February's meeting of Heidelberg supervisors brought renewed discussion of a sewage planning module previously approved by the township planning commission.

This plan, relating to a property on Sawmill Road owned by Jason Lentz, had been challenged at the January meeting by resident Ann Hicks, an adjoining property owner.

Hicks objected saying the system would en-croach on her property, and requested the board reject the plan, which would allow treated sewage to be directed over her property and discharged into a stream.

As reported previously, the existing home on the property has a septic tank and drain field that were determined to be unsuitable.

Chris Noll of Keystone Consulting was present to advise the board on the sewage planning module.

"Do you understand what you're doing?" Noll asked. "All you're doing is recognizing this lot can't be repaired with conventional sewage facilities."

He said if the module is approved by the township, the owners would still have no standing or approval.

The Department of Environmental Protection would handle any issues regarding easements or encroachment in the second part of the approval process, which relates to the construction permit.

Hicks again read a prepared statement, as she had done at the previous meeting.

"[The system] directs effluent over our property into the Jordan Creek," she said, adding in flood conditions the water could rise 50 inches. "In a power outage, sewage would exit to our property. Alternative systems do exist and should be considered."

Noll said once the system is in place the effluent would have to be sampled and test reports submitted quarterly, then annually, to the DEP.

Vice Chairman David Fink asked if this approval would constitute a revision to the township's Act 537 plan, which governs sewage disposal.

Noll replied in the affirmative.

Hicks asked if there was a process to appeal an approval.

"I'm sure there is, but I don't know [what the process would be]," Noll said. "I can't say I've ever heard of a planning module being appealed.

He turned to Solicitor Keith Strohl for an answer.

"It may be covered in the Act 537 legislation," Strohl said.

Noll said that it would be appealed to that DEP.

"What would be the implications of not approving it?" asked Chairman Steve Bachman.

"Act 537 requires municipalities to provide [sewage disposal] to each property owner," Noll said.

He then explained that a holding tank would be an alternative, but would be extremely costly and would not work in case of flooding. "Then there would be stream discharge without treatment," he said. "This would take care of all the safeguards."

Hicks countered that a holding tank with regular pumping would still be an alternative.

Bachman replied flooding would still occur, and then it would be untreated sewage. The board voted to approve the module.