Docstoc

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Document Sample
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Powered By Docstoc
					BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, September 11, 2007
6:00 P.M.

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by President Briddell with the following in
attendance:

       Paul Knepper                           Scott DePoe
       Dennis Ness                            Elizabeth Heathcote
       Robert Steele                          Dennis Henry
       Scott Stewart                          Steve Hovis


Commissioner Stewart, representative to the York Area Regional Police, requested a
moment of silence in remembrance of Officer David A. Wingert, YARP, who passed
away September 8, 2007.


Minutes       On motion of Commissioner Steele, seconded by Commissioner Knepper
              the minutes of August 14, 2007 were approved as presented. Vote 5 yes.

Payment of Bills

              On motion of Commissioner Steele, seconded by Commissioner Knepper,
              the professional service bills and the following bills for August were
              approved for payment:

                       General Fund               $ 946,219.23
                       Sewer Revenue Fund           402,360.99
                       Inter-Municipal Sewer Fund 1,293,693.95
                       Liquid Fuels                 117,520.74
                       Capital Reserve               55,943.87
                       Street Light                     220.07
                       Stormwater Mgt. Fund           3,225.00


                              Total                $2,819,183.85

                       Professional Service
                       Non reimbursable               $16,573.95
September 11, 2007
Page 2

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Sechrist
1833 Radnor
Road         The Grove and Godfrey properties are currently zoned RM-5. Attorney
             Katherman said that in the comp plan this property was identified as
             project #2. I checked with the office and there is no meaning to where the
             properties ended up on that list. We have overcrowding in the schools.
             With continued building the township will have to spend money to
             improve the streets. It was stated last month that the township looses
             money on residential properties and makes money on commercial
             properties. We are asking that you take into consideration the surrounding
             areas, only the north west corner is currently commercial. The Godfrey
             property abuts OSS . We are most concerned with what could be built
             there with the traffic, lights, noise, and runoff. 80% of the Godfrey track
             could be paved over. The traffic issues will create a lot of problems with
             big box stores. What will it do to Queen Street? It takes 10 minutes to get
             from Dew Drop Road to Dallastown now. The traffic studies show half of
             the development going to Cherry Street, according to my calculations that
             one car every 2-3 seconds. It can‟t be handled without improvements. I
             have a petition with 323 signatures asking you to consider leaving it zoned
             RM-5 and it being built the same as adjoining neighborhoods. That would
             be a maximum of 348 homes, which is more in conformance with the area.
             That would prevent overcrowding of the land. We are asking the board to
             keep in mind what the surrounding community wants.

Atty.
Katherman     It is difficult to not get in a rebuttal. I know there is a time and a place for
              that matter. I am coming this evening to take about 60 seconds and cede
              my time to Mr. Klein. In York Township the largest 6 bedroom house
              with 5 bathrooms pays the same amount for sewer as does the smallest
              700 sq. ft. individual apartment. There is no difference, a residence is a
              residence. I represent three of the larger apartment owners that would like
              to have this issue brought up and taken a look at. Other municipalities do
              it on a usage basis, usually the amount of water coming in is a good
              indication. We are not looking for an answer this evening. We are
              raising the issue, and will probably be back again. We are asking why a
              motel is considered commercial and an apartment is billed as residential?
              What is the logic behind that?
September 11, 2007
Page 3

George
Klein        Officer in First General Inc. which is a partner in Waterford Apartments.
             There are 5 communities at Waterford. At Waterford today we are 97%
             occupied. We have 1.6 residents per apartment. Most are one and two
             bedroom units with 1.5 baths. A new requirement for building a new
             house is for 300 gallons per day, there is a study for 3 years that shows the
             average unit at Waterford uses 123 gallons per day, which is roughly 40%
             of the amount allocated today for new construction of houses. We are not
             looking for just us, but all one and two family residents that are paying the
             same as a family of 7-8. We have over 6000 units we own and manage.
             Beside York County, everything else is done by water consumption. The
             township can do it for commercial accounts. We are not asking for a lower
             fee for us, basically we are asking you to be equitable to charge for the
             right amount based on consumption. In the last 3 years rainfall has been
             down 10%. In Baltimore County, where I live, water consumption is very
             strict. They cannot water grass or wash cars. Our feelings strongly the
             people that use water should pay for it. A flat fee is very arbitrary is not
             fair to us as apartment owners because our residents are not using the
             water allocated to everyone else. It‟s not fair to residents in Dallastown
             that has less than 3-4 people in the units. I am asking that you go like
             Lancaster Township, that‟s based on consumption. It‟s fair and equitable
             for all concerned. You can do it for commercial accounts. You can do it
             for residential accounts.

             We made an offer to Elizabeth earlier this year before I did my study.
             This is a class one township. We would help the township in some way
             financially to do a study to see exactly how you can put this together to
             make it fair and equitable by outside consultants. We would contribute
             some kind of fund for you to do that. It is not strictly for us but all the
             residents. We really are a commercial account. We have 4 meters for our
             5 communities. I get one bill for our water, I don‟t get 840 bills. I‟m just
             asking you as commissioners and residents of York township to realize
             that one it‟s fair that you charge for water and sewer that you use and two
             I don‟t know what‟s going to happen in the future the amount of
             precipitation has come down tremendously. We should save our natural
             resource, which is water and charge people for that use.
September 11, 2007
Page 4

Dave Fishel
Kaltreider
Library       I passed out to the commissioners an info sheet on the library and a
              schedule of events for September. The purpose tonight is to thank you for
              the support in 2007. I understand that you are preparing the budget for
              2008 and ask that you continue the support you have given us. A couple
              of years ago you decided to make a cut in funding and the library was one
              of the items that was cut. I think now you understand how the public feels
              about the library. We ask that you continue the support this year that
              we‟ve had in the past.

Commissioner‟s Agenda

Comm.
Ness          I‟d like to call an executive session sometime on an issue. I don‟t know if
              we want to do it tonight or some other time.

Comm.
Stewart       There‟s been a policy by our township manager to copy all the
              commissioners on any information that one commissioner requests. I
              think that has worked very well. I appreciate that, I think that is a good
              policy. I think it needs to be extended, and where I think it needs to be
              extended is to our solicitor. I was going through the bills we just approved
              and there was a 24 minute consultation with our solicitor by one
              commissioner. I think that it‟s only fair that if one of the commissioners
              goes to our solicitor for advice then it should be dispersed to the other
              four. Any gut reactions?

              Comm. Briddell: I don‟t really have a problem with that.

              Comm. Stewart: Probably the easiest way is a quick e-mail. What the
              question was and the opinion.

              Solicitor Hovis: Typically if I‟ve gotten something by e-mail my response
              is an e-mail to everyone. If it‟s a telephone call, I would summarize the
              content of the discussion, I have no problem with that.

Comm.
Knepper       I‟d like to ask Commissioner Ness if the things reported in the paper was
              an accurate reflection of your comments?

              Comm. Ness: I don‟t have a copy of those things. I don‟t know what
              you‟re talking about.
September 11, 2007
Page 5

             Comm. Knepper: I‟m sorry I didn‟t understand you.

             Comm. Ness: I don‟t have a copy of which remarks you are talking about.

             Comm. Knepper: All of the comments.

             Comm. Ness: I don‟t know which…you didn‟t reference a paper or
             nothing. I can‟t respond to you Paul if I don‟t know the article you are
             talking about, what paper, etc. Are you talking about the township letter
             we got tonight?

             Comm. Knepper: I‟m glad a couple of weeks have transpired since these
             articles were written in the paper. I was very much disturbed by your
             comments in the paper to say the least. First I did comment that what you
             said was a lie, and it was. It was. What you have done was compromise
             the integrity of an executive session. I don‟t know where it‟s going to go
             from here. It was incredibly poor judgment on your part I do believe. I‟m
             going to stop there.

             Regarding Diehl Motors, I think they should park their cars off the
             sidewalk.

Comm.
Steele       Paul has brought up the subject and I‟m going to bring it up too. Let the
             record show that I‟m holding up the York Daily Record newspaper, 22
             August 2007, this is the front page. What‟s interesting about this, it says
             Official: Board Broke Law. With that said,

             First, to my fellow commissioners and to the citizens here this evening I
             want you to know that I am not an attorney, nor do I offer legal opinions
             on the current laws of Pennsylvania or York Township as a quasi attorney.
             As a Board of Commissioners, we are represented by a trained
             professional attorney recognized by the Pennsylvania Bar, who provides
             guidance on the issues of Pennsylvania Law and any other issues.

             Second, I was surprised to find comments on the front page of the York
             Daily Record relative to a private meeting between members of the BOC
             and our solicitor. I was of the opinion that executive session issues
             discussed were to remain as private privileged conversations.
September 11, 2007
Page 6

             Third, with reference to the front page article of York Daily Record article
             of 22 August, 2007, and on page A7, Commissioner Ness is quoted as
             saying: “The vote was suggested by Steele to see where everyone stood
             on Bridgewater”. This quoted statement is not true, and I anticipate five
             (5) of the seven (7) present at the executive session would agree. As an
             elected official of the township, my constituents, and my fellow
             commissioners would expect that you disseminate accurate information on
             the important issues facing this township.

             Fourth, and from a purely personal standpoint, please be aware that my
             professional reputation and integrity are of supreme importance to me. I
             wish to add a word of caution that the protections offered by the First
             Amendment and my status as a public official do not translate to unlimited
             authority to disseminate information as one may see fit about my service
             as a commissioner of York Township.

Comm.
Briddell     I guess I would like to also address that. I feel that some of our charge,
             some of our responsibilities as commissioners, were severely
             compromised by that action. I very much regret that it happened and
             things like that playing out in the newspaper is a very unfortunate
             situation. We were following our solicitor‟s advice in deliberating the
             issue before us. That‟s what we did at that meeting and that‟s one of the
             things we were suppose to do. I think furthermore the concern that I have
             is that several of the items that you are allowed to discuss in executive
             session, such as personnel matters, are severely compromised by that
             particular action. If I was an employee of this township I would be very
             concerned coming before this board. I would have to suggest to all
             commissioners that they take that responsibility very seriously. I think we
             always have. I think it is unfortunate that it happened. I hope it doesn‟t
             happen again. It puts us all in a kind of „who can you trust situation‟.

             I would like to take item 7 of our agenda and suggesting that all
             commissioners consider this for the next meeting, and that is when a
             commissioner wants to bring something before the board, at an absolute
             minimum that it is put on the agenda ahead of time. I‟m saying that
             because I think it‟s imperative that this township give the residents as
             good a government as they possibly can. If a motion is brought before this
             board and the commissioners have to react to it in an uninformed basis,
             that‟s not good government. Not only is it not good government for the
             other commissioners, it‟s not good for the staff, and particularly not good
             for the residents out in the room, who would have an expectation that
             what‟s on the agenda would be addressed by this board. I‟m asking for
September 11, 2007
Page 7

             the very least that motions brought by commissioners be placed before this
             board on the agenda so we have a time to deal with it. I called around to
             three other townships, and basically the response was that none of the
             supervisors would consider doing something like that without it being
             either presented at an earlier meeting or that it‟s given to the township
             manager who has a chance to review and provides a recommendation to
             the rest of the board. If nothing else it‟s common courtesy. It‟s good
             government. I would like to have a vote on this. As a board that would be
             part of our rules of conduct for our meeting. If a motion was made such as
             that, one alternative, and I recognize the fact that some things will come
             up that require action that night, if we are trying to face a deadline with
             PennDOT. The option would be with a 5-0 or 4-1 vote it could be brought
             up that night. It at least gives the rest of the commissioners the chance to
             review it ahead of time.

             I would like to call the „Commissioner‟s agenda‟, the „Commissioner‟s
             Comments‟.

Solicitor
Hovis        Can I clarify one item that was brought up in the agenda, and I don‟t know
             if it was absolutely clear? A headline was read and as Commissioner
             Steele said his professional reputation he holds dear to his heart. The
             question is the headline somehow represented that in fact there was some
             illegal executive session and I don‟t know if the public can distinguish
             between that headline and what reality is to the extent that the
             Commonwealth Courts of Pennsylvania have clearly said that a governing
             body acting in a quasi-judicial function has the right to deliberate in an
             executive session and that‟s what they did. The morning paper felt the
             obligation to put a headline on a newspaper article. They will tell you that
             the person that writes the article is not the person who writes the headline.
             The evening paper, after this was written, chose to investigate the matter
             and their legal department came to the conclusion that the executive
             session was legal. I will let you know it is rare for a newspaper to at least
             admit that an executive session was legal. Just so you have some
             distinction between what the headline was and what the law in the
             Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is with respect to the actions taken by the
             York Township Board of Commissioners.

             Comm. Stewart: Does the…can this board impose rules on the minority to
             silence them?
September 11, 2007
Page 8

              Solicitor Hovis: I think the Board of Commissioners has the right to adopt
              rules for the meeting. For instance, they can say we adopt The Roberts
              Rules of Order, and if they adopt them as the rules for the meetings, that
              would be the rules that would dictate the meeting. As a board they can
              adopt the rule as suggested by Commissioner Briddell.

              Comm. Stewart: That‟s your opinion.

TOWNSHIP MANAGER – Elizabeth Heathcote

Olde Tollgate
Village       On motion of Commissioner Knepper, seconded by Commissioner Steele,
              Olde Tollgate Village was given a 6 month extension to install sidewalks.
              Vote 5 yes.

Sewer
Software      The sewer software was successfully converted, the new bills were mailed
              out September 7, 2007.

PUBLIC WORKS – Scott DePoe

Traffic/
Engineer
Studies       Scott advised that he had received traffic and engineer studies for
              Oak/Walnut/Orchard and Oak/Fruitlyn and Overlook/Croll School Road.
              The board decided they would like to go out and look at the intersections
              before giving direction.

Curbs         Scott advised that letters will be sent to affected property owners notifying
              them of replacement and/or repair of curbs on their street prior to repaving
              of their street in 2008.

Winter Maintenance
PennDOT
             Scott advised that we have received a letter from PennDOT asking for
             renewal of the winter maintenance agreement for the five state roads we
             currently maintain. Scott recommends that we consider this the last year
             of the contract, since the $7800 that we receive does not cover our costs.
             He doesn‟t feel we have the equipment to adequately provide the service
             on Leader Heights Road since it went from 2 lanes to 6 lanes.
September 11, 2007
Page 9

Bridge T201
Honey Valley
Road         Our consultant notified me concerning the fact that they have the super
             structure design and confident in its ability to meet today‟s design
             standards. They cannot find any documentation on the existing abutments.
             We were going to reuse the existing abutments. They designed this super
             structure with the same dead weights as the old ones. They would like the
             township to acknowledge that their liability is limited to that, they can‟t
             say that the entire bridge has been designed by them, just the super
             structure. I said I would discuss with the board because the implications
             of us going down another road would be much more expensive and time
             consuming. One thing that they can do is give us some level of
             confidence, we can do some borings around the abutments to determine
             the subsurface, to see what kind of rock it is sitting on. I would suggest
             that we do that to have a little more level of confidence in this bridge
             replacement.

              Solicitor Hovis: Can I be authorized to work with Scott? I‟m a little bit
              concerned about the information contained in this letter and the limitation
              of liability they are suggesting, and at least come up with some language
              acceptable to the township because at a minimum I think they need to
              inspect what‟s there and provide an opinion if they are aware of any
              conditions or issues that leads them to believe it‟s unsafe versus saying
              nothing. In order for some protection under the Tort Claims Act, I would
              like to have some information in a report that they have inspected it to the
              best of their ability the abutments and they are not aware of any issues
              concerning the integrity of those structures.

              Scott DePoe: That is something they were going to do regardless, when
              we started to remove the existing steel they were going to come up and
              inspect the abutments at that time and give their professional opinion.
              That was included in their initial scope of services. To do this
              geotechnical work, we are going to have to revise the scope, and it will be
              several more thousand dollars.

              On motion of Comm. Knepper, seconded by Comm. Steele our bridge
              engineering firm RK&K is to proceed with the geotechnical work on the
              bridge. Vote 5 yes.
September 11, 2007
Page 10

RECREATION - Debra Hatley

Stump
Plan         On motion of Comm. Stewart, seconded by Comm. Steele the board
             approved the creation of a flag lot on the Stump property. Vote 5 yes.

             Debra advised that she had received word that our DCNR grant was
             approved and that she should receive written notification within the next
             two weeks.

Newsletter   The newsletter was dropped at the Post Office today.

Comm.
Briddell     Provided the criteria for the public hearing. The party presenting the
             rezoning request will make his presentation, the commissioners will have
             an opportunity to ask questions, the applicant can respond and then we
             will open it up for public comment. They will have a chance to respond.
             We will close the public hearing. Then we will call our regular meeting
             back to order and if at that time one of the commissioners wants to make a
             motion it would be entertained at that time.
Comm.
Ness         I have some concerns I would like to ask about this proposal for
             amendment. I reviewed the zoning amendment ordinance 265-176, which
             is appropriate and I feel that all you fine residents out here should be
             aware of what it says. What I am saying to you is it outlines exactly what
             we should be doing here, exactly like Mr. Briddell said. However, I
             would like to point out if you go down and read this, this is a situation
             where we have a citizen petition. Proposals originated by citizen petition.
             Owners of property in the township may by petition submit proposals for
             amendment, supplement, change, modifications or repeal of this chapter. It
             goes through about getting a fee and what you are supposed to do. The
             next paragraph states pretty emphatically within 30 days after receipt of
             the Planning Commission‟s report and recommendation, the Board of
             Commissioners shall either fix a time for public hearing or, and I think this
             is pretty important I feel, notify the petitioner of its decision not to
             consider the proposal. I don‟t know if you people know it or not, but we
             did not, my point being is that we did not receive a report from the
             Planning Commission, and if you go back to 265-173 the powers and
             duties of the Planning Commission, for a proposed amendment stemming
             from other sources, which is what we are talking about tonight, the
             Planning Commission must, must review it and make a recommendation
             regarding it to the Township Commissioners within 45 days after receipt
             of the proposal. We have received quite a number of proposals lately and
September 11, 2007
Page 11

             as you can see by all the people here, they are all very important.
             However, we did not follow procedure. If you look, all that was done at
             the Planning Commission‟s meetings was they simply made a motion to
             bring it here. The Planning Commission in paragraph 6 it says the report
             shall set forth in detail reasons wherein public necessity, convenience,
             general welfare and the objectives of the York Township Comprehensive
             Plan do or do not justify the proposed change and may include any
             additions or modifications to the original proposal.

             It also says „in its discretion, the Planning Commission may hold a public
             hearing before making such report and recommendations‟. The reason I‟m
             bringing this out to you, we are suppose to be the executives in charge
             here and we are suppose to be making executive decisions. It should have
             gone to the Planning Commission and very simply it should have had a
             Planning Commission report and possibly even a Planning Commission
             hearing, so you could have had two bites at the apple. We are not doing
             that. I don‟t know why. I do get a little messed up on how to do things in
             life, but I am telling you that we should be doing things properly. I think
             if you ask the solicitor over there I am reading it properly out of the book.
             Thank you.

Solicitor
Hovis        This is the first time this has been brought to my attention. It was my
             belief that these applications were being sent to the Planning Commission
             for a hearing. The Planning Commission is a public hearing. Residents can
             show up and make comments. At the end of the day the Planning
             Commission does provide a recommendation that is forwarded to the
             BOC. I would be happy to look at that specific section to see if it is being
             followed or not, I would agree with Comm. Ness that your decision to
             rezone a parcel of land is purely discretionary. You‟re not obligated one
             way or the other to change a parcel of land merely based on an application
             from a property owner.

Comm.
Stewart      Are we required to have a hearing?

Solicitor
Hovis        Your rezoning is a change to the zoning ordinance, in accordance with the
             MPC you would be required to have a public hearing after which you
             would legally be entitled to consider the ordinance. The MPC states that
             prior to amending the zoning ordinance that the amendment needs to go to
             the planning commission, both YCPC and York Township for review,
September 11, 2007
Page 12


             comment and recommendation prior to coming to the BOC for the public
             hearing.

Comm.
Stewart      That‟s if we want to rezone, do we have a choice of not even having a
             hearing?

Comm.
Ness         If I may, I have reviewed the MPC and our local ordinance is more
             restrictive than the MPC.

Solicitor
Hovis        You may be right.

Comm.
Ness         I‟d like to add that our section says “not to consider the proposal”.

Solicitor
Hovis        But I think you need to take formal action not to consider it.

Comm.
Ness         That could have happened at the Planning Commission meeting.

Solicitor
Hovis        The Planning Commission is merely a recommending body. Without
             looking at the section I don‟t want to argue the merits of the ordinance.

             Break

Comm.
Briddell     Comm. Ness read the book and it‟s the opinion of our solicitor that he
             interpreted it correctly, the word is shall have a report, have a report
             coming back from the Planning Commission. I would have to tell you that
             we have done it this way for probably 20 years, but doing it that way
             doesn‟t make it right.

Solicitor
Hovis        I think you touched on the key element in that amendments not prepared
             by the Planning Commission the ordinance specifically states that the
             Planning Commission shall have an opportunity to submit
             recommendations but it goes on to state the Planning Commission shall
             make a report recommendation to the BOC. Under Pennsylvania law
September 11, 2007
Page 13

             shall is a mandatory obligation. The next part is the report shall set forth
             in detail reasons where public necessity, convenience, objectives of the
             comp plan do or do not justify the proposed change. It is my
             understanding that the reports coming from the Planning Commission on
             the Myers Farm request as well as the Godfrey/Grove request that none of
             those had the requisite report and having that report in hand is a
             prerequisite for the BOC to have a public hearing. It is my
             recommendation that the Myers and Godfrey/Grove be returned to the
             Planning Commission, get the report and come back here. That will cure
             any defects with respect to the ordinance and be in the best interest of the
             applicants and the citizens here tonight.

Comm.
Briddell     Could you provide the audience on the timing on this, so they can have
             some expectation as to when they should come back?

Solicitor
Hovis        I don‟t know when the Planning Commission meets and see if their agenda
             has been set.

Elizabeth
Heathcote    Dennis, can the Planning Commission agenda be amended to include
             these?

Dennis
Henry        Yes. What we are going to need, or what the Planning Commission will
             need is specific what the BOC wants to hear from them. They don‟t have
             any idea at this point. They made a recommendation to approve the
             rezoning at their last meeting based on the comp plan and the other issues
             they were confronted with. They are going to need absolutely specific,
             word for word, itemization of what this report has to contain for this
             board.

Solicitor
Hovis        I guess the best direction that I can provide is the specific information set
             forth in the ordinance where it states the report needs to set forth in detail
             reasons where public necessity, convenience and the objections of the
             comp plan do or do not justify the change, and they can include any
             changes or modifications on the proposal. That is the content of the
             report. I will also note that the ordinance does state, at its discretion, the
             Planning Commission may hold a public hearing before making such
             report and recommendation. Given the fact they have already had a
             meeting and gone through the presentations, it‟s up to them if they want to
September 11, 2007
Page 14

             have another public hearing or merely render or adopt a report in
             accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance.

Comm.
Briddell     With respect to timing, where do we stand with that?


Solicitor
Hovis        Given the fact that it needs to go back and have a report, once again
             advertise the public hearings, those need to be advertised twice two
             successive weeks. Given the timing of the Planning Commission your
             next meeting, October 9.

Comm.
Stewart      Can I ask a question, a dumb question? Aren‟t you assuming that we want
             to hear that? Did I not hear, as part of that process, where it should come
             before the BOC and ask if we want to hear it?

Solicitor
Hovis        There is a section in the ordinance, proposals originated from citizens,
             upon receipt of the petitions and the fee that the petition is forwarded to
             the Planning Commission. The provision is within 30 days after receipt of
             the Planning Commission‟s recommendation and report the BOC shall
             either set a date for a public hearing or notify the petitioner that they don‟t
             want to consider the proposal. You need to have the report before you
             make that decision.

Comm.
Stewart      We need the report and then we as a board decide if we want to hold a
             hearing, and if so advertise.

Comm.
Briddell     That meets the timing requirements for the applicant. The time table is
             ours on reviewing this. Just want to make sure. Timing wise for the
             planning commission?

Elizabeth
Heathcote    We can get it to them next week for their meeting.
September 11,2007
Page 15

Dennis
Henry        Yes, but I am concerned. I need something from this board that says what
             the planning commission is charged to do. Not just what‟s in the code, but
             everything. I don‟t want to come back here with a report that‟s missing
             one item and we throw it out the door. Can we accomplish that?

Atty.
Miller       Just as a point of order. If I understand your solicitor correctly it‟s in the
             discretion of the Planning Commission whether or not to reopen any
             hearing, if they have already made recommendations. They can just do an
             order.

Solicitor
Hovis        That is correct. They would have to formally adopt that report as part of a
             public meeting. They could not do it outside a public meeting.

Atty.
Katherman    A public hearing was held for Grove. Was that nullified? Will there be
             another public hearing? I have no objection doing that, procedurally
             there‟s already been a public hearing on those petitions. Is that nullified
             and I need to go back to the Planning Commission for a report and come
             back and go through another hearing?

Solicitor
Hovis        I think that is the case.

Atty.
Katherman    Will the applicant bear the burden of that cost?

Comm.
Ness         I don‟t see why not.

Atty.
Katherman    Except one thing, we have done exactly what the township has asked us to
             do. Maybe you want your solicitor to make that call.

Comm.
Briddell     I hope you appreciate that we want to do this right. You are all here
             tonight because it will have a significant impact on you whatsoever. Bear
             with us and we will do the procedures according to the direction of the
             solicitor. Looks like we can get it on the Planning Commission‟s agenda
             on September 18th at 6:00 p.m. After that it would come back to the board
             on October 9th.
September 11, 2007
Page 16

Comm.
Stewart      It would not be a hearing.

Solicitor
Hovis        That‟s right. You would set a date for a hearing or vote not to consider it
             at all.

Comm.
Stewart      I would like to thank Comm. Ness for finding a procedure where we have
             a tendency to keep doing it because that‟s the way it‟s always been done.
             I would like to thank him for diligently searching for this and getting us on
             the correct track.

ENGINEER‟S REPORT – Dennis Henry

Crossway
Properties
P07-3-1      Plan presented by Jason Brenneman. On motion of Comm. Stewart,
             seconded by Comm. Steele the plan was approved with the following
             conditions or modifications:

             1. All comments on the letter from Dennis Henry dated September 7, 2007
             must be met.

             2. The York Township Engineering Department shall be provided with an
             electronic file prior to recording.

             3. A check in an amount to be determined by the Tax Assessment Office
             and Recorder of Deeds Office must be provided to the York Township
             engineering Department prior to recording.

             4. All invoices to be paid prior to recording.

             5. Waivers granted for the following:

                     a. §402.E.3.a Hydrologic report (parcel 106 to be exonerated
                     unless new land development is or will be proposed; and parcel
                     211 to be addressed at land development phase)

                     b. §402.E.3.c wetland study (parcel 106 to be exonerated unless a
                     new land development is or will be proposed; and parcel 211 to be
                     addressed at land development phase)
September 11, 2007
Page 17

                     c. §402.E.3.b. traffic evaluation report (parcel 106 to be exonerated
                     unless new land development is or will be proposed; and parcel
                     211 to be addressed at land development phase)

                     d. §404 feasibility report of sewer and water (parcel 106 to be
                     exonerated unless new land development is or will be proposed;
                     and parcel 211 to be addressed at land development phase)

                     e. §403.D.10 vertical and horizontal design alignment for proposed
                     public or private sanitary sewer and water distribution systems
                     (parcel 106 to be exonerated unless new land development is or
                     will be proposed; and parcel 211 to be addressed at land
                     development phase)

             6. Waiver denied for §603.B (1) installation of sidewalks.

             Vote 5 yes.

Reapproval   On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Knepper the following
             plans were reapproved:

                     LD06-12-4      Southwood
                     LD05-9-1       Tri Boro

             On Tri Boro there is a PIN number that has to go on the subdivision plan
             and the land development has to be finally certified by the engineer and a
             site inspection to quantified to see that all of the improvements have been
             installed. Motion amended by Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm.
             Knepper. Vote 5 yes.

Time
Extension    On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Ness the following
             plans were given an extension of 90 days:

                     P07-2-1        Sara Patz
                     P07-4-1        Cherry Lane
                     LD07-4-2       Olney Road Condominiums

             Vote 5 yes.
September 11, 2007
Page 18

Springwood Road
Camp Betty Washington Road
Connector
Street
            Dennis Henry: The comp plan identifies a connector road between
            Springwood Road and Camp Betty Washington Road. I have tried to meet
            with the commissioners independently to explain this to get all of the
            information across that staff is aware of at this point. I am coming for a
            decision on the question „do you want the connector road to happen
            between Springwood Road and Camp Betty?‟ The comp plan calls for a
            connector road, somewhat paralleling I83. I have Chad Dixon here who
            is our traffic consultant. He can give you some ideas of his knowledge of
            the transportation pattern happening in the township and what the future
            needs are going to be. The comp plan suggested this connector road in
            order to make traffic move easier and probably safer between those two
            corridors.

              The second question concerns what improvements does the board want to
              see at the intersection of Pauline and Springwood, which is were this
              connector road would end up connecting at Springwood. The choices we
              have are a signal and a roundabout. I can go into further detail if you have
              questions. I have to ask the board would you like Mr. Dixon to give you
              some briefing on this, for those that have not heard this before?

              Comm. Briddell: I think we asked him to be here and it‟s a pretty
              significant decision.

              Chad Dixon: We‟ve been assisting the township on a number of traffic
              issues including the proposed development along these two corridors. At
              this point Dennis asked us to look at the benefit of a connector road,
              simply from a planning perspective. We haven‟t gotten into any detail
              traffic analysis, engineering or roadway design. Planning perspective on
              why the connector road was made on the comp plan, which we were
              involved with the last update, it could provide numerous traffic benefits
              for the township. Because it would parallel I83 between the two
              interchanges between Queen Street and Mt Rose Ave. it would provide an
              alternative for local traffic to I83, thus relieving some congestion. Also
              related to I83 it would serve as a potential for incident management. If
              there is a major accident that would occur along I83, traffic could be
              diverted off I83 onto the connector road and up to the next interchange to
              keep traffic moving and not have a greater impact on township roadways.
September 11, 2007
Page 19

             Other benefits it provides more alternatives for people to circulate
             throughout the township, right now there is a lack of good collector roads
             that provide a more south connection in the township between Camp Betty
             Washington and Springwood and also further to the north traffic along
             Cape Horn Road that wants to go north south through the township. This
             would provide a more direct connection. Some of the developments
             proposed in this area, it would provide more alternatives for them
             circulating throughout the township, rather than all the traffic dumping out
             on Springwood Road. There‟s been talk providing connections between
             Bridgewater and StoneBridge development, any connection between them
             would have the opportunity to go to Springwood and Camp Betty
             Washington Road. There are really a lot of limitations in terms of what
             capacity improvements being made on Springwood Road and Camp Betty
             Washington Road, the more alternatives that can be provided can help
             facilitate traffic movements.

             Comm. Ness: If you look at the comp plan I believe that was considered
             at one time for commercial or industrial use and it was proposed to put a
             road across there for that reason. Also if you look at the comp plan it was
             only thought of in 2012 or 2025. That land, a lot of people don‟t realize it,
             is clean and green. Your tax money is going to go away. It is also the
             location of a TND. As far as the roundabout down there, if you have read
             the paper lately, there has been two of them, one in Springettsbury and one
             in Spring Grove. The one in Springettsbury Township is back built on a
             Springettsbury right of way built by a private company. The second one,
             I‟m going to also point out, the City of York, who I was associated with
             for some time, also has several roundabouts out in the southwest section of
             town. The third one is Spring Grove, and we all know a truck turned over
             there. What I would like to point out, is that we are looking at a state road,
             and the state is the only one that can make that decision. I don‟t know
             why we are spending engineer dollars to look at that. We are continually
             spending our money looking at what can be done on a state road. There is
             a gentleman in the audience right now who also pointed that out, why are
             we doing duplication efforts for the state? I‟d also like to point out to you,
             the state has said they didn‟t get the roundabout right down in Spring
             Grove, what makes you think they are going to do one right in York
             Township? I‟d also like to point out to you it is very difficult for us in
             this area to get any kind of state funding or get anything from the state.
             What would probably happen is the taxpayers would pick up the price of
             this and with the price of roads today it is quite a bit of money. I don‟t
             think we should be looking at this situation. We don‟t know if the TND is
             going to be built down there. We can always justify more traffic because
             in my view the traffic studies are a little erroneous, but that‟s the way they
September 11, 2007
Page 20
              are. I am opposed to the road between Camp Betty Washington
              paralleling I83 at that particular location. I think it‟s a waste of time, and I
              would like to point out, there is a lot of steep slopes down there, and it
              wouldn‟t be so nice and neat as the line is drawn on the comp report. I
              think we are wasting a lot of time and money on these situations.

               Comm. Briddell: What‟s the status of Mount Rose and East Prospect?

               Chad Dixon: PennDOT currently has a project at that interchange, they
               are going through the planning and engineer process in terms of making
               some additional capacity improvements, possibly relocating some of the
               ramps to function better. I don‟t believe there is any hard date set for
               these improvements.

               Comm. Briddell: That could be 5-10 years out. I‟ve heard that after years
               getting the light at Chambers that could disappear. My concern is if the
               state concept for that sort of back pressures anything this way. Do we
               need to be taking that into consideration now? That road and 24 with
               everything happening in Windsor it‟s going to get busier. Unless we make
               some consideration at this point for that connector, it seems like we will be
               forcing a lot of traffic on Camp Betty to Chestnut down to Springwood.

               Chad Dixon: That was one of the benefits, people trying to make those
               north south movements, taking Chestnut Hill aren‟t conducive to carrying
               higher volumes of traffic.

               Dennis Henry: Part of the reasoning we are talking about, there has to be
               a decision made because if we don‟t do it soon we are going to loose the
               opportunity. It will never happen, those of you who don‟t want it to
               happen that‟s the route to go. Let me add this to the intersection. The
               township already has a permit for the Pauline Drive/Springwood
               intersection for a signal. We have been delaying putting in the signal
               because of pending development and budget constraints. In looking at the
               difference between a signalized intersection and roundabout, if both are
               designed properly the queuing today at 17,000 vehicles a day on SW, the
               queuing on a roundabout would be about 200‟ on SW, the queuing on a
               signalized intersection would be over 1000‟ on SW. That‟s the difference
               between those two facilities. The roundabout and the signal light
               intersection are going to cost about the same amount of money. Right
               now we are looking at $2 million for either system. What‟s going to
               happen is speculated in 20 years is both of those systems will fail. The
               correction is to make SW four lanes. The township is not going to do that,
               it‟s a state road, but you know where the state monies come from, out of
September 11, 2007
Page 21

             our pocket. If we don‟t plan properly now we are going to loose the
             opportunity and it will cost us a lot more in the future.

             Comm. Stewart: How much of the $2 million do we have?

             Dennis Henry: If we are estimating what‟s going on at this point, and
             assume that we are going to pick up traffic impact fees from the
             developments that we already see here, we estimate that we would have ¾
             of a million dollars to put into that. There have been some other monies
             that could raise it to $1 million. We will be looking for another million
             dollars to build this thing or signalize the intersection. If the Newcomer
             farm is developed, the fourth leg of that intersection could be built by that
             developer as part of their project, the other three legs we still are going to
             have to construct. I have some other pictures what the roundabout looks
             like and what the four legged intersection looks like. Where the money is
             coming in is all the lanes that are needed to make these things work.

             Comm. Stewart: Does the developer pick up the other million dollars? I
             doubt he would. He would choke on that.

             Dennis Henry: We haven‟t talked about right of way acquisitions. This is
             just for the cost of the facilities. It‟s going to be easier….we have the
             power to negotiate with the developer to do certain things, and they can
             come back and ask for credit on the impact fee. We get our money up
             front, put the signalized intersection in, it‟s a done deal and we are not
             picking up a thousand bucks per permit. Somehow that intersection is
             going to have to be improved. We have a three legged intersection, but it
             would not work for the four legged. You have to think about four lanes
             wide on SW to get the two turning lanes and two through lanes, and that
             just makes it under the bridge. When those signals fail in 15-20 years, the
             bridge is going to have to be redone. Can you imagine what kind of cost
             we are going to get into?

             Comm. Stewart: We are already dealing with failed intersections. F
             intersections. The fact that that one is going to be an F in 20 years, that‟s
             great, that means 15 years of not being an F, which is better than a lot of
             intersections that we have. My bigger question is $2 million there, to run
             a route across I heard $2-10 million to get down across the steep slope and
             across the water to CBW, it‟s millions. Right here about 300‟ from this
             building is how many million dollars? It‟s great to want all of these. I‟d
             like to see them all. I don‟t think anybody here‟s going to write that
             check.
September 11, 2007
Page 22


             Chad Dixon: What ever kind of development that happens on that
             property they will have to obtain an HOP, and I can tell you from
             experience, they are going to make them commit to the fourth leg of that
             intersection. As part of their HOP they will have to redesign the
             intersection to mitigate any impact that they are going to have on that
             intersection as a result of the traffic they are generating. They could be
             required to do improvements on the other legs of the intersection as well.
             Is that going to cover the ultimate improvement of the 20 years design that
             Dennis mentioned? Probably not. Whatever they develop they will have
             to share a significant burden of the costs at that intersection.

             Comm. Stewart: If this TND is approved and they go through the HOP
             are they going to force us to go into debt to do this? Is it incumbent upon
             the township to spend $2 million dollars and they only spend a quarter of
             it and we are eating $1.5 million to do the intersection.

             Chad Dixon: They would get an HOP based on the 10 year design at that
             intersection.

             Comm. Ness: You are telling me that in 10 years that‟s not going to fail?
             That‟s what I heard, correct? So they are going to have a less cost.

             Chad Dixon: That‟s why they would not encumber the full cost of the 20
             year design. You are only forced to design for a 10 year horizon.

             Comm. Ness: I view the developer sitting in the best position, not us.

             Chad Dixon: From a process standpoint it would either be just to have the
             10 year design done with their HOP or second alternative to partner with
             the developer to do the additional improvements that would be required
             for the 20 year design, or third option to come back later and add to the
             improvements that have already been constructed when the funds become
             available.

             Comm. Knepper: With regards to a collector street, it‟s nice to look at
             point A and point B and draw a straight line there. Have you looked at
             that at all? What the potential is for that to happen?

             Chad Dixon: The comp plan shows the connection in that general area.
             One of the hard questions is where would you cross the creek along
             CBW? Where would be the less impact? One of the initial steps we
             would recommend is have some preliminary discussions with DEP and the
September 11, 2007
Page 23

             Army Corps, describe to them what the township may want to pursue in
             the future. Get their input where they would prefer the crossing. It could
             be crossed thru the permitting process, it‟s a matter of where.

             Comm. Knepper: Do you see that running where Victoria Lane is?

             Dennis Henry: That was one of the areas, part of this question tonight is
             leading to the point, if you choose to pursue the connector road there has
             to be more studies done, determine where the best place is. If we don‟t
             drive through with the connector road then what will happen is it will
             never happen.

             Comm. Knepper: I walked this thing twice. I was looking at what is the
             reality of getting through there with a collector type street. A beautiful
             walk. Is a collector street a reality?

             Dennis Henry: I don‟t think we know that at this point. There is another
             connector that can be done between Chestnut Hill Road and CBW to get
             some relief. CH is not good to use as a collector, that‟s why this
             connector road would have to be a boulevard road. It is estimated today
             that 9000 vehicles a day would use the collector road. It cannot be an
             internal street within a TND with houses built on it. It has to be a limited
             roadway system and be able to carry the traffic that wants to use to get
             from one side of the township to the other. If that‟s not the vision of the
             board then I need to know now. We are in the process of reviewing the
             plan for that property. This connector road has a significant impact on that
             plan.

             Comm. Steele: The StoneBridge TND is in this area. This is SW and
             CBW. CBW is a state road. SW is a state road. Having driven CBW,
             what concerns me about this discussion is if we build a collector road from
             here to somewhere over here, I‟m afraid that once you drive your collector
             road you end up on CBW again, which is very limited as to what CBW
             can handle. If we decide we want to build something through here and we
             show that to the StoneBridge developer, it will absolutely ruin the TND
             that they presented a couple of weeks ago. Is this intersection, Pauline and
             Springwood, we‟ve talked about a 4 legged, 3 legged and a roundabout.
             My perspective is this that we look at this in two dimensions. When you
             look at it in a 3rd dimension it becomes a challenge. There is going to be a
             significant cut right here. There‟s going to be a cut and a fill to get from
             under the bridge to that intersection. Without a design I don‟t even know
             if there is enough land to put a roundabout.
September 11, 2007
Page 24

             Dennis Henry: With the conceptual plans there is enough room and the
             grading can be accommodated.

             Comm. Steele: We have in addition to a challenged topography, we also
             have a little creek or something in this area. We have to fit it between the
             bridge and the creek without getting in the creek. At the same time we are
             trying to do that we are trying to make a roundabout that has 2 lanes. I‟m
             not really thrilled thinking of the cost implications to get from this point to
             this point. We are going to spend a lot of money to get something that at
             the end we really want. This is my opinion. Once you drive from here to
             here you are over to CBW and you are limited to where you can go. That
             road I don‟t see handling a lot of traffic. An expression I use with my
             wife „you‟re spending money you don‟t have for something you don‟t
             need‟, which makes me very popular at home. It‟s my opinion we would
             be spending money we don‟t have for something we don‟t need.

             Comm. Stewart: Can I correct you on one thing? You said there is not a
             lot of traffic on CBW. In the morning, CBW stacks. ¾ of a mile, a mile.

             Comm. Steele: If I said that I didn‟t mean to say that. What I meant to
             say I can‟t see taking a boulevard over to CBW, what have you got when
             you get there. I don‟t want to look at this and sort of say „not on my
             watch‟ because if it‟s not on my watch it‟s not going to happen.

             Chad Dixon: With the roundabout comparing it with a traditional
             signalization intersection, the roundabout gives you a lot more flexibility
             how you can design the intersection. It allows you to avoid certain right
             of way impacts that you don‟t want to get into, such as creek on the
             southeast corner. Regarding the traffic on CBW, how we view it hopefully
             this connector route would help to reduce volumes on CBW to the east, to
             the west between the connector and Mount Rose Ave it‟s certainly more
             likely to increase volume. The hope would be that this connector road
             would provide some relief on CBW and SW to the east of the connector
             road.

             Comm. Steele: If you build a collector road from Pauline to CBW in my
             opinion the north side of that should be commercial. Who would place a
             TND right against a collector road? I don‟t think it works.

             Dennis Henry: We discussed that. It opens up another venue. A collector
             road through here could make the Newcomer farm very commercially
             attractive, or a split between I83 and the collector road, and flow into
             residential next to Bridgewater. The roundabout is not going to work if
September 11, 2007
Page 25

             it‟s just a residential development going in there with no collector, because
             the unequal average daily traffic on the lag will cause a problem with that
             smaller lag. SW traffic will dominate the intersection at the peak times
             and those people are going to have a tough time getting in or out. In that
             situation if we let it go residential then the traffic signal is the way to go.
             Then we will let SW fail in years to come it will be someone else‟s
             problem to fix.

             Comm. Knepper: If a street was built through there would that put
             pressure on the state to do something to CBW?

             Dennis Henry: We haven‟t seen the plans on that, but what I do know
             they are planning a new on and off ramp onto CBW, which is going to
             bring the intersection back away from Mount Rose Ave. They will have
             to do some improvements there to make that on/off ramp work, road
             widening or something in there. How far they bring that back, we don‟t
             know.

             Comm. Briddell: One of the things we have to take into consideration is
             all three of things interacting, Heritage Hills, StoneBridge, and
             Bridgewater. You are going to have a lot more houses and they could
             connect to Bridgewater, if not all the traffic goes to Mount Rose, which
             makes it even tougher for the light history if all the traffic is that way. By
             having this connection it gives an outlet to go this way instead of the
             traffic coming down here. No question it‟s a huge impact on that TND.
             The comments often been made, it‟s hard to cut a road through here.
             When we walked it, I wasn‟t overwhelmed with the difficulty, it didn‟t
             seem, it was fairly level. When you talk about a TND on a boulevard it‟s
             literally on I83, the sound there, I don‟t live that far from 83, but it was
             very loud there. Your idea about the commercial holds some merit. I
             think if all we were looking at was the Newcomer property you do what‟s
             there that‟s probably the best you can do with it. It has some very
             attractive property. We have to look at this whole area what it‟s going to
             be in 15-20 years. It merits some consideration whether making this
             connection really does have some significant validity to it. I think we at
             least should explore it. That‟s the only relief we have there.

             Comm. Steele: Isn‟t the Heritage Hills golf course to CBW isn‟t that a
             fairly steep incline to go from CBW up to that golf course?

             Dennis Henry: it is, but they have designed a connection. When we
             originally started out in the charrettes with this, we asked them to make a
             connection to CBW, because they are going to have a horrendous traffic
September 11, 2007
Page 26

             connection up top, with the commercial area, expansion of the hotel, water
             park, all of that development is going to overwhelm Mount Rose Ave. If
             they could make a connection to Chambers Road, it‟s going to put traffic
             back on Chambers Road back to CBW. They were on the same page as
             us, to try to make this happen, and I think they went as far as to solidify
             land acquisitions and they pulled back because we are not making the
             connector road between CBW and SW. We are not making that decision
             if that‟s going to happen, so why should they do it? They don‟t have to do
             it. We don‟t have anything written in stone that they have to do it. But
             they were willing to do it knowing that‟s what we wanted to see with their
             TND development. That makes this connector road more important. If
             we are not forcing this with StoneBridge we cannot force anything to
             happen on Heritage.

             Comm. Stewart: We tell the land owner you can‟t do anything until we
             come up with $5 million so you can build an intersection on one end and
             the other, until then your property is dead?

             Dennis Henry: Under the comp plan they are not compelled to build that,
             they are required to allow a right of way to get through there.

             Comm. Stewart: How do they build their plan unless we do both ends?

             Dennis Henry: That‟s exactly what I‟m leading to. I don‟t want to spend
             the township‟s money to get the study if we are not going to go ahead with
             the connector road. That‟s a waste of time. We have a proposal from
             Chad‟s office, but I don‟t think it covers everything we‟ve talked about.

             Chad Dixon: It was just to start some of the discussions with DEP and
             Army Corps. It was $5000.

             Comm. Stewart: I think you ought to ask this board if they want to spend
             the money, $5000 here, $5000 there, if we want to do this.

             Comm. Briddell: Am I the only one that thinks we ought to do this? If I
             am then that solves it.

             Comm. Stewart: I think Comm. Steele made a very good point, if you
             were coming into Rt. 30 or a four lane highway, but you are dumping onto
             a road that is in terrible shape.

             Comm. Briddell: The idea is to take some pressure off CBW.
September 11, 2007
Page 27

             Comm. Stewart: What about going the other way? You know you are
             going to put more pressure on CBW. Where do people go to shop?

             Steve Spalt: I would like to point out we do not own the property that
             would connect to CBW. We have had discussions with staff, we are
             amenable to provide a right of way that you deem necessary to make the
             connection through the northern portion of the property. We would
             obviously oppose a boulevard road from Pauline straight through to CBW.
             It would significantly impact a years worth of work, since we filed our
             conditional use application in July of 06 and just began the process now in
             July 07. First, I think a lot of reason why the line was put there on the
             map was a specific response to SR830026, which was a study prepared by
             PennDOT, a study related to 83 from exits 16 to 19 and ended up
             incorporating some of 19. That SR830026 document specifically showed
             or suggested that connection to alleviate problems specifically related to
             state roads, SW, CBW, intersection at Mount Rose, intersection at Queen
             Street, all PennDOT problems. They identified that connection at the
             township‟s peril and identified it strictly for the development side of it not
             accounting for right of way or acquisition at $6 million to put that
             boulevard road from CBW to Pauline. We are willing to provide the right
             of way that would allow for the connection to CBW. We have cooperated
             with the connections to Bridgewater and the Keystone property. We are
             willing to participate in our share of the four legged intersection. We have
             indicated at the township‟s bidding you prefer a roundabout we will
             certainly have discussions with you. The roundabout and Dennis‟
             proposition that there is enough land to put a roundabout there, there is.
             It‟s all ours. There‟s no room to go into the gym, there‟s no room to go
             into Hogg because the retaining wall and the stream there all the land that
             would be necessary for a 2 lane roundabout there the predominate amount
             would come from StoneBridge Partners, which is Charter Homes. We are
             willing to cooperate there if that‟s the way you want to go. It‟s not an easy
             solution, the cut and fill, grading that would be necessary to put that type
             of intersection, the limited site distance, you can put warning lights there.
             The roundabout becomes a safety hazard. I think that it warrants a lot of
             discussion, we have been through over a year‟s worth of this process and
             provided you a plan and application that had not gotten any consideration
             until a month ago and you now want to go through with more studies, I
             think it puts us in a very unfair position. I just wanted to put that on the
             record.

             Dennis Henry: Charter was put on notice of this from the very beginning.
             We asked to sit down and discuss this because it made a tremendous
             impact on their development and nothing happened.
September 11, 2007
Page 28

             We are talking traffic at peak times. One of the peak movements here is
             traffic in the morning making this turn up to Pauline. What they are trying
             to do is get to the on ramp at I83 off South Queen. That‟s where a majority
             is coming this way. In the evening it reverses itself. The queuing on this
             light is 1000‟ back to Donna Lane or better at peak times.

             Comm. Stewart: You were asking for an opinion on whether we wanted a
             roundabout or a signal. Comm. Ness made his position known. You guys
             are traffic engineers, you are professional engineers. I am a professional
             driver. I drive a lot of miles. I drive through a lot of intersections. That is
             an ugly looking picture. The little round circle is real pretty. But as a
             professional driver I would much rather go through that intersection than
             that roundabout intersection any day. As far as my position I would much
             rather see a signalized intersection than a roundabout. And that‟s from a
             professional driver opinion not a professional engineer.

             Comm. Knepper: It‟s my understanding that a roundabout would have a
             greater length of survivability? Did I understand that or not?

             Chad Dixon: Yes, a roundabout would provide much more capacity. In
             terms in number of the conflict points in your typical intersection a
             roundabout reduces the conflicts. A roundabout contains about ¼ of those
             turning conflicts. Roundabouts have very less significant crashes than a
             signalized intersection. In New York any intersection that is redesigned
             must consider a roundabout. In terms of safety and capacity the
             roundabout has more advantages. Does it work in every instance? No,
             Dennis mentioned where you have many unequal distribution of volume
             coming from many points of the intersection.

             Comm. Knepper: The stream that is there goes under the road, is there
             any reason why more pipe can‟t be added to that so that the roundabout
             could be pushed more to the Pauline Drive side of it to take some of the
             burden off of Charter? It would be a safer longer lasting intersection it
             seems that would be the route to go.

             Chad Dixon: That would have to be evaluated.

             Comm. Steele: I‟m a professional driver. I do drive a lot of miles in the
             course of a year. I kind of hate roundabouts. I hate them so bad I don‟t
             want to drive US 30 going over to 15 and 81 going west. I have the
             utmost respect for Mr. Henry and his opinions. I‟m afraid we are in York
             County and there is a certain York County mentality and I guess over the
             years I have developed some of that York County mentality. You can
September 11, 2007
Page 29

             make your own impression if it‟s good or bad, my opinion at the end of
             the day that most York Countians would rather see a signalized
             intersection than a roundabout. I have looked at this and looked at the
             topography, looked where the creek is, looked at the bridge, looked at the
             buildings, and I just can‟t picture a roundabout there. Even though it
             looks like it would fit, as far as I am concerned, I would go with the four
             legged intersection and would not advise that we put a collector street
             from Pauline to CBW.

             Comm. Ness: The gentleman pointed out that the state told him or have
             done a study for $6 million, and we know how the state spends money, it‟s
             probably a low figure by now, probably $10 or $15 million. I don‟t think
             the taxpayers want to pay that kind of money for a collector street. No
             collector street. I would take the four legged intersection, not the
             roundabout.

             Comm. Stewart: I don‟t think we will ever have the money to do it. We
             don‟t have the money to do the one beside us. It was to be a big priority to
             get us from Farm Lane over to Oak. I don‟t see us having the money to do
             it. Why would we encumber upon the land owner to lock up their land
             rights by trying to do something that we will never have the money to
             spend? I am real concerned how we are going to do this one intersection.

             Comm. Knepper: I didn‟t respond on the collector street. We gripe and
             moan all the time and hear all the time about traffic issues and not willing
             to do anything better to improve anything because it costs us some money
             down the road, or at least to plan for it. It‟s not a policy I would adopt
             realistically. Even if I don‟t have the money today, I would at least plan
             for the future for it to happen. I would say yes to the collector street if it is
             possible.

             Comm. Briddell: You don‟t need a vote, cause it‟s 3-2.

             Dennis Henry: Just to make sure we are on the same page. If we are
             going to abandon the collector street scenario that‟s going to make
             Springwood fail sooner. That‟s the way it‟s going to be, we will be faced
             with some hefty things……How do we continually approve these
             developments that are going to occur around us without doing any traffic
             improvements, without making any provisions for alternate routes. SW is
             going to be gridlocked if the development keeps going. PennDOT‟s not
             going to come in and do it. I‟m not saying the township should, but we
             should be thinking about the alternate routes and trying to make them
             happen. I agree that Farm Lane should definitely be connected. As these
September 11, 2007
Page 30

              farms develop across the street, we are going to be swamped with traffic.
              The connector road through StoneBridge‟s development, it‟s not really
              going to work with the way Charter‟s developing the property. The streets
              they are proposing are residential streets. This collector road is going to
              be 35 mph and you don‟t want that in a residential area. They are
              proposing very narrow streets. The one that goes through the track has
              driveways coming out on it and its not limited access. The decision on the
              connector at that point is critical to move forward on the other TNDs.

              Break

Architectural
Review        Comm. Steele: We met with four consultants on 3 occasions. I think the
              two commissioners that did the interview process ended up agreeing that
              of the four candidates we ended up essentially saying that Richard J Bono
              and Stewart & Associates were pretty much equal in their qualifications to
              provide the service. If you looked at your mail from Mr. Henry you can
              see the costs anticipated from them. Mr. Bono is from York and Stewart
              & Associates are from Lancaster. Paul and I ranked them as equal.

              Comm. Knepper: I ranked them as equal, but I put Mr. Bono first
              primarily because he‟s local.

              On motion of Comm. Knepper, seconded by Comm. Steele the board
              accepted Richard J Bono‟s proposal for architectural review for York
              Township.

              Comm. Ness: I did send an e-mail to my fellow commissioners. I would
              like to share some of it with the audience. I professionally worked with
              Mr. Bono, I professionally worked with McCall and Slonaker, I
              professionally worked with Williams and Ports, and I am familiar with
              Stewart from Lancaster. They are very fine, excellent people. I know
              Stewart from Lancaster with other professional connections. I would like
              to say, I think we are kind of missing the point here. If you read the MPC
              it grants, allows the Planning Commission again to oversee or to make a
              design book, that‟s the chance for the people to do the looking at
              whatever comes across the road. If we choose an architect, which is okay,
              we are basically buying his services. The problem here is how do we keep
              some kind of connection to what some developer provides us? I would
              like to use the example, you might have some sheik fly in here with a lot
              of money and he might want to make a mid-eastern type TND, and it
              might not fit with the other buildings and culture of the area. We can‟t do
              anything about that.
September 11, 2007
Page 31


             Comm. Knepper: That‟s the reason why we have an architectural
             reviewer.

             Comm. Ness: My point is this we are basically hiring him we cannot tell
             that individual „no‟, you can‟t do that. We are the only ones, or the
             Planning Commission are the only ones to say you can‟t do that. At this
             point in time we cannot tell anybody what they can or cannot do. If we
             hire somebody fine, you still don‟t have any control over the architectural
             guidelines.

             Dennis Henry: The TND specifically says in there that the architecture
             has to be conforming to York Township traditional developments that are
             already here. I think you have the power to control what you are speaking
             of. I think you are protected from what that ordinance says.

             Vote 5 yes.

SOLICITOR‟S AGENDA

Res. 07-18
Deed of
Dedication   On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Knepper, Resolution
             2007-18 accepting the dedication of three tracts of land to construct an
             extension of Southfield Drive between Joppa Road and Pine Grove Road
             was approved. Vote 5 yes.

Ord. 07-10
Southfield
Adoption     On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Knepper, Ordinance
             2007-10, adopting Southfield Drive was approved with the following
             voice vote:

                     Commissioner Stewart                 Yes
                     Commissioner Steele                  Yes
                     Commissioner Ness                    Yes
                     Commissioner Briddell                Yes
                     Commissioner Knepper                 Yes
September 11, 2007
Page 32

Ord. 07-11
Sewer Payments
Water Shut
Off         On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Knepper, Ordinance
            2007-11 amending the date of payment and providing certain notices to be
            sent to the finance department was approved with the following voice
            vote:

                      Commissioner Steele                   Yes
                      Commissioner Ness                     Yes
                      Commissioner Briddell                 Yes
                      Commissioner Knepper                  Yes
                      Commissioner Stewart                  Yes

Dunkin Donuts
Pauline Dr.
             There has been constructed a Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins. At the
             same time improvements were being done to South Queen Street and
             Pauline Drive by York Township, and Dunkin Donuts was coordinating
             some of their improvements, we were doing certain curbing along Pauline
             Drive. There was a gap in the curbing and sidewalk around Pauline Drive
             and there was a field authorization by a Dunkin Donuts representative to
             have our contractor extend the curbing in that they would be billed for that
             work after the fact. The work was done and the bill sent, the bill wasn‟t
             paid. There‟s an issue who was responsible for the payment of the bill.
             We have sent a letter to the contractor in the field who was an agent for
             the franchise, we‟ve sent a letter to the franchise, and to the owner of the
             property. Everyone has been unresponsive. We are asking for
             authorization to proceed with collection. The bill is $8261.68, which
             included a vertical concrete curb and some ADA depressed sidewalks.

              Comm. Briddell: Keep going.

Allan
Baumholtz     If you recall he was here last month asking for relief on his plan. All plans
              that are submitted to the township the applicant is responsible for certain
              expenses regarding the plans. Mr. Baumholtz has refused to pay that
              invoice and we are asking for a motion to collect that.

              On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Knepper the solicitor
              was directed to proceed with collection of both. Vote 5 yes.
September 11, 2007
Page 33

             Dennis Henry: I think there may be some movement with Mr. Baumholtz
             to pay his account.

Trolley
Line         You have the Buchart Horn analysis, how would you like to proceed?

             Comm. Briddell: I am currently dealing with a situation that is a thousand
             times more significant than this one. I think we should take the next step
             and have Buchart Horn explore with DEP what the appropriate and
             remediation would be for using it for out purposes. What they keep
             referring to is residential which is the toughest thing to do. What we are
             doing is not anywhere close to that. His recommendation is that they meet
             with DEP just to see what their requirements would be for this kind of use
             and I think we need to take the next step.

             Comm. Steele: I would concur. I did read this thing. It would appear to
             be to be a di minimus thing, with investigation of the remediation.

             On motion of Comm. Steele, seconded by Comm. Stewart the board
             authorized a representative of Buchart Horn to act on behalf of the
             township to meet with DEP for that purpose.

             Comm. Stewart: How much money have we spent trying to figure this
             out?

             Comm. Briddell: We haven‟t done much the last 6 months.

             Comm. Stewart: How much is it going to cost before we can use that
             property? Right now this is Chinese water torture, we‟re getting it one
             drop at a time.

             Scott DePoe: I think you have an answer, you can accept the property
             with the conditions that First Energy has imposed on it, or you can take
             another step to make you feel more comfortable with the problem.

             Comm. Briddell: They are going to tell you what you have to do to
             characterize it, which may mean more testing. Once they have done that,
             figure out what you have to do to remediate it. Here it is putting 2 feet of
             clean fill on it. If DEP‟s answer is that simple, then that‟s what we will do
             in those spots. You have to get concurrence from DEP.

              Vote 5 yes.
September 11, 2007
Page 34

Stewarts
Horn Rd      I got an e-mail from Stewarts, bought a house on Horn Road, and they
             have a bunch of issues, and I need to get back to them. I asked Steve
             where we were. The main problem is the water issue. They bought this
             house and there is no water.

             Comm. Knepper: There‟s no well water.

             Dennis Henry: Since Pennsylvania nor York Township have no well
             permitting ordinance in place, the well driller that started there hit a very
             powdery schist layer and did not install the casing properly. The first well
             failed, and they drilled 7 wells on the lot. In order to pump the water they
             have to filter it and the filter fills up in 5 minutes, its clogged. They were
             required to put in a water system, storage system, in accordance with our
             ordinance. He didn‟t do that.

             The house has another issue, it was permitted for an on-site sewage
             disposal for a 3 bedroom house and it is now a 4 bedroom house. They
             can‟t get water.

             Comm. Briddell: He does have a C/O right?

             Dennis Henry: I don‟t know, I don‟t know if it‟s been withdrawn.

             Comm. Briddell: Whose action would it be to do that? The township or
             somebody else?

             Solicitor Hovis: Revoke the C/O? That is ours.

             Comm. Briddell: If there‟s no water supply, that would constitute…..

             Solicitor Hovis: I would leave that up to Keith, but one mandatory
             element being able to live in a house is a water supply.

             Dennis Henry: They can put in a cistern and a water tank and have it
             trucked there. What else are they going to do, with the water in the area?

             Comm. Stewart: They can filter it. It‟s not a question of if, it‟s a question
             of how much.

             Comm. Knepper: They have water, just not good water. If you can drink
             water out of the Susquehanna River, you can fix that, you can fix well
             water.
September 11, 2007
Page 35

             Dennis Henry: It‟s like dumping black talcum powder in a quart of water.
             It‟s going to have to be a horrendous filter system to get that out of there.
             The wells are collapsing, because the schist is so soft they are collapsing
             in on themselves.

             Comm. Briddell: I‟d like to figure out where we stand on this thing.

             Comm. Stewart: I don‟t think it‟s our position.

             Comm. Briddell: I hope that‟s the answer. They are suing the builder.

             Solicitor Hovis: That‟s the position we have taken.

             Comm. Briddell: If there is anyone for the township to go after, it would
             be the land developer.

             Dennis Henry: Part of rewriting our ordinance is a well permitting process
             if the state is not going to do something. It was suggested by one of the
             well drillers that we don‟t issue a C/O until that complete system is
             finished and tested, once the storage, pumps, filtering system, whatever
             they have to do to clean up the water, and that‟s probably a good point.

             Comm. Stewart: I don‟t understand why it‟s our business. That‟s up to
             the people in the bank. If you want to buy a house without water, drink
             bottled water.

             Comm. Ness: If I may say so, the plumbing code does have a section on
             wells, I just think we didn‟t look at it.

             Comm. Briddell: I would like to ask the rest of the commissioners if the
             solicitor could write a response to them because I‟m a little worried where
             the township stands.

             Comm. Steele: I agree that we need to write a letter.

             Dennis Henry: We definitely need some policy changes. I thought the
             state was going to introduce a state wide bill and they still haven‟t done it
             because there‟s too much money against it.

Recess       The meeting was recessed to Monday, September 17, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.


             Secretary

				
DOCUMENT INFO