MINUTES – MAY 14, 2007
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
was held in the
Planning Commission: Dean Dickson, Chairman
Tony Bush, Vice Chairman
Richard Cylinder, Member
John Pazdera, Member
Others: Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection & Planning
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Absent: Karen Friedman, Planning Commission Secretary
Grace Godshalk, Supervisor Liaison
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Pazdera moved, Mr. Bush seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of March 26, 2007 as written.
Mr. Pazdera moved, Mr. Cylinder seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of April 9, 2007 as written.
#578 – CRAIG & BARBARA A. RADVANY – PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney, was present with Craig and Barbara Radvany, the owners
of the property of slightly more than one acre on
divide the property in half. They did appear before the Zoning Hearing Board and
received relief. Mr. Murphy stated they elected to revise the Plan after the first round of
review letters to try to address as many issues as possible before appearing before the
The Schoor DePalma review letter dated 5/8/07 was noted. Mr. Murphy stated Item #1
identifies the three Waivers being requested which involve frontage improvements, and
he feels there is support for these Waivers. They will agree to the payment of fees as
noted in Items #2 and #3.
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 2 of 12
Mr. Murphy stated Item #4 relates to the fact that on
existing dwelling, there is a screened-in porch at the far end of the lot; and Mr. Majewski
has suggested that there should be an Easement established to permit someone to go onto
Item #5 was noted asking that they somewhat enlarge the seepage bed. Mr. Murphy stated they did do on-site testing and provided this information to the Township engineer; and the developer acknowledges that there is not good perc, so in order to offset a lack of depth, Mr. Majewski has indicated he would like it wider; and Mr. Murphy stated they will comply.
Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with Item #6 with regard to an adjustment to the
Mr. Murphy noted the 5/1/07 Environmental Advisory Council letter. He stated on Page
#2, it does state that the EAC commends the Applicant for the way they have
accommodated the run off from the site due to the requests of the Township engineer.
It was noted the Planning Commission did not have a copy of this letter. Mr. Majewski
stated the EAC made a number of comments, and he noted some of their concerns are
covered in his letter of 5/8/07 under Items #5 and #6 and the Applicants have indicted
they will comply. He stated they also had a comment about protection of existing trees,
and this is shown on the Plan; and they do have the appropriate fencing shown. He stated
the EAC has also recommended rototilling the areas of disturbance after construction so that the ground will not be so compacted, and Mr. Murphy stated they will comply with this.
Mr. Majewski stated the EAC also commented on roadside swales and a stormwater inlet
upgrade and recommended that the swales that are along
Drive be turned into vegetated swales where grasses grow up out of the swale.
Mr. Majewski stated Mr. Murphy has indicated that the Applicants are not in favor of this
because of the residential nature of the area; and they do not feel it would be appropriate
to have high growing in areas where everyone else in the area has maintained lawn.
Mr. Majewski stated for this infill lot where all the other lots do not have this
characteristic, he does not feel it is appropriate.
Mr. Majewski stated the EAC also indicated they wanted to see the existing stormwater
inlet where the water flows through to be replaced with a sediment chamber similar to
those constructed around
accumulating on the site, and since they are asking for a Wavier from installing
sidewalks, that this would be appropriate. Mr. Murphy stated again they feel this is
inappropriate for this location, and they are not inclined to agree to this. Mr. Majewski
stated he feels this is a good recommendation; but does not feel it is appropriate for this
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 3 of 12
Application because it is only for one lot. Mr. Cylinder asked what water the facility
would handle, and Mr. Majewski stated it is for
have maintenance responsibility for this, and it was noted
it would be the owner of
#2. Mr. Majewski stated they have had them place all the appropriate Notes on the Plan
so that it is clear for the initial and all future owners that there are responsibilities
Mr. Majewski stated the EAC also asked that additional trees be planted on the rear of the
property and along the southern property line. Mr. Murphy stated there already is a fairly
dense vegetative buffer on the Applicant’s lot and on the lot to the rear so they do not feel
there is much room to plant additional trees in this particular situation; and Mr. Majewski
Mr. Bush asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors; and Mr. Murphy
stated all neighbors were contacted and were supportive at the Zoning Hearing
Board stage. They have not heard from any of the neighbors as to this evening’s meeting.
Mr. Cylinder asked about the relief requested from the Zoning Hearing Board, and
Mr. Murphy stated it was for side yard relief in order for them to keep the side yard porch
at its existing location.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Pazdera moved, Mr. Bush seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval for the Preliminary/Final Plans dated 12/8/06, last revised 2/1/07 subject to:
1) Compliance with Schoor DePalma letter dated 5/8/07;
2) Planning Commission supports Waivers to Section 178-40.A,
Section 178-46.A.1, and Section 178-47.A;
3) Compliance with the Remington Vernick letter dated 1/18/07;
4) Compliance with Bucks County Conservation District letter dated 4/26/07;
5) Compliance with comment in the Environmental Advisory Council’s
letter dated 5/1/07with regard to rototilling to mitigate soil compaction.
#580 – SHADY BROOK FARMS LOT CONSOLIDATION AND MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DISCUSSION
Don Marshall, Attorney, was present with Mr. David Fleming Sr., and Mr. David
Fleming, Jr. Mr.
Marshall stated this property includes land in
area in 1960, and over the years have acquired additional sites. After the death of
Mr. Fleming Sr.’s parents, all the property was jointly owned by he and his brother
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 4 of 12
Edward Fleming. Mr. Marshall stated the property involved this evening includes the
four Tax Parcels in Lower Makefield - #20-12-1, #20-12-2, #20-12-1-2, and #20-12-1-1.
He stated the total acreage in
He stated Mr. David Fleming Sr. and his wife are 50% owners and Mr. Edward Fleming
own 50%. He stated the proposal is to reconsolidate the four parcels and then divide
them into two parcels with
exchanged between David and Edward putting it solely in Edward’s name and 51.118
acres as shown on the Plan as Lot #2 and includes all the Shady Brook improvements
which will be put in David’s name. He stated the purpose is to allow these gentlemen to
pass this through to the next generation and partition their holdings. He stated this has
already taken place with the portions of the lands in
Townships. He stated
200-699D3 of the Zoning Ordinance which is the Farm Sale provision of the Ordinance
relating to the size of the farm sale buildings as this is the amount of acreage required.
Mr. Marshall stated Mr. David Fleming has two sons and a daughter; and the two sons
are actively involved in the farming operation. He stated Edward Fleming has been
retired for several years, spends most of his time in
He stated because the land is zoned O/R the land has significant value and presents estate
planning challenges were one of the two brothers were to die as 50% owners, which
would probably result in the loss of the farm to settle the Estate. He stated the farming
operation also includes significant acreage in
Mr. Marshall stated he understands a question was raised as to whether this was a Minor
Subdivision because of the two outparcels shown, and he provided to the Solicitor this
evening the Deeds when the two parcels were created. He stated they were created by
Mr. Fleming Sr.’s parents in 1965 and 1966 as part of their estate planning. He stated
these pre-date the Municipalities Planning Code; and in those days farmers could just cut
land off, so there was no Subdivision done. Mr. Donaghy stated he also recalls that under
the Municipalities Planning Code there were also some exceptions for agricultural lands;
and Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Marshall stated this Application does not propose building
anything; and they are simply drawing a line so that they can do tax-free exchanges.
Mr. Marshall stated he has received a review letter from Remington Vernick which has
no comments because there are no sewers involved. He also noted the
Planning Commission letter dated 3/15/07 which lists two comments, and they will comply with both. Mr. Marshall stated they did not receive a review letter from the Township engineer’s office. Mr. Majewski stated it was sent to both Flemings,
Mr. Marshall, and All-County. The Schoor DePalma review letter dated 3/30/07 was provided to Mr. Marshall this evening. Mr. Marshall reviewed the letter and stated they will comply.
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 5 of 12
He noted the Waivers requested relate to the Plan itself – specifically the scale of the Plan
and existing features. Mr. Majewski stated they did not cite any of the Waiver Sections,
and Mr. Marshall stated the Applicant will provide this. Mr. Majewski stated he is
agreeable to the Waivers being requested provided they cite the specific Sections.
Mr. Bush noted the letter from the Historic Commission dated 3/19/07 indicating that
they had done a site inspection and looked at a house, barn, and carriage house but were
unclear whether they had seen all of what they perceived to be the historic structures on
the site. Mr. Marshall stated they had not seen this letter either. Mr. Fleming, Jr. stated
he was called and was asked if they could view the property; and he indicated they could,
but never heard anything further. Mr. Dickson read them the letter from the Historic
Commission. Mr. Dickson stated the letter does refer to “sale of the property” which he
does not feel is the intention at this time. Mr. Marshall agreed and stated they do not
intend to demolish any buildings.
Mr. Bush stated while no one present wants to stand in the way of Estate Planning, there
are rumors about what may be happening to these parcels in the future; and he asked if
they feel comfortable discussing this tonight. Mr. Marshall stated he has some difficulty
with the question because of client confidentiality; but it is the intent of those present that
the operation of Shady Brook Farm would last at least for another generation, and they
would probably end up with a transfer to a family partnership. He stated he feels it is
possible that the property owned by Mr. Edward Fleming will be sold at some point in
the future because his children are not involved in the business. He stated they are trying
to preserve enough land to ensure a successful farming operation.
Mr. Cylinder asked if there is anything concerning the property such as a Deed
Restriction, Farmland protection, or any restrictions on the land of any kind that would
prohibit either parcel from being developed in accordance with the Subdivision
regulations, and Mr. Marshall stated there are not other than the fact that it is under Act
319 which involves roll-back taxes.
Ms. Rae Pinchuk, Historic Commission, stated no structures were shown and so they had
no idea if any historic structures would be impacted. She stated they did go out to the site
in the winter and wanted to reserve the right to
comment. Mr. Marshall stated
the parcel that could possibly be subjected to sale and is
totally vacant. He stated
is where all the buildings are located. He stated they would agree to have their engineer
overlay the line on an aerial, and Ms. Pinchuk stated this would be appreciated. This will
be submitted to the Township, and Ms. Frick will forward it to the Historic Commission.
The Applicant will return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors.
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 6 of 12
EDGEWOOD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT – DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODIFIED ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING
TO ARTICLE IXA TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (T.N.D.) WHICH IS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE
Mr. Carter Van Dyke was present. Mr. Dickson stated they did receive copies of the
Final Version #8. Mr.
VanDyke stated the area involved is
historic section of
March Associates was hired to develop a Master Plan; and since that time, there has been
planning and negotiation with residents and landowners to develop and craft this Overlay
Zoning Ordinance the purpose of which is to provide for a Traditional Neighborhood
with a diversity of uses including residential and commercial units and provide an
internal and external walkable community, to encourage new development similar to the
character of what is currently there now as well as the character of the historic sections of
Newtown Borough, to promote a streetscape quality to neighborhoods that further
combination of businesses with residential uses in a historic setting, to create economic
incentives for revitalization of existing structures, and develop design standards to
encourage infill development that will not be detrimental to the integrity of the historic
Mr. VanDyke noted the Plan showing the Historic/Commercial District and stated they
are looking to expand the H/C District to include lands on the south side of Yardley-
talking about an area that includes
Road, and Stony
residential portion bounded by
and Interstate I-95.
Mr. VanDyke stated the Overlay District allows for a variety of permitted uses from
single-family detached to retail uses permitted in the H/C such as restaurants and banks
and also permits office uses. It allows for a range of dwelling types including twins,
townhouses, multi-family manor dwelling as well as apartments over businesses and an
Accessory Uses such as a home occupation. Mr. VanDyke stated it allows some
Conditional Uses such as drive-in windows for a bank. It allows for specific lot sizes and
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 7 of 12
Mr. VanDyke stated this is an Overlay District to the underlying Zoning so it is an option
that the developer has. He stated, since this is optional and not mandatory, the MPC
allows the Municipality to invoke additional standards which in this case are more in
keeping with a Historic District so there are supplemental regulations. He stated no
historic structure can be taken down unless it is certified that it is structurally unsound in
which case it must be replicated. If buildings are relocated they must go through a strict
process and must maintain a viable use.
Mr. VanDyke stated the General Regulations talk about the requirement for a mix of
uses, allowing for civic buildings, park and open space land, a network of interconnecting
streets, allows for on-street and parallel parking, alleys, shallow setbacks, requires some
front porches as you find in some older sections of the community, and discusses
developing a walkable streetscapes, sidewalks, crosswalks, and shade trees. There are
detailed design standards addressing the mixture of uses. He stated there are also
requirements for green spaces. He stated they also discuss design standards for
alleyways, parking garages, sidewalks, landscaping, and shared parking.
Mr. VanDyke stated they also discuss stormwater management with a minimum of a ten
year storm being retained on site. He stated a number of the properties in the Historic
District are small, and it may be more cost effective if there is a combined regional
system to handle stormwater management.
Mr. VanDyke stated the last Section deals with HARB which will retain a review of all
the historic buildings which front onto the main thoroughfares as well as the historic
buildings which are relocated so that they no longer front on the main thoroughfares.
They would also review any new structures that front on new thoroughfares.
Mr. VanDyke reviewed the changes made since they last met with the Planning
Commission. He stated they did change the maximum impervious coverage as in the last
version it was 75%, and they have changed this to 70%. He stated when they discussed
the mix of two-family dwellings, they changed it from 10% minimum to 40% maximum.
He stated they also changed the required amount of stormwater management to be
handled on site which was changed from an eight-year storm to a ten-year storm.
Mr. Pazdera noted the reference to a “green roof,” and asked how this is defined, does it
count toward impervious, and can it be used as part of stormwater management noting it
is not underground and it indicates in the Ordinance that everything must be underground
if it is on site. Mr. VanDyke stated you can calculate stormwater retention on the green
roof, and this could be given to the Township engineer. With respect to the
groundwater issues, they could go back to the other Ordinance that states “with the
exception of a green roof,” or they could state “green roofs are permitted as an
exception,” which he feels makes more sense as this Ordinance supersedes the other
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 8 of 12
Mr. Cylinder stated he feels this is very complex. He stated if each property owner were
to come in with their own plan, it will be very difficult to think of it in terms of a unit or
Village. He asked if there is any possibility, since they are now working with everyone,
to have them get together and come in with an overall scheme in accordance with the
Ordinance. He stated they could present a concept as to how it will be developed. He
stated he cannot imagine how this will work unless the people involved get together and
present the whole thing to the Township. Mr. VanDyke stated the Commission foresees
working with the Planning Commission on the ongoing review. He stated the key
stakeholders have been very cooperative and have even agreed to seek out the
professionals that the Commission has recommended, and they have a good working
relationship with them and they envision continuing with this. He stated he cannot
guarantee that what is envisioned in the Ordinance will be exactly what they will get.
Mr. Cylinder stated he would like to be able to look at the whole in greater and greater
detail. Mr. VanDyke stated he feels the Historic Commission has developed a Plan for
the public realm of the Village and it has been submitted to the Township. He stated in
working with the developers, they will probably have to update this and work with the
Commission on this. Mr. Cylinder asked if they could see a sketch on the overall
scheme, and Mr. VanDyke stated some of this is still on the Township Website.
Mr. Bush stated he hears that they are working closely with the two to three major
landowners, but they are not ready to submit Plans until the Ordinance is passed, and
Mr. VanDyke agreed. Mr. Bush asked about the public notice, and Ms. Frick stated they
sent out 325 notices about this evening’s meeting including all of Heacock Meadows.
She stated she did not receive one phone call with respect to this project.
Mr. Bush stated on the next Board of Supervisors Agenda there is a proposal for a
farmers’ market at the Edgewood Village Pocket Park, and he asked if Mr. VanDyke was
aware of this. Mr. VanDyke stated while he was not aware of this, he feels it is a good
Mr. David Broadway stated he is the owner of the corner property on Yardley-Langhorne
Road and Stony
years. He stated one of the problems he has is that they have been invited to the Planning
Commission and the Supervisors meetings, but they sit and strain to hear what
Mr. VanDyke is saying. He stated Mr. VanDyke has said the same thing for the last year.
He does not feel they are gathering any momentum. He stated the people who will be the
most affected are the people in the area. He stated they must be able to pursue this as
owners of the properties. He stated they have made no progress in twenty-five years.
Mr. Broadway stated he wants them to move on this somehow.
Mr. Jim Keba,
impervious surface of 75% and someone had indicated 65% existed now. He asked how
they came to 70%. Mr. VanDyke stated they felt 65% was too tight, and they wanted to
allow for flexibility for the homeowners and felt it could be 70%. Mr. Keba asked if this
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 9 of 12
is per lot or overall. Mr. VanDyke stated it is both. He stated it would be per
development so that if a development were one lot, it would be 70%; if a development
were multiple parcels, it would still be 70%.
Mr. Keba stated there was discussion about traffic, and the residents have continually
asked about this; but they have not heard how traffic is going to be affected. He stated
currently there is farmland which does not draw visitors; but once it is developed, it will
bring in traffic. He feels they must do a study as to how much traffic the small
intersection can handle. He stated he does not understand how this much traffic is going
to be handled at that intersection. Mr. VanDyke stated they have been working with the
Township Traffic Engineer, but there has not been a definitive study; and this will be
done at the Land Development stage when it comes before the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors. Mr. VanDyke stated they will also negotiate with PennDOT,
and PennDOT has been allowing more flexibility to address such issues. Mr. Keba stated
he is still concerned that a bad situation is going to get worse as the area gets developed.
Mr. VanDyke stated they must be sensitive to preserving the character of the historic
Village. He feels the congestion will probably remain, but the traffic engineer and
Supervisors may address how they can make sure that the traffic does not get worse.
He stated the traffic is not specifically part of this Ordinance since Township already has
Ordinances related to traffic. He stated they have set up cross sections of the road that
they want the traffic engineer to review. He stated no development will take place until
the traffic studies are done.
Mr. Broadway asked if
and Mr. VanDyke stated this is correct. He stated the State has told the Township that
they do have input in terms of the character and size of the road particularly because they
are in the Historic District. He stated the State has certain standards they have to comply
Mr. Matt DeSantos,
indicated that something had changed with regard to the Commercial Zone in the Overlay
District. Mr. VanDyke stated it had to do with the way they named the Overlay District
which was Historic/Commercial Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay District; and
this was confusing because it is overlaying two separate Districts. He stated it will allow
a TND as an Overlay, and it does allow for Commercial uses. He stated parcels over five
acres must be a mixed use development so that they cannot have all commercial or all
Ms. Helen Heinz stated with regard to Mr. Broadway and Mr. Cylinder’s comments, she
feels historically the first plan she saw for
Master Plan was done in 1996, and it was the design of the
She stated since then they have been working with the Plan to try to make it happen. She
stated she has personally worked on this for ten years. She stated they identified key
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 10 of 12
potential developers and have been working with them specifically to see what would fit
and what kind of Traditional Neighborhood Development they could get. She stated the
next step is working with individual homeowners if they choose to make their properties
Commercial and how these will fit in. She stated if they do not choose to do anything,
they do not have to do anything; and they could stay exactly the way they are. She stated
if they want to sell their property and get into this sort of thing, they can do so. She
stated at the last meeting they discussed boundaries on
that they are not including the
they could install somewhere in the TND an optional statement such that should adjacent
properties wish to come in, that they could. Mr. Donaghy stated they cannot do it that
way. He stated they could make it part of the Overlay and then opt in or opt out; but you
cannot allow parcels not within the Overlay District to opt into the District. Ms. Heinz
stated they discussed doing a second Overlay; but recognizing that this portion has taken
ten years, she is concerned that may never happen.
Ms. Michelle Stambaugh asked why the parcel was not included since it is in the Historic
District, and Ms. Heinz stated it is on the Register. Mr. Donaghy stated the Planning
Commission could recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they include the Masonic
stated he does not feel it should be included at this time and would prefer that parcel and
the lands south of
District because they are very complex dealing with larger scale buildings. He agrees
that these would be good opportunities for mixed use development, but there are other
issues including the fact that they are butting up against large Residential Districts. He
stated he does feel they could segue it so it fits nicely, but feels that is a separate study.
He stated the Historic Commission has looked into this and would like to pursue this as
their next step. He stated they do have people who are waiting to start building.
Ms. Heinz stated the
she is not sure how this will affect that status; and Mr. Donaghy stated it is not affected at
all by this. Ms. Heinz asked that the Planning Commission please take action as she feels
it is time to get it before the Board of Supervisors and get something going.
Mr. Cylinder asked the next step, and Mr. VanDyke stated they would continue working
with the Applicant to assist them in bringing their Applications before the Township
consistent with the guidelines that are in the Ordinance. Mr. VanDyke stated if the
Budget permits, they would start the Overlay for the areas just described such as the
Mr. Cylinder noted the Plan on the Website, and stated this is not a Plan that was
officially approved. Mr. Majewski stated the Board of Supervisors did adopt the
Edgewood Village Design Guidelines a number of years ago, and the purpose of these
Zoning amendments are to allow that Plan to be implemented. He stated two years ago
the Board amended the Zoning Ordinance for the Historic Commercial District, and now
they are considering the Overlay to further enhance that to allow a little more flexibility
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 11 of 12
to do what was envisioned in the Edgewood Village Design Guidelines. Mr. Donaghy
stated the only Official Plan that a Municipality does prior to adoption of Zoning
Ordinances is the Comprehensive Plan, although the Municipality is not obligated to
follow that Plan. Mr. Cylinder stated it could be said that this is a revision of the
Comprehensive Plan, but Mr. Donaghy stated this is incorrect as that is a completely
separate procedure. Mr. Majewski stated the Comprehensive Plan did include the
Edgewood Village Design Guidelines and also recommendations to consider alternate
Zoning techniques such as a Traditional Neighborhood Development. Mr. Cylinder
asked if what is now being proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it
Commission worked with the Bucks County Planning Commission to develop the Policy
Statement of the Comprehensive Plan to make sure it jibed, and it also jibes with the
Design Guidelines which were approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. VanDyke
stated the Master Plan will be developed incrementally. He stated anything that has to do
with the public realm must be consistent with the Design Guidelines which come under
the purview of the Historic Commission.
Mr. Broadway stated the buildings are deteriorating in Woodside. He stated they are
afraid to touch them because they are not sure what the Township is going to do. He
stated he has discussed selling his property, and no one will touch it because they are not
sure what the Township is going to do.
Mr. Bush stated Ms. Heinz raised the issue of the Masonic Hall and asked if there are any
other historic structures which are not included but are historic structures. Mr. VanDyke
Mr. VanDyke stated there are sixteen historic structures in the Historic District, but there
are also a number of structures that are not historic but are contributing.
Mr. Bush moved, Mr. Cylinder seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend
to the Board of Supervisors approval of Final Version 8 with the changes discussed this
evening as submitted 4/23/07 with clarification of green roofs and correction of two
May 14, 2007 Planning Commission – page 12 of 12
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200 OF THE TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF SIGNS IN THE TOWNSHIP BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XIIIB THAT PROVIDES FOR THE CREATION OF AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE “SOPAS SPECIAL OFF-PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT” WHICH SHALL
ALLOW CERTAIN SPECIAL OFF-PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGNS AS A PERMITTED USE IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS OF THE TOWNSHIP AND TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE XIX RELATED TO PLACEMENT OF SIGNS ON TOWNSHIP OWNED OR CONTROLLED PROPERTY
It was noted the Planning Commission did receive the latest version of this proposed
Ordinance. Comments from the Bucks County Planning Commission dated 5/2/07 were
noted particularly with regard to definitions, and Mr. Donaghy stated he feels these are
Mr. Bush noted there was a previous question about spot zoning, and Mr. Donaghy stated
he does not feel it would be considered spot zoning. Mr. Bush stated there was also a
question about the size of the signs, and he stated it has changed from 300 square feet to
302 square feet. Mr. Donaghy stated he did review this with Mr. Magyar who drafted it,
and he indicated he got this information from other Ordinances and some information
from outdoor advertisers as to size. Mr. Bush asked if the other Ordinances have been
challenged, and Mr. Donaghy stated he feels nothing in regard to this size has been
Mr. Cylinder asked about distances from Interchanges, and Mr. Majewski stated it
indicates that they cannot be within 500’ from any street or road.
Mr. Pazdera moved, Mr. Cylinder seconded and it was unanimously carried to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption of the Sign Ordinance Amendment as
attached to the letter from Curtin & Heefner dated 4/18/07 with correction as
recommended by the Bucks County Planning Commission in their letter dated 5/2/07
Section 200-50.2.D.(7) to include addition of Native Plant Ordinance.
There being no further business, Mr. Pazdera moved, Mr. Cylinder seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Dean Dickson, Chairman