TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2001

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on January 8, 2001. Mr. Koch called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Those present:

Planning Commission:

Albert Roeper, Chairman
Deborah Gould, Vice Chairman
Ron Tofel, Secretary
Edward Koch, Member

Others:

Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection & Planning
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
Duke Doherty, Township Engineer
Frank Fazzalore, Supervisor Liaison

Absent:

John Pazdera, Planning Commission Member


REORGANIZATION - ELECTION OF OFFICERS

The meeting was turned over to John Koopman who called for nominations for the Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2001. Mr. Koch moved and Ms. Gould seconded the nomination of Albert Roeper as Chairman. There were no further nominations, and the Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Koopman called for nominations for Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2001. Mr. Roeper moved and Mr. Tofel seconded the nomination of Deborah Gould as Vice Chairman. There were no further nominations, and the Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Koopman called for nominations for Secretary of the Planning Commission for 2001.Ms. Gould moved and Mr. Roeper seconded the nomination of Ron Tofel as Secretary.There were no further nominations, and the Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Roeper expressed thanks to John Pazdera for the two terms he served as Chairman of the Planning Commission and wished him a speedy recovery. Mr. Roeper also welcomed Frank Fazzalore as the Liaison to the Planning Commission from the Board of Supervisors.

#448-A - ST. IGNATIUS CHURCH - PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney, was present with John Genovesi, engineer, and Monsignor Shoemaker from St. Ignatius Church.

Mr. Murphy stated the Planning Commission previously saw this Plan at the Sketch Plan stage, and the Plan has not changed since that time. He stated the total amount of acreage the Parish now owns is 34.5 acres. The proposal is to convert the existing Rectory into meeting space and construct a new Parish Center and Rectory as shown on the Plan.

They will also construct an alternate access from the rear of the parking area for the Parish Center out to Sandy Run Road. Proposed are also two new detention basins - one behind the School and another near Sandy Run Road, and they will expand the existing detention basin. Five future modular classrooms are also proposed for the future as needed.

Mr. Murphy noted the PCS review letter dated 1/5/01 and stated they have discussed many of these items with the Township engineer and have incorporated most of the changes. They do need a recommendation on a number of waivers being requested.

Mr. Murphy noted Page #1, Item #1 of the 1/5/01 PCS letter and stated they will comply with this request. They will also comply with Items #2 through #6 on Page #2. They will provide additional information to Mr. Doherty with regard to Item #6 regarding impervious surface. Mr. Doherty stated he feels they should include the total impervious surface that they are allowed for the entire site so they can plan for the future.

Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with Items #1 and #2 on Page #3. Items #3 and #4 will require waivers, both of which are supported by PCS.

Mr. Tofel asked about the timing of the modular classrooms, and Monsignor Shoemaker stated they are requesting permission for five modulars now but will only add them on an as-needed basis. Mr. Koch asked why they would use modulars instead of permanent classrooms, and Monsignor Shoemaker stated the Dioceses has requested they have modular classrooms since in other areas where permanent facilities were built, they have found that they were then no longer needed in the future. The modular classrooms will be self-contained units with toilet facilities. Monsignor Shoemaker stated the children will have to leave the modular units for the use of the gym, etc. in the main building. Mr. Tofel noted one building which is proposed at some distance form the main building, and Monsignor Shoemaker noted that this would be built for 7th and 8th Grade students if needed at some point in the future and would be the last unit built. Ms. Frick noted Pennsbury School District also has modulars, and they must meet the 1993 BOCA Code requirements.

Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with Item #5 on Page 3 as well as Items #1, #2, and #3 on Page #3 under Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan.

Page #4 was noted, and Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with Items #4, #5, and #6 on the top of that page.

With regard to the Landscape Plan Item #1 on Page #4, Mr. Murphy noted there is a requirement for street trees, and they are not proposing street trees along the balance of the access road where it runs along the wooded area. Mr. Genovesi noted they have provided sufficient sight distance, although they have not provided acceleration/deceleration lanes.Monsignor Shoemaker stated they do propose to have a sign identifying the new access.Mr. Roeper stated he does not feel it should be a very sharp angle, and they should have a generous line of sight. Mr. Murphy stated they would be willing to work with Mr. Doherty on this matter.

Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with the Item under Natural Resource Plan on Page #4 and all Items listed under Details on Page #4 and #5.

With regard to General Comments on Page #5, Mr. Murphy stated they have received the CKS letter noted in Item #1, and have no issues. They will comply with Items #2, #3, and #4. Items #5 and #6 will require waivers to which PCS has no objection. They will comply with Item #7.

Page #6 was noted and Items #8, #9, and #10 will require waivers which are supported by PCS. They will have further discussions with Mr. Doherty on the last Item on Page #6 with regard to fire hydrants and will comply with the Township’s requests. Mr. Tofel asked if the new building will be fully sprinklered, and Monsignor Shoemaker stated it will not. He stated they did discuss this with Mr. McLaughlan for the Township, and he indicated that this was not a requirement.

Ms. Helen Heinz stated the Historic Commission met this morning and asked about the historic tree located along Sandy Run Road which they would like to see preserved.Mr. Roeper stated they do not anticipate disturbing trees in this area.

Ms. Karen Loschner, 252 Reading Avenue, stated she is concerned with development of the tract since it is home to wildlife. She is also concerned that an additional access road could mean further development of the land in the future. Monsignor Shoemaker stated the road was put in to help alleviate traffic on Reading Avenue, and he has no plans in the immediate future to develop that parcel of land. He stated they purchased the ground because of problems with impervious surface.

Mr. Charles Pazagno, 837 Sandy Run Road, stated he hopes the Parish is able to encourage people to use the new access road since traffic coming down Reading Avenue does not have good sight distance, and there have been a number of accidents.

Mr. David Kelly, 975 Reading Avenue, stated he owns that parcel adjacent to the tunnel and asked about the existing detention basin. Mr. Genovesi stated the existing basin will be enlarged, and they will also construct two new basins to take care of run off. They are meeting Ordinance requirements. They will discharge into an existing stream. There is no piping proposed from the basin to the other side of the berm. A small amount of piping will come from the new basin to go out to the berm, and there should be no additional erosion as a result of the basins. Mr. Genovesi stated the basins are designed to over-compensate for some of the run off problems they had in the past. Mr. Kelly asked if an environmental impact statement will be done, and Mr. Roeper stated this is not required provided the basins and calculations meet the approval of the Township engineer.

Ms. Gould noted the future parking area adjacent to the existing Rectory, and asked when this will be built. Monsignor Shoemaker stated they have no plans for this at the current time, and were only asked to show where they could provide parking if it were required in the future. Ms. Gould stated if the parking is ever installed adjacent to Reading Avenue, she would like to see some kind of low hedge installed so that asphalt is not immediately seen from the road. Mr. Tofel stated it appears that some of the parking is almost 100’ away from the Rectory. He stated if this were installed closer to the building it would reduce the impervious surface and be more accessible for the handicapped and others. It would also eliminate crossing the road to get to the Rectory. Mr. Genovesi agreed to look into this suggestion. 

Ms. Gould moved, Mr. Koch seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for Tax Parcel #20-34-20-5, #20-35-1-1, #20-35-2-1, and #20-35-6 Plan dated 10/25/00 subject to compliance with Items in the PCS letter dated 1/5/01 and recommending granting of waivers listed in the PCS letter, Page #3, Items #3 and #4, Page 4 Landscape Plan, Comment #1, Page #5 Items #5 and #6, and Page #6, Items #8, #9, and #10.

#496-N FIELDSTONE @ LOWER MAKEFIELD PRELIMINARY PLAN DISCUSSION

Mr. John VanLuvanee, attorney, Mr. Wesley Wolf, engineer, and Mr. Nick Casey were present. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they were asked to submit certain information to Mr. Koopman, and they have provided a new Application and the requested fees this evening. He stated these are being submitted without prejudice.

Mr. Wolf stated they have a 39+ acre tract fronting on Edgewood Road. Two prior Plans provided for 49 lots with a connection to Long Acre Lane. Those Plans also proposed a detention basin within the stream/wetland area in lieu of smaller detention basin area. There were discussions about materials which had been placed on the tract in the past, and a significant amount of testing was done. Mr. Wolf stated he has been told by the Applicant that almost all of this material was construction material.

Mr. Wolf stated in November, 2000 they submitted a Plan that closes off the roadway and makes a loop. They are now proposing 30 lots and four small detention basins. Previously they had proposed a sewer pump station and a force main to Schuyler Drive. They have worked with the Sewer Department and are now proposing a gravity sewer which will not need a pump station.

Mr. Koopman asked about the area where the waste material was found, and asked what will be done with this portion of the site. Mr. VanLuvanee stated at the present time the Quaker Group has an Agreement to purchase from Eastern Equities the front portion of the tract and has no interest in the back portion. He understands Eastern Equities still intends to purchase the entire tract and then continue to own the back portion after they sell the front portion to Quaker Group. Mr. Koopman asked about access to the back portion. Mr. Wolf stated it has access to Long Acre Lane. In the current proposal, they are not showing access to the new development but they could make arrangements for this.

Mr. Koopman stated he only saw the PCS review letter today. In the prior denial letter approximately twenty sections of the Ordinance were cited, and he does not know if they have been referenced or not. He stated at some point, the Township would like the applicant to respond to these items. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he feels they are willing to offer an extension this evening and will not request a recommendation on the Plan this evening. He stated they are willing to treat this Plan this evening as if it were a new submission.

The PCS letter dated 1/4/01 was noted. Item #1 on Page #1 relates to the Skelly & Loy letter. Mr. Casey stated this relates primarily to the southern portion of the site where fill activity occurred in the past. He stated they only found out about this during the review process and have since gone through numerous investigations and received responses from DEP that certain things be attended to. He added that site has been identified as relatively benign fill. There are some areas where the grading has not been finished off and where the solid waste that was disposed of is exposed. DEP would like to see those areas properly capped. They have also asked for a plan showing proper stabilization along the streambank. This portion of the site is not part of the Quaker Group’s agreement to purchase, and is not a part of the development Application, although it is part of the Subdivision which will be subdivided off to create another lot. Quaker Group is interesting in seeing that any concerns about the property are addressed since they desire to sell homes in this area. Mr. Fazzalore stated they must provide proper disclosure to the potential homebuyers, and Mr. Casey stated they will provide the proper disclosure. They plan to insure that proper measures have been put in place with regard to this tract prior to development of their property.

Mr. Koopman stated Skelly & Loy wanted to see details as to what needed to be done on the landfill site and asked if these Plans will be provided to the Township. Mr. Casey stated the Township has been invited to participate in all the meetings and will continue to be invited. The Township will also be provided details of the plans and approvals from DEP and copies will be provided to the Township. Mr. Koopman asked if this process will go simultaneously with the development process, and Mr. Casey stated they do want to have this done at the same time as Final development. Mr. Koopman stated the Township and area residents are concerned about this area and the more information they can provide to the Township the better.

Mr. Doherty stated he feels the entire tract should comply with the Subdivision Ordinance since it is part of the subdivision. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he does not feel they are required to do technical work on the piece that they are not developing, although Mr. Casey has indicated he will address the issue to the satisfaction of the DEP. Mr. Koopman stated this will have to be identified as a lot, and Mr. Casey stated it is identified as Lot #30. Mr. VanLuvanee stated there are 29 building lots and Lot #30 is the lot being saved for future development. Mr. Koopman asked about the existing house, and it was noted this will remain on the portion of the tract to be subdivided. The other buildings on that tract will be removed.

Mr. Roeper noted a sliver of land between the development and Lot #30, and Mr. Wolf stated this is open space. Mr. Roeper stated he feels the Township would be hesitant to take ownership of this property. Mr. Tofel asked if someone is living in the existing home, and it was noted someone is living there. Ms. Heinz stated it is felt that this is a historic home. Mr. Jerry Gardner stated a member of the Harris family would like to maintain ownership of the house and will be required to re-do the exterior of the house to conform with that which is being built or to compliment it. Mr. Koopman stated he hopes they will not impact the historic nature of the home. Mr. Gardner stated he feels it is only a rumor that this is a historic home.

Ms. Gould stated she feels any work done to this house should be done in conjunction with the Historic Commission. Mr. Gardner stated he feels the Harris family should review the history of the house. Ms. Heinz stated a historic designation can result in tax benefits.

Page #2, Item #2 of the PCS letter was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated the buffer shown on the Plan was taken from the prior application. Mr. Casey stated Skelly & Loy has not provided any further information on this. Mr. Koopman stated they will make sure that Skelly & Loy gets this response and addresses these issues.

Mr. Wolf stated Items #3, #4, and #5 pertain to information that was transferred from the Carroll Engineering Plan to these Plans, and are a "will comply." Mr. Wolf stated they will comply with Item #6.

With regard to Item #7, Mr. Wolf stated this is a waiver request. Mr. Koopman stated he feels it would be appropriate to give PCS time to consider if they would support this waiver.

Item #8 was noted requesting a 50’ foot easement to accommodate the installation of sanitary and storm sewer facilities. Mr. Wolf stated they feel 40’ is adequate for the two utilities. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he feels they need to discuss ;this matter further with PCS and CKS.

Mr. Wolf noted Page #3, Item #9 and stated they are proposing Fee-In-Lieu of recreation.

He stated they will comply with Items #10 and #11.

Item #12 was noted and Mr. Wolf stated they are permitted 25% impervious coverage and the owner an additional 3%. They have proposed to show a maximum impervious surface based on the minimum lot area. He noted some of the lots are oversized. Mr. Roeper stated each lot does not have 28%. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they are trying to avoid a problem in the future by spelling out exactly what each individual homeowner is getting for impervious surface on their lot which can be used for porches, etc. Ms. Frick stated she has problems with homeowners who purchase larger lots and who are then not able to develop their lots as they desire. Mr. Casey stated they can review these figures with the Township engineer. Mr. Doherty stated he would like to see their calculations that show that they could get to 4420 square feet for the developer and 530 square feet for the residents. Mr. Roeper asked that the engineers meet further on this matter.

Item #1 on Page #3 under Existing Features Plan was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated they will comply.

Item #1 under Grading/Utility Plan was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated this will be clarified. Mr. Fazzalore asked if they have provided access for Public Works to get to the basins, and Mr. Wolf showed on the Plan where access is available.

Mr. Wolf stated they will comply with Item #2.

Item #3 was noted on Page #4. Mr. Wolf stated they graded consistent with the previous Plans, and they are now being asked to re-grade the easement to minimize the number of lots the water has to travel over. They will work with the Township engineer to resolve this.

Mr. Wolf stated they will comply with Item #4.

Items #5, #6, and #7 were noted, and Mr. Wolf stated these are three new comments on old design issues, but they will address them.

Mr. Wolf noted they will comply with Items #8 and #9 on Page #4 and Item #10 on Page #5.

Page #5, Item #11 was noted regarding the access road. Mr. Wolf stated this is a new comment on an issue that has not changed from the previous application. Mr. Doherty stated there are now less lots being considered. Mr. Doherty stated he is also concerned with maintenance of these center areas. He added he would recommend a 36 foot wide cartway with entrance signs, if desired, to be placed on the corner lots so that the homeowners will have to maintain the signs and not the Township.

Mr. Wolf stated they will resolve Items #12 and #13 with the Township engineer and will comply with Item #14.

Mr. Wolf stated they will comply with all items listed on Page #6, Page #7, Page #8 and Page #9 and will work with the Township engineer and where appropriate PennDOT, and the Sewer engineer on these items.

Page #10 was noted and Mr. Wolf stated they will comply with Items #3 and #4 at the top of the page. Mr. Tofel asked how long the road would be closed and Mr. Wolf stated it would be closed for approximately two to three weeks and detours will be posted.

They will comply with all remaining Items on Page #10 and all items on Page #11.

Page #12 was noted and Mr. Wolf stated they will comply with Item #2. With regard to item #3, Mr. Wolf stated they will work with PCS regarding the first paragraph of the comment. He stated the second paragraph relates to the new Ordinance. He added that approximately ten to twelve comments relate to the new Ordinance, and he will discuss these further with the Township engineer and will then tell the Township what portions of the new Ordinance they will comply with. Mr. Doherty expressed concern with this proposal.

Item #4 on Page #12 was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated this relates to the new Ordinance; and they will request a waiver from this requirement. Mrs. Gould stated she does not feel they should start granting waivers to the new Ordinance. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they are going to see how far they can get with compliance. He noted they have not yet resolved the question whether this is a new submission or a revised submission.

Page #12, Item #1 under Stormwater Management Report was noted. Mr. Wolf stated he will meet to discuss this further with Mr. Doherty.

Page #13 was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated Items #2 through #8 are from the new Ordinance. Mr. Wolf stated they are requesting a waiver from Item #2, the first portion of the comment and will comply with the second portion. They will comply with Items #3 and #4. They will request a waiver on Item #5 and #6. Mr. Wolf stated they feel they can meet the requirement for Item #7 and will comply with Item #8.

Page #14 was noted. Mr. Wolf stated they will discuss Item #9 in further detail with Mr. Doherty. With regard to Item #10, Mr. Wolf stated they have designed for 1% low flow channels.

General Comments on Page #14 was noted. With regard to Item #1, Mr. Wolf stated they feel this should not be part of this application. They will comply with Item #2. With regard to Item #3, they recognize that they will need to meet with CKS to resolve these issues.Item #4 was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated they did submit the postcard with their application in November. They will need a General Permit through the Conservation District. Item #5 was noted, and they will comply with the request for a name change.

Page #16 was noted, and Mr. Wolf stated they have shown widening along the entire frontage consistent with the Ordinance, and the Township engineer is now asking that the applicant contribute to the Township the difference between what PennDOT would require and what the Township would require. At this time, they are not in agreement with this. Mr. VanLuvanee asked if the Planning Commission wants the improvements to Edgewood Road that the Ordinance calls for. Mr. Roeper stated he feels they would request what is in place currently on Edgewood Road at the other developments.

Mr. VanLuvanee stated he would like the engineers to meet to review some of the issues that they can resolve. He stated there is still the question whether this is a new submission versus an old submission but that is not an issue for the Planning Commission. Mr. VanLuvanee agreed to provide a 60 day extension to Ms. Frick. Mr. Koopman stated the Township would like to see a 90 day extension which is their normal requirement. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he assumes that providing a 90 day extension would not stop them from coming before the Planning Commission prior to that time and the Township representatives present agreed.

Ms. Gould noted the access to Lot #27 and asked if the Harris family wishes to have this extended. Mr. Wolf stated they only showed what was on the previous Plan. Mr. Casey stated they can discuss this with the Harris family. Ms. Gould asked that they contact the Historic Commission as soon as possible with regard to the facade, etc. for the Harris property. Mr. Tofel stated it appears there is a 200 foot driveway coming in from the northeast and it may be better to come in off the southeast portion which would only be a 70 foot driveway and would be less to maintain. Mr. Casey stated they will discuss this with the Harris family.

Ms. Helen Heinz stated the Harris family currently has a tree-lined driveway and possibly this could be maintained. She also stated there is a list of potential street names which may be of interest because of their historic significance. Ms. Heinz noted she lives two properties away from this parcel. She stated in 1986 the neighbors were advised that when this property was developed, the adjacent properties would get sanitary sewer since they were not able to hook up to Yardley Estates. She stated she is concerned about the potential back-up of the on-site sewer systems. She also stated the southwest storm basin looks like it will pick up the drainage area of adjacent properties. She stated the outflow also seems like it is going over the dump to Brock Creek and should be addressed. Mr. Wolf stated the roadway was designed to the appropriate place on Edgewood Road, and the trees noted by Ms. Heinz will have to be removed. He noted they have shown a sanitary sewer easement from Long Acre Lane to Detention Basin #1. Mr. Doherty stated CKS has made a comment with regard to providing sewers for three westerly parcels. Mr. Roeper noted the eastern outparcel, and it was noted that they could connect to public sewers as well.

Mr. Alan Buehler, Winchester Lane, asked about the use of the name Long Acre Lane, and Mr. Wolf stated this road will be re-named since there is no longer a connection to Long Acre Lane.

Mr. Koopman stated Ms. Heinz was also concerned with the southwest basin regarding impact on drainage and where the basin drains to. Mr. Wolf stated it is draining to the wetlands which are adjacent to the landfill. Ms. Gould expressed concern that there are going to disturb the landfill area. Mr. Wolf stated they are not going to disturb it as the water will go the same way it does now.

Mr. Roeper stated Lot #30 will be landlocked. Mr. Wolf stated they will revise this so that Lot #30 can access the new development. He noted there is access to Long Acre Lane as well.

Ms. Gould expressed concern with the sliver of land adjacent to the roadway and Lot #30 and asked who will be maintaining this. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they will consider this matter further.

Mr. Roeper stated he is concerned that in approving this development at the front of the property, they are approving a Subdivision which leaves a huge lot which contains a multitude of problems. He added that despite the fact that the Ordinance will require disclosure to the first-time buyers, he is concerned that the owners of Lot #30 may abandon this property. He would like to see what could be put in the Development Agreement that will protect the Township financially and otherwise from the possible costs of such a development and protect the Township in the event that the homeowners are successful in raising some concerns about the landfill and bring the Township into the action. Mr. Fazzalore stated he is concerned about the liability of contamination of Brock Creek. Mr. Koopman stated he will have to review these issues and possibly Mr. VanLuvanee can also address the issues which were noted in the original denial letter. Mr. VanLuvanee stated these issues exist today since the landfill exists. Ms. Gould stated she feels they should ask the current property owner to take care of this. Mr. VanLuvanee stated the site has been investigated. Mr. Casey stated nothing of a hazardous nature has been identified. Some minor stabilization and capping needs to be done.

Mr. Roeper stated he is satisfied with what they have done with the front half of the property but not with the other half, and he feels they need to be satisfied with both before they grant approval. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they must comply with DEP requirements. Mr. Casey stated there have been extensive investigations and DEP is satisfied that there is nothing of a hazardous nature although there are some housekeeping items as far as how closure occurred and stabilization of the bank. Mr. Roeper stated he does not trust DEP since they may change their mind in the future, and the developer will be long gone; and the Township will then be stuck with the problem. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they have done what was required by the Township with regard to review to be done by DEP and Skelly & Loy. Mr. Koopman stated he feels they may need additional information from Skelly & Loy. Mr. Koopman stated the waste has been categorized as construction debris by the applicant; but according to the reports he has seen, it is garbage and municipal waste and Skelly & Loy is not satisfied with what is to be done on Lot #30.

Mr. Jerry Gardner stated he feels categorizing this parcel as a "dump" is offensive. He stated there is nothing that has given any indication that it is hazardous to anyone’s health. He stated a good portion of what is there came from the Township Building when it was constructed. He stated DEP is most concerned about environmental issues; and for the Planning Commission to suggest that another administration several years away may change the laws, would be the same as saying another Planning Commission several years from now may look differently at the current regulations and be more lenient. He stated the Quaker Group has done everything that DEP has suggested. The Township has employed their environmental firm, and Quaker Group has employed their environmental firm. He stated a significant amount of investigation was done on the property, and there were well over seventy test pits done which is beyond what anyone would normally do and absolutely nothing in all lab tests came up as hazardous to anyone’s health. Mr. Gardner stated the back portion should be set aside and not developed, and they should be permitted to construct a small development in the front of the tract. He stated if there is a problem, it would exist today since nothing else is being put on the site. It is not going to be developed at the present time. If they were going to develop it at any time, they would have to go in and remove possibly 50% to 60% of the earth and would have to replace it.

He stated this would be very expensive, and therefore it probably will be unchanged for a long time and should be considered as open space. He stated possibly one day it may be a nursery or a tree farm which is permitted. He stated this is not a hazardous area. He stated DEP is not biased, and this is who they should listen to. Mr. Roeper stated if the area were treed, this may be an asset to the area. Mr. Gardner stated he thinks this would be permitted under the current zoning.

Mr. Tofel stated he is concerned because this problem is not going away. Mr. Gardner stated they are assuming that this is a problem, and there has been no indication by test or borings that this will be a problem.

Mr. Koopman asked if Mr. Gardner is an environmental expert, and he stated he is not but no one else present is either. Mr. Koopman stated they do have reports from Skelly & Loy and other experts, and they should review these and then make conclusions. He stated they must also consider if this is a Subdivision issue.

Mr. Casey stated they have had experts in and they say that the problems are relatively minor in nature. Mr. Koopman stated the Township feels they may need more information from their own environmental expert. Mr. Casey stated until there is a submission from them that there is a problem, they would prefer that the site not be referred to as a "problem."

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Tofel thanked Mr. Doherty and Ms. Frick for all the work they have done through the year.

There being no further business, Mr. Koch moved, Mr. Tofel seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.