BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the
Board of Supervisors: Frank Fazzalore, Chairman
Scott Fegley, Secretary/Treasurer
Grace Godshalk, Supervisor (left meeting in progress)
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor
Others: Terry Fedorchak, Township Manager
Jeffrey Garton, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Kenneth Coluzzi, Chief of Police
Absent: Pete Stainthorpe, Vice Chairman Board of Supervisors
Mr. Christopher Hewlett,
Mr. Don Kimmelman,
Mr. Jack Morrison,
CONFIRMATION OF EAGLE SCOUT PROCLAMATIONS
Mr. Fazzalore confirmed Eagle Scout Proclamations for Joseph Naylor and Sean Michael Sullivan. The Court of Honor was held May 8.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Fegley moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was
unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of
APPROVAL OF MAY 3 AND
Mr. Fegley moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was
unanimously carried to approve the May 3 and
YARDLEY BASEBALL DISCUSSION
Mr. Robert Buckley was present and submitted a prepared
statement (attached to the Minutes). He stated
he is the President of Yardley Baseball and appeared before the Board of Supervisors
seeking sanctioning in April, 2003. This
was approved by the Board at that time.
He stated this year he only received one 90’ field time which he feels
resulted in discriminating against the children in their program. He stated they were never notified that their
sanctioning was in jeopardy; and as far as he knows, they are still sanctioned.
He stated Ms. Liney had previously stated that they would not be excluded. They submitted rosters for six teams while
PAA submitted for sixteen teams. He
Mr. Fazzalore stated he understands that Yardley Baseball failed to provide their insurance on time. Mr. Buckley stated this is incorrect. He stated he advised Ms. Liney that their insurance had changed, but that they were covered and he sent a letter to
Ms. Liney indicating that they were insured. Mr. Fazzalore stated he feels they should review the new policies which were recently approved. Mr. Buckley stated he has received them, but he feels they should not be required to adhere to policies that were not printed at the time the requests for registrations were sent out. Mr. Buckley stated he feels there are problems with the rules as they apply to Yardley Baseball and PAA since
PAA does not have any separation between their travel team and their intramural team. Mr. Fazzalore stated the Park & Recreation Board worked on these rules for a year.
Mr. Buckley stated he feels the Board of Supervisors should
advise the Park & Recreation Board of his concern that they have indicated
that adult leagues are more important than youth programs. He stated adult teams are only required to have
60% Township residents while the youth teams need 80%. He stated the adult teams are also not
required to have an intramural program.
He noted Statement A which has been added, he feels, to benefit
He stated they took away the written rules and regulations and installed discretionary decision making.
Mr. Buckley stated Mr. Fritchey was questioned by members of the Board of Supervisors whether this new policy was put in place to limit new organizations and he questions why they changed Rules 10 and 11 changing it from two years to one year.
Mr. Fedorchak stated the Park & Recreation Board discussed these changes at a number of public meetings and anyone could have attended those meetings and provided their input.
Mr. Buckley stated he was referred to by Mr. Fritchey on a number of occasions as an individual who started an organization so that he could coach his son. He stated he left PAA because he did not agree with the decision making that was taking place and could no longer work with them. He stated he is insulted by the comments made by
Mr. Fazzalore noted the letter written to Mr. Fedorchak with three questions and
Ms. Liney’s response to those questions. He asked Mr. Buckley if he received this, and Mr. Buckley stated he did not. Mr. Fazzalore stated the one question involved
Mr. Buckley’s comment that he was not given sufficient field time. Ms. Liney stated that in their judgment the field time given to Yardley Baseball was not disproportionate to the number of players.
Mr. Fedorchak reviewed the history of the submission of paperwork and Township requests for additional information from Mr. Buckley.
Mr. Fritchey joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Fazzalore stated he would like the Park & Recreation Board to respond to Mr. Buckley’s concerns. Mr. Fritchey was provided the written synopsis submitted by Mr. Buckley this evening.
Mr. Fazzalore stated there are only two 90’ fields in the
Township. Mr. Buckley stated these fields
yield 34 time slots. He stated he does
not feel there was a fair distribution of field time. He stated
Mr. Fritchey stated last year at this time Mr. Buckley came in and requested field permits and sanctioning. While Park & Recreation did not feel they met the terms for sanctioning, he was given field permits to give the organization the opportunity to get their program started. Mr. Buckley then went before the Board of Supervisors who felt that the rules were arbitrary and agreed to sanction him. This had no practical application for the field times he received. Yardley Baseball continues to be sanctioned this year provided they meet the criteria. Mr. Fritchey stated last year Mr. Buckley indicated it was his intention to run a comprehensive program. The Park & Recreation Board wants to allow for new organizations if there is a good basis for them such as if there is substantial dissatisfaction with the existing organization and if there is a market share for a new organization. Mr. Fritchey stated they are dealing with a finite number of fields, and there are organizations that have run programs for decades. Mr. Fritchey stated they wanted to see multiple age groups and programs for boys and girls. He stated they do not want to see an organization started because one individual was not chosen to coach his son’s team. He stated Yardley Baseball had seventeen players last year when they came before the Park & Recreation Department which is not a sufficient number to have one player in every position. Yardley Baseball had indicated that they had a travel team and an intramural program but they involved the same children. Mr. Fritchey stated the travel program should grow out of a viable intramural program. Mr. Buckley had indicated this was his intention, and he intended to have a broad-based program and would have a fall program. Mr. Fritchey stated he had no program in the fall, paid no user fees, and requested no fields in the fall as he had promised he would. Mr. Fritchey stated
Mr. Buckley advised Ms. Liney he would have teams in the
spring, but at that time they had not received his insurance. Ms. Liney indicated his insurance had lapsed;
and although Mr. Buckley indicated it was good until
Ms. Liney about the insurance and on 4/5 they finally did receive notification that they had insurance. By that time she had let the permits. Despite this, Mr. Buckley was provided field times. Mr. Fritchey stated Ms. Liney works for the Township and she reports to Mr. Fedorchak. He feels she did what she could under the circumstances. He stated they do not have an unlimited number of fields. He stated there are four 60’ fields and two 90’ fields. He stated what Mr. Buckley is asking for is not simply that he get a permit, but that he get a permit at the expense of someone else.
Mr. Buckley noted the letter dated 2/27 which he delivered to Ms. Liney regarding her letter dated 2/5 where he stated the current insurance was in effect until 3/31 and he was advised it would be renewed by the end of the month and would send it to her once received. He also agreed to forward all 2004 rosters after the final registration.
Mr. Fegley stated he does not recall that Yardley Baseball
got any permits until they came before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fritchey stated this is incorrect. He stated they did not get sanctioned until
they came to the Board of Supervisors but they were given permits prior to that
time. Mr. Fegley stated at this point
they are a sanctioned organization. He
asked how an organization that has six viable teams does not get priority over
Mr. Fritchey stated Ms. Liney has indicated that various
members of the Board of Supervisors urged her to give
Mr. Fegley asked if Yardley Baseball could not get one 90’ time slot at a time other than 8:00 to 11:00 on a Sunday morning and give St. John’s one time slot at a time other than 8:00 to 11:00 on a Sunday morning which would leave a number of time slots available to PAA including the 8:00 to 11:00 Sunday morning time slot. Mr. Fegley stated if an organization has met the rules, he feels they should be given one slot out of thirty-four. Mr. Fegley stated he feels PAA is a great organization, and they have done great things for the children in the Township; but he feels another organization should be given the opportunity to offer a competing program. He does not feel the Township should discourage this.
Mr. Fritchey stated when Ms. Liney let the permits, their insurance was not in effect as far as the Township knew. He stated they must also consider the impact if they have a lot of small splinter groups that do not offer broad-based programs.
Mrs. Godshalk asked if
Mrs. Godshalk asked how many teams they have, and Mr. Fritchey stated he feels they have only one team and they play other CYO teams. It has been a long-standing program and the Township has a long-standing practice of granting them a field as well as allowing use of one field for the Conwell-Egan/Pennsbury competition at which over five hundred people come to watch. Mrs. Godshalk asked about the adult teams, and
Mr. Fritchey stated there are two adult teams in the Township which have historically paid user fees and do provide insurance. They get a field Saturday night, Wednesday night, and Sunday morning. Mrs. Godshalk stated she was present last year when
Mr. Buckley appeared. She stated PAA has done a wonderful job for decades but she still feels there is an opportunity for people to form new organizations
Mr. Jack Morrison asked how many people they have registered for Yardley Baseball, and Mr. Buckley stated they registered forty-eight before he cancelled the intramural program because he had no field to play on. Mr. Morrison asked how they would get six teams with only forty-eight players. Mr. Santarsiero stated the figures he was provided
show that they have only thirty-six
players. Mr. Santarsiero stated he is
astounded that for a Township the size of
Mr. Santarsiero asked what constitutes a time slot, and Mr. Fritchey stated it is a two and a half to three hour time period.
Mr. Buckley stated currently they have only two travel teams. He stated they did away with the intramural team because they had no fields. Mr. Santarsiero stated in the material he received they had thirty-six players signed up. Mr. Buckley started originally they had forty-eight. He stated currently he has fourteen on his roster and another gentleman from Yardley Baseball stated he has twelve on his roster. Mr. Santarsiero stated this is only twenty-six players and asked if this is adequate for six teams.
Mr. Buckley stated it is not. Mr. Santarsiero asked who they play, and Mr. Buckley
stated they play in the ECTV Tournament League out of
Mr. Fazzalore moved that this be sent back to the Park & Recreation Board for a solution to the problem. There was no second to the Motion.
Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels they should elicit more information.
Mrs. Godshalk stated PAA has a significant number of teams
playing on six fields. She stated if
Yardley Baseball is only playing travel teams, it is outsiders that are
benefiting from the
A gentleman residing at 2111 Dawn Lane stated he feels the Township has the obligation to provide for adequate ground for recreation and the Board of Supervisors has the obligation to determine how to finance this. Mr. Fazzalore stated they would have to borrow money in order to do this. The gentleman stated he is the Manager of the fields for PAA and understands how difficult it is to accommodate all the teams on these fields. He provided information on the number of fields available in surrounding Townships.
He noted PAA is expanding in the seven to ten year old age group which will result in greater numbers in the future of those needing 90’ fields.
Mr. Mark Cook, PAA, stated he represents 1400 boys and girls. They have worked very hard to provide a recreation opportunity for the children. He stated they do not have a problem with another organization starting, but it should not be at PAA’s expense.
Mr. Jim Drum,
Mr. Glen Johnson,
Ms. Virginia Torbert, 1700 Yardley-Newtown Road stated she was present at the last meeting this was discussed and recalled that the Board of Supervisors actively encouraged Yardley Baseball to try to get more members; and from what she is hearing Mr. Buckley did what the Board encouraged him to do. She feels Mr. Buckley has been treated unfairly; however they now have only two teams. She feels a fair compromise would be to give him a different time slot to something more reasonable and next year put the Park & Recreation Board and Ms. Liney on notice that Yardley Baseball is not to be treated with the bias she feels they have been treated with. She stated competition is a good thing.
Mrs. Godshalk stated she has heard people complaining about the time slots and if every field is unused from 8 to 11 on Sunday morning, it will make a bad situation worse. She feels they should take whatever they are given since the fields are in short supply.
Mr. Jack Morrison, President of PAA, stated the bottom line
is that they need additional fields. If
this means additional taxes to the residents of
Mr. Morrison noted the parcel of land near the
Mr. Bill Hirschman,
Mr. Morrison thanked the Board of Supervisors for all the work they have done for PAA over the years.
One young man stated he feels those playing for Yardley Baseball should have the same rights as PAA players.
Mr. Fegley stated he would like Mr. Morrison, Mr. Buckley, and Ms. Liney to sit down to see if they can give Yardley Baseball a different time slot for this year. Mr. Fegley stated he feels it is obvious that the Township needs an additional 90’ field, and he would hope that if the Township does provide this, that Mr. Buckley would not again be in this position. Mr. Fedorchak was asked to coordinate such a meeting.
Mr. Fred Allan asked if Mr. Fedorchak could get PAA to work
on finding a spot in
Mr. Buckley stated Yardley Baseball is concerned with the make up of the Park & Recreation Board since executives from existing athletic organizations are on this Board and it is a conflict of interest. They feel this is one of the problems that led to this.
He stated Mr. Fritchey continues to refer to him as an individual who is doing this in order to coach his son.
YARDLEY-MAKEFIELD EMERGENCY UNIT STATUS REPORT
Mr. James McCaffrey and Mr. Hank Lawrence were present. Mr. McCaffrey stated some time ago the
Emergency Squad was in desperate financial shape. The Board of Supervisors urged the Rescue
Squad to get back on solid footing. Mr.
Lawrence stated last year they responded to 1,480 dispatches which is 158 more
than the previous year. They have the
second best in-service time for the paramedics in
currently have several Grants they are working on, one for the generator, another to
establish some health and safety programs, and another to purchase twenty external automatic defibrillators to be distributed in the Township. They are trying to purchase additional equipment to be used in conjunction with their work with children. They are receiving donations from companies they solicit. They are also working on a Fellowship Program with St. Mary’s to improve the knowledge of the paramedics. They are coming up to their 50th Anniversary and will have an Open House approximately one year from now.
Mr. Fazzalore noted the Income Statement and noted the $25,000 item for rent.
Mr. Lawrence stated the accountant showed this as a prepayment amount. He agreed that they are not paying any rent for twelve years. Mr. Fazzalore noted the long-term debt of $181,770 on the Balance Sheet, and Mr. Lawrence stated he feels this is the loan on the building. Mr. McCaffrey agreed to look into the details on this and how it offsets the pre- payment amount previously discussed.
Mr. McCaffrey stated Mr. Lawrence has done a great job running the day-to-day operations and thanked the Board of Supervisors for their help. Mrs. Godshalk thanked Mr. McCaffrey for his involvement with the Rescue Squad.
PRESENTATION OF OPERATING BUDGET FOR MAKEFIELD HIGHLANDS GOLF COURSE.
Mr. Robert Swayze, Kemper Sports, Mr. William Taylor, and Mr. Terry Bannon, General Manager of the Course, were present. Mr. Fazzalore asked if they hired a Pro, and Mr. Bannon stated he starts this week.
Mr. Swayze noted the Budget package provided to the Board of Supervisors for July to December with the anticipated opening day of July 1. Mr. Swayze stated this shows that the Club should do well. Mr. Bannon stated the Clubhouse is almost completed.
Mr. Sam Conti,
receipt and the receipt goes to the
starter who balances this at the end of the day to make sure all who are
playing are paying. Mr. Conti asked how
they will identify the residents from the non-residents. Mr. Swayze stated they will have a property log
and you will have to show your identification that matches up to the
property. Mr. Swayze stated they will
come in from
Mr. Pete Vitella,
Mr. Sam Speara,
Mr. Fazzalore suggested that they drill the holes and install the flags and the sign so that people know that this is a Golf Course. Mr. Taylor stated they are waiting for the final bid. He described the type of sign they are considering.
Mr. Don Kimmelman,
Mr. Conti asked what Kemper is doing to promote outings. Mr. Swayze stated they are involved in trying to attract group play. He stated the Senior League is also very important to go after because they can play at times when others cannot.
Mr. Fazzalore stated they are still under Budget at this time because the interest expense is less than was budgeted. Mr. Santarsiero noted net operating income versus debt service and the actual debt service. He asked about the rate. Mr. Taylor stated it is
at 3 ½ % and as of last week it was 1.6%.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF SATTERTHWAITE HOUSE (PATTERSON FARM)
Mr. Fazzalore stated this matter is on the Agenda this evening because there was the impression in the community that the Township was subdividing the entire Patterson Farm which is not the case. They are only proposing taking out a small portion including the white house, the barn, and some outbuildings.
Mr. Fedorchak showed on the overhead the entire Patterson Farm and the portion which is being considered for subdivision. It is a 2.3 acre tract. It is the intention to ultimately sell this property through a public bid. The Township would attach certain façade easements, and there would be the requirement that the white house be brought up to certain historic standards. This would be for the outside only. The tract is R-1 and only those uses permitted by right in this residential district would be allowed. A shaded area was shown which is an area of approximately seventy acres which is a deed restricted area. The area to be subdivided is outside of this area.
Mrs. Godshalk stated the high bidder would have to prove that they would have the money to restore the house in a reasonable time.
Mr. Fedorchak stated the Historic Commission has recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they attempt to save the structure. They sent out an architect and structural engineer to evaluate the building, and they advised that it would cost as much as $500,000 to bring the structure up to current Codes.
Mr. Russell McLaughlin was present and stated approximately one and a half years ago he accompanied the architect and structural engineer on the inspection of the white house. The problem is the extent of damage and deterioration that has gone on in the building. All mechanicals would have to be replaced. There are also structural problems with the house. There has also been insect damage. The foundation walls need repointing. The outside silt plate needs to be replaced, and the first floor needs to be reframed. There have also been water leaks through the roof for an extended period of time. The exterior clapboard and porch also need work. The architect came up with a cost estimate of
$400,000 to repair the structure, and this did not bring into account adding the historic façade. He stated this is only an estimate because once you open up the walls, you could find additional items.
Mr. Fegley asked if it is safe for human habitation, and Mr. McLaughlin stated he felt it is questionable. He stated he does not feel it will fall down tomorrow, but the lack of maintenance that has occurred is tremendous. He stated the cost estimate of $400,000 was given a year ago.
Mr. Santarsiero noted the
Mr. Santarsiero noted the
Mr. Santarsiero asked him to describe the differences. Mr. McLaughlin stated he feels there was more leaking from the roof and the inside stucco had also deteriorated. The one floor that had dropped in 2003 had not dropped four years before to the best of his recollection. Mr. Santarsiero asked how these things happened over this period of time. He referred to the Agreement of Sale, paragraph 9, page 4 which describes the condition of the buildings which includes the terms “habitable and in reasonable condition.” He stated the Township had the right to inspect the buildings to make sure that they met this requirement. He asked if the Township inspected the buildings at that time.
Mr. McLaughlin stated the white house was the only one he was in. Mrs. Godshalk stated the Township was not allowed access to the house and they were only allowed into one room of the house which was the parlor. Mr. Santarsiero asked why they did not exercise their right to enter, and Mrs. Godshalk stated the people were elderly and they felt it was best to handle it in this way. Mrs. Godshalk stated the offer was “as is.”
Mr. Fegley stated when the Board bought the Patterson Farm, the purpose was to preserve open space. The Board had no illusions about the conditions of the homes. It has been the position of the Board since they purchased the Patterson Farm that at some point they would subdivide this property out. Regardless of what the contract says, no one on the Board felt that they were getting a property that was in reasonably good condition. The purpose was to preserve 233 acres of open space.
Mr. Fazzalore stated the Patttersons were living in the main house at the time, and there was a verbal agreement made that as long as they were on the property, they would not step on that property.
Mr. Santarsiero noted the report dated
Mr. McLaughlin stated there were two problem areas on the second floor. There had been a leak in the house and when you went into the front of the house, the floor was soft. When you went toward the back there was a bathroom which had been added and the floor within that bathroom was sloped and these are the areas the engineer is referring to. Mr. McLaughlin stated the second floor has areas of concern and there are areas where the plaster has been falling off because of moisture. He stated the outside porch roof had an area of concern and about two weeks after the inspection, there was a collapse of this and they could then see the problem with deterioration of the side walls and an insect problem. This could not have been seen previously from the inside. He stated until you get into the building and start opening it up, you cannot tell what other problems you will encounter.
Mrs. Godshalk stated there have been some questions that this property was bought with Referendum money, and Mrs. Godshalk stated this is incorrect. The Referendum was not put to the voters until the year after the purchase. She stated this is what spurred them to have a Referendum because the cost to the Township for this property was $7.2 million and land was quickly disappearing. They did allow a certain portion of the property to be considered as part of the County money and in the deed they stated that this is open space and will be farmed as long as there is a farmer to farm it, but it can also be used some day for recreation property. This is in the Agreement. She stated the State is taking approximately seven acres of the property for the ramp off I-95.
Mr. Fegley stated while it is correct that this was purchased before the Open Space Referendum, the purpose of the purchase was to preserve the property. By subdividing 2.3 acres and selling it to someone to preserve it, it is a form of preservation.
Mrs. Godshalk stated this is a way to have the property preserved by an individual who can preserve it at no cost to the Township. She stated the Historic Commission did look at this and felt this was the best was to preserve the house and have someone purchase it, put money into the house, and restore it.
Mr. Santarsiero noted the Minutes from the 7/19/99 Board of Supervisors meeting and under Other Business Mr. Hackman stated someone would go through the Satterthwaite House to determine what needed to be done to put the house in a safe condition and that the matter had been discussed in Executive Session and a Plan of Action was approved.
He asked if they recalled what was decided. Mrs. Godshalk stated in Executive Session they are permitted to discuss real estate matters. She stated there are tenants in the house who had been there for many years, and they went along with the agreement that the Pattersons would retain occupation of both houses until the time they did not live there for a certain period of time. She stated there was so much that had to be done, the people would not have been able to live in the house when the work was being done.
Mr. Fegley stated the Agreement of Sale required that they keep the current tenants, and the Township could not evict them from the premises. Their initial inspection was to determine what needed to be done, if anything, to keep the house so that someone could live in it and not be in a condition that the County could condemn it.
Mr. Tom Jennings stated he feels the farm is a great public asset. He expected that it would be preserved for open space, for historic space, and for conservation. He feels the entire parcel should be under a Conservation Easement. Mr. Garton stated the Township wanted to have the option to have active recreation on the site if it was no longer viable for farming. Mr. Fegley stated they cannot put active recreation in the shaded portion. The rest of the property that is owned by the Township currently has no restrictions.
Mr. Garton reviewed the other restrictions in place. Mr. Jennings stated he does not feel they should enter into this hastily. He feels the goal of public preservation should be maintained. He stated if it would take $500,000 to maintain this property, he feels they should do it.
Mr. Stephen Heinz stated he is the architectural consultant
for the Historic Architectural Review Board.
He stated this property is adjacent to the
Mr. Sam Conti asked why the seventy-two acres should not be transferred to the Farmland Preservation Corporation. Mrs. Godshalk stated Farmland Preservation was set up specifically to run the land that developers set aside through Zoning that permitted more houses to be placed on less land with the balance of the land deeded to Farmland Preservation. Mr. Conti stated his interpretation of the Resolution which formed the basis of the Corporation had no indication of assignment of property as a result of development. Mr. Garton stated he could look into this. Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels this is a policy issue. He asked if they should have an independent organization whose charter is already established be the steward of farmland in the Township so as to protect it for the long term and not be subject to changes that may occur over time on the Board of Supervisors and move it one more step away from the political process. He feels it is a good idea to look into this noting the Farmland Preservation Corporation does a good job of being a steward of the land they have. Mrs. Godshalk stated if you read the
Farmland Preservation Ordinance, if the farmland is not to be farmed, and if all the farmers are gone, and the Farmland Preservation Corporation spends their funds to only cut the grass, it can go to a Referendum that homes could be put on this land at a rate of one house per five acres.
Ms. Helen Heinz, Historic Commission, stated they looked at the property four years ago and the major problem was maintenance. She stated the Farmland Preservation Corporation does not have the money to support the farm buildings. She stated the Board of Supervisors was previously in favor of demolishing the house, and the reason they parceled it out was to be able to save it. She stated if the Township is going to keep it, they must find some way to fund the maintenance.
Mr. Santarsiero stated in 7/99 a Motion was made to have the house put on the National Register; and he understands part of the reason for this was if it was placed on the Register, there would be the potential for Grants and funds to help renovate the house.
Ms. Heinz stated they also considered having it used by other organizations.
Mrs. Godshalk stated they did let the contract out for both the houses on the Patterson Farm and Elm Lowne but a majority of the Board would not vote in favor of the $2,000 needed for wood boring samples that would have showed the age of the houses.
Mrs. Godshalk stated she would do anything to protect the
house, but there was not support on the Board to proceed. Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels they should
revisit this issue now; and if it will only cost $2,000 to do wood borings,
they should do so and not rush to subdivide the property. He stated he has discussed the possibility of
an educational use for the property. He
Mr. Fegley stated he feels it should not be overlooked that there is another house on the property which should be saved. He stated he feels they should sell off this 2.3 acre parcel and use those funds to purchase additional open space. He noted other organizations such as the Heritage Conservancy act in this fashion so that it does not become a burden to the taxpayers taking care of all these older buildings.
Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels they are making a decision based on a not well understood breakdown of what it would cost to repair the house to make it structurally sound.
Mrs. Godshalk stated the Township sold the Tomlinson Store which she had a developer give to the Township and it was sold for $325,000. She urged the Board of Supervisors to put that money into historic preservation for other properties in the Township, and they would not vote for this.
Ms. Donna Doane stated she is a lifetime resident and a
Ms. Doane stated her Aunt would not be bothered by any work done on the home.
Ms. Doane stated she would be in favor of something like the Howell Living History Farm for this property. She is also concerned about the work that the Township did which ruined the roof. She stated she feels a home inspector would go in and look at the house for about $400. She recommended an individual who does historic home inspections only. She feels the estimate for work to be done which has been given is outrageous.
Mr. Tristam Heinz,
Mr. Gary Cruzan stated the State is supposed to pay $200,000 for the land they are taking from the Township. Mr. Fedorchak stated the offer was $270,000, but the Township has not accepted this proposal. Mr. Cruzan stated he feels the farm should be kept the way it is and stated he does not feel anyone selling their home would publish what poor condition it is in and then expect to sell it. Mr. Fegley stated they must be up front on the condition of the property when they put it out for sale.
Mrs. Godshalk moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was unanimously carried that the Township spend the money to get the test borings of the wood at the Patterson farm (three buildings) up to $3,000.
Mrs. Godshalk moved and Mr. Santarsiero seconded to start a Historic Preservation Fund and take the money that was received from the sale of the Tomlinson Store ($300,000+) and put it in the Historic Preservation Fund. Mr. Fedorchak stated this money is currently in the Capital Reserve Fund. Motion did not carry as Mrs. Godshalk and
Mr. Santarsiero voted in favor and Mr. Fazzalore and Mr. Fegley were opposed.
Mr. Fegley stated he would not want to make a decision on this tonight. He stated the Township could take this money and use it to purchase open space or use it for restoration. Mrs. Godshalk stated there is already $5 million that the people voted on.
Mrs. Godshalk moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was unanimously carried to table.
Ms. Sue Herman stated they are not going to have the opportunity to have these buildings again. Mr. Fazzalore stated it was never the intention to have the buildings go away if they were sold to a private individual. He stated restrictions would be placed and the house in private hands would be restored. Ms. Herman stated she feels the Township residents are excited about having these buildings in public hands. Mr. Fegley stated it is very expensive for the taxpayers to maintain these historic structures and they do not bring in any taxes. If it is put in private ownership, the structures will be maintained, taxes will be paid, and the open space preservation goal is still fulfilled.
Mr. Fazzalore moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was unanimously carried to turn the problem of alternatives over to the Historic Commission and have them come back with their recommendations on what they should do and how they should do it including the amount of money they need to remodel and where the funds would come from.
Ms. Virginia Torbert asked Mr. McLaughlin if he was ever asked for an estimate of what it would cost to bring the Satterthwaite House up to current construction Codes.
Mr. McLaughlin stated the report he submitted was a guestimate. He was given the instructions to bring in an architect and a structural engineer from the outside who had no affiliation with this area. He asked them to see the condition of the house and decide what it would cost to bring it up to a habitable standard. Ms. Torbert asked if he was asked to bring it up to a standard whereby the Township would be assured that they could rent it if they were the landlord. She stated she feels the $400,0000 is not what it would take to bring it up to Code. She stated she feels this violates the spirit of what they were going to do since they stated they were going to preserve the farm. She stated a farm is not just the land. She stated five years ago they stated they were going to preserve the Patterson Farm. She stated if they proceed with this subdivision, they will have to change the number of acres listed on their sign. She stated they are depriving the Township residents of the only farm that the Township owns if they sell it. She feels once they parcel off this farm and the outbuildings, and then the main house and the outbuildings, the only thing that they will have left is a leaf dump. Mr. Fegley stated she is assuming that they are parceling out the other parcels which they have not indicated they are doing. Ms. Torbert stated she feels private ownership will mar the vision of the farm. She stated they will have to fence it off from the farm. Mr. Fegley asked if it is her position that private ownership does not result in historic preservation, and Ms. Torbert stated it is not; but she quoted the Township Master Plan and other articles that the intention of the Township was to preserve the farm.
Ms. Claudia Fontaine stated she worked at Howell Farm and
this is an opportunity to do something different in
Ms. Doane stated private ownership does not mean that you get historic preservation. She stated if the Township had not been in such a rush to get it in Township hands, it would still be farmed and it would look the way it did before. Mr. Fazzalore stated the Pattersons were talking to a builder about subdividing it. Ms. Doane stated while they were talking to him, the Pattersons never intended to sell it to a developer as they wanted it to remain a farm.
Mrs. Godshalk left the meeting at this time.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE REVISED PLAN (#549) FOR FIELDSTONE (HARRIS TRACT)
Mr. John Mahoney, attorney, Mr. John Hako, engineer, and Mr. Jeff Gaul, Princeton Hydro, were present. Mr. Mahoney reviewed the history of the property. He stated in order to clean up the site, they need to develop the entire site and need certain Waivers. They are proposing constructing forty-three new homes and preservation of the existing home. Mr. Hako noted an area where they need to cross the wetlands. Mr. Garton stated the Applicant would like to know if they can cross the floodplain to gain access to the lots. Mr. Fazzalore stated provided the water flows correctly, he does not have a problem with this. There is an existing concrete pipe that would need to be replaced. This was acceptable to the Board.
Mr. Mahoney noted the proposed entrance on
Mr. Mahoney noted Lots #41 and #42 where they cannot meet the requirements because of the existence of Long Are Lane at its present location. Mr. Fazzalore stated because of these smaller rear yards, it could create problems with people not being able to use their rear yards. Mr. Mahoney stated they would put notice to this effect on the Plans.
Mr. Fazzalore stated their literature must also make this clear to the prospective purchasers. Mr. Mahoney stated he does do lot disclosures. Mr. Garton stated they should not lose sight of the fact that they are trying to get rid of the landfill.
Mr. Mahoney stated there are a number of reverse frontage
Mr. Mahoney stated more than 30% of the total slope areas may need to be disturbed.
He stated they need to get the number of homes they have proposed in order to pay for the clean up of the landfill.
Mr. Mahoney reviewed the plans to be submitted in order to have the site declared clean.
Mr. Garton stated tonight the only issues to be decided are whether the Board would be in favor of the Waivers being requested.
Mr. Mahoney noted Lots #24 and #25 which will also need a Wavier for rear yards.
Mr. Garton stated some of these items will have to go to the Zoning Hearing Board, but they wanted to make sure that the Board of Supervisors would not be in opposition.
Mr. Mahoney stated they are required to show all structures within 200’ of the periphery of the site, and they hope that the aerial photo will suffice. Mr. Garton stated this is not an unusual Waiver.
Mr. Mahoney stated the other issues have to do with stormwater management, and
Mr. Fazzalore stated they are very concerned with this. Mr. Mahoney stated the stormwater issues are design issues and they do not intend to put more water than permitted on adjacent sites. Mr. Fazzalore stated they must protect Brock Creek.
Mr. Hako noted the location of the basins proposed on the Plan and to where they will discharge. Mr. Fazzalore asked if there will be a problem for the maintenance people having to maintain the basins as proposed. Mr. Majewski stated they are proposing to construct the type of basins that do not require extensive mowing. Mr. Hako stated the basins are relatively shallow and they cannot meet certain requirements as to depth in the basin. There is also an item related to the riser in the basin for which they will need relief. Mr. Garton stated the Township engineer must indicate that he is in favor of these issues, and the Board of Supervisors will not make a decision on these technical issues.
Mr. Hako stated they are also requesting relief from the 50% release rate. He stated there is a natural area of ten acres which will remain undisturbed other than the clean up.
Mr. Fazzalore stated the Township engineer must review these issues.
Mr. Bernie Hayman, Long Acre Lane, stated he has been a planner for many years and this developer is asking for Variances to make his lot count work. He stated at the end of Long Acre Lane there are two catch basins that have been discharging effluent that has been ignored. Mr. Majewski stated the developer will have to review this. Mr. Hako noted the headwall is not on their property, and Mr. Majewski stated they have to go out and look at this to see if it is being trapped on the developer’s property. Mr. Mahoney agreed that they will look into this matter.
Mr. Stephen Heinz,
Mr. Heinz stated the railroad is on the other side of the developer’s property line and because of lack of lot depth, this results in a lack of buffering from the Railroad.
Mr. Santarsiero asked about the remediation of the landfill. Mr. Gaul showed the location of the landfill on the Plan. He stated they have been involved in this site since 1999. He stated they did sixty-four test pits to learn the extent of the fill. It was determined that the majority of the landfill was used for materials and construction equipment. They did find some household debris and soil was the major component of the material. There is 65,000 yards of waste material covered by a 24” layer of silt or topsoil material. They met with the State of Pennsylvania (DEP) to determine what they needed to do with the landfill. They did additional test pits on the property and found contamination was relatively low. There was a minor amount that would be higher than the residential standard. He reviewed the contaminants found which are typical for an area that has been farmed. They will have to prove that they are not impacting other wells. The intent of the project is to take out all the waste materials to the original soil in the landfill area. They will then do a screening process and separate the waste and material that could be placed back. They will test it every 300 cubic yards. The soil will be tested; and if it fails, it will be sent away and the good material will be used on the site.
Mr. Santarsiero asked about groundwater problems. Mr. Gaul noted the location of the monitoring wells. He stated they have come up well below the clean-up standards. They have placed some additional wells as directed by DEP and they received results back on these. One well which is down from a maintenance garage did come up with some constituents contributed to gasoline which he feels is localized. He stated they feel this has to do with an underground storage tank or they may have had a spill from their maintenance operation. They will continue to monitor this and will work with the DEP to get this resolved.
Mr. Fazzalore stated he feels Skelly & Loy should do the monitoring of the wells as well. Mr. Mahoney stated they have given these test results to the Township. Mr. Gaul stated the groundwater does flow toward the Creek.
APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2060, BILL NO. 10-04 – DEDICATION OF DOLINGTON I, PHASE IV
Mr. Santarsiero moved, Mr. Fegley seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2060, Bill No. 10-04 – Dedication of Dolington I, Phase IV
subject to the condition that $10,000 be preserved for improvements when PennDOT grants their permission.
ZONING HEARING BOARD MATTERS
It was agreed to leave to the Zoning Hearing Board the Richard and Mary Clara D’Andrea, 12 Spring Tree Lane, Variance request to construct a garage resulting in greater than the permitted impervious surface.
It was agreed to have the Solicitor appear in opposition to
the Robert and Kathleen Widmer,
Mr. Fegley stated they had about six hundred fifty cars go through for the Hazardous Waste collection. They do not yet know the specific numbers on Township participation. Mr. Fegley thanked the County and DeLuca for their participation in this collection.
It was agreed to postpone the following: Discussion of I-95 Loop Ramp Project and
It was agreed to postpone approval of Resolution No. 2059 authorizing a lease purchase agreement to obtain golf carts from Golf Cart Services as Mr. Fegley would not vote on this matter.
APPROVAL TO SELL OBSOLETE WEAPONS
Chief Coluzzi requested permission to sell obsolete weapons that are no longer of use to the Police Force. Mr. Fazzalore stated there was previous discussion on this, and they had indicated they did not want these weapons put back on the street. Chief Coluzzi stated most of these are shotguns and rifles.
Mr. Fegley moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was
unanimously carried to authorize the sale of sixty-eight obsolete weapons to a
There being no further business, Mr. Fegley moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at
Scott Fegley, Secretary