MINUTES – MAY 14, 2007



The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Township of Lower Makefield

was held in the Municipal Building on May 14, 2007.  Chairman Dickson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.


Those present:


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





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.




Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney, was present with Craig and Barbara Radvany, the owners

of the property of slightly more than one acre on Stackhouse Drive.  They would like to

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

Planning Commission. 


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 Lot #1 which will contain the

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

Lot #2 if they had to replace a screen on that end of that porch.    Mr. Murphy stated they would comply with this request if the Planning Commission desires this.


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 Laurel Lane and Stackhouse

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 Silver Lake and Lakeview Drive to prevent sediment from

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 Lot #2.  Mr. Cylinder asked who would

have maintenance responsibility for this, and it was noted it would be the owner of Lot

#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

associated with Lot #2.


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.





Don Marshall, Attorney, was present with Mr. David Fleming Sr., and Mr. David

Fleming, Jr.  Mr. Marshall stated this property includes land in Lower Makefield,

Newtown, and Middletown.  He stated the Fleming family first acquired property in the

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 Lower Makefield is 92.296 acres; and it is zoned O/R. 

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 Lot #1 being 41.17 acres of vacant lane which will be 1031

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 Newtown and Middletown

Townships.  He stated Lot #2 size is specifically that size so that it complies with Section

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. 

He noted Lot #1 will be the corner lot which is vacant.


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 Florida, and has three daughters. 

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 Middletown. 


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 Bucks County

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 Lot #1 is

the parcel that could possibly be subjected to sale and is totally vacant.  He stated Lot #2

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





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 Edgewood Village which is a

historic section of Lower Makefield Township.  The idea was conceived in 1998 when

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

identify Edgewood Village as a destination within the Township, to encourage a

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-

Langhorne Road, and a small holding north of the Flowers Tract.  He stated they are

talking about an area that includes Yardley-Langhorne Road, a portion of Edgewood

Road, and Stony Hill Road.  The area is limited by Heacock Road and does not cross

Heacock Road to the south.  He stated it also includes an Overlay Zone which includes a

residential portion bounded by Stony Hill Road, areas to the south of the Flowers Tract,

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

Inn, Civic buildings, and signs as permitted in the Ordinance.  It also allows for

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

idea for Edgewood Village. 


Mr. David Broadway stated he is the owner of the corner property on Yardley-Langhorne

Road and Stony Hill Road.  He stated they have been discussing this for twenty-five

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, 1767 Yardley-Langhorne Road, stated at the last meeting they discussed

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 Yardley-Langhorne Road and Stony Hill Roads are State roads,

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, 755 Stony Hill Road, stated his property is in the triangle, and they

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 Edgewood Village was in 1980.  She stated a

Master Plan was done in 1996, and it was the design of the vision for Edgewood Village. 

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 Edgewood Village, and she sees

that they are not including the Masonic Temple.   She asked if there would be a way that

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

Temple in the Overlay District; but at this point, it does not include it.  Mr. VanDyke

stated he does not feel it should be included at this time and would prefer that parcel and

the lands south of Heacock Road, McCaffrey, and Giant all addressed as a separate

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 Masonic Temple is on the National Register of Historic Places, and

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

Masonic Temple, McCaffrey and Giant so that there would be another Overlay District.

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

relates to Edgewood Village, and Mr. VanDyke stated it is.  He added he and the Historic

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

stated the Masonic Temple is not a historic structure but it is in the Historic District.

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






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

already covered.


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

knocked down.


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.


                                                            Respectfully Submitted,




                                                            Dean Dickson, Chairman