The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on October 23, 2006.  Chairman Pazdera called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.


Those present:


Planning Commission:               John Pazdera, Chairman

                                                Dean Dickson, Vice Chairman

                                                Tony Bush, Secretary

                                                Richard Cylinder, Member


Others:                                     Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection & Planning

                                                John Donaghy, Township Solicitor

                                                Jeffrey Garton, Township Solicitor

                                                Christopher Fazio, Township Engineer

                                                James Majewski, Township Engineer

                                                Ron Smith, Supervisor Liaison


Absent:                                     Karen Friedman, Planning Commission Member





Mr. Bush moved and Mr. Cylinder seconded to approve the Minutes of August 28, 2006 as written.  Motion carried with Mr. Dickson abstained.


Mr. Bush moved and Mr. Cylinder seconded to approve the Minutes of September 11, 2006 as written.  Motion carried with Mr. Dickson abstained.





Mr. Mark Brookman, attorney, Mr. Russell Tepper, and Mr. Chris Burkett, engineer,

were present.    Mr. Brookman stated they have received letters from a number of

reviewing agencies, and there are only a few outstanding issues they need to discuss this

evening.  He noted Mr. Fazio’s review letter dated 10/18/06.  He stated they will comply

with all those comments.  He stated there was also a letter from Mr. Farrell on behalf of

the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority, and he stated many of those items are

already on the Plan.  He stated there was a suggestion included in the letter that the

Applicant be responsible for whatever problems may exist within the interceptor to which

the developer will ultimately connect; and the Applicant does not feel that it is their

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 2 of 21


obligation to correct something that is owned by the Authority.  He stated they will pay

the tap-in fees, and their purchasers will be paying user fees, so the Applicant is not

agreeing to contribute to that repair.  Mr. Brookman stated the Fire Company and Police

Department submitted letters, and they will comply with those items. 


Mr. Brookman stated they also received a letter from the Township’s traffic consultant. 

He stated previously they noted that the improvements were approved as part of the

original Octagon Center, and the developer feels that the improvements proposed are

over-designed because the original improvements contemplated traffic volumes which

are dramatically greater than that which the new proposed Plan will generate. 

Mr. Brookman stated they have added to the Plans the comments suggested by TPD. 

The Plans have been reviewed and submitted to PennDOT, and they do have PennDOT

approval for the design so the suggestion that was made with respect to the PennDOT

design letter in Item #4 requesting consideration of possibly improving upon the design

will not be agreed to by the Applicant.  He stated the design is compliant as far as

PennDOT is concerned, and they do not propose to make any modifications as PennDOT

has already given approval. 


Mr. Brookman stated they previously indicated in response to Mr. Bush’s concern with

the historical artifacts on the site that they have entered into an easement with the

Heritage Conservancy, and a copy of that Agreement was provided.  Mr. Brookman

stated they are prepared to indicate to the Township that if the Heritage Conservancy no

longer wants to fulfill its obligation under the Easement, the Applicant would allow the

Township to step in.  They would also not be opposed to a contemporaneous Agreement

to the Township, if this is permissible, provided it is not in violation of their Agreement

with the Heritage Conservancy.


Mr. Garton stated they also agreed to lot out the open space which had been a request of

the Planning Commission, and Mr. Brookman stated they have agreed to this.


Mr. Bush stated Mr. Brookman indicated with respect to the letters from the Township

traffic engineer, that they were in compliance with those requests.  Mr. Bush noted there

are two letters dated 10/19/06, and one of them has some new comments.  He noted Items

#45 through #52 and asked if they will comply with those as well, and Mr. Brookman

stated they will.  


Mr. Bush asked the status of the study on the need for a traffic light at Tall Pines and

Oxford Valley Road, and Mr. Brookman stated as they advance into the Permitting

process, they will be submitting to PennDOT an Application to determine whether the

Warrants are sufficient for the traffic signal.  They have agreed as part of the Settlement

Agreement to install the improvements and make Application to PennDOT to determine

whether it is necessary for a signal to be at that location.  He stated there seem to be

conflicting views within the Township whether or not the signal should be installed but ultimately PennDOT will make the decision. 

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 3 of 21



Mr. Bush stated currently the parcel of land on the corner of Oxford Valley and Big Oak

Road is for sale, and he asked if the Applicant is making efforts to acquire it and

incorporate it into this project.  Mr. Tepper stated they are aware that it has been on the

market for a number of months.  He stated those attempting to sell the property have had

their broker contact them, and he has offered his opinion to their broker as to their

interest in the property and is awaiting their feedback.  Mr. Cylinder asked what is

currently on the site, and Mr. Bush stated there is a house.  This is not the location of the

Octagonal School House.


Mr. Dickson asked if there have been any meetings with Middletown with regard to their

portion, and Mr. Tepper stated there have not since their last meeting with Lower

Makefield’s Planning Commission.  He stated there is a meeting summary of their last

meeting with Middletown Township, and he believes a copy of this was provided to

Lower Makefield.  Mr. Brookman stated they have submitted to Middletown for their

review a set of Plans for the Lower Makefield parcel. 


Mr. Bush asked the status of discussions between the Bucks County Water and Sewer

Authority and the Township regarding sewer hook ups and the impact on Matrix. 

Mr. Burkett stated there have been approvals for approximately 120,000 gallons a day for

this project.    They have been trying to get a revised commitment letter from the Bucks 

County Sewer Water Authority and the Township’s Sewer Authority for their lessened

flows.  They have received a letter from the Township’s Sewer Administration

acknowledging that there is sufficient capacity for treatment and conveyance.  They have

received a similar acknowledgement from the Bucks County Sewer and Water Authority,

and are presently trying to get a letter from the Northeast Treatment Facility in

Philadelphia that treats the sewage.  They will then go in for a change to their Planning

Module exemption.


Mr. Bush stated since they were last before the Planning Commission, the Applicant

appeared before the EAC.  He asked the status of that presentation.  Mr. Tepper stated

they have not gone before the EAC since the last Planning Commission meeting.  There

is nothing further scheduled with them at this time.  Mr. Pazdera stated he felt that the

EAC had some concerns about some delineations.  Mr. Fazio stated when they went

before the EAC, the EAC had asked the Applicant to address several items, and the

Applicant did provide a response letter.  He stated the EAC does have a few issues that

are subsequent to that letter, and the Applicant is reviewing these and has made an

attempt in some regards to address them.  Mr. Fazio stated he feels there are items which

the EAC and the Applicant will not be able to agree on. 


Mr. Tepper stated there are a few items they are of aware of that the EAC believes should

be changed about the Plans or should be incorporated in such a manner that would

require the Plans to be changed, and the developer disagrees.  He stated he believes the

Township professionals are not in support of the EAC’s views.  He stated the developer

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 4 of 21



has incorporated the vast majority of everyone’s’ recommendations as to how the Plans

should be revised.  He stated they have incorporated a number of low-impact

development designs, and they feel their design is more than adequate at this point.


Mr. Cylinder asked who he is referring to as the Township professionals, and

Mr. Tepper stated this would be the Township engineers and attorneys who are the

consultants to the Township.  The engineers include Schoor DePalma and Remington

Vernick.  Mr. Cylinder asked if the engineers have landscape architects, but Mr. Tepper

stated he could not speak to this.


Mr. Pazdera asked what issues the EAC still has since the Planning Commission has not

seen a report from the EAC.  Mr. Bray stated they still have several concerns which they

feel have not been adequately addressed by Matrix.  He stated he does not have the list

available this evening.  He stated he does not feel it is a fair statement that the Township

professionals do not agree with the EAC, and he feels that they think the EAC’s concerns

are valid.  He stated one of their concerns was with regard to the rain gardens, but the

Applicant has now agreed to dig deeper and allow it to infiltrate as best they can.  He also

feels they are willing to pipe the gardens which would make them biofiltration systems. 

He stated the EAC has a problem with splitting the watershed between Brock Creek and

Mill Creek.  He stated approximately twenty acres of the Brock Creek watershed will be

diverted to the Mill Creek watershed post-development.  He stated he understands the

Matrix engineers have stipulated that the post-development flows will be less than pre-

development flows; however, the EAC’s interpretation of 173 South and 167 indicates

that they cannot upset the existing hydrology, and they feel the Plan will do that. 


Mr. Bray stated the EAC is mainly concerned with several water courses which are on the

property which the EAC believes are protected under Lower Makefield Township’s Ordinances, under the Zoning Regulations, under the 173 Ordinance which is the Delaware River South Watershed Ordinance, and under SALDO, Number 178.  He stated they feel the definition of water course in the SALDO regulations is very clear and not subject to interpretation.  He stated the purpose is to protect water quality in the Township and also to prevent flooding.  He stated they do not feel the water courses on the property have been accurately delineated according to the site visit they had.  He stated some may be subject to interpretation, but they feel there are several large ones that are clearly water courses under the Township definitions.  He stated water courses are protected under the Township regulations.  He stated it depends on the vegetation coverage next to them as to the extent of coverage.  He stated currently this ranges from 25 feet up to 100 feet and in some instances it can be as wide as 300 feet from bank to bank or actually a 600 foot coverage.    He stated they feel these have not been accurately delineated nor have the buffers been accurately delineated. 


Mr. Bray stated they also have another list of technical items, some of which have been


October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 5 of 21



Mr. Pazdera asked when the EAC will next meet, and Mr. Bray stated they will not meet

until November 8.  He stated he has a call into the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors

as to the timing of the EAC’s response.  He stated they could possibly have a special

meeting prior to 11/8 although this does create problems with schedules.  They are trying

to have two to three members closely look at the responses Matrix has given and possibly

write up some comments that will be distributed at the meeting and discussed at their

meeting on 11/8. 


Mr. Cylinder asked if the Township engineer is aware of the EAC’s concerns about the

water courses not being properly delineated.  Mr. Fazio stated they are aware of the

EAC’s concerns, and they did meet with them last week to get a better understanding of

their concerns.  He stated the EAC had conducted a site visit and walked the entire

terrain.  Mr. Fazio stated the way Lower Makefield’s Land Development Code has

always been  written is if there is a puddle on the ground, it is a protected water course. 

He understands that the way the Township has interpreted and enforced the Ordinance is

that there must be a significant water-carrying device which would be a well-defined

swale of some significance.  Mr. Fazio stated based on his review, he did not find the

same significance that Mr. Bray has. 


Mr. Garton stated usually when these matters got to the Solicitor, those decisions had

been already made with regard to the engineering aspects. 


Mr. Fazio stated the problem is that if the Code is interpreted strictly, you could not

develop the site at all since there are numerous manmade ditches, etc. 


Mr. Cylinder asked if the vegetation on the site is the kind that grows in wetlands, and

Mr. Bray stated he did not know.  He stated when they walked the site, they did see some

jewelweed which is a wetland-type plant, but he does not know if there has been a formal

delineation of those kinds of plants on the site.  Mr. Bray stated he disagrees with

Mr. Fazio’s interpretation and stated there are a number of issues going on currently in

the Township, one of which he is personally involved in with a developer, which depend

on the definition of a water course.  He stated they did have a site visit with respect to

Sunrise, and they feel there is a water course on that site as well which should be

protected under the Township Ordinances.   He stated as to what happened in the past, he

cannot speak, but when you read the Code, it is quite clear; and he does not feel the Code

is subject to interpretation.  He stated it is broad coverage, and he feels the Township

recognizes that there is a need to have significant buffers since they result in better water

quality and less flooding.  He does not feel it has been loosely interpreted although it may

have been overlooked.


Mr. Cylinder asked if there are buildings, parking, or other structures proposed for the

areas which Mr. Bray believes are subject to flooding, and Mr. Bray stated he feels a

significant number of buildings could still be built on the site and the buffers still be

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 6 of 21



protected.  This would require a change to the Plans unless they sought and received

Variances and Waivers which they feel are required.  Mr. Cylinder asked if the EAC has

presented an alternative proposal to move those buildings, and Mr. Bray stated they have

not since they do not have an accurate delineation of the water courses.


Mr. Dickson asked the EAC’s position as to the re-direction of the water flow from Brock

Creek to Mill Creek.  Mr. Bray stated they feel changing the watershed would be against

the hydrologic regime to split a watershed in this method.  He stated they recognize that

there is not significant acreage involved, but according to Act 167 and Act 173, it is not

permitted by Ordinance.  He stated he feels Middletown Township also has concerns

regarding this as there has been some flooding of Mill Creek. 


Mr. Pazdera stated he is concerned that they are opening themselves up to a problem on

the issue of a definition of water course and whether they should be delineated and

protected or not.  Mr. Garton stated there are differences of opinion as to the impact of

the project.  He noted they must also consider the Settlement Agreement.  He stated the

EAC will send a letter to the Board of Supervisors, and the Planning Commission could

comment in any recommendation they make to the Board of Supervisors that this issue

remains.  He stated as far as the transition of watersheds is concerned, he feels the

Township engineer is satisfied that this will have a deminimus impact, and the language

suggests that there would have to be a significant impact before it would be prohibited.


Mr. Garton reviewed possible Conditions of approval if a recommendation were to be

made to the Board of Supervisors.


Mr. Bush asked when the Board of Supervisors plans to review this, and Mr. Garton

stated originally they were planning to review this on November 1.  Mr. Smith did not

know when this would be on the Agenda.  He stated possibly they should poll the

Planning Commissions to find out their concerns.


Mr. Cylinder stated this project is one of the largest ever proposed for the Township. 

He stated the Settlement Agreement between the developer and the Township refers to

a Concept Plan that, in his opinion,  has not been presented to the Planning Commission and contained little information needed for evaluation.  He stated the developer has failed to present to the Planning Commission any rationale for this weak proposal.  He stated the Planning Commission has not had any official impact on the Plan.  He stated a copy of the first official submission in the form of a Preliminary/Final Plan was handed to each Planning Commission member after adjournment of the 7/24/06 meeting.  He stated when they met on August 28, the developer’s representatives presented the Concept Plan and confined the discussion to environmentally-protected areas, drainage, curbing, and access to the site.  He stated despite the Preliminary/Final designation no information on the organization of land uses or internal circulation was offered except in response to

occasional questions.  Mr. Cylinder stated he reviewed the documents received on 7/24

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 7 of 21



which he felt were relevant to an early stage planning review.  He documented his review

and presented it at the August 28 meeting where he also stated that the basic foundation

of the developer’s plan was so flawed that an item by item critique would not be useful. 

He also presented a sample alternate plan and the thought process beyond it and

compared the alternate plan to the developer’s submission.  Mr. Cylinder stated the

developer and their consultants presented no defense of their proposal other than that the

Settlement Agreement with the Township allowed them to submit a combined

Preliminary/Final Plan based on the Concept Plan that had been submitted previously to

the Township.  He stated they offered no comment either on his review of their

submission or his sample alternate plan.  Mr. Cylinder stated he does not feel the

Planning Commission had the opportunity to study, confer with Middletown Township

Planning Commission, or conduct a Public Hearing to consider revision of the

Township’s Comprehensive Plan or the planning implications of the Settlement

Agreement.  Mr. Cylinder stated this left the Planning Commission with little basis to

make recommendations other than to add to a large number of comments submitted by

engineers, attorneys, and others on Plan details.  Mr. Cylinder stated details should be

considered only after a basic approach to a Plan is reviewed and accepted. He stated the

Planning Commission is obligated to recommend approval or denial of a Plan based on

Township Planning Policy and its likely overall effect on the quality of life in the

community.  Mr. Cylinder stated he cannot support the Plan which will only add to urban

sprawl.  He stated there is no meaning to the Plan, no relation to surrounding uses,

and it does not recognize the importance of the site. 


Mr. Bush stated while he does have reservations, he disagrees with Mr. Cylinder about

the process that has brought them to this point.  He stated the community needs to

recognize that years of litigation, settlement discussions, and public input resulted in the

Concept Plan which led to the Plan now being presented to the Planning Commission. 

He stated the Plan versus the original Plan has eliminated the Big Box retail.  He stated

many members of RAM are present this evening, and they played leading roles in the

elimination of Big Box on this site.  He stated there will be a significant reduction in

traffic, crime, and pollution from the original Plan.  He stated the project being presented

is revenue neutral versus the original Plan and will not be a burden to the School system. 

Mr. Bush stated he does have concerns, but feels the Planning Commission is not in a

position to make a decision on some of those this evening.  He feels they should make

known their concerns to the Board of Supervisors; and if they make a recommendation in

favor of approval, they should make it subject to the Conditions Mr. Garton identified.


Mr. Pazdera stated he feels this Plan is superior to what was originally proposed,

although he does have reservations as to some of the design issues and the process. 

He does however feel it is best for the Township to approve this Plan.


Mr. Dickson stated he feels the original Plan would have been an environmental and

economic disaster for the Township.  He stated Mr. Santarsiero had indicated that this

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 8 of 21



was the “best worst use of the land.”  Mr. Dickson stated he does feel it will affect the

hydrology of the watershed, and they could be looking at potential future flooding.  He

feels there is a concern with the time constraints and SALDO.  He stated his major

concern is that they still do not know what Middletown Township will do.  He agrees

with Mr. Pazdera and would reluctantly support this Plan. 


Mr. Dickson stated Ms. Friedman could not be present this evening and she requested

that her letter be read (attached to the Minutes) which he did this evening.   He stated that

she also asked that her comments be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. 


Mr. Dickson moved and Mr. Bush seconded to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the Preliminary/Final Plan dated 7/14/06, last revised 10/11/06 subject to the following:


1)  Compliance with the review letters from Remington, Vernick & Beach

dated 10/18/06 and 9/26/06 related to the sanitary sewer system with the understanding that the Applicant is not agreeable to the repairs to the

Yerkes Interceptor Line;


2)  Compliance with the Remington, Vernick & Beach letter dated 10/18/06 authored by Chris Fazio;


3)  Compliance, to the extent required, with the Historic Commission’s

letter dated 10/19/06;


4)  Compliance with the comments from Jim Yates dated 10/17/06;


5)  Compliance with Police Department memo dated 10/13/06;


6)  Compliance with the two letters from TPD dated 10/19/06 with the understanding that the Applicant does not concur with Comment #4

relating to the Big Oak Road improvements and the PennDOT

permitting process;


7)  Receipt of all permits and approvals;


8)  Compliance with the Settlement Agreement;


9)  Open space to be lotted out and conveyed to the Township;


10)  If the Heritage Conservancy has no objection, then the Township

is to receive an easement over that portion of the site containing the

archeological and artifactual remains;

October 23, 2006                                                        Planning Commission – page 9 of 21



11)  That the comments of the EAC, related to the water courses and

the issue of the conversion of water from one watershed to the other,

be noted for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration after receiving

the EAC recommendation.  



Mr. Zachary Rubin, 1661 Covington Road, stated he is in support of the Motion. 

He stated a review of the history of the Plan would show that RAM agreed to this

Concept Plan.  He stated RAM represents 2000 residents in the Township.  He stated for

two years a Republican-controlled Board of Supervisors negotiating team had a number

of meetings and came to this Concept Plan.  He stated the Democratically-controlled

Board of Supervisors also bought into this Concept Plan.  He feels this is a bi-Partisan,

populace Plan that has been agreed to by tremendous areas of the Township.  He stated

there are a number of concerns with the EAC proposals about Brock Creek and Mill

Creek, and he feels this should go through the Zoning Hearing Board who will then make

an interpretation of the Ordinances and a decision will be made on exceptions and

Variances.  He stated he feels Matrix has negotiated in good faith a settlement that is

supported by both Political Parties as well as the grass-roots organization.  He urged the

Planning Commission to ratify the Motion.


Motion carried with Mr. Cylinder opposed.





Mr. Edward Murphy, Mr. Joe McElwee, and Mr. Robert Jordon, engineer, were present. 


Mr. Murphy stated the Planning Commission last saw the Plan many months ago.  He

stated an Application was submitted in the summer of 2004 to the Zoning Hearing Board

seeking a Special Exception for development of the site for an Assisted-Living facility. 

In that context, the Application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at that time

but only in the context of the Zoning Hearing Board Application.  Mr. Murphy stated at

the Zoning Hearing Board there was a contested Application that involved a series of

Hearings before the Zoning Hearing Board ultimately granted certain relief which was

appealed by both the Township and certain abutting property owners to the Court of

Common Pleas.  Mr. Murphy stated that litigation was recently resolved with the entry of

a Court Order earlier this month which approved a certain Stipulation Plan and

established certain procedural guidelines for the review and approval of the Plan which

was attached to the Stipulation as an Exhibit.  Mr. Murphy stated the Plan before the

Planning Commission is that Plan.  He stated there are certain timelines for the review

and approval of the Plan which they are well within. 


October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 10 of 21



Mr. Murphy stated they have received a series of review letters from the various

Township staff and consultants including the sewer consultant, Fire Safety reviewer, and

the 10/03/06 Schoor DePalma review letter.  Mr. Murphy stated they have met with

Mr. Majewski to go over his review.  He stated they will need some input from the

Planning Commission on some items.  He stated the overwhelming items are “will

comply.”  He stated the Plan shown this evening which was distributed to the Planning

Commission this evening is already largely revised to address most of Mr. Majewski’s

comments in the 10/3/06 review letter. 


Mr. Murphy noted Item #4.  He stated Mr. Majewski recommended, subject to Planning

Commission approval, that the parking stalls be reduced from 10’ x 20’ to 9’ by 18’ in

certain areas of the site which would reduce impervious surface and add some additional

parking stalls.  He stated the Plan shown this evening reflects this revision.  The parking

spaces involved are on the easterly side of the property.  This will reduce the impervious

surface by 1000 square feet. 


Mr. Cylinder noted an area of the Plan going around the building, and Mr. Jordon stated

this is the emergency access. Mr. Cylinder asked if there is a sidewalk around the

periphery of the property along the street.  Mr. Murphy stated there is not, and this was an

item noted by Mr. Majewski in the review letter; and they were going to ask the Planning

Commission to comment on this.  Mr. Cylinder asked about the basin.  Mr. Jordon stated

it is a biofiltration basin within which will be planted warm weather grasses.  When it is

wet, it will be three feet deep.  Mr. Cylinder asked if the residents will be ambulatory. 

Mr. McElwee stated their typical resident is a frail 82-year old who needs help with

activities of daily living.  He stated they are not bedridden.  He stated they would not be

able to live on their own.  Mr. Cylinder asked if they could drive or walk around. 

Mr. McElwee stated Sunrise has a 14-passenger van, and the residents do not drive. 

Mr. Cylinder asked who would use the parking spaces, and Mr. McElwee stated they

would be the workers and visitors. 


Mr. Cylinder stated several years ago he did a Plan for a similar-type facility.  He stated

he researched this and found that there is a need for a significant amount of parking a few

days a year such as Mother’s Day.  He noted the potential use of stabilized turf which

would be suitable to park on during these times of the year.  He asked if they have

considered this.  Mr. Murphy stated there was discussion on this previously, and the

Planning Commission did endorse that concept; however, because of issues associated

with the limitation in this District for on-site impervious, this was an issue as it would

have required even more impervious surface.  He stated he believes it was the general

feeling that they would see how the facility operated once constructed, and they could

consider this in the future if necessary.  Mr. Murphy stated while Mr. Cylinder’s

comments about large numbers of visitors coming to the facility on certain days may be

true in theory, it is not the general practice.  Mr. McElwee stated he has personally

developed fifty of these communities for Sunrise and they manage 425 facilities. 

October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 11 of 21


He stated the parking calculations provided to the Township are consistent with all the other Sunrise facilities.  He stated generally it is .4 to .5 parking spaces per unit, and they are at forty plus on this site.  He stated they have not encountered a need for additional parking.  He noted there are not strict visiting hours as the hours are throughout the day so it is not a problem.  He noted the only time they might have a parking issue is at the facility opening event, and typically they contract with a local Township facility for that one occasion for which they would obtain a special permit. 


Mr. Cylinder asked what they would do if there was some need for additional parking,

and asked if they would object to laying out an informal parking area which could be

installed if needed at some point in the future.  Mr. McElwee stated most of their sites are

only three acres, and this site is nine acres so there should be plenty of room on the site

for future parking; however, they have an impervious coverage ratio within which they

are bound to stay.  Mr. Cylinder asked how pervious would pervious parking be, and

Mr. Majewski stated you can design pervious parking that is pourous so that water can

flow through.  He stated there are several types of pourous paving which can be used

which would not count against the impervious surface calculations.  Mr. Cylinder asked

if there is a way to attach something to the Plan so that they would be required to install

parking in the future if necessary.  Mr. Donaghy stated this could be noted as a Condition

provided it was agreeable to the Applicant.  He stated if it is not acceptable to the

Applicant, it would open up the possibility of Appeal of the Action. 


Mr. Cylinder stated he has been involved with curved parking lots similar to that which is

shown, and the complaint is that they are difficult to back out of.  Mr. McElwee stated

what is being shown is a Sunrise standard as they are not in favor of linear parking lots as

they look institutional; and they have not had any problems.


Item #5 was noted regarding the requirement for two loading berths.  Mr. Murphy noted

the location of the one loading berth proposed which he feels is sufficient.  He stated at

the front entrance there is an area where most deliveries such as UPS would come to.

He stated he feels they meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.  He stated this is not

an industrial facility which would need loading berths.  Mr. Majewski agreed that what

has been proposed would be sufficient. 


Item #13 was noted which indicates all information within 200’ is required to be shown

on the Plan.  Mr. Murphy stated they are close to that 200’; and to the extent that the

information they have supplied does not technically meet the requirement, they would

ask for a partial Waiver.  Mr. Murphy stated he feels Mr. Majewski is comfortable with

the level of information that has been supplied.


Item #15 was noted, and Mr. Murphy stated they have received a jurisdictional

determination from the Army Corps of Engineers which was done as part of the Zoning

Hearing Board process. 


October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 12 of 21


Item #20 was noted.  Mr. Murphy stated given the fact that the abutting boundary roads –

Heacock and Stony Hill – are both PennDOT roads and not Township roads, past practice

has been not to undertake core samples.  He stated this does not mean that they will not

improve the roads; and in fact, there is a meeting tomorrow at PennDOT to discuss the

extent of improvements to the abutting boundary roads.  He stated this also relates to Item

#26.  He stated during the course of negotiations giving rise to the Stipulation, the

Township made its position clear as to what levels of improvements would be expected,

and they take no issue with those. 


Mr. Murphy stated Items #28 and #29 are related.  He stated the Plan does not show

sidewalks along the frontage of either Heacock or Stony Hill.  Mr. Jordon stated they do

have internal sidewalks.  They did bring out a sidewalk along the access drive with a

crosswalk that would access at Chestnut Woods Drive and allow use of the asphalt

walkway system to the intersection.  Mr. Murphy stated they felt it made the most sense

to cross at the existing intersection.  Mr. Majewski stated he noted it may be better to run

the sidewalk directly from the facility to the intersection so people could cross at the

traffic light rather than what they have shown on the Plan. Mr. Majewski  stated the

Applicant does not anticipate that the residents will be walking across the street, and they

will have a shuttle to take the residents across the street.  Mr. McElwee stated this is not

an independent living facility. 


Mr. Cylinder asked what attracted the Applicant to the site, and Mr. McElwee stated the

Zoning was in place and it is at a major intersection.   He stated 45% of their customers

come from drive-by traffic, and they like to be on roads that are driven by those making

the decision as to where they would like their parents to reside.  Mr. Cylinder asked the

advantage of this site to the people living at the facility.  Mr. McElwee stated it is a nine

acre site with a lot of walking areas, and wooded areas surrounding it.  He stated those

who are placing their parents at their facilities, generally reside within a five mile radius

of the facility. 


Mr. Bush asked if the residents who previously objected to this facility have had an

opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Plan.  Mr. McElwee stated he does not feel there has been a noticeable change to their Plans from what was submitted to the

Township.  Mr. Murphy stated Mr. Larry Borda was a Party to the proceedings, and he

has had an opportunity to review the Plans as he was a part of the negotiations.

Mr. Borda also represents one or two other neighbors.  Mr. Murphy stated they have had

regular conversations with other neighbors who were generally in support of the Plan.


Mr. Bush stated they indicated that they could have buses at an off-site location to bring

people to the grand opening, and asked if there are other occasions when they envision

this would be necessary.  Mr. McElwee stated this may occur during Holiday parties but

generally it would be the grand opening and possibly one annual event.  He stated if they

do have such an event they would use valet parking to some agreed upon off-site


October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 13 of 21




Mr. Bush asked if the Plan will be presented to the EAC, and Mr. Murphy stated he and

Mr. Bray have exchanged messages and most recently Mr. Bray advised Mr. Murphy that

there had been a site walk by the EAC, and he indicated that there were some concerns

although he did not advise him what they were.  Mr. Murphy stated he did hear Mr. Bray

state during the prior Application discussion, that Sunrise has a water course issue; and

Mr. Murphy stated he is prepared to speak about this. 


Mr. Bush noted the location of the biofiltration site, and asked what mechanism is in

place to prevent water from going toward the existing structure to the right of the facility

during a large storm.  Mr. Majewski stated in the stormwater detention facility, an

emergency spillway is provided.  He stated the berm that surrounds the basin will have a

low area; and when it gets to a point that the basin can no longer handle it, it will flow

over the emergency spillway and be directed into an area where they want he water to go. 

In this case, it will be directed toward the woods and the existing water course.

Mr. Murphy noted the existing wooded area on the Plan and stated it has been agreed that

they will try to minimize intrusion as much as they can.  There had been discussion about

moving the detention facility more toward the road to get it away from the woods. 

Mr. Murphy stated there is a swale in the area where the water would go in an emergency



Mr. Cylinder asked if they have a landscape plan, and Mr. Jordon stated this was already

submitted to the Township.


Item #35 was noted, and Mr. Murphy stated Mr. Majewski has noted that there should be

a 20’ separation between the building and the parking area.  Mr. Murphy stated they were

able to revise the Plan, and they have made improvements and will only need a waiver of

¾ of a foot.


Item #52B was noted regarding Mr. Majewski’s recommendation to eliminate curbing on

the east side of the parking area so as not to impede stormwater flow getting to the

detention basin.  Mr. Murphy stated they will do this provided it is acceptable to the

Planning Commission.  Mr. Majewski stated it will require a Waiver if they are going to

do this.


Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with all other items, and they are prepared to submit

the Revised Plan within one week.  He stated they will also comply with the 9/5 letter

from Mr. Yates and the 9/18 Remington Vernick letter.  The TPD letter was noted, and

Mr. Jordon stated after they meet with PennDOT, they will have better direction as to

how to proceed with the Plans.




October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 14 of 21



Mr. Cylinder stated they put the entrance across from an existing street making a four-

way intersection and asked who decided this.  Mr. Murphy stated this was requested by the Township.  He stated a lot of the design elements were discussed during the Zoning

Hearing Board process, and the recommendation for the location of the entrance was a

recommendation from Traffic Planning & Design. 


Mr. Larry Borda, 508 Heritage Oak Drive, stated for the most part he has found Sunrise

to be responsive and upfront in his discussions with them.   He stated he has not had an

opportunity to review the changes in detail.  He asked if a right-hand turn from Heacock

onto Stony Hill Road is being considered, and it was noted it is.  He asked if they will

install a sidewalk on Heacock Road from the property to the intersection.  Mr. Murphy

stated they did discuss this tonight, and it will ultimately be a Planning Commission

recommendation to the Board as to whether this would be appropriate.  Mr. Borda stated

from his development it is very difficult to get across Heacock; and if there was a way for

them to get to the intersection on a sidewalk, it would be very helpful.  He noted the

emergency spillway and asked if there is a reason why the stormwater runoff is only

directed to the wooded area, and asked if there is any way they could direct some of it

toward Stony Hill.  Mr. Jordon stated the reason the spillway is there is so it will direct

the water in a downward manner since the site falls from Stony Hill Road down to the

water course.  There will be a berm that will be four feet above grade.   They will not be

able to get it back to Stony Hill Road.  Mr. Majewski stated in general, the land does go

from Stony Hill Road down toward the rear.


Mr. Pazdera stated he agreed that it would be a good idea to continue the sidewalk on

Heacock Road.  Mr. McElwee stated this would be outside their net site area and would

not affect their impervious coverage, so he would not have a problem with this.

Mr. Majewski stated this would tie in with his comment about getting people out to the

intersection as opposed to bringing them out across from Chestnut Woods Drive.  He

stated he was primarily considering workers at the facility who may want to go out for

lunch and cross at the signalized intersection. 


Mr. Cylinder asked if there is any overhead lighting at the intersection, and an individual

from the audience indicated there is.


Mr. Zachary Rubin, 1661 Covington Road, asked if there are plans to widen Stony Hill

Road.  Mr. Jordon stated based on the meeting they had with Mr. Majewski and other

Township officials, it was determined that they should run an eight foot widened shoulder

along Stony Hill and Heacock Road in conjunction with the right-hand turn lane. 

Mr. Majewski stated at Stony Hill Road, as you head southeast, there is enough pavement

in the area so that by re-striping, you could have a straight-through lane through the

intersection down Stony Hill Road, and have a left-hand turn lane to turn left onto

Heacock Road so that there will not be as much as a back up at the intersection. 


October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 15 of 21



Mr. Tom Kurowsky, 609 Stony Hill Road, stated there is a swale on Stony Hill Road that

terminates at his property and water goes back to the creek bed through the wooded area. 

He stated he feels his property will be surrounded with water if they run the swale to the

front to Stony Hill Road. 


Mr. Smith stated since they are suggesting a sidewalk on Heacock Road, he asked if there

should be a walkway from the facility to the sidewalk, and Mr. Pazdera stated he agrees

that there should be some kind of a path.  Mr. Murphy stated he feels they may be able to

do this and still meet their impervious surface requirements.  . 


Mr. Cylinder asked about installing additional trees if they are installing a sidewalk. 

Mr. Jordon stated there are street trees proposed along both roads as required by

Ordinance.  Mr. Majewski stated there is sufficient room to install the sidewalk so that it

is a safe distance from the road.  He stated he feels the planting strip would be 25’.  The

sidewalk would be within the right-of-way.  Mr. Majewski stated they can coordinate the

tree location with the sidewalk so that it makes sense.  The street trees will be outside the



Mr. Dickson asked who would use the new sidewalks on Heacock and Stony Hill Roads,

and Mr. Murphy stated it seems that the people in the other neighborhoods would use it

as well as the facility employees.  Mr. Murphy stated none of the Sunrise residents would

use the sidewalk unattended.  Mr. Smith stated he feels the suggestion for a sidewalk on

Heacock Road would be good for the adjoining neighbors to have someplace to walk to

get to the intersection. 


Mr. Borda stated he assumes the basin will be dry 90% of the time, and Mr. Jordon

agreed.  Mr. Borda asked if Sunrise will be required to maintain it and asked how this is

monitored.  Mr. Majewski stated as part of the Stormwater Management Ordinance, the

Township requires that the developer come up with an Operation and Maintenance

Agreement whereby the Township has the right to inspect the facility, although it is the

owner’s obligation to maintain the facility.  If they do not maintain it, the Township has

the right to do so.  


It was noted that it is anticipated that the matter will be back on the Planning

Commission’s Agenda on November 27, 2006.









October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 16 of 21





Mr. Cylinder stated there was discussion by residents at the last Board of Supervisors

meeting over their concern about train noise.  He stated he has been working on an

Edgewood Road corridor study, and he had discussed this with the Board Chairman who

asked to see it.  Mr. Cylinder stated he provided this to the Board Chairman and felt he

should make this information available to the Planning Commission members as well.

He stated this is part of a larger study he is working on which involves improvements

along Black Rock and Edgewood Road where it connects with Yardley-Langhorne Road

to Middletown Township.  He stated there are a number of problems with the road which

he would like to see addressed.  He noted one of the problems is where it enters from

River Road, and Black Rock Road looks like a large driveway.  He also noted he feels the

parking near the Canal is on the wrong side of the road.  He noted a number of site

distance problems in the area as well.  He also commented on the lack of overhead

lighting at the School on Oxford Valley Road.  Mr. Cylinder stated he also has a concern

with the fact that the Township operations are on one side of the road and recreation

facilities are on the opposite side and there are people crossing back and forth.  He stated

at the railroad crossing the emergency services are on one side of the crossing and the

need for emergency services could occur on the other side.  He stated  there is also an

increasing number of trains and longer trains using these tracks.  Mr. Cylinder discussed

a number of issues related to possible train proposals being considered which could

increase use of the tracks in the Township.   He noted the commuter and bus traffic also

crossing the tracks. Mr. Cylinder stated this relates to the resident complaints about the

noise.  He stated if there is a grade separation, they would not need to blow the train

whistle at this location.


Mr. Cylinder stated he has proposed a scheme, which was included in the packet he

provided, which would allow the Township to utilize the lands it has in better form if

they could disregard the presence of the at-grade intersection and install an overpass.  He

would recommend that the Township authorize the Township engineer to review his Plan, and he would be willing to work with the Township engineer on this. 


Mr. Smith asked for an estimated cost of an overpass, but Mr. Cylinder did not know.

He noted the length of time it takes for this type of project to be completed.  He stated he

also does not know how much of the cost could be borne by the Township, State, or the

railroad itself.  He stated the Township does already own a portion of the land.

Mr. Smith stated it appears that the residents in the area where the crossing are located

would want something done more quickly than an overpass could be built.  Mr. Cylinder

stated while he agrees,  he feels that they should still look into his proposal and feels they

could consider both.   Mr. Smith asked if he has considered what his suggestion would do

to the increase of speed in the area, noting that the trains do slow down the traffic. 

Mr. Cylinder stated at-grade crossing do not slow traffic down unless there is a train


October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 17 of 21


Mr. Cylinder stated the biggest problem is not the railroad but Edgewood Village. 

He stated he has proposed a by-pass around the Village which he also presented to the

Planning Commission this evening.  He stated if they could agree to a By-Pass for this

area prior to development of the site, he feels this would be preferable.  He stated he feels

they must look beyond only historic preservation and they should also consider those

who are trying to get to work or who want to go shopping. 


Mr. Smith stated Mr. Cylinder has expressed his concerns in the past with the Edgewood

Village Plan’s viability, and Mr. Cylinder stated he does feel it is viable if they agree to

put in the improvements necessary.  Mr. Smith suggested that they wait until they see the

Plan for Edgewood Village.  Mr. Cylinder stated if they wait for the Plans to come in,

they will have the same problems they had with Matrix.  He stated he feels the Township

engineer should review his Plan first, and then they can have it reviewed by

Mr. VanDyke.  Mr. Smith stated there was a special meeting in January where Edgewood

Village was discussed, and he asked if Mr. Cylinder expressed any of these concerns at

that public meeting.  Mr. Cylinder stated he did not although he did discuss them with

Mr. VanDyke.  Mr. Smith stated there will also be more meetings to come on the

Edgewood Village proposal, and he feels Mr. Cylinder should address these issues as a

resident rather than a Planning Commission member.  Mr. Cylinder stated he would not

be in favor of this because he feels the people should come to the Planning Commission

first.  Mr. Cylinder stated he did make comments about Matrix as a resident before he

was a Planning Commission member, and no one would listen to him.  Mr. Smith stated

since he has not done this task as part of the Planning Commission, he feels he should

present it as a resident and not a member of the Planning Commission.   Mr. Cylinder

stated he does not want to do this.   Mr. Cylinder stated he feels he has prepared

professional plans, and he would like the Township engineer to review what he has

prepared, come up with his own thoughts, and then go to Mr. VanDyke to discuss this.

Mr. Majewski asked if he is now discussing the plan for Edgewood Village or the Plan

for the Railroad.  Mr. Cylinder stated he was considering the Edgewood Village Plan

because that is the Plan Mr. VanDyke is involved with, but would also like Mr. Majewski

to review everything he has presented.  Mr. Majewski stated Traffic Planning & Design is

the traffic engineer and has been working with Mr. VanDyke and PennDOT. 

Mr. Cylinder asked that TPD then review his plans. 


Mr. Dickson asked if Mr. Majewski were to review Mr. Cylinder’s plans and the

Township were to retain Mr. Majewski for this time, would this present a problem since

it would involve working on something that did not come from the Supervisors. 

Mr. Smith agreed that this is a good point.  He stated there is a designated traffic engineer; and he would suggest that when they have next Citizens Traffic Committee,

Mr. Cylinder attend that meeting as a member of the public with these Plans.

Mr. Cylinder stated he would not agree to do this.  He stated if the Planning Commission

feels this is important enough to pursue, the Planning Commission should pass a Motion;

and he will do whatever the Planning Commission wants.  He stated he did not ask to be

on the Planning Commission so that he could go to meetings as a private citizen.

October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 18 of 21



Mr. Donaghy stated the Planning Commission could look at issues of this sort, but they

do not have the authority to direct the Township engineer to do this work as it would

have to come from the Board of Superiors.  Mr. Cylinder stated the Planning Commission

could ask the Supervisors to allow the engineer to discuss this.   Mr. Cylinder stated he

wants to work within the Planning Commission and not as a private citizen.  Ms. Frick

stated she felt they were going to have Carter VanDyke come to a Planning Commission

meeting.  Mr. Bush stated the Historic Commission also wants to meet with the Planning

Commission as they are proposing some changes to the Ordinance.  Mr. Cylinder stated

he would be willing to take his Plan to the Historic Commission if the Planning

Commission asks him to do this.    Mr. Bush stated if Mr. VanDyke, the Historic

Commission and other interested land holders are interested in meeting with the Planning

Commission, he feels this should all be done at the same time.  Mr. Bush stated he felt

they were considering having this meeting the first meeting in December.  Ms. Frick

asked if they want to discuss this with Mr. VanDyke first before having the meeting with

the other parties.  Mr. Cylinder stated he would be willing to meet with Mr. VanDyke

provided another Planning Commission is with him.  Ms. Frick stated she was discussing

having Mr. VanDyke come to the Planning Commission first.  Mr. Bush stated he feels

all interested parties should be present at the meeting.


Mr. Dickson asked if they are discussing this corridor that Mr. Cylinder is discussing as it

pertains to the Edgewood Village and/or Mr. Cylinder’s proposal to build an overpass

over the Railroad.  Mr. Cylinder stated it is all part of the same road.  Mr. Dickson stated

while this is correct, these are two different issues.  Ms. Frick stated Mr. VanDyke would

have nothing to do with an overpass over the Railroad. Mr. Dickson stated Mr. Cylinder needs to consider these as two separate issues.  Mr. Cylinder stated when Mr. VanDyke is present he would like to advise him that the proposal for the Edgewood Village portion is part of an overall linear Plan. 


Ms. Frick stated it is her understanding that the Planning Commission would like to have

present Mr. VanDyke and the surrounding residents.  Mr. Cylinder stated when he was

interviewed for the Planning Commission they asked him how they were going to

integrate this whole area, and Mr. Cylinder stated he has shown a connection not only

between Edgewood Village but with the shopping center as well so he feels they should

be included in the meeting as well.  It was noted that this was going to be done anyway. 

Ms. Frick asked if they also want the Historic Commission present, and this was

agreeable to everyone.  Mr. Cylinder stated he also feels the traffic engineer should be

present, but Ms. Frick and other Planning Commission members did not feel they could

do this at this time.  Mr. Cylinder stated he feels they should then ask the Supervisors if

the traffic engineer could be present.  Mr. Donaghy stated the Planning Commission

members would have to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to permit

this expenditure, and Mr. Cylinder suggested that they do this right now.  Mr. Donaghy

stated that when they have the proposed meeting and are discussing Mr. Cylinder’s

proposal, it must be noted that this is Mr. Cylinder’s proposal and not a proposal that the

October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 19 of 21



Planning Commission has recommended to the Board of Supervisors, although individual

members can express their opinions in the course of the meeting.


Ms. Frick asked if they want the property owners to receive information in advance of the

meeting or only be sent a letter inviting them to the meeting.  Mr. Bush stated it would

depend on the subject of the meeting – whether it is Mr. Cylinder’s entire proposal or the

proposed changes to the Ordinance being recommended by the Historic Commission. 

Ms. Frick asked if possibly the owners should not be invited to the initial meeting and

only have Mr. VanDyke and the Historic Commission present so that they can decide in

what direction they are going. 


Mr. Dickson stated he has been attending meetings such as this since the early 1970’s,

and he cannot recall any incident when a member of a Planning Commission or Zoning

Hearing Board came up with a proposal on their own.  Mr. Dickson stated Mr. Smith

originally proposed that Mr. Cylinder present this as a private citizen, and Mr. Cylinder

objected to this.  Now he is hearing that this is being presented by a Planning

Commission member and not the entire Planning Commission, and he is concerned that

property owners are going to be confused.  Mr. Donaghy stated he felt that in an attempt

to get some cohesiveness on Edgewood Village, there was a proposal even before Plans

are submitted for various people to come in and generally discuss the issues.  He stated

while the Board of Supervisors has already done this, it seems the Planning Commission

would now like to do this again.  He stated as part of this, he does not feel it is the

position of the Planning Commission at this point to say Mr. Cylinder’s proposal is the

Planning Commission’s proposal; but if any member of the Planning Commission wants

to ask questions or present ideas, he does not feel this would be a problem. 


Mr. Smith stated if they were to have this group meeting, he feels it would be highly

improper to have the diagram made by Mr. Cylinder presented by Mr. Cylinder to those

present as a member of the Planning Commission as opposed to a private citizen. 

Mr. Cylinder agreed.  Mr. Smith stated doing so would remove his impartiality toward

whatever Plan is presented to the Planning Commission.  He stated he does not feel the

proper avenue to present the Plan he has designed would be at the Planning meeting, but

feels there is nothing wrong with Mr. Cylinderpresenting this Plan as a private citizen at

any public meeting.  Mr. Smith stated numerous people have presented issues at public

meetings as private citizens.  He stated by only allowing its use to be done as

Mr. Cylinder has suggested, which he does not feel can be done since he does not have

the authority to ask the Township engineer to review the Plan, he feels Mr. Cylinder is

limiting the use of his ideas if it is never known in the proper forum. 


Mr. Cylinder stated his problem has been that no one listened to him before he became a

member of the Planning Commission.  He stated the only other alternative would be that

he serve as a consultant to the Planning Commission, and he would be willing to do this

for free.  In this case, he would resign from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Cylinder

October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 20 of 21



stated if the Planning Commission had no objection, he would be willing to show his Plan

to Mr. VanDyke, provided there was someone else with him.  Mr. Smith stated as a

member of the Planning Commission he has certain rights and obligations as well as

certain limitations.  He stated as a private citizen he can do what he wants within the

bounds of the law.  He stated he can do this provided he does not speak on behalf of the

Planning Commission.  Mr. Donaghy stated he does not feel there should be a private

contact by a Planning Commission member.  He stated they can ask questions or present

something at a Township meeting if they have considered certain items without making it

mandatory that they do it.  Mr. Smith agreed.   Mr. Smith stated if Mr. Cylinder is going

to take the position that this Plan he is presenting has to be done or he will not vote in

favor of it, at some point in time, he may have to recuse himself from whatever is

presented.  Mr. Cylinder stated he has no personal interest in this whatsoever.  He stated

although he voted against Matrix, the project will not hurt him; and it is the same for this



Mr. Pazdera stated he would still like to have a meeting so they can discuss this before a

Plan is presented.  Ms. Frick asked how the letter to those being invited should be

worded, and Mr. Cylinder suggested that they indicate they would like there to be an

exchange of views.  Mr. Majewski suggested that they advise that they are discussing

proposed planning considerations for Edgewood Village.  This will be tentatively

scheduled for the meeting of December 11, 2006 which will be the only Planning

Commission meeting held in December.






Ms. Frick noted the information provided from Upper Makefield on the Conditional Use

Application scheduled to be heard by them this Wednesday.  This is the Dolington

Estates/Toll Bros. Development.  Mr. Majewski stated although Toll Bros. is also

pursuing the Cemetery, they have also submitted a Condition Use Plan for 218 homes on

the Dolington Tract, and this would include the area for the Cemetery.  He stated they

also have pending the Cemetery Overlay Ordinance and a potential Subdivision for that

as well as a 99-lot Subdivision for single-family homes all going concurrently. 


Mr. Bush asked if they know what the feelings are of the Upper Makefield citizens group

on this Plan.  Mr. Majewski stated this Plan has just been submitted, and the letter

indicates that there is no Subdivision Sketch Plan or a Land Development Approval being

requested for this submission.  He stated they are just seeking approval for 218 lots.  He

stated he feels this came out of the previous denial for the previous Conditional Use as

one of the suggestions was that if they scaled back the proposal from 280 to a more

reasonable number, Upper Makefield might consider approving the use.  He stated there

is a minimum three-acre Zoning in Upper Makefield but by a Conditional Use procedure,

October 23, 2006                                                      Planning Commission – page 21 of 21



you can go down to one-acre lots by clustering and preserving certain percentage of open

space.  Once the use is approved, they would then go through the Subdivision and Land

Development approval process. 


Mr. Bush asked if this site includes part of the site for the Cemetery, and

Mr. Majewski stated this is correct; and there would be no Cemetery if this Plan were

approved.  He stated they are running four different Plans concurrently for this site.


Mr. Majewski stated Lower Makefield may want to amend their Ordinance indicating

that you cannot concurrently run separate Land Development Approval Applications on a

property.  He stated currently Fieldstone is keeping two Applications running in Lower



Mr. Majewski stated on a previous Application for this site, the Planning Commission did

send comments to Upper Makefield of a general nature regarding concerns about traffic

and stormwater.  It was noted that since there was no Plan attached to the Upper

Makefield information, it is difficult to make comments.  No position was taken by the

Planning Commission.



There being no further business, Mr. Dickson moved, Mr. Bush seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m.



                                                            Respectfully Submitted,





                                                            Tony Bush, Secretary