PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Hanover Township Northampton County

 

3630 JACKSONVILLE ROAD

 

BETHLEHEM, PA 18017

 

 

Minutes of the September 13, 2004 Meeting

 

 

 

Meeting #807 of the Hanover Township Northampton County Planning Commission was held at the Hanover Township Municipal Building, 3630 Jacksonville Road, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Monday, September 13, 2004, and convened at 7:30 P.M.

 

 

 

Planning Commission members in attendance:

 

Paul Kuehne   Karen Fritz

 

John McGonigle  Glenn Taggart

 

George Scoggin

 

Hanover Engineering, Associates, Inc. represented by Charles M. Schmalzer, P.L.S.

 

 

 

Motion was made by McGonigle, seconded by Taggart, approving the minutes of the August 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, abstain Scoggin, abstain Kuehne, yes

 

 

 

WESTGATE WATER COMPANY Installation of a Water Storage Tank and Building

 

Record Plan

 

Robert Ferri (Niclaus Engineering) Al Furnari (Manager, Westgate Utilities)

 

 

Water company has presented their proposal as requested by the Zoning Hearing Board. Proposed is a 24’ high by 26’ in diameter vaulted steel water storage tank with capacity for 100,000 gallons of water within a 30’ by 30’ building structure. Two sites are shown for the location. Option 1 attaches proposed building to existing barn structure, locating it 15’ from Lane Avenue. Ordinance requires 35’ setback. Option 2 shows a free standing building (30’ x 30’ x 38’ high) in the rear yard area of the lot. Tank will store treated water from four existing wells. It is not a pressure tank. A booster pumping station will be installed within the existing barn to provide pressure and volume of the water distribution. Proposed tank will be a finished water storage tank with the water within being disinfected. Existing system has a series of small tanks located within the existing well house building. These tanks are old, some riveted, not in the best condition, presently used as pressure storage tanks. They need to be replaced. Another consideration is adequate storage capacity for expansion. A development of 102 lots has requested water service. Current system has deficient pressure and volume problems. D.E.P. requested correction of these problems.

 

 

 

Responses were given to Planners inquiries.

 

Present tanks at 40,000 gallons cannot be replaced, as they do not have enough volume. It would not be feasible to rehab present tanks. Two tanks would be abandoned and the others would be cut up and removed.

 

Existing barn is used as a repair facility, office and storage. Wood frame barn would not enable tank to be installed on the second floor. Consideration should be given to the possibility of installing part of the tank within the barn structure, increasing the distance from the property line at Lane Avenue. 

 

There are four wells within the well house building that are permitted for 5 to 6 times the capacity they are presently pumping. There is more than adequate aquifer recharge and available water.

 

Existing system storage is deficient in structural capacity of tanks. There is a concern for leakage, possibly failure. Tanks are operating as pressure tanks. 

 

Average demand is 130,000 gallons per day. They are below the recommended one day minimum storage capacity. Proposed tank would service present customers as well as 102 home development. If water company would go to build out in their designated area, they would need larger storage and a second tank at another location yet to be determined. 

 

This system has an interconnect with the Bethlehem Water Company for emergency use.

 

 

 

Water testing is consistent with D.E.P. standards. Results have been fine. The only treatment required has been disinfection. With the increased detention time in proposed storage tank, there would be better disinfection due to longer time with the disinfectant. 

 

Tank will be replenished as demand requires. Pump station is within the building. There would be no noise to the neighbors.

 

In the event of a power outage, there is a generator back up system for the pumps. 

 

In order to partially submerge proposed tank, subsurface investigation would be needed to determine if excavation could be done that deep to safely install a tank. This would be more costly. There would be maintenance problems.

 

Upon reviewing letter from Hanover Engineering, dated September 3, 2004, a variance would be needed on the setback requirement and a waiver on the road improvement requirement. Engineering issues will be addressed.

 

 

Courtesy of the floor --- inquiries were made by residents --- responses by Ferri and Funari

 

 

 

Nick Neos of 1425 Statten Avenue If we have an emergency generator, when power goes off, why don’t we have water? This happens a few times a year.

 

It’s not electricity. The four pressure tanks can’t keep up. It’s a main break within the system.

 

Going from a pressure system to a non-pressure system, when the booster pump goes down, down, do we lose water right away?

 

Water will be in the tank and the booster pump helps distribution.

 

A big horizontal tank is inside the well house that runs parallel to Statten Avenue. Could you take that tank out and stand two vertical tanks there and build a little building around them with a shed roof against the barn?

 

With all the piping and the layout, there physically is no room.

 

Will you leave that tank or cut it up and take it out?

 

Probably cut it up and take it out.

 

This would be an alternative.

 

 

 

Marlene Malloy of 2510 Winston Road Has the water company considered giving up the rights to providing water for those 102 homes?

 

Presented to the company who said they would not purchase water from another company. They do not want to rely on another source.

 

Can you build the storage tank closer to the 102 homes?

 

They do not own the land. The booster pumping facility will be located at existing building. They want it to be as close to storage source as possible for efficiency.

 

Lived here for 40 years and do not want to look at an eyesore in a Residential area.

 

Len Kodnovich of 1365 Statten Avenue Pipe going to development - is pipe diameter big enough to supply constant pressure. Wouldn’t it be better to have a pump house closer - building a ranch type building to supply that area?

 

Existing pipes are sufficient.

 

They do not own the land.

 

Everyone would like to have Bethlehem water. It is soft water. We must maintain a salt system to soften their water. Water may be pure, but it is not the best in the state.

 

Well water is better than service water. Bethlehem is service water. The problem in this area is with limestone.

 

Neos - Pipes are undersized up the hill.

 

Booster pump station will improve pressure and make up for elevation.

 

 

Kodnovich - When did you put an office in the barn?

 

They are putting in walls to prepare for booster pumping station.

 

Jan Merkel of 2475 Winston Road Lives across the street and doesn’t want to look at a tank. Option #2 is where I live.

 

It will be enclosed.

 

 

 

Sounds like you are trying to do it as cheaply as possible.

 

Looked at alternatives and they are trying to keep cost down so customers don’t get hurt in the long run. 

 

 

Malloy - What is the type of enclosure?

 

Same type of siding - same roof - will look like the barn.

 

Merkel - How long will the tanks run? Will there be noise?

 

No, there will be no noise. These are centrifugal pumps. Building will be sound proof. Wells run more now than they will with a booster pump system.

 

Stephen Rippert of 2480 Winston Road Property values will be affected.

 

Barn is there now.

 

 

Karen Merkel of 2475 Winston Road Looking at plan, I see a dumpster - fabric fencing - ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

 

Fabric fencing is part of erosion control plan used only during the construction phase. It is temporary.

 

Dumpster is already there. Ordinance requires it to be fenced. 

 

Neos - Never got a letter explaining rate increase. We just got the increase. Will we get another increase after the building is built?

 

There is a stipulation on when another increase can be requested.

 

Charles Malloy of 2510 Winston Road In consideration for people in Westgate, you should buy the water from the City of Bethlehem. Have those people in the 102 lots pay for that water. We would not have a tank there. We would not have an increase because we would not have to put extra money into a tank. 

 

Since there are no curbs nor sidewalks in this area, a waiver will be requested for S.A.L.D.O. Section 159-8.

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by McGonigle, recommending waiver of S.A.L.D.O. Section 159-8 with the inclusion of a note on the plan stipulating that curb/sidewalk will be installed if/when required by the Board of Supervisors.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

With regards to Option 1, Kuehne suggested that water company look at the north side of the barn to enable enclosure of part of the water storage tank so that some distance can be gained from the property line, reducing it from 15 feet. Perhaps a bay could be remove, making overall structure smaller.

 

Scoggin questioned why Option 2 is a free standing building. Scoggin discussed with Ferri the possibility of putting the enclosed water storage tank up against the western side of existing barn. This would move it away from the Lukens and Morgan properties. The same size storage tank building no taller than the barn would project about 3 ½ feet into the rear yard setback, which is minimal compared with the Option 2 proposal. The distance from any resident would be 20 feet. Planners requested Ferri to research the feasibility of this suggestion after which a decision on location will be made.

 

GMA PARKING LOT EXPANSION Record Plan

 

Joe Landrigan (North Star Construction) Rocco Caracciolo (Ott Consulting)

 

Building construction is completed. GMA exceeded their expectations on the number of employees they will have. 133 additional parking spaces on the west side of the building are proposed.

 

Outstanding items outlined in letter from Hanover Engineering, dated September 7, 2004, will be addressed.

 

LVCC II - LOT 4 Preliminary/Record Plan

 

Paul Szewczak (Liberty Engineering) Joe Landrigan (North Star Construction)

 

Driveway out onto High Point Boulevard has been added to plan.

 

Developer will have no doors extending into buffer yard. Roof overhang adjustment will be made.

 

Comments were received from the Shade Tree Commission.

 

Waiver was requested from providing off-street loading spaces.

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by Taggart, recommending relief from providing off-street loading spaces, Section 185-18.C.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by Scoggin, to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors, recommending Conditional Approval, based on the satisfaction of comments made in Hanover Engineering’s letter, dated September 7, 2004, also comments made by the Shade Tree Commission in their letter dated September 11, 2004.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

 

LVCC PHASE II - LOT 12 Hotel and Restaurant Sketch Plan

 

Paul Szewczak (Liberty Engineering)

 

A limited service 3-story hotel with 100 units, including an outdoor pool, is proposed, along with a 5,525 square foot restaurant. Hotel has been rotated so the back runs parallel to the property line. Planners favor this repositioning.

 

Lot 12 is adjacent to Bennigan’s Restaurant.

 

Kuehne questioned having another restaurant. Szewczak stated the demand is there.

 

Scoggin recommended creating a dedicated driveway to insure the safety of people utilizing the hotel and/or restaurant.

 

Landscaping will be offered.

 

Lighting will be consistent with LVCC.

 

 

 

VALLEY VIEW ESTATES Phase I Single-Family Detached Residential

 

Preliminary/Record Plan

 

Keith Lawler (Keystone Consulting) Edward Murphy, Esq. (Attorney)

 

Richard Gitter (DeLuca Homes)

 

Developer has met with the Board of Supervisors concerning entrance signage, depth of detention pond and the possible installation of an off-site sanitary sewer line.

 

Waiver requests, as outlined in letter from Keith Lawler of Keystone Consulting, dated August 30, 2004, were reviewed and voted upon.

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by McGonigle, recommending relief of S.A.L.D.O. Section 159-11.M(2), allowing Azalea Drive to intersect with Lilac Drive on a 150’-radius curve.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

 

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by McGonigle, recommending relief from Stormwater Management Section 152-10.I (6) (a), allowing greater depth in a 10 year storm of 2.84’ (Ordinance stipulates 2.0’) and in a 100 year storm at a depth of 3.17’ (Ordinance stipulates 3.0’).

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by Taggart, recommending relief from Stormwater Management Section 152-10.H.(10), allowing bottom slope at 1% with cable concrete low flow channels.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

A waiver will be requested for S.A.L.D.O. Section 159-11.D.

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by Fritz, allowing temporary cul-de-sacs to exceed allowable length of 600’.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

 

Zoning Section 185-14.G There is detention basin encroachment into side and rear yards. This is considered an incidental structure. Waiver will be requested.

 

Upon discussion with the Supervisors on the possible installation of an off-site sanitary sewer line, another route is being considered which will minimize the impact of tree removal along common property line. Sewer line would straddle the property line with easements on either side of the line. Discussions are ongoing with the residents of 7 homes along Hanoverville Road.

 

Planner Kuehne requested that sidewalk be provided on the west side of Gwenmawr Road from Hanoverville Road up to where it meets Lilac Drive.

 

Comments were received from the Shade Tree Commission.

 

 

MOTIVATIONS TRAINING FACILITY Conditional Use Plan

 

Tracey Snell (Newton Engineering) Chris Williams (Liberty Property Trust)

 

 

 

ABG Fitness, operating under Motivations Training Facility, intends to lease 6,830 square feet of a 76,070 square foot flex building on Lot 30/31 in LVIP IV. This exercise facility will offer cardiovascular equipment, circuit equipment, free weights, aerobics, tanning, massage therapy and day care for patrons.

 

Operating hours are --- Monday - Thursday 5 am - 10 pm

 

Friday 5 am - 8 pm

 

Saturday 8 am - 5 pm

 

Sunday 10 a.m - 3 pm

 

Day care services will be offered.

 

45 parking spaces are required for this use. Kids Coop requires 55 parking spaces. There are 120 total spaces for remaining five uses in the building. With 80% warehouse and 20% office, Snell determined there are 22 remaining parking spaces. 

 

Planners clarified that Day Care will be provided for children of patrons who are actively exercising and only during the time the patron is there.

 

Motion was made by Kuehne, seconded by Scoggin, to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors, recommending conditional use approval with the condition that Day Care will be provided for children of patrons who are actively exercising and only during the time the patron is there.

 

McGonigle, yes Taggart, yes Fritz, yes Scoggin, yes Kuehne, yes

 

JAINDL LAND COMPANY Hanover Corporate Center 2 Preliminary/Record

 

Scott Pidcock (Pidcock Company) David Jaindl (Developer) Bruce Anderson (Pidcock Co.)

 

Pidcock updated Planners on proposal which includes the creation of Jaindl Boulevard, the Commercial Boulevard, reconfiguring Hanoverville Road with Route 512, improving Township Line Road and Route 512.

 

62 acres south of Jaindl Boulevard will be converted to Residential. J. B. Reilly is advancing with his plan for this age restricted community.

 

Plan reflects necessary rezoning. Legal issues are being discussed between developer’s attorney Joseph Zator and the Township Solicitor James Broughal.

 

Shade Tree Commission comments were received.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan draft for the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission are outlined in attached letter to the Board of Supervisors.

 

ENGINEER’S REPORT

 

Schmalzer advised permit application was received to move the poles along Jacksonville Road (Hanover Ridge). When poles are repositioned, curbing can then be installed and road widened.