[0:04] All right. Like to welcome everybody to tonight's uh okay

[0:10] to tonight's uh burough council meeting. Um we'll start with the uh call to order

[0:15] and roll call. >> President Gerard.

[0:18] » Vice President Burns >> present.

[0:19] » Council member Ferguson >> here.

[0:21] » Council member Hoff >> here.

[0:23] » Council member Weiss >> here. Mayor Gerard.

[0:26] » Senior council person Thompson >> present. B manager Snider

[0:30] » here Harper >> here.

[0:33] » Thank you. And if we stand and do the pledge of allegiance

[0:41] to the republic of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[0:47] stands one nation under God indivisible with us for all.

[0:54] Stay standing for the invocation. Let us take a moment to pause and

[0:59] reflect as we begin this meeting. May we approach our work with open minds, clear

[1:04] purpose, and a shared commitment to the common good. May respect guide our

[1:09] conversations, wisdom inform our decisions, and unity strengthen our

[1:13] community. We're grateful for the opportunity to serve and we strive to do

[1:17] so with integrity and fairness to all. Amen. Nice.

[1:24] Buckeye show. Damn. I just got back from the Buckeye State. Nice. Yeah. Still I

[1:31] can still feel the All right.

[1:37] » So, we will start with approval of the meeting agenda. I'd like a motion to

[1:41] approve that. >> Motion.

[1:43] » Second. >> Okay. We have a motion

[1:49] and a second. All in favor? >> I

[1:53] » oppose. Uh and then I'd like a motion for the

[1:57] approval of the minutes for July 15th. >> Motion second.

[2:04] » All motion by Cyia and second by Michelle White.

[2:11] All in favor? I >> I opposed.

[2:16] » All right. Now, uh we will do the public input. If there's anybody from the

[2:21] public that would like to speak, please rise, state your name and address and

[2:24] your reason for addressing council.

[2:31] Okay. I do have one um from President Gerard.

[2:39] uh he's not able to be here tonight, so he asked me to uh read this um

[2:46] in in and this is a statement by him. In light of the fallout from our recent

[2:50] meeting about the North Broad Street development proposal, and the resulting

[2:53] reaction from various people, both residents and non-residents, I've put

[2:57] together a statement that I'm requesting to be read by Burough Vice Council

[3:02] President Larry Burns in my absence of the next council meeting.

[3:06] I would like to take a few moments to address the recent zoning decision that

[3:10] has prompted significant discussion throughout our community. I understand

[3:15] that this decision, particularly the choice to favor residential use over

[3:20] commercial development, has raised concerns and in some cases frustration.

[3:25] Those reactions are heard and taken seriously. It is important, however, to

[3:31] clearly explain how this decision was made and what factors were carefully

[3:35] weighed throughout the process. This was not a quick or simple determination and

[3:40] is not done not a done deal carved in stone at this point. The council has

[3:46] considered input from the planning commission, feedback from public

[3:49] meetings, the proposed developer, applicable zoning ordinances, and the

[3:54] bureau's long-term comprehensive plan. In addition, there will be a final

[3:59] evaluation of infrastructure capacity, traffic patterns, neighborhood

[4:04] compatibility, and the impact on essential community services. Once that

[4:09] is completed, the burough the burden will then fall on the developer to meet

[4:13] our requirements before final approval is given. One of the most significant

[4:18] considerations in this case is the operational needs of our local fire

[4:22] department. As many of you know, their ability to respond quickly and

[4:27] effectively depends in part on maintaining adequate access and parking

[4:32] for emergency personnel. Any reduction or disruption to those resources could

[4:38] directly affect response times and public safety. The proposed commercial

[4:43] use raised legitimate concerns about increased congestion and the potential

[4:49] loss of critical parking availability. After careful review, council determined

[4:54] that preserving residential zoning in this area better supports not only the

[4:58] character of the neighborhood, but also the functional needs of the fire

[5:02] department and by extension the safety of our residents. Not only that, but the

[5:08] fire department relies on the use of additional parking spaces, which the

[5:12] devel developer agreed to preser preserve, as a means to help with

[5:16] funding their operations so they can remain a viable, necessary operation in

[5:21] the future. This does not mean that commercial development is unwelcome in

[5:25] our bureau. On the contrary, thoughtful and wellplaced commercial growth remains

[5:30] an important part of our va our economic vitality.

[5:35] However, zoning decisions must reflect the specific context

[5:40] of each location and the realities of our current economic environment. And in

[5:44] this instance, the balance of factors weigh in favor of residential use. I

[5:50] also want to address the tone of some recent public commentary.

[5:54] While disagreement is a natural and valuable part of civic engagement, some

[5:59] remarks directed at council members on social media have gone beyond policy

[6:04] critique and into personal disparagement. That is neither

[6:08] productive nor fair, especially coming from some individuals who are not even

[6:13] residents of this bureau. Every member of this council approached this decision

[6:18] with diligence and integrity. They viewed the facts, listened to residents,

[6:23] and considered expert input. You may disagree with the outcome, but it's

[6:27] important to recognize that these decisions were made in good faith with a

[6:31] broader interest of the community in mind. As we move forward, I encourage

[6:37] continued involvement from Aluro residents. Your input is essential and

[6:42] it plays a meaningful role in shaping future decisions.

[6:46] At the same time, I ask that we all remain committed to respectful and

[6:50] constructive dialogue. We all share responsibility for be for the well-being

[6:55] of this bureau, supporting our volunteer fire department, preserving neighborhood

[7:00] stability, and planning responsibly for the future and goals that are ultimately

[7:05] benefit us all. Finally, I would like to say that it is truly an honor to serve

[7:10] as council president and to work alongside the current members of this

[7:14] burough council. Their diligence, thoughtfulness, and commitment to doing

[7:18] what is best for this community should not go unrecognized. I am proud of the

[7:23] care they bring to each decision, even when those decisions are difficult.

[7:27] Thank you.

[7:34] » Great. Any more public input? >> Right. Thank you. All right. Next, we

[7:40] will move on to announcements. Next pro council meeting is the

[7:45] September 16th workshop regular meeting at 7 p.m. in council chambers. The next

[7:50] planning commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 28th at 6 p.m. in

[7:54] council chambers. Moving in the park that was scheduled for Thursday, August

[7:58] 20th will be cancelled due to projected forecast for tomorrow. Unfortunately,

[8:04] our fall fest though is scheduled for Saturday, September 19th, starting at 3

[8:08] p.m. on East Lincoln Avenue. The Bur offices will be closed from 12:00 p.m.

[8:12] to 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 26 for employee training. And the Bur offices

[8:17] will be closed on Monday, September 7 in observation of the Labor Day holiday.

[8:23] Thank you. Any questions on those? Uh, next we'll move on to number five,

[8:30] uh, land development presentation for 200 North Main Street, Lden Schlagger

[8:35] Senior Apartments.

[8:46] Good evening

[8:50] Stewart. Uh we represent the applicant Latin flagger campus benefit LLC in

[8:55] connection with our application for preliminary final land development

[8:58] approval from the burough. Applicant is the owner of two adjacent parcels. one

[9:03] that's located in Hatfield Township and then another one located that's

[9:07] approximately 1.46 acres in the burrow which was the former location of the

[9:13] biblical Theological um seminary school and that's located at the corner of

[9:19] Fairgrounds and Carol Road which turns into North Main Street in Burrow. The

[9:25] furrow parcel is presently improved with a small sliver of the principal school

[9:29] building, a secondary singlestory building and two driveway accesses off

[9:35] street. The eastern driveway access is currently shared with the green

[9:39] residential properties and connects to a large sort of impervious parking field

[9:44] on the southern corner of the burough parcel. applicant here is proposing to

[9:49] convert the existing school and redevelop the site for age restricted

[9:53] imperence. The secondary building that's located in the burrow parcel will be

[9:58] removed from um the property and the parking field that's in the burrow

[10:04] parcel is being redesigned as shown. Uh the existing imperous parking that's

[10:10] located in Wam's southern corner there doesn't extend past what the current

[10:14] existing parking fields is. There's also associated utilities, storm water

[10:19] management and landscaping proposed within the burrow itself. Um

[10:26] although there are additional development being proposed in connection

[10:29] with the project this is phased and you can see on the overarching plan that was

[10:33] submitted you can see there is proposed to be two additional buildings over time

[10:38] in phases those are both to be located on the council and not in vern itself.

[10:45] Um, as you might recall, and I believe might be discussed on the agenda later,

[10:51] there was zoning relief previously granted for this project. Um, it was a

[10:56] special exception relief and we are going back in on 24th of September to

[11:01] request that that be reinstated. That's to allow the conversion from one

[11:06] non-conforming use to another. Um, we are optimistic that will be reinstated.

[11:11] um as the applicant has really been moving forward with this project in good

[11:17] low income. It requires a number of groups from both here, the township and

[11:24] a variety of other kind of parts in order to get the project

[11:30] moving. And so we're optimistic that'll be reinstated so that this project can

[11:35] proceed and provide um much needed housing for the community. Um I'm here

[11:41] tonight with Jacob Tacket. He's been an engineer on this project um to further

[11:46] walk through the actual plan for you guys in detail since he's the one that

[11:50] actually designed this and um more articulate at least to the engineering

[11:55] than I am. But um we did receive the engineers review letter um

[12:02] largely comply to everything. Um we don't see any major red flags. Um there

[12:08] were some comments that were made that um precipitated our um decision to

[12:15] request some waiverss. For example, normally you request information about

[12:21] 200 ft around the property. We'll provide an aerial and necessary

[12:26] information, but we're asking for what's typical of waivers to not have built in

[12:32] and surveyed neighboring properties. Um, we're also asking for we'll get into

[12:38] them one by one um to allow for the impervious that's going to provide for

[12:43] the carping to be shown so that there's the the bishop circulation and that

[12:48] we're not kind of having to push into the grassy area that currently exists.

[12:53] Um, I'm going to say planning south which isn't actually south on the

[12:57] property. Um, in order to do this, the layout does provide for more states than

[13:02] a row with how the landscape land. So, we did ask for a partial paper for that

[13:08] when we presented it to the planning commission. They were interested in

[13:12] potentially if it's possible and we work with the engineer if there's a way in

[13:17] which they wanted the would provided for enough space like a couple trees and a

[13:23] bush. So if you can fit that in somewhere else on the property, we are

[13:27] willing to do so. Um we do currently have this proposed this new landscaping

[13:33] that is very very planned out moment. So we kind of provide that guarantee but we

[13:38] were against that in order to um think if there were any other

[13:45] major kind of red flags. There really weren't. Um again largely we we feel

[13:50] like we didn't comply. We're moving through with the NPDS part. You don't

[13:53] see any anticipated kind of state changes as a result of that. Um, and

[13:58] we're moving forward. We also again participate to get cons. So, we are

[14:03] optimistic that we can kind of proceed with you guys in working towards an

[14:07] approval of the burough side. Um, conditioned on our ability

[14:14] necessary outside agency at zoning relief.

[14:19] that I will turn it over to you. >> Hold on for a second. Can we just get a

[14:23] couple questions? >> Sure.

[14:27] » All right. Um, this project is in the township and the burrow, correct?

[14:32] » That's correct. >> All right. So, you're going to the

[14:34] burrow zoning hearing board for relief, actually an extension of the relief that

[14:38] you're already granted for this proposal.

[14:41] » That is correct. and you'll be filing if you haven't already um land development

[14:46] plans here in the burrow but also in the township. So we filed for the um

[14:52] approval here. We've also applied for approval in the township. We're doing it

[14:56] in parallel and we've received review letters from both right the board has

[15:02] them I think it is and so with the burough we have completely will comply

[15:07] with the township. I think we're pretty close. We have a couple questions

[15:10] because there were a couple comments that felt a little vague which sometimes

[15:14] happens. So, we're going to have a meeting with the township engineer, but

[15:17] we don't we didn't see any kind of red flags or issues on the township side or

[15:22] if we do see that we're going to be able to work on that. Township

[15:29] » in a way that's not going to result in meaningful changes to the plan that

[15:32] we're proposing. >> All right. And the plan you're proposing

[15:35] tonight, is it the same as the one that already went to the zoning board and got

[15:40] relief some years ago or has it changed? It It is the same. It's just further.

[15:46] » Very good. All right. Just a little facts might be helpful to the council's

[15:51] understanding what we're doing here.

[15:55] » Any other questions? I can always come back here.

[16:07] D can you just start by orienting us where the municipal boundary line is?

[16:11] » Absolutely. Good evening. My name is James Hacket. I'm a associate civil

[16:15] engineering consultant for the project. Um the municipal boundary sort of runs

[16:20] diagonal along the uh parcel here. I will and parallel to the existing

[16:25] seminary school. Julie is kind of tracing it now. It's a light dashed line

[16:29] that runs sort of just north of the bottom of the existing site. Um, so the

[16:36] proposed project, as Julie said, it is contained mostly within the township

[16:41] boundary. There are no proposed structures within the burrow's boundary.

[16:46] uh improvements generally consists of uh reconfigured driveway parking

[16:50] improvements, utility improvements, storm water conveyance, non-storm water

[16:54] management systems with storm water conveyance types and structures,

[16:58] landscaping and lighting uh with some pedestrian access via sidewalks uh and

[17:03] ADA compliant crosswalks and driveway of Me Street. Comprehensively, the project

[17:08] consists of three different uh buildings, two of which are proposed, as

[17:12] Julie said, one of which is a rehabilitation or renovation of the

[17:15] existing baby school um existing driveways uh present along Cowpath Road.

[17:22] One of which is proposed to be closed part of the application. The other we

[17:26] show here to the south of the development is proposed to be

[17:28] reconfigured to align with our parking and uh drive layout uh for safe

[17:34] circulation draw site. The residential driveway to the south of our parcel,

[17:38] which kind of is bifurcated by our property line, is proposed to remain

[17:41] untouched or unchanged to the extent that we're able to uh leave it alone if

[17:46] it needs to be repaved. It's just a function of rehabilitating the existing

[17:50] access points to the residential properties that do not have access

[17:55] directly on West uh School Street. The project generally is uh is is a a

[18:04] slight change in cover from the existing condition. Meaning we are proposing to

[18:09] increase the impervious coverage very slightly um and essentially diminish uh

[18:15] change in cover within the purpose boundary itself. Um

[18:20] the project itself is proposed to service three of the the three proposed

[18:27] the three proposed structures um individually with water, sanitary,

[18:31] sewer, electrical gas as this project is proposed to be completed in multiple

[18:35] phases. Um storm water management is proposed uh in two phases essentially.

[18:41] The first of which is to service the first phase of construction which is

[18:45] presently funded by DHFA. Um it is a surface MRC basin which is just a way of

[18:51] saying that the the ground on this property does not infiltrate. Um so it's

[18:55] sort of like a quasi infiltration basin that doesn't actually seep into into the

[19:00] ground. It's contained within a soil media um at the basin bed. Similarly for

[19:06] phase two and three um though they are not clearly defined on this plan the

[19:10] separate MRC bases proposed to manage both of those spaces in the future.

[19:16] We have in hand our engineer uh the burough's engineering letter. Um again

[19:21] largely what we consider or will complies. Um there is a comment that we

[19:26] would like to discuss with the town of engineer as it relates to their storm

[19:29] water review. We have that scheduled for early next week. Um I would like to also

[19:33] schedule a time chat with you to discuss the engineer comments from the birth

[19:37] perspective. Um we don't think that there is anything in that letter that

[19:41] you prepared as not able to be complied with. Um there were a couple of comments

[19:45] certainly related to the zoning that we expect to be reinstated. Um and

[19:49] understand that the project cannot move forward without that. Um but we're

[19:52] optimistic that that will occur here later in September uh to put that to

[19:58] rate that ship. Um excuse me sorry it's been a long day.

[20:07] We are uh currently under review and addressing blance comments with an NPDS

[20:10] application with Montgomery County Conservation District. We had a

[20:13] production call with them this afternoon. Um the site does not

[20:17] infiltrate as I mentioned there shallow bedrock. So we will be um installing in

[20:21] permeable liner to separate any potential groundwater from the runoff

[20:25] generated by this development. Um all runoff generated by this development

[20:33] will be collected and uh again directed to the storm water basins that discharge

[20:38] ultimately into fairgrounds road and then further north into uh our receiving

[20:42] waters within the township's boundary. The only runoff uh proposed to

[20:48] drain to the waterways within the burrow uh are the grass area south of our

[20:54] proposed parking field within the burough's boundary where there's kind of

[20:57] like no development shown uh between the residential driveways and our parking

[21:02] field. That will continue to flow as it does in its existing condition. There's

[21:06] no change to the cover. In fact, we're actually um buffering that quite

[21:11] substantially with proposed landscaping. There's an argument to be made that the

[21:17] density of our landscaping will actually seep up more runoff that presently

[21:20] exists with a lawn cover today. But it's not an argument to make um back in

[21:25] science. It's just a concept. Regardless, uh we've demonstrated that

[21:31] both or all of our points of interest uh from pre-development to post development

[21:35] condition are reduced. um meaning that what is generating today will be less

[21:40] than what is generated tomorrow when the site is fully built out. We received

[21:44] feedback from the planning commission as part of our presentation on Monday that

[21:50] uh certainly we keep our storm water basins in good condition. That's a state

[21:54] requirement uh that we agree to add the requested notes to the plan. Um but we

[21:59] do have a couple of waiverss that we'd like to discuss this evening as it

[22:02] relates to the application. first of which uh is to combine the

[22:07] preliminary final plan development process into a single uh application uh

[22:12] which was voted or considered to be accepted as part of our presentation on

[22:17] Monday. Uh we have a waiver as it relates to presenting or detecting the

[22:23] existing conditions within 200 ft of property boundary. Um the partial waiver

[22:28] that we're requesting was to omit the irrelevant items that would be

[22:35] impractical to show or necessarily uh obtain additional survey for examples of

[22:40] that would include uh topographic survey down gradient of us in residential

[22:44] properties uh that we might not be able to easily need access for. uh we would

[22:49] be showing aerial imagery to depict existing conditions uh from surface

[22:54] level with the areas surrounding our property um as well as you know kind of

[22:58] omitting the storm water conveyance or utility infrastructure that is relevant

[23:02] to our application. The two material waiverss that we're

[23:06] requesting uh support from include the development of parking spaces within 20

[23:14] ft of our property line which exists here to the south of our property line

[23:19] or to the south of our development uh very close to this other property line

[23:24] here. Um what we are proposing is to maintain an existing condition where

[23:28] there's presently paving up to the property line today. we proposed to

[23:32] enhance that and make it more um aesthetically pleasing and actually

[23:36] stripe it out and and bring it into modern stance or construction standards.

[23:41] Um we will be meeting the intent of the ordinance from a buffering perspective

[23:46] by installing an opaque fence um to mimic a vegetative buffer so that there

[23:51] is some visual break up from the residential uh property south of us. The

[23:58] other waiver that we are requesting is for the allowance of more than 18

[24:02] parking spaces uh to be laid out continuously without the breakout of a

[24:07] landscaping island. Um again this mimics an existing condition while the site is

[24:12] currently vacant and the parking field is very widely strike. Um there is

[24:17] presently enough room uh within the parking field to park more than 18

[24:23] spaces uh continuously without a landscaping island. So again, we're

[24:27] proposing to sort of mimic that existing nonconformity by bringing the site into

[24:31] modern uh w with modern construction. We understand that the burrow prefers to

[24:39] provide electrical power to all of the three proposed

[24:44] uh redeveloped structures as was discussed at our planning commission

[24:48] meeting on Monday. PPL has the authority or jurisdiction of

[24:54] electrical service within the township's boundary. Um, and so we are working with

[24:59] the bureau now to get PBL to relinquish their right to service the site uh so

[25:06] that the burrow can continue to service the site electrically. Similarly, uh

[25:11] there was a request to maintain existing sanitary service maintain the existing

[25:16] sanitary service for the vac seminary school which we proposed to comply with.

[25:21] The other request was that both proposed buildings are serviced by Hatfield

[25:25] Burrow's uh sanitary um municipal authority. However, knowing that there

[25:32] is a moratorum within uh Main Street for the next four and a half or four and a

[25:37] quarter years, I can't remember what it's now. Um we and given the

[25:42] topographical challenges of our site, we are looking to connect our proposed

[25:47] buildings one and two to the fairgrounds road sanitary system.

[25:52] Uh water service for all three buildings will exist independently

[25:57] as well. Uh we maintain

[26:02] the existing service points within uh main street to the extent that we're

[26:06] able to with water, silver and uh >> electric

[26:10] » and so electric is presently uh we're working through that as well. Uh but

[26:15] certainly for the uh for the seminary you know we'll be continuing to be

[26:20] serviced through the existing initiative

[26:26] landscaping. Uh if you could go to the the next sheets here, maybe two more

[26:31] here, you'll see is very substantially built out. We've left very little square

[26:35] footage on the site that doesn't have a shrub or a tree or a bush. Um but as

[26:42] discussed at the planning commission presentation on Monday, we will look to

[26:48] install additional vegetative buffer along that southern property line with

[26:51] the residents uh adjacent to us if they're open to it. If not, we will

[26:55] continue to work with engineer to find a satisfactory response to that request.

[27:05] » Can you ask you because it did come up at the planning commission meeting and

[27:09] continue appreciate for you guys to understand this a little bit more since

[27:12] this is a phase project. We understand that neighbors are always concerned

[27:16] about kind of ongoing construction for a long period of time when there's a phase

[27:21] project. Um, can you just explain there's there's very clear permitting

[27:25] requirements for each phase when the construction is done to bring the

[27:29] property into a condition that looks as though the construction's complete and

[27:34] finished. And then when you move into phase two, you would then obviously set

[27:39] up the property for that next construction project. But Jacob can

[27:43] explain this better than I can. But I know that that was um that was a concern

[27:48] that's been expressed and it is considered. There will be a more

[27:52] detailed phasing thing provided so that there is a full understanding of how the

[27:58] phases will work, how the property will appear at the end of each or in between

[28:03] each phase in case there is a delay um in moving forward with the project. So

[28:09] it doesn't look like a construction site for

[28:13] however long this takes. Right. We definitely are going to need a phase

[28:17] plan that our engineer can't review. Yes.

[28:19] » And because when the time comes to give approvals,

[28:24] you know, normally say the construction has to be done in a

[28:28] year and that's not going to work here. So you need to lay out for us what your

[28:32] plan is. So that's the the burough council can't consider that in any

[28:36] approval resolution. The other thing is I did ask the question about electric

[28:41] because you may or may not be aware of this. Hatfield Burrow is a municipal

[28:45] electric um provider. Very unusual in this part of the world, but Landdale has

[28:52] similar situation. So um we would we had originally talked about connecting the

[28:59] entire site to our electric. You would have to run the the conveyancing from

[29:04] one end to the other to make sure it was in the burrow when it connects.

[29:09] I'm not sure I understand what you mean by conveyancing, but yes, we do

[29:13] recognize that and Jamie and I have been in discussion with how we're approaching

[29:18] PBL to get them to uh give us permission the bureau permission to service the

[29:24] entire property. >> Yeah. So, so Kate, that's actually a

[29:27] condition of their zoning order >> was it was a condition. So, they get it

[29:31] extended, they have to do it, but I just want to make sure they understood.

[29:34] » Yeah. You know why? >> Electric and sewer is a condition of the

[29:38] zoning order too. Now, keep in mind it's a little bit gray. It says if possible.

[29:43] So, they could argue whether or not it's possible, but that's something that

[29:46] should certainly be considered in the zoning extension.

[29:50] » Absolutely. >> And we do have a provision in our

[29:52] ordinance for if you have to tear up a road that we just paved. Okay. There is

[29:57] a provision. We've had to do that for the the Heckler property. remember they

[30:02] had to come in make their case and uh B granted it with certain conditions to

[30:07] make sure the road got repaired. Okay. So that's a possibility. You shouldn't

[30:12] regard that as it's impossible. Okay. >> Understood. And uh I I think I can speak

[30:19] for the applicant owner that they would prefer to go through you guys as the as

[30:22] the utility makes it easier. It's more for small town. Um so we're working

[30:28] through >> those issues. Okay. And and if it was in

[30:32] the zoning uh approval and it's um extended,

[30:37] you know, we'll be expecting that. We're we're not requesting any modification to

[30:42] any of the conditions of the prior approval in connection with the

[30:45] extension. So the expectation is that the conditions that were there before

[30:50] will still be in place and the project is being designed and they're proceeding

[30:56] under the impression that they will need to meet each of those conditions. Okay.

[31:01] Thanks. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

[31:03] » Um just for the purpose of this meeting, can you point out the phases?

[31:10] » Sure. >> Yeah. Could you go back to the plan?

[31:13] Are we doing the redevelopment of the se second phase or third phase?

[31:18] » Say it again. >> The redevelopment of the existing

[31:20] structure. It's sort of flip-flop back and forth. Phase two or three has been

[31:25] the redevelopment of the existing structure.

[31:29] » It's going to be three. >> Okay. All right. So, I'll go to the

[31:33] screen here and point out basically what we're looking at.

[31:37] » Phase one includes the development of proposed building one, which runs

[31:40] parallel to Fairgrounds Road. the necessary parking to facilitate

[31:44] operations on that will be installed as part of phase one as well which

[31:48] generally includes all the parking fields central to the site um and

[31:52] extending as far as we need to uh to adequately service phase one. The

[31:58] remaining driveway as part of that improvement will be installed as well.

[32:03] The parking spaces and sidewalk associated with that would be deferred

[32:07] until phase two. landscaping is still sort of ambiguous or undefined. Uh the

[32:14] quantity of landscaping or or vegetative spaces that need to be installed to

[32:18] comply if this first phase were to be the only part of the project will be

[32:22] installed as part of phase one. Uh but the entirety of the site will not be

[32:26] planted until phases two and three. Storm water basin one. If you can go to

[32:30] the grading plan next sheet. >> What page was that?

[32:35] » Right here. Stormwater basin one here, the northern of the two will be

[32:40] installed as part of phase one, as well as all of the necessary storm conveyance

[32:44] infrastructure to facilitate runoff to that basin. Phase two and three will be

[32:49] installed or this basin would be installed as part phases 2/3.

[32:54] Um, utilities for phase one will be installed as part of phase one. The

[32:57] deferment of sanitary, sewer, water, and uh, electrical connections would be

[33:02] deferred until phase two and three for their respective buildings as well. Uh

[33:06] but from a site layout perspective, you're talking about the driveway

[33:10] improvements on both Main Street and Fairgrounds Road. Uh the comprehensive

[33:15] circulation loop that gets people to and from each of those increas points. Um

[33:20] the building itself of course and then the north storm water basin uh would be

[33:25] comprised of phase one. Phase two would see the rest of the site uh built out

[33:30] from a parking perspective as well as all underground utilities so we don't

[33:34] have to bring that up in the future. Um and the phase two building which is

[33:38] running parallel to the western property line. Phase three as we understand now

[33:43] will just be the redevelopment of the existing bas.

[33:47] » So a couple questions. So if the amount of imperous ground didn't change

[33:52] significantly why do you have to put the basins in there?

[33:57] » We engineers today are paying for the sins of our forefathers. uh storm water

[34:02] management has uh what we're supposed to be doing as part of our NBDS permit

[34:07] regulations is essentially assessing a part of the existing imperous site as a

[34:12] meadow cover which triggers even a one to one change in cover from a

[34:16] pre-development to post development condition as u on paper generating more

[34:21] cut off so it's been a long-standing effort in state to correct some of the

[34:27] flooding issues that we see pretty commonly in this uh neck of the woods.

[34:33] So uh we have water body requirements that we need to adhere to as part of our

[34:37] MDS requirements. Um as well as the way that runoff presently runs off the site

[34:44] is is going to be different when the site is built out than it is today. So

[34:48] it's it's just the best engineering practice uh to maintain and improve the

[34:52] site from existing conditions. The township also has uh more robust storm

[34:57] water regulations that require us to dial back our storm water rates in the

[35:01] post development condition. So even if there was no increase in uh

[35:07] in previous coverage, you would still be needing to follow your rates back to

[35:11] whatever the touch ordinance in this case requires us to do.

[35:15] » Okay. >> So Jason, just touching this ground

[35:17] requires them to put basins in. And and as a general statement, storm water

[35:21] management, and it may be hard to believe, is by far the hardest part of

[35:24] any land development project there is. It's it's the most timeconuming. It's

[35:28] the most difficult to comply with. Um, you know, we we do private work as well

[35:33] and and it's a nightmare. Um, >> that's where I thought somehow it might

[35:36] be grandfathered in because it was it's already been that way.

[35:40] » Nothing's grandfathered in. Um to reiterate his point, anything that's

[35:44] impervious currently, you have to assume 20% of that is meadow. So even though

[35:50] you're not increasing impervious, on paper you are. And that's again to

[35:55] improve the sins of the past as they say and and try to make think of the

[35:59] Montgomery Mall for example. I mean that's all parking lot. There's no storm

[36:02] water management out there at all. You wouldn't want to build something there

[36:05] and not do some sort of improvements. >> Got it.

[36:08] » This isn't quite to that extent, but it's the same concept.

[36:11] » Okay. I didn't know that. Okay. >> Yeah. To avoid solar management design

[36:15] improvements or solar based improvements, you typically be looking

[36:18] at reducing the existing impurities coverage by 20% or more uh in a proposed

[36:23] development uh condition, which is rare. You really only see those in major like

[36:28] metro redevelopment like malls. >> Yeah.

[36:31] » Um so in other words, Yeah. So because it wasn't done before, now we're doing

[36:35] it now. I get it. So [laughter]

[36:40] » yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. And so when we think about the electric and sewer, so

[36:46] do we already have connected connections of burrow today for electric and sewer

[36:51] » to the existing building? Yes. >> To the existing building. Right. Um, so

[36:55] when you talk about phase one and phase two, you're going to have to connect

[37:00] those into the existing electric and sewer as part of that.

[37:07] » Zoning order. We are required to do that if it is possible. Okay.

[37:10] » An example of it being impossible in my mind would be EDL not allowing

[37:16] » their service area to be over ruled by the

[37:21] municipal authority. >> I will just add that electric is under

[37:25] legal review right now by our uh by use. Electric is under legal review right now

[37:31] by use. So Jacob and I have had a conversation offline or might have met

[37:36] with his electrical engineer and we have proposed um Hatfield having all three

[37:40] buildings and it's under legal review of Salsman use. So um when we get an answer

[37:45] from legal as their special utility council then we'll they will know how to

[37:49] move forward. And now knowing that there is an ability

[37:53] uh to impact the recently completed main street of the

[37:59] sewer connection, we we're going to have to take a look at that, see if we can

[38:02] make that work vertically as well. So the only reason that would be an

[38:06] impossibility is that there's not enough vertical space to make the connection.

[38:12] » In my mind, >> I keep going.

[38:16] » Yeah. >> Okay. [laughter]

[38:18] So, so there you you you were talking about, if correct me if I'm wrong, there

[38:22] were four different waiverss, right? >> There were. Yes.

[38:25] » Okay. So, the the first waiver was combining all of this into one. I guess

[38:30] » the request one approval. >> Yes. The request uh typically projects

[38:35] of this magnitude, you would combine preliminary final development plan

[38:38] because it's a it's a concept that doesn't anticipate changing much

[38:44] perspective. If we were proposing a subdivision like a 10 lot subdivision

[38:50] where uh buildings are not fully designed, we would coming for I see.

[38:55] Yeah. Okay. >> And then in the future

[38:58] plan once the individual lots are fully engineered but

[39:02] in this case we we know what the mission is. We don't anticipate it changing much

[39:06] uh but for address components from uh the reviewing agencies.

[39:10] » So how would that work if it was combined versus separate? It's we would

[39:14] you would just vote when the time came on a resolution that gave preliminary

[39:18] slashfinal approval.

[39:21] » Okay? >> It it's it's often done.

[39:24] » And if we didn't do it, then they would have to go to the planning commission.

[39:27] They'd have to get preliminary approval, then come back to go to the planning

[39:31] commission again, and then come back to us again. And so if their plans don't

[39:35] expect to change, preliminaryfinal is probably a a good way to go unless the

[39:41] engineer finds something really serious that will need to be changed and they

[39:45] can't do it, right? >> It saves them a meeting. It doesn't

[39:48] really save them time. Well, they're here anyway, so it saves one or two

[39:52] meetings. It doesn't necessarily save them time because you're not going to

[39:55] issue I wouldn't recommend you grant final approval until it's it's all

[40:00] buttoned up. A lot of times a developer would want to get a preliminary approval

[40:04] because their financing can can be vested once they get their preliminary

[40:09] approval. When the the banks will loan money, that's when their vesting rights

[40:13] are are in place. In this case, it doesn't sound like they're, you know,

[40:17] too concerned about that. So, they're willing to forego the preliminary

[40:20] approval and go to final approval. Again, I wouldn't recommend this board

[40:25] approve it finally until it's ready to go and you're comfortable with it,

[40:29] right? So it doesn't necessarily speed up the process. It saves them a night or

[40:32] two come to one of these meetings. >> Well, the other thing is they could do

[40:36] um and we often do approvals with conditions.

[40:41] » Certainly there will be some conditions. >> Yeah. Going to need a variety of

[40:46] conditions outside either the township or the burrow.

[40:50] » Yeah. Correct. We we would not be expecting a colony final that was not

[40:55] conditioned upon our compliance with his review letter and um the

[41:04] and

[41:07] the NPDS any outside agency approval that might be required for the project.

[41:12] Um >> township approval, the need for us to

[41:18] get the zoning, all of those types of things. That way you guys are also

[41:22] protected. If we didn't get one of those things, we don't get that condition and

[41:26] further disapp. So, and the main reason why we're really, you know,

[41:30] consolidating it here in particular is when you look at where the line is, as

[41:35] we've discussed that the kind of the new buildings, the big buildings that are

[41:39] happening. This really is the layout that we're having here. It's not

[41:42] modifying, but that's up in the township. So what's happening in the

[41:47] burrow itself is really just about parking utility connections and an

[41:53] existing building that's already there that's going to remain there and inside

[41:57] happen but that's not kind of a land development issue. So have a question on

[42:01] the existing building because one of the things the burrow liked about this plan

[42:05] was the reuse of the theological seminary building for something

[42:09] different. Um and it looks like it's going to be in phase three. So I Bill

[42:15] probably can speak to this better than I can and I don't want to fully put my

[42:19] sense in don't worry but I before I went to law school I did design build and I

[42:24] did this kind of work on the other side the which is really sad to me because I

[42:28] love the reuse of buildings the it's actually infinitely more expensive and

[42:34] so for funding purposes and getting that kind of low housing funding in for phase

[42:39] one it's for that first bill thing so it's kind of to get the project started

[42:44] and up and running, but it certainly is in kind of there's, you know, no plans

[42:49] to demolish and the goal really here is to kind of revitalize that building and

[42:53] make it functional and [clears throat] and

[42:59] the >> So, do you have any plans to maintain

[43:01] it? Because it's been years now. Do you have plans to maintain it if it's going

[43:06] to take years to get it done? >> From an exterior perspective, we will we

[43:10] will be required to. Yes. Okay. >> Can I make a couple comments?

[43:18] » We have to say your name so we get it right the minutes.

[43:20] » What's that? >> You have to say your name

[43:22] » so that we get it right. And we are actually televising. So if you want to

[43:26] go up to that might even be better. >> Okay. Thanks.

[43:34] » How tall are you? [laughter]

[43:39] » My name is Bill. Bill Brown. Um, and I am really excited about our our project.

[43:47] We've been working on this for several years. Uh, what I'm happy to say is that

[43:51] we have uh the state has funded us. So, we've been awarded the funding for this

[43:57] phase one project. There is a possibility in the future that we might

[44:01] be able to merge two and three together. That's a possibility. We don't know that

[44:06] for a fact yet, but that might be a possibility.

[44:11] Um, unfortunately, it takes this is probably four years of trying to

[44:17] get phase one funded, but we got it funded. Once we get it up,

[44:23] it'll be occupied pretty quickly because 55 plus affordable housing for seniors

[44:29] is a big need in the area all over. Uh, but we're excited about it. It's going

[44:35] to move. U people are calling me now wanting to know when they can uh apply

[44:41] for admission which is very interesting. I like that. Uh but we're excited about

[44:46] the project. It's awesome. Uh I will also comment that uh we're almost ready

[44:52] probably within two months of fully remediating the uh Misio Seminary

[44:58] building. uh that needs remediation and we're

[45:03] about ready to to start that. Um they'll have no effect on the new construction

[45:10] at all. Any questions anybody might have for me?

[45:15] » I have a question about the phase timing. So I know that was something we

[45:18] were going to get to. So what's the what's the timing plan for phase one,

[45:23] two, and three? And uh what does that future outlook look like?

[45:28] So as soon as phase one is completed, uh we can apply for phase two,

[45:34] possibly two and three at the same time. Don't know that, but we'll take us a

[45:39] year after the building is complete to apply. Uh they won't accept an

[45:45] application if the building is not complete.

[45:48] » It just won't >> Can you can you kind of walk through

[45:51] timing? Okay, we're going to start approximately here and then phase two

[45:55] will begin here and phase three. Sure. So it should take us uh

[46:02] 12 at a minimum 13 probably maximum time frame and construction of phase one. Uh

[46:09] that's what our time frame has been. Harkens will be the builder. Um they're

[46:14] an awesome building company and they they can build that. Um and then we

[46:21] don't have to wait 12 months once the building is complete. Then we got to

[46:25] apply. But you can only apply once a year. Uh this is a 9% tax credit

[46:31] application, but it the application is due and they change it almost every

[46:35] year. It could be due in February, it could be March, it could be April. Uh so

[46:40] we're all worthy planning for applications that we'll be submitting uh

[46:45] for early next year. Uh but that's pretty much the time limit and how how

[46:50] that stuff works. But it's generally 12 months. uh you got to be complete and

[46:55] then the next funding round that's when you can apply but they only do it once a

[47:00] year. >> So So I apologize I'm probably missing

[47:03] something. So So when do you estimate the start date will be based on your

[47:08] current plans

[47:11] » and I'm not talking about the remediation right that's happening but

[47:14] we're actually talking about the construction. So shovels in the ground.

[47:18] » Okay. As soon as we get all the uh um authorization from township and abro

[47:25] um >> we can start construction.

[47:29] » Okay. >> Okay.

[47:41] » October it took him four years to get fun.

[47:44] » No, I got it. >> Yeah.

[47:45] » I said could be 10 years. It could be. >> Okay.

[47:49] » I asked that in the planning commission was 10 years.

[47:51] » Okay. Yeah. I was just what I So, what I was looking for was I understand it may

[47:54] not be in stone, but based on where we're at today, what do we think?

[47:59] » Didn't you did you say October? Commission. I'd love to have a

[48:03] groundbreaking in October. That would be my goal. Whether you get there, that

[48:06] depends on the approvals, but that was your goal. Groundbreaking.

[48:09] » That was the goal. >> Yeah.

[48:11] » Okay. Next summer. >> May not have until December. May not

[48:14] have until January or February. Just depending on the timing of

[48:19] » October 27th.

[48:23] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[48:25] » Yeah. >> Okay. Okay.

[48:30] » A lot of hoops. >> Yeah. No, I get it. I get it.

[48:33] » It's the fun. That's >> so

[48:37] probably told you this, but I'm reminding our council that we can't

[48:42] actually grant any kind of land development approval until you have your

[48:47] zoning document in place. Okay. >> Did you hear that? We can't actually

[48:52] grant any kind of land development approval until they have the zoning in

[48:57] place extended. >> Yeah. So, I think what I our goal here

[49:01] was to kind of provide a presentation. we anticipated or were optimistic that

[49:06] if there weren't major concerns that we were unaware of

[49:10] Chad or anyone else on you know the board that we would be able to at least

[49:15] try to tee this up in a way that we would be able to come back in October

[49:21] we get the zone reinstated so that you guys could actually formally vote on

[49:25] this. >> Yeah, there's a number of things that I

[49:28] would like to work offline with the engineer. One thing in I'll say fairness

[49:33] to them is that they should hear your input on the waiverss. Not necessarily

[49:37] that you have to vote on them, but at least give them a warm and fuzzy when

[49:40] they walk out of the room because, for example, if you don't allow that parking

[49:43] lot to be four feet off the property line, that's a pretty significant

[49:48] redesign of the entire project. >> So, they're going to need answers on

[49:51] some of these. >> Okay.

[49:54] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[49:56] » Okay. >> Yeah. No. So I I still have more

[49:58] questions on waiverss if we can keep going. So and and I apologize everyone

[50:02] has council and who's listened because I'm annoying with questions. So you guys

[50:05] haven't dealt with me yet. So I'll apologize to you up front. So um so that

[50:10] you also had a waiver on the survey, not conducting a survey.

[50:14] What's the issue with not conducting a survey? What's the risk if you don't do

[50:19] that? So,

[50:21] » and when I say risk, sorry, when I say risk, is there going to be a risk to the

[50:24] bureau, to the residents if that survey is not done because something wasn't

[50:28] detected with that? So, this is a partial waiver.

[50:33] It's not a complete waiver. So we would be providing all of the information that

[50:37] be necessary and for an evaluation of the site changes but this is regularly

[50:45] asked for um and I don't think I've ever had a project where it wasn't asked for

[50:50] because there are private properties and we you know will not get rights to go on

[50:56] and basically to inspect underground what it has no impact on our property

[51:02] that exists on burning property. So, this allows us to kind of provide you

[51:07] with an aerial a top down kind of view of everything that's going on around the

[51:11] property and we are agreeing to provide you with any information that would have

[51:15] any impact on this development going off the property within that area.

[51:21] So, it's really just a partial leap or >> it's areas that you can't get access to

[51:26] underground for the neighborhood. Okay, that's I wasn't sure. I didn't

[51:28] understood that. So, >> so I'll agree with with what what she

[51:31] said. Um, it it's It's a very common waiver to request.

[51:36] It's I'll say standard DS and it's standard to to grant that partial

[51:41] waiver. An aerial image that's of you know legitimate clarity. It

[51:48] should be provided. Um their waiver request is to omit irrelevant

[51:53] information. If you're comfortable with me making the decision on what's

[51:57] relevant and what's not, I think that's probably the way to go. There are a few

[52:01] items that I brought up in my letter. Uh, for example, there's a wood curb, I

[52:05] think you call it, right off of your your steep slopes that you're proposing.

[52:09] Um, which I would want to make sure can stay structurally sound if they're

[52:13] cutting three toes at the bottom of that that curb. Um, I know from imagery and

[52:19] being out there that I don't know, is there access to the the school property?

[52:23] It looks like there's some equipment or sheds or something that they may use

[52:27] your property to gain access. >> There's presently no fiscal barrier uh

[52:32] property line, >> right? And it looks like the

[52:34] just continues and there's sheds or something there.

[52:37] » So, yeah, I I there's an existing shed right here uh that we don't anticipate

[52:43] using in the future uh part of our demolition. Um

[52:49] I'm sorry, what what is the question? Even beyond that, I I don't know if they

[52:53] they store equipment there or or or what it is, but it almost looks to me like

[52:58] there's no defined boundary between the school property and this property and

[53:02] the parking lot just kind of continues and they maybe they use it. So, I don't

[53:06] know if they have access rights, if there's some sort of agreements or you

[53:10] can just put up a fence there and stop them from accessing it.

[53:13] » To our knowledge, there is no usement right for the access of the existing

[53:17] middle school. Um, as Cathedral point, we are proposing to buffer our property

[53:23] from the school um at the property line via vegetative trees.

[53:29] » I would suggest they be notified and then just

[53:32] » Yeah. So, >> be aware that they may be cut off from

[53:35] access if they are in fact using it. Um, >> the school districts.

[53:39] » Yeah. >> Or or maybe it's the private property. I

[53:42] don't know. But there's something there that appear. Is that something you want

[53:44] to handle first or do we you want us to write them?

[53:50] » Well, so I think it depends on what the property is. Obviously,

[53:54] » it's a public school. The public school that's right there. Um I mean we are

[53:59] unaware baseball, >> right? It's not a elementary uses that.

[54:03] It's baseball fields that are owned by North Penn School District, but um the

[54:08] little league uses that. So like they use it and they do park in the biblical

[54:11] seminary parking lot to access the lower fields. So I would probably say you

[54:16] would send to the school district because that's who they rent the fields

[54:19] from, but also send a courtesy letter to the little lake like, hey, this is going

[54:22] to happen and this is our pro, but it's not going to be public parking anymore.

[54:26] They probably honestly park on biblical seminary property when they used to

[54:30] below. >> Yeah, they

[54:33] Yeah, there's no rights. We I mean I think we're willing to notify them of

[54:37] that, but um in terms of like asking for permission to kind of buffer our

[54:41] property. >> No, I'm just using this as an example of

[54:44] why we would want some additional information surveyed or or at least

[54:48] provided so we can understand what the impacts are on the the res or the

[54:51] neighboring properties.

[54:57] » So one last question and I I promise I will be quiet. Um,

[55:03] sh I don't know that. >> No. Um, so there was a question about

[55:08] the the parking waiver, right? And that I think that had to do with an island

[55:12] with so many spaces. Is that correct? >> Okay.

[55:15] » Um, so it kind of brings up a question about parking and how do we determine

[55:20] the amount of parking spaces that were there? Because as everyone knows, we

[55:24] have overflow parking issues here in the burrow in general. And so I'm curious

[55:28] how we determine the number of parking spaces and does that take into

[55:32] consideration of potential overflow issues that we've seen other places.

[55:36] » So I'll I'll answer that. The number of parking spaces is calculated in the

[55:41] zoning ordinance. So they are actually providing more spaces than are required

[55:46] by a significant amount. Zoning ordinance actually only requires one

[55:50] space per unit because this is a an elderly community. Mhm.

[55:54] » Uh for any other community it would be two spaces per unit. I believe Ho

[55:58] Township requires two spaces per unit. Um

[56:02] 114 units. >> That is correct.

[56:05] » And how many spaces? >> 127.

[56:08] » 127. So the common thought is that there's at max one car per unit.

[56:14] » Um so you should at least consider that when you think about this waiver request

[56:19] that they are providing more than the burrow requires. I certainly understand

[56:23] the sensitivity with parking in the burrow. Um, but to answer your question,

[56:27] it is a requirement of the zoning ordinance that defines how many spaces

[56:30] are required. >> And uh, as an as an add-on to that

[56:34] point, the reason our park configuration is as such is we are uh, compliant with

[56:39] the zoning order with township that requires us to park 127 spaces on site.

[56:47] So, we have uh relief from the township of Arizona ordinance to park less than

[56:51] what their required number is. [snorts] >> Okay. Because that because correct me if

[56:56] I'm wrong, right? You said there's 114 units, 127 spaces. So, we're only

[56:59] providing 13 more spaces than what the requirement than what

[57:04] you're required to in the burrow. >> Yes.

[57:07] » Okay. So, and the and the township's giving you a waiver that says you don't

[57:11] have to have two spaces per unit. They granted a variance for that.

[57:16] » A variance, right? So if if you were following the township ordinance, you'd

[57:20] have to have 228 spaces. >> Yes.

[57:22] » Approximately. Okay. >> Without going by. Yes.

[57:25] » Okay. So, so for me, that's a potential problem.

[57:32] my understanding we're granting 13 more spaces, but if we're talking about 114

[57:37] units, if you needed half of that as additional spaces, you've just crowded

[57:43] up the whole area around the entire property. So, to me, that's that would

[57:47] be a problem, right? From a from a from a parking standpoint.

[57:53] Does that does my statement make sense? You kind of

[57:56] » No, I I am I am confused. So, so if there's 100, so what we've seen in

[58:01] similar um building in the in our community here is we've seen much more

[58:07] than two spaces needed per unit. Now, I understand that this is a 55 and older

[58:11] community and they may have less vehicles, right? But we've seen here

[58:16] where you almost need two and a half to three spaces per location here. So

[58:22] saying that we're only going to have one to me says we're going to have a parking

[58:27] problem that we're all going to have to deal with. So that's that's my concern.

[58:31] » So So we are again we are in significant access

[58:35] parking is required and the waiver that we're asking for here is to allow for a

[58:40] few extra spaces. So if you didn't grant the waiver, we would end up with fewer

[58:45] spaces on the property because what our waiver request has to do with the

[58:49] subcate island, which would remove one of the parking spaces and convert it to

[58:56] a planted island. So here we're optimistic that you would be supportive

[59:02] of us having a couple extra spaces on the site for the overflow even though it

[59:08] is in excess of the burough requirement. versus if you don't grant that waiver,

[59:14] you're still compliant, you end up with less parking on site. And I would also I

[59:19] do understand what you're saying about concerns about overflow particularly in

[59:23] apartment buildings. We we've had traffic evaluations and

[59:28] kind of there's other senior the senior apartment building that are similar to

[59:33] this and are significantly underfoot that's quite different from an apartment

[59:40] building that is housing younger workforce members as opposed to people

[59:46] who are older no longer drive at all. Um it is actually the case that there is

[59:53] often only one car if that per kind of apartment building. So it was very much

[1:00:01] so evaluated and presented to the township because again the township had

[1:00:05] a higher requirement for parking and so they were comfortable that the parking

[1:00:11] that we're providing is adequate for this particular type of use and waver

[1:00:15] here against so that we we don't lose a couple spaces in the boat.

[1:00:20] » No, I I and I get it. I'm not I don't necessarily have issue with the waiver

[1:00:23] for the island. I'm [clears throat] just highlighting that the parking question

[1:00:26] brings up a bigger parking concern because the the parking too, correct me

[1:00:30] if I'm wrong, you're going to have staff there as well too. So staff is going to

[1:00:34] take up some of the parking as well, right?

[1:00:38] » Staff will uh will park, but if you took a ride two miles from here of the last

[1:00:45] three buildings I put up, uh there's uh 180 units. Uh, I think the partner

[1:00:53] places are are 200 that are there. Most people don't even have a car because

[1:00:59] they're in their 80s and they can't drive anymore. Um, it's I'm telling you,

[1:01:04] it's not going to be an issue uh about parking. It's just and everybody thinks

[1:01:10] the opposite way that there's not enough, but there's always so much extra

[1:01:15] space always. uh a lot of people don't have cars.

[1:01:21] » Is it is it too much to ask for you guys to do an analysis to highlight that?

[1:01:25] Because invariably what's going to happen is is that residents are going to

[1:01:30] come to us and say, "Hey, we have a problem here." And if we approve

[1:01:34] something and I and I understand that we're for the burrow, we're within the

[1:01:40] numbers that that you know, so there's not a waiver for the number of parking

[1:01:44] spaces, but invariably it's going to be a problem for the community and if we

[1:01:48] approve something and then there's a problem later on, we're all stuck with

[1:01:51] it. So, so that's why I'm saying would it be too much to ask to have that

[1:01:55] calculation done? So, for example, if you've done these communities before,

[1:01:59] you know, approximately, hey, if I have a 100 units only 50, I'm only going to

[1:02:04] need 50 spaces because this is what history tells me. If you can come up

[1:02:07] with an analysis like that, that'll help us be able to talk to the community

[1:02:11] about it when the question arises. >> Remember, this is affordable housing.

[1:02:16] It's not market rate. That's totally different in the calculation.

[1:02:21] because a lot of people can't afford to have a car because it's affordable

[1:02:26] housing. >> Right. But I'm saying but you based on

[1:02:28] your experience, you have some estimations on that. Can you provide

[1:02:32] estimations for what it would be based on your experience?

[1:02:40] » We're going to submit our traffic impact study. It made its way to the township

[1:02:43] but did not get submitted as part of the application here to the but we do have

[1:02:47] traffic one

[1:02:49] » that might be the PCSM report. >> Okay.

[1:02:52] » It was we received a review from the the traffic engineer.

[1:02:56] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:02:57] » I can't recall. I I apologize. The traffic impact study that was completed

[1:03:01] was in close proximity to the our submission date. So I don't know if it

[1:03:04] made its way into our submission. >> We have a review letter from

[1:03:09] » somebody on traffic. >> Yeah. The traffic engineer for the

[1:03:12] township is also our traffic engineer. So if you like one line one joint and I

[1:03:16] believe so he would have got it you submitted for the township. He would

[1:03:19] have got it on >> I do know that he has it.

[1:03:23] » Yes. >> Well in all fairness it's dated August

[1:03:26] 18th. So it hasn't been out there a while.

[1:03:31] » We haven't but I thought I read that it said that uh was going to produce that

[1:03:36] much traffic. But >> no but it's not going to tell us how

[1:03:39] many spaces are needed. It's going to say how many vehicles per hour you

[1:03:43] expect to have flow, but it's not going to tell you how many parking spaces you

[1:03:47] think are needed based on the needs of the community who are living there.

[1:03:50] Right? >> So, so it may be an unusual request, but

[1:03:55] the reason I'm asking for, like I said, we've had numerous problems in the

[1:03:58] burrow in the past. And so if we can show that, hey, the builder's done an

[1:04:04] analysis that thinks that we're only going to need x number of spaces, then

[1:04:08] that helps us sell it to the community to say, hey, we don't think there's

[1:04:13] going to be a problem. Or if your numbers show that there's a problem,

[1:04:16] then maybe we can get that red addressed ahead of time.

[1:04:19] » Right. Well, the other thing I was thinking is whatever evidence you showed

[1:04:22] to the township zoning hearing board might be helpful here. You said that the

[1:04:27] township gave you a waiver or I wasn't you were housing council at the

[1:04:33] time so but I do know that >> original relief uh was provided by the

[1:04:38] township neither TNM or got well involved project at that time.

[1:04:44] » Okay. But do you have whatever evidence was used or no? I I'm sure if I don't

[1:04:49] have >> right I mean to his point if he would

[1:04:52] like to show the the resident that we understand their concerns and here's

[1:04:58] what the developer says about >> so I do think the traffic impact site

[1:05:04] that we prepared for this application was submitted

[1:05:07] » would satisfy that we have not had a chance to fully address just the traffic

[1:05:11] engineer >> Jason did you hear that they do think

[1:05:16] their traffic study might help us understand that, but it's focused on

[1:05:22] traffic in and out as you said, non-p parking,

[1:05:24] » right, >> spaces. So, we need a little more

[1:05:26] information on your parking >> and uh burough council really should

[1:05:30] consider if this is a real concern of yours what you want to do with North

[1:05:35] Main Street. The ordinance requires two 12oot travel lanes and and 8 foot for

[1:05:41] parallel parking. So, you're going to want to consider if you want to allow or

[1:05:44] prohibit parking on the street. >> Mhm. Right. Because again, that's

[1:05:48] something we'd have to consider if we don't have enough spaces. So, Yep.

[1:05:52] » which is now a bigger deal, right? Because now we're dealing with a pendot

[1:05:57] road and >> Well, it's not pendot in the burrow.

[1:05:59] » Well, yeah, that's true. I'm sorry. >> Um and and with that in mind, consider

[1:06:04] public transportation as well, whether a bus stop or something along those lines

[1:06:08] would make sense. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:06:21] I did not read the traffic study and maybe Chad didn't either. I have no idea

[1:06:26] whether it says anything about parking on Maine or not. We'd have to have an

[1:06:30] expansion of Main Street to do that, right?

[1:06:33] » It's actually very close. I think they're within two and a half inches of

[1:06:38] what's within. >> Doesn't strike me that as that wide.

[1:06:41] » No, it doesn't. Um, >> no. It'll just create other problems.

[1:06:44] » I believe when Mr. Brown came and you presented a sketch plan with Mr. Clement

[1:06:49] like two years ago, if not more than that, the same question was brought up

[1:06:52] about parking and you were talking about maybe a space you did in Amler and you

[1:06:56] did talk about that you did have some type of analysis done. I remember the

[1:07:00] conversation. So, I would be happy to go back and see if something was provided

[1:07:04] at that time. I remember the conversation coming up because it was a

[1:07:07] concern. It might have been your concern, but I know it was a concern of

[1:07:09] rural council about parking. And I remember Mr. Clement was your council.

[1:07:13] It was just a sketch plan. There were residents here and that was a concern.

[1:07:17] And I remember you talking about studies being done that it's really to have a

[1:07:22] bar if a Gar for age age restricted income restricted housing. So I do know

[1:07:27] there has to be something out there somewhere that could help Burough

[1:07:30] Council see something that backs what your theory is about the parking.

[1:07:35] Remember the conversation, >> right? Is that so that B council can

[1:07:37] answer questions that are raised by their neighbors?

[1:07:42] » I check on that. >> Yeah, I remember the conversation. I

[1:07:44] don't know. I remember something. >> Okay. So, we we should go ahead and

[1:07:48] continue with the waiver part because that's what we what we're talking about

[1:07:52] here because that's really not a part of that.

[1:07:56] » Right. the waiver requests that were were here before you tonight would allow

[1:08:00] for more parking on site and >> eliminate the need or the requirement to

[1:08:05] install >> because the elimination of the aisle.

[1:08:07] » Yes. >> Yes, I did. Yeah.

[1:08:09] » So there any other questions from us on the waiverss?

[1:08:16] » There was the fourth waiver just to clarify regarding the parking at the

[1:08:20] » in the fence. >> Yeah. Did you guys have any questions

[1:08:23] related to that? >> No, we just went through that before.

[1:08:25] So, you know, I think the bigger question will come up from the the

[1:08:28] neighbors, >> right?

[1:08:31] » It's like 4 feet or so from the property line

[1:08:34] » about that. Yes. >> Yeah. Katie, can you pull up the

[1:08:37] existing plan? >> It's one of the first.

[1:08:39] » Oh, it's the second or the third sheet. >> Sorry guys.

[1:08:44] » Or the demo plan. >> Is it number three?

[1:08:48] » Uh right there. Yes. >> Go to the next one.

[1:08:50] » This one. >> Show. Yeah. Go to the previous one. So,

[1:08:55] can you point to where it is now? >> So, the existing parking line, this is

[1:09:02] this line right here, >> the top or the bottom?

[1:09:06] » Uh, the top of the two parallel lines right there is the parking. The bottom

[1:09:09] line is the property line. >> Okay.

[1:09:11] » So, we're we're maintaining the existing distance uh of the the parking field

[1:09:16] today as part of the post initial. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, like I said, I I don't

[1:09:21] necessarily have any issue with that. I think uh like in the past, people have

[1:09:25] always made accommodations where needed. So, I don't think that's that I I think

[1:09:28] you could work something out if there are any questions that come up about the

[1:09:32] fence or type of fence or do we want, you know, trees instead of a fence. I

[1:09:37] mean, I think you guys would be willing to accommodate any requests that may

[1:09:40] come up from the community. So, >> yeah, trees won't work there, but

[1:09:43] » I know, but you know what I mean. That's Yeah. Yeah. Willing to accommodate

[1:09:46] something. So, >> so the B manager has a question which I

[1:09:49] think we should talk about here. Go ahead. I'm sure the engineer has the

[1:09:53] same question. So my question is you're um planning to go to the zoning hearing

[1:09:57] board and you're planning to just ask for that zoning hearing order to be

[1:10:02] extended. Three minute exact same thing with the same nine implications. The one

[1:10:06] imple I'm calling it invocation. I don't know the ter. Thank you. Um the one

[1:10:12] condition is that you have to put a storm water pipe all the way down Main

[1:10:16] Street to the post office. I was surprised when you resubmitted your

[1:10:20] zoning not to admit that because while talking to our burough engineer that's

[1:10:25] just not something that's realistic for your property according to you you're

[1:10:29] going to put most of your storm water in Hel Township. So my question is how is

[1:10:33] that going to be addressed if you go back and you're just going to get a

[1:10:36] letter that says yeah sure we agree with everything we gave you before you're

[1:10:40] then going to be having to put that pipe down and that final wasn't addressed in

[1:10:44] any of the zoning application that you submitted. I don't know if this is the

[1:10:48] correct uh form for that, but that is uh something that we would have omitted uh

[1:10:54] or requested to be straightened from the zoning order if it were to be reinstated

[1:10:59] as discussed in our staff meetings that and as mentioned here's not a practical

[1:11:05] implementation >> correct

[1:11:07] » of that still modified. >> Yes. Um, so

[1:11:12] as part of our zoning hearing, we would discuss that not being part of

[1:11:16] » because your letter just seemed like you were okay and you were going to submit

[1:11:19] the same. Yeah. You were going to submit the same thing and ask for nine and all

[1:11:24] of those implications would just be reinstated.

[1:11:27] So I think council just want like to understand in the engineer like that,

[1:11:31] hey, it's not practical or practical. You planning on doing that.

[1:11:37] So without it getting legal without legal

[1:11:42] [laughter] I think the idea is that the because of the storm water changes that

[1:11:46] that is not practical anymore. We did would be requesting to strike that

[1:11:51] particular condition and I will legally amend our application. We do have time

[1:11:56] to do so so that it can be looking.

[1:12:02] Yes, we would have time to rob that properly so that it wasn't a continued

[1:12:06] condition that there was needed added on

[1:12:13] like when the application came in. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it was our

[1:12:17] understanding based on everything we've heard that you're just looking for. All

[1:12:20] right, let's extend it the way it was. And I think almost to your benefit, we

[1:12:25] flagged that as a problem for you. >> Great.

[1:12:28] » And Chad, from a burrow engineer perspective, you have no objections.

[1:12:33] » I have no objections, particularly considering the fact that they're

[1:12:36] looking to push all their water in the opposite direction.

[1:12:38] » Anyway, right. Okay.

[1:12:42] » Yes. >> Thanks, J. Any

[1:12:52] other questions, comments, questions? Go ahead.

[1:12:57] » I'm sorry. >> Go ahead.

[1:13:00] » That's our pres.

[1:13:08] » Yes. >> I think it's actually

[1:13:14] » state your name. I'm much daily vice president.

[1:13:17] » Thank you. >> Um

[1:13:20] there's going to [clears throat] be at the end 114 apartments somewhere around

[1:13:24] there. So that's the number I hear. >> Yes.

[1:13:26] » Okay. And it's age qualified. Is there going to be anything like um personal

[1:13:30] care or any kind of medical? No. >> This is all just street apartments.

[1:13:36] » Thank you. And we do have a letter from the

[1:13:40] township fire marshal which we're complying with as it relates to fire

[1:13:44] lanes and and proper signage and of course all of the necessary building

[1:13:49] codes for spring and fire protection. >> Just concerned if there's any anything

[1:13:55] in there that we need to worry about. >> Sounds good. Thank you.

[1:14:01] » Great question. >> Let me ask another question here too.

[1:14:03] Katie, if you can go back to the site right there. right there.

[1:14:08] So, you said you're going to will comply with with the comments in my letter. One

[1:14:11] of my comments is providing a handicap accessible path from building I think

[1:14:16] that's two across the parking lot to the the sidewalk. Would you do that without

[1:14:21] removing parking spaces? >> We would not um be within the parking

[1:14:27] field itself. we would not be able to uh provide struct parking. Uh we would

[1:14:33] require the removable parking spaces strike out crosswalk. What we would be

[1:14:37] envisioning is the crossing somewhere where there is no parking uh to get from

[1:14:42] the left side of the site to the right side of the site. This is not this is

[1:14:46] live. Um potentially something along the rear parking field here, rear parking

[1:14:52] field here or north uh where there is presently no parking spaces provided.

[1:14:56] Uh, go back to where you just were. So, you just had your finger in that general

[1:15:00] area. I was thinking of no doubt to that corner to that that sidewalk. I think

[1:15:04] you need to get people from that building too to that side to get them

[1:15:08] down to Main Street to, you know, go the rest of the way down. How are you going

[1:15:11] to do that without losing parking spaces?

[1:15:14] » I'm missing a point. From this building to Main Street

[1:15:18] » down here. >> Yes. Correct.

[1:15:19] » This entire length of the development is proposed to be sidewalked. Um, we would

[1:15:25] potentially be looking at adding sidewalk in this island here, providing

[1:15:28] an ADA access point from this building across the parking field or the drive

[1:15:32] aisles to this sidewalk network down to Main Street.

[1:15:37] » I think geometrically that makes sense. That means you're not going to put trees

[1:15:40] in that island, which would then require another waiver.

[1:15:46] » Yeah, this domino is in the will complies domino into problems. to your

[1:15:50] point right we do need to talk and discuss

[1:15:57] I don't have an answer to you right now but we'll we'll talk and figure it out

[1:16:02] another thing that came up at the planning commission meeting was and and

[1:16:06] we didn't solve it but we talked about some something outside for the people to

[1:16:11] go to you know like a gazebo or something like that

[1:16:14] » that was in the township >> yeah where would you put put that in

[1:16:17] there so that's something else that we talked about that

[1:16:20] » and and these certainly aren't deal breakers. These are all things that we

[1:16:23] need to consider and again a reason why don't just grant approvals without going

[1:16:27] through the details of of the the comments.

[1:16:30] » Yeah, transportation vehicles would come inside the inside the development pickup

[1:16:36] residence. That's how it works in all the all the communities. They come they

[1:16:40] drive in uh scheduled pickup or whatever it is, whoever is providing the service

[1:16:46] and pick up residents that way.

[1:16:51] to to go back to the comment you made about a common space. Uh between the

[1:16:56] proposed building one and existing seminaries, uh there is

[1:17:00] area that were kind of designated, you know, informally as a courtyard space

[1:17:04] for the outdoor congregation of the residents. Um, presently as part of the

[1:17:09] application, there's no site furnishings or benches proposed, but believe the

[1:17:15] owner and applicant are open to discussions about how that ultimately

[1:17:19] looks. >> That was kind of the uh the tenor of the

[1:17:23] discussion the other night. >> Yeah.

[1:17:26] » So, okay. >> Okay. Very good.

[1:17:31] » One more question. Can you clarify what's happening with that driveway in

[1:17:35] between the residential driveway and your property?

[1:17:38] » We want to leave it untouched as much as possible. Um, we are proposing to

[1:17:42] physically separate it via a chain fence or something barrier gate that would

[1:17:47] only be open in an emergency. It would be for the continued use and benefit of

[1:17:52] the residents that don't have access to West Street. Good.

[1:18:02] Okay, that's all I have. >> Okay. Sitting too close to him.

[1:18:08] » Okay. Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it.

[1:18:12] » Thank you guys. >> Thank you.

[1:18:20] » All right, we'll move on to number six. Public hearing ordinance number 562

[1:18:26] amending chapter 2 animals of the code ordinances of the bureau of Hatfield

[1:18:31] providing definitions and conditions to regulate the keeping and feeding of

[1:18:36] feral/outdoor cats in the burough.

[1:18:41] » Yes, please. >> Okay.

[1:18:43] » Um this is the update to our pearl cat

[1:18:48] which we've been working on for months and months and months. Okay. So, um We

[1:18:53] have advertised tonight for a public hearing and I do have um an exhibit

[1:18:59] tomorrow, two exhibits tomorrow that I'm going to hand into Katie to make sure

[1:19:04] that we have them in minutes. Okay. So um guys would favor

[1:19:12] the rest of the meeting. >> No, they don't have to stay um for the

[1:19:16] rest of the meeting, but during this part of the meeting he doesn't watch.

[1:19:20] » Yeah. Was that all right? Okay. All right. So, I have burrow one is an

[1:19:26] affidavit of publication proving that we uh published in the newspaper that we

[1:19:31] were going to consider adopting a new fur cat ordinance and burrow 2 or B2 is

[1:19:39] uh the a copy of the ordinance itself. Um B council has discussed this several

[1:19:45] times. Um and the purpose of the public hearing

[1:19:51] is to uh to let the public comment about this process. The committee worked very

[1:19:58] hard on this ordinance. And it basically what it does is it provides a pathway to

[1:20:06] allow people to feed furl cats, but only if they register and the cats have

[1:20:11] certain characteristics like proof that they were um sterilized and that they're

[1:20:19] marked that way and things like that. Because

[1:20:22] feeding furrow cats, and the ordinance says this, creates a nuisance in the

[1:20:28] burrow because uh you feed furough cats, you get a lot more furough cats. And

[1:20:33] they don't just hang out on your property, they hang out on all of your

[1:20:37] neighbors properties. And the burrow has had complaints. So what we have tonight

[1:20:43] is the burough's consideration of an ordinance that

[1:20:47] permits feeding of fur cats but only under certain circumstances. And if you

[1:20:52] feed fur cats without going through the circumstances which are registering and

[1:20:57] making sure that the cats are neutered and and that that that you're taking

[1:21:02] care of them. Um then you're going to get fine. And it it announces three

[1:21:07] fines. Last page. First offense is only $50 and

[1:21:13] you'll be informed that you have to register. Second offense is 100, third

[1:21:17] offense 200, and fourth offense $500. Okay? So, what we're trying to do is get

[1:21:24] people to realize that they have to commit to compliance. They don't commit

[1:21:28] to compliance, it's going to get very expensive.

[1:21:31] And um we could take other actions as well, but it seems to me that once

[1:21:37] people start getting fines for feeding burrow cats that they will realize that

[1:21:42] the burrow is serious about that. So that's basically the exhibits showing

[1:21:47] tonight's been appropriately advertised and I just gave you a summary of the

[1:21:51] ordinance. Um uh chairman I think the best thing to do would be first ask for

[1:21:57] questions from Bur Council and then ask if there's any member of the audience

[1:22:00] who has a question about the ordinance. Good.

[1:22:03] » All right. Anybody on council have any questions on the new ordinance proposed

[1:22:08] ordinance?

[1:22:12] Anybody in the audience have any questions? Okay. All right. The record

[1:22:16] should reflect that neither burough council nor anybody in the audience

[1:22:19] there are people in the audience raised any issues with regard to the burrow

[1:22:24] cat. >> Sarah Ke is there anybody online?

[1:22:27] » Sorry. Is there anybody online who has a question?

[1:22:30] » We don't. >> That's fair. It's very difficult to get

[1:22:34] it's very difficult to get participation unless the person in the room

[1:22:38] » and nobody provided questions ahead of time.

[1:22:40] » Nope. So >> did we receive any questions ahead of

[1:22:43] time? Dr.

[1:22:46] » Jamie didn't mention it to me and she usually would. So I think that we did,

[1:22:50] but we can assume that we did not. >> I would also then announce that um we

[1:22:54] can close the public hearing, but this is on the agenda tonight for action. So

[1:23:00] um if anyone's interested in the federal category, they can they can stay and see

[1:23:05] what happens with this. Okay. >> Thanks. I think we close the hearing.

[1:23:09] » Thank you.

[1:23:14] Okay, I think I can start this. Um, we're going to move on to number seven,

[1:23:18] reports from standing committees and the mayor. Uh, budget, labor, and finance,

[1:23:22] budget, finance, and labor committee report. uh on that one. Um we did meet

[1:23:28] we we met on I close my book

[1:23:35] the fourth and uh we just we just discussed uh upcoming

[1:23:40] um numbers for the um

[1:23:47] the upcoming numbers coming for u next year's budget. And uh that was about it

[1:23:52] for for that committee. Um planning, building and zoning

[1:23:57] committee report. Uh we did not meet but we've been working on both the feral cat

[1:24:02] ordinance that as was stated. We're going to address that later and also the

[1:24:08] um we have another one that we're bringing

[1:24:11] up that we'll be talking about a little bit later as well. So uh public safety

[1:24:16] committee report. Um, we should be meeting soon, but I have nothing in the

[1:24:21] report as of right now. >> Um, public works and property and

[1:24:26] equipment committee report.

[1:24:30] » Oh, we just had meeting today for our

[1:24:36] council. So, um, 2036 project includes ongoing roads, storm water, utility,

[1:24:43] park maintenance, and area ramp improvements. And for 206 the future

[1:24:48] plan includes delivery improvements park priorities and funding includes safe and

[1:24:54] handout and other infrastructure programs.

[1:24:57] » Okay. Very good. >> Okay.

[1:25:03] Uh utility committee report. >> So the utilities committee did meet

[1:25:06] about three weeks ago. So been a while. Um there was nothing really to report

[1:25:12] out to the public or to council on. We did have a lot of discussion about uh

[1:25:16] some current activities and things going on with the grid uh and some of our

[1:25:21] major customers, but there's really nothing to report.

[1:25:23] » Okay. Thank you. >> Uh have the economic revitalization

[1:25:28] outreach committee report? I don't if there's anybody here from that.

[1:25:32] » Nope. Okay. Yep. >> Uh and uh the mayor is not here, so do

[1:25:38] you do she leave you anything, Jamie? No. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll

[1:25:43] move on to reports and correspondence. >> Uh the monthly investing reports is in

[1:25:49] your packets. Um we will get more into investments later in this uh meeting. So

[1:25:55] I won't really talk about key banks since agenda items tonight, but the cash

[1:25:58] accounts through June 30th is located in packages as well.

[1:26:04] » Okay.

[1:26:07] The monthly EIT and LST report. monthly EIT and LST report is in your packets

[1:26:13] through the end of July uh 2026 326 214 and 2025 it was 323 381. If you look

[1:26:22] down uh kind of going through August it looks like August might be a really good

[1:26:26] month for us. Uh last year it brought in $101,000.

[1:26:30] Year to date we're at 32. So it does look like we have some room for growth

[1:26:33] in August. So it seems like we're tracking good. And when we move into LST

[1:26:40] um through the end of July 2026, 25,000 226 2025 we're at 27,484

[1:26:49] little bit behind but again um roughly $10,000 comes in August. So we'll we'll

[1:26:56] see where we are at the end of the month at the September meeting.

[1:27:00] » Monthly year-to- date report. Monthly year-to- date report is in your packets

[1:27:04] just highlighting roughly halfway through the year. Uh 54% of revenues

[1:27:09] received um 50% of expenditures used of revenues were 352 538 for June and

[1:27:17] expenses 424 584 which seems to track on par with us. some expenses tend to be a

[1:27:24] little bit higher sometimes in um June, July and August just due to the electric

[1:27:28] bill >> and monthly zoning hearing board

[1:27:31] applications. >> So um as we just spoke about during uh

[1:27:35] 200 North Main Street, uh they do have a zoning hearing board application um that

[1:27:41] they will be coming back to zoning hearing board asking for an extension of

[1:27:45] one year. Uh that zoning hearing board is scheduled for September 24th, 2026.

[1:27:51] That's what I was out in the lobby talking to them about. Um, just if you

[1:27:55] had any comments or anything about their zoning, um, they would be happy to come

[1:27:59] back to the next meeting and talk about it. Um, and I had said, I will let you

[1:28:03] know. But again, this was already pre-approved. They're just going back

[1:28:06] and it looks like they're going to make some type of amendment to address the

[1:28:09] storm water pipe before they go back on the 24th.

[1:28:14] » Okay. And we'll have the Hatfield 250 committee report. Um even though uh July

[1:28:20] 4th has come and gone, uh the events were great. You know, we did well. Uh we

[1:28:24] actually we still have some events coming up. Uh Thursday, September 10th,

[1:28:29] 7 p.m. at the Hatfield Township Building. Um the speaker will be Chief

[1:28:33] Blue J. uh also known as Barbara Macowski of the um she's part of the

[1:28:39] Lapi tribe and she'll be giving a talk on the past, present, future of the Lafi

[1:28:44] people and their culture including important places in Bucks and McGomery

[1:28:48] County, places we can go see and visit and stuff. And she'll be having cultural

[1:28:53] items and stuff there as well. Um, and then on Monday, October 12th at 7 PM in

[1:28:59] the Hatfield Township Building, uh, the speaker will be Tim McGrath. He's the

[1:29:04] author of a book, Give Me a Fast Ship: The Continental Navy and America's

[1:29:09] Revolution at Sea. The topic is the history of the American Navy during the

[1:29:13] Revolutionary War. And then Thursday, November 12th at 7 p.m. at the Township

[1:29:19] Building, Dr. Suzanne Johnston of the Tmentson chapter of the Daughters of the

[1:29:25] American Revolution. She'll be speaking on spies of the revolution and the

[1:29:30] lecture will talk about something called the culprit ring and about the unusual

[1:29:34] methods that were used to convey messages. Um, for participants that are

[1:29:39] there, bring a pencil and an eraser because you're going to be decoding uh

[1:29:43] ciphers and things to see if you could really be a So,

[1:29:49] like one of [laughter]

[1:29:52] » That's funny. >> Yeah, these things uh if if you've ever

[1:29:56] gone to any of them, they're actually really good. Um, so see if you can get

[1:30:02] out there and see. There's a fourth one we're not sure of yet and we don't know

[1:30:06] when it'll fit in there, but hopefully there'll be a fourth one.

[1:30:11] » All right. Um the Montgomery County Planning Commission steering committee.

[1:30:17] » Uh the Montgomery County Planning Commission steering committee met on

[1:30:20] Monday after our planning commission meeting. We looked at the uh

[1:30:23] comprehensive plan like the draft of it. We went through made some like minor

[1:30:27] changes and adjustments. Um the planning commission is going to memory county

[1:30:31] planning commission is going to put that all together, give us a good draft that

[1:30:34] we can share with the rest of council and our consultants and then we'll move

[1:30:38] through the process of scheduling a public comment period and work through

[1:30:42] the adoption of what that looks like maybe more towards the end of the year,

[1:30:45] maybe into the beginning of next year depending on how long the process takes

[1:30:49] for public comment. But we're going to have a really nice cleaned up draft that

[1:30:52] we can share with council and our consultants and ask for input.

[1:30:57] Yeah, we had asked them and they're going to provide copies of each of us

[1:31:01] get one so you guys could see it. You know, it's really I guess what that runs

[1:31:05] till November. Did he say next year? >> Yeah. Our our contract runs I think

[1:31:11] halfway through next year. So if we had any like design work on parks or

[1:31:15] anything like that after this they still are contracted with us. They can help us

[1:31:18] on some other things as well. >> So

[1:31:21] » all right. Uh the police department report

[1:31:29] » still awake out there. >> I was actually about [laughter]

[1:31:36] » uh fire department report. >> We have another $50 month this end of

[1:31:41] July. We're at 362 August for 387.

[1:31:48] We had a bunch of virus recently. actual fire alarm. So, very actively

[1:31:55] made that way too. >> Can we just briefly go back to the

[1:31:59] police? >> Oh, yeah. Sure.

[1:32:00] » Just wanted to point out that the way we wrote this ordinance with the fines, it

[1:32:06] can be enforced by our own code officer. >> Yes.

[1:32:08] » Oh, that's better. >> That's what I thought you would say. So,

[1:32:12] there >> and it doesn't go back to the first if

[1:32:15] you get fined and you go a little while. It doesn't go back. There you go.

[1:32:20] » You you you're stuck at that and you go to the next level. So it's not like you

[1:32:24] can, you know, stop for a while and then okay, it's only 50 bucks, you know.

[1:32:28] Yeah, >> that's a good one.

[1:32:29] » Yeah. >> Right. So that was one of the changes

[1:32:31] the committee recommended. So I thought the police be happy about that.

[1:32:35] » Yeah. >> Maybe do that for

[1:32:38] [laughter]

[1:32:43] » Okay. EMS report. >> EMS report in your packets for the month

[1:32:48] of July. uh 1,140 calls. 11 of those were in Hatville Burrow and the highest

[1:32:55] fall was 44% was falls. >> That is that number higher than it's

[1:33:01] been in the past. The 11 for the bur. >> Uh no, it was about like between eight

[1:33:08] and maybe 13 something. >> Yeah, I I remember single digits. Yeah.

[1:33:12] » It's always false. >> Yeah.

[1:33:13] » Yeah. One time it wasn't. I remember one one meeting was like it's not false. It

[1:33:18] was like sick nursing. >> Yeah.

[1:33:22] » Public works. >> Um nothing really exciting to add. Um

[1:33:26] here for any questions you might have though.

[1:33:32] » Engineering report. >> Uh coming up you'll see on the agenda

[1:33:36] release of escrow for 23 North Main Street Hatfield Wall project that's

[1:33:41] wrapping up. They have some sight stabilization to complete, top coat of

[1:33:46] paving, and some ancillary work to do, but that's that's about wrapping up. Uh,

[1:33:51] Brooks has been in communication with Jamie and myself regarding a big parking

[1:33:55] lot expansion they want to do in the back. Originally, we thought it was

[1:33:59] going to be a land development application through the burrow. It turns

[1:34:02] out the majority, if not all the parking lots actually going to be in the

[1:34:06] township, but they're going to be sending their storm water to the burrow.

[1:34:09] What's that sound like? Right. Um, I believe it's going to be a storm water

[1:34:13] permit as opposed to a land development because again the majority of the work

[1:34:17] is is in the township. But they kind of been going back and forth with us for

[1:34:21] two months plus at this point and and they still don't have an application in.

[1:34:25] But I suspect at some point in the future that that's going to come in

[1:34:29] soon. They have big plans from what we understand. Um, they need to expand

[1:34:34] dramatically. Um, and they need to expand uh both the facilities and and

[1:34:38] the number of employees that that they're bringing in. So, I think they're

[1:34:42] going through a lot of due diligence, different options, potentially some

[1:34:46] large buildings on the property with again expanded parking lot.

[1:34:50] All very preliminary at this point, but there may be some good things coming

[1:34:53] down the line on that property. Then, the other thing I want to report on is

[1:34:57] the ADA ramps. We've been working for several months now on that. Um, I have

[1:35:01] the draft designs on my desk right now. Uh we are adding eight more. So that's

[1:35:06] going to take a little bit of time. The goal is to have this ready for bid uh

[1:35:10] early next year. So that's the plan that will be funded with liquid fuels funds.

[1:35:16] I have

[1:35:20] » zoning officer building code property maintenance report.

[1:35:24] » Zing officer report is in your packet just highlighting uh completed by uh

[1:35:28] five fire inspections, three rental inspections, uh 10 notices of high

[1:35:32] grass. uh rubbish sidewall repairs, work without a permit, and one non-tra

[1:35:38] citation uh for an unstaged structure.

[1:35:44] » Our marshall safety inspection report. >> There's no report included in your

[1:35:48] packet. >> And junior council person report.

[1:35:51] » Nothing related to report for this month.

[1:35:56] » All right. Manager's report. >> My report was included in your packets.

[1:36:00] Um nothing new specifically um except disconnections will resume in September

[1:36:06] for pass to electric accounts. And just wanted to highlight um most residents I

[1:36:12] know I personally did at my house and I know you staff member who did should

[1:36:16] have re uh received a letter from Congress Fitzpatrick um that he's proud

[1:36:21] that he got Hatville Burough $1 million for a storm water and sanitary uh sewer

[1:36:26] infrastructure project. Uh we talked about that in length tonight in um

[1:36:30] public works and property and equipment and we're really excited that the

[1:36:33] burrow's you know uh awarded a million dollars. Our match is you know only

[1:36:37] 300,000 of that and we've been working with Chad's office to work on Cherry

[1:36:42] Street, Diamond Street, Union Street kind of getting that neighborhood all

[1:36:46] the sanitary done with the ADA ramps along with possibly paving and then it's

[1:36:51] kind of going to be like east school west uh east school forest and orchard

[1:36:55] work. that neighborhood will basically be completed. So, I know the committee

[1:36:59] was excited about hearing about how the grant worked and that we can, you know,

[1:37:03] move forward and um so we're just waiting for some grant documentation

[1:37:06] from that, but um if we can reach out to the congressman when we have those

[1:37:10] documents and we can do some type of groundbreaking or something, I think

[1:37:13] their office would really appreciate it.

[1:37:19] » Okay, move on to new business. Um first one is 23 North Main Street, Hatfield

[1:37:24] Block. Site work escrow release number one.

[1:37:28] » As Chad highlighted in his report on her consideration this evening, uh based on

[1:37:32] the construction status, the engineer is recommending a site work expert release

[1:37:37] of 326,799.30

[1:37:42] and it's on for consideration as an action item.

[1:37:47] » Uh B defined benefit plan 2027 minimum municipal obligation. Uh every year we

[1:37:54] have to um approve a minim minimum municipal obligation for our defined

[1:37:59] benefit plan and defined contribution plan. Uh ironically they're the same as

[1:38:05] last year, not surprisingly for the defined benefit because we had sunseted

[1:38:09] that plan. So we'll basically know moving forward uh what that amount is.

[1:38:14] And for the defined benefit, our minimum municipal obligation uh for 2027 is

[1:38:19] $61,858.

[1:38:23] And for item number C for the defined contribution plan, minimum obligation

[1:38:28] for 2027 will be $34,700. And both of those are on for

[1:38:33] consideration as an action item this evening and will be placed in the 2027

[1:38:37] budget. >> Good. Great. So we did see we'll go to D

[1:38:42] resolution 2026-10 key bankank investment accounts.

[1:38:48] » Uh we talked about at the last meeting um key bank and our investment accounts

[1:38:53] and how we manage those and um budget finance and labor um and myself had

[1:38:59] created a memo that was uh sent out to to burough counsel and the solicitor

[1:39:04] just highlighted how we can move forward with our investments. So currently right

[1:39:07] now we have four investment accounts and we're strictly looking to take those

[1:39:12] four investment accounts and just making them one investment account. The

[1:39:15] investments will still be the same. You will be investing in the same items. Uh

[1:39:19] the money will be the same. We just pay fees to manage four accounts. So instead

[1:39:23] of paying fees and doing all the administrative work for four accounts,

[1:39:26] we're just putting it into one account. Also, when we put them into one account,

[1:39:30] it makes the investments that we're able to look at a little bit larger. So when

[1:39:36] we have, you know, $2.4 million in an investment account versus $136,000,

[1:39:42] we're just able to earn more money back. So it's just a way we checked with Key

[1:39:46] Bank. There's nothing that doesn't allow us to do that. Uh Diane will still

[1:39:50] continue to um use all four of those accounts in her recordkeeping. So we

[1:39:56] would take money from to buy something for electric and we use electric money

[1:40:00] to pay that back. that's still going to be documented on a spreadsheet for our

[1:40:04] auditor. It's just really for administration purposes and um really

[1:40:09] the fees that we pay every month to manage four accounts goes down when we

[1:40:13] only are managing one. >> And I believe the solicitor looked at

[1:40:18] it, she was okay with it. >> Right. Right.

[1:40:22] You might not remember this, but burrows and all the governments are limited in

[1:40:27] what we're allowed to invest in. >> Right. So I sent that information to um

[1:40:31] Ebank who and um and they have acknowledged to to

[1:40:36] Jamie that they understand that they have to use those investments. I would

[1:40:41] like to get a letter from them on letterhead saying they understand and

[1:40:45] that all the money that we put with them they'll make sure stays in investments

[1:40:49] that they're allowed to invest in under uh Pennsylvania law. So I'm fine with

[1:40:55] that. I was just worried that they didn't understand that you're limited in

[1:40:59] and where you could put your money because the legislature selected certain

[1:41:03] things they thought were safe investments for local governments.

[1:41:09] » And I would just sorry I'd like to just say thank you to the manager, assistant

[1:41:13] manager and budget finance and labor for always evaluating opportunities to save

[1:41:18] money and and make more in our investments. So thank you for the

[1:41:21] efforts.

[1:41:25] » Sorry. Wow, [laughter]

[1:41:27] » that was so good.

[1:41:31] » I did that on purpose. I did. >> Good timing. [laughter] Uh, E resolution

[1:41:37] 2026-11 closure of certain burough roads for

[1:41:41] Fall Fest. >> This is the annual resolution of the

[1:41:44] closure of East Lincoln Avenue for the burrow uh for the fall festival event.

[1:41:49] This authorizes the closure for the fall fest on September 19th from 12:00 p.m.

[1:41:55] to 8:00 p.m. and it's on for consideration as an action item. Though

[1:41:59] we will not be having a car show this year, we still are interested in closing

[1:42:03] the road just for safety and traffic. We're still going to be having vendors,

[1:42:06] people walking around even though there isn't any cars. It still makes the event

[1:42:09] a lot more functioning. >> Yeah.

[1:42:12] Okay. Um F ordinance number 563 provisions to penalties for compliance

[1:42:18] for vegetation and snow removal.

[1:42:24] » Okay. This is another ordinance where we are trying to um help enforcement of

[1:42:29] things like shoveling your sidewalk on a timely

[1:42:32] basis and cutting your grass. And um this ordinance makes it easier for our

[1:42:39] code officer to to enforce compliance by shifting to a basically fines, you know,

[1:42:46] the same way. And the way we could do it as opposed to filing a little lawsuit

[1:42:51] with the district justice office, um maybe put like a door hanger on saying,

[1:42:56] [snorts] "Hey, you got to do this or else." you know, and so that what we're

[1:43:01] asking for tonight is just permission to advertise this. And I think Jamie's

[1:43:06] picked a September date, the regular meeting in September for the hearing.

[1:43:10] » Okay. >> So, that's one for an action item just

[1:43:13] to advertise. >> We Okay,

[1:43:15] » we we raised Did we raise the fines on that, too? I thought we did. I think the

[1:43:19] it's uh so for vegetation it's you have five days after the door knocker or it's

[1:43:26] $25 a day for every day. Yeah. >> And for snow it's 24 hours and then it's

[1:43:32] $25 a day every day continuous until you take care. And if you do not comply with

[1:43:38] either of that then we still have the right as the solicitor said to go to um

[1:43:42] Judge Lavine's office and file. >> Okay.

[1:43:46] All right. G43 Roosevelt escrow release number two final site work escrow

[1:43:52] » escrow releases on for consideration for 43 Roosevelt for their site work in the

[1:43:58] amount of $82,5502.

[1:44:02] Uh this would be release number two final release and is being recommended

[1:44:07] by our engineer and on for consideration as an action item.

[1:44:13] Uh H payment request number two final payment for pedestrian crossing

[1:44:17] improvement project. >> Subject to whatever Chad says on this

[1:44:21] one. Chad approved this final pay Bowman. I'm sorry Bowman approved this

[1:44:28] final payment on on this project. But this is a project where we had a lawsuit

[1:44:33] filed because somebody slipped and fell or fell off a skateboard or something.

[1:44:38] And um under our contract with the contractor who who is armor

[1:44:44] um who we do a lot of work with actually they had to give us a certificate of

[1:44:49] insurance and then offer to hold us harmless in this situation. They gave us

[1:44:54] a certificate of insurance and they signed the contract

[1:44:59] 60 days ago. I notified them that we had this lawsuit pending from somebody who

[1:45:04] was injured while during while the construction was proceeding allegedly

[1:45:09] because the condition was unsafe. Okay. Um and so my recommendation tonight is

[1:45:18] this is ready for approval. I would suggest that the motion be and I think I

[1:45:23] think uh Jamie wrote it down here, didn't you?

[1:45:25] » Yeah. Yeah. We'll cover that when we get to that part.

[1:45:27] » Right. And the motion would be just to that you can that you can authorize

[1:45:32] payment when they comply with their contract

[1:45:36] » because if they fail to pick up the the lawsuit, they're in breach. They have an

[1:45:41] obligation under their contract to ensure us. And I don't think it's Armor.

[1:45:45] I think it's their insurance company. So today um I resent the letter. Yes, I

[1:45:50] resent the letter. And today I heard from the insurance company saying,

[1:45:54] "Okay, we have your letter." I said, "No, what I need is a letter from abuse

[1:45:58] saying you're picking it up and you're taking care of it and you're going to

[1:46:02] cover it." So, I didn't get that yet, but my suggestion would be that you

[1:46:06] authorize the payment when I get that letter that they're going to comply with

[1:46:10] the contract, >> right?

[1:46:12] » Okay. >> Okay.

[1:46:14] All right. Uh, is there any old business

[1:46:21] anybody? All right. We'll move on to the action

[1:46:24] items. Um, a motion to consider ordinance number 562 amending chapter 2

[1:46:33] animals of the code of ordinances of the bureau of Hatfield providing definitions

[1:46:38] and conditions to regulate the keeping and feeding of feral/outdoor

[1:46:42] cats in the burrow. I need a motion. >> Second. So we have a motion by Michelle

[1:46:51] Weiss and a second by Jason Ferguson. All in favor?

[1:46:56] » I opposed. >> Motion passes.

[1:47:02] B. Motion to consider site work escrow release number one at 23 North Main

[1:47:07] Street, Hatfield Walk in the amount of $326,799.30.

[1:47:15] I need a motion.

[1:47:19] » Motion second. >> Second. All right. We have a motion by

[1:47:23] Sevilla and a second by Michelle. All in favor?

[1:47:28] » I opposed. Motion passes. Um C. [clears throat]

[1:47:35] Motion to consider the defined benefit benefit pension plan 2027 minimum

[1:47:41] municipal obligation in the amount of $61,858.

[1:47:48] You get a motion.

[1:47:53] » Second. >> Okay. Have a motion by Michelle, second

[1:47:56] by Cynthia. All in favor? I opposed. I have it D. Motion to consider the

[1:48:03] defined contribution pension plan 2027 minimum municipal obligation for

[1:48:10] employees receiving contributions of their annual income in the amount of

[1:48:15] $34,700. Need a motion.

[1:48:19] » Second. >> Second.

[1:48:23] » Okay. Motion by Michelle, second by Sevilla. All in favor?

[1:48:27] » I >> opposed.

[1:48:29] Seventh. E. Motion to approve re resolution 2026-10

[1:48:36] merging a key bank investment account into one account titled Hatfield Burough

[1:48:41] Capital Reserve. Need a motion? >> Second.

[1:48:45] » Okay. Motion by Michelle, second by Sevilla. All in favor?

[1:48:49] » I opposed. Have it.

[1:48:54] Um, close to agreements resolution 2026-11

[1:48:59] closure of certain burough roads for the annual

[1:49:03] fall fest event. Motion. Okay. Second. >> Second.

[1:49:08] » All right. We have a motion by Michelle, second by Sevilla. All in favor?

[1:49:12] » I opposed. 57. And we have a motion G a motion to

[1:49:18] consider advertising ordinance number 563

[1:49:23] amending chapter 10 health and safety and chapter 21 streets and sidewalks of

[1:49:28] the code of ordinances of the burrow of Hatfield to revise and restate

[1:49:33] provisions relating to penalties for fail failure to comply with grass,

[1:49:38] weeds, and other vegetation and snow and ice removal for a public hearing to be

[1:49:43] held on September 16, 26 at 700 p.m. I get a motion. Second.

[1:49:50] » Second. >> Right. We have a motion by Michelle,

[1:49:53] second by Sevilla. All in favor? I post. I have it.

[1:50:00] Okay. H. Motion to consider escrow release number

[1:50:05] two, final site work escrow for 43 North North Roosevelt Avenue, I'm sorry,

[1:50:11] Roosevelt Avenue in the amount of $82,5502.

[1:50:20] » Second. >> All right. Motion by Michelle, second by

[1:50:22] Cadilla. All in favor? >> I opposed.

[1:50:27] Seven. All right. Last one is a motion to consider payment request number two,

[1:50:33] final payment to Armor and Suns Electric, Inc. in the amount of

[1:50:37] $143,28267

[1:50:43] pending an acceptable response to the Timothy Knox letter sent on June 10th,

[1:50:49] 2026. >> Move. Second.

[1:50:53] » Right. Motion by Michelle, second by Sevilla. All in favor? I

[1:50:58] » I oppos have it.

[1:51:01] » All right. And do we have a motion to approve the payment of the bills?

[1:51:07] » Any questions on those first?

[1:51:12] » The ramp's done. [laughter]

[1:51:16] » So, we open it tomorrow. [laughter]

[1:51:22] » Ramp's done. It looks great. I think Steve and the Steve's crew and the

[1:51:25] contractor did uh I said in today it looks awesome and amazing. I'm excited

[1:51:29] for the business to open, but the ramp looks awesome.

[1:51:33] » Good job. >> Because of the long hair.

[1:51:37] » Yes, >> it's just a feeling.

[1:51:39] » It's getting cut tomorrow. Okay. [laughter]

[1:51:43] » Okay. >> Getting text from him during the

[1:51:47] meeting. Yes.

[1:51:49] » Steve, you need one of these. Steve is just jealous.

[1:51:55] » They're empty, huh? >> Yes. [laughter]

[1:51:58] » Can I get a motion for the to approve the payment of the bills?

[1:52:03] » Okay. >> Second.

[1:52:07] » I'll second it. >> Okay. So, we got a motion by Cydia,

[1:52:09] second by Jason. All in favor? >> I opposed.

[1:52:15] And uh I guess we're going to have an

[1:52:18] executive session. Uh motion for adjournment.

[1:52:23] » Second. >> Okay. Motion by Michelle, second by

[1:52:26] Cadilla.

August 19, 2026 Hatfield Borough Council Workshop / Regular Meeting

Transcript