed reaction to the current requested change was negative. I did not want and still do not want the zone reclassified back to the higher density that originally existed. However, after full consideration of testimony on both sides of the issue and the significant communications from proponents on both sides of the issue, I have decided to vote for acceptance of the amendment. The basis for my decision is as follows:

Conservation Area:

· The creation of a 25-acre conservation area meets the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan:

o To ensure that the developer respects the natural features of the land and implement a plan for the protection of natural resources

o To preserve flood plains, steep slopes and unique natural and scenic areas for enjoyment as open space areas or for passive recreational use

o To ensure that developers protect the nature and quality of the Monocacy Creek

o To preserve a green zone of undisturbed open space along the Monocacy Creek

· The 25-acre conservation area is appreciated and welcomed, however this “gift” should stand on its own merits. It should not be considered in the application of the density allowance or the impervious coverage computation.

Density:

· The higher density is restricted to the Active Adult use. We are not changing the density for any other residential use.

· The higher density is still lower than what the area was originally zoned for, and is better than reverting to the original zoning classification.

· The higher density is still lower than that which the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission continues to suggest for this area (4 to 7 homes per acre).

Impervious Cover:

· Would not be significantly different than as currently allowed (33.5% vs. 30%); difference of 3.5%

· Regardless – any developer is required to manage storm water so as not to increase the rate of flow from the property. The storm water run-off impact on the Monocacy Creek would not be materially different than that under existing zoning. I have heard from civil engineering experts on numerous occasions over the last couple of years that the recent flooding problems in the Lehigh Valley and high water levels along the Monocacy were the result of unusual storm activity and supersaturated earth, rendering it nearly impervious. Those situations can exist regardless of what is developed on this tract of land.

Traffic:

· Peak-time traffic volume is not expected to be significantly different than as currently allowed. However, it is expected to be considerably less than peak traffic under regular 4 units per acre zoning.

· Improvement to roadways and intersections would be required in any case regardless of the zone.

Setbacks:

· The zoning amendment provides for a larger setback of 50 to 100 feet, as compared to the existing 40 feet, which further protects adjacent properties.

Revenue vs. Services:

· There is increased revenue to both Hanover Township and the Bethlehem Area School District, with a diminished impact on services provided, particularly with road maintenance and school services. The school district would get the better deal; they get the money without providing services. The impact on services would be greater under existing zoning and considerable higher under a reversion to the former zoning.

Mr. Diacogiannis stated that in conclusion, he has been on the Board for around 23 years. While this is probably the toughest decision I had to make, I am not sure it was the most difficult.

The decision on these items that I believe I clearly indicated, is what the effects of the change are? I believe the positive effects are clearly there.”

Mr. Walbert stated this is, under the zoning, a conditional use. Which means that in addition to the requirements that are specified in the zoning, when the plan comes in, it goes through a conditional use hearing, which gives us the opportunity to put extra restrictions on the development, for example traffic, storm water, or anything that may have an adverse impact on the surrounding area, it requires the developer to extra things not specified in the zoning ordinance. It is important to remember that the passage of this zoning change, if it passes, is not a plan that is recorded. It still has to come back to us for a conditional use hearing.

Mr. Broughal had no comments.

Mr. Birdsall had no comments.

Mr. Finnigan stated that he looked at this from a manager standpoint in regards to the types of services the Township would need to provide. I think the Board has hit on a vast majority of the items that I was going to reflect on: the protection of the Monocacy and the easement, open space preservation – takes 25-acres off the market, decrease in the density. The agreement with the Developer will include Jacksonville and Bridle Path Road intersection improvements, which saves taxpayers money. The development will have minimal impact on the Bethlehem Area School District, which is not this Board’s responsibility.

From a staffing standpoint, this development or this proposed text amendment has no impact on municipal services. The maintenance of these roads in this development will be handled by the Developer: the leaves, tree-trimming, snow removal, roads signs, etc., that all stays with the developer, so it will not have an impact on township taxes. In regards to traffic, if you look at this development compared to R1-S or R1-R, based on the requirements of age, there won’t be anyone under 18 living there. If you take my house as an example, there is one driveway and four drivers, where in this development you’ll have one or two drivers per home, which will have a negative impact on roads by either a by-right or by going back to what the original zoning is. Some concerns were raised on the impact on the fire personnel and E.M.S. personnel. I had the opportunity to speak with officials in Lower Macungie and there is not an additional burden in their estimation on E.M.S., nor is there a real difference between what they would expect from a traditional development or an age-restricted development.

Based on those factors, from an administration standpoint, the conditional use with conditions that the Board of Supervisors could put on, should a plan be presented to them, from an administration standpoint, it would not have a negative impact on the Township; more than likely, it would have a net-positive impact.

Mr. Diacogiannis asked if there were any other comments.

It was noted that there were no other comments.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Diacogiannis thanked everyone for their efforts and their input.

Mr. Walbert stated that he thought back to the Wegmans rezoning and the people living in Birchwood Estates were afraid that traffic would be coming through their development to avoid traffic at Jacksonville and Stoke Park Road; that never happened. We made the improvements to the infrastructure to handle the traffic and the same thing will happen down at Bridle Path. I think your concerns are valid on traffic going through your developments, but I don’t think it’s going to be a problem when all is said and done.

Mr. Diacogiannis stated this is Mr. Reilly’s first step in the process and the next step could be long depending on how well we all handle it. The planning process will be long, but I encourage everyone to attend future meetings.

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Nagle moved that the Board approve the following Ordinance No. 2007 – 03 and that the Chairman and Secretary be authorized to sign the Ordinance:

HANOVER TOWNSHIP

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

ORDINANCE N0: 2007-03

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HANOVER,

COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-1

WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF TOWNSHIP MANAGER, AND ESTABLISHES THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER

Mr. Walbert seconded the motion.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Nagle moved that the board approve the following Resolution to establish the disposition of public records effective immediately:

HANOVER TOWNSHIP

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

Resolution 07-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HANOVER, COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC RECORDS

WHEREAS, BY VIRTUE OF Resolution #98-7, adopted on July 14, 1998 the Township of Hanover declared its intent to follow the schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Act 428 of 1968.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Act 428 of 1968, each individual act of disposition shall be approved by resolution of the governing body of the municipality;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Township of Hanover, County of Northampton, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in accordance with the above cited act, hereby authorizes the disposition of the following public records:

Finance Records:

• Cancelled Payroll Checks prior to 2000

• Employee Payroll Adjustment Records prior to 2003

• Payroll Voucher (check) Registers prior to 2000

• Quarterly Returns of Withholding of Federal Income Tax prior to 2003

• Quarterly Statements of State and Local Taxes Withheld prior to 2003

• Social Security Reports prior to 2003

• Time Cards and Attendance Records prior to 2004

• Unemployment Compensation Records (UC2) and supporting records prior to

2003

• Wage and Tax Statements (W-2 forms) prior to 2003

• Withholding Allowance Certificates (W-4 forms) for terminated employees

prior to 2003

• Payroll Earnings and Deduction Registers pay period reports prior to 2001

• Accounts Payable Files and Ledgers prior to 2000

• Accounts Receivable Files and Ledgers prior to 2000

• Annual Budget Reports submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Community

Affairs prior to 2002

• Balance Sheets prior to 2000

• Bank Statements and Reconciliations prior to 2004

• Bills prior to 2000

• Cancelled Accounts Payable Checks prior to 2000

• Check Registers prior to 2000

• Daily Cash Records prior to 2004

• Deposit Slips prior to 2004

• Employee Expense Reports prior to 2000

• General Ledger Analyses prior to 2000

• Invoices prior to 2000

• Purchase Order files prior to 2000

• Supply Requisitions prior to 2005

• Surplus Sale Files prior to 2004

• Utility and Paid Service Receipts prior to 2000

• Vendor Files, retain until superseded or obsolete

• Voucher Files prior to 2000

• Warrants prior to 2000

• Bill of Taxes filed by Tax Collector with the Sheriff prior to 2004

• Certifications for Taxes Paid on Real Estate (provided by the Tax Collector) prior

to 2004

• Delinquent Tax Collection Records retain one year after delinquent taxes have

been paid

• Exoneration Certificates Issued to Tax Collector prior to 2002

• General and Special Tax Ledgers/Journals prior to 2000

• Tax Bills, Paid receipts prior to 2004

• Tax Collector’s Reports (Annual report submitted to the Pennsylvania

Department of Community Affairs) prior to 1997

• Tax Collector’s Settlement Records prior to 1997

• Tax Duplicates prior to 2000

• Tax Notice Certification Statements (Submitted to taxing district by Tax

Collector) prior to 2004

Administration Records:

• Bonds (Performance and Security) (expired) prior to 2002

• Insurance Claims 6 years after final settlement

• Insurance Policies 6 years after expiration provided all claims have been

settled

• Municipal Bonds 6 years after cancellation

• Cancelled Notes prior to 2001

• Public Hearing Notices and Proof of Publication prior to 1997

• Bid Files – unsuccessful – 3 years after job completion

• Bid Files – successful – 6 years after termination

• Bid Files – Construction contract – 12 years after termination of contract

• Oaths of Municipal Officials prior to 2001

• Ethic Commission Statements of Financial Interest prior to 2002

Personnel Records:

• Applications for Employment (not hired) prior to 2005

Public Works Records:

• Liquid Fuels tax records prior to 2000

• Traffic Studies – retain as long as of administrative value

• Routine Maintenance records – prior to 2002

Planning & Building/Zoning Code Enforcement Records:

• Citations – 3 years after resolution of complaint

• Contractors’ Licensing Records – prior to 2000

Recreation & Community Center Records:

• Accident/Incident Reports – prior to 2004

• Park Program Files – prior to 2005

• Park Rules and Regulations – Retain 5 years after revoked or superseded

• Park Use Records (Includes facilities such as tennis courts, athletic fields,

and playgrounds) – prior to 2004

Any Resolution or part of this resolution conflicting with any other resolution shall be and the same is hereby repealed insofar as the same affects this resolution.

Mr. Colon seconded the motion.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Nagle moved that the Board approve to authorize the Township Solicitor to advertise the proposed ordinance exempting any resident qualified by the State Veterans Commission from municipal real estate taxes.

Mr. Colon seconded the motion.

Mr. Nagle asked if this is a common thing.

Mr. Broughal stated it is a federal statute.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Nagle moved that the Board approve to authorize the Township Solicitor to advertise the proposed ordinance to amend the schedule of fees imposed by the Township tax collector.

Mr. Walbert seconded the motion.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Nagle moved that the Board approve the following Resolution for the application for a permit to install and operate traffic signals at Orchard Lane/Crawford Drive and Jacksonville Road.

HANOVER TOWNSHIP

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

RESOLUTION 2007-06

WHEREAS, Hanover Township, Northampton County desires to erect, operate and maintain traffic signals on Orchard Lane/Crawford Drive and Jacksonville Road, and

WHEREAS, the Vehicle Code requires the approval of the Secretary of Transportation before any traffic signals may be legally erected or reconstructed, and

WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation requires an engineering drawing of the location, the Pidcock Company will prepare such a drawing in conformance with the instructions provided by the Department.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that traffic signals be erected at the above mentioned location, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Transportation, and that his approval is

hereby requested, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, in the event a traffic signal is approved after proper investigation, Hanover Township will be bound by the following provisions:

The traffic signal shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Vehicle Code and the Regulations for traffic signs, signals, and markings of the Department of Transportation,

and

Should future highway or traffic conditions, or legal requirements, necessitate alteration of the construction or operation, or hours of operation, or removal of the traffic signals at the above mentioned location, they shall be altered or removed when and as directed by the Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. Colon seconded the motion.

Mr. Finnigan stated that we will be holding this until the Engineer approves to send this to the Developer once everything is in place and finalized. The Jaindl Land Company has to take the necessary steps to take care of this.

Mr. Colon asked if Jaindl is putting in this signal.

The answer was yes.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. Colon moved that the Board approve, as recommended by the Township Engineer, to grant the reduction in “Escrow” for the Hanover Corporate Center 2 Subdivision Escrow Release Request No. 1 on the following conditions:

1. That security for the work remaining plus contingencies be maintained in the amount of $6,775,925.75; and

2. That the Developer adheres to Township Policy #25 (payment of Plans & Appeals Accounts).

Mr. Nagle seconded the motion.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Mr. Colon moved that the Board grant an extension to the Owner/Developer of Allentown Hotels, LLC (Holiday Inn Express) to April 16, 2007. Mr. Colon further moved to notify the Owner/Developer of the Board’s action relative to this matter.

Mr. Nagle seconded the motion.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

It was noted that no one had any comments.

ROAD REPORTS

Mr. Walbert – Road District #1, Mr. Salvesen – Road District #2, Mr. Diacogiannis – Road District #3, Mr. Colon – Road District #4 and Mr. Nagle – Road District #5 & #6 had nothing to report.

ENGINEER’S REPORT

Mr. Birdsall had nothing to report.

SOLICITOR’S REPORT

Mr. Broughal had nothing to report.

MANAGER’S REPORT

Mr. Finnigan reported on the following:

· Bethlehem Area Public Library report is in front of everyone.

· Revise the Executive Session items to Potential Litigation and Contract Negotiations.

Upon motion of Mr. Walbert, seconded by Mr. Colon, the Board approved adjournment at 8:40 P.M. and entered into an Executive Session.

Mr. Colon yes, Mr. Salvesen yes, Mr. Nagle yes, Mr. Walbert yes, Mr. Diacogiannis yes.

Stacy C. Milo

Secretary/Treasurer

REGULAR SEMI-MONTHLY MEETING February 13, 2007

REGULAR SEMI-MONTHLY MEETING
February 13, 2007