Chairman Bruce Bucher convened the January 7, 2002 meeting of the Board of Supervisors at 7:30 p.m. Present were Supervisors Bruce Bucher, Michael Vigunas, W. Logan Myers, Roger Moyer, and Joseph McSparran. In attendance were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Township Solicitor William Crosswell, Township Engineer Charles Hess, Eric Christiansen, Renee Christiansen, Attorney David Wagenseller, Nancy Hurst, Glenn Singer, Rick Serrell, Lisa Schouten, Howard Carpenter, John High, R. Horton, Ken Carper, Jr., David R. Jones, John Leibold, Thomas Reinfried, Julie Bushong, Natasha Crnkovich, Sam High, Michael Miller, Tracy Herr, Carol Herr, Craig Hasson, Lamar Lutz, Melanie Lutz, and Victor Martin. Laura Knowles of Lancaster Newspapers and Richard Reitz of the Lititz Record Express represented the press.

GUEST RECOGNITION: David R. Jones, 847 Douglas Drive, expressed appreciation to the Board for their approval of a four-way stop at the intersection of Pine Hill Road/E. Lexington Road/Brunnerville Road. The Township Manager noted that the project was a cooperative effort between the Warwick School District and Warwick Township.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON THE CONDITIONAL USE DECISION GRANTED TO HIGH SPORTS, INC. ON 12/15/99 TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A GO-CART FACILITY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE DIRECTION THE CARTS TRAVEL AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SOUND TESTING.

The Chairman announced the procedures to be followed for this evening's public hearing. The Township Solicitor explained that the applicant is requesting a modification to the conditions that were imposed as part of the Board's December 15, 1999 decision on the High Sports Conditional Use application. The Township Solicitor inquired whether or not anyone present wishes to become a party to this evening's public hearing.

The Township Solicitor explained that Dr. McSparran was recently elected to the Board of Supervisors. He added that McSparran was a member of the Planning Commission during its review of the Conditional Use application, and subsequent recommendation to the Board. He inquired whether or not any of the parties to the case have any objections to Dr. McSparran providing a decision on the case as a newly elected Supervisor. No one present indicated any objections to Dr. McSparran participating in the proceedings. The Township Solicitor requested that the Planning Commission's recommendations on the proposal be made a part of the record for this evening's public hearing. The Township Solicitor noted that the Township received notice from David Wagenseller (Attorney for the applicant) consenting on behalf of Sam High to commencing the hearing on the Conditional Use request on January 7, 2002, and a Waiver of the requirement to commence the hearing within 60 days. The Township Solicitor requested clarification of the request to modify the conditions since the Narrative references Condition 22, although Condition 21 actually references the direction of travel for the go-cart track. Attorney Wagenseller clarified that the request is to modify Condition 21 which refers to Exhibit 22 (the plan illustrating the direction of travel for the go-cart track). He added that the request includes a modification of the Condition (Condition 10) requiring sound testing for a three-year period from the date the track became operational. The applicant is requesting the elimination of the provisions for further sound testing, with a return of currently escrowed funds for sound testing to the Applicant.

The Township Manager was sworn in. He confirmed the posting and proof of publication of this evening's hearing. He submitted a copy of the Warwick Township Planning's Commissions recommendations for the Case (meeting minutes dated November 28, 2001) to be included in the record for this evening's hearing.

Attorney David Wagenseller provided a copy of the Conditions that were imposed on the original decision for the go-cart track as Applicant's Exhibit 1. He outlined the Conditions that are the subject of this evening's hearing (Condition 10 [sound testing] and Condition 21 [direction of travel]). He submitted a deed indicating the ownership of the property into the record for the hearing.

Attorney Wagenseller provided a print-out from the "Web Parcel Viewer", which is maintained on Lancaster County's website, that illustrates the parcels along Furnace Hills Pike that are owned by the Applicant, and that highlights the property that is the subject of the Case, into the record as Applicant's Exhibit 4. He stated that during the original hearing for the High Sports go-cart tract, the direction of travel indicated that the go-carts would begin in an eastbound direction. During the hearing, several residents expressed the opinion that less noise would be emitted if the go-carts begin in a westbound direction, therefore, the applicant agreed to change the direction of travel. He provided an extract from Exhibit 22 from the original hearing (Applicant's Exhibit 5 for this evening's hearing), which is an illustration of arrows indicating the go-carts westbound direction of travel. He explained that now that the track is operational, the Applicant has discovered that with the go-carts traveling in a westbound direction, accidents and spin-outs occur since the track was not designed for this direction of travel.

Samuel E. High, Jr. was sworn in. High testified that all of the documentation that has been submitted as part of the hearing so far are true and correct. High stated that "Amusement Products" from Tennessee designed the go-cart track. He noted that the firm has been designing go-cart tracks for 20 years. He testified that the original plan for the track illustrated the go-carts traveling in an eastbound direction. He explained that one of the residents had expressed concern over the exhaust that would be emitted to his property if the go-carts traveled in a westbound direction and he agreed to change the direction of the go-carts. He testified that two accidents and several spin-outs had occurred when the track became operational so he contacted "Amusement Products" to inquire why these were occurring, and he was informed at that time that the track was not designed for westbound travel due to the angle of the curves. High described the go-carts for the benefit of the Board (6.5 HP, maximum speed 18 MPH, designed for 1 or 2 riders). He stated that the go-carts circle the track approximately 7 times, equaling a distance of 1¼ miles. Attorney Wagenseller provided a series of photographs of the locations of the spin-outs and the accidents that have occurred at the track into the record for the hearing. Referencing Exhibit 5, High marked the areas where the spin-outs and accidents occur in accordance with the photographs that were submitted into the record for the hearing. Attorney Wagenseller submitted Applicant's Exhibit 7, which is a drawing illustrating the elevations around the go-cart track. The Chairman inquired whether or not the elevation of the track ranges from 475' to 486'. High responded in the affirmative. The Township Solicitor stated that the plans refer to the directions of clockwise and counter-clockwise beginning at the pavilion and requested clarification of the direction of travel being requested this evening. High testified that the direction of travel is currently counter-clockwise, and the request this evening is for the go-carts to travel in a clockwise direction as originally designed. The Township Solicitor requested clarification that the problems that have been occurring are due to the counter-clockwise travel of go-carts. High responded in the affirmative. The Township Solicitor inquired whether or not High is satisfied that these incidents would not occur if the go-carts travel in a clockwise direction. High responded that he is satisfied that a clockwise direction of travel would not cause these problems. The Township Solicitor inquired if the portion of the request to eliminate further sound testing will address the issue of whether or not there will be a difference in the sound if the go-carts travel in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction. Attorney Wagenseller responded in the affirmative. High testified that he hired the firm of Skelly and Loy, Inc. as experts to perform the sound testing at the go-cart track and added that the results of the sound testing were submitted to the Township Manager (Daniel Zimmerman). He provided a copy of a letter dated June 6,2001 (Applicant's Exhibit 8) and a letter dated August 14, 2001 that were sent to the Township Manager from Skelly and Loy, Inc. that provide the results of sound testing that was performed on the site. High testified that he was present when both sound tests were performed and explained that the first test was performed with the go-carts traveling in only one direction, and the second test was performed with the go-carts traveling in one direction, and then traveling in the opposite direction. High testified that the tests revealed no difference in the sound of the go-carts operating in either direction. Attorney Wagenseller read from the June 6, 2001 letter from Skelly and Loy which states that "further compliance sound level monitoring would reveal identical results and would be an unnecessary expenditure." He stated that the letter would support the Applicant's request to eliminate further requirements for sound testing. High expressed the opinion that further sound testing would indicate the same sound testing results and that the direction of travel would not affect the results of future sound testing. He testified that the exhaust fumes would not reach the property boundary if the direction of travel is reversed. He also testified that no adverse conditions would be created if the direction of travel were reversed and that reversing the direction of travel would reduce the possibility of accidents. Attorney Wagenseller provided a copy of the Township Engineer's review of the Modification of Conditions request, dated November 21, 2001, as Applicant's Exhibit 10.

The Township Manager stated that the Warwick Township Planning Commission reviewed both requests that are a part of the Conditional Use hearing proceedings this evening. He explained that the Planning Commission is agreeable to the request to reverse the direction of the go-carts due to the safety considerations, and recommends approval of this portion of the request. The Planning Commission does not support the request to eliminate the sound testing and instead recommends a compromise that would require one test during the first part of the 2002 operating season and that the Township would hold the escrow for any contingent testing for the remainder of the required escrow period. The Township Manager stated that Township staff performed an on-site inspection of the go-cart track in order to substantiate the information that was submitted with the Conditional Use application. The Township Manager stated that part of the Planning Commission's recommendation is based on concerns that were expressed during the original public hearing that the equipment on the go-carts could deteriorate which could result in increased noise generated by the go-carts. The Chairman inquired whether or not any of the parties object to the exhibits that were presented this evening being made a part of the public hearing. The parties are agreeable to the exhibits being entered into the record for this evening's public hearing.

The Chairman opened the hearing to public comment.

Thomas Reinfried, 797 Scott Lane, stated that he lives approximately 1,000' away from the High property. He inquired whether or not High discussed the issue of reversing the go-cart travel with the designer prior to agreeing to the Conditions that were imposed on the Case. High responded that he had not discussed the issue with them prior to that time and acknowledged that it would have been beneficial to do so. Reinfried inquired whether or not experienced drivers were operating the go-carts during the second sound test, when the go-carts were being operated in both directions. High stated that although he is unaware of who all of the individuals were that were operating the go-carts, they were all adults and included his son. Reinfried inquired whether it is the direction of the go-carts that is unsafe, or the inexperience of the drivers operating the go-carts that is unsafe. He requested confirmation that less accidents would occur during the second season with the go-carts operating in the opposite direction. The Chairman stated that the original illustration of the go-cart track that was prepared by the design firm did illustrate the go-carts travel in a clockwise direction, which would indicate to him that perhaps that was the intended direction of travel.

Eric Christiansen, 907 May Road, inquired whether or not High discussed the feasibility of lowering the speed of the go-carts to prevent spin-outs on the track with the designer. High stated that the firm's engineer responded that the direction, not speed, was causing the spin-outs due to the angle of the curves on the track. He stated that reducing the speed could cause a go-cart drive wheel to get caught in a tapered area along the curve which would cause the car to stop, and possibly cause an accident.

Vigunas inquired how High decided on the current direction of go-carts travel. High responded that he agreed to reverse the direction when a resident expressed concern that the exhaust would adversely affect his property and that his decision to change the direction of travel was in response to the resident's concern.

Christiansen inquired whether or not High considered repairing the area where the go-carts are having problems. High responded that he has not considered the option since he has been advised that the problem would not occur if the go-carts are traveling in the opposite direction.

A resident stated that it is his recollection that the direction of travel was suggested by a Board member who indicated that less noise might be generated if the motor is pointing away from the residential area during acceleration, and not over any concerns over exhaust fumes.

David R. Jones, 847 Douglas Drive, expressed the opinion that the discussion on the original proposal focused more on the height of the wall and the noise generated by the go-carts rather than concerns over fumes. The Chairman concurred with Jones statement and added that there was not much discussion on the direction of travel, either.

Reinfried stated that he was agreeable to the Board's original decision on the sound testing and noted that although he has heard the go-carts on several occasions, he was not particularly annoyed at the sound. He added that the sound testing should continue in order to provide a recourse to the Board and residents in case a problem should arise in the future regarding the level of noise from the go-carts.

Christiansen stated that he has the results of the August 1, 2001 sound testing and inquired which of the three runs was conducted with the go-carts running in a clockwise direction. High responded that he is unsure which run was operated in a clockwise location. The Chairman inquired whether or not Christiansen has a specific concern regarding the results of the sound testing. Christiansen expressed the opinion that two sound tests is not a preponderance of evidence.

Tracy Herr, 795 Scott Lane, stated that noise receptors are located along the High property line and added that there are no homes located on the property line. He stated that he has a screened-in porch and on several occasions, he could hear the go-carts and he finds the sound annoying. He requested that one of the receptors be placed on his property on a Friday night to measure the noise being emitted from the go-cart track. He stated that the homes are located at an elevation higher than the track and unless the receptors are located at this level, an accurate measure cannot be determined. The Township Manager stated that when he spoke with Herr he had explained that the receptors are located closer to the source of the noise rather than farther away since noise dissipates as it travels. In addition, the Township's Zoning Officer was present at the second sound test to verify that at least one of the receptors was set at an elevation reasonably equal to the homes. Herr maintained that until sound monitoring is performed on one of the properties, there is no way to determine whether or not the sound levels are higher at his property. The Zoning Officer confirmed that one of the receptors was located at the property line behind Cindy Lane, closest to the homes. In addition, the track was fully operational during the August sound testing and since there was a continuous line of people, there was not a need for High's son to operate a go-cart for each of the testing runs. He noted that while the testing was being performed, one of the go-carts did spin-out and they had to pull the car over, so he also witnessed this aspect of the request, also.

David R. Jones stated that "Friends of Quite Neighborhoods" conducted their own sound tests with receptors being placed throughout the neighborhood so other locations were tested. He commented that since Skelly and Loy, Inc. was hired to do testing and not to give testimony as part of the original hearing for the go-cart track, their comments should be disregarded since they are irrelevant to the decision. He added that he concurs with Reinfried's comments regarding the amicable decision made by the Board, and he would like the Board to adhere to its original decision.

Vigunas stated that as the dissenting Board member of the original decision (his concern was that the Board is not in a position to "police" the operation), he recalls that over the course of the 5 public hearings, sound was expressed as a concern as well as safety, and although sound was discussed at length, their was no evidence submitted regarding safety of the direction of travel. He stated that he is personally irritated that a sixth public hearing is needed to discuss this issue, which should have been addressed previously.

The Chairman stated that two issues are being presented this evening. The first issue is that the owner of the go-cart track has indicated that the safety of the operation would improve if the direction of travel is reversed, and since the Board does not supervise construction from a design standpoint, he is willing to consider the issue. He stated that as the first issue relates to sound, it may be more prudent to continue monitoring the sound of the go-cart track for an additional season. He explained that his concern is that the Applicant is requesting to modify two of the conditions of the decision at one time.

High stated that for several weeks he was running the go-carts in the opposite direction in order to verify the improvements over the safety of the operation.

The Township Solicitor stated that regardless of the Board's decision pertaining to the modification of the Conditions of the original decision. The Escrow amount that was established for the sound testing should be modified. He stated that upon verifying the balance of the remaining escrow fund, the Assistant Secretary/Treasurer advised him that the amount stated in the Escrow Agreement is higher than the amount deposited into the fund.

The Township Solicitor explained that the discrepancy arose when the estimate for the sound testing was presented during the hearing; and Skelly and Loy submitted an actual proposal for the sound testing which was less than the estimate. The amount of the proposal by Skelly and Loy, Inc. was $4,917.00, which was the amount subsequently deposited by the Applicant. He added that the Escrow Agreement was signed by the owners of the property; however, it was only partially signed on behalf of High Sports, Inc. He stated that these items should be addressed when the Board provides a decision on this evening's public hearing.

Nancy Hurst, 656 Snyder Hill Road, stated that when the Board members made the original decision, they indicated that if any property owners had problems with the noise during specific times, the Board would provide for testing at these locations. She stated that if Mr. Herr has problems with noise, the Board should locate a receptor on his porch. The Chairman stated that the decision is not specific to that requirement and added that Mr. Jones indicated that they had sound testing performed on the individual properties by an independent agency, and their test results were similar to those of Skelly and Loy, Inc.

The Chairman confirmed that Attorney Wagenseller, Thomas Reinfried, David R. Jones, and Eric Christiansen have been designated as parties to the Case. On a motion by Myers, seconded by Vigunas, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing for the Conditional Use application presented this evening.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Board received notice of a "Town Meeting" that will be held at the Warwick High School Auditorium on January 7, 2002, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The meeting will focus on the community's response to the events of September 11, 2001. A key component of the evening will target the emotional needs of community members of all ages.

The Board received a request from the Warwick Youth Aid Panel to consider monetary support of their program in the amount of $200.00. The funds would be used to cover the cost of postage, copying and miscellaneous supplies for the program. The goal of the program is to teach youth the consequences of delinquent behavior and allow them to repay the community and victims through service. The Township Manager stated that 14 residents have completed a 21-hour training course sponsored by the Lancaster County Department of Juvenile Probation and Parole. On a motion by Moyer, seconded by Vigunas, the Board unanimously approved a $200.00 contribution to the Warwick Youth Aid Panel.

CONSIDER REQUEST FOR A 90 DAY TIME EXTENSION FOR THE SYLVAN BRANDT CO. PROJECT: The Board reviewed the request. On a motion by Myers, seconded by Vigunas, the Board unanimously approved a 90-day extension of time for the Sylvan Brandt Co., project.

CONSIDER REQUEST FROM WILLIAM GASSERT FOR RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION: The Board reviewed the request. The Township Engineer commented that based on their observation, those previously outstanding construction issues have been addressed in an acceptable manner. Therefore, they recommend the Township release the remaining $5,847.60 Letter-of-Credit account. With the release of the Letter-of-Credit, the project is essentially closed-out or completed. On a motion by Vigunas, seconded by Myers, the Board unanimously authorized a release of the Letter-of-Credit for William Gassert in the amount of $5,847.60.

CONSIDER REQUEST FROM IVAN STAUFFER FOR RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR PINE HILL ESTATES-PHASE I: The Board reviewed the request. The Township Engineer commented that although the majority of the site improvements have been completed, the installation of street trees and sidewalk remains to be completed on eight (8) lots that are still vacant in this Phase of the development. This includes lot 1, lot 36, lot 37, lot 43, lot 46, lot 55, lot 60 and lot 77. In addition, the street trees remain to be planted on lot 55, where the dwelling and sidewalk have been recently completed. In order to close-out this phase of the development and still ensure the installation of the remaining street trees and sidewalks, the Township Engineer suggests that the outstanding Letter-of-Credit value of $2,750.00 be consolidated or accounted for within the contingency of the Letter-of-Credit for Phase II of the development. In addition, the Township's Building/Code Enforcement Officer could require the sidewalks and street trees to be installed prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the dwellings that will eventually be constructed on the lots. If this approach is acceptable to the Township, the remaining $2,750.00 Letter-of-Credit could be released at this time.

Myers suggested that the first Letter-of-Credit release request for Phase II reflect the $2,750.00 carry-over from Phase I to ensure that the work for the first phase is completed. The Township Solicitor stated that the Township should receive an acknowledgment from both the Applicant and the firm holding the Letter-of-Credit since the original Letter-of-Credit would not have included a cost estimate for any work as part of Phase I of the development. The Township Manager stated that the Township has received similar requests in the past and have addressed them in this manner. On a motion by Moyer, seconded by Vigunas, the Board unanimously authorized a transfer of the funds from the Phase I Letter-of-Credit to be included with the Letter-of-Credit for Phase II, contingent upon an acknowledgment from the developer and lender to use Phase II funds for work in Phase I, if needed.

CONSIDER MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR THE RABBIT HILL ESTATES PROJECT: Craig Hasson, Rabbit Hill Estates developer, stated that he had discussed the modification to construct a segmental type masonry wall rather than a boulder wall, which was approved as part of the Final Plan for the project, with the Township Engineer. At that time, the Township Engineer commented that the modification may be feasible as long as it is approved by the Township. Hasson stated that he misinterpreted the comment to indicate approval and began construction of the wall. The Township Engineer (Charles Hess) explained that when he performed an on-site inspection of the project area on October 11, 2001, he discovered that Hasson had begun constructed on the wall and had advised that approval had not yet been given by the Township for the modification. He explained that in a letter dated November 8, 2001, the developer submitted the preliminary design calculations and various cross-sections from the manufacturer (Anchor Retaining Wall Systems). In addition, the developer requested, and was granted, a reduction in the Letter-of-Credit account for the project (in the amount of $63,374.41) at the Board of Supervisors November 21, 2001 meeting. The Township Engineer advised that it is his opinion that the segmental retaining wall design is better than a boulder retaining wall. He added that the retaining wall is located entirely in the area that would be dedicated to the Township (currently the Hasson property). Myers stated that he was involved extensively in the project and inquired why Hasson changed the design of the wall. Hasson stated that the block wall requires less maintenance since it would not allow weeds to grow. He stated that he discussed the issue with the adjacent property owners (Forney), who would actually see the wall, and they were agreeable to the change. He added that the segmental block is more expensive than a boulder wall and provided a 4-1 slope rather than a 2-1 slope which is what a boulder wall would have provided. He stated that he will take down the segmental wall and construct a boulder wall, if that is the Board's decision. Moyer stated that Hasson was aware that an adjoining property owner is concerned over the project, and if an agreement can be reached with the neighbor, he would be agreeable to the change, provided that the wall meets the appropriate engineering standards.

Michael Miller, 960 Rabbit Hill Road, stated that he is not only concerned over the aesthetics of the wall, but also the workmanship of its construction. He expressed the opinion that the wall is not attractive, in addition, there are gaps in the wall which would indicate poor workmanship. He provided photographs of the wall for the Board's review. He stated that he was assured by the Township that a boulder wall would be constructed in accordance with the approved plan. He stated that no amount of paperwork can prove how the segmental wall was constructed. He expressed the opinion that the current wall devalues his home.

Attorney George Cook, representing Michael Miller, stated that he faxed a ten-point proposal for the Township that should be addressed prior to any decision by the Board. The Chairman stated that the letter indicates several items where the Township would be involved and explained that the Township will not be a party to these issues. He added that the wall is located entirely within the right-of-way that will be accepted by the Township eventually. He noted that the Township is sympathetic to Miller's concerns. Miller stated that he is not requesting any special treatment, only that the developer adhere to the approved plan which illustrated a boulder wall. He added that it appears that Hasson was being defiant and disrespectful to both himself and the Township in constructing the segmental wall.

Ken Carper, 42 Church Street, stated that he has purchased one of the lots within the development and expressed the opinion that the wall looks fine. He added that he does not believe that Hasson was being defiant in constructing the wall.

Attorney Cook stated that he would be willing to work with Hasson over the next 30 days to resolve the issues pertaining to the wall. Myers stated that the Board would appreciate the parties working together to resolve the issue. He explained that a boulder wall is not necessarily the best option since it could crack and may not be as durable over the years as the wall that was constructed. He added that a boulder wall will have its own imperfections and if that is the type of wall that is ultimately constructed, all parties would have to understand these issues.

The Chairman stated that the right-of-way for the property was in place when the plan was presented so the Board could not legally stop the development. He stated that the Board would be agreeable to tabling action on the plan to provide sufficient time for the parties to come to an agreement. He noted that although the Board is agreeable to tabling action on the plan, it does not necessarily indicate that the Board would require replacement of the existing wall. On a motion by Moyer, seconded by McSparran, the Board voted unanimously to table action on the plan until the Board's February 6, 2002 meeting.

CONSIDER APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL OF THE BUCHTER SEWER MODULE: The Board reviewed the Buchter Sewer Module. On a motion by Moyer, seconded by Myers, the Board unanimously approved the Buchter Sewer Module submittal.

STATUS REPORT ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION EFFORTS: The Township Manager stated that one of the Balmer farms (located along Millway Road and Rothsville Station Road) was preserved in 2001, and the other Balmer farm is scheduled for preservation this year. He stated that the Township Solicitor and himself have been working with the Agriculture Preserve Board to also preserve the Becker farms. He stated that they are currently discussing the acquisition of TDRs for the Becker preservation. He advised that the Agriculture Preserve Board is hesitant to preserve the Kline farm although it is zoned Agriculture and is located outside the Urban Growth Boundary. He commented that it is his understanding that if any farm meets the appropriate preservation requirements, the Board would support their application for permanent preservation. He stated that Kline is upset over the Preserve Board's position. He explained that he met with the Agriculture Preserve Board to discuss the issue, and following the meeting, they were agreeable to preserving the Kline farm. The Township Manager explained that the Community Hospital project, which is currently in a Conditional Use review stage, would require the purchase of TDR's if the Board approves the final proposal. He suggested that the Board make the purchase of the TDRs a requirement for Final Plan approval, based on any approval of the Preliminary Plan. He explained that the Township would be required to hold an auction for the sale of the TDRs since they are recognized as Township owned real estate. The Township Solicitor stated that the Township can establish a minimum bid price.

The Township Manager explained that the Township is currently working on an Open Space Plan with Lititz Borough and Elizabeth Township. He stated that the plan would indicate those areas with sensitive environmental areas. He noted that these areas will include preserved farms and the wellhead protection area.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Zimmerman
Township Manager