NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD
MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE
NEWTOWN, PA 18940
MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2005
Approval of Minutes: Mrs. Laughlin moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 2005. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, March 3, 2005, in the Newtown Township Building. In attendance and voting were: William Wall, Chairman; Mario Lionetti, Vice Chairman; Victoria Bowe, Secretary; Gail Laughlin and John Lenihan, members. Also in attendance were: James J. Auchinleck, Jr., Esq., Solicitor; Thomas Harwood, Zoning Officer and Donna De’Angelis, Stenographer.
Call to Order
Mr. Wall called the meeting to Order at 7:35 PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance
The agenda was reviewed.
Application of Thomas and Lynn Brabazon – 14 Eldridge Road
Application of Todd and Melissa Trice – 351 Eagle Road
Application of Yoga Sphere L.L.C. – Lovett Barn - South Eagle Road
Continued Application of Arthur Micchelli – 51 Autumn Drive
Application of Brandywine Realty Trust – Silver Lake Road
Approval of Minutes
Mrs. Laughlin moved to approve the minutes of February 3, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Thomas and Lynn Brabazon
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Thomas and Lynn Brabazon requesting a variance from Section 401 (B)&(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit subdivision of a 6.5125 acre parcel into two lots one with 2.623 acres where three acres is required and one with a lot width of 174.02 feet where 200 feet is required. The subject property is 14 Eldridge Road, Newtown, in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-7-23.
Mr. Don Marshall represented the applicants.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone wished to be party to the application.
Mr. Auchinleck explained to those residents in attendance that if they wish to be party to the application they would have the right to cross-examine the applicant and any of his witnesses, present evidence and witnesses, and make any statement concerning the application. Should they disagree with the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board, party status would give them the right to appeal the decision. Anyone present not wishing party status would be allowed to make statements for or against the application after the hearing and before a decision is rendered.
Ms. Heather Roberts of 541 Washington Crossing Road requested party status and was sworn in.
Mr. Thomas Brabazon was sworn in.
Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-1 a copy of the plan for sub-division and Exhibit A-2, the deed to the property.
Mr. Marshall said that the property at 14 Eldridge Road is 6.5125 acres in the Conservation Management district. It had been a riding academy. The property currently has a stone farmhouse and a barn. The Brabazons would like to divide the lot into two lots, one 3.56 acres the other 2.623 acres.
Mr. Brabazon said that because his property is long and narrow, he has only 390 feet of frontage. It would be impossible to divide the property to allow 200 feet of frontage for each lot, as required by the ordinance. He had consulted Pickering Corts and Sommerson, Engineers, and they had recommended the unusual angle of the lot line in order to avoid crossing Bowmansville soils for a driveway.
Mr. Marshall Entered as Exhibit A-3 a letter to Newtown Sewer expressing interest in hooking both lots to the public sewer that is to be extended to this area of the Township.
Mr. Marshall said that the Brabazons would agree to conditions that they tie into public sewers; that the property not be further subdivided, and that the driveway and entrance to lot number one not be through the wooded area of the property.
Ms. Roberts said that in the 55 years that her father has owned their property there has been no change in the elevations of either theirs or the Brabazons’ properties, however in recent years, with the development of the surrounding areas, they have had a significant increase of water flow onto their property. They had drainage culverts and ditches along the old route 523, however the Brabazons have filled in the ditches on their side of the drive. Ms. Roberts said that the land that would be the new lot has become very swampy. She and her family are very concerned that the water problems will increase with further development, and that it might be perceived as a problem caused in some way by her family. She asked that the record reflect that this is the condition of the property prior to subdivision. She said that her family does not object to the subdivision of this lot if it is understood that they are not in any way responsible for the current swampy conditions.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that the subdivision would still have to go through the land development process, at which time storm water management would be addressed.
Mr. Auchinleck asked if the new home is to be built toward the rear of the lot, and if the driveway would cross waters of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Marshall said that the home would be built to the rear of the lot with a 125-foot driveway. The driveway does not cross any waters of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Harwood had no comment.
Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 401 (B)&(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit subdivision of a 6.5125 acre parcel into two lots one with 2.623 acres where three acres is required and one with a lot width of 174.02 feet where 200 feet is required with the conditions that there be no further subdivision of the property; that both lots hook up to the public sewers; and that the driveways be located so as not to disturb wetlands and woodlands. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Todd and Melissa Trice
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Todd and Melissa Trice, owners, requesting a variance from Section 401 (C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a single family residence with no side yard set back for lots 43 and 38-1 where 50 feet is required. The subject property is 351 Eagle Road, Newtown, in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-19-38-1, 29-19-43, 29-19-45, and 29-19-46.
Mr. Marshall represented the applicant for this application.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Marshall explained that the Trices had combined several parcels to form this 3.13-acre lot. He entered as Exhibit A-1 the deeds to the properties and as Exhibit A-2 the tax map for the area.
Mr. Marshall explained that with the combination of these lots to produce one property, and with the recent development of Amy Circle and Sibelius Road, the Trice property is now considered to front onto Amy Circle. Although the property is addressed as 351 Eagle Road, and access to the property is through an easement on Eagle Road, the property has no frontage on Eagle Road.
Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-3 a plan of the lot, with the permitted building envelope outlined in red, Exhibit A-4 a plan the new house and the old house footprint, Exhibit A-5, the plan of the existing house and Exhibit A-6 the proposed new house with setbacks noted. He explained that the Trices would like to demolish their 1800 square-foot home and build a 4000 square foot home. He noted that the plans show Alto Road, Mannerheim Road and old Sibelius Road. Mannerheim and Alto Roads have been abandoned, and what had been a portion of Sibelius Road is now Amy Circle. The new house would move the footprint 18 feet closer to Amy Circle than the existing house. By removing the existing house, the property loses its non-conformity. A special exception would have been needed to renovate the existing house.
Mr. Harwood had no comment.
Mr. Lenihan moved to grant variance from Section 401 (C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a single family residence with no side yard set back for lots 43 and 38-1 where 50 feet is required. Mr. Lionetti seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Yoga Sphere L.L.C.
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Yoga Sphere L.L.C. c/o Laura Rothstein, Newtown Center Associates c/o Robert Sasha, owner, requesting a variance from Section 602 (A) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a C-3 Commercial School Use in the PC district where such use is not permitted. The subject property is 3rd Floor Lovett Barn, Village at Newtown South, Newtown, in the PC- Planned Commercial District Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-10-85-6.
Mr. Marshall represented the applicant for this application.
Ms. Laura Rothstein was sworn in.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-1 the lease for unit 2D of the Lovett Barn, Exhibit A-2, the plot plan, and Exhibit A-3 the floor plan for the third floor.
Mr. Marshall said that Ms. Rothstein would like to open a yoga studio with a small area for retail sale of yoga products. After some discussion with Mr. Harwood it was decided that this would be use C-3, a commercial school, which is not permitted in the PC Planned Commercial District. He said that both a Karate Studio and a Health Club have been granted variances as use C-3 in the Village at Newtown.
Ms. Rothstein said that she would conduct yoga classes on seven mornings and 4 early evenings a week. She did not think that there would be a problem with parking, as her hours of business would not be the same as LaStalla’s restaurant busy hours. She would not be open on Friday or Saturday evenings. She would sell some yoga mats to the students. She hopes to have about ten students per class.
The floor plan shows an open space that Ms. Rothstein said she would divide into restrooms a studio area and a reception/retail sales area. There would be a maximum of two employees on the premises.
In response to Mr. Lionetti’s questions, Ms. Rothstein said the studio would be open from 9:30 AM to 1:00 PM seven days, and 6:00 to 8:30 PM four evenings. She said that she thought the space would be better suited for this use than for retail sales because it is on the third floor. The space has elevator access from the ground level and internal stairs from the second floor to the third. The external stairs only go to the second floor. There are two exits, but there is not a fire escape.
Mr. Lenihan asked about the number and length of classes.
Ms. Rothstein said that classes are one hour to seventy-five minutes long. There would be two classes each morning and one or two in the evenings.
Mr. Harwood had no comment.
Mr. Lawrence Hamer, a resident of Newtown, questioned whether there are different safety requirements for schools. He asked whether the third floor is handicapped accessible.
Mr. Marshall said that the elevator runs from the ground level, making it compliant for handicapped access. He also noted that there is a sprinkler system in the building.
In response to Mr. Lenihan’s questions, Ms. Rothstein said that she would have adult students. There is a possibility of having one or two classes for children, or an occasional family class. There would be no summer camp programs.
Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 602 (A) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a C-3 Commercial School Use in the PC district where such use is not permitted. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Continued Application of Arthur Micchelli
Mr. Auchinleck reminded the Board that this application for construction of a three-car garage had been read into the record at the February 3, 2005 meeting, but had been continued at that time. No testimony had been given.
Mr. Wall recused himself from participation in this application, as Mr. Micchelli is a client of his business.
Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone present wished to be party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Arthur Micchelli and Mr. George Baker, Contractor on the project were sworn in.
Mr. Micchelli explained that he would like to build a three car garage on his property and at the same time legalize a front patio extension and a parking pad for his motorcycle trailer that have already been installed. With the addition of the garage, his impervious surface area would be 9016 square feet, or 17.48%. He would also like a variance for setbacks because his property has a large drainage swale, and this makes only a small area available for the construction.
Mr. Lenihan said that he visited the site and noted two sheds, one with an air conditioner, in the backyard. He asked if these are to be removed. He also asked whether the trailer could be stored in the garage.
Mr. Micchelli said that both sheds would be removed. He said that he would use the garage for storage of motorcycles and a collectible car. The pad is still needed for the trailer.
In response to Mr. Lionetti’s question, Mr. Micchelli said that he did not think he could locate the new garage closer to his house because he has a very long driveway, and he wanted to provide enough room for cars to turn around and drive out, rather than back out of his driveway.
In response to Mrs. Laughlin’s question, Mr. Micchelli said that the garage would not be in the swale at all. The swale brings water away from the rear yard of his property.
Mr. Micchelli entered a packet of exhibits:
§ Exhibit A-1 - Deed to property
§ Exhibit A-2 - Site Plan
§ Exhibit A-3 - photographs of property
§ Exhibit A-4 - elevation rendering
§ Exhibit A-5 - Garage floor plan
§ Exhibit A-6 – letters of support from surrounding neighbors
§ Exhibit A-7 – Site location map
Mr. Micchelli said that his home backs onto the Brandywine/Newtown Corporate Center site, and he has included letters of support from his surrounding residential neighbors.
Mr. Harwood had no comment.
Mrs. Laughlin moved to grant a variance from Section 401 (B) and (C) Norwalk of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 3-car detached garage and driveway resulting in a 17.48% impervious surface ratio where the maximum allowed is 15%, a 22' side yard setback (52' aggregate) 50' is required by ordinance (25' [60' aggregate] by Norwalk final plan), and a 10 feet 4.25 inch rear yard where 60 feet is required by ordinance (40 feet by Norwalk Final Plan). Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Wall abstaining.
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Brandywine Realty Trust, Upper Silver Lake Associates, L.P. owners requesting a variance from Section 905 Exhibit B section 5 of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a small amount of backwater to flow on to adjoining properties or a de minimus variance to allow a small amount of backwater to flow onto adjacent properties and a Special Exception under Section 905(B)(5) and 905(IV)(B) to allow construction of a bridge and public road within the floodplain. The subject property is Silver Lake Road, Newtown, in the OR - Office Research Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-10-76.
Mr. Michael Coughlin represented the applicant.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be party to the application.
Mr. David Sander said that he would represent Newtown Township as party in support of the application.
Mr. Herbert Sudfeld said that he represents Christopher Mallon of 9 Claire Drive, who would like party status against the application.
Mr. Paul Beckert said that he represents Larry Fyock of 45 Autumn Drive, who would like party status against the application.
Mr. Coughlin said that both parties reside more than 500 feet from the proposed flood-plain crossing.
Mr. Beckert said that he would stipulate to that, however both parties’ properties abut the Brandywine property.
Mr. Coughlin said that this is an application for a floodplain crossing. This Board had granted a variance for a similar application in 2002, but because of a “quirk” in the Ordinance, the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision was overturned on appeal.
Mr. Coughlin said that Brandywine Realty Trust had developed the 106,000 square-foot ICT building at Lindenhurst Road and the Newtown By-Pass. Brandywine also acquired the 58.77-acre Roberts Tract, which adjoins the ICT site. He showed Brandywine’s development plan for the Roberts tract, which would contain five office buildings, with a total of 414,000 square-feet of office space. As per the recommendation of McMahon Associates, in its study prepared for Newtown Township and Lower Makefield Township in 1998, the development, to be known as Newtown Corporate Center, would be accessed through a fully signalized entrance from the Newtown By-Pass and through a secondary entrance at Upper Silver Lake Road at Penns Trail North. A loop road through the Corporate Center, known as Brandywine Boulevard, would connect the By-Pass to Upper Silver Lake/Penns Trail North, and would alleviate some of the traffic build-up at Lindenhurst Road. Because the lower portion of the property is bisected by Core Creek, it would be necessary to build a bridge, similar to the bridge crossing the creek on the By-Pass. The plans presented show a 150-foot bridge whose abutments are located within the floodplain. The bridge has been located at a point on the property where the floodplain is at its narrowest, at 400 feet wide. The bridge and road would connect to an already existing stub road on the property, for which the Township has been granted an easement.
Mr. Coughlin said that this plan had been granted Preliminary Plan Approval on February 2, 2003. He reviewed the history of the challenge to the variance granted by the Zoning Hearing Board in July of 2002. He said that the ordinance had permitted building in a floodplain in one section of the ordinance, and in another section said that building would not be permitted if there were an increase in the 100-year floodplain. The Ordinance was upheld on appeal and the variance was denied by Judge Rubenstein in the Court of Common Pleas. This decision meant that there could not be any building in any floodplain within the jointure. The Commonwealth Court affirmed Judge Rubenstein’s decision.
Mr. Coughlin then reviewed the amendment to the Ordinance, noting that Newtown Township and the Jointure had amended the Ordinance to permit building in the floodplain by special exception with an increase in the floodplain of less than one foot. The amendment was dated July of 2004. “Less than one foot” is the DEP standard. There had been a challenge to this amendment as contract zoning, and this Zoning Hearing Board upheld the amended Ordinance in October of 2004.
Mr. Coughlin read from Section 905 (B) of the amended ordinance, “…In areas where a detailed Flood Insurance Study has been completed, a rise of no greater than one (1) foot in the hundred year flood elevation will be permitted, provided that there shall be no use, activity, or development in the floodway. In areas where no detailed Flood Insurance Study has been completed, a rise of one (1) foot above the natural flood elevation will be allowed provided that the rise is contained within the property limits of the applicant. No backwater shall be allowed to flood an adjoining property.”
Mr. Coughlin said that Brandywine is within the studied area. He said that it is his position that “no backwater shall be allowed to flood an adjoining property” refers to the areas where no detailed study has been completed. An independent engineering study was conducted by Thomas Smith of Conyer and Smith to confirm the work of Nave Newell. Both studies confirm that the proposed bridge, 150 feet long, will cause a rise in the base flood elevation of .63 feet. This number is a reduction from the 125-foot bridge submitted for a variance in 2002, which caused an elevation of .99 feet.
Mr. Sander said that he was in attendance to represent the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors in support of this application. He said that it is the practice of the Board of Supervisors to review all applications to the Zoning Hearing Board to determine whether the Board should send its solicitor. The Board only chooses to send its solicitor when an application has a very great impact on the Township.
Mr. Sander said that when the court reversed the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision, it precluded Brandywine, and all other property owners in the Township, from making any improvements in the floodplain. The Jointure enacted the amendment to the Ordinance to allow an increase in the floodplain of under one foot in a studied area. If the Ordinance had read this way in 2002, the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision would not have been overturned. The 2002 decision had already addressed the question of backwater, and this portion of the Ordinance has not been amended and was not part of the overturning. He urged the Board to be consistent with its 2002 decision. Brandywine is seeking less intrusive relief than in 2002. He asked that the Zoning Hearing Board grant the variance.
Mr. Sudfeld urged the Board to base its decision on this application only, and not review the overturned decision of 2002.
Mr. Beckert reminded the Board that the 2002 decision had been overturned by the Court of Common Pleas and in the Commonwealth Court based on the Ordinance’s requirement that there be no rise in the floodplain in a studied area. These courts never considered the question of backwater. They based their decisions on the portion of the Ordinance that did not allow for a rise in the floodplain in a studied area. The portion of the Ordinance that does not allow backwater onto another property has not been changed. This portion refers to both studied areas and areas where a detailed flood study has not been conducted.
Mr. Beckert said that there is no hardship here. The property is not rendered useless if relief is not granted. Brandywine purchased the property after losing the appeal to allow the bridge. The Ordinance as it is today clearly says that Brandywine cannot meet the requirements.
Mr. Coughlin offered the following exhibits:
§ Exhibit A-1 – Deed to the property
§ Exhibit A-2 – Zoning Hearing Board Decision of August 1, 2002
§ Exhibit A-3 – Letter from Stephen Harris, Township Solicitor to Tony Remikis, Senior Vice-President of Brandywine, confirming preliminary plan approval
§ Exhibit A-4 JMZO Ordinance 2004-03 - amendment to floodplain provisions
§ Exhibit A-5 – Letter from Daniel Doorley to Mr. Lionetti supporting application
Mr. Coughlin read into the record Exhibit A-5, a letter dated February 25, 2005, in which Mr. Doorley, owner of Mill Race Office Campus, states that his property, upstream of Brandywine, would be directly affected by any backwater. His engineers, D.S. Winokur Associates, have reviewed the drainage proposals of Brandywine and agree with them. Mr. Doorley states that he is comfortable with this plan and supports the granting of a variance.
Mr. Beckert objected to the acceptance of Exhibit A-2, as irrelevant, Exhibit A-5 as hearsay and Exhibit A-4 as having the wrong ordinance number.
Mr. Sander said that the Township ordinance number is 2004-13, however the Jointure number is correct as 2004-03.
Mr. Coughlin said that the strict rules of evidence do not apply at the Zoning Hearing Board and that Mr. Winokur is present to testify.
Mr. Auchinleck accepted Exhibits A1, A-3, A-4 and A-5, and said he would review the relevance of A-2 and decide later.
Mr. George C. Newell was sworn in.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-6 the Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Newell, a civil engineer with Nave Newell and in charge of the Brandywine Project.
Mr. Auchinleck accepted Mr. Newell as an expert witness.
Mr. Coughlin entered as exhibit A-7 the site plan for Newtown Corporate Center.
Mr. Newell reviewed the location of the property, marking the location of Mill Race Office Complex and CAU on the site plan. He reviewed the location of Brandywine Boulevard, connecting the Newtown By-Pass to the Penns Trail North Extension. He said that Brandywine Boulevard had been aligned with Penns Trail North at the direction of the Township.
Mr. Newell marked the stub road on the site plan. He said that this road provides entrance to both the ICT building and the Robert/Brandywine property. The ICT building property is to become a part of Newtown Corporate Center when the Brandywine property is developed. The stub road currently exists as a right in, right out access to ICT. Brandywine has provided an easement to the Township at the Township’s request.
Mr. Newell said that the 414,000 square foot office-building complex is a permitted use in the OR Office Research Zoning District, and this plan has received Preliminary Plan Approval.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-8 the Final Plan for Newtown Commons (ICT Building), reading aloud note number 19, which confirms the Township’s easement of the stub road.
Mr. Newell pointed to the proposed crossing of Core Creek on exhibit A-7, noting that the proposed bridge would be 150 feet from abutment to abutment, what is known as a free-span bridge. By comparison, the bridge on the By-Pass is 130 feet long. He said that a special exception is needed to build the roadway, and a variance, if the Ordinance is interpreted to mean that a variance is necessary.
Mr. Beckert objected, saying that the interpretation of the Ordinance is a legal question.
Mr. Auchinleck overruled the objection.
Mr. Newell said that it is impossible to build a bridge without some backwater. There will be a small amount of backwater on the Mill Race and CAU properties. The location for this bridge was chosen to connect with the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Beckert objected to this statement as hearsay.
Mr. Coughlin said that the engineer who conducted the 1998 study would testify. He said that the study had input from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Pennsylvania DEP, and PennDoT. It is the narrowest part of the floodplain at 396 feet.
Mr. Beckert objected to mention of DEP and PennDoT as hearsay. He said that Mr. Coughlin would need to present letters confirming their input.
Mr. Coughlin said that their input was given at meetings early in the planning.
Mr. Auchinleck overruled the objection.
Mr. Newell said that at meetings with PennDoT, DEP, Newtown Township and the Jointure, this location was chosen. He said that Brandywine Boulevard would connect at the stub road to the By-Pass. There will be a break in the highway, and a fully signalized traffic intersection will be created.
Mr. Newell said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for monitoring flood plains, manages the national flood insurance program, and conducts or approves flood studies. FEMA had conducted a detailed flood study from the By-Pass to Lindenhurst Road in the 1960’s, and possibly at the time of the By-Pass crossing. There is no detailed flood study for Core Creek east of Lindenhurst Road. The Ordinance requires a pre and post construction comparison of storm water management, requiring a direct match of pre and post construction conditions. Because this project includes basins larger that are required, the post construction analysis shows a 25% improvement in storm water management.
Mr. Newell reviewed the meaning of a 100-year storm as a storm with a 1% chance of occurring during a year. He said that the floodplain is defined as a cross-section that shows the volume of water flowing in a 100-year storm. Where the water spreads delineates the 100-year floodplain.
Mr. Newell said that no construction would be in the floodway. He said that he was awaiting a permit from the DEP, but did not anticipate any problems.
Mr. Beckert objected.
Mr. Newell said that at this time he is not aware of any problems.
Mr. Newell said that the proposed bridge would be anchored firmly; would not cause damage to life or property; would not create a danger of materials being swept away; would provide an important public service to the community; would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the vicinity; will be accessible to emergency vehicles in times of flood; would not materially increase the height, velocity, duration, rate of rise, or sediment transport of flood water at the site; will not create a nuisance; and will not result in extraordinary public expense.
Mr. Beckert objected.
Mr. Auchinleck overruled Mr. Beckert’s objection.
Mr. Newell said that the purpose of this road and bridge is to provide access from a major roadway to the site without taxing a local road. The road cannot be constructed without the bridge. He repeated that a bridge could not be built in the floodplain without some displacement of water and some rise in the flood elevation. With this bridge the rise will be less than one foot.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-9 a plan showing the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain.
Using this plan, Mr. Newell showed that the area of change in the flood elevation would be a maximum of .63 feet, or 7 inches. Referring to the chart at the bottom of Exhibit A-9, he explained how the rise in the flood elevation diminishes farther upstream of the bridge. He said that the area of backwater onto the Mill Race property would be 1750 square feet, and onto CAU property would be 3700 square feet.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-10 an Aerial Plan for Newtown Corporate Center. He noted that the plan was prepared before Penns Trail had been extended. It does not show Wiltshire Walk development or the Reserve development.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-11 an acetate overlay for the aerial plan to show the proposed Newtown Corporate Center.
Mr. Auchinleck asked that the parties break for the evening and continue this hearing at the April 7, 2005 meeting. He said that if necessary a special meeting could be held on April 14, 2005.
Mr. Lionetti moved to continue the application of Brandywine Realty Trust to April 7, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lenihan moved to adjourn at 11:10 PM. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mary Donaldson, Recording Secretary