ZONING HEARING BOARD - SPECIAL MEETING
MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE
NEWTOWN, PA 18940
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005
Approval of Minutes: Mrs. Laughlin moved to accept the minutes of the Special Meeting of April 14, 2005. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board held a special meeting on Thursday, April 14, 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 Connie D’Argenio, Stenographer.
Call to Order
Mr. Wall called the meeting to Order at 7:35 PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance
Continued Application of Brandywine Realty Trust
Mr. Auchinleck informed the Board that he had spoken to all of the attorneys involved in this application in a conference call this week, reviewing the order of witnesses to be presented. One of Brandywine’s witnesses is unavailable this evening, and all have agreed to allow the hearing to proceed with witnesses presented out of order. Brandywine will present its last witness at a later date.
During the course of this conference call, the parties discussed certain documentation to support the testimony of expert witnesses. Brandywine has produced documentation for all of its witnesses, but has not been provided with documentation in return. Mr. Coughlin has stated that such documentation would be necessary for him to prepare to cross-examine the expert witnesses presented in opposition to this application. The parties were unable to come to an agreement. Mr. Auchinleck said that the Zoning Hearing Board would decide on this issue on a witness-by-witness basis. If the Board decides that documentation is necessary for its own use or for Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Sander to prepare for cross-examination, then the documentation would be produced and the expert witness would be required to return at a later date for cross-examination.
Mr. Coughlin entered as exhibit A-25 a Special Warranty Deed showing that Brandywine Operating Partnership is the owner of the ICT property. He noted that Exhibit A-1 shows Brandywine Operating Partnership as the owner of the property that is the subject of this application.
Mr. Coughlin moved to enter Exhibit A-1, Exhibits A-3 through 12, and Exhibits A-18 through A-23.
Mr. Auchinleck said that Exhibits A-1, 3, 4 and 5 had already been accepted.
Mr. Beckert objected to Exhibit A-23, the series of photographs of the affected areas of the CAU and Mill Race properties.
Mr. Cappuccio objected to Exhibit A-5 and Exhibit A-23.
Mr. Auchinleck said that Exhibit A-5 had already been admitted. He overruled the objections and accepted Exhibits A-6 through A-12, A-18 through A-23 and Exhibit A-25.
Mr. Coughlin said that he had subpoenaed documents from Mr. Beckert and Mr. Cappuccio on Tuesday by e-mail, and had received a response from Mr. Beckert saying that he had no information, but had not heard from Mr. Cappuccio.
Mr. Cappuccio said that he would respond, but had not had sufficient time.
Mr. Cappuccio said that on the transcript of the April 7, 2005 meeting, he noted a misquote on page 56. He said that line 18 should read “…scale if you need it…7 feet” The transcript reads, “…17 feet”. He also noted that during the conference call he had objected to taking witnesses out of order. He said that cross-examination should occur directly after testimony, and recalling expert witnesses at a later date would be very expensive for his client.
Mr. Auchinleck repeated that this would be dealt with on a witness-by-witness basis.
Mr. Daniel Winokur was sworn in.
Mr. Coughlin entered as exhibit A-24 Mr. Winokur’s curriculum vitae.
Mr. Winokur said that he is an engineer and land surveyor, licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and has been president of D.S. Winokur Associates, Inc. since 1976. He has worked extensively in land development and flood plain analysis, and has qualified as an expert witness in court proceedings about 70 times. He had appeared before this Board two or three times, many years ago.
Mr. Winokur was accepted as an expert witness.
Mr. Winokur said that he had been retained by Mill Race Office Campus, LP, to review the flood plain study prepared by Nave Newell, and to analyze the impact of the proposed bridge on the Mill Race property. He has attended the two prior hearings on this application, and concurs that the increase in backwater onto the Mill Race property would be .63 inches and would dissipate to zero at 390 feet. In a 100-year storm the area of Mill Race property impacted would be 1750 square feet.
Mr. Winokur said that the property currently consists of a house used as office space, a garage and a barn. He pointed out the location of these structures on Exhibit A-18. He noted that all structures are on the eastern portion of the property. There are plans, which have been granted final plan approval by the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors, for an 8800 square-foot two-story office building and a parking area for this property. The house will remain, but the garage and barn are to be demolished. The small increase in flood elevation during a 100-year storm would have no impact on any existing or proposed structures on the Mill Race property.
Mr. Cappuccio objected to the word “small” in characterizing the increase in the flood level.
Mr. Coughlin rephrased his question, and Mr. Winokur stated that the increase would have no impact on any existing or proposed structures on the Mill Race property. He said that he had prepared all plans for the improvements to the Mill Race property and had visited the western portion of the site, abutting the Brandywine property, on two or three occasions. He had observed that this area is wet and swampy.
Mr. Sander had no questions for this witness.
Mr. Cappuccio asked if Mr. Winokur had visited the site with topographic maps and inspected the boundary with the Brandywine property. He asked if Mr. Winokur could recall the exact dates. Mr. Cappuccio said that he had objected to Exhibit A-23 because those photographs had been taken during a week of heavy rain and he did not think that they showed typical conditions.
Mr. Winokur said that he had visited the boundary of the property about two or three times a few years ago, but he did not recall the exact dates. He again stated that it is his opinion that the increase in flood levels would not have an adverse impact on any existing or proposed structures on the Mill Race property.
Mr. Cappuccio asked Mr. Winokur if he had reviewed the increase in the volume of water if the Brandywine project is built, and if he would agree that this increase of 2.8 million gallons would affect the flood plain downstream of the project.
Mr. Winokur said that he had reviewed the peak flow volume and that the increase would not affect the flood plain downstream of the project.
Mr. Beckert asked if Mr. Winokur had reviewed the stormwater analysis that had been prepared by Nave Newell in 2002.
Mr. Winokur said that he had not reviewed the 2002 analysis.
Mr. Beckert asked Mr. Winokur who had hired him to do his analysis and why, and who was paying him to be here tonight.
Mr. Winokur said that he had been hired by Mill Race Office Campus, LP, and that Mr. Doorley, a Mill Race partner, had paid for his services.
In response to Mr. Beckert’s questions, Mr. Winokur said that when he conducted his field studies for Mill Race he had not checked to see if the topography on his study matches that of the Nave Newell study. He has not visited this site in about a year, and does not recall in what season his visit had been. Mill Race was given final plan approval about a year and a half ago. The only agreement that he is aware of between Mill Race and Brandywine is an access easement.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s question, Mr. Winokur said that Mill Race has had an easement to access Lindenhurst Road through the ICT property. This easement had been in place since before the final plan approval for the proposed Mill Race expansion project. There are also mutual storm water easements between the two properties.
In response to Mr. Auchinleck’s questions, Mr. Winokur said that the proposed Mill Race parking lot would be in the flood plain, and would experience a few inches of water during a 100-year storm. The increase in flood elevation caused by the proposed bridge would not be in the parking lot, as the proposed lot is on the eastern part of the property, and the 1750 square feet affected by the bridge is on the western portion.
In response to Mr. Lionetti’s question, Mr. Winokur said that the Mill Race property is about 2000 feet wide from Lindenhurst Road to the Brandywine property line.
Mr. Mark Roth was sworn in.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-13 the curriculum vitae of Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth said that he has a degree in civil engineering from Drexel University, and that he is licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is employed by McMahon and Associates as a traffic engineer, managing the traffic engineering group, supervising 15 engineers. He has testified as an expert witness about 25 times, including before this Board in 2002. He has conducted private traffic studies for commercial and municipal clients. He has reviewed Highway Occupancy Plans for districts 6 and 8 for PennDoT. He was the traffic engineer for this project as well as for the ICT project.
Mr. Roth said that before being retained by Brandywine, McMahon and Associates had been retained by Lower Makefield and Newtown Townships to conduct the “Alternatives Analysis Study OR Zoning District”. This study looked at the full build out of the Office Research district to recommend roadway and intersection improvements and to prepare an analysis.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-14 excerpts of the relevant portions of the study. Mr. Coughlin said that he has the full study if the Board feels it is necessary to enter the entire study.
Mr. Auchinleck said that he would prefer to accept only the excerpts, but asked that the full study be provided to opposing council. He said he would make a determination later.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Roth said that McMahon used existing and projected traffic counts to determine access alternatives for Newtown and Lower Makefield. McMahon recommended four alternatives. Recommendation number 3 includes intersection improvements and a connector road between Newtown Yardley Road and Penns Trail with the by-pass. Of the 315 acres in the Office Research district, McMahon projected that about 200 acres would be developed as office space. Mr. Roth did not know the exact square footage that was used in the study. He read into the record from page 63 of the McMahon study:
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s question, Mr. Roth said that Newtown Township has taken official action on this recommendation by construction of Penns Trail North and by granting preliminary plan approval to the connector road, which would be a Township road.
Mr. Roth explained that the proposed connector road would run through the Brandywine complex, connecting with Penns Trail North/Upper Silver Lake Road at one end, and the by-pass at the other. The by-pass connection would be fully signalized with a right turn and left turn lane on the by-pass to enter the road. Exiting the connector road there would be two left turn lanes and one right turn lane onto the by-pass. The existing median would be broken to access the Brandywine property at the existing stub road.
Mr. Roth said that at full build out of the Brandywine project the peak traffic flow in the morning would be 570 cars in an hour, and in the afternoon peak it would be 540 cars. Peak morning hours are between 7:00AM and 9:00 AM, and afternoon peaks are 4:00PM to 6:00 PM. He said that an estimate would be that 70% of cars would exit to the by-pass and 30% would exit to Upper Silver Lake Road.
Mr. Coughlin asked whether Brandywine has applied for a Highway Occupancy Permit from PennDoT, and what is involved in such an application.
Mr. Roth said that the Highway Occupancy Permit is needed whenever a new road accesses an existing state road. The traffic study and signal plan is reviewed. Brandywine’s signal plan has been approved, and he has had verbal confirmation that the technical design has been accepted and he expects the permit within the week.
Mr. Coughlin asked Mr. Roth what access would be available if the bridge cannot be built.
Mr. Roth said that without the bridge 100% of access would be through Upper Silver Lake Road. He said that he thought this was not a reasonable plan because Upper Silver Lake Road is a residential, not a commercial road. If the property were developed without the bridge it would have a much greater impact on the residential community. From a design standpoint the bridge accessing the by-pass to I-95 is a feasible alternative.
Referring to Exhibit A-14, the McMahon Study, Mr. Cappuccio asked if the study was conducted in 1997/1998. He noted that the study would then be seven years old.
Mr. Roth said that the study was begun in 1997 and completed in June of 1998.
Referring to page 63 of Exhibit A-14, Mr. Cappuccio asked if the traffic light described in Mr. Roth’s testimony was part of the study, or if any of the other bulleted items on that page were adopted.
Mr. Roth said that the traffic light is not part of Exhibit A-14’s recommendations, only the connector road. He said that as far as he was aware none of the other bulleted recommendation had been adopted by Newtown Township, only the extension of Penns Trail.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Roth said that the traffic study that projected 570 cars at the morning peak hour had been conducted in December of 2001, and included the Brandywine project.
Mr. Auchinleck asked that Mr. Cappuccio be provide with a copy of this 2001 traffic study. Mr. Coughlin agreed to provide copies to opposing council and to the Board.
Mr. Cappuccio said that the burden of traffic would be from the Brandywine development, and asked if Upper Silver Lake Road could handle additional traffic if the property were developed for residential use.
Mr. Roth said that he would have to do a study to determine whether Upper Silver Lake Road could handle the additional traffic from residential development of the property.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s question, Mr. Roth said that he worked for this Brandywine project and the ICT project. His firm has worked for Brandywine about 5 times, but he was not personally involved in any of the other projects, so was not familiar with their dates.
In response to Mr. Beckert’s questions, Mr. Roth said that he did not know the dates of his firm’s other work for Brandywine, and did not know if any of that work pre-dated the work done for the Newtown Township traffic analysis. He finished working on the Township project when the report was submitted in June of 1998. He was first retained by Brandywine in 1999 for the ICT project.
Mr. Beckert asked if Mr. Roth had designed the connector road described in the first bullet point on page 63 of Exhibit A-14. He asked if any of the other recommended bullet points had been adopted. He noted that the recommended connector road does not refer to a bridge or a signalized connection with the by-pass. He said that the second bullet point refers to a northern by-pass north of Twining Road, and asked if Mr. Roth was familiar with a plan called “Concept Way”.
Mr. Roth said that to his knowledge none of the other recommendations had been adopted. In response to Mr. Beckert’s question, Mr. Roth said that the traffic study had not been updated since 2001. The proposed bridge would be three lanes wide, although he was not sure if there would be three lanes of traffic. There would be two exit lanes at the stub road onto the bypass and one entrance lane. Mr. Roth repeated that between 7:00AM and 9:00AM there would be about 570 cars per hour entering the project, 70% from the by-pass and 30% from Upper Silver Lake Road.
Mr. Beckert said that if the project has 2000 parking spaces, then that would mean that 1400 cars would enter through the by-pass and 400 would enter through Upper Silver Lake Road. He asked if there would be a sequencing of the traffic lights to allow the cars to enter and exit.
Mr. Roth said that a different group was involved in the signal project and he did not know the particulars of length of cycle, however the lights would be synchronized with the light at Lindenhurst Road and the by-pass.
Mr. Auchinleck questioned the relevance of this line of questioning. He noted that the timing of traffic lights was regulated by PennDoT. He said that he did not think this was an appropriate line of questioning for this witness.
In response to Mr. Beckert’s questions, Mr. Roth said that he thought that the property’s frontage along Upper Silver Lake Road is about 1000 feet. He was not sure of sight distances, so he did not know if it would be possible to have two entrances onto Upper Silver Lake Road.
Mr. Coughlin asked Mr. Roth the number of projects that McMahon Associates had had with PennDoT.
Mr. Roth said that he thought that McMahon had been involved with the review of about a thousand Highway Occupancy Permits for PennDoT.
Mr. Wall asked the distance between the stub road and Lindenhurst Road.
Mr. Roth said that the distance between the two roads is about 800 feet.
Mr. Auchinleck asked Mr. Roth to discuss the total daily traffic for this project.
Mr. Roth said that the Institute of Transportation Engineers provides peak hour and daily trip calculations. He did not know how many of trips would be during the lunch hours. He said that the projected 2000 trips would include the lunch hour trips.
In response to Mr. Lionetti’s question, Mr. Roth said that the 2000 trips would be for the entire day from 7:00AM to 6:00PM. He did not know the total occupancy of the buildings, but the traffic study is conducted based on the square footage of the buildings.
Mr. Lionetti asked that the Board be provided with an estimate of the total number of employees expected to use the buildings.
In response to Mr. Wall’s question, Mr. Roth said that he had not studied the impact the increase in traffic would have on road maintenance, or its impact on the residential properties. In response to Mr. Auchinleck’s question, he said that those cars exiting at Upper Silver Lake Road and heading toward Penns Trail would meet a traffic light at the intersection with Newtown-Yardley Road.
In response to Mr. Beckert’s question Mr. Roth said that the study estimated that of the 30% of cars exiting the project through Upper Silver Lake Road, 1/3 would go north and 2/3’s would go south onto Penns Trail. The total count of cars in and out would be 2000 trips per full day, not 2000 trips in and 2000 trips out.
Mr. Beckert asked the distance from the light at Lindenhurst Road to the light at Newtown Yardley Road along the By-pass.
Mr. Roth estimated that the total distance from Lindenhurst to Newtown-Yardley Road is about 2800 feet. He said that there would be no back up of cars at the light. He was not sure of the number of cars per cycle but that it is a “D” level of service, which is an acceptable level.
Mr. Coughlin said that the Township Ordinance requires that the project provide 2000 parking spaces, or 5 per 1000 square feet of office space. He said that the number of employees would depend on the use of the buildings. He did not know that all of the 2000 parking spaces would be needed.
Mr. Coughlin asked that Exhibits A-13 and A-14 be accepted.
Mr. Beckert asked that the 2001 traffic study be provided and that the full McMahon study be provided.
Mr. Auchinleck said that he would prefer to accept just the excerpt entered as A-14, and would subpoena the full study if necessary.
Mr. Coughlin said that he would call Mr. Smith as a witness for Brandywine at the next meeting, and that he might have some rebuttal witnesses.
Mr. Sander called Thomas J. Fountain.
Mr. Fountain was sworn in.
Mr. Sander entered as Exhibit T-1 Mr. Fountain’s curriculum vitae.
Mr. Fountain said that he is a municipal engineer with Pennoni Associates, the Newtown Township engineers. He has worked for Pennoni for nine years. Jerry Smith is the Newtown Township primary contact with Pennoni. His experience has been in sub-division land development, traffic and stormwater management. As a municipal engineer he has reviewed stormwater management plans for a number of municipalities. He has been project manager on Act 167 plans. He has testified as an expert witness in stormwater management in about 20 cases.
Mr. Fountain was accepted as an expert witness.
In response to Mr. Sander’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that he reviewed the Nave Newell flood plain analysis dated February 3, 2005, as required by JMZO Section 905 Exhibit B.
Mr. Sander entered as Exhibit T-2 a letter to Robert Pellegrino, Newtown Township Manager, from Pennoni Associates, dated March 31, 2005.
In response to Mr. Sander’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that in this letter he supported the position taken by Nave Newell that the construction of the bridge would not adversely affect the adjacent properties upstream. He said that he agreed that the project complies with the regulations in the floodplain district; that the bridge would raise the 100-year floodwater level 0.63 feet immediately upstream of the bridge and that the effect would be attenuated to a zero increase at 350 feet. He agreed that there would be no adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare and that there would be no adverse impact on adjoining properties.
Mr. Cappuccio asked if Mr. Fountain believed that the plans meet the ordinance requirements on page 261 of the JMZO, that there would be no use or activity in the floodway.
Mr. Fountain said that using the analysis prepared by Nave Newell there would be no use or activity in the floodway.
Mr. Cappuccio referred to page 7 of 7 on the plans submitted with the application. He asked Mr. Fountain to determine how far from the floodway, at its closest point, was the abutment on the south side of the bridge.
Mr. Fountain estimated that it would be about 7 feet at its closest point.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that during the construction of the abutments there would be no activity in the floodway, and that it would be possible to construct the bridge without creating activity in the floodway. He did not review the Nave Newell stormwater report, nor had he reviewed any report on the increase in volume of run-off produced from this development. He did not agree that an increase in volume of water of the small amount of 2.8 million gallons would increase the size of the flood plain downstream of the bridge, nor did he agree that it would have an effect on the flood plain. He did not run a HEC analysis again, but only checked the Nave Newell input and analysis.
Mr. Cappuccio asked Mr. Fountain to read paragraph 5 of page 261 of the Ordinance, and asked if he agrees that no backwater could be permitted to flow onto an adjoining property.
Mr. Fountain said that the sentence referring to the prohibition of backwater on an adjoining property is a modifier to the preceding sentence, which deals with areas that have not had a detailed flood insurance study.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that he has never worked for Brandywine, and does not know if Pennoni Associates has ever worked for Brandywine, as he works in the Doylestown office, which is the municipal engineering office.
Mr. Cappuccio asked if Mr. Fountain was aware of any prior flood studies conducted on Core Creek.
Mr. Fountain said that a study had been conducted by Nave Newell in 2002. He was not aware of any problems with sediment in the creek, nor did he think that this project would increase the sediment. He said that he thought that all of lower Bucks County has had an Act 167 study.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that the TMDL conducted on Core Creek pertained to siltation, which is a measurement of sand and dust particulate from agriculture and construction. He said that the EPA has established limits and additional protective measures and that it is monitored by outside agencies.
In response to Mr. Beckert’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that he has not visited the site. He did review the 2002 Nave Newell study, which showed a rise in the floodplain of 0.99 feet. He did not recall when the February 2005 study was prepared.
Mr. Beckert reviewed the history of Brandywine applications, noting that the 2002 application called for a 125-foot bridge. He asked if Mr. Fountain had reviewed the Nave Newell study prepared in 2002 for the 2004 application. He asked if Mr. Fountain knew why the 2004 application had been amended in 2005, and how many hours he spent reviewing the 2005 study.
Mr. Fountain said that he has seen two studies, one prepared in 2002 and another prepared in 2005. He reviewed the 2002 study at the time of the August 2004 application. He also reviewed the 2005 study for this application. He has been in attendance at the two previous meetings for this application, and has heard the rumors about the reason for the amendment, but he does not have any direct knowledge of the reason for the amendment. He said that he spent about 20 hours reviewing the 2005 study for this application.
Mr. Beckert referred to the penultimate sentence in Exhibit T-2, which says”…any adverse impact on any buildings on any adjacent properties…” He asked if Mr. Fountain’s testimony is that there would be no adverse impact on buildings. He said Section 905 of the Ordinance prohibits backwater onto adjoining properties. He asked if Mr. Fountain had an opinion as to whether there would be backwater onto adjoining properties.
Mr. Fountain said that there would be an increase in the flood level of 0.63 feet onto three adjoining properties, as outlined in red on exhibit A-19.
In response to Mr. Beckert’s questions, Mr. Fountain said that he is not familiar with the specific details of the design of this bridge. He does not know what equipment would be used exactly, but would agree that large, heavy equipment would be needed. Working from both sides of the creek it would be possible to build the bridge without any activity in the floodway, but unless he were in charge of the project he could not state with certainty that there would not be activity in the floodway.
Mr. Coughlin asked if any outside agencies would monitor Core Creek for erosion or sedimentation.
Mr. Fountain said that Bucks County Conservation District monitors the creek for the DEP and the EPA. Brandywine would be required to submit a control plan and be issued a permit for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). DEP would monitor how the plan controls erosion, sedimentation build-up and siltation.
Mr. Sander asked if the increase in flood level of 0.63 feet in a 100-year storm onto adjoining properties means that there would be an adverse impact.
Mr. Fountain said that the increase in the flood level onto the three adjoining properties does not mean “an adverse impact”.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s question, Mr. Fountain said that if a bridge were built entirely out of the flood plain, with no supports in the flood plain, there would not be an increase in backwater.
In response to Mr. Sander’s question, Mr. Fountain said that a bridge that spanned this entire flood plain without any support in the flood plain would have to be 400 feet long, with all support on top of the bridge. He did not think that this would be feasible.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s question, Mr. Fountain said that in theory it would be possible to build a free span bridge, as either a trestle bridge or a suspension bridge.
In response to Mr. Sander’s question, Mr. Fountain said that there are no 400-foot free span bridges in Newtown, or in Bucks County.
Mr. Wall said that Mr. Fountain’s letter, entered as Exhibit T-2, rendered an engineering opinion, not a legal opinion on the meaning of the Ordinance. He asked if Mr. Fountain had consulted with anyone on a legal opinion about the Ordinance.
Mr. Fountain said that in the course of his job he reads municipal zoning ordinances all the time, and had based his opinion on his own experience.
Mr. Auchinleck said that the letter states that the proposed bridge project is in compliance with the ordinance. If the sentence referring to “no backwater” were taken to refer to both preceding sentences, he asked if Mr. Fountain’s report would have changed.
Mr. Fountain said that his report would have had to point out the question of backwater.
Mr. Coughlin said that Mr. Fountain had not visited the site. He reviewed the Ordinance’s definition of flood, and asked if Mr. Fountain felt that he would be in a position to say whether the area is normally dry.
Mr. Fountain said that plans and studies on file indicate that the area is wet, and he has looked at the CAU property on previous occasions.
Mr. Auchinleck asked Mr. Fountain if he had a source of knowledge that the area is not dry.
Mr. Fountain said that he has seen hydrologic studies.
Mr. Lionetti said that Mr. Fountain had referred to the increase in volume of 2.8 million gallons of water as a small amount. He asked what would be a significant amount of water that would cause an increase in the flood plain.
Mr. Fountain said that billions of gallons would be a significant amount. He noted that 1.4 million gallons per minute flows through Core Creek at this location.
Mr. Fountain was excused.
Mr. Lionetti moved to continue the application of Brandywine Trust to May 5, 2005. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lionetti moved to adjourn at 10:40 PM. Mr. Wall seconded and the motion passed unanimously
Mary Donaldson, Recording Secretary