The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on December 20, 2006.  Chairman Santarsiero called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m.  Mr. Caiola called the roll.  Mr. Santarsiero noted that the Board met in a public session from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to interview candidates for vacancies on various Boards and Commissions after which they met in an Executive Session to discuss real estate matters.


Those present:


Board of Supervisors:               Steve Santarsiero, Chairman

                                                Ron Smith, Vice Chairman

                                                Greg Caiola, Secretary/Treasurer

                                                Grace Godshalk, Supervisor

                                                Pete Stainthorpe, Supervisor


Others:                                     Terry Fedorchak, Township Manager

                                                David Truelove, Township Solicitor

                                                James Majewski, Township Engineer

                                                Kenneth Coluzzi, Chief of Police





Mr. Sam Conti, Farmland Preservation Corporation, stated they met with Mr. Ardin from the sportsmen group on the deer and goose management issue.  Mr. Conti stated he can provide written information to the Board on the presentation made by Mr. Ardin. 

Mr. Santarsiero stated the Board will be discussing this matter when they get the proposal from Mr. Shissler.  Mr. Fedorchak stated the proposal was received this week and will be distributed to the Board.  Mr. Santarsiero stated this matter will be put on the Agenda in January.  He stated they will review Mr. Conti’s notes along with Mr. Shissler’s information and discuss the matter further in January.





Mr. David Rogers, President of the Bucks County Council for Individuals with Disabilities and current Chairman of the Lower Makefield Disabled Persons Advisory Board, was present and stated the mission of the Bucks County Council for Individuals

December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 2 of 20



with Disabilities is to advocate for and enable persons with disabilities to improve their quality of life, to enjoy equal access, and to enlighten the community with regard to the needs of persons with disabilities.  He stated approximately four years ago the Board of Supervisors formed the Lower Makefield Disabled Persons Advisory Board. He stated one of the goals of the Bucks County Council is to form such Boards in each of the Municipalities in Bucks County.  He stated Lower Makefield was one of the earliest adopters and is one of the most supportive.  Because of this, the Bucks County Council is presenting a plaque to Lower Makefield in recognition and appreciation of the Township for establishing the Disabled Persons Advisory Board and their commitment to people with disabilities. 


Mr. Santarsiero accepted the plaque on behalf of the Township and thanked Mr. Rogers as well as all those who serve on the Township’s Disabled Persons Advisory Board.


Mr. Smith asked what else the Township could to do spread this message.  Mr. Rogers stated he has provided a number of informational brochures which they try to make available to as many people as possible.  He stated the Township staff also has been very helpful particularly Mr. Fedorchak and Ms. Frick.  He stated Lower Makefield Township has far more compliance with regard to parking in the Township, particularly at the Township Building itself.  He stated in order to help them further the cause, whenever something is being done in the Township, they should consider the disabled in the community.  He stated the Advisory Board is willing to help in any way.  Mr. Smith stated he would like the Township to educate other Townships in the area.  He asked if the Southeastern Bucks League of Municipalities could include this on their Agenda. 

Mr. Santarsiero stated he would like to have Mr. Rogers come to one of their meetings to speak about what they are doing, and Mr. Rogers agreed to do so. 


Mrs. Godshalk stated when the Board of Supervisors initiated this Board four years ago, they made a commitment to people with disabilities in the Township; and she thanked Mr. Rogers for heading up the group as well as the Bucks County group.  She stated the literature provided is very informative, and she thanked the Committee for the work they are doing.





Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of December 6, 2006 as amended. 






December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 3 of 20





Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Stainthorpe seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the November 3, 2006 and November 17, 2006 Warrant Lists and October, 2006 Payroll as attached to the Minutes


Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the December 4, 2006 and December 18, 2006 Warrant Lists and November, 2006 Payroll as attached to the Minutes.





Mr. Chad Dixson of Traffic Planning & Design (TPD) was present and stated his firm was asked to look into Black Rock Road between Westover and Glen Drive.  He stated they have put together a Phase I Feasibility Analysis to provide for traffic calming and pedestrian facilities along Black Rock Road.  He stated they have made a revision to their report, and the new report is dated December 19.  He stated the area from Westover to the Canal has a steep grade of 11% with a shoulder on the south side only.  There is a culvert over the Canal and there are no shoulders on either side.  From the Canal to Glen Drive, there is a section that is flat, but there are no shoulders or pedestrian facilities.  He stated there have been concerns raised over the speeds being traveled and the safety of pedestrians.  He stated some preliminary work was done by the Township engineer in 1999.  Mr. Dixson stated the Township submitted Applications to the Bucks County Planning Commission and the DVRPC in 2003 and 2005 to have funding included on the region’s Transportation Improvement Program to replace the culvert and provide sufficient width for a pedestrian facility. 


Mr. Dixson stated they looked at the vehicle speeds, and the Police Department did a speed survey in the vicinity of Ivy Lane.  This was done on the weekend as they felt the Parks would have the most activity on those days, and there would also be more pedestrian activity as well.  They found that the speed is approximately forty-four miles per hour which is a significant for this roadway.  He stated they did an inventory of the signing and pavement marking from Westover to Glen Drive and made some recommendations in terms of short-term, low-cost improvements which could be done with regard to replacing signs, posting speed limit signs, moving the advance pedestrian warning signs closer to the crosswalk, providing different signs for the horizontal curve at Westover, replacing the Park entrance signs, and providing new pavement markings for the pedestrian crossing. 



December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 4 of 20



Mr. Dixson stated with regard to the pedestrian facilities, attached to the report is a Plan prepared by PCS in 1999 for a potential pedestrian facility between the Canal and Glen Drive.  In the report they also addressed the area between the Canal and Westover Road.  He stated it appears to be feasible to provide for pedestrian facilities along the roadway.  He stated for the segment from Westover Road to the Canal there may be some grading issues.  He stated from the Canal to Glen Drive it would be easier to have these pedestrian facilities because it is flat.  He stated they have come up with an order of magnitude and preliminary cost estimates based on their experience with similar projects. 

He stated the bikepath/pedestrian facility between Westover Road and the Canal would cost approximately $35,000 to $40,000 for materials.  For the segment between the Canal and Glen Drive, they estimate it would cost $20,000 to $25,000 for the materials. 

Mr. Dixson stated a pedestrian bridge was also considered over the small stream 100’ feet east of the Canal, and this would cost approximately $20,000.  He stated they estimated a cost for a structure spanning the Canal separate from the roadway that would be $50,000 to $75,000 for the structure itself.  In the updated report, they took that cost out assuming the preferred direction would be to provide a facility over the culvert itself next to the roadway. 


Mr. Stainthorpe stated in 2003, PCS came up with a cost of $650,000; and it appears they are now saying it could be done for $65,000.  Mr. Dixson stated the PCS cost estimate was for the complete replacement of the culvert underneath the roadway. 


Mr. Santarsiero stated the Township is going to get funding from the State for the replacement of the culvert, and they will have to discuss with the State making this wide enough to accommodate the bike/pedestrian path going over the culvert as well.  He stated it seems all the other work that would be necessary to create a bike/pedestrian path from Westover to Glen Drive would cost at most $85,000.  Mr. Dixson agreed that this would be the materials cost although there would some additional “soft” costs such as right-of-way acquisition, grading, etc.   Mr. Santarsiero stated there are permitting and design issues as to the State work to be done with the culvert.  Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels with respect to the work apart from the culvert, the Board of Supervisors should go forward with this work including the traffic calming given the existing safety issues. 

He stated he feels they should begin the engineering and contacting  the property owners involved about acquisition of rights-of-way so that when the State is ready to move forward the Township will also be ready to proceed. 


Mr. Stainthorpe asked how much engineering was previously done, and Mr. Dixson stated they understand it was more a conceptual design.  Mr. Majewski stated they also did survey and topography along the area.  Mr. Smith asked how much conditions have changed since that time, and Mr. Dixson stated the areas where there are no shoulders along the road have continued to deteriorate particularly at the culvert.  Mr. Smith stated he is in favor of the pedestrian bridge.  He asked how long it would take to implement the items which do not require State permits.  Mr. Dixson stated he feels they would try to

December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 5 of 20



partner with the State when the State funding becomes available to have them cover the costs in terms of the walkway and the widening of the culvert and the other pedestrian bridge.  He stated the signing and other pavement marking items could be done immediately, and they would work with the Police Department and Public Works on this. 


Mr. Santarsiero asked about the rest of the route on either side of the culvert. 

Mr. Dixson stated this would be a relatively easy design to prepare.  He stated the right-of-way acquisition would probably take the most time.  Mr. Smith stated he would like to act on this as soon as possible.


Mr. Stainthorpe stated his only concern is that until they get the money from the State and know the culvert is going to be done, he does not feel they should spend money designing the bikepath and feels it should all be done at one time.  Mr. Smith stated he feels there are certain items they could implement.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he agrees they could proceed with the traffic calming measures discussed. 


Mrs. Godshalk stated in 1999 they were concerned with the danger in the area and stated once they installed a bikepath/walking path, the Township would be accepting the responsibility for this.  She stated the bikepath would be very steep, and she asked if someone has done a study on the safety of riding a bike on something this steep.

Mr. Santarsiero stated TPD was not given this charge.  He stated people are currently doing this now, and the current conditions are unsafe.  Mrs. Godshalk stated this is not something that the Township has designed and approved.  Mr. Smith stated while he recognizes this, he feels the Township has an obligation to insure that they do whatever they can to make it safer.  Mrs. Godshalk stated they are also taking away people’s property.  Mr. Smith stated the residents did indicate that there is a problem in the area, and he feels the Township should move forward on this.  Mrs. Godshalk stated last week a car was totaled on the bikepath on Edgewood Road, and it was noted that it was good that no one was on the bikepath at that time.  Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels the Township can try to make the situation as safe as possible.  He stated they know that the situation is currently unsafe for those riding their bikes in the area.  He stated he feels they should authorize going forward not only with the traffic calming but also with the design for the bikepath recognizing that they do not yet have the money from the State.   This would put them in a position, when the money does come in from the State, to move quickly.


Mrs. Godshalk stated she feels there needs to be a safety evaluation on the steepness of the bikepath.  Mr. Santarsiero stated he does not know to what end this would serve since people are using it now.  Mr. Smith stated a number of people do walk their bikes back and forth.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he is 100% in favor of proceeding with this but does not feel they can design the bikepath when they do not know what the design of the bridge will be.  Mr. Dixson was asked if there is design work he could proceed on for the areas either side of the culvert even without a culvert design, and Mr. Dixson stated there

December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 6 of 20



is some design work that could be completed although it would not be known the width of the culvert or the alignment of the roadway.  He stated he feels they would only want to design it to a certain distance. 


Mr. Caiola stated they are going to discuss the Budget shortly, and he asked how the funding they would need for this project would fit in with the Budget.  Mr. Fedorchak stated he would recommend that they take the engineering and other potential construction costs out of the Capital Reserve funds.


Mrs. Godshalk stated she was involved in the design in 2005, and the roadway will be raised substantially because the culvert will be so much larger in order to accommodate canoes going through.  She stated she assumes this means they will have to design a pedestrian bridge that is much higher.  Mr. Santarsiero stated he would recommend that they design it for a certain distance away from the culvert and then, once the details are known on the culvert, they could then do that portion.  Mrs. Godshalk stated she is discussing the pedestrian bridge which was mentioned.  Mr. Dixson stated the pedestrian piece over the Canal would be designed as part of the State-funded project.

Mrs. Godshalk asked if it could not be part of the culvert with a guardrail.  Mr. Dixson stated they are recommending that it be part of the culvert and not a separate bridge.

Mr. Santarsiero stated they will have to discuss this with the State.  Mr. Dixson stated once the financial commitment is in place from the State, he would recommend meeting with them immediately.  Mr. Santarsiero stated when he contacts the Governor’s Chief of Staff after the new year regarding the funding, he will also discuss this issue. 


Mr. Smith stated there was information on the speeds being traveled, and he asked what they can do to slow down the traffic and increase enforcement in the area.  Chief Coluzzi stated they have put the speed machine in the area, and there has been increased enforcement.  He stated during the two days they did the speed survey there were 6,225 vehicles on the roadway in either direction.  He stated there was one vehicle traveling 78 miles per hour.  He stated the average speed was 37.2 miles.  The 85% percentile which is used is 44 miles per hour.    He stated the vehicles over the weekend seemed to peak at 9:00 a.m. and tapered off at 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.  He stated this is how they gauge throughout the Township their selective enforcement and how they rotate officers throughout the Township at the times where they are needed the most.  Mr. Smith stated he is concerned that traffic is this high at this time of year and feels that it is higher in the spring during the sports season.  He feels this is an unsafe condition, and he would like to take whatever action they can do now before the culvert goes in.  Chief Coluzzi stated the number of violators traveling 46 miles per hour and above were 709 vehicles out of the 6,225 vehicles.


Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Caiola seconded to authorize the traffic-calming measures discussed in the TPD report and design work for the bikepath for some length of the road


December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 7 of 20



from Westover to Glen Drive with a buffer from the culvert to provide for any changes the State may make to the culvert construction.


Mr. Stainthorpe moved and Mrs. Godshalk seconded to amend the Motion that they move ahead with traffic-calming measures immediately and authorize design work to commence once the bridge is designed.


Mr. Stainthorpe stated he is uncomfortable spending money on a design until they know what the State will do.  Mr. Smith stated Mr. Dixson has advised that they can move ahead with the design work except for that one piece which could then be added on at a later time.  Ms. Santarsiero stated if they proceed at this time, they can also determine the rights-of-way needed.  Mrs. Godshalk stated if the road has to be raised, it could go back for quite a distance.  Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels the Motion is flexible enough for the engineer to take this into consideration.


Motion to amend did not carry as Mrs. Godshalk and Mr. Stainthorpe were in favor and Mr. Caiola, Mr. Santarsiero, and Mr. Smith were opposed.


Ms. Fran Leyenberger, 110 Eton Road, stated she does not feel that they should not do something because they are afraid that there might be a problem or that they might be sued when they are discussing public safety.  She stated the Township chose to build Macclesfield Park and the two largest recreation pieces in the Township are connected by Black Rock Road.  She stated it is important to keep moving forward with this project.

Mr. Caiola thanked Ms. Leyenberger for bringing this issue to the attention of the Township.


Mr. Bob Slamen, Bedford Place stated he has been on a bike on Black Rock Road and feels bikes can travel at speeds of 25 to 35 miles per hour.  He stated if they put a bikepath on the upper end and it abruptly stops, people will not use it; and they will

continue to stay on the road.  Mr. Santarsiero stated they are not doing this.  He stated they are only discussing doing the engineering up to a point and then allowing the State to complete their design.  They would not do the construction until the State did their work.  It will not be done piecemeal. 


Ms. Ann Sears stated she and her husband own the property that is contiguous to the culvert at 8 Westover Court, and they are thrilled that this is going forward.


Motion carried unanimously.






December 20, 2006                                                      Board of Supervisors – page 8 of 20





Mr. Closser, attorney, and Mr. James Bray, EAC,  were present.  Mr. Bray stated the proposed Ordinance came back from the Bucks County Planning Commission with no substantial changes.  Before the Board of Supervisors is essentially the same Ordinance that was previously discussed, and they would recommend adoption.  He stated there is a representative from the Sierra Club present who would like to address the Board assuming that this Ordinance is passed.


Mr. Stainthorpe stated he is generally in favor of the Ordinance but questions the front yard setbacks and road widths.  He stated currently the Township requires 36’ road widths, but permits the developers to install narrower roadways subject to payment of fee-in-lieu.  He stated he is concerned that the Township may be giving up some funds which were previously given to the Township.  Mr. Majewski stated rather than asking the developer to make the roads less wide and pay the difference in cost between the roadway widths, they are now reducing the width of the roadway up front as part of the Ordinance and this will now be required of the developers.  He stated he did look at a recent development (Chanticleer) where fee-in-lieu was accepted in lieu of a wider road, and the Township received $27,000.  He compared this to what the benefit to the Township would be if they did not receive this fee but rather just had the narrower roads, and he stated there would be less roadway to plow, less stormwater management facilities or smaller facilities because there would be less impervious surface, and there would be less future detention basin maintenance.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he feels they would still get these same benefits if they allowed the developers to do this and the Township would still get the fee-in-lieu, and Mr. Majewski agreed.  Mrs. Godshalk stated the Township received $27,000 for Chanticleer,  and this was a relatively small development. 

Mr. Majewski stated they are recommending 26’ for a local residential road and 36’ for a collector road. 


Mr. Santarsiero stated savings would also be realized for the Township because of the overall low-impact development approach to water and how water is channeled off properties. 


Mr. Stainthorpe stated he is looking at specific parts of the Ordinance that he may not be comfortable with.  He stated he is in favor of many of the concepts including clustering of homes; but he feels that they may be giving up too much, and they could still get to the same place.  He noted a development in Middletown where the roads are 26’ wide with 40’ front yard setbacks, and the feeling is very claustrophobic and does not have the same feeling of openness that you get in Lower Makefield.  He stated currently Lower Makefield currently requires 75’ in an R-1 District, and they proposing going to 50’.  He stated there is a reason why homes can sell for a higher price in Lower Makefield and

December 20, 2006                                                       Board of Supervisors – page 9 of 20



some of this comes from the look of Lower Makefield.  He questions how much they are giving up in terms of aesthetics and how much they will benefit in terms of stormwater management by making these changes.


Mr. Majewski noted Farmview and Heather Ridge are examples of cluster developments, and the residents feel they get a good price for resale of their homes because of the benefits of the open space.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated what is now being proposed is that they will have a 50’ setback whether they cluster or not.   Mr. Santarsiero stated if they are on one acre lots, it would negate the feeling of claustrophobia that you may feel in some other developments as there would be a significant amount of land between the houses.  He stated if they are on smaller lots, you would get an aesthetic benefit from the fact that you have more open space between the developments and all Township residents would benefit from this.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he does not take issue with the clustering option. 


Mr. Stainthorpe stated the other area he is concerned with is in the R-RP District where they currently have three-acre zoning, and they will now permit a clustering option.  He stated if this is done, it might make the land more attractive to a developer and not having the option might serve the Township better by keeping it as open space.  He stated there are still some large tracts down by the River that have R-RP zoning. 


Mrs. Godshalk stated she instituted the R-RP zoning fifteen years ago because of the flooding.  She stated the purpose of the R-RP was to have three acres of land around a house so that there would be a lot of space for the water to go.   She noted there was only one house built under the R-RP. 


Mr. Santarsiero stated he knows that this issue was raised when the Ordinance was first discussed last summer.  Mr. Bray stated there are real positive benefits from the adoption of the Ordinance particularly with respect to water courses.  He stated it is very important where the homes are placed on the site, and this Ordinance gives a great deal of protection and decision-making ability as to house placement.  He stated with clustering, they do get a large amount of open space.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he is not opposed to the clustering other than in the R-RP District where it might make it easier for a developer. 

Mr. Santarsiero asked what protections do they have under the new Ordinance, if any, that would enable the Township to avoid that type of situation.  He stated this question was raised at the first Hearing, and the Drafting Committee reviewed it, and they did not change anything.  He asked the reason why they left it as it was originally presented. 

Mr. Majewski stated it was because there would be no increase in density.  He stated they are also increasing protection of resources.  He stated many properties in the R-RP do have restrictions and they also increased the protection of wetlands.  They also worked on the steep slope Ordinances as developing on those lands could create problems.



December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 10 of 20



Mrs. Godshalk stated currently there is no development in the R-RP because of the restrictions that are already in place in the current Ordinance.  She feels they will now make it easier for a developer to put a road in and put three homes 40’ off the road and they will now have three houses more than they did previously.  Mr. Majewski and

Mr. Bray stated they did not feel that this would occur.  Mr. Bray stated he feels the developers will find the LID Ordinance will make it more restrictive than the present Ordinance.  He stated they are not anti-development, but they want it to be responsible development. 


Mr. Smith asked Mr. Santarsiero how this Ordinance was received by the EAC, and

Mr. Santarsiero stated the EAC was very enthusiastic about this.  He stated the Planning Commission also made comments on it, and was in favor of it as well.  Mr. Smith stated he is the liaison to the Planning Commission, and  a presentation was made to them and it was enthusiastically received and they voted unanimously in favor of it.  He stated he felt the comment was that they wished they had this Ordinance in place several decades ago. 


Mrs. Godshalk stated her only concern is with the R-RP Zoning.  Mr. Santarsiero stated there seems to be a difference of opinion between Mr. Majewski and Mrs. Godshalk as to what the impact would be on the R-RP District. 


Mr. Caiola stated he likes the idea of reducing road widths and feels the potential for speeding will be reduced on narrower width roads; although he does recognize that it will be a tighter feel. 


Mrs. Godshalk moved to remove the R-RP from clustering from the Ordinance and have them review it again to see if they could institute some additional features than what is currently in the R-RP.   Mr. Stainthorpe seconded. 


Mr. Stainthorpe stated he is only questioning this one piece and everything else in the Ordinance should apply to the R-RP other than the clustering which might be counter-productive. 


There was no public comment.


Motion did not carry as Mrs. Godshalk and Mr. Stainthorpe were in favor, and

Mr. Caiola, Mr. Santarsiero, and Mr. Smith were opposed.


Mrs. Godshalk asked if they were familiar with the R-RP Ordinance.  Mr. Caiola stated he feels what is being discussed has been discussed at length by the people who were working on the Ordinance. 


Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Caiola seconded to approve Ordinance No. 363.


December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 11 of 20



Mr. Zachary Rubin, 1661 Covington Road – Makefield Glen, stated they have a public road which is 36’ wide but there are also private roads in their community which are 26’ wide.  He stated the developer did not pay fee-in-lieu fees for the 26’ roads since they were private roads.  He asked if the Ordinance passes, could the Township accept Dedication of the 26’ wide roads if Makefield Glen decides to request this.  Mr. Truelove stated there are some other issues related to this, and he would have to look into this.


There was no further public comment.


Mr. Santarsiero thanked the Drafting Committee for the work done.  He stated the Bucks County Planning Commission noted what a thorough and well-considered Ordinance this is.  He stated if they adopt this, they will set an example for all of Bucks County to follow on low-impact development.  He stated this will greatly minimize the impact of stormwater on the Township by minimizing the stormwater going into the streams and tributaries, and it will ultimately help reduce flooding.  He stated the other big advantage is to help protect the environment and preserve open and green space to preserve the character of the Township.  Mr. Santarsiero stated this Ordinance will also apply with respect to re-development; and as those pressures are exerted on the Township in the future, they will have low-impact development in place which will allow future Boards to maintain the character of the Township.


Mrs. Godshalk stated she will vote in favor of this because she feels it is good for R-1,

R-2 and R-3, but not for R-RP; and she hopes that the other Board members will reconsider this in the future. 


Mr. Smith commended the Planning Commission who enthusiastically supported the LID.  He thanked the Planning Commission for giving insight to the Drafting Committee and working along with them and making appropriate modifications. 


Motion carried unanimously.




Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Ordinance No. 364.


Mr. Bray thanked those who were involved in writing the Ordinance.  He stated Karen Friedman brought this to the Township’s attention in 3/05.  He stated in 5/05 they had a presentation on LID as part of the Environmental Lecture Series, at which

Mr. Santarsiero was present and was an early supporter.  They established a Commission to write the Ordinance in early 2006 the members of which were Geoff Goll,


December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 12 of 20



Bucky Closser, Jim Majewski, Rich Watson, and himself.  He stated they now have a finished, endorsed Ordinance less than a year and a half since it was first discussed. 


Mr. Bray stated the National Wildlife Federation has sent a letter of commendation to the Board of Supervisors which he read into the record (attached to the Minutes).  Also present this evening is Robin Mann, a representative from the Sierra Club.   Ms. Mann stated the Sierra Club applauds the leadership of the Township.  She provided a letter of commendation as well (attached to the Minutes).  She stated a new stormwater handbook is being developed for the State; and while it will be a good tool, it needs local Ordinances that apply, and she thanked the Township for doing this. 





Mr. Jeffrey Marshall was present.  Mr. Santarsiero stated at the last meeting,

Mr. Marshall recommended appointment of a Committee, and they discussed including on that Committee people in local Government and the community who would  have some stake in this and should have input in putting together a Master Plan for Patterson Farm.


Mr. Santarsiero stated he e-mailed to the Board today a list of people he would like to nominate as follows:  Sam Conti, Farmland Preservation Corporation, Doug Riblet, attorney and member of the Farmland Preservation Corporation, Helen Heinz, Historic Commission, Alan Dresser, Environmental Advisory Council, Tony Bush, Planning Commission, Virginia Torbert, farmer,  member of the Citizens Traffic Commission, and a neighbor of the Patterson Farm, Fran McDonald, Park & Recreation Board,

Tom McGowan, farmer, Sandy Guzikowski, farmer, and Mr. Marshall. 


Mr. Santarsiero stated he questions why there are two members of the Farmland Preservation Corporation on the Committee when there is only one from other Township Committees.  Mr. Santarsiero stated it is a farm; and although it is not Farmland Preservation property, the Farmland Preservation Corporation has been very interested in the preservation of the Patterson Farm not necessarily as a Farmland Preservation property but as a farm.  He stated he also knows Mr. Conti has been very interested in the leaf issue and has talked to a number of the farmers about this.  He stated Mr. Riblet is an attorney and brings a lot of information to the table.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he also feels it may be a good idea to have each Board choose who they want their representative to be.  Mr. Santarsiero stated while this would be possible, he felt what he had proposed was faster. 


Mrs. Godshalk stated Mr. Conti has expressed interest in putting the Patterson Farm under Farmland Preservation Corporation, and she feels this is the wrong way to go.

December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 13 of 20



Mrs. Godshalk stated the Farmland Preservation land was acquired through development rights where the farmer was given the option to develop half the land and the other half was donated to the Township and it goes to the Farmland Preservation Corporation which is completely autonomous from the Township Supervisors.  She stated they lease the land, but the Farmland Preservation rules state that if there are no more farmers to farm the land, it could be used for recreation land or it could go to a Referendum of the people of the Township for constructing houses.  She stated currently there is a limitation on how many houses can be built per acre which is one house for three acres.  She feels this may no longer be correct because of the Ordinance just passed this evening.  She stated the Patterson Farm was bought by the Board of Supervisors with Township taxpayers’ money and not developers’ money so it is completely different.  She advocates that the Patterson Farm stay under the supervision of the Township forever under Deed Restrictions and not be put into a completely different Corporation over which the Township has no power.  She feels the Committee would be stacked with two members of the Farmland Preservation Corporation serving. 


Mr. Smith stated each of the people is only one voice on the Committee.  He stated he feels they should allow Mr. Conti to be on the Committee and express his opinion. 

Mr. Stainthorpe stated the Committee is not empowered to do anything and is only an advisory board.  Mr. Caiola stated the key is to get a number of people from different backgrounds.  He stated while there is merit to have each Committee pick their own person, it may be quicker to proceed in the way Mr. Santarsiero has suggested.  He feels the people recommended are competent and very diverse.  Mrs. Godshalk stated she feels the meetings should be public and people should be advised of the dates of the meetings so that they can attend.


Mr. Santarsiero asked Mr. Marshall how quickly he feels they could begin, and

Mr. Marshall stated they need to find a time when the Committee could meet.  He feels they would need to meet once a month and possibly more often.  He stated he recognizes that this is the Supervisors’ decision,  but they need input from the stakeholders.  He stated farmland preservation in an important issue, but it is not necessarily the Farmland Preservation Corporation.  He stated there are different ways to reach the goal of farmland preservation and the Committee and representatives from the Farmland Preservation Corporation may learn a lot from each other. 


Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Santarsiero seconded to appoint the members of the Stakeholders Committee for discussion of the Patterson Farm as listed by

Mr. Santarsiero.


Mr. Caiola asked if the individuals suggested have been contacted to see if they are interested in serving.  Mr. Santarsiero stated he has discussed it with many of them but has not heard back from all of them.  He suggested that they make the appointments, and if there is someone who cannot serve, they could revisit this in January. 

December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 14 of 20



Ms. Virginia Torbert stated she feels one of the first things they would do would be to look into the legal issues regarding the farm and in doing this they would need to seek legal advice.  She stated she understands Mrs. Godshalk’s concerns, and this is something they would be looking into.  Mrs. Godshalk stated she is concerned with Farmland Preservation Corporation appropriating it, and Ms. Torbert stated she feels the Committee will be mindful of this.


Motion carried unanimously.


Mr. Marshall stated he will be in contact with Mr. Fedorchak to get the contact information of those appointed.





Mr. Caiola moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2130 adopting the 2007 Budget.


Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2131 fixing tax rates and special levies for fiscal year 2007.


Mr. Smith moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2132 providing that no contributions shall be required from any police officers to fund Police Pension Fund requirements for 2007.


Mr. Caiola moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2133 providing that no contributions shall be required from any non-uniformed employee to fund the Non-Uniformed Pension Fund requirements for 2007.


Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2134 establishing the Park & Recreation Fee-In-Lieu of Fee.


Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Stainthorpe seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 2135 establishing the Off-Site Road Improvement Fee.





Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney, was present.  He reviewed the history of the project which resulted in a Stipulation and Court Order.  The Plan has been reviewed by the Planning Commission which recommended approval consistent with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and Court Order.    He stated he has had discussions with the


December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 15 of 20



Township Solicitor about appropriate Conditions to be attached to an Approval if the Board was in favor of doing so, and he is comfortable with the Conditions they discussed.


There was no public comment.


Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant Preliminary/Final Approval of the Sunrise Plan dated 5/30/06, last revised 11/10/06 subject to the following Conditions:


1)  Continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, Settlement

Agreement, and Court Order from the Court of Common Pleas dated 10/5/06 at numbers 05-02386-18-5 and 05-2481-24-5 with the further understanding that the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement are incorporated by reference into the approval and the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated into the Court Order and Stipulation;


2)  Where applicable and not otherwise governed by other provisions in this Agreement,

Applicant shall comply with the Lower Makefield Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (“SALDO”), the Lower Makefield Township Zoning Ordinance, and all applicable Local, State and Federal Ordinances, Statutes or Laws;


3)  Receipt of all permits, authorization, or approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction where applicable, including but not limited to PADEP,  NPDES, PennDOT, the Bucks County Planning Commission and its letter dated 9/18/06, the Bucks County Conservation District and its letter dated 11/28/06, the Lower Makefield Township Environmental Advisory Council and its letter dated 11/9/06, the Department of Environmental Protections, and the Army Corps of Engineers;


4)  Compliance with the review letter from James V.C. Yates, Fire Protection Consultant, dated 9/5/06 and subsequent review letter dated 11/21/06;


5)  Compliance with review letter received from Schoor DePalma dated 12/5/06;


6)  Compliance with review letter from Remington, Vernick & Beach Engineers, dated 11/28/06;


7)  Compliance with review letter from Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. dated



8)  Stormwater Management reports and related documents submitted as part of the Application process and required as part of the review including but not limited to a 5/06 Stormwater Management report prepared by Woodrow & Associates, Inc. revised 11/10/06;

December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 16 of 20



 9)  Compliance with all applicable Township Ordinances and Regulations where required and not otherwise referenced herein;


10)  Funding and execution of Development and Financial Security Agreements;


11)   Appropriate impact fees and fees-in-lieu where applicable;


12)   A note added to the Plan that there will be no further Subdivision.


13)   Compliance, where applicable, with Bucks County Planning Commission and Lower Makefield Township Planning Commission review letters;


14)   Where applicable, Applicant shall comply with all comments from the appropriate authorities responsible for approval of the proposed utilities.


15)   Waivers to be granted are included in the information as set forth in the 12/5/06 Schoor DePalma letter.


Mr. Murphy stated the Conditions are acceptable.


Motion carried unanimously.





Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant an Extension for the Clover Tract Preliminary/Final Plan to 4/7/07.


Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant an Extension for the Lotus Tract Preliminary Plan to 4/7/07.


Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Stainthorpe seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant an Extension for the Norman and Patricia O’Rourke Preliminary Plan to 4/21/07.


Mrs. Godshalk stated it would be helpful in the future to have listed on the Agenda the locations for the developments requesting Extensions.







December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 17 of 20





Mr. Majewski stated they have inspected the public improvements at the Estates at Prospect Manor and feel all improvements have been satisfactorily completed.  They recommend that the development be Dedicated to the Township.  This is consistent with the 12/8/06 Dedication checklist and attachments before the Board.    Mr. Stainthorpe stated it appears they owe the Township $530.20, and Mr. Fedorchak asked that this be attached as a Condition of the acceptance of Dedication.


Mr. Stainthorpe moved and Mrs. Godshalk seconded to accept Dedication of the Estates at Prospect Manor conditioned on the payment of $530.20 to the Township.


Ms. Torbert asked if the improvements to the Manor House have anything to do with the Dedication, and Mrs. Godshalk stated it does not as these are the public improvements.

Ms. Torbert stated she understands from the Historic Commission that some of the improvements to the house were not done.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated that house is in private hands and not owned by the developer.  Mr. Murphy stated one of the Conditions of the Approval of the Plan required the granting of a Façade Easement to the Township following the completion of the improvements to the Manor House which have been done.  The Façade Easement was executed and provided to the Township.  Mr. Murphy stated he understands that the work that was done by Mr. Troilo and his family has been completed and is consistent with the terms and conditions of the improvements to the house.


Mr. Truelove stated he and Ms. Frick had a conversation which she confirmed with

Mr. Garton that he had a discussion with Mr. Murphy.


Ms. Torbert stated she spoke to Ms. Helen Heinz who had indicated that some of the things had not been done.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated that does not have anything to do with the Dedication of the public improvements.


Motion carried unanimously.





Mylars were signed following the meeting.






December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 18 of 20





With regard to the Kiran Vibhakar, 320 Daleview Court, Variance request to permit construction of a sunroom resulting in encroachment into the rear yard setback, it was agreed to leave this matter to the Zoning Hearing Board.


With regard to the Jerry and Connie Gruen, 10 Twin Circle Court, Variance request to construct a front entrance overhang resulting in encroachment into the front yard setback, it was agreed to leave this matter to the Zoning Hearing Board.


With regard to the Nihad and Azra Hadzovic, 397 Trend Road, Variance request to construct a patio resulting in greater than permitted impervious surface, it was agreed to have the Solicitor participate for the purpose of minimizing the increase as much as possible.





Mr. Santarsiero stated the Environmental Advisory Council met last week and discussed the Cool Cities Program, and they will be discussing this with the Board after the new year.  Mr. Santarsiero stated the Newsletter draft will be prepared in a week or so for the Board’s review.  Mr. Santarsiero stated the Citizens Traffic Commission met recently and are now at a point where they will begin Hearings on proposed improvements or issues to be addressed within the various traffic zones which have been established in the Township.  On March 19 they will discuss Zones 3, 4, and 5; on April 16 they will discuss Zones 6 and 7; and on May 21 they will discuss Zones 1 and 2.  All meetings will be held at the Township Municipal Building.  He stated they will have a map with the various Zones depicted in the next Newsletter and reiterate the Schedule just noted so that people can come on the nights they are interested in to express concerns about an issue in those Zones.  Mr. Santarsiero stated the Southeastern Bucks League of Municipalities will meet on January 30.


Mr. Smith stated the Planning Commission discussed Sunrise as well as the LID.  He stated the Farmland Preservation Corporation met and are preparing their Agenda for next year.  Mr. Smith stated the Historic Commission met yesterday morning and they are working on the Historic Overlay Ordinance discussing language that will be submitted to the Solicitor.  They are in need of some additional members.  Mr. Smith stated the Regional Traffic Task Force will meet next month.  The Citizens Budget Commission met last evening and are working on some items for next year.


Mr. Caiola stated the CATV Board met and have advised Mr. Caiola that they have not had a representative from Comcast present at their meetings for some time.  Mr. Caiola

December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 19 of 20


stated PAA is discussing an indoor facility.  Mr. Caiola stated the Economic Development Committee will begin meeting in January.


Mr. Stainthorpe stated the Golf Committee met last Monday.  He stated when Mr. Draper was present at the last Board of Supervisors meeting he discussed the installation of a commercial stove in the kitchen.  It would cost approximately $14,000 which includes the cost of a larger hood and vent system.  They feel this will allow them to expand the menu and do a bigger piece of the catering business.  He stated they anticipate that they will be able to recoup the costs in approximately one and a half years based on the same number of outings and the menus that they had last year.  The Golf Committee has recommended that they proceed with this.


Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was unanimously carried to authorize Kemper to get bids for a commercial oven and vent system.


Mrs. Godshalk stated the Elm Lowne Committee had an extensive discussion on the need for new members.  She stated they have considered switching their meetings to the evening, and they will in fact hold the January meeting in the evening.  Mrs. Godshalk stated at the Memorial they are working on designs for the Arboretum that was discussed as well as benches.  She stated the water has been turned off at the fountains.  She stated they are working with the Bucks County Tourist Association and hope to have a brochure at some point. 




Mr. Smith stated the Board received the log on the weekly Police activity, and it seems there have been a number of events involving thefts from unlocked cars.  Chief Coluzzi stated they put out messages numerous times reminding citizens to take all normal precautions with their homes, vehicles, and other property so that they do not make it easy for thieves and burglars to commit these crimes.  He asked that all residents take these precautions all year long.  Mrs. Godshalk suggested that the Chief write an article for the Newsletter about this.  The Chief wished everyone a safe and happy Holiday, and
Mr. Smith echoed these sentiments.




Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Stainthorpe seconded and it was unanimously carried to appoint the following:


            Bob Shelly – Citizens Budget

            George Shrader – Auditor

            Marielle Wolf- Special Events

            Matthew Maloney – Farmland Preservation Corporation

            Jerry Gruen – Zoning Hearing Board Full Member

December 20, 2006                                                     Board of Supervisors – page 20 of 20





Mr. Santarsiero thanked all members of the Board and the staff for their service this year.  He stated they have accomplished a lot this year, he enjoyed being Chairman, and appreciates everyone’s work.  He wished all residents a happy and safe Holiday season and stated they look forward to meeting again in the New Year proceeding with a progressive Agenda for Lower Makefield Township.


Mr. Caiola thanked the other Board members for making his first year on the Board a smooth one, and he wished everyone a healthy and peaceful Holiday.


There being no further business, Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.


                                                                        Respectfully Submitted,





                                                                        Greg Caiola, Secretary