LEHIGH TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Minutes of the February 23, 2016, Meeting

I CALL TO ORDER. The second monthly meeting of the Lehigh Township Board

of Supervisors was held on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting

was held at the Lehigh Township Municipal Building, 1069 Municipal Road,

Walnutport, Pa. Present were Cindy Miller, Darryl Snover, Rick Hildebrand,

Keith Hantz, and Dell Grove, along with Attorney David Backenstoe, Phil

Malitsch, and Alice Rehrig. Chairman Darryl Snover called the meeting to order

with the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Chairman announced that the Board held an Executive Session prior to the

meeting to discuss a matter of potential litigation. Details of the Executive

Session will be discussed under the agenda item.

II. RECONVENING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCES FOR

ADOPTION. A stenographer was present for the public hearing portion of this

meeting. This is the continuation of the December 22, 2015, hearing for the

possible creation of a Planned Resort Residential Zoning District. The creation of

this zoning district involves three separate ordinances: An ordinance amending

the current Zoning Ordinance which would create the district and its criteria; an

ordinance amending the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance which

would provide for the layout of development; and an amendment to the

Stormwater Management Ordinance which would address stormwater regulations

which pertain to development in this district. The Board would also need to adopt

the amendment to the Zoning Map which would depict the area which is being

rezoned to the proposed PRRC Zoning District.

Procedurally, Attorney Backenstoe wanted to note the following:

The notice of this hearing which included a summary of all three ordinances was

published on Saturday, February 6, 2016, and Monday, February 15, 2016, in the

Express Times.

Copies of all three ordinances and the map were sent to the Northampton County

Law Library on January 12, 2016, and February 4, 2016. The property was also

posted for this hearing on February 16, 2016. A certification of this posting was

incorporated into the record. There was also is a certificate of posting dated

December 10, 2015, for the first hearing.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 2

The Township also received several documents which are to be incorporated into

the record. They are as follows:

An unsigned document entitled “Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning

Amendments Affecting the Mary Immaculate Center Property.” This is a petition

which objects to the adoption of these ordinances.

An email from David Jaindl dated February 18, 2016, responding to some of the

issues raised in the petition.

A letter dated December 16, 2015, from the Lehigh Township Planning

Commission recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt all three ordinances.

A letter dated January 29, 2016, from the Lehigh Township Planning Commission

indicating they reviewed the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission’s Letter, an

email from Phil Malitsch, and proposed changes recommended by resident Bill

Hart and after review of these items, they recommended that the ordinances not be

changed and all three ordinances be approved. This letter was generated because

the Board of Supervisors had referred the proposed ordinances back to the

Planning Commission for additional review based upon the comments from the

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

A memorandum from Phil Malitsch dated December 22, 2015, which included a

zoning amendment comparison of existing uses versus proposed uses.

A copy of the minutes from the January 11, 2016, meeting of the Planning

Commission when this matter was discussed.

A Use Comparison of the A/RR Zoning District and the proposed PRRC Zoning

District.

A memo from an individual, Franklin Frey, indicating that he couldn’t attend the

meeting, but believes that Mr. Jaindl is an honorable person and believes that the

project is worthwhile and will benefit the Township. He believes that the

Township should adopt these ordinances.

A letter dated February 17, 2016, from the Bertsch Hockendauqua Catasauqua

Watershed Association, signed by Chairman Chris Amato. This letter indicated

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 3

that after reviewing the materials they believe that the information contained in the

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission’s letter should be taken into consideration by

the Board and they are essentially against the adoption of these ordinances,

although they realize further development will occur.

Attorney Backenstoe commented that although this hearing started on December

22, 2015, this is one single hearing regarding these proposed ordinances. As such,

in order to make a complete record, he also wants to incorporate all the notices

that were given at the first hearing:

The letter sent to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

The letters sent to Ilene Eckhart, Manager of Allen Township; Jeff Bartlett,

Manager of North Whitehall Township; Joseph Kovalchick, Superintendant of the

Northampton Area School District.

The formal response from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission dated

December 18, 2015.

The response from Ilene Eckhart which did not recommend a pro or con, just

asked that the Township consider smart planning and open space.

The response from the Northampton Area School Board indicating that they did

not have a position.

All of the documents, paperwork and photographs that were presented by Attorney

Zator on behalf of Mr. Jaindl, the developer, at the previous meeting.

The formal amendment proposed by Bill Hart 4071 Heather Court.

The entire transcript of the December 22, 2015, hearing and all of the exhibits.

Phil Malitsch was asked to address the comments in the Lehigh Valley Planning

Commission’s response and also the letter from the Bertsch Hockendauqua

Catasauqua Watershed Association. Phil Malitsch commented that there are a few

fundamental comments that the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission had with

respect to the proposed ordinance revisions. The County’s Comprehensive Plan

disagrees with this proposed Zoning Ordinance because they have different plans

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 4

for properties within the Township than what the Board of Supervisors may have,

which is not uncommon. He has personally seen this before. The LVPC believes

that Lehigh Township is largely a rural community and that is a feature that should

be protected. With this comes certain high level design criteria, and it surrounds

density and lot sizes. The LVPC has always recommended one acre lots for the

A/RR district which is what is in place now. They also recommend the lots be

served by private water and sewer which means a well and on lot septic systems.

These are directly related because in order to have a primary septic system, a

backup system, and the proper setbacks for well and septic, you generally need

one acre lots. For anything less in size, it is generally recommended and

sometimes required that you have public water and sewer. The Township’s

ordinance specifically requires that commercial development has public water and

sewer. One of the things that he was particularly interested in was how the LVPC

reviewed the cluster ordinance when it was passed several years ago. Some of the

fundamentals were the same, condensing development, requiring the dedication of

open space, and allowing the developer the benefit of increased density for doing

this. The cluster ordinance allows an additional 30 percent more units on the

property than what a traditional development would allow. At that time the LVPC

was consistent in that they recommended that you shouldn’t have anything less

than one acre minimum lot sizes. They did differ in that if you were going to do

this, it should be serviced by public water and sewer, which would make sense.

Here, they are discouraging the extension of public water and sewer into this area

because it is a rural area. The presence of public utilities inherently drives density

and development. This is the fundamental take away from this. If you have

public utilities in an area, you can support a higher development yield than if you

don’t have public utilities. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission’s opinion on

what is the most appropriate for the Township can be and often are different than

what the Township’s opinion is for the goals of the Township or a particular area

in terms of development. He has seen letters similar to this. It is not necessarily a

bad thing. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission does a good job and are

generally consistent looking at the County Comprehensive Plan and applying it to

these types of ordinances that they review. Some of the technical comments in

their letter regarding things like roadway geometry, and particularly the open

space requirements, he believes were somewhat lost because some of the

ordinance sections are complex. By example, he cannot say that a twelve percent

centerline road grade is inherently worse than a ten percent road grade, it’s just

not. A lot of these comments would take a second level priority as opposed to the

more global issue of the density and extension of public utilities in that area.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 5

The LVPC letter really comes down to three things: the public utilities, the

density they recommend, and their overall goals for this area of the Township.

The way he has characterized these ordinances from the beginning with the

Planning Commission is that these are almost like a hybrid of the VR Zone and the

NC Zone. From a residential perspective, the proposed ordinances are less dense

than the VR District, but more dense than the A/RR Zoning District. A comment

that the Planning Commission had was that this is not the first time that they have

seen a letter similar to this from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. The

cluster ordinance is an example of this.

Darryl Snover questioned if the LVPC took into consideration that there is a

100,000 + square foot building that currently exists on the property now. Phil

Malitsch commented that, no, they didn’t and believes that the building is a

significant feature of the property that should be considered because of what the

alternative is. The alternative is that when a property that large falls into disrepair,

a lot of times it becomes a nuisance problem for the Township. He doesn’t feel it

is appropriate to look at this property as a blank slate because it is not just an open

farm field that you may want to preserve forever. There is a significant structure

on the property which will require upkeep by somebody so that it doesn’t fall into

disrepair and become a nuisance to the Township. It should be part of the whole

equation for the Board to consider.

Darryl Snover questioned what in Phil Malitsch’s opinion would be appropriate

uses for a building such as this. Phil Malitsch commented that is it large enough

to accommodate a lot of different things. He hasn’t given much thought to

specific uses that would be appropriate. Darryl Snover commented that he has

thought about it and the only thing he can come up with; one is a seminary, which

already is there and is being abandoned, the other practical use would be a hotel or

resort. He cannot come up with other uses other than it becoming abandoned and

an eyesore for the Township, which he really doesn’t want to see.

Phil Malitsch commented that he believes the comments of the Watershed

Association pretty much mirror the comments of the LVPC so he would suggest

that the discussion regarding the LVPC review pretty much apply to the

Watershed’s correspondence.

Darryl Snover noted that the Watershed Association’s letter specifically noted the

change in the slope zoning. Is the proposed slope zoning that is proposed in the

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 6

PRRC area substantially different or more lenient than what we already have on

the books and in what ways. Phil Malitsch commented that it is different. The

current slope zoning requirements are within the zoning ordinance. The proposed

requirements are within the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance

amendments. This is one substantial difference because it is easier to get relief

from the SALDO rather than the Zoning Ordinance. The current Slope Zoning

Ordinance is similar to other ordinances in the Valley. It is a protection ratio

model meaning that steep slopes are broken into different categories and each of

those categories get a certain protection standard. Generally, the steeper the

section of land, the less you are allowed to disturb. They would typically require

an applicant to provide a map which shows the different areas of slope, the total

area, and how much of the area is being disturbed. The proposed SALDO has the

lower slope brackets going away and there is a protection that states you cannot

disturb slopes over 30 percent. Slopes less than 30 percent can be disturbed. The

reasoning behind this is when you look at the one parcel, the development would

be very limited.

Attorney Zator commented that he believes that there has been a concerted effort

by Mr. Jaindl to not only work with the Township, not just the Supervisors, but its

Engineers, Solicitor, and Planning Commission. He has been responsive to

comments over the many months as they worked though them to get to a point

where a very good ordinance has been developed. It is not what they started out

with and not what Mr. Jaindl had initially proposed, but they have been glad to

react to concerns and modifications that have been suggested by the Planning

Commission and the rest of the Township team. Mr. Jaindl is in a unique position

to be able to take what could become a decayed property and make something

special out of it. It is a very unique property and one that warrants special

attention. His credentials as a developer in accomplishing good things with other

projects, speaks well for what can be anticipated for Lehigh Township. Residents

and other concerned individuals have had the opportunity to speak to the Planning

Commission and the Board over the course of these many meetings and they

certainly welcome that. Ordinarily, when people are critical of a project, they do

not get into a back and forth debate. They respect individual opportunity to speak.

There are a couple of comments that they would like to briefly address because of

what has been a concerted effort over the past few weeks in connection to this

project by Mr. Vitovitch and the Keep Lehigh Township Beautiful Facebook Page

which was a rational for people to sign a petition. There were some very

significant misstatements that may have lead people to sign the petition.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 7

Comment: If you follow the Jaindl Land Development Company, you will see

that he had the zoning changed on preserved farmland and sold the tract to a

warehouse developer. Response: This is clearly incorrect. When farmland has

been preserved, the owner, a developer or even the Township cannot make that

change. Once it is preserved, it is preserved and cannot be changed. Mr. Jaindl

has more preserved farmland than this entire tract of land and it will stay preserved

in perpetuity. Comment: The plan for senior housing has changed dramatically.

Response: Over the course of the past 14 meetings, Mr. Jaindl has been listening

to the concerns raised by citizens, the Planning Commission and feedback from

Township consultants. There has been evolution of the concept of the three

ordinances for consideration. This evolution was done out of respect for the

Township. It hasn’t been some sort of change that Mr. Jaindl has taken, but a

reaction to what the Township asked. Comment: Mr. Jaindl now proposes to

build 509 single and multifamily homes with a small percentage of them for senior

housing. Response: When Mr. Jaindl first came to the Township, he suggested

that some of the property may end up being senior housing. Through the

evolution of this process, the Planning Commission has required a mandatory

senior housing component. This significance of this is less impact to the school

district and less traffic. Comment: He plans on putting in a hotel, turning the

existing seminary possibly into a wedding venue with rentable rooms above it, a

tavern, restaurant and 20,000 square feet of retail space. Response: The uses that

can go into a building such as this are very few and far between. If there is

someone that is going to make good use of the building and something that the

Township can be proud of, it is his client. This has been an evolutionary process

and the ordinances that are in front of the Board of Supervisors provide for a

number of potential uses that could occur over a very lengthy development cycle.

There is no plan before the Board for approval when the Board votes on the

ordinances. He is still required to submit individual subdivision and land

development plans to the Township for review by the Planning Commission, other

agencies, and Township consultants for an ultimate decision by the Board of

Supervisors. This will happen time and time again over the course of many years

as the development of this property moves forward through the development

cycle.

Frank Vitovitch, 4112 Locust Drive, read the petition that was incorporated into

the record of the hearing. The petition was drafted in opposition to the proposed

ordinances. Their opposition to these ordinances is consistent with the concerns

raised in the letter from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. They feel it

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 8

Is necessary to oppose the ordinances because of the potential for significant

adverse effects on their community as well as neighboring communities. Mr.

Vitovitch commented that they have been circulating this petition for about a week

and a half and have obtained 222 signed petitions. (The signatures were not

submitted to the Board) The general consensus as they were talking to people

were favorable for them signing the petition. If the Board wants more signatures,

they can get them. They just need more time. The petitions were signed

according to the statements contained within the petition, not what was listed on a

facebook page.

Jeff Schwenk, South Locust Drive, commented that he believes that the Township

and the residents within it, need to have a plan presented to them before a zoning

change is made. How can you change the zoning and then submit a plan on top of

that. Residents that he has spoken to have concerns regarding the access road that

will go from Cherryville Road to Indiantrail Road. Is the location of this roadway

definite? Darryl Snover commented that there is no development plan before the

Board so they wouldn’t be able to answer the question. Mr. Schwenk questioned

if the Township had 12 percent slopes within it. Phil Malitsch commented that the

10 and 12 percent slopes that were referred to earlier were with regard to proposed

road grades and it is not a significant difference. These slopes are different than

slope zoning. Currently, the slope zoning is addressed in the Zoning Ordinances.

For the proposed PRRC area, the slope is addressed in the SALDO. The lower

ranges of slope are removed and they are protecting the slopes which are 30

percent or greater from any disturbance. A 33 percent slope is a 3:1 slope and is

considered to be mowable. Mr. Schwenk questioned what the ordinances really

mean if you are willing to change the ordinances for a developer from outside the

community. He feels that once the Township creates a new zone like this, they

will be setting a precedence to further open the township up at a later date for

another developer because of past practice. Mr. Schwenk commented that he

believes the Board should seriously take into consideration the comments by the

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission regarding the unsuitable parcel, the creek,

the roads, the inconsistency with the County Plan, and their other suggestions they

had and not recommending the zoning change. Balancing needs to be done

between the land development and preserving a cherished quality of life for the

residents. The amount of traffic that this will generate will require improvement

and widening of roads and someone’s house will probably have to be taken down

unless they want to take out half the mountain. There is no clear cut solution to

the South Locust Drive and Blue Mountain Drive intersection. PennDOT, he is

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 9

sure, does not want to put a traffic light in down there and that will be the most

heavily used area if you live in that development. The road as it stands now is a

death trap with the speeds that people are traveling. With the poundage of all this

added traffic, it is going to be a nightmare. As a long term resident of the

Township, he is asking the Supervisors not to approve the rezoning.

Blaine Holden, Blue Mountain Drive, commented that he doesn’t believe the sale

of Seminary by the Diocese will be stopped and he is more concerned with what

could come in. He student taught in Allentown and Parkland School Districts and

he was thankful for what Mr. Jaindl did for helping build the Parkland School

District compared to what he went through in Allentown, and believes we are

fortunate to have Mr. Jaindl come here. He does not believe you will find another

developer with the same resources or integrity. Mr. Holden commented that he

has been in the Township for the past 38 years and loves it here and he just accepts

that there will be growth and you will not stop it. He would rather see the

Township align themselves with someone who can do it right.

Robert Hawke, 4539 Richard Terrace, commented that he has been a resident of

Lehigh Township for over 20 years. His only concern is that he wants to see the

Seminary preserved. He doesn’t want to see it torn down. It has been a landmark

ever since he has been here. Everyone should keep in mind that if the Township

continues to deny these projects, everyone will pay dearly with tax increases.

There are two projects right now: the Cherryville Project which is a must and the

Ski Resort who is building a water park and hotel. We will have additional traffic

and that intersection in Cherryville needs to be fixed, just like we need this project.

We need money. He doesn’t see anyone coming forward saying they will pay for

a new maintenance building, emergency services, or our roads. What is the

Township going to do for money. The State is not giving Townships money like

they use to. They are cutting it down. He doesn’t want to see his taxes go up.

How much more can people take? Some people can barely afford to buy food.

We need to keep in mind that there are 10,000 people in this Township.

Sam Schaadt, 401 Long Lane Road, commented that if there were 300 people who

signed the petition, that would mean that there are 9,700 people who either did not

have any interest in it or support it. Statistically, it sounds like the 300 people are

a small representation of the population and the Supervisors represent all the

people of the Township, not just those who do not want something.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 10

Paul Nikisher, Long Lane Road, commented that he has been a resident of the

Township for over 60 years and is definitely in favor of the project. He wanted to

also thank the Board of Supervisors for all the time that they put into this,

especially Cindy Miller who also sits on the Planning Commission. He believes

that the Supervisors have the best interest of the Township at heart and they need

to listen to everyone. Taxes will also now be due on this property, thank you to

Mrs. Miller, it was overdue. If this project goes the wrong way it could be a big

liability to us. If a non-profit comes in, there goes the tax revenue. Everyone will

have to help pay more for more of the roads and everything else. There is an

opportunity here for some homes, commercial, and jobs. It’s got to go one way or

another. It can go with Mr. Jaindl who is going to put a lot of revenue back into

Lehigh Township or it can go to non-profit and what do we gain by that. We need

to think long and hard about this. He is also aware that there were people who

wanted to develop in Lehigh Township and have ran into so much resistance that

they have just walked away. Taxes are high already and if something like this

doesn’t get moving, it can go the wrong way. Is it so far fetch that we could see a

Saylorsburg Compound? There are a whole lot more uglier things out there that

can happen. He has seen what Mr. Jaindl has done with other developments and it

has definitely enhanced whatever community he was in.

Carl Boyko, 4108 Locust Drive, commented that if it was true, everyone should be

able to vote and have a project like this put on the ballot for people to speak.

Darryl Snover commented that the process doesn’t work that way.

James Klotz, Cherryville Road, commented that he has a concern with their well

water. What happens if problems occur with their wells? He does not want to

connect to a municipal system. Darryl Snover noted that there is not a mandatory

connection to the municipal water system. Phil Malitsch commented that the

provisions of the proposed ordinances require that the project be serviced by

public water and sewer. Public water systems often require the addition of

additional wells to be drilled or water towers to supplement the existing system

depending upon the type of system and the elevations. As part of any

development plan, this would come later as part of a land development

application, the developer would need to show that they can provide public water

and sewer which is regulated by the Municipal Authority. To do this, they would

need to drill wells and do a hydro geologic study to show that if we create this

additional demand of additional wells, if they are needed, that they will not

adversely affect the adjacent property owners and their wells. This is typically

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 11

called a pump down or draw down test. All of this will be documented and

monitored by the Mmunicipal Authority. As to the effect of this, it won’t be

known until they get into the actual design phases of a project that is being

proposed.

Dan Shortell, 709 Almond Road, commented that he is not against building, but

believes it should be kept to one acre lots. He’s sure the Township would let him

use the building for some type of resort, but do one acre building lots. A good

amount of money could still be made on this. You would add taxpayers, but in the

end it would still cost the taxpayers because that has been proven over and over

where there is building that takes place.

Steven Bailey, 3992 Butternut Drive, commented that he was a long time resident,

moved out of the Township, and came back and loves it. From knowing the Jaindl

family over the years, he believes his work speaks for itself. Look at what he has

done in the different areas. Mr. Bailey is currently paying $840 per year for sewer

service. He shouldn’t have to be paying that much, however, the number of

people who pay the fees are limited. As things develop and more people come on

board, there will be more sharing of this responsibility. With regards to taxes

going up, the cost of everything is going up. During the last election cycle, he

voted for the people on the Board and has confidence in them. He expects that

they will all serve the people.

Robert Mentzell, resident of Treichlers, questioned if there has been a traffic study

done by Lehigh Township in regard to this development. Phil Malitsch

commented that the Township is in the process of updating their Traffic Impact

Improvement Plan for the Township, incorporating the data from these proposals

into that revised plan. Mr. Mentzell questioned if the data shouldn’t be

incorporated before the Board makes a decision because this development will

have one heck of an impact. He would like the Supervisors to consider this

because this will be a major event and will change traffic patterns on the southern

part of the Township forever. Darryl Snover commented that the Board has been

considering this.

Robert Hosking, 243 Stagecoach Road, Allen Township, commented that he has

lived in Allen Township for 25 years. He attended the last Allen Township

meeting and petitioned them to send a letter to Lehigh Township asking for

coordination. The entire property is 451 acres. 37 percent of this is in Allen

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 12

Township so whatever decisions are made in Lehigh Township will have an effect

on the ability of the Allen Township Board of Supervisors and Planning

Commission to effectively respond to what Lehigh Township is doing. 10 percent

of the property is currently developed if you include the lawn area and the

buildings. 60 percent is currently forested. 30 percent is agricultural land. The

reason that the 60 percent is forested is because the vast majority of it is steep

slopes, wetlands, and floodplain. According to the Natural Resource Conservation

Services Custom Soils report that he prepared, 12 percent of it is wetlands. 15

percent is steeper than 20 percent slope. 33 percent is steeper than 15 percent

slopes. He would prefer the ordinances to work with the 15 percent or steeper

slopes as opposed to the 33 percent that was recommended. Lehigh Township has

two parcels totaling 283 acres. 212 acres in one parcel; 71 acres in the other.

Approximately 46 acres are improved as previously noted. 76 acres are in

agricultural production. 57 percent of the property in Lehigh Township is

currently forested. In Allen Township, there is one parcel that is 168 acres.

Overall land use is 46 improved acres, 6 main agricultural fields, 29.2 acres in

Lehigh Township that are floodplain, and 25 acres in Allen Township that are

flood plain. As development density increases, taxes will increase. If you want to

keep taxes down you want to keep as much open space as possible. He has worked

in the land development industry for 25 years and was accepted as an AICP

Planner. He is very familiar with urban planning and can guarantee you that you

will not lower taxes by developing this property. You will increase taxes because

vacant land does not require any additional municipal services or administration

services. It is cheap land. As soon as you put houses on, you will need additional

police, roadways for construction and maintenance. No community can ever keep

up with the infrastructure that it builds in terms of maintaining it with the tax base

that comes from the building of the community. Although religious structures are

typically not eligible for the national register for historic places, this one may be

because it is architecturally significant in a way that is not characteristic of other

religious building. As far as future reuse of the building, he believes everyone

agrees the building should be preserved. The land is not that developable. This is

not the type of land where you would want to put a high density development. He

would be concerned with increasing traffic and the need to increase additional

infrastructure and municipal services which will drive taxes up. Developing this

land the way Mr. Jaindl proposes will not lower the taxes, but increase them.

Darryl Snover questioned if Mr. Hosking acknowledges that development is

possible on the property with the current zoning. Mr. Hosking commented that he

agrees that there could be or will be development on the property. He doesn’t

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 13

doubt that. What he would envision that would happen if the zone wasn’t changed

was that most likely it would be parceled up into one, two or three acres parcels

for individual family residences who would have their own septic, wells, and

would look like the other homes in the area. You would want large parcels with

large homes and people who pay high taxes and don’t require much in terms of

municipal services. Cindy Miller questioned what Mr. Hosking would do with the

Monastery building. Mr. Hosking commented that he would look for a church

who would want it. He believes it should remain as a sacred building. Darryl

Snover commented that churches have looked at it and they couldn’t afford the

renovation costs. Mr. Hosking commented that he was told by Jim Bock, the

Vicar of the Archdioceses that the cost to heat the building is enormous. This is

one of the reasons that they want to get rid of the building because they cannot

afford to heat the building. He predicts that if the zone is changed, it will go like

the way of Martin Towers did. If the developer says now that he wants to keep it

in its existing condition, it will fall.

Richard Hyde, Primrose Lane, commented that he and his family moved here

about two and a half years ago. He has a concern for the environment. He lives

directly below where the runoff from this project will go. What type of

community does the Board want? There are certain values to this area and what is

before the Board now. He agrees that there should not be proposed zoning

changes without a plan. Darryl Snover commented that you cannot create a plan

without zoning. Attorney Backenstoe commented that zoning ordinances and

subdivision ordinances provide for the framework within which development

occurs. Otherwise, it would just be at random and chaotic. That is why in the 60s

Townships started dividing their areas up into districts and uses for those districts.

From their perspective, there is a lot at stake, and also for the structure and the

architectural value and meaning of it and keeping it within the Township.

Cindy Miller commented that the Township has had other interested parties that

have come before them with proposed plans. One wanted to tear down the

building and the Planning Commission told them they were not really interested in

having that happen; thankfully, they walked away. If they would have purchased

the property, they would have tore down the building and there would have been

nothing that the community could have done to stop it. This is why she keeps

asking what people want to go into that building. There has been other

organizations who looked at it and the Township couldn’t really figure out what

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 14

they wanted to do on that site. Darryl Snover commented that some of the

indications that were given from other parties looking at the property were not

what he would have wanted for the Township.

Mary Louse Trexler, 255 Cherryville Road, commented that she has lived directly

across the street from this property for the past 50 years. She has seen the priests,

the sisters and it saddens her that they will never be back. It also saddens her that

the Diocesea re going to unload this building. The taxes are over $300,000 per

year and they cannot afford that. There is an enormous amount of black smoke

that comes out of the stack. The boiler is down more than it is up. It is in

disrepair. Her fear is who is going to buy it. She has seen who has come in bus

loads to look at that property and you don’t rest easy not knowing what will come

there. Depending upon what goes in there, there could be more cars and children

which will overload the schools. She believes the Board and Planning

Commission have a good handle on what Mr. Jaindl can and can’t do. She is very

concerned about what could possibly go in there and we need to think about what

those possibilities would be. She wants to see the Monastery preserved and the

first time that she met Mr. Jaindl, he said the Monastery will stay and it would be

his first project, to preserve the Monastery. She felt that gave everyone so much

peace knowing the Monastery would be preserved. She wants to see what is good

for the Township and good for the property.

Cody Backenstoe, Murphy Road, wanted to thank the Board for doing their due

diligence on these ordinances. He knows there was a lot of back and forth. He is

not anti-development, but his concern is just with the lot sizes because most of the

Township is one acre lots.

Toni Korpics, Cedar Drive, commented that she is not against development, just

the dense development that is being proposed. For them, this development is just

a nuisance, they are not a neighbor. She believes a lot of the proposed uses are

unnecessary competition to other businesses that are already established here in

the Township, for example, a golf course, nurseries, greenhouses, wineries, bed

and breakfasts, beauty parlors on the outside of the Seminary. Inside the

Seminary, there are churches, hotels, convention center, medical, assistance living,

and in addition to all of this, there is all the housing. It just doesn’t fit. She can’t

wrap her head around how all of this fits into our landscape. She lives here

because it is rural. She enjoys looking at the Monastery as is. It shouldn’t be torn

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 15

down. She and her husband attended three meetings just for a non-development

lot line. 14 meetings is nothing for a proposed town center. It deserves a lot more

time and outreach to the community to see what residents think. She would

suggest sending notices home through our public schools, no one reads the paper

anymore. The notices are not being seen unless you drive Cherryville Road.

Frank Vitovitch, South Locust Drive, commented that Attorney Backenstoe

provides a good description of how Planning and Zoning set guidelines. We

already have that in place. Why don’t they follow that rather than change our

guidelines that are already in place? There are a lot of things that could go into the

Seminary. They have heard a Syrian refugee camp, trailer courts, and modulars.

They’ve heard all of it and its all lies. Darryl Snover commented that an Assyrian

group did come in and meet with the Township.

Jeff Schwenk, South Locust Drive, commented that the 200 signatures that we

obtained for the petition were obtained from the surrounding area of the Seminary.

They did not go into other areas of the Township because it is not as pertinent to

those people as it is to the people who live right by the Seminary. He believes that

the major consensus that has come from all the comments is that Mr. Jaindl is

trying to throw everything into this parcel of property. Can’t Mr. Jaindl just go

into this property with the residential portion and forget the rest, forget the office

building, the medical professional building and resort use. Because it is already

zoned for residential uses. This, along with the commercial is where it is going to

explode. Why not turn the Monastery into assisted living as part of a residential

use. Bringing all the other commercial items in is overloading the district and the

roads. David Jaindl commented that uses that are being mentioned are uses which

could potentially go into a future land development plan. That doesn’t mean that

every potential use that is listed in the ordinance will be used. They are just

options. They do not know exactly what will be going in the building. If Mr.

Schwenk is asking if the building can be preserved without having any

development or repurposing of the building under the current zoning, the answer

would be no, it just isn’t possible under the existing zoning. Once the zoning is

hopefully passed, they will be coming back in with a proposed plan that would be

consistent with the ordinances for consideration by the Township. He doesn’t

have the specific uses today, but hopes to be back in 6 to 9 months.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 16

Jerry Pritchard, 4280 Cashew Drive, questioned if the developer would also be the

builder. Mr. Jaindl commented that they would more than likely not be the

builders.

Lisa Hawkins, Manor Drive, commented that she has been a resident for 39 years.

She is curious as to what Mr. Jaindl is so passionate about with the Mary

Immaculate Center, what is his vision for Lehigh Township, and what made him

come to the Township. Mr. Jaindl commented that he was first invited to view the

property about six years ago by the Diocese of Allentown through the Philadelphia

Diocese. What peaked his interest was the structure itself. It’s an extraordinary

structure between the chapel, the building itself, and all of its features. It’s

amazing. He knows of at least three other individuals who were interested and

they were all non-profit except for one, and they were going to dismantle the

building. Even since he has had an interest in the property, he has been

approached for salvage rights for the building and he has no interest in that. When

you look at the chapel, you know you don’t want anyone to touch it and they want

to preserve it. Ms. Hawkins questioned what financial benefit is thought to be

brought to the Township. Mr. Jaindl commented that until they determine the

exact uses and defined land development plan, it is hard to say, but he truly

believes that it is going to be a income producing property.

Larry Chubb commented that he still believes that this property would be

wonderful for wine. Darryl Snover noted that one of the possible uses is for a

winery.

Robert Hosking commented that the petition did not mention Mr. Jaindl because

they don’t have a concern about him as a developer. What they are concerned

with is that they don’t want the zoning changed. Mr. Hosking questioned what

kind of guarantees Mr. Jaindl can give the community that once the rezoning is

done that the building will remain the same as it is today, including the integrity of

the setting. Mr. Jaindl commented that there are no guarantees in life. They want

to develop the property and repurpose the property consistent with one of the uses

in the proposed zoning ordinances. They would like to determine what will be a

feasible use and then come back to the Township with those uses for approval. He

can guarantee that it will be developed with one of the uses contained within the

ordinances.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 17

Dennis Hock, 1043 Bitternut Road, commented that it is his understanding that the

property is currently zoned A/RR. What would prevent Mr. Jaindl from buying

the property and putting turkey pens on it? Mr. Jaindl commented that it is not his

intention to put turkey pens on the property, but generally when something is

zoned agriculture, it could be done.

Cindy Miller commented that today the property is zoned Agricultural/Rural

Residential. The residents are saying they want one acre residential lots, but with

that, there are no requirements for open space. It also means that under the A/RR

cluster development, a developer would be allowed a cluster development which

would have public water and sewer and approximately 350 houses. This is what

could happen today. If it changes to the PRRC, there would be 509 units, more

open space and something would still have to be done with the 125,000 square

foot Monastery Building.

Robert Hosking, 243 Stagecoach Road, Allen Township commented that he has

considered this many times. Under any zoning criteria, you wouldn’t be able to

develop any of the area along the stream corridor that is in the 100 year flood plain

which is almost 20 percent of the property. 33 percent of the property has steep

slopes. If the Supervisors, Planning Commission or Engineers approve

development in any of these areas it would be a nightmare in terms of erosion and

environmental hazards and the cost to the community would be incredible. There

is really only about 40 percent of the property that is developable, even under a

one acre lot scenario. You could go cluster with public water and sewer, but you

would only be talking about 200 residential lots at the most. It wouldn’t be the

350 as what was stated. If he was a developer he would try to find a way to turn

the area around the creek and the steep slopes into open space because that is what

is most suitable. He believes it is misleading to say there would be 350 homes on

that property. Phil Malitsch commented that he hasn’t seen a design of the

property in terms of how much yield there will be, but with the cluster

development option, the lot sizes are less than an acre so it could be more dense.

The undevelopable areas will exist under either situation. Mr. Hosking

commented that he would strongly encourage Lehigh Township to apply the

guidelines that Allen Township submitted to this project.

Blaine Holden, Blue Mountain Drive, commented that he is less concerned with

how many houses can or can’t go onto the property. He is more concerned with

the quality of the development and what goes in there.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 18

Toni Korpics commented that the concern with the open space is that you are

taking pristine land of which most of it is undevelopable. The traffic that will be

generated, even with 300 houses, it will be combined with another 206 peak hour

trips from the commercial development outside the Seminary. When you combine

that with what will be inside the Seminary, it will be over 700 cars. That is a lot of

impact to our community when looking at such a dense development on this

property. Everyone is in agreement that this property needs to be developed in a

suitable manner, but it needs to fit into our community and take into consideration

the safety of our community, and the future of the community. You can’t just

approve these ordinances without having a focused plan. As a Board, what is the

future plan of the community and does this fit into what you see. As a resident,

she is not interested in living in anything that resembles North Whitehall

Township. She doesn’t want development to come this way.

Attorney Backenstoe commented that this would conclude the testimony and the

record has been made and all the documents have been entered into the record.

The hearing is formally closed at this time. The Board can either make a decision

tonight or at some point within the next 90 days.

Dell Grove questioned the status of the agreement to pay the traffic impact fees.

Attorney Backenstoe commented that during one of the meetings that has taken

place over the past several months, the developer had indicated that he would enter

into an impact fee agreement. The Township has an impact fee ordinance which

allows the Township to collect fees from a developer to offset improvements or

have the developer do certain improvements for an equivalent value. The

ordinance which is currently in place has three transportation service areas. This

particular area is not located within any of the service areas. Once this process got

started, the Board of Supervisors recognized the problem and reconvened the

Traffic Impact Fee Committee to create a new Transportation Service Area which

will cover this particular property. The concern was that if the ordinance was

adopted and the TSA was not in place, would the developer not have to pay the

impact fees in which they would otherwise have to pay. Mr. Jaindl had indicated

that he would be willing to enter into a written agreement confirming that he will

comply with any amended Impact Fee Ordinance that was adopted. As of this

moment, we do not have a written fully executed impact fee agreement. There

have been many exchanged drafts and ideas regarding the nature of the agreement,

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 19

but as of this moment, there is not a fully executed agreement. Dell Grove

commented that we have an agreement which is beyond a draft, but the Board has

not had the opportunity to review it in detail.

Cindy Miller made a motion to postpone the decision on the ordinances until the

Board and Attorney Backenstoe have had the opportunity to review the agreement

and make sure that the agreement is in compliance and in the benefit of the

community, while working with the developer, and have this matter placed on the

next meeting agenda. Keith Hantz seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion

carried.

No action was taken on the following ordinances:

A. Ordinance 2015-12, Amending Chapter 180, Zoning to establish Planned

Resort Residential Community Zoning District

B. Ordinance 2015-13, Amending various sections Chapter 147, Subdivision

and Land Development Ordinance, including design standards within the

PRRC Zoning District

C. Ordinance 2015-14, Amending Chapter 138, Stormwater Management as it

pertains to the PRRC Zoning District

III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

A. Minutes of February 9, 2016. Keith Hantz made a motion to approve these

minutes. Cindy Miller seconded the motion. All voted aye Motion

carried.

IV. APPROVAL OF THE BILLS

A. General Fund Checks 19533 to 19568. Cindy Miller made a motion to

approve these bills. Rick Hildebrand seconded the motion. All voted aye.

Motion carried

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Cherryville Intersection. Attorney Backenstoe reported that over the past

several months, many residents have been concerned with the progress of

the Turkey Hill and the improvements to this intersection. The Township

has been waiting for the developers to submit final revised plans which

comply with all the conditions of approval. One of the significant

conditions of the approval was that the developer needed to obtain a

highway occupancy permit. In order for the developer to obtain the HOP,

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 20

PennDOT required them to acquire eight strips of right of way from

neighboring property owners. There were some breakdowns in

communication between the developers and the property owners. With the

assistance of the Supervisors, all eight property owners have now signed

the necessary agreements. This is a process which does take some time.

He, Phil Malitsch, and Cindy Miller have had numerous meetings with

some of the property owners. The Township is responsible for the fourth

leg, and Cindy Miller and the Board of Supervisors have worked through

different committees to acquire grants rather than using Township tax

money for the completion of the intersection.

Paul Nikisher commented that he is glad to see the improvement to the

intersection; it is long overdue. He questioned when the actual work will

begin. Attorney Backenstoe commented that the actual start date of work

will be up to the developer. Phil Malitsch commented that the developer is

hoping to submit plans to PennDOT for two reviews before April.

Attorney Backenstoe commented that once they have submitted their final

revised plans for approval, they should really be able to get the process

moving. Mr. Nikisher questioned if there was anything that the Board of

Supervisors could to do help expedite the process. Attorney Backenstoe

commented that there really isn’t anything the Board can do. The

developer needs to submit the plans for review and approval by the

Township Engineer and also enter into an improvement agreement and

provide security, in the form of a letter of credit or a bond, so that if the

developer would default, the Supervisors would have the money to

complete the improvements.

Darryl Snover commented that the Board wants this project to happen.

They gave the plan conditional approval many months ago and hadn’t

heard anything from the developer. The Board heard from unhappy and

insulted property owners, but not the developer. A final plan was never

submitted. The Board is not the one who was holding this project up. They

want to see it move forward because the Board has a vested interest in this

because they are responsible for the fourth leg. If everything can move

forward at one time, it will save the Township some money. Attorney

Backenstoe commented that the Board of Supervisors can’t force a

developer to bring in their plans; they can only react to what is before them

as permitted by the ordinances.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 21

Bob Hawke questioned what will happen with the old Betty Seidel

Property. Cindy Miller commented that the building is located within the

needed right of way so it will need to be removed one way or another.

Sandy Hopkins commented that she wanted to thank Cindy Miller for her

efforts with the Cherryville Development. She went over and beyond with

meetings and dealing with unhappy landowners to prevent eminent domain

from happening. She also has put a lot of effort into the grants so that we

can have the money for the Betty Seidel building.

Blaine Holden questioned how long a project like this would take. Phil

Malitsch commented that it would be up to the developer as to how they

would move the project forward, although it is not quite that simple

because it is like putting pieces of a puzzle together. He has started

working on the Township’s portion of the project and the trick now is to try

to capture the opportunity to do everything all at once because of both a

common sense standpoint and a financial standpoint so that the Township

gets the economy of scale.

Robert Mentzell questioned what the fate of the Betty Seidel house will be.

Cindy Miller commented that it will most likely get demolished. Mr.

Mentzell questioned if there was an alternative. As a local history buff, he

believes it is a significant building. Cindy Miller commented that when the

appraisal was done, we spoke to the appraiser to see if it would be possible

to have the building moved, and the appraiser didn’t think it would be

feasible because of the construction of the building. It would really be up

to the property owner. The Township got the grant to work with the

property owner. If he would want to move it, it would be up to him. Mr.

Mentzell questioned if the building could be dismantled so that the

sandstone could be saved. Cindy Miller commented that it would be up to

the property owner. The Township received the grant to negotiate with the

property owner for the removal of the building and the demolition of it is

what was quoted in the grant.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Resolution 2016-2, Confirming Intent to Follow Municipal Records

Manual. Keith Hantz made a motion to adopt Resolution 2016-2. Dell

Grove seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 22

B. Resolution 2016-3, Records to be Destroyed in Accordance with the

Municipal Records Manual. Keith Hantz made a motion to adopt

Resolution 2016-3. Dell Grove seconded the motion. All voted aye

Motion carried.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT. Toni Korpics question if there is future planning in place

for the Township. What is the vision that we have for the Township going

forward and what are we looking to do as a Township? How much development

will we allow or how much are we going to deter? Cindy Miller commented that

the Township has a Comprehensive Plan that was adopted. Every ten years, this

plan is supposed to be reviewed and the Planning Commission is currently

working on that review and update. This plan shows all the zones and uses that

the Municipalities’ Planning Code requires us to have. You can see on the map

what is depicted as agricultural rural/residential, commercial and industrial. Toni

Korpics commented that our Township has one of the lowest rates for preserving

lands. Cindy Miller commented that the preserving of land is up to the individual

property owner. The Township has not adopted the additional tax for the

Township to purchase land for preservation. There are quite a few preserved

farms in Lehigh Township. Toni Korpics questioned if things fit within the land

use, is there any deterrent for development. Attorney Backenstoe commented that

the Township must permit all uses in their zoning regulations. Darryl Snover

commented that we have had the State come down on us for trying to deter or

restrict certain items. Attorney Backenstoe commented that group homes are a

perfect example. Many years ago, it was determined that Township must permit

group homes and treat them in the same manner as other residences. So the

Township included them as a special exception in their zoning ordinance because

that would require the group homes to go before the Zoning Hearing Board and

present what they were proposing and it would also allow the Zoning Hearing

Board to place conditions upon them as well so that the residents would feel safer.

Over time, the law changed and the Township was sued in Federal Court and this

provision had to be removed. He argued that it is a permitted use in which

conditions could be placed, but the courts said, no, it must be a flat out permitted

use just like a single family dwelling. It was a federal mandate.

Darryl Snover commented that as far as farmland preservation, he is generally

opposed to having everyone’s taxes go to benefit a particular property owner. It is

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 23

not that he is against farmland preservation in principal, but he would not vote for

something that would increase the taxes on all of our residents for the benefit of

just a handful.

Cindy Miller commented that she feels that a property owner has the right to do

what they want with their property as long as it falls within the guidelines of the

Comprehensive Plan. If a farmer has a farm, and they want to preserve it, it is

their prerogative. If they decide at some point in their life that it is their retirement

and they want to sell it and develop it, who is she to tell them what to do with their

property.

Dennis Hock commented that back in 2002, he believes, it was put on as a

referendum asking if the residents wanted to have their taxes increased by half a

percent for the purpose of preservation and it was voted down.

Mary Trexler commented that in 2008, the Hunsicker farm had been approved for

development, but the market tanked and they walked away. If that would have

been developed, there would have been a significant impact on the school. There

were discussions of how they would safely get the children to the school. Darryl

Snover commented that at that time, the Traffic Impact Ordinances were not in

place so there was limited things that could be done. That is why these ordinances

are so important. The Township actually was able to have input into them as to

what would take place. He believes that the commercial development is good for

the Township. We already have the traffic from the ski area and get no benefit.

At least a hotel and spa would provide us with a direct benefit. He is hopeful that

a well planned development will get some other economic growth started.

Rob Kemmerer commented that he had the privilege to work at the seminary. The

Diocese bought that building 23 or 24 years ago, and within two years they wanted

to get rid of that building. He left there 18 years ago and the building was starting

to fall apart. Last year he had the opportunity to go inside that building and if

something isn’t done soon, it will fall apart. The building was built in 1936 and

was finished in 1939. There are a lot of intricacies to that building, it is a beautiful

building, but it is starting to fall apart. It was hard walking into a building that he

worked in and took pride in, to see it falling apart. If as a community we want to

keep the building we need to do intelligent development. That building won’t last

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 24

much longer. Darryl Snover commented that the price that will be paid to

purchase the property will not be much compared to the expense that he will have

to repair it.

Jim McKeown has been coming to most of the meetings since the ordinance

process has begun. He has not seen Mr. Jaindl waiver on his intentions. He has

heard people ask questions of him and respond to what was asked of him. This is

a 20 year project. There will not be a thousand cars on the road tomorrow. The

Board needs to take this into consideration. It was brought up about wells going

dry. When Woodstone was going in, it was stated then that all the wells of

Danielsville will go dry because Woodstone will be pumping the aquifer dry. He

is not aware of anyone’s wells that have gone dry. As he looks at what is being

proposed, he looks at it as it is better to know the devil, than not know the devil.

He understands the concerns of traffic and the intersection of Blue Mountain Drive

and South Locust, but it is only going to get worse because of the ski area.

Jim McKeown commented that it was mentioned at the last meeting about a police

officer. He hopes that it will be on the next meeting agenda and looking at the

shortage that exists in the police department now. It is his understanding that

some of the officers are working 12 to 14 hours. He is hoping that the Chief who

was hired as a road chief and an administrative chief is helping to fill in a little bit.

Keith Hantz commented that he is helping when he can as permitted by contract.

A resident questioned if the new zoning amendments were to go through, would

he be able to change the zoning and put a resort in on his farm. Will this set a

precedent for other properties? Darryl Snover commented that it wouldn’t

because zoning districts are added and changed all the time and one wouldn’t set a

precedent over another.

Paul Nikisher questioned if part of this change is because this property is unique in

that it has a 125,000 square foot building on it. Cindy Miller commented that the

PRRC zoning has a minimum acreage requirement of 250 acres. The Planning

Commission spent a lot of time looking at all the properties of the Township. Phil

Malitsch commented that originally this entire proposal was submitted in the form

of adding a use within the A/RR zoning district, which is about 95 percent of the

Township. The Planning Commission pushed back pretty hard on this because

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 25

there may not be one property which is 250 acres, but what happens if you start

combining the various farms that are out there. There was a conscious effort made

to box a lot of this in. Cindy Miller commented that the guidelines which were set

for the PRRC was set to be unique because the building is iconic and unique as

well. Toni Korpics commented that she believes the concern is that there will be

businesses with apartments above it appearing throughout the Township. Phil

Malitsch noted that it can’t because it is specific to this particular district. Cindy

Miller commented that there is a 125,000 square foot building which needs to have

something done to it and it makes sense to have some type of commercial in the

building. A resident commented that the Township doesn’t take interest in

preserving other historic buildings within the Township. Darryl Snover

commented that the Board doesn’t get to choose the buildings. Cindy Miller

commented that Mr. Jaindl came to the Board and said that this property is so

unique and that he wants to be able to keep the building and was willing to work

with the Board. The Board doesn’t usually get that opportunity. Usually a

developer comes in with a plan and says this is what I am going to do. A resident

commented that he understands that Mr. Jaindl is a good fit for the building, but

when you read the ordinances and everything that can go in, it is scary, especially

since slope requirements were taken away. Darryl Snover commented that not all

the uses are possible at the same time, and in terms of slope, while the lower slope

requirements were taken away, there was an additional restriction added that

nothing can be done in slopes over 30 percent. It was a give and take. What can

we do that will be the best use of the physical structure without having to tear it

down and what will give the most benefit to the Tonwship and be the best long

term investment for the whole area. It’s a hard decision and you need to have

someone who has enough money and resources to make it realistically happen.

Jerry Pritchard commented that housing is the leading indicator in the economy.

Housing goes up, the economy goes up; housing goes down, the economy goes

down. Most people should be concerned about the economy. If changing these

ordinances means jump starting the local economy, he believes he would do it. If

you want to jump start the economy, jump start the housing. You have a reputable

person looking to come in, a chance to change the ordinances and a chance to just

start the economy. He doesn’t understand what the holdup is. You either want

this to go or you don’t. You need people to get business to want to stay and come

in. If you don’t let the people in, don’t complain that there is no grocery store or

we can’t get the Wal-Mart to come in.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 26

Cindy Miller commented that she looks at it as job creation. There is nowhere in

the community for people to work and they have to drive to Allentown and they

are getting tired of it. They want something more local.

Bob Hawke commented that with regard to the police department, the officers are

working more than 12 or 14 hour shifts; they are working 16 hour shifts. It is not

safe. By the time they travel home, and come back to work you are lucky if they

get six hours of sleep before they have to come back for their next tour. The

department is operating short. He would hope that the Board would take into

consideration the hiring of another full time police officer at their next meeting.

There are grants, that he believes still exist, call COPS Fast Grants, which gives

the Township funding over a period of time. If the Township were to follow the

same procedure that Palmer Township does, you would hire part time workers

with no benefits involved to save some money, but they are guaranteed 32 hours a

week of employment. The Board also needs to consider that one officer is very

new, very young and inexperienced and another officer who could retire within

two years. Palmer Township takes the part time officer who is already hired and

trained and knows the procedures and the area, and they transfer him from part-

time to full time. He would also hope that the Board would take this into

consideration and use it as a practice because you want the best people in the

department. There are more and more officers getting shot and he doesn’t believe

that one officer should be allowed to work by himself in this Township. We have

10,000 people in this Township. It is scary and not safe. Moore Township

guarantees two officers on at a time per shift. If you have part time officers

working 32 hours, you could use them at the critical times from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m.

Crime in the Township is out of control. Drugs are out of control. It’s bad and it

is only going to get worse over time.

Darryl Snover commented that the Board has been considering part time, but some

of the hurdles are within the contract and it is not conducive to part time, but it is

something that we are working on.

Keith Hantz commented that is why he brought it up during the last meeting. He

believes that with the money that was left from last year’s budget, we should be

seriously looking at putting it towards hiring another officer, at a minimum half

way through the year. Bob Hawke commented that by the time the advertising

and testing is completed and an officer is on the street, it is almost a half of a year

and until he completes the FTO program, you are talking months.

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 27

Cindy Miller commented that when she brought up the hiring of a part time officer

during budget time, everyone at the table said no, let it up to the Chief. Now all of

a sudden everyone is saying we need to hire another officer. Keith Hantz

commented that during the last three budgets, Cindy Miler and Sandy Hopkins

were against hiring any officer. Cindy Miller commented that was not true. At

the beginning of the year, she brought up part time. Keith Hantz commented that

when the salary was included in the budget, there was no interest. Robert Hawke

commented that he is asking the Board to do something about the police

department as a group and what is best for the community.

Jeff Schwenk commented that you talk about the commercial part and attracting

more business, but when you look around, there is more and more vacant

commercial real estate. Adding more doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be

occupied all the time.

Mr. Schenk questioned why the Board couldn’t give the residents an idea as to

which way the decision will go; why do they need to wait two weeks. Darryl

Snover commented that the Board has an agreement that they want to review prior

to making the decision. He did note that Mr. Jaindl came to the Board several

months ago and asked if the Board would be interested in the project and would

they be willing to work with him to come up with something nice for that

particular piece of land. As the result, the Planning Commission, at the Board’s

direction, worked closely with Mr. Jaindl to come up with a plan that would

protect the residents. As discussed earlier, it was going to be just a use added to

the zoning district, but then it was determined that if they do that, it would apply to

all areas within the A/RR district so that is why the new zoning district made

sense. He may not completely agree with every last detail, but he understands

from a business standpoint things are needed to make this viable. No businessman

goes to business to lose money. Cindy Miller commented that she is in favor of

the ordinances. She is waiting for the agreement. As soon as she sees what is

going on with this agreement, she can make her final vote. At this point, she

wants it. She believes it is the best thing for this community overall. It may not

be beneficial for the immediate residents who may be impacted and she

understands that they don’t like what is happening because it is change, but this

community needs this. Darryl Snover commented that he has heard the concerns.

He doesn’t want to minimize the traffic or the potential impact on the water, but

with all the guidelines that are set forth between DEP, EPA and all the engineering

that is involved with a development of this scale, it is immense. They can’t just

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 28

simply take a short cut because there are multiple agencies watching over what is

taking place. That is part of the flack that the Board takes because there are so

many requirements being handed down to use from the State that a simple lot line

adjustment that needs to be recorded at the County costs $20,000 to $30,000.

$30,000 to draw a line on a piece of paper for non-development is a ridiculous

amount of money, but there was nothing the Board could do because it was

regulations that were handed down to them. The Board is trying to make sure that

this development happens with enough input, that the berms are there, proper

facades are used on the building so the overall feel of the area is maintained and

pleasing to look at. These are all things that were put into these ordinances that

have taken time. You may say it was only 14 meetings, but it was 14 meetings of

hours and hours and then outside of that there was additional time spent reading

and understanding and the lawyers going back and forth through the process.

Cindy Miller commented that the Township had Mr. Jaindl post a cash escrow

account from which he is paying for all of the Township legal and engineering

fees so that there is no cost to the taxpayers because the Board did not want the tax

payers to pay for the expenses of working through the process of developing these

ordinances. This is an expense and a risk that he has taken not knowing whether

the Board will or won’t approve these ordinances. These expenses are above what

he will pay for the purchase of the property. Darryl Snover commented that he

doesn’t have any guarantees on this. Who knows what will happen if the

agreement doesn’t come through.

Paul Nikisher commented that he believes the Board is to be commended for the

time they have put into this process, especial Cindy Miller who serves on both

Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. When you look at all that goes

into this, you’ve got 14 meetings times of two or three hours each, plus all the

days and weeks in between the meetings where the Board reads through things,

researches things, and sits through other meetings. He believes that the Board has

the interest of the whole Lehigh Township in mind, it is not just them, but it is the

Board’s Township as well. What scares him is what he cannot see. We see what

is being proposed. What happens if this goes the wrong way and it’s a non-profit

that the community does not want? It’s not as easy as just fighting it. Darryl

Snover commented that it is an existing property that is for sale and there is

existing zoning which will allow them to do certain things and it wouldn’t matter

what the Board wants. We have a chance to try to shape it into something positive

Supervisor Minutes

February 23, 2016

Page 29

overall. He likes the commercial development. Commercial development is

really good for the tax base. A hotel or resort is better than a Seminary. You still

get the same traffic, people are going to be there.

Mr. Nikisher also commented that for the safety of the residents and the officers

he would also like to see police added, but would like the Board to look at the

difference between one full time and two part time officers. It could take several

months before you could actually get someone here full time. Darryl Snover

commented that it is something that was looked at in the past. He doesn’t know

that the Township could offer a part time officer the 32 hours like Palmer

Township does, not because of lack of hours, but because of contractual issues

that need to be resolved. Bob Hawke commented that he believes that something

could be worked out with the Association.

Keith Hantz requested that a discussion of hiring a police officer be placed on the

next meeting agenda.

VIII. ADJOURN. Dell Grove made a motion to adjourn. Cindy Miller seconded the

motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.