EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYVANIA
8848 JONESTOWN ROAD, GRANTVILLE, PA 17028
January 22, 2008
Present: David Craig, Chairman;
Donna Lebo, Vice Chairman; Mike Webb, Member, Michael Kovach, Member
Absent: Ed Twaddell, Member
Also Present: Jaromir Kovarik, Consulting Attorney to the Planning Commission
Andrew Stein, Consultant to East Hanover Township
Norman Ulrich, Township Engineer
Dawn Eppinger, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Commission
David Smith, Township Zoning Officer
Matthew Jones and Karen Green, Dauphin County Planning Commission
This meeting was audio taped. The tapes are strictly for the use of the
Administrative Assistant for clarification during preparation of the minutes.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Craig at 7:05 pm.
REORGANIZATION
An election of officers took place.
a. Chairman – Mrs. Lebo made a motion to nominate Mr. Craig for Chairman.
Mr. Kovach seconded the motion. Being no further discussion, the motion
was approved 3 in favor, 1 abstention, Mr. Craig.
b. Vice Chairman – Mr. Webb nominated Mrs. Lebo for Vice Chairman. Mr.
Kovach seconded the motion. Being no further discussion, the motion was
approved 3 in favor, 1 abstention, Mrs. Lebo.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Mr. Webb made a motion to recommend approval of the meeting minutes of
December 19, 2007. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Lebo. Being no
further discussion, the motion was approved 3 in favor, 0 opposed, 1
abstention, Mr. Kovach, because he was not present at the December
meeting.
Announcement by Planning Commission Special Council
• Mr. Kovarik noted that based on the charge given to the Planning Commission
and Water Task Committee by the Board of Supervisors, a first draft of the new
1 01/22/2007

storm water management and flood protection ordinance. It is published on the
township website. There is also an advertisement in the newspaper. Mr. Kovarik
asked for input from the residents and potential developers. This ordinance will
address storm water and flood protection. We are looking at significant changes
unifying the approach. They are starting with a 100 year storm. Please give
involved. Draft is still open for comments and modifications. Anticipation for
enactment is April 1 st . We will look work closely with those submitting new
applications until the ordinance is finalized. Questions can be directed at
engineer, himself or the Planning Commission
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Steve Gingrich, Kimberly Gingrich and Robert & Stacey Jones (expires
03/23/08). This is a preliminary-final one-lot addition. There were no
representatives for the applicant and no revisions.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Jody Royer (expires 04/20/08)- This is a preliminary two lot subdivision plan
located on Jonestown Road in Grantville. Mr. John Madden of Madden
Engineering and Lou Robinson were present to represent the applicant.
• Mr. Madden noted this is a two lot subdivision at the intersection of Stirrup Lane
and Red Fox; there are 12 acres. There is a new lot being created on 1.88 acres
on Red Fox Lane. The portion of the rear of the property is on Manada Creek. It
is a part of the Fairfield Acre subdivision.
• Mr. Craig asked how many lots have been pulled off this parent tract.
• Mr. Madden answered he does not know how many lots have been pulled off for
the Fairfield Acre subdivision. This is just a subdivision of the 12 acre tract that
was in the subdivision originally. It is a new subdivision on the 12 acres.
• Mr. Craig asked how far back the date goes back when this was enacted. How
many lots are subdivided out
• Mr. Smith answered if the question is related to on-lot disposal, there is a
requirement by DEP to trace the tract back to May 15, 1972. May 15, 1972,
there was 17 tracts that were created since then. That is for DEP purposes for
the plan module.
• Mr. Kovarik added there might be some concern for the future because there is
the ordinance that limits withdrawal from the area which is unable to recharge the
same withdrawal up to 40% less. We have to start looking at if we go step by
step, we might get to that point where there might be 25 units, even if you don’t
do them at the same time. He thinks the question might be how many
subdivisions do we have in this area from this same lot, 5 years back.
• Mr. Craig asked if we are under the trigger point of 25. Mr. Kovarik noted we are
under 25 units since it was enacted.
2 01/22/2007

• Mr. Smith noted he reviewed the planning module that was submitted and in
doing so found out there were 17 lots since 1972.
• Mr. Ulrich noted the issues regarding the side yards and set backs, which is a
plan revision; site angles, driveway issue regarding the grade. The plan shows it
is very close; they are just looking for some spot grades to ensure there are no
issues; 309.9 of zoning with paving was referenced.
• Mr. Ulrich continued there are requirements for steep slopes and the riparian
buffer and how they need to be shown. They are missing some topography
information that needs to be shown, where the creek is flowing with the stream
banks. He also noted he would like to see a copy of the original recorded deed
to make sure there were no restrictions placed on the lots. He would also like to
see a copy of the deed for this part.
• Mr. Maddon asked if that was in the subdivision. Mr. Ulrich answered it was
something they would look for. He would like records of the flood plains. There
are some SALDO issues that can be worked through.
• Mr. Smith noted he contacted the engineering the planning module requirement,
he noticed the property owner is not just Jody Royer, but also another owner as
well and the deed reads both owners have half interest in this property. Both
people should be shown and signed for the subdivision.
• Mr. Jones has no major concerns with this plan. There are just minor house
keeping items. He went over his comments that were in the letter submitted by
the County.
• Chairman Craig noted the Township Engineer went over cursory comments with
the engineer and further comments will be forthcoming. He noted the engineer is
welcome to contact the Township Engineer and Zoning Officer and may wait for
another submission until you get a final draft from Mr. Ulrich. He also noted if he
does not hear from the Commission, their comment letter may be sent to the
engineer and changes can be made in a timely fashion.
2. Susquehanna River Basin Commission – Mr. Michael Brownell, Chief, Water
Resources Management Division and Paula Ballaron, Director, Regulatory
Program were on hand for the following presentation:
• Mr. Brownell noted they were invited by the Township to explain the role Basin.
The regulations are published on the internet. He will speak about what the
regulatory program does.
• They have close to 1,000 projects under approval ranging from the Manada Hill
Golf Club to Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant. They regulate ground water
and surface water withdraw greater than 100,000 gallons per day without regard
to state boundary throughout the entire Susquehanna basin, approximately
27,000 square miles.
• Mr. Brownell explained a consumptive use approval. The State of PA, New York
State, there is no local regulations for consumptive water use. Entities use water
and it is gone from the water basin and cannot be utilized by anyone else. He
noted Mountainview does have a consumptive use approval that was granted in
2002 for irrigation of their race track and facilities. That was recently modified to
include aquifer losses related to the air conditioning and human consumption.
3 01/22/2007

• Chairman Craig asked about the quantities he was referring to. Mr. Brownell
answered 438,000 gallons per day. They are written on a peak day. Manada Hill
uses in the 200,000. It is a big project but not overwhelming.
• Mr. Brownell in terms the review and ground water and surface water approvals,
they look at impacts. For instance, impacts are reviewed during the aquifer
testing phase of the approval process. If adverse impacts are seen; for instance,
if there is a ground water well and you have 200 feet of available draw down. A
foot of draw down would be done and may or may not impact use. If it is
adverse, it may require either limitation or assessment.
• Chairman Craig asked if the testing has already occurred on these wells. Mr.
Brownell answered it has. There is information on the first aquifer test that was
run. There are four hydrogeologists performing the testing. There were two
requests to waive the testing and were denied. Their regulations require these.
• Both wells were tested and they expect to receive on Friday (01/25) final
documentation of that testing that will begin their review of the results. Chairman
Craig asked if there were only two tests being performed. Mr. Brownell
confirmed there are two aquifer tests. They have a specific guidance document
which is very stringent.
• Mr. Webb asked if the tests are observed. Mr. Brownell answered they are. Mr.
Kovach asked what determines a peak day for a business like Mountainview.
Mr. Brownell answered in terms of consumptive water use, a peak day would be
a hot dry day where there is water being put down on the track, irrigating, air
conditioning use with the fact there are people eating, drinking and carrying water
out with them when they leave.
• Chairman Craig noted after the races, they would be spraying and watering down
the horses. Mr. Kovarik asked if was a fair assumption that this change is
somehow probably more towards an operation than it was in the past. Mr.
Brownell noted he cannot answer any questions related to the appeal. The
modification that happened in December was directly related to the addition of
aquifer cooling.
• Chairman Craig asked if it will affect the discharge rates of the sewage treatment
plants, the additional withdraw. Mr. Brownell answered they do not regulate their
discharge. They have received a copy of their water reuse plan and relates to
how much water they ultimately withdraw and where that water it being used. It
would limit the amount of discharge from the treatment plant.
• Mr. Stein asked not specific to Mountainview but how the agency works, what is
the post compliance and how does the agency work, how long are the approvals
good for. Mr. Brownell answered the regulations were just changed in February
of 2007. Prior to that, they had not been changed for 25 years. Typically, any
new approval is a 15 year approval. Consumptive water use and ground water
withdraws must be measured every single day and reported to SRBC quarterly.
The reporting is required to be done on line.
• Mr. Stein asked how is it certified, is it automatic, third party (not specific to
Mountainview). Mr. Brownell answered they must be certified every 5 years.
They are read by whomever is assigned by the facility and reported back to
them. Site inspections do take place. Mr. Stein asked if a project is out of
4 01/22/2007

• Mr. Brownell noted they have their own freedom of information act. Typically if
there is a delinquency notice, other parties are not copied. Mr. Kovarik has
requested all the information on file for Penn National on behalf of the township.
Chairman Craig asked if the township will be receiving a copy of the reports that
are expected on Friday (01/25). Mr. Brownell answered because it has been
requested, it can be. Mr. Kovarik noted Penn National suggested they will
provide the township with a copy of the report when it is available. Mr. Kovarik
thanked Scott Gould for this.
• Mr. Stein asked if it would be helpful for the Planning Commission if Mr. Brownell
would go over SRBC’s responsibilities and what’s the township’s responsibilities
are. Mr. Brownell answered they are a federal interstate compact commission,
which was signed into law by Nixon in 1972. They are police powers over top of
water withdraws. Approvals by SRBC are backed by federal law. They deal with
over 2,800 individual municipalities. Someone in New York State abides by the
same laws as East Hanover Township. They look at local impact of streams,
wetlands and larger regional issues. When you look at development and
subdivision it is appropriate for the township to ask the developer to demonstrate
if water would be there.
• Mr. Kovarik asked if Mr. Brownell could detail a little more the smaller withdraws,
100,000 per day. If you have four users using 50,000 gallons per day, there is a
much bigger impact. How do you regulate that. Mr. Brownell answered there is
a discrepancy in the regulatory thresholds between consumptive water use,
which is taken out and doesn’t go back and withdraw. The assumptions on
straight withdraws are they are returned. The threshold is 100,000 gallons per
day. The threshold for consumptive water use is 20,000 gallons per day. The
previous regulation was not entirely clear. The new regulations state now
anything over 20,000 per day can be directly regulated. There is a problem with
no public water but with public sewer. There is individual well withdraws and
public sewer, so what happens is it all becomes consumptive. But that is not
regulated.
• Mr. Stein asked if the Commission allocates a certain amount of water that can
be withdrawn for a geographic area. Mr. Brownell answered they do. The SRBC
standard is the one in 10 year drought. A project can withdraw that one in 10
year amount. East Hanover Township is more restrictive than what SRBC
typically imposes. The only difference is their 60% standard is imposed
everywhere without any measured impact in an area. In this project, there are
some small streams coming off the mountain, some wetlands and home wells.
As you identify impacts to these, that would further limit the withdraw below the
maximum of 60%. Mr. Kovarik noted based on our ordinance and current
situation, we are currently close to what SRBC is doing for this particular case.
• Chairman Craig asked since there has been no water testing, you won’t be able
to answer how will this affect the local water supply and water quality because
we are all on wells.
5 01/22/2007

• Mr. Brownell noted testing has been completed but not been put into a report yet,
which will be received on Friday (01/25). In terms of impacts on neighboring
wells, as part of the pumping test plan approval, there were requirements for
monitoring neighboring home wells and monitoring other wells that would allow
us to make judgments as to what other impacts would occur. There was also
monitoring of streams and wetlands. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
submit a complete application and supporting documentation. It is his staff’s job
to review that and make recommendations to the Commissioners at SRBC.
• As far as ground water quality and impacts, there will be an assessment made
and no large issues have been identified. The only issue is being looked at is if
there will be some continuation of flow in the local streams that will cause the
water quality to impact the water treatment plant. Chairman Craig noted they are
at the head waters of this township and there can be long reaching effects
downstream. He also referenced their website and a study that was done that a
shortage that will affect PA American Water in Hershey in the year 2030. He
went on to read an excerpt from the study on the website of SRBC. He noted in
2003 when the study was done, this change was not taken into account and
asked if the Commission will look back, reference these reports and make an
analysis conjecture of how this will affect the broader scheme of things.
• Mr. Brownell the report Chairman Craig referred to was talking about a shortage
between two public water supplies. PA American taking water out, discharging
back and it goes around a small dam just downstream from 743. United Water
takes water out from there and puts it back. Even though there is an acute
shortage, there is a short gap in the stream and right across the area where it is
monitored at the Swatara stream gauge. He went on to explain further about
this. He noted as far as this project, they will look for local impacts and
downstream impacts. This is not a problem of similar scale or magnitude to the
one that was just referred to.
• Mr. Kovarik asked if there is a procedure if the current pumping test would be
unsatisfactory or would not give all the answers that SRBC could ask for
additional testing. Mr. Brownell answered they may ask for additional testing, but
more appropriately just deny. They would then have to go back out and do what
they needed to do to get back in. They have very few denials because projects
will withdraw. He and his staff feel these approvals should be protective of the
environment and neighboring water users so they are very picky. They have also
modified approvals before. They will make recommendations based on the size.
Following an approval, there is an administrative appeal process and also a
federal appeal process project sponsors can go through.
• Chairman Craig asked if this change in withdraw provide for an immediate and
long rage use for development, conservation, preservation and management of
water resources within this sub-basin. Mr. Brownell answered that is one of the
approval standards. Until the testing is received and reviewed, that cannot be
fully answered.
• Chairman Craig asked what control measures will be used by the SRBC in the
event of a water supply emergency in this area, is that something that is planned
for in advance. Mr. Brownell answered if the emergency is an impact to a
6 01/22/2007

neighboring water user that was not identified during the pumping test phase,
that is something they would have to deal with as it comes up. If it is not an
emergency because it was identified during the testing phase, they will make
decisions in advance. If the issue is a shortage of water and they demonstrate
they need 1 million gallons per day and only have ½ million available to them,
then they have tools in their regulatory package to not build to use 1 million
gallons per day or require to do a water resource available to prove they have it
available to them somewhere else.
• Chairman Craig asked if there were an issue here would public water have to
come into this community. Mr. Brownell answered not necessarily. In one case,
it was needed. The connection is brought in by the project. The bill for the water
is still paid by the owner. In the end, they require the project sponsor to fix the
problem. Mr. Kovarik clarified that if the township would lose the administrative
appeal for Penn National, they would go forward with consumptive water use,
there is a problem with water withdraw, one of the solutions might be that they
would actually use public water to get all the water they need. Mr. Brownell
answered that would be correct.
• The Commission is also authorized to issue orders and create other
administrative controls on a project. There was discussion about public water
supply and use and pool water. There was discussion on irrigation for golf
courses. This is a section in their regulations that deals with projects that are
connected to public water supply. The impacts of withdraw are the public water
suppliers.
• Mr. Kovarik asked if the SRBC issues the permit and the conditions that the
permittee needs to comply with local government regulations, what does it need.
Mr. Brownell noted even if their receive an approval from SRBC, they will also
have to comply with other agencies. Mr. Brownell read directly from the SRBC
regulations, Section 80621, General Standards, C2, which can be found on their
website. This is standard verbiage put in all approvals.
• Chairman Craig asked about the water supply study in the Swatara Creek
Watershed and the Lower Susquehanna River Basin. The only thing listed on
the website is the Executive Summary. It was asked if the SRBC could send to
the township the full report. Mr. Brownell answered the study was also done by
the Corps of Engineers, which is part of the Capital Region Water Board. He
noted they will also send along their Groundwater Management Plan which is
also on their website. There are several items in there the township may be
interested in. The consumptive use regulation was just adopted.
• Impervious coverage and pervious concrete were briefly discussed. Mr.
Chairman added the township has some dry hydrants, although he is not sure of
their location. He asked Mr. Brownell to contact Mr. Nelligan, our Public Safety
Officer to ascertain the location of these to ensure there is no impact in these
areas. Mrs. Eppinger can give him contact information, if he needs it.
• Mr. Brownell noted when they look at impacts to surface water, the formula that
is used is Q7-10, the lowest consecutive seven day flow over a ten year period.
This is a continuously updated standard. From their review standard, an impact
7 01/22/2007

of greater than 10% of that amount, triggers a control on the project. They are
looking at a less than 10% impact that will occur.
• Mr. Kovarik noted SRBC offered to review the new storm water ordinance.
• Chairman Craig asked if the township wanted to get stream flow data on the
streams in the township, it could be obtained. Mr. Brownell explained it is
extrapolated through statistics. Mr. Kovarik suggested putting together
something for the SRBC of documents that they would like to have if they can’t
get them, Mr. Kovarik suggested he may be able to find the information from
them of who would have it.
• Chairman Craig asked if East Hanover Lebanon County would be provided the
same courtesy. Mr. Brownell noted the SRBC make an attempt to attend the
meetings where they are invited. Chairman Craig opened up the floor to
questions.
• Mr. Tom Donmoyer, EHT, Lebanon County, noted he would like to receive the
information that was given. They are downstream from the sewage plan and
have concerns about discharge. He asked if there was a way to obtain
information on what is being discharged. Chairman Craig asked if they were
receiving information on discharge. It was noted both townships in Dauphin and
Lebanon Counties are not receiving the information. It was also noted they were
under the assumption EHT Lebanon was getting the rates because the discharge
is in their area. Someone is responsible for this entity if there is a problem.
• Mr. Donmoyer asked they never received any. Mr. Kovarik noted by law both
would be held responsible. Mr. Donmoyer thanked EHT Dauphin County for
extending an invitation.
• Mr. Stein asked if the SRBC does not manage discharge. Mr. Brownell
answered NPDES discharge is regulated by the state in which it is discharged
and more maybe EPA, depending on what type of material they have. The
SRBC has water quality statements in their regulations. If there is a groundwater
withdraw that will create infiltration from the streams, where the discharge from
the treatment plant will be drawn into the aquifer, the SRBC will regulate because
that is a water quality issue. Any withdraw that would diminish flow they would
deal with directly. Discharge parameters for wastewater treatment plants would
not be their jurisdiction.
• Ms. Joellen Litz, President of the Swatara Creek Water Shed, who is a resident
of Lebanon County. She asked whose responsibility it is for conservation. It is
the township, is it SRBC or is it Penn National’s to come forth with information on
conservation. She spoke of ideas for cisterns that can be used to collect rain
water because there are massive roofs. Is that considered consumption or must
it come from the ground. Fredericksburg, which was mentioned, which is only 10
to 15 miles down the road is in a deficit situation. The project is here and no one
is say they want to stop the project but they want to be responsible to ensure
there is enough water. The Lebanon Water Authority is upstream and at times of
severe drought have run out of water. In the existing facilities, have low flow
toilets been installed and is it the responsibility on being a good citizen. She
thanked everyone for their courtesy and diligence.
8 01/22/2007

• Ms. Litz asked for a copy of the application that was submitted. Chairman Craig
asked if a copy of the application be forwarded to her. Mr. Brownell noted he will
forward a copy to Ms. Litz.
• Mr. Brownell talked about water conservation; building codes require specific
things such as low flow toilets. Pennsylvania is currently undergoing some water
planning, Act 220 Water Conversation legislation, which requires water
conservation standards be developed. SRBC is participating in this project. With
Penn National, there were some issues with water reuse which SRBC was happy
to see. The SRBC is currently looking at water reuse.
• Ms. Litz asked before a permit is issued, does someone look at every possible
conservation measure has been installed so maybe their wouldn’t have to
increase the withdraw and could decrease it.
• Chairman Craig noted the application for development came to the township
before his involvement with the Commission. Four years ago, it fell under the
previous ordinance of the township. He cannot say how the project was
reviewed at that point in time. The ordinance for the storm water is they want to
look at the greatest flexibility and how we can replenish their groundwater and be
good stewards of this property so we return it to the same state we found it.
• Ms Litz noted we need to look at every conservation measure possible. Mr.
Webb noted if he understood correctly, SRBC does not specifically look at
whether conversation measures are being followed. Mr. Brownell noted to some
extent that is true. Toilets and fixtures are regulated by building codes. Water
reuse is encouraged. They do not approve water that is not there or has an
adverse impact. There are projects where they used water conservation
practices not necessarily because it was required but because their amount of
water withdraw was limited.
• Mr. Webb asked if they look at the amount of water that is currently available
without taking a look at what other development is likely to occur in the area. Mr.
Brownell answered they do not do this. In the short term, it may appear that way
but when there is additional development pressure. Their regulations do not
allow them to do this. They would bring both corporations in, they would take
away some water from the first place and divide it to make it more equitable.
• Mr. Webb asked how it would impact on small scale users. Mr. Brownell
answered they would look at the recharge area and will begin to answer these
questions. Ground water withdraw on the base of the mountain will not affect
Hershey Park. They do not expect that range of distance on impacts.
• Mr. Webb asked is when they are dealing with approval do they take into account
the probable uses of the surrounding footprint and the size of the impact of
ground water withdraws. Mr. Brownell answered they cannot prothesize what the
future of the land use will be and what the development may be. If there is an
application, they will deal with it, but they do not look at current land and
speculate what will happen if it is developed.
• Chairman Craig asked if Penn National is on private well, discharging in their
own sewer plant and the water is going besides any water conservation measure
that they may be employing. Mr. Brownell answered the discharge is relatively
9 01/22/2007

close to the withdraw. He gave examples on local development with water
issues.
• Chairman Craig asked about discharge in creek occurring as runoff and not
going back into the environment. There was a question that was unable to be
heard, as was the first part of Mr. Brownell’s answer due to background noise.
Mr. Brownell added streams are very rarely just losing or just gaining, depending
on the time of year and what is going on. Groundwater well will not be approved
to recharge from miles around unless demonstrated.
• Mr. Kovarik asked if the SRBC has ever gone back and limited someone’s
withdraw after there was another user in the area. Mr. Brownell answered they
have not had to do that, but they have gone back and limited approvals that were
granted back on new information.
• Mr. Ulrich asked regarding the report they are reviewing Friday, they are going to
do their report based on the guidelines of SRBC, how often do they take a step
back and review their guidelines and try to incorporate more innovative ways to
make sure the water is there from a conservation standpoint. Mr. Brownell
answered the standards and regulations were updated last year. Up until that
time, it was 1995. The aquifer testing guide was just issued in December. They
have review authority over ground water withdraws. There was further
discussion. Mr. Brownell noted it took three years to get everything through.
There was further discussion.
• Ms. Beaudet acknowledged EHT Lebanon County for showing up. She noted
the storm water is being revised. She asked how SRBC is funded. Mr. Brownell
answered a budget is established and it is split among New York, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and the federal government, 106 and self-funded. Funding for the
commission was reauthorized to come through the Army Corps, which is the
federal representative appointed by the President. There was further discussion.
• Ms. Beaudet asked if Penn National paid an application fee. Mr. Brownell
answered around $10 or $12,000 dollars. There was further discussion. Mr.
Brownell added one of the things to look at is the Commission’s impact. Can it
stay over the long haul and make a positive impact. Ms. Beaudet noted New
York, Pennsylvania and Maryland share the Susquehanna. Does Pennsylvania
have more a reach on the Susquehanna. Mr. Brownell answered it is shared.
• Mr. Luderitz, General Manager of Penn National, commented about
conservation. They have a full water redo system that is a conservation measure
that gave them the opportunity to take a larger amount of water they would have
used in the past for track operations and reuse that water and give it back into
the operations. It is also used for gray water functions in the facility; i.e., toilet
flushing. They were the first facility of their kind in Pennsylvania to get that
permit from DEP.
• Chairman Craig asked ownership transfer. Mr. Brownell answered it covers
different types of corporations. It would not trigger a re-review. There was
further discussion.
• Mr. Eric Epstein of EMFR Monitoring, stood up and spoke about the
representation on the commission and the politics involved. The SRBC has a
limited budget. Does the water impact study take into consideration when they
10 01/22/2007

use 3,000 then go to 5,000 slots. Is this a factor. Mr. Brownell answered an
application has been filed for a certain amount of consumptive water use. They
look to make sure the request is in line. Typically, they will ask for more water
than what they will be using to have a cushion. SRBC will cut back projects.
• Mr. Epstein noted in Mountaineer, they opened up the slots, brought in table
games, brought in a box venue, and then an entertainment venue. Is Fort
Indiantown Gap excluded from the SRBC venue. Because they are a reservation
and federal property, are they within your purview. Mr. Brownell answered they
fit under the provisions for grandfathering. The difference with the military
installations is they do not pay an application fee.
• Chairman Craig asked what the typical time frame is for review and issuance of
an application. Mr. Brownell answered there is no standard time frame. It can
take anywhere from four months, six months, a year. There was further
discussion.
• Chairman Craig asked if the application was submitted in December. Mr.
Brownell noted it was submitted July 17. Chairman Craig asked why it took so
long to get down to the local level for us to be aware it’s on the radar. Mr.
Brownell answered it would be notified through the local notification process. He
cannot say exactly when they were sent out. Chairman Craig asked if there was
an advertisement. Mr. Brownell answered it is done by certified mail and in the
newspaper. Mr. Kovarik answered we received a letter at the end of October.
We were not aware before then. There was further discussion.
• Mr. Webb asked if Penn National applied for 438,000 gallons per day but only
400,000 gallons per day withdraw. How do you consume more than you take
out. Mr. Brownell answered storage. The ground water is over an average
rolling 30 day period and consumptive use is any single peak day. It was
clarified that is what they have asked for. They have asked for a certain amount
over a peak period. They must run their aquifer test for this. Mr. Webb asked
how often the Commissioners ignore their recommendations. Mr. Brownell
answered they generally side and accept staff’s recommendations. There was
further discussion. He explained there is a coordination process with other
agencies.
• Chairman Craig asked about the approval date. The casino opens in February.
Mr. Brownell noted their meeting is March 13. Chairman Craig asked if there will
be an issue with the amount of water they will use opening day. Mr. Brownell
noted he will attempt to answer without talking about a consumptive use approval
that is under appeal. Modification that was issued allowed for evaporative loss
which was not in a previous approval. Peak consumptive use has been touched
upon. Those two periods will not overlap. Until the approval is issue, there is a
finite limit to the amount of ground water that can be withdrawn and the amount
of consumptive use. The applicant needs to live within the perimeters. If they do
not, it is SRBC’s responsibility to deal with that compliance issue. There was
further discussion.
• Mr. David Marshall asked how do you know how much water they are taking out
per day. Mr. Brownell answered meters have been required to be installed.
Those meters are totalizing meters. They cannot be taken out of the system.
11 01/22/2007

Mr. Marshall asked about the reports on the meters, how do we know they are
accurate. Mr. Brownell answered they will typically come out once a year and
read the meter.
• Mr. Kovarik asked how they would monitor compliance on consumptive use if
there a difference between watering horses and using it as an air coolant. Mr.
Brownell answered the consumptive use approval has requirements for metering
and monitoring. A plan needs to be identified. The meters are certified. There
were metered procedures in place in the past for Penn National.
• Mr. Keith Oellig asked for an explanation on use and permitting. The question
was not entirely clear because the resident was not speaking directly into the
microphone. Mr. Brownell decisions about ground water availability is
complicated. Rock type is looked at. Certain rocks, depending on sediment are
better than others. The weathered rock on the mountain slides down the side.
That is filled with water and runs down. You back calculate and testing data.
The SRBC does not limit a withdraw based on property ownership. It is a
Riparian rights issue with the Commission. There was an explanation on riparian
rights.
• Mr. Oellig asked if a landowner who has 600 acres has to go through the same
process and fees as someone who owns 5 acres. As a land owner, his most
valuable profit is water. He noted he should be compensated for not developing
his land and conserving the water. All the issues come down to land values. Mr.
Oellig continued his discussion. Mr. Kovarik noted the jurisdiction of the
township is the landowners as opposed to the wider range of jurisdiction of the
SRBC.
• A comment was made by a resident but not dictated because the resident did not
come to the microphone to speak.
• Mr. Richard Schock noted his concern is there are no dams being built.
Detention ponds, retention ponds and cisterns work but are not the solution. He
noted the problem has not really been addressed, which is flooding.
• Mr. Brownell noted there is a premiere warning system for flooding and ice jam
events that was implemented by the SRBC. It is a model used by many other
states. They are given a 6-hour warning. The consumptive water use program is
the time shifting of water. Money is paid in to the Commission for projects that
use water. That money is used by the Commission or purchase or use water
storage.
• Mr. Kovarik noted the new storm water management ordinance is now being
called storm water management and flood protection ordinance. The public was
once again encouraged to give their input.
• Mr. Luderitz noted he has a 3 to 5 minute update on Penn National.
• Ms. Litz handed out a brochure that will be copied and shared with the
Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Dennis Satnick of DGWP Properties, LP
12 01/22/2007

• There are three partners who are real estate developers. They are putting
together several properties to be developed for residential purposes. They have
done preliminary hydrogeologic studies and have determined they can provide
water via wells for the purpose that they can. They have decided they would like
to investigate using public water.
• Currently there is a water line in West Hanover Township, 25,000 feet in length in
distance to get to the far edge of East Hanover. They have talked to PAWC and
been given a breakdown. PAWC is interested in talking about extending the
water line which would be a 16 inch water main.
• They have not done a project like this thus far. In dealing with PAWC, the
developer installs the infrastructure and gets repaid the tap fees via based on a
formula that PAWC has. Due to the magnitude of the project, and the water
company wanting to see the potential customers.
• They would like to extending it through the EHT Dauphin County would be of
interest to the township. If not, they will proceed at some point with subdivision
plans with a community water and sewer system. He added an extension of a
public water line through the township would stabilize the existing wells, provide
for better fire protection, should not be dry hydrants, fire company would not have
to tote as much water, insurance rates should go down and potentially
enterprises that would like to locate or relocate to this township would have the
opportunity to do so.
• He noted they would like to sit down with staff, unless the township indicates
otherwise. Chairman Craig noted the commission is in an advisory role. The
supervisors would have to make that decision. A 537 plan is being developed.
Storm water is also being looked at. He asked for Mr. Kovarik’s input.
• Mr. Kovarik suggested to the Board of Supervisors to look at the issue to decide
the future direction of the township. This may also be an issue for Penn National.
The best approach would be to put together a letter, the Planning Commission
would look at it, and give a suggestion to the Board of Supervisors.
• Mr. Webb commented the Commission would need details. Mr. Satnick asked if
he would be on the next agenda as Old business.
• Mr. Stein recommended water has not come up yet because 537 and Storm
Water are not completed yet. If it is presented to the Township as a concept, he
will not get very far. It was suggested to come in with density, numbers, costs,
Township responsibility. This township has a history of fair hearings with details
and not concepts.
• Mr. Satnick noted bringing water into the township would be a no-cost issue for
the township in terms of actual paying for it. Whether they adopt a tapping
ordinance, that would be something for the township. The installation of the main
would not be incurred by the township. Mr. Stein answered they would need to
know how the PAWC works because you would be introducing a utility into the
township.
2. Anita Stabile of CET Engineering – She is representing the Seiders Family.
She is a consultant. They own a property at 633 Laudermilch Road. They
have a failing system and are not eligible for a replacement system. The soils
13 01/22/2007

• This discharge would eventually discharge into a tributary and then to Bow
Creek. It is half a mile until it reaches the creek. The planning module is a
Component 3S to DEP. Public notification needs to be sent to all adjoining land
owners and is a channelized stream. It only runs during storm events.
• She shared pictures and information with the system that was selected. Orecco
is a step up from other sand filters, because they have a telemetry system that
reports it back to the company and if there are problems, the company will report
it to the landowner. An operations and maintenance agreement would be
required. This is DEP permitted and NPDES permit, the agreement would be
required.
• Mr. Smith noted they would supply it, but it would be reviewed by the Sewage
Officer and attorney. Mr. Kovarik asked who determined it was the only
solution. Mr. Smith commented as the Sewage Enforcement Officer he was
asked by Mr. Seiders to come out. Multiple test pits were evaluated. It was
extremely shallow to bedrock. He suggested a soils scientist be hired and he
determined what could be used. When the home was purchased, a septic
certification was done and approved. Basically what is there, the septic tank is
on his property and there is a direct line that leads off his property and day lights.
They have spoke to the regional quality specialist and a holding tank is not the
solution.
• Mrs. Lebo asked for specifics as to where they are located. Ms. Stabile
explained specifically where they are located. Mrs. Lebo asked where the
proximity of the stream bed is in relation to the home and asked if it channelizes
through the property of the home that is unfinished.
• Mr. Smith noted DEP gives a 10 step situation how you will require the
malfunction. They are proposing between 8 and 9 as long as it meets the
department’s requirements. It would need to come here first. The Planning
Commission will look at it, the County will look at it, the Township will eventually
need to sign it and send it to the department for review. After DEP planning
review, it will go into the permitting process.
• Mr. Kovach asked if there will be discharge on to the adjoining properties. Ms.
Stabile answered the design flow will be 400 gallons per day with a safety factor
built in. The property owners will have the opportunity to review it and have
input.
• Mrs. Lebo asked what properties it will flow through and asked what properties
they were. Ms. Stabile answered a certified letter to will sent to each explaining
there will be an ultraviolet disinfection and discharge to the channelized stream.
They are invited to write comments to the township and DEP.
• Mrs. Lebo asked if there are any other systems described. Mr. Smith answered
he is not aware of any. Mr. Webb asked if NPDES requires ongoing testing. Mr.
Smith answered it is monthly, then quarterly. Mr. Webb asked if they are testing
for chemical and/or microbiology parameters. Mr. Smith answered he believes it
is site specific. There are specific parameters.
14 01/22/2007

• Mr. Kovach asked about the telemetry monitoring. Ms. Stabile noted Orrenco
she has gotten some reports back. They get alarm situations at times when the
power is out. These will be identified. Chairman Craig asked about emergency
back up in case of power outage. Ms. Stabile noted the well will also be down. A
septic tank will be installed and take a couple of washes. Mr. Smith noted it is a
batch treatment type treatment. It will have some type of storage.
• Mr. Webb asked about the batch process and batch discharge, how far is it going
to travel as a surface discharge before it is absorbed or in the winter, where does
it end up. Mr. Smith answered the stream bisects his land. Mr. Webb asked how
far it has to travel. Ms. Stabile noted it has been doing this, only this time it will
be cleaned first.
• Mr. Kovarik noted this is a very good system. Mr. Smith noted there is no one
occupying the residence so there is currently no discharge.
• Mrs. Lebo asked about the township requirements for cleaning out the septic
tanks. How could it have not been caught. Mr. Smith noted there is a tank there
and when it was cleaned out, it was inspected. It was assumed the discharge
was being taken to a drainage field in the yard. And it daylights on the neighbor’s
property. This property is 2 ½ acres.
• Chairman Craig asked what they were looking for. Ms. Stabile asked if there will
be a financial security or promissory note. She also asked the SEO and
engineering fees will be. Mr. Smith noted it may be around $98. She asked
about the building permit, and if there were any nitrates identified in the area. Mr.
Kovarik noted there should be part of the 537 plan. Mr. Webb noted it was on
the DEP website. Ms. Stabile noted a post card was submitted to DEP.
• Ms. Stabile asked if the wells were catalogued. The answer was no. She will
provide aerial photographs for a survey. There was further discussion.
• Mr. Ulrich asked if the proposed system is experimental for DEP. This is a
system that was proven to function in the past, so DEP will be reviewing it from
that.
• Mrs. Lebo asked about the boundary or perimeter for nitrates. Will this include
neighboring properties. Ms. Stabile answered she was looking for information
collected from wells. It is generally ¼ mile.
3. Dauphin County Fee Schedule – Chairman Craig noted for the benefit of the
commission and others the fees have been changed and are available on
their website.
4. Gary Luderitz of Hollywood Casino – Mr. Luderitz was on hand to give an
update to the Commission on the progress of the casino. Construction is
progressing well. They’re in the stage of the finish work. It is a highly themed
property. They’ve hired 800 staff members. They will be opening with a test
night, required by the Gaming Control Board, provided they have a certificate
of occupancy on February 8. The test night is a 6-hour night, and the
systems will be tested. They will be closed on February 9 and will be open for
February 10 for an 8-hour test night. After the state receives their taxes, they
remaining fund will be divided amongst four charities. They will close on
15 01/22/2007

February 11 and if all is well with testing and plan to open on February 12.
He welcomed all members for a tour of the property. They will be seeking for
approval from the Board of Supervisors for use of the fire police.
5. Matthew Jones of the Tri-County Planning Commission – Mr. Jones
announced that he will be stepping down to take another position in
Washington D.C. Karen Green will be his replacement. He thanked
everyone for their hospitality.
6. Planning Commission Workshop – This will be held on January 29, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. Other items discussed will be the zoning ordinance, storm waters
and procedures. Lebanon County has also been invited to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. Lebo made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Transcribed by Dawn E. Eppinger
Cc: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission
Marie Beaudet
David Craig
Keith Espenshade
Donna Lebo
Dave Marshall
Mike Kovach
Larry Spitler
Ed Twaddell
Tom Shutt
Mike Webb
Norman Ulrich, Township Engineer
David Smith, Township Zoning Officer
Deborah Casey, Secretary-Treasurer
Karen Green, Dauphin County Planning Commission
Zoning Hearing Board
16 01/22/2007