TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 26, 2005

 

 

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on September 26, 2005.  Chairman Friedman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Those present:              Karen Friedman, Chairman

                                    Cynthia Harrison, Vice Chairman

                                    William Taylor, Secretary

 

Others:                         Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection, & Planning

                                    Jennifer McGrath Township Solicitor

                                    James Majewski, Township Engineer

 

Absent:             John Pazdera, Planning Commission Member

                                    Frank Fazzalore, Supervisor Liaison

 

 

TABLING APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Mr. Taylor moved, Ms. Friedman seconded and it was unanimously carried to table approval of the Minutes of 9/12/05 due to lack of a quorum able to vote on the Minutes.

 

 

#555 – FIORELLO GROVE PRELIMINARY PLAN DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Henry VanBlunk, attorney, was present with Mr. Rich Butkus, engineer. 

Mr. VanBlunk stated he understands that this was before the Planning Commission as a

Sketch, but he was not involved with it at that time.  He stated the Applicant proceeded

with the project based on the comments of the Planning Commission.  The property is ten

acres, but they have a lot of natural resource protection land which is why they came in

with a Sketch Plan for input. 

 

Mr. VanBlunk noted the PCS report dated 9/7/05.    He understands that they will not

receive Approval this evening.  Ms. Frick stated that they had indicated to her that they

wanted to get direction on the items other than those with which they will comply.   

Mr. VanBlunk stated the Waiver previously requested is no longer needed and is

withdrawn. 

 

Mr. VanBlunk noted Item #2 regarding impervious surface will be corrected.  He noted

their calculations were also wrong on Sheet #4 and will be corrected.

 

 

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 2 of 11

 

Items #3, #4, and #5 were noted.  Mr. VanBlunk stated the wetlands are contained entirely within the floodplain area; and after reviewing the Ordinance, he understands

that they should use the floodplain ratio as this has the higher protection ratio; and

Mr. Majewski agreed.  Mr. VanBlunk stated they had tried to break it out, but they will

change this to show the entire floodplain area listed.  Mr. Butkus stated the floodplain

and the wetland calculation equal the entire floodplain area. Mr. Majewski stated he feels

they need to check this total area also.  Mr. VanBlunk agreed to recalculate Items #3, #4,

and #5.

 

Mr. VanBlunk stated it is their intent that the area labeled “open space” of 5.5 acres will

be offered to the Township.  Ms. Frick stated at the Sketch Plan stage it had not been

determined whether this would go to the homeowners or the Township.  Ms. Frick stated

the Minutes indicated that Mr. Koopman had suggested that Mr. Marrazzo also contact

the School District about this land.  Mr. VanBlunk stated the feedback they received was

that this area might be more beneficial to the Township.  Ms. Friedman asked if there are

any maintenance issues regarding this area, and Mr. VanBlunk stated this area does flood. 

He stated there was discussion that this land might be useful to the Township if the

Township proceeded with the Rock Run dam project.  Mr. Majewski stated this is

approximately one half mile upstream.  Mr. VanBlunk agreed to contact the School

District.

 

Mr. VanBlunk stated other items in the PCS letter relate to the stormwater management

on the property (PCS Items #16, #17, #18, #23, and #28).  These issues deal primarily

with Plan Sheet #3 of 6.  He stated they are trying not to build a giant detention basin in

the rear yard and instead contain the stormwater on each lot which has resulted in  

detention basins of only a few feet deep on each lot.  He noted the land does not perc so

they are limited as to how they can manage the stormwater.  He stated they will need

Waivers and this is where they would need direction from the Planning Commission.  He

stated they could move the detention basins further back which would address the storm

water issues raised in the PCS letter, but they would then encroach into the resource

protected areas and would need a Variance for the tree disturbance.  Mr. Majewski stated

this is a difficult site.  He stated Item #28 notes the new Ordinance and the procedure that

they have to follow.  He stated they need to go through the steps listed to explain why

they did what they did and show that they are following the intent of the Ordinance. 

Item #23 was noted, and Mr. Majewski stated the detention basin would have the water

rising to be within about 10’ of the proposed houses on all three lots, and he does not

know how future homeowners will feel about having a lake in their back yard within 10’

of their house.  He is concerned about basements flooding and a rear yard that cannot be

used.  Mr. Majewski stated this has been a concern stated by residents in the past with

complaints about not being able to use their rear yards and concerns with mosquitoes. 

He stated future homeowners especially do not understand why they cannot use their rear

yards and install pools, etc.  Mr. VanBlunk stated they understand that this is a problem

because only the first homeowners are provided with the Disclosure by the developer and

it is the subsequent homeowners that have concerns. 

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 3 of 11

 

 

Ms. Frick asked if they will provide an instruction book on how to maintain the basin.

Mr. VanBlunk stated the basins on each lot will only be two to three feet deep. 

Ms. Frick stated it still needs to be maintained.  Ms. Harrison stated she is also concerned

that homeowners may decide to fill it in because they feel it is their lot.  Ms. Friedman

asked if they could have the retention basins moved back further and have two of them

between Lots #2 and #3 and Lots #3 and #4 and incorporate the new system of rain

gardens.  Mr. Majewski stated the soil is clay with a high water table. He stated they

would need a standard detention basin at this location. He added they could put it back

further away from the houses, but they would lose one lot as they would not meet the

resource protection requirement.  He stated building more than two lots is difficult if not

impossible on this tract.  Mr. Taylor stated there is also a history of flooding in this area.

 

Mr. VanBlunk stated at this time there are three lots proposed on the ten acre tract.  He

added they have not done the engineering but possibly where Lot #3’s lot line is located,

they could move the resource protection line on Lots #1 and #2 to the lot line of  #3 and

put the detention basin in the rectangle they are creating.  They feel this would work and

it will be one large basin for all three lots; although it would have to be built up.  This

would also look much more like a detention basin so that the property owners would

know that this is something that they cannot fill in.  He stated there was a comment about

trying to delineate somehow to the homeowners where the natural resource protection

area is, and this would make such delineation.  He stated they would need a Variance to

encroach into the resource protected area. 

 

Ms. Frick stated the other alternative is to lose a lot.  Mr. VanBlunk stated there are

certain economics involved.  He noted the builder is Joe Marrazzo.  Ms. Friedman stated

she would prefer to see a Plan with two lots so that they protect more of the natural

resources. 

 

Mr. Butkus stated with regard to the stormwater, they only failed on the two-year testing. 

They passed on the 5, 10, 50 and 100 year storm.  He stated he recognizes their concern

with flooding that goes on in this area. He stated there are developments in the area that

have had Waivers for this.  Ms. Frick stated she has never seen a Plan like this with a

detention basin on the lot.  She stated if someone wanted to have a pool, they would not

be able to fence it in.  Mr. VanBlunk noted there should be no impact on the surrounding

lots on Big Oak or Derbyshire Road.  Ms. Frick questioned if they would not have an

impact on Derbyshire Road if the detention basins on the new Subdivision were not

maintained.   Mr. VanBlunk noted the existing lot next to proposed Lot #1 where there

could be a problem if they changed the slope.  He stated water is flowing onto the

properties currently.  Mr. VanBlunk noted the woods in the area and stated it is mostly

underbrush and tall trees with vegetation only at the top of the tall trees. 

 

Ms. Friedman asked how much larger of a rear yard could they provide to the residents. 

Mr. Butkus stated on the Plan they have a rear yard of almost 77’ by 70’.  Ms. Friedman

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 4 of 11

 

asked if they could put the detention basin up to the resource line to afford them the most

rear yard, and Mr. Butkus stated they could not run it behind the building setback line

because it would not grab enough water.  Ms. Harrison asked how they determine the

resource protection line, and Mr. Butkus stated they are permitted a certain percentage of

tree disturbance.  Mr. Majewski stated they do show less clearing than they are allowed;

however, the future homeowners can go back and later clear the rest of the woods up to

the resource protected line.   This is why he asked that it be conspicuously marked with a

sign in addition to monumentation.  Mr. VanBlunk stated he is concerned about what

would happen with a sign over the years.

 

Ms. Frick stated she is usually called by the neighbors if people cut down trees.  She

noted a problem in Island Woods where there was a Conservation Easement and a

subsequent owner wanted to clear it for a pool.  She stated the information needs to be on

the recorded linen.  Mr. Majewski stated this is why he feels it should be monumented

and on the map and as clearly stated as possible including installing a sign indicating the

area cannot be cleared.  Ms. Frick stated at the last meeting it was noted these homes will

sell for $650,000; and she feels for this price people should be provided a usable rear

yard.    Ms. Harrison asked if a fence could be erected to show the area that is protected,

and Mr. Majewski stated they could ask that they agree to install a fence with a sign on it. 

Mr. Butkus stated the problem is they are buying 1.6 acres and can only use .4 acres. 

Mr. VanBlunk stated they could consider some kind of fence.  Mr. Majewski stated even

if there is a fence, it is still not fail safe.

 

Ms. Friedman stated she would like to see a Plan drawn with two dwellings.  She stated

she feels they are compromising the residents in all ways by squeezing three houses on

this tract.  Mr. VanBlunk stated he does not feel the economics would make this feasible. 

He stated they are trying to minimally impact the properties.  He stated he feels it would

be better to have one basin even though they would not be in compliance.  Mr. Majewski

suggested moving the basins back into the 40’ rear yard area and put two to three basins

in a series back up the hill.  He stated this is not an easy property to design. 

Mr. VanBlunk stated he feels every development in the Township they will see going

forward will have these types of issues.

 

Ms. Friedman stated the Planning Commission would like to see Plans drawn addressing

the stormwater issues before going forward. 

 

Ms. Karen Gates stated she lives across the street on Big Oak Road and she is concerned

with a property that does not perc and questions how it will empty when it fills up.

Mr. Butkus stated it will never retain water permanently but will contain it and slow it

down before releasing it.  It will flow naturally to the creek.  There will be three basins

and each one will flow to the next basin through pipes under the berms.  Ms. Gates was

shown a copy of the plans including basins and the outlet structures.  The pipe is at the

bottom of the basins.  Mr. Butkus stated the water will always be moving and will not sit

in the basin. 

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 5 of 11

 

 

Ms. Frick asked if they are proposing basements, but the representatives present this evening were not sure.

 

Ms. Carol Biros, 1517 Derbyshire Road, stated she is two houses from the creek; and in a

severe rainfall, her property is under water. She is concerned that any development in this

area will only aggravate the condition more.   She asked what would alleviate the

problem other than the basins which she does not feel will solve the problem.   She stated

she is also concerned with the driveways and asked if they will be on Derbyshire or Big

Oak Road and how this will impact the traffic problems at the intersection. 

Ms. Friedman stated the driveways are shown on Derbyshire Road.  Ms. Biros stated  

School traffic is in this area.  She noted children walk on Derbyshire Road to go to the

School.  Mr. VanBlunk stated they are moving the water toward Rock Run creek.  The

stormwater management is not meant to hold the water, but it will slow down the flow

during the heavy rains so that when it reaches the creek, they are not in a flood situation. 

He stated during the testing, they were okay for all storms except the two-year storm.

Mr. Majewski stated a two-year storm is 3.3” of rain falling over twenty-four hours.

Ms. Biros stated the creek did overflow this year and many residents in the area were

flooded.  She does not feel what the Application is proposing will resolve the problems.

Mr. Majewski stated it is not meant to solve the overall problem.  Ms. Biros stated she

understands this but feels this will aggravate the problem.           Mr. Majewski stated at this

point their basins do not meet the requirements and they have to revise their Plans.

 

Ms. Gates stated a car going west on Big Oak Road and making a right-hand turn onto

Derbyshire will have a difficult time seeing anyone pulling out of the first or second

driveway.  Ms. Friedman asked the distance from the first driveway to the corner, and

Mr. Butkus stated it is approximately 200’ to the corner.  Mr. Majewski stated the

driveway will almost line up with the first driveway across the street on Derbyshire Road,

and they do meet Township requirements.  He noted there could be problems with pulling

out of the driveway because of the school buses.  Ms. Gates stated the driveway on the

other side is not impacting the people pulling off of Big Oak Road since this is the

driving lane.  Ms. Biros noted the number of School activities in the evening in this area. 

She stated the potential purchasers should be notified of this.

 

Ms. Harrison suggested they look at the Plan and review the safety concerns expressed as

well as stormwater management issues.  She also suggested that they consider combining

drainage systems.  She feels they should consider two lots instead of three because of the

drainage problems on the site.  Ms. Friedman agreed.  Mr. Taylor stated he does not feel

there is enough useable land for the homeowners on the Plan proposed.   Mr. VanBlunk

stated he feels they could still have a pool although the location where it could be located

would be limited. Ms. Frick stated she does not feel it would be possible to have a pool

and fence it in as the fence has to be 10’ from water’s edge and the pool has to be 10’

from the house.  Mr. VanBlunk agreed that the location would not be ideal.

 

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 5 of 11

 

 

#543 – MINEHART SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

 

Mr. Chris McGinn was present with Mr. Mark Buchwalt.  Mr. Buchwalt stated they have

gone to the Zoning Hearing Board and obtained the relief needed from the resource

protection area.  They have also been meeting with the Township engineer.  The PCS

letter dated 9/15/05 was noted.  Mr. Buchwalt noted Item #1 and stated they will discuss

this matter with the Board of Supervisors regarding the payment of Fee-In-Lieu. 

 

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

 

Item #5 was noted, and Mr. Buchwalt stated he has submitted a letter to the Trans-

Continental Pipe Line Corporation and will provide a copy to the Township.

 

Item #6 was noted and Mr. Majewski stated the Planning Commission did request that

they provide a turn-off area before they get to the driveway and this will need approval

from PennDOT.  They did discuss this preliminarily with PennDOT who indicated this

was a good idea. 

 

Mr. Buchwalt stated they will comply with Items #7 and #8.

 

Item #3 was noted.  Mr. Buchwalt stated they have been asked to move the swale back

from Lot #5, and they will comply with this.

 

Item #4 was noted.  Mr. Friedman asked if the soil is amenable to underground detention

systems, and Mr. Buchwalt stated on this site certain lots have soils that can handle this;

but for those lots that do not, they will construct underground stone beds which will drain

to the detention basin.  Mr. Majewski stated this will work in this situation.  Mr. Butkus

stated some items in Item #4 still need to be clarified, and he will work with

Mr. Majewski on this.

 

Mr. Butkus noted Page 2 of the PCS letter which lists the Waivers they are requesting.

He stated they are requesting a Waiver from doing pavement core samples on Woodside

and Lindenhurst Roads.  He stated he feels this would be appropriate if they were doing

significant widening or improvements, but they are not.  Mr. Majewski stated typically if

they were concerned that the road was not built to handle traffic generated by the

development, they would want core samples done.  In this case Woodside Road was re-

constructed seven or eight years so they know the condition of the Road.  They also know

about Lindenhurst Road, so a Waiver is appropriate.

 

Item B under Waivers was noted, and Mr. Butkus stated because of the natural features of

the site, they are forced to make some lots somewhat irregular but they do make sense

with the restrictions they have on the lots.  He noted particularly Lot #4, #5, and #6.  The

Planning Commission and engineer did not have a problem with this Waiver request.

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 7 of 11

 

 

Item C was noted where they are proposing an easement across Lot #4 for the storm

sewer pipe.  The Township requirement is 30’ and they are proposing 20’.  They

feel 20’ is ample for maintaining a storm pipe as it is not large.  Mr. Majewski stated the

pipe is not very deep, and in this case, he feels this Waiver is acceptable.

 

Item D was noted regarding placement of the driveway for Lots #5 and #6 within the

sanitary sewer and stormwater management easements.  Mr. Butkus stated if they were

not able to do this, the lots would be land locked.  Ms. Frick stated if they had to go in

and repair the lines, the replacement of the driveway would have to be at the owners’

expense; and this will have to be placed on the Deed.  The Applicant agreed to put this on

the Record Plan.  It was noted that the length of the driveway will be approximately 800’

long.   Mr. Taylor asked if the paving will be directly over the pipe, and it was noted it

will be. 

 

Item E was noted.  Mr. Butkus stated it would be very difficult for them to follow the

Ordinance because they have such a small area of impervious surface versus very large

lots.  They would like to put limits on each lot as to how much impervious surface they

can construct.  Mr. Majewski stated some of these lots are quite large and they would

have to handle more water than they could generate.  He stated they have used a limit that

makes sense for the properties, and he stated he is comfortable with what they have

proposed subject to making some of the other revisions they have discussed.  He stated

they will put this on the Record Plan as to how much additional impervious surface the

homeowners can add.

 

Item F regarding the release rate was noted.  Mr. Butkus stated currently they sheet flow

toward the stream.  They are required to have 50% less and this would be very difficult

because they are leaving so much of the land untouched.  To follow the Ordinance, they

would have to go into the resource protection areas.  What they have done is for areas

where they are developing, they have analyzed the pre-development condition and will

cut the run off in those areas in half using the underground basins.  Mr. Majewski stated

there is flooding possibly on Woodside Road during major storms.   The existing culvert

cuts through the property and is sized for a 6” rainfall and beyond that it overtops the

road.  This is 6” or more of rain over a twenty-four hour period.  He stated they are trying

to keep the water on site.  They would have to clear woods to comply with the Ordinance. 

Ms. Harrison asked if the homes will be elevated beyond a flood area.  Mr. Butkus noted

the area where the floodplain is location and stated they are substantially away from this

area.  He stated most of the homes will be elevated and he does not foresee any problems

with flooding. 

 

Item G regarding discharge points for stormwater was noted, and Mr. Butkus stated

typically it is not advisable to discharge onto an adjacent property but because they have

on-lot systems, they do have to go across some of the lots.  Mr. Butkus stated

Mr. Majewski has indicated he would prefer they discharge to another location but the

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 8 of 11

 

 

only other way would be for them to run a pipe through the wetlands.  Mr. Majewski

stated he is not in favor of the current configuration with Lot #3 impacting Lot #4 and

would prefer that they try to make it work at another location.  It was suggested that they

look at this again.

 

Item H regarding grading was noted.  Mr. Butkus noted an area where they are very tight,

and they are trying to start the grading at the property line.  He stated in this way they can

accommodate the driveway and also minimize the grading in the wetland buffer.  He

stated this is occurring at this location because the Planning Commission had previously

asked that they have two separate driveways for Lots #5 and #6.

 

Mr. Taylor noted the CKS and Bucks County Planning Commission letters.  Mr. Butkus

stated they will comply with the CKS comments.  He stated there is an outstanding issue

with the sewer moratorium. 

 

Mr. Taylor asked about walkways and bikepaths.  Mr. Majewski noted the location of the

bikepath on the Master Plan and stated this Applicant is requesting payment of Fee-In-

Lieu.  Mr. Taylor noted an area where he felt they needed permission from TRANSCO,

and Mr. Majewski stated they are still working on this.  Mr. Majewski stated he feels the

Applicant should extend the bikepath down to the property line and stop and Toll Bros.

will probably have to build it down to Woodside Road across the TRANSCO property. 

The next property is the Minehart property and he feels Toll Bros. might need to install

that portion as well.  They will have to confirm.  Otherwise it would be part of the fee

this Applicant would have to pay.  Mr. Majewski stated this was included in Item #1 of

the PCS letter regarding Fee-In-Lieu, and they will discuss this with the Board of

Supervisors.  Mr. Hal Roberts stated there is documentation about the bikepath.

 

There was no public comment.

 

Ms. Harrison moved, Mr. Taylor seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend

to the Board of Supervisors approval of the Preliminary Plan dated 8/8/03, last revised

7/20/05 subject to compliance with the PCS letter dated 9/15/05, the CKS letter dated

8/17/05, subject to Fee-In-Lieu for required improvements, the re-direction of discharge

stormwater around Lot #4, and a Note to be added to the Recorded Plan that if the

driveways for Lots #5 and #6 have to be removed due to repair or replacement of the

sanitary or storm system, that it will be done at the sole expense of the homeowners of

the respective lot.  This to be in writing and recorded on the Deed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 26, 2005                                                     Planning Commission – page 9 of 11

 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODIFIED ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY, NURSING HOME, AND COMMUNITY TREATMENT/REHABILITATION FACILITY

 

Ms. Frick stated Mr. Garton has asked that the Planning Commission review the

amendments proposed and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

 

Ms. McGrath stated there is a new definition of Community Treatment/Rehabilitation

Facility and this use will be permitted only in C-2, C-3 and O/R by Special Exception and

not in Residential Zones.  She stated the Township is trying to protect the integrity of the

Residential Districts yet not discriminate against people protected under the Federal Fair

Housing Act.  She noted under the definition of “Family” they did add a clause that

individuals residing together in a community/rehabilitation treatment center or nursing

home shall not be considered a family except to the extent required as a reasonable

accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act.”   She noted people convicted of a

crime are not protected under this Act.  They are trying to do as much as possible to

protect the residents’ safety but do not want to expose the Township to liability under the

Fair Housing Act.

 

Ms. Harrison noted a property near a very busy roadway, and her concern with people

who may be living in a facility that may be prone to wander.  She asked if there is

any way they can protect that environment for them and for the Township citizens.

She stated some people living in such a facility may not have the ability to make good

judgments and this could be a safety concern for themselves and others in the

community.  Ms. McGrath stated she is not sure they have addressed this under the

Zoning Ordinance.  Ms. Harrison asked if they could require a fenced-in area so that they

could not wander.  Ms. McGrath stated for a nursing home, they could possibly amend it

to require some fencing, but they must also protect the people’s rights.  She stated

hopefully most places would provide protection for their residents so that they are not out

wandering.  Ms. Harrison stated having worked in some facilities, she knows large

assisted living/nursing homes would have alarm guards that people wear to warn if they

are going out of a restricted area.  She stated there could also be people with psychiatric

diseases who have not taken their medication.  Ms. McGrath stated there is a provision

under the Special Exception requirements that if there is a danger to the health, safety,

and welfare of the community, they could be denied or have conditions placed. 

 

Ms. Friedman stated she also has a concern with community treatment/rehabilitation

facilities and asked how they could include the delinquent youths in this since

those eighteen and younger are not considered criminals and instead go into youth rehab

programs.  She does not feel they are addressing this.  Mr. Taylor stated if they are

judged to be delinquent, this would be covered, and Ms. McGrath agreed. 

 

 

September 26, 2005                                                   Planning Commission – page 10 of 11

 

 

Ms. Friedman noted Item #2 regarding proof of compliance and asked how this relates to

the Allegheny Valley School situation and renovations they did before they went before

the Zoning Hearing Board.  Ms. Frick stated the Township was contacted by surrounding

residents of the three homes Allegheny Valley School purchased advising her that work

was going on at those properties.  She stated no permits were ever obtained.  She did go

out and cite them and issued stop work orders.  She stated they did major work prior to

the stop work orders being issued.

 

Ms. Friedman noted Section #200-68 Section B and asked the reasoning behind the limitation for “five’ people.  Ms. McGrath stated it was previously three individuals and she feels this was probably changed as this is how it is defined under State law. Ms. Frick stated this is also the same number under the definition in nursing home.  Ms. Frick stated you would have to obtain a Special Exception to have a nursing home.

 

Ms. Friedman asked how they would protect themselves from having nursing homes crop

up in residential houses.  She asked if it would be better to reduce the number to three or

two since they will now have five adults being cared for, along with the two care-givers, visiting nurses, etc.  Ms. McGrath stated if they reduced it from five, it would be contradicting the definition of “family.”  Ms. Friedman stated she does not feel this is a “family” and in fact is something else.  Ms. McGrath stated they also have to consider the requirements under the Fair Housing Act.   It was noted that the Zoning Hearing Board would consider the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the facility and the surrounding residents when they come in for a Special Exception. 

 

Ms. Friedman stated she is also concerned that people in wheelchairs are moving into

neighborhoods where there are no sidewalks.  Ms. Harrison stated she is also concerned if

these residences are located on busy roads.  She feels they should designate areas that

would still meet the Fair Housing Act, yet be in areas that have less traffic.  Ms. McGrath

stated the basic premise is that they can move into any area.  Ms. Harrison stated they

must follow ADA rules and regulations and she noted particularly door size widths and

space per patient.

 

Ms. Friedman moved,  Mr. Taylor  seconded and it was unanimously carried to

recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the proposed Amendments to the

Ordinance with the following recommendations:

 

            1)  Section 200-62 should be changed to 200-68 in Section 3 of the

                  proposed Amendments;

 

            2)  The Planning Commission expresses concern with the safety of

                  the residents in the facilities and the residents of the surrounding

                  communities.

 

September 26, 2005                                                   Planning Commission – page 11 of 11

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

Ms. Friedman stated the EAC is currently working on a fall environmental lecture series. 

On October 16 there will be a lecture at 2:00 p.m. at the Township Building and they are

requesting that as many of the Board members participate as possible.  They are also

working to encourage the use of native species and will include these on the Township

Website and Channel 16.  There will also be a lecture on this eventually.  They also

discussed the maintenance of drainage basins.  She stated they also had the Township

purchase a publication rack which will be in the Township Building and include various

environmental publications.

 

 

There be no further business, Mr. Taylor moved, Ms. Harrison seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m.

 

                                                            Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

                                                            William Taylor, Secretary