Whitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania
Board of Supervisors
Sara Erlbaum, Chair
Amy Grossman, Vice-Chair
Robert R. Hart
Cathy Peduzzi
James A.Totten

Meeting Minutes

Filter:

Board of Supervisors
Thursday, October 12 2006

A Regular Monthly Meeting of the Whitemarsh Township Board of Supervisors was held on Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 8:00 PM in the Whitemarsh Township Building, 616 Germantown Pike, Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania.

Supervisors Present: Joseph P. Corcoran, III, Chairman; Steven S. Brown, Vice Chairman; Jonathan D. Weiss; Jean McLenigan; and Kelly C. Wall.

Also Present: Christopher R. van de Velde, Township Manager; Bruce G. Horrocks, Assistant Township Manager; Neil A. Stein, Esq., Township Solicitor; and James C. Sullivan, PE, Township Engineer.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATION

1.The Whitemarsh Township Business Association’s Fall Pumpkin Festival will be held on Saturday, October 14, 2006 from 12 to 4 PM at Miles Park.The rain date is Saturday, October 21, 2006.

2.Chairman Corcoran indicated that he has correspondence from the President of the Upper Dublin Township Board of Commissioners that he will pass along to the other Board members.He also has a Notice of Service from the Public Utility Commission concerning a proposed change to the railroad bridge crossing Bethlehem Pike.

MEETING MINUTES

The Board considered the Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2006 and September 14, 2006.

Chairman Corcoran noted that only three Board members were in attendance at the August 24th Board meeting.

On a Motion by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor McLenigan (Vote 3-0-2, Corcoran and Wall abstained), the Board approved the Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2006.

Chairman Corcoran stated that he circulated three proposed changes to the September 14, 2006 Minutes via email to the other Board members.He requested the following changes.

§Page 7, Last Paragraph – change “Environmental Advisory Board” to “Open Space Committee”.

§Page 11, Item 6 – change “list of upcoming general fund projects that were initiated by prior Boards” to “list of any special escrows created or initiated by prior Boards”.

§Page 17, Item 3 – add “Chairman Corcoran asked that in the future, an issue such as this immediately be brought to the Board’s attention.”

On a Motion by Supervisor Wall, seconded by Supervisor Brown (Vote 5-0), the Board approved the Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2006.

There was no public comment on these actions.

SUPERVISORS PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS

1.Issuance of Use and Occupancy Permit – R&S Imports

Calvin Bonenberger, Director of Codes Enforcement, explained that R&S Imports previously came before the Board seeking authorization to receive a Footings and Foundation Only Permit, which was approved.He stated that he thinks they should obtain the same authorization from the Board to receive a building permit.He advised that the applicant has completed the building within the same footprint as before it burned down.Mr. Bonenberger said that he is confident that the applicant will meet all of the remaining fire and safety issues.He stated that after all of the safety issues are satisfied, he would be issuing a Use and Occupancy Permit which is not related to the pending land development plan for the property.

Supervisor McLenigan asked how the building could be occupied while the temporary safety measures, as required by Mr. Bonenberger, are being removed and reconstructed to make way for the provisions of land development approval, for example the installation of a storm water basin.Mr. Bonenberger replied that the business could remain open while one side of the property is closed for reconstruction.He noted that they will only be permitted to operate the building as it was prior to the fire until the necessary zoning and land development approval is obtained.

Chairman Corcoran asked Neil Stein, Esq., Township Solicitor, if there is anything that the Board should say about this issue.Mr. Stein responded that there is not.

Chairman Corcoran inquired as to whether notice of the issuance of a Use and Occupancy Permit was sent to Upper Dublin Township or to Fort Washington Rescape.Bruce Horrocks, Assistant Township Manager, responded that he placed a telephone call to Mr. Blood today.

Chairman Corcoran asked that going forward staff take the necessary steps to notify any municipality that borders a property under development in the Township.

In response to an inquiry by Mr. Bonenberger, Chairman Corcoran stated that when in doubt, notice should be given with the hope that reciprocal consideration would be afforded Whitemarsh Township also.

Mr. Bonenberger will proceed with the issuance of the Use and Occupancy Permit for R&S Imports.


2.Consideration to Amend Meeting Agenda

Christopher van de Velde, Township Manager, asked the Board to consider amending this agenda to add “Consideration of a Resolution to Authorize the Preparation and Considera­tion of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Map of Whitemarsh Township and to Schedule a Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Ordinance” under Action Items.

On a Motion by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor McLenigan (Vote 5-0), the Board amended the Meeting Agenda for October 12, 2006 to add Consideration of a Resolution to Authorize the Preparation and Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Map of Whitemarsh Township and to Schedule a Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Ordinance.

There was no public comment on this action.

3.Permitting and Fees for Landscapers’ Dumping Privileges

Mr. van de Velde explained that landscapers and residents have been using the Town­ship dump facility for years to dispose of brush, yard waste, etc.He noted that the rate at which landscapers are dumping waste is too much for staff to usefully grind into wood chips.He stated that the Director of Public Works has suggested that the Township begin a program of licensing and providing stickers to contractors for an annual fee of perhaps $75, with a minimal charge per dump per size of the truck from $5 to $20.He indicated that this action would require the adoption of an Ordinance at a later date.

Mr. van de Velde asked for authorization to proceed with the preparation of an Ordin­ance and the required advertising.He added that the fees could be reviewed yearly and changed accordingly.He stated that residents would still be permitted to drop their own yard waste in the dump area at the Public Works facility.

Supervisor Weiss asked how staff could be sure about what exactly is being dumped off, noting his concern about the quality of the mulch material that is placed on lawns.

Jerry Breitmayer, Director of Public Works, said that it is for this reason that the Town­ship needs to implement a better system.He stated that the drop-offs cannot be monitored every minute of the day and that a great deal of time is spent removing unwanted materials from the dump piles.He said that a check point could be set up for contractors to stop and have their loads checked before dumping.Mr. Breitmayer indicated that he is looking for a control system for contractors, but that residents could continue to drop off waste free of charge.

Supervisor Weiss stated that the plan makes sense.Supervisor Brown agreed.

Chairman Corcoran directed Mr. van de Velde to proceed with the development of an Ordinance with regard to permitting and fees for contractor dumping privileges.


4.Auto Repair Facilities – Visual Improvements

Bruce Horrocks, Assistant Township Manager, noted that the Board previously met with several area auto repair shop owners to discuss the possibility of making visual improvements on their properties.He stated that he would ask a planner from the Montgomery County Planning Commission to assist in developing some streetscape-type improvements, unless the Board objects.He noted that the Township pays for the County service whether the planner is used or not.He stated that the objective is to try to persuade the owners of these properties that making visual improvements would be to their benefit as well.

Chairman Corcoran confirmed with Mr. Horrocks that the County Planner would be made aware of the comments and suggestions of the Board members on this issue.

Supervisor Brown asked that the Board be made aware of the schedule and assured that the County Planning Commission is going to adhere to the schedule.Mr. Horrocks stated that it would be done as fast as possible, but that the work with the County could interfere with the schedule to resolve issues with a particular property owner prior to a Zoning Hearing scheduled for December.

Supervisor Brown said that it sounds like there is enough time to develop some general concepts.

5.Update on Fire and Emergency Services Study

Chairman Corcoran advised that the Township has commissioned a study by an indi­vidual consultant group to work with the Fire Companies, Ambulance Association, Fire Marshal, and Emergency Services Board to review the status of the Companies and provide recom­mendations.He noted that the Board of Supervisors has received a copy of the preliminary study.

Calvin Bonenberger, Fire Marshal, explained that the Chiefs of each Fire Company, Ambulance Association, and Police Department just received a copy of the report and that it was too soon to discuss the report at the recent meeting of the Emergency Services Board.He stated that the Chiefs of the various departments indicated that they are committed to being part of the process.He said that he has received written comments that he would be circulating them among those that submitted comments.He advised that a meeting would be held on October 24, 2006 to determine the format to present the comments from the other half of the survey, which involves participation from the emergency personnel.

Chairman Corcoran asked if only one meeting would be scheduled or if several meetings would be necessary.Mr. Bonenberger stated that there would be one meeting after each department has seen the comments of the others.

Mr. van de Velde said that there are some major issues to be considered which he does not think could be resolved in one single meeting.He stated that it would take several weeks of discussion before the Board receives a consensus of the comments.

Mr. Bonenberger stated that the Emergency Departments have been advised that there would a consensus agreement of the comments to be presented to the Board of Supervisors and that any strong opinions of participants could be forwarded to the Board members directly.

In response to an inquiry by Supervisor Wall, Mr. Bonenberger indicated that he was not planning to circulate the comments received as yet to the Board of Supervisors.Supervisor Wall stated that she would like to see the comments, as liaison to the Emergency Services Board.

Mr. van de Velde added that Supervisor Wall should see the comments because she will need to participate in the discussions.Mr. Bonenberger stated that he would provide Super­visor Wall with a copy of the comments next week.

In response to an inquiry by Chairman Corcoran, Mr. Bonenberger indicated that he did not see anything of a budgetary nature come out of the discussions for 2007.He added that the overall planning concept is more long-range.

Mark Helms (4031 LaFrance Road) inquired as to when the public would see the report.Chairman Corcoran stated that the Board is hoping to hear from the Emergency Services Board soon on the initial draft and have a modified set of recommendations for the Board of Super­visors to consider, followed by a public hearing.Mr. van de Velde concurred but noted that he could not put a time schedule on it yet because he does not know the magnitude of feedback and would likely not know until the end of October.

Supervisor Weiss added that the report is not complete, as the fire company personnel have not actively participated in the survey yet.Mr. Bonenberger concurred, stating that the report is currently in a draft form based on the information gathered by the consultants.He noted that the Fire Companies would be participating next and that the process could go back and forth, depending on input and comments.

Chairman Corcoran said that nobody is trying to hide anything and that the Township is challenged with trying to get three independently minded companies to agree on the future.He said that the Fire Companies need time to work out the details of the draft report and to try to reach a consensus.Supervisor Weiss added that the Board of Supervisors promised as much to the companies.

Chairman Corcoran stated that it would be an open process and that it would come back to the Board for consideration.He said that he assumes everyone would see the recommenda­tions at that time.

6.Germantown Pike Construction Planning – Request for Proposal

Mr. van de Velde stated that there seemed to be some confusion at the last meeting as to what he was proposing to do for this project.He reported that he prepared a document that outlines the substance of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and asked for input from the Board members.

Mr. van de Velde indicated that he already received some feedback from Chairman Corcoran who asked that the far ends of Germantown Pike not be forgotten, although the focus area has been in the Lafayette Hill Commercial District from Joshua Road to Church Road.He stated that these areas could be incorporated into the project even though the concept plan did not include much detail.He noted that he does not want to go too far with the potential for sidewalks on the south side until the sidewalk on the north side is worked out with PennDOT and approved.

Chairman Corcoran said that he asked that Mr. van de Velde and the consultants take a look at the Plymouth Meeting portion of Germantown Pike, noting that initially the Board set out to develop a plan that ran from Butler Pike to the border of Springfield Township.He stated that he has seen and heard comments about the need to get Plymouth Meeting back into the plan, which plan now only starts at Joshua Road.He said that this may require adding a second phase to the project or to be part of some future development process where the Township would actually see a sidewalk on the south side of Germantown Pike.He said that the Board is sending a message to the residents that these areas would not be forgotten.

Mr. Horrocks indicated that the proposed RFP would be developed into a formal version after obtaining comments from the Board about the scope of the project.

Supervisor Brown said that he is reflecting on the concept of sidewalks on the south side of Germantown Pike.He said that at times the Board has talked about a sidewalk from Butler Pike to the High School on the north side.He stated that he could see a sidewalk on the south side up to Mayflower Road but he cannot see prioritizing spending money to extend the sidewalk all the way to Joshua Road given the other needs in the Township.

Chairman Corcoran said that he acknowledged that point in his comments and sug­gested sidewalks on the south side as a Phase II portion of the project.He said that residents of Mayflower Road have a real risk when trying to get to Miles Park by crossing Germantown Pike.He indicated that this concept should get into the strategic plan, but agreed that it is not a high priority in terms of where money should be spent.

Supervisor Brown inquired as to the match through grant monies, to which Mr. van de Velde stated that the match is for $400,000 and that the estimated total cost of the project is $2.2 Million.Mr. van de Velde said that if all of those items were included at that level, the Township would exceed what it has as its match requirement and the federal grant.He noted that some of those cost estimates seem high so he is not prepared to tell the Board to cate­gorize or prioritize until the next phase is accomplished and more precise engineering and cost estimates are developed.

Supervisor Brown thanked Mr. van de Velde for providing the actual comment sheets from individuals about this project.He stated that there seems to be a consistency as to what people want along Germantown Pike.He said that the focus may need to be on a few, more important things and that some larger items may need to be cut out for now.Mr. van de Velde said that he does not want to do anything prematurely.Chairman Corcoran said that this conversation will be coming back to the Board in a month or so, at which time some hard decisions will need to be made.

Mr. van de Velde advised that when the RFP becomes a draft of the full contract, it will go to the Township Solicitor for review.

Chairman Corcoran asked that a graphic timeline be added to the RFP so that everyone knows exactly when things should get done.He also asked that coordination with community and business leaders be added as well.

Supervisor Brown indicated that community and business leaders are well represented through the Advisory Committee.Mr. van de Velde said that he referenced the Advisory Committee and he presumes that the Committee would include the continuum of the group, who the Township would keep informed and receive feedback from, before the details are finalized.

Chairman Corcoran acknowledged that that aspect may be redundant.

It was the consensus of the Board members that staff could proceed with the development of a Request for Proposal for the Germantown Pike Construction Planning.

7.Harts Lane Planning Committee

Douglas Knauss, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that at the last open house to discuss the new park facility on Harts Lane, there were 18 people interested in joining a planning group.Mr. Knauss noted however that such a group would be too large, with the addition of other key individuals and members of the community to be included.He indicated that the interested individuals would be contacted to set up interviews with Township staff and members of the Parks and Recreation Board, with final recommendations made to the Board of Supervisors.He indicated that their goal is to have a planning group up and running by some time in November.

Supervisor McLenigan said that she is concerned that the Board still has not approved the entire Parks and Recreation Master Plan and that the proposed park on Harts Lane has been carved away from the Plan.She is concerned that it could have an impact over the success of the entire plan going forward.

Mr. Knauss advised that one of the recommendations in the Master Plan is to establish neighborhood/pocket parks.He said that the size of this property would fall into that realm, noting that there are no defined or specified sites in the Plan.

Supervisor Weiss commented that there are no other planning committees developed for the other parts of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.Mr. Knauss said that right now there is no major development going on at other parks, noting that when other parks come up for evaluation, committees would be formed with area residents.Mr. Knauss advised that future budgets are being built out of the recommendations from the Master Plan.

Supervisor Weiss said that he would like to make sure that the Harts Lane Planning Committee understands how this new park would fit into the Master Plan.Mr. Knauss stated that general recommendations from the Master Plan would be utilized throughout the process.

Supervisor Brown asked about inclusion of the Police Department in the discussions.Mr. Knauss said that representatives could be brought in at key times in the process but that they should not need to be at every meeting.

Eileen Behr, Chief of Police, advised that she has received copies of the plans for review.

Supervisor Brown noted that all of the meetings of the Planning Committee would be open public meetings for anyone to attend.He asked that minutes be taken of the meetings, and Mr. Knauss concurred.

Chairman Corcoran suggested that a representative from the Environmental Advisory Board be added to the list of proposed participants.Mr. Knauss concurred.

Chairman Corcoran said that the Board of Supervisors would decide who would serve as liaison to the Committee and suggested the Board of Supervisors’ liaison to the Parks and Recreation Board.He stated that he is not sure about including two Art Center Board mem­bers, as he feels that it is most important to hear from the community.Mr. Knauss concurred.

Supervisor Weiss suggested a member of the Planning Commission be included as well.

Chairman Corcoran stated that the number of resident participants may need to be increased to cover all areas of the community.Mr. Knauss said that it was suggested at a Parks and Recreation Board meeting that one of the participants be both a resident and Art Center Board member.

Chairman Corcoran said that the people who actually asked for the park should not be ignored.Mr. Knauss concurred, noting that each of the significant areas would be represented.

Mr. Knauss said that a list of recommended individuals would be forthcoming to the Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Weiss indicated that his suggestion to place a member of the Planning Commission on the Committee could be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Board.However, he noted that the Planning Commission should be aware about the thought process relative to that area of the Township.

Supervisor McLenigan stated that doubling up on representation wherever possible is indicated.She said that a very successful plan of this park will begin with a very thoughtful planning of the Committee and that a thorough look should be taken at the proposed partici­pants.

Peter Cornog (3009 Church Road) inquired as to the updated timeframe for Board consideration of the final approval of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.Mr. Knauss indicated that he just sent the second draft comments to the planning firm and is hopeful to make a public presentation at the first Board of Supervisors meeting in November, with possible adoption of the Master Plan in December or January.

8.Miles Park Pavilion and Concession Stand Bid Opening

Mr. van de Velde advised that reasonable bids were received for the Miles Park Pavilion project and that there is work being done by the engineering and architectural team who put together the bid documents and plans.He expects to have their final recommendation on the bid award in the next few days.He stated that the Director of Public Works is still ascertaining what portions of the project could be accomplished by his staff.He indicated that a tight schedule is planned in order to be ready by spring 2007 with both buildings.He noted that staff should be back to the Board of Supervisors on October 26th with requests for approval to award bids.He said that he is optimistic that the overall cost will not be outrageous and that the project could be accomplished within the two-year capital budget structure.

Chairman Corcoran stated that the Board members are unanimously in favor of getting the project done quickly, but he asked that ground not be broken before running the overall plan past the Board.Mr. van de Velde said that the overall plan has already been past the Board, noting that the next step is to select the construction firm to do the work and award the contract.

Chairman Corcoran clarified that two buildings are planned and that there were serious questions raised about doing anything on the lower parking lot or the lower concession stand/ restrooms because of the impact on the Challenger Field.

Mr. Knauss advised that representatives of the Whitemarsh Little League were in attendance at the recent Parks and Recreation Board meeting to express major concerns about not having use of the Challenger Field next season, as well as to provide ideas about lighting, fencing, etc.Mr. Knauss noted that after that meeting, he met with Mr. van de Velde, the engineer, and the planner to discuss the timeline for completion of the field and parking lot.He said that the majority of that work is planned to be done by the Public Works Department so it would not be a major inconvenience to hold off on the parking lot expansion and the baseball field relocation until the conclusion of the 2007 baseball season.Mr. Knauss indicated that the Little League may have to limit the age groups that play on the field during the spring because the new concession building will be constructed in the outfield.He noted that the Little League representatives indicated that that would not be an issue.Mr. Knauss offered that the Town­ship would provide electricity for their League equipment.He noted that the current advanced instructional field could be modified to accommodate the older age groups.He added that turf work is planned for all of the baseball fields as part of the Township’s new turf and landscaping maintenance program.He said that the League will not have to worry about any children not being able to play because of a lack of fields, and he indicated that the President of the Whitemarsh Little League stated that the proposed plans and modifications are acceptable.

Chairman Corcoran summarized by stating that the Board would be presented with an entire product for consideration, with the individual timelines to be tweaked as necessary.

In response to an inquiry by Supervisor McLenigan, Mr. Knauss advised that bids would not be affected because all of the baseball field relocation would be handled by Township staff.He indicated that it would be a joint effort between the Township and the Little League to develop a field that works for everybody.

Supervisor Brown asked who would do the grading for the storm water management.Mr. Sullivan stated that the Township would not be doing any of the grading for the basin.Supervisor Brown said that the proposed plan of action sounds like it would meet the needs of everyone and get the job done.

Rich Katz (5098 Cold Point Hill Road) asked if expansion of the parking lot was part of the bid process.Mr. Knauss indicated that the majority of the work would be tied into the Township’s portion of the project.Mr. van de Velde added that parts could be added back in later through bid alternates.

Mr. Katz asked for details about the proposed location of the t-ball field.Mr. Knauss explained, noting that the t-balls would not be greatly impacted until after the 2007 season when all of the plans are finalized.

Chairman Corcoran confirmed that the Whitemarsh Little League is in basic agreement with the proposal and that a concession stand would be constructed in the left outfield but because of the age groups using the field, the structure would not interfere with the use of the field next season.

Chairman Corcoran advised that the Board members received a letter from the Little League outlining their vision for the Challenger Field.He indicated that if the League has a grand vision for the use of a field, the park planners should have input on where it should happen.

Chairman Corcoran further noted that the Board of Supervisors is interested in a ground-breaking ceremony for this project.He asked that such an event be scheduled for a time when all of the Board members could be present.Mr. Knauss concurred.

Chairman Corcoran announced that the Parks and Recreation Board has a new member, Beth Moy Jang.

9.Township Employment of Former Supervisors

Supervisor McLenigan explained that in May 2006, she proposed the development of a Township Ordinance to place limitations on the employment of present or future supervisors as full, part-time, temporary employees, vendors or consultants, and a limitation that such an individual not be employed in those capacities for a minimum of one year after his/her term, elected or appointed, expires.She indicated that she added a paragraph concerning appoint­ment to Township positions because there are three positions within the Township that are appointed by the Board of Supervisors as opposed to employed by the Township Manager.

Chairman Corcoran asked if any feedback has been received, to which Supervisor McLenigan indicated that she has not received any comments.

Supervisor Weiss asked Supervisor McLenigan if the proposed Ordinance was written by her, and she responded that she did write it.

Supervisor Weiss asked Supervisor McLenigan if she intended to apply the proposed policy retroactively.She responded that it was not intended as such.

Supervisor Weiss said that it should be made crystal clear that the proposed Ordinance is not intended to be a punishment or a retroactive policy, particularly as it relates to the former Board member currently employed by the Township.

Supervisor Weiss proposed the scenario of a former Board of Supervisors candidate who lost the election but was subsequently appointed to the Zoning Hearing Board.He in­quired as to how this type of situation would be handled and whether the Ordinance is intended to apply.Supervisor Weiss further stated that he is unsure about the consultant language, as proposed for the Ordinance.

Supervisor Weiss said that he does not like the proposed language that would limit the hiring of a former supervisor until one year after their elected term expires.He said that if a Board member resigned for any reason within the first year of their term, they should not have to wait until their full four-year term expires before being hired by the Township.He stated that he is not even aware of a federal policy that would not allow such a circumstance.He said that the language does not need to be as broad as has been proposed.

Chairman Corcoran indicated that the proposed Ordinance is a suggestion from a Board member that should go to the Township Solicitor to be further developed.Supervisor McLeni­gan indicated that the language proposed was simply an off-the-cuff place to begin a discus­sion, and she concurred that it should go to the Solicitor for review.

Supervisor Weiss again asked if the language is also intended for future appointments of Board members to Township Boards or Commissions.

Supervisor McLenigan asked if a member of the Zoning Hearing Board would fall under any of the categories as she has presented.

Chairman Corcoran stated that it would fall under the language related to the appoint­ment to a Township position in the second sentence proposed by Supervisor McLenigan.

Supervisor McLenigan said that perhaps that language should be tweaked, with specific exclusions such as the Zoning Hearing Board, or limited appointed positions such as the three specified in her proposal.She said that the proposed language is a place to start and was not meant for any particular volunteer committee, including the Planning Commission or the Zoning Hearing Board.

Supervisor Wall agreed with Supervisor Weiss as to the difference between the expira­tion of a term or the resignation.She said that she would not want someone to have to wait one year after their term expiration to apply for employment, even if they resigned from their position.

Supervisor McLenigan stated that there should be some differential between whether the person resigns and whether the term expires because she feels that there is room for abuse under the current system, which is why she is proposing such a policy.She said that the hiring or appointing of a person within one year of his/her resignation is too soon.She suggested a two-year wait period in this circumstance instead of the full four-year term expiration.

Supervisor Weiss indicated that this type of provision exists in other levels of govern­ment but he said that he is unaware of any other governmental body that would take the waiting period beyond one year for any reason.

Chairman Corcoran summarized that there is a clear disagreement on this issue.

Supervisor Brown indicated that he has no problem with the way in which the proposed policy has been framed.He said that it does not get in the way of a former supervisor who could be an asset on a volunteer committee.He stated that he is curious as to whether anyone has run into this situation in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Stein said that he has never seen such a policy in a municipal context; however, he stated that many revolving door policies exist in other levels of government.

Chairman Corcoran asked if a super majority decision would make sense, as there may be a case in the future where there is an Ordinance on the books that would hurt the Board.He suggested that the Board leave some provision for a future Board to overrule the current Board’s thinking, without changing the law, and by unanimous vote, a future Board could hire somebody.

Supervisor Weiss stated that the suggestion is a good idea.He said that if there is no local counterpart to the equivalent, the Board could be ruling out possibilities if there is no catchall in place.

Chairman Corcoran said that the clarification that the policy would not apply to volunteer positions would likely take the issue out of play and that he would support either waiting one year or waiting until the end of the term.

Supervisor McLenigan suggested that the Board of Supervisors and the Ethics Com­mittee both be required to agree on overriding any provisions of the Ordinance.

Joseph Meo (4122 Jackson Drive) recommended that the proposed policy be considered by the Board, stating that the proposal by Supervisor McLenigan is excellent.

Amy Cornog (3009 Church Road) stated that Mr. Zeock’s employment issue was discussed in May and that the off-the-cuff nature of the proposed policy is punitive.She commented that the Board is spending too much time on this issue.

Chairman Corcoran concluded that the Board has directed the Solicitor to develop a draft Ordinance to be considered for adoption, at which time public comment would be heard.

Supervisor Weiss clarified that any policy considered would be non-retroactive.

10.Political Signs

Supervisor Weiss asked for clarification as to what is permissible by Ordinance with regard to the placement of political signs on public property.

Mr. van de Velde said that individuals have the right to place political signs on private property, which may be very public locations.He noted that signs are frequently placed on private property with proper permission.

Supervisor McLenigan asked if there is any requirement for removal of signs after an election.Mr. Stein advised that it is not addressed in the Township Code.

Mr. Horrocks added that many zoning ordinances do address the issue and usually set a timeframe for signs of 30 days prior to the election and 10 days following the election.He stated, however, that enforcement was difficult because nobody wanted to touch a political sign.He said that most municipalities prohibit the placement of signs on park property, which would be a policy call if it is not in the Township Code.

Mr. van de Velde indicated that he is aware of one community that set a ten-day time limit for removal of signs after an election and if public workers had to remove a sign, then the political campaign was charged for costs.

Chairman Corcoran stated that the Board taking any policy action on this issue during the hot season of politics is probably not a good idea.

Mr. Knauss advised that political signs are removed when they appear on Township park property except on Election Day, as some sites are voting locations.

Amy Cornog (3009 Church Road) stated that she is in favor of allowing the placement of signs.She said that other municipalities sometimes require a deposit for placement of signs and if the signs are not removed within a specified time, then the deposit is retained to cover costs.

Peter Cornog (3009 Church Road) stated that the number of political signs in some of the illegal locations is excessive.He said that he likes the idea of enforcement and that he would like to see the Board take action on requiring a deposit from the parties for the placement of signs.

Joseph Meo (4122 Jackson Drive) cited the right to political free speech.He said that the Township is on shaky ground by attempting to hinder the federally-guaranteed rights of political free speech.He commented that basing such a hindrance on an individual’s variable sense of esthetics is putting the Township on thin ice.He suggested that the Township Solici­tor study the issue and communicate with both parties to invoke voluntary, sensible compliance with the existing law.He commented that the community does not need a Township Ordinance regulating this issue.

Supervisor Weiss asked Mr. Meo if he has a problem with the proposed 30-day prior and 10-day after an election sign placement timeframe.Mr. Meo again commented on the right of political free speech.

Supervisor McLenigan cited the fact that voter turnout is very low.She commented that one person’s esthetic problem may be another person’s way of saying get out and vote.

Chairman Corcoran summed up by stating that the Board is not considering any Ordinance at this meeting, nor is it authorizing the drafting of any Ordinance.He said that the Board members are in agreement that any such action would only be considered after the election.He said that the details of this argument should be revisited if and when there is an Ordinance under consideration.

Peter Cornog stated that it was determined last year that the Township has no Ordin­ance concerning the placement of political signs and that the longstanding practice of the timely removal of signs was violated.He said that he would like to see the party leaders resolve the issue.

Chairman Corcoran indicated that there are some good suggestions and concerns for the Board to consider.

Supervisor Brown said that the decent thing to do is to ask permission before placing a sign on private property.

Supervisor Weiss stated that the abundance of political signs is overkill and that he thinks some people have stopped voting because of it.

William Shaw (101 North Lane) said that Township-owned property belongs to everyone and that any signs placed as such are on taxpayer property.

Chairman Corcoran again stated that the Board would not change any policies on this issue this year.He noted that the Township has had a longstanding policy of removing signs from Township property.He said that regardless he would not support a change of policy in the middle of a campaign season, as it would be a serious mistake for the Board to consider.


BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REPORTS

Supervisor Brown inquired as to the status of filling the vacancy on the Planning Com­mission.Mr. Horrocks advised that the Commission has interviewed two candidates and will likely interview more applicants at its upcoming meeting.

Supervisor Weiss stated that the applicants interviewed should not be limited to the choices of the Planning Commission and recommended that the Board members be given the opportunity to suggest applicants as well.

Supervisor McLenigan said that it is her understanding that the final decision always remained with the Board of Supervisors but that input on applicants was invited from the various Boards/Commissions.Also, she believes that the Board of Supervisors would limit its interviews to the recommendations of the Board/Commission and either accept or reject such recommendations.She stated that the process of submitting an application directly to the volunteer boards should remain the same.

Supervisor Weiss said that he does want to limit the Board’s interviews to just those recommended by the Planning Commission.He stated that there are vacancies that need to be filled with the best people.

Chairman Corcoran agreed with the interpretation by Supervisor McLenigan, noting that it is the Board’s obligation to make appointments.He said that there is nothing keeping a Board member from pushing forward with the interview of a particular applicant.

1.Township Manager’s Report

Chairman Corcoran asked if a follow-up meeting of the supplemental committee has been scheduled.Mr. van de Velde stated that he is trying to nail down a consultant to begin work with the Township.

Chairman Corcoran inquired as to whether money has been earmarked for the Communications position in 2007.Mr. van de Velde said that money has been put in the organizational development line that would make money available but that it has not yet been defined as such.Chairman Corcoran requested that the Township take a serious look at funding a Communications department so that the job gets filled as early as possible in 2007.

Chairman Corcoran stated that the Board of Supervisors met on October 7, 2006 to discuss the 2007 budget.He noted that the Board did not get through the general adminis­trative budget items.Mr. van de Velde added that the Board did not discuss the capital budget either.Chairman Corcoran said that another workshop meeting needs to be scheduled.

Supervisor Brown said that the work budget could be adopted on October 26 and then the Board could have its workshop meeting.Mr. van de Velde said that if the Board adopts a working budget on October 26, there would still be plenty of opportunities to address outstand­ing issues.He suggested that time be worked into workshop/meeting dates already scheduled or, in the alternative, another meeting would be necessary.

Chairman Corcoran again stated that a follow-up meeting to discuss the budget is needed, either before or after October 26, 2006.

Chairman Corcoran inquired as to the status of the construction timeline for the widen­ing of Ridge Pike from three to four lanes through Whitemarsh.Mr. van de Velde indicated that he is waiting for the County engineers to come back with the first draft of their plan, and then he would use that information to attempt to focus in on a timeline.He said that there was some indication that the County is targeting 2009 for construction, but he stated that that timeframe is not optimal for the Township.Chairman Corcoran asked that the Board be made aware if this becomes a real issue.Mr. van de Velde agreed.

Chairman Corcoran asked about the status of a budgeted item for sidewalks along a portion of Joshua Road.Mr. van de Velde said that draft documents have been worked out at the golf course staff level and it may now be time to schedule a meeting with representatives of the golf course.

2.Community Services Coordinator

Supervisor McLenigan suggested that the Board discuss the concept of creating a contractor recommendation list, wherein a contractor could register for a minimal fee to provide services in the Township based on proper business status such as insurance and employees.The list could then be provided to residents with the disclaimer that it is not a Township endorsement.

Mr. van de Velde said that some work has already been done on how to put together such a list.He stated that he and Mr. Bonenberger could discuss this matter further and develop a proposal for consideration by the Board.

Thomas Mullin, Finance Director, advised that the Township does currently register contractors and verify insurance but he thinks it is limited to plumbers and electricians.Mr. Horrocks added that some staff members have been putting together a proposed contractor’s license that would include all contractors.

Supervisor McLenigan said she is thinking in terms of tree removal services, landscape­ing, etc.Mr. Bonenberger stated that there has been some discussion but that he is unsure as to what level of service to take it.

Supervisor McLenigan indicated that she would like to bring the discussion to the Board level as well.

Chairman Corcoran added that the Township Solicitor needs to the review the program.

3.Township Engineer

Chairman Corcoran inquired as to the status of hook-ups as part of the Toland Drive Sanitary Sewer project.

James Sullivan, PE, Township Engineer, stated that there have been approximately six hookups and he is not aware of any problems.

Chairman Corcoran asked about work being done on Franklin Way.Mr. Bonenberger stated that so far the neighbors are content and that two tentative Use and Occupancy permits have been issued.

4.Public Works Department

Mr. van de Velde advised that the new clarifier is not yet operational but is expected to be by October 16.

5.Planning and Zoning

Chairman Corcoran asked about the status of the proposed land development at Flourtown Road and Butler Pike and the planned straightening of the intersection.He noted that preliminary land development approval was already issued.

Mr. Stein indicated that the applicant still needs to file a final plan.Mr. Horrocks added that the applicant has five years of protection under the approval.

Chairman Corcoran stated that the current situation in the area is a real traffic concern and he would like to see the intersection improvements progress since the Township decided to go that direction.Mr. Horrocks advised that the applicant cannot build any units until the new road is constructed.

6.Fire Marshal/Codes Enforcement

Supervisor Brown inquired as to whether the Stoddard property is in compliance with the Township’s tree removal regulations.Mr. Bonenberger indicated that the property owner was made aware that any tree removed over the permissible amount would have to be replaced.Mr. Horrocks added that the property owner’s landscape architect was contacted by Dennis Metz, consulting Township Arborist, and made aware that replacement trees will be necessary if they have gone over their inventory.

Supervisor Brown confirmed with Mr. Horrocks that there were trees marked on the plan that were to be left undisturbed.Mr. Bonenberger said that the applicant was informed that tree protectors needed to be installed around the trees to be kept, and was also instructed on the proper precautions to be taken for those trees.

Supervisor Brown said that it looks like the property owner has decided to ignore the plan and to just pay the difference, as the Township has no way to make the applicant abide by the plan relative to the trees.

Mr. Bonenberger said that contractors will frequently do work on the weekends that may go unnoticed by the Township.He added that the Township does have procedures in place that would show the size and location of every tree on the property prior to the start of work.

Supervisor Brown stated that he wants to be sure that this issue is being followed and that the Ordinance is being enforced.

Mr. Sullivan advised that the calculations to date show that the property owner owes about 800 trees.

Supervisor Brown said that the Township did not succeed in this situation, as the hilltop is now bald.He noted that the Ordinance is not perfect.

Mr. Sullivan stated that it comes down to enforcement, particularly if the work is done on a weekend and if they go beyond the limits authorized by the Township.

Supervisor Brown indicated that all the Township can do is fine the property owner.

Mr. Stein advised that there is a provision in the Ordinance that allows the Township, where there is concern about the removal of trees that are not supposed to be removed, to require a separate escrow to the extent that if the applicant does remove trees that are scheduled to be preserved, the money could be used for tree replacement.

Supervisor Brown presumed that that provision was not employed in this instance.Mr. Sullivan stated that it could be employed because the applicant will be required to provide an escrow.

Mr. Bonenberger indicated that when the applicant comes in for a building permit, the issue could be addressed.

Chairman Corcoran stated that he has been watching this property get cleared and assumed that the Township has been after the property owner in every respect possible.He said that it might help if concerns such as this are shared with everyone in the future.He noted that there is a tree replacement ordinance in place that does not work for this type of situation because the property owner could still remove all of the trees and just write a check.He asked if every drip line on this property is being marked appropriately and strictly conformed to the Ordinance.

Mr. Sullivan said that the applicant is required to install tree protection fencing.Chair­man Corcoran asked if it is there and whether it is at a 5’ diameter or at a 40’ diameter.Mr. Sullivan replied that it is supposed to be at the drip line.

Chairman Corcoran stated that is not okay to just know what trees were cut down.He said that he would like to see the Tree Protection Ordinance enforced to the maximum on this property.

Supervisor Brown added that this property was the “poster-child” for the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Chairman Corcoran noted that this property was a former plant nursery.He stated that if an applicant is not going to respect what it is the Township has asked then the situation needs to be handled as such.He said that the Township needs to do its best to make the Tree Protection Ordinance work.

Mr. Bonenberger indicated that staff should be made aware of who is responsible for follow-up.

Chairman Corcoran stated that it would be nice if the Township had compliant appli­cants.He said that this may be an issue that should be worked out at the next staff meeting.

Chairman Corcoran asked that in the future Mr. Bonenberger provide a current status of projects for Cedar Heights in addition to the information already provided in the monthly report.

7.Police Department

Supervisor Brown inquired as to the year-to-date statistics listed on the monthly activity report.Chief Behr responded that there has been an increase in arrests from this time in 2005 mostly due to the Department finally being fully staffed.

8.Finance Department

In response to an inquiry by Chairman Corcoran, Mr. Mullin indicated that the increase in the Earned Income Tax is primarily due to an increase in non-resident collections.

Mr. Mullin added that revenue from resident collections is up almost 7% from last year, and non-resident collections are up about 86%.He said that he expects the non-resident portion to be up at least 100% because of the rate increase.

Supervisor Brown thanked all of the senior staff members for their efforts on a daily basis.

ACTION ITEMS

1.Consider Final Land Development Approval – George Washington Memorial Park

 

Tom Beaver, Esq., representing the applicant, George Washington Memorial Park, requested approval of an amended final plan.

Mr. Horrocks noted that the Board has a copy of the proposed Resolution to consider approval of the amended final plan.

Mr. Beaver advised that the changes to the plan relate to the walking trail on the pro­perty which has been the subject of extensive discussions.He recapped that the applicant had intended to grant the Township an easement for a walking trail along the cemetery’s border with the PA Turnpike at the time the plan was before the Board for preliminary approval.He stated that after the preliminary approval process, the applicant discovered that burial plots exist in the area of the proposed walking trail easement.Mr. Beaver said that the alternative plan now provides for the walking trail to come in at Stenton Avenue and the Turnpike, go through a wooded area, and share an existing driveway to continue the walkway so as not to encroach on any burial locations.He noted that along the west side of the property, the walking trail would go back toward the boundary of the property along the Turnpike.He indicated that since the walking trail will share an existing driveway used for vehicular traffic, pedestrian signage will be installed along with painted pedestrian crosswalks.

In response to an inquiry by Chairman Corcoran, Mr. Beaver indicated that the pedes­trian signage and crosswalk would be installed at the time the walking trail is built.

Mr. Stein advised that he has reviewed the proposed changes to the plan and prepared a Resolution for consideration by the Board.He confirmed with Mr. Beaver that the applicant finds the proposed Resolution acceptable and asked Mr. Beaver to have the Resolution signed by the authorized representative.Mr. Stein further advised that this is not an amended final plan approval, as the applicant only received preliminary plan approval before, making this just a final plan approval.

Chairman Corcoran confirmed with Mr. Stein that each of the stipulations of approval under the waivers would be deemed part of the record.

On a Motion by Supervisor McLenigan, seconded by Supervisor Wall (Vote 5-0), the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-35 authorizing Conditional Final Land Development Approval to George Washington Memorial Park for construction of the Dogwood Mausoleum.

Chairman Corcoran noted that there is a total of $25,000 in contributions from the applicant in lieu of compliance of certain Township requirements. He suggested that the Board designate this money to be used for the Barren Hill Road Storm Water Project, instead of just being placed in the General Fund.

Mr. Stein indicated that Chairman Corcoran’s request is a directive that has nothing to do with the Resolution itself.

Supervisor Weiss said that the Board could just use the money for the Barren Hill Road project without over-complicating the issue.He indicated that if money is in the General Fund at the time of the Barren Hill project, it could be used.Chairman Corcoran said that these types of contributions have a way of disappearing for other projects.Chairman Corcoran asked the Board members if they are in agreement with his suggestion to apply the contribution money to the Barren Hill Road Storm Water Project.


Supervisor Brown indicated that there is no legal reason why money collected in lieu of certain requirements, as in this situation, would need to be used for projects immediately adjacent to the property.He agreed that there is a greater immediate need for the money, stating that it is a good idea to earmark this money for the Barren Hill project.

Supervisor McLenigan concurred.

Supervisor Weiss noted that he would rather avoid the situation where money is being collected for this type of situation and then used for another part of the Township.He stated that the money goes into the General Fund for all sorts of projects, some of which could arise quickly and need immediate attention.He said that this money should go to the common good and not necessarily to Barren Hill, although it may wind up there anyway.

Supervisor McLenigan stated that the issue could be argued both ways.She noted that the Board decided to spend more than what was in the budget for the Barren Hill Road project so the fact that this money has become available could help offset the excess, considering that storm water is an important issue in the Township.

Chairman Corcoran advised that the contributions for this project would be made in lieu of curbing, sidewalks, and widening Stenton Avenue.He said that typically he would agree with Supervisor Weiss as this area is in his neighborhood, but noted that the purpose of the Ordin­ance is to utilize the money for projects such as Barren Hill Road.

Supervisor Brown countered the argument by stating that there are improvements needed in the area of the George Washington Memorial Park project as well.

Mr. Stein indicated that this issue could be worked out at a later date.

Chairman Corcoran noted that there is enough disagreement among Board members to come back to this issue.

2.Consider Schoor DePalma Proposal – Water Treatment Permitting Application (NPDES)

Mr. van de Velde advised that the permit for the water treatment system needs to be renewed every two years.He recommended that the Township use Schoor DePalma at a cost of $5,500 to do the necessary permitting work.He said that there would be no duplication of work being done as a part of the other NPDES work.He noted that School DePalma has already begun gathering some base data.He said that the deadline for the current permit is not until July 2007 but the State is looking to have the data in hand by the end of 2006.

Mr. Sullivan added that there is a 180-day review period, so the information needs to be submitted by the end of the year.


In response to an inquiry by Chairman Corcoran, Mr. van de Velde indicated that he is unsure whether the Township Solicitor has reviewed the proposal but he will follow up to get this done.Mr. van de Velde noted that the dollar limit is below the amount that would customarily require review by the Solicitor.

On a Motion by Supervisor Wall, seconded by Supervisor Weiss (Vote 5-0), the Board authorized the Proposal for Engineering Services by Schoor DePalma to complete the NPDES Permit Renewal process.

3.Consider Lighting Change – 1201 East Hector Street

 

Albert Hughes advised that the property at 1201 East Hector Street has been converted from a 200-year old house into an office building over a three-year period.He advised that a parking lot was designed with indirect lighting to soften its appearance and preserve the pro­perty in a more historical context.He indicated that the last requirement of the project is to install a 15-foot pole-mounted light in the parking lot.Mr. Hughes indicated, however, that the SEPTA parking lot adjacent to the property has two 25-foot poles that provide enough illumina­tion to adequately light his parking lot.He said that installation of the 15-foot pole mounted light will ruin the esthetic appeal of the corner in the way it was designed.

Mr. Hughes requested a waiver from the requirement to install the 15-foot pole mounted light.Using an illustration, he showed the location of the lighting on his property and on SEPTA’s property, noting that the lighting on SEPTA’s poles is twice the illumination power of the pole mounted light intended for his property.He said that the addition of another light pole would be overkill and ruin the effect of the property.

Mr. Sullivan indicated that he has had discussions about the waiver request; however, he is unsure as to exactly how much light is thrown off by the SEPTA lights.

Mr. Stein advised that he does not feel that the waiver would create a liability but since the Board approved the plan by Resolution, another Resolution would need to be adopted in order to grant a waiver.He added that he could prepare the necessary Resolution at the Board’s request, if it is the consensus to proceed in this manner.

Supervisor Weiss inquired about adding a contingency relative to the future disposition of the SEPTA lot and lighting, which could create an inadequate lighting situation on the applicant’s property if something were to change in the future.He noted that he agrees with Mr. Hughes’ position, and that the plan should not create added light pollution.

Mr. Hughes indicated that this is the last requirement of the project to be considered complete.

Chairman Corcoran indicated that the Board has directed the Township Solicitor to prepare a Resolution for consideration concerning the request for waiver, with the contingency as noted by Supervisor Weiss.


4.Consider Authorization of Carpet Payment – Township Building

Mr. van de Velde indicated that Board approval was mistakenly not sought, as outlined in the Township Code, prior to the installation of carpet in the Township Building.He stated that he is seeking retroactive approval to pay an invoice for $18,600 for services provided under the negotiated contract.

Supervisor McLenigan confirmed with Mr. van de Velde that an effort would be made to step up the process to put proper procedures in place for contract bidding so that this type of situation would not happen again.

Chairman Corcoran noted that the Township Solicitor has pointed out eight violations of the Township Code in his review of this matter.He asked how the situation developed, noting that there are policies and procedures that need to be followed.

Mr. van de Velde advised that the breach was accidental but at the same time, staff believed that the contractor was under State contract and therefore the standard bidding process would not apply.He explained that the project grew from just Administration to the Police Department as well, as it had become a workplace safety issue because the carpeting was coming apart and was being held together with duct tape.He indicated that when negotiations began with the State contractor, staff went to another contractor who beat the first bidder and recommended that money be saved by staff doing some of the work.He indicated that the Police Department was then added to the bid, as was the kitchen area, which brought the amount past the $10,000 cap to $18,000.He stated that the project could have been done as two separate projects, noting that there is another admonition in the Code that says staff should not go out of the way to intentionally break contracts up into parts to avoid the limits.He noted that the Township did advertise once, which is the State requirement, but that the Code requires three advertisements.

Mr. van de Velde indicated that some of the requirements of the Code related to cost caps may not be appropriate in 2006 as they were when drafted in 1990.He said that many parts of the process should be re-examined going forward.He stated that a better form needs to be developed for the purchasing staff to address details such as in this situation.He added that the Finance Director has tried to enforce how staff processes purchase orders and obtain quotes but that the system is not attended to daily.He noted that the final contract was negotiated down substantially in order to save costs, adding that if the requirements of the Code were followed, it would have likely cost $35,000 to complete the project.He again noted that the Township needs to re-examine how it does business for greatest efficiency.

Chairman Corcoran said that the policies in the Code need to be followed, as antiquated as they might be.He stated that as he understands it, the Board cannot even ratify this expenditure and that more money now has to be spent to do it right.He agreed that the requirements of the Code may need to be re-examined and should be done promptly.

Mr. van de Velde indicated that he will come back to the Board with his recommendations as to how to do things differently.

Supervisor McLenigan asked if there was anyone else involved in the decision making process that resulted in the violations.Mr. van de Velde indicated that he was the responsible party, although there were others working on some parts.

Supervisor McLenigan stated that she truly is concerned about some of the missteps in this situation.She commended Mr. van de Velde for attempting to save money but she does not believe that this is the first time that the Board has heard of a procedure gone awry in the interest of saving money.She noted that she cannot publicly discuss prior situations but stated that this situation might merit further discussion in an executive session or with Board members.

Supervisor Brown commented that the Solicitor’s report states that there was no evidence of an intention side step of the process.He noted that Mr. Mullin clearly did the right thing in noting that there was a problem, and that the Solicitor documented what happened in great detail for the Board to understand.He stated that it was a lesson learned.

On a Motion by Supervisor Weiss, seconded by Supervisor McLenigan (Vote 5-0), the Board authorized the payment of an $18,600 invoice for the installation of carpeting in the Township Building.

5.Consider Award of 2006 Highway Materials Contract

On a Motion by Supervisor McLenigan, seconded by Supervisor Wall (Vote 5-0), the Board authorized the Bid Award for purchase of Highway Materials for the 2006-07 construction season to Highway Materials, Inc. on basis of their low bid of $24,600.

6.Consider Resolution – Distribution of State Aid for Pension Funds

Mr. van de Velde noted that the Board has received a corrected Resolution, as the previous one contained a date typo.He explained that this is how the Township designates funds into the two pension funds.

Mr. Mullin advised that the Township received $66,000 more from the State than the minimum municipal obligation.He noted that the excess must be allocated to a defined benefit plan or plans.He stated that for this reason, all of the $66,000 excess would go into the Police Pension Plan.

On a Motion by Supervisor McLenigan, seconded by Supervisor Weiss (Vote 5-0), the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-34 authorizing the Distribution of State Aid to the Police Pension Plan.

7.Consider Street Closing – Birch Drive Block Party

On a Motion by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor Wall (Vote 5-0), the Board authorized the Closing of Birch Drive for the purpose of a Block Party.


8.Consider Additional 2006 Water Services Termination

On a Motion by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor Wall (Vote 5-0), the Board authorized the addition of a property to the 2006 Water Services Termination list.

9.Consider Resolution to Amend Township Zoning Map and Set Hearing Date

On a Motion by Supervisor Wall, seconded by Supervisor McLenigan (Vote 5-0), the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-37 to Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Map related to Recreational Overlay and to Set a Public Hearing Date.

There was no public comment on these actions.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURES AND PAYROLL

On a Motion by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor McLenigan (Vote 5-0), the Board approved the Report of Expenditures and Payroll for the Month of September 2006 in the total amounts of $1,096,230.40 and $396,569.87, respectively.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Chairman Corcoran announced that the Board members held an Executive Session prior to this meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER R. VAN DE VELDE

Township Manager

View the minutes prior to this list

Residents can also view recent Board of Supervisors Meetings online: WTV.PEGCENTRAL.COM.

Boards & Commissions

Watch Board of Supervisors Meetings on the web:

Whitemarsh News

We Have News!

Last Added: 3/6/2014 9:13 AM

Whitemarsh Township
616 Germantown Pike
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444

Phone: (610) 825-3535
Fax: (610) 825-9416

View Directions

Hours:
Monday - Friday
8 AM to 4:30 PM


Search The Website

powered by Google


Whitemarsh Township
Email News

Sign-up for News Alerts!


Page Tools