TOWNSHIP OF SALISBURY
LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
7:30 PM
April 13, 2010

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 McKitish, Hebelka, Schreiter, and Hassick. Also present were Mr. Tettemer, Township Engineer; Attorney Ashley, Township Solicitor; Mr. Soriano, Township Manager; Ms. Sopka, Director of Planning & Zoning and Hanover Engineering, Alternate Township Engineer. Commissioners Beck, Licht and Snyder were not present.

CALL TO ORDER
Mr. McKitish called the meeting to order.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Schreiter, seconded by Mr. Hassick the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Mr. Beck, Mr. Licht and Mr. Snyder were not present for vote.

833 Yorkshire Road - Re-Subdivision
SALDO 1.7.D project entails a Re-Subdivision of a previously approved and recorded Final Subdivision, “Robin Hood”, which involves a change in an existing lot line and does not result in the creation of a new street or additional improvements. Project requires a reduction of lot acreage of a vacant residential parcel to be conveyed to 833 Yorkshire Road.

Present were Mr. Art Swallow of AASA Land Surveyors.

Mr. Tettemer highlighted the Township Engineer’s review letter dated April 6, 2010. He reviewed all items and noted that the applicant’s surveyor provided him with the property deed. Mr. Tettemer stated that he is concerned the way the deed is written in reference to the two adjoining lots (without the home); therefore, he requests a legal opinion from Attorney Ashley. Attorney Ashley stated that he will review and address.

Ms. Sopka highlighted her comment review letter dated March 25, 2010. She stated that she reviewed the lot and the setback requirements by district and addressed what the project adheres to. She referred to SALDO 1.7.D and explained why the development is considered a re-subdivision and since the project incorporates a lot line adjustment, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. She concurs with the Township Engineer that the items stated need to be addressed and resolved.

Mr. Swallow stated that the re-subdivision is to solve the estate of Stuart Krawitz. He is requesting a lot line change around the pool because it was installed on a separate lot. He noted that the properties have sewer, water, no curbing or sidewalks and all the streets are in with most of the lots built, except for the two Mr. Krawitz owns. Mr. Swallow stated that there is no intense development or extra units, that it is specifically a lot line change.

Discussion continued and Mr. Swallow stated that he formally requested relief in the form of waivers in his April 9, 2010 letter which correlates to the Township Engineer’s review letter.

Mr. McKitish opened the floor for public comment in regard to the 833 Yorkshire Road Re-subdivision. Mr. Barry Ruht of 2220 Yorkshire expressed his concerns that lot #62 was going to be subdivided into more than one lot and objects to any consideration of road widening. He was advised that the properties are already subdivided.

Mr. McKitish inquired if the cartway width is changed, does it still pertain to Item #4, SALDO 1.7.D of the Zoning Officer’s comment letter dated March 25, 2010. Mr. Tettemer stated that what would make it a minor subdivision would be the requirement of a Maintenance Agreement, but if a waiver or deferral is granted relative to the cartway width, it will remain as it exists.

Mr. McKitish referenced Mr. Swallow’s letter dated April 9, 2010. Mr. Hebelka clarified with Mr. Tettemer that if a new plan has been submitted, is Item #3 applicable. Mr. Tettemer stated that a revised driveway grading plan was submitted and he would recommend a waiver subject to his comment as stated.

Mr. McKitish referenced Item #7, SALDO 10.4.D.1, clarifying that Mr. Swallow’s letter indicates a deferral is not necessary. Mr. McKitish reviewed the Township Ordinance and stated that a deferral would be required to not necessitate the cartway width. Mr. Swallow made a handwritten change on his letter concurring that this will be a deferral request.

Mr. McKitish asked Mr. Tettemer to elaborate on Item #5, SALDO 7.3.E.6, in reference to easements. The discussion continued and Mr. Tettemer stated that a Note needs to be placed on the Plan showing all easements, PPL easements and/or blanket easements.

Relative to Item #6, SALDO 10.3.G, for future construction, Mr. Tettemer stated there is an agreement with LCCD stating that any earth disturbance needs to be submitted for their review in the Township.

A motion was made by Mr. Schreiter, seconded by Mr. Hassick, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to grant deferrals for SALDO 10.4.D.1, increase cartway width of road, SALDO 10.16, no street trees and SALDO 10.12 no curb sidewalks required, and to grant waivers for SALDO 7.3.C.1 through 8, to eliminate locating features within 100 feet of contours, slope shading, soil types, rock outcrops, significant trees masses with the exception of areas intended for construction and SALDO 10.6.A, perpendicular lot line. Mr. Beck, Mr. Licht and Mr. Snyder were not present for vote.

A motion was made by Mr. Schreiter, seconded by Mr. Hassick, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to table the project. Mr. Beck, Mr. Licht and Mr. Snyder were not present for vote.

3109 Birchwood Drive - Major Subdivision/Final Land Development
Final Land Development of Parcel #640531577120 incorporates 15.4 acres of land in the C-R (Conservation-Residential) Zoning District for the subdivision of residential properties. The Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners approved the Preliminary Major Subdivision on June 12, 2007 and July 12, 2007 respectively.

Present were Mr. Erich Schock, Counsel from FitzPatrick, Lentz & Bubba, Mr. Kevin Markell, Engineer from Barry Isett & Associates and Bruce Uhl, Owner.

Mr. Jeremie Schadler of Hanover Engineer highlighted the review letter dated April 5, 2010.

Ms. Sopka highlighted her review letter dated March 30, 2010 and concurred with Hanover Engineering’s review letter. Ms. Sopka stated that she is making recommendation that a Note be placed on the Site Plan for the following: (1) that no blasting will occur to ensure structural damage does not occur to surrounding homes,  (2) SALDO 6.4.F, a legal description of road dedication to the Township and (3) that the utilities will occur underground.

Ms. Sopka referenced the cul-de-sac design and referenced the minutes of a February 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, stating there was discussion that the design will remain as it currently exists but it was not clarified. Therefore, a Note needs to be placed on the Site Plan.

Discussion continued on SALDO items addressed in the Engineers letter dated April 5, 2010. Mr. Schock inquired as to the clarification of the Township procedures for approval of the Plan/Agreements/Recording. Mr. McKitish referenced Item #10, SALDO 6.4.F which is a legal description of roadways to be dedicated to the Township. Mr. Schock stated that this information is on the Plan, when the Plan gets approved, the Engineer does the legal aspect prior to the recording of the Plans. Attorney Ashley stated that the description will be needed after the Plan gets approved and the item(s) will be based on Conditions of Approval; therefore, any Agreements shall be signed after Plan approval.

Mr. Schock spoke of a partial waiver request and referenced the Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 2007 regarding Item #13, SALDO 10.8.B.2. It states that individual on-site water supply system(s) are to be utilized and it is required that the Developer provide testing in according with this section. In June 2007, a test report was submitted for a range of parameters but not all parameters. Mr. Hebelka noted the DEP standards and regulations for public drinking water. Mr. Hebelka stated that there are no statewide standards for private wells. Mr. McKitish expressed concern to protect future home buyers and believes that water testing should be done. Mr. Schock stated that he would submit a modification of the prior waiver letter supported by Hanover Engineering and use Mr. Uhl’s well to test for the limited items. Mr. McKitish stated that he is referring to the Engineer for recommendation.

Mr. Markell referenced Item #19, Section 307.H, regarding the emergency spillway. There is no design for the system to overflow but a waiver request was submitted. It could be addressed by adding an inlet into the system for protection if the system would fail. Mr. Schadler explained how the infiltration system design works and expressed concern as to where the water would disperse if the system would stop functioning properly. He is requesting that the developer show where the water would disperse in case of system failure. Mr. Markell stated that the Township would not be responsible to maintain the infiltration system; it would be up to the property owner. Mr. McKitish recommended that the Developer and the Engineer work together for a mutual solution and address it on the Plan.

Mr. Schock stated that for Item #6 of the Zoning Officers letter dated March 30, 2010, they had a soil scientist evaluate the site for water feature(s)/drainage and this information will be provided in letter format. Discussion continued in regards to not having a defined bed and bank stream, storm water drainage, and concentrated water flow. Mr. Sopka stated that she has a call into DEP for discussion and clarification on this issue.

In regard to item #13, SALDO 10.5.5, Mr. Schock is stating that this item was on the last preliminary plan and was approved as is; therefore, they believe there would be no reason to change any street width/extension. Ms. Sopka stated that in consideration to SALDO requirements, there is adherence and standards. Ms. Sopka stated that there is no waiver on file; therefore, she believes this is not a resolved element. The developer will request a waiver.

Mr. McKitish opened the floor for public comment in regard to the 3109 Birchwood Drive Major Subdivision/Final Land Development. Mr. Kevin McNally from 3113 Birchwood Drive expressed his concern regarding this nine year development plan and if reimbursement has been made to the Township. He also expressed his concern about emergency vehicles being able to travel up Birchwood Drive. Mr. Bruce Burchard of 2025 Church Road expressed concerns about this property being legally and properly subdivided. Mr. Uhl gave a brief history with clarification and discussion continued. Mrs. Jane Benning of 3111 Douglas Road stated that there is a substantial amount of water runoff on her property and is concerned that this development will make it worse. She is very concerned with supervision of maintenance of the infiltration beds because she is downstream. She continued to express her concern for the endangered plants and salamanders, the surrounding habitat and springs, the wetlands within 100-150 feet adjacent to the property and the impact this will have on the environment.

A motion was made by Mr. Hebelka, seconded by Mr. Hassick, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend a waiver to SALDO 10.8.B.2 as defined in the April 13, 2010 letter with revision to include pH as another parameter to be tested in addition of those listed in the waiver request. Mr. Beck, Mr. Licht and Mr. Snyder were not present for vote.

It was noted that the expiration is June 7, 2010.

A motion was by Mr. Hebelka, seconded by Mr. Hassick, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to table the Plan.  Mr. Beck, Mr. Licht and Mr. Snyder were not present for vote.

OTHER BUSINESS
None

ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Hassick, seconded by Mr. McKitish, the Planning Commission voted to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned.