7:30 PM
February 13, 2007

A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the Township of Salisbury was held on the above date at the Township Municipal Building located at 2900 South Pike Avenue, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Present were Commissioners Hebelka, McKitish, Schreiter, Hassick and Licht. Also present were Mr. Tettemer, representative of the Township Engineer; Attorney Ashley, Township Solicitor; and Mr. Best, Director of Planning & Zoning; and Mr. Unangst of Hanover Engineering, Alternate Township Engineer.

Mr. McKitish called the meeting to order.

January 9, 2007
On motion of Mr. Hassick, seconded by Mr. Hebelka, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 to approve the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as submitted. Mr. Licht abstained.

Mr. McKitish announced that the Lehigh Street Offices Land Development Sketch Plan was continued.

Consideration of The Flower Tent Conditional Use Application. Property located at 3300 Lehigh Street, (South Mall), in a C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. Application dated January 18, 2007.

Present were Tim Ansilio of The Flower Tent Company, owner.

Mr. Best read his comments listed in a memo dated February 6, 2007.

Mr. McKitish inquired about the layout of the tent and whether it would encroach upon the clear sight triangle for vehicles entering the driveway.

Mr. Best recommended that Mr. Ansilio contact the Township to confirm the positioning of the tent before it is erected.

Attorney Ashley suggested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners make a condition that there be clear sight for the intersections with respect to the Flower Tent within the South Mall parking lot.

Mr. Ansilio noted that they propose a different type of tent compared to prior tents.

On motion of Mr. Hassick, seconded by Mr. Hebelka, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend conditional approval of the Flower Tent Conditional Use Application to be located at 3300 Lehigh Street, (South Mall Parking Lot); subject to the Planning & Zoning Director’s review letter and addressing the clear sight triangles.

Consideration of the Bruce H. Uhl Major Subdivision Plan. Property located at 3109 Birchwood Drive, Allentown, PA 18103 in a C-R, Conservation Residential Zoning District. Eight (8) sheets – plan dated January 19, 2007.

Present were Harry Garman of Barry Isett & Associates, engineer, and Bruce Uhl, developer.

Mr. Best read his comments listed in a memo dated February 6, 2007.

Mr. Unangst highlighted the Hanover Engineering review letter dated February 7, 2007.

Mr. Garman addressed some of the review comments with respect to lot lines being shifted eastward between Lots 5 and 6. He noted that the on-lot septic areas were previously shown on Lot 6 but now will be on Lot 5. He explained that there are 3 septic areas in total on Lot 5. He explained about the positive drainage towards the proposed septic system was tested but is not intended to be used. He noted that an alternate site was found for Lot 6 and will be shown on future submissions.

Mr. McKitish inquired whether the septic areas on the plan that were tested but are not intended to be used would be omitted from the plan to avoid confusion.

Mr. Garman commented that they will note that the area was tested but is not intended for use. He inquired if a test well was necessary. He noted that they propose to install concrete monuments at every change in direction and point of curvature and point of tangency on the northern right-of-way line of the street and an iron pin on the south side.

There was a brief discussion on whether the developer should be allowed to have the iron pins and if monuments are necessary along both sides.

Mr. Garman spoke on the research and testing performed on the water table.

Mr. McKitish expressed a concern that the developer have an alternate plan in the event that they hit solid bedrock with respect to stormwater infiltration.

Mr. Hebelka inquired if the septic systems would be in-ground or sand mounds. He noted that the well and infiltration distances should be looked at closely.

There was a discussion to have the cul-de-sac bulb remain as it currently exists.

Wayne and Denise DeAngelis of 2839 Dewalt Street expressed their concerns about the development and outstanding major issues. Mrs. DeAngelis commented that the development would negatively impact neighboring properties, such as the McNally property, which would become a nonconforming lot if the development is approved as proposed.

Mr. Best explained that the road does not render Mr. McNally’s property as nonconforming. He commented that when the McNally’s property was built, it met setback requirements and was conforming.

Mr. DeAngelis noted a concern with the steep slopes and requested that the Township Engineer review the steep slopes.

Mr. McKitish referred the Whitmore & Haig letter submitted by the DeAngelises to the Township’s Engineer to review and verify any questionable data provided by the developer and perform field observations as appropriate. He recommended that the DeAngelises’ engineer inform the Planning Commission of any data he believes to be incorrect.

Mr. Unangst briefly clarified the extent of verifying steep slopes as presented by a developer’s engineer.

Mr. Garman stated that they based their plan’s topography on the Bascom & Seiger survey. He stated that there are some differences due to manmade features.

Robert Peligian of Bascom & Seiger Land Surveyors stated that he personally performed the boundary and topographic survey on the site and collected the data. He stated that recently he was out at the site to re-identify the probe locations and perk locations and re-establish all of the survey controls. He assured that the Uhl plan contours are prepared from an on-ground field survey. He stated with respect to Whitmore and Haig’s letter and comments concerning slopes, the plan that Bascom & Seiger had drawn identified the slopes in accordance with Township ordinances. He noted possible confusion in the interpretation of the information on the Bascom & Seiger plan and the Barry Isett plan with regards to shading and depicting lot areas and distances away from the steep slopes and principle building areas.

Mr. Garman commented that it is their position that the information was submitted as required for the Township to review to ensure that the plan meets the ordinance. He objected to any extraordinary scrutiny of the plan and that it should be reviewed like any other plan. He expressed that they are confident that they are going to meet the Township’s requirements.

Mr. Peligian stated that his name, signature and professional seal will be placed on the plan certifying that the boundary and topographic survey were performed in accordance with Township’s standards.

Mr. Schreiter stated that he wanted to be sure that there isn’t only just a note referencing the Bascom & Seiger survey on the plan.

Mr. DeAngelis requested that Hanover Engineering come to his property to ascertain where his septic system is located in relation to the distance from the proposed infiltration. He noted that his property contains springs and requested that natural features be shown on the plan. He commented that the springs locations can sometimes change particularly when they seep out in early spring.

He commented that the springs are very close to the property lines. He also noted a concern that the swales may not work due to the vast amount of leaves that fall to the ground and the snow.

Jane Benning of 3111 Douglas Road submitted a letter from a neighbor who is getting stormwater runoff into his basement. She noted that there are problems with septic tanks in the area, citing that people have had to put in sand mounds. She noted that another neighbor had to put in a stronger pump because their well is less productive. She commented that there are limits to the amount of water that can be pulled out of an area. She noted impacts to the watershed and trees.

The developer submitted a letter granting a 45 day extension of the review period of the Plan.

On motion of Mr. Licht, seconded by Mr. Hebelka, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to accept the extension of the Bruce Uhl Major Subdivision Plan.

On motion of Mr. Hassick, seconded by Mr. Hebelka, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the Bruce Uhl Major Subdivision Plan.

Consideration and discussion of the proposed Global Update Watershed Ordinance for Salisbury Township.

Mr. McKitish noted that this item is referring to as Act 167.

Mr. Tettemer explained that this is the second portion of the Act 167 update. The first portion related to the Little Lehigh Creek Watershed. He stated as far as the Township is concerned, he noted that it drains towards the Saucon Creek Watershed and a portion drains into the Catasauqua Creek and adjacent watersheds. He noted that this is being directed by DEP to be adopted.

Mr. McKitish noted that the model ordinance would be adjusted to include the names of the specific watersheds that Mr. Tettemer listed.

On motion of Mr. Schreiter, seconded by Mr. Hebelka, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Global Update Watershed Ordinance for Salisbury Township.

Consideration and discussion of the proposed On-Lot Grading Ordinance.

Mr. Best explained that the Board of Commissioners observed that there are smaller pieces of vacant land on the eastern portion of Salisbury Township that are being built upon in tight quarters which leads to many neighboring properties being impacted by stormwater runoff. He noted that other municipalities do have grading ordinances.

Mr. Best stated that the grading plans would be reviewed by the Township Engineer and the Planning & Zoning Director prior to issuing a building permit. He noted that there are some exemptions. He stated if a property has five acres and no steep slopes then a waiver request can be submitted. He noted that there is not many stormwater inlets and management in the eastern portion of the Township.

Mr. McKitish noted that the proposed ordinance addresses the amount of area of disturbance. He recommended having an escrow requirement of $1,000 if a problem would occur.

Mr. Hebelka inquired about site inspections and as-built plans.

Mr. Tettemer explained the review and inspection process.

Mr. McKitish recommended inserting language relating to release of escrow.

Mr. Schreiter recommended that there be a field survey. Mr. Tettemer suggested that the language read that the elevations shall be field surveyed based on USGS mapping.

On motion of Mr. Scheiter, seconded by Mr. Hassick, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the On-Lot Grading Ordinance

Consideration and discussion of the proposed Property Maintenance Code Ordinance.

Mr. Best explained that the minimum standards were used from the 2000 ICC Building Code which includes property maintenance in preparing the proposed ordinance. He commented that the Code will have a slow but steady impact on the east side of the Township. He noted that the Code is an enforcement tool to help address poorly maintained properties.

Attorney Ashley explained that notices are issued and in certain instances, a matter may proceed to the magistrate.

On motion of Mr. Schreiter, seconded by Mr. Hassick, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Property Maintenance Code Ordinance.

Meeting adjourned.