NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD
MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE
NEWTOWN, PA 18940
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT BY THE ZONING HEARING BOARD UNTIL APPROVED
The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, September 1, 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, and Jackie Robbins, Stenographer.
Call to Order
Mr. Wall called the meeting to Order at 7:30 PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance
The agenda was reviewed.
Application of Newtown Center Associates – South Eagle Road
Application of Frank Mastromarco, Gregory Smith– 135 Swamp Road
Application of Robert Kloenne – 7 N. Lancaster Lane
Application of Ronald and Kathy Morrissey – 327 Wrights Road
Application of Mimi Hsu and Donald Crawford – 7 Delaney Drive
Continued Application of Cameron C. Troilo, Inc. – 104 Pheasant Run Road
Continued Application of Brandywine Realty Trust – Upper Silver Lake Road
Approval of Minutes
Mrs. Laughlin moved to accept the minutes of August 4, 2005. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Lionetti abstaining.
Application of Newtown Center Associates – South Eagle Road
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Newtown Center Associates, Newtown Center Associates owners requesting a variance from Section 602(A) and 803(G-15) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit removal of 6,000 cubic yards of soil within 0 feet of all boundary lines where a 100 feet buffer is required. The subject property is South Eagle Drive, Newtown, in the PC Planned Commercial Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #part of 29-10-85.
Mr. Auchinleck informed the Board that because of the length of the agenda, he has asked the attorney for Newtown Center Associates to grant an extension and continue the application to a special meeting on September 12.
Mr. Lionetti moved to continue to application of Newtown Center Associates to September 12, 2005. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Continued Application of Cameron C. Troilo, Inc.
Mr. Auchinleck reported to the Board that Mr. Marshall, attorney for Cameron C. Troilo, has agreed to continue the application to the special meeting on September 12.
Mrs. Laughlin moved to continue to application of Cameron C. Troilo, Inc. to September 12, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Robert Kloenne
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Robert Kloenne, Robert Kloenne owners requesting a variance from Section 803(H-8), 803(H-3), and 1000(E)4 of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a 35 ft by 20 ft inground pool and a shed in the front yard (not permitted in the front yard), a 4 ft high retaining wall (3 ft maximum) and 6 ft high fence (5 ft maximum) and where the shed will be set back 6 ft instead of 12 ft. The subject property is 7 North Lancaster Lane, Newtown, in the R1 Medium Density Residential Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-24-191.
Mr. Robert F. Kloenne was sworn in.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be a party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Auchinleck explained to those residents in attendance that if they wish to be a 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.
Mr. Kloenne explained that he would like to put a swimming pool in his back yard for his three grandchildren. His property has a reverse frontage, with his rear yard backing onto Richboro Road. He would like to have a retaining wall, and six-foot high stockade fence to give his yard privacy and to help diminish some of the noise from Richboro Road. The shed in his yard had been there at the time of purchase of his home. He would like to relocate it to allow space for the pool, on a level part of the yard.
Mr. Kloenne showed the Board a series of photographs of his property and his neighbors’ properties. He noted that there are pools at 4 Churchville Lane and 3 Lancaster Lane; similar to the pool he would like to install. He also showed photographs of the area where he would like the shed relocated, and of the view of his yard from Richboro Road, to illustrate how visible his pool would be without the proposed retaining wall. He noted that there is shrubbery between his property and his neighbors’ and the fence would not be visible to them. One photograph showed a retaining wall similar to the one he would like to install. He said that Township Engineer Pennoni Associates had approved the wall, which would not be located on his property line. There is an easement along Richboro Road of about 30 feet, and the wall would be placed on the other side of the easement.
Mr. Kloenne entered as exhibit A-1 a letter from his neighbor at 5 N. Lancaster Lane in support of his plans.
In response to Mrs. Laughlin’s questions, Mr. Kloenne said that the wall and fence would not be within any right-of-way, and would not disturb any existing grading. He said that his property is graded in such a way that water flows down his driveway.
Resident Todd Slicker was sworn in. Mr. Slicker said that he lives next to the Kloennes at 7 North Lancaster Lane. He supports their plan and has no objection to the wall or fence.
Mr. Lionetti said that he lives in the Newtown Crossing development and is familiar with the site. He said that he did not see any problem with any of the proposed plans.
Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 803(H-8), 803(H-3), and 1000(E)4 of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a 35 ft by 20 ft inground pool and a shed in the front yard (not permitted in the front yard), a 4 ft high retaining wall (3 ft maximum) and 6 ft high fence (5 ft maximum) and where the shed will be set back 6 ft instead of 12 ft, with the condition that all elements of the Pennoni Associates letter of August 18, 2005 are adhered to. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Ronald and Kathy Morrissey
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Ronald and Kathy Morrissey, Ronald and Kathy Morrissey owners requesting a variance from Section 803(H-8)(1)(b) and 410(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a pool in a front yard resulting in an impervious surface ratio of 16.92% where the maximum permitted is 15%, and a special exception under section 1208(C)(2) to permit expansion on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is 327 Wrights Road, Newtown, in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-8-5.
Mr. Ronald J. Morrissey was sworn in.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be a party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Morrissey explained that he would like to replace his above ground pool with an in-ground pool to accommodate the needs of his handicapped son. He said that he needed more depth in the pool for his son’s physical therapy. The existing pool will be removed. He noted that his property has three front yards. He said that he had been granted a variance a few years ago but it has expired.
Mr. Lenihan said that he recalled the original application, and had visited the site and did not see and problem with granting the variance and special exception.
Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 803(H-8)(1)(b) and 410(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a pool in a front yard resulting in an impervious surface ratio of 16.92% where the maximum permitted is 15%, and a special exception under section 1208(C)(2) to permit expansion on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Mimi Hsu and Donald Crawford
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Mimi Hsu and Donald Crawford, Mimi Hsu and Donald Crawford owners requesting a variance from Section 401(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a 16-foot by 37-foot deck with a rear yard set back of 26 feet where 30 feet is required. The subject property is 7 Delaney Drive, Newtown, in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-48-49.
Ms. Mimi Hsu was sworn in.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be a party to this application. There was no response.
Ms. Hsu explained that she would like to put a deck on the rear of her house but there is not enough room to meet setback requirements. Her house backs onto open space and then onto open property owned by Council Rock School District.
Mr. Lenihan said that he had visited the site and confirmed that the rear yard backs onto wooded open space. He did not see a problem with granting a variance.
Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 401(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a 16-foot by 37-foot deck with a rear yard set back of 26 feet where 30 feet is required. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Application of Frank Mastromarco and Gregory Smith
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the application of Frank Mastromarco, Gregory Smith owners requesting a variance from Section 404(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a subdivision creating 3 lots - 36,060 square feet each where 40,000 square feet is required. The subject property is 135 Swamp Road, Newtown, in the PC Planned Commercial Zoning District, being further known as Tax Map Parcel #29-3-6.
Mr. Don Marshall represents the applicant. He requested that the application be continued and an extension is granted. He asked that the application be placed on the October agenda.
Mrs. Laughlin moved to continue the application of Frank Mastromarco and Gregory Smith to October 6, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Continued Application of Brandywine Realty Trust
Mr. Wall explained to the residents in attendance that the Zoning Hearing Board, as a quasi-judicial body, must decide on the application before it, based on the record and the testimony given. There would be an opportunity for public comment this evening, but the Zoning Hearing Board is only considering Brandywine’s application for a variance and special exception to build a bridge. He said that public comment must be limited to the variance and special exception requested only. He also asked that public comment not be redundant.
Mr. Cappuccio asked that the record reflect the following corrections to the transcript of the August 4, 2005 hearing:
Page 44, line 18 should read, “fines”
Page 52, all references to AASHTO should show the double A
Page 53, line 18 should read, “sheeting”
Page 61, line 25 and Page 62, line 1 should read, “HEC-23”
Page 67, line 21 should read, “spall”
Page 69, line 22 should read, “there were two”.
Mr. Auchinleck reminded the Board that Mr. Jastrzebski was to be cross-examined by Mr. Coughlin, after which Brandywine would present one surrebuttal witness. He reminded Mr. Jastrzebski that he was still under oath.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that he is to be compensated as an expert witness at a rate of $240 per hour. He has not yet been paid. He said that the Type, Size and Location (TS&L) plan submitted by Brandywine that he has reviewed is the first stage in a PennDoT type of submittal process. It is more detailed than a preliminary plan, but it is not the final plan. Before Brandywine can build, it must submit a final plan to the municipality for final plan approval. The Township has agreed to accept dedication of the bridge once completed; once accepted, the Township must maintain the bridge. The Township has an incentive to see that the bridge is constructed properly. Mr. Jastrzebski noted that some engineers first submit a “pre-TS&L”, which would be similar to a sketch plan. Once a TS&L is submitted, the Township engineer reviews it and would write a review letter. Some municipalities require certain calculations along with the TS&L, such as test borings and hydraulic calculations. Once the Township engineer has reviewed the TS&L, he could recommend that the Township give either approval or conditional approval; the engineer could recommend that the Township request a revised TS&L. Before final approval is given for a project such as this, final design drawings must be submitted to the Township. These final design drawings are much more detailed and can be as many as 30 pages long.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-40, Index of Final Drawings/ Brandywine Boulevard over Core Creek.
Mr. Jastrzebski reviewed Exhibit A-40 and agreed that it is a typical list of final drawings, and that the list contains additional calculations and design work done between the TS&L plans and the final design. The index contains 30 drawings. They are based on the TS&L, as reviewed by the Township Engineer. The Township Engineer would have pointed out any “bugs” in the TS&L design, and they should have been corrected by the time of final design drawings. The Township Engineer would review the final design drawings before they would be approved and building permits issued. Mr. Jastrzebski did not know if Newtown Township would require building permits.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that if the Township Engineer found that the TS&L had inadequate scour protection, this would be addressed in his review of the TS&L plan, and the plan could be revised. He noted that certain zoning issues are also addressed during this phase of planning.
Mr. Coughlin asked Mr. Jastrzebski if he had reviewed the transcripts of Mr. Stellar’s testimony and cross-examination, and if he had reviewed the photographs of construction of piers in the middle of the Susquehanna River.
Mr. Jastrzebski said that he had been present for Mr. Stellar’s direct testimony, but did not recall whether he had reviewed the transcript of his cross-examination. In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions about ground water at a very high level, he said that the construction of piers in the river is a different matter than construction of the abutments for this bridge, because piers are located within the floodway.
Mr. Jastrzebski said that he had stated that there is insufficient scour protection on the TS&L based on the geotechnical report.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that if Brandywine filed a final plan and the Township Engineer concluded that there was insufficient scour protection, the Township could approve the plan. He said that the Township Engineer could recommend that approval be denied because of insufficient scour protection. He said that he could not answer whether it was impossible to build a bridge with sufficient scour protection without any use or activity in the floodway. He has only reviewed the TS&L presented with this application.
Mr. Cappuccio and Mr. Beckert objected to the question.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that he did not know whether a bridge of 150 feet in length could be built at this location, with sufficient scour protection, without any activity in the floodway, only that, based on this TS&L, it would be impossible to provide sufficient scour protection without any activity in the floodway.
Mr. Beckert objected, noting that this TS&L is the only plan being reviewed.
Mr. Auchinleck said that this plan does not have any use or activity in the floodway; only the parties in opposition have testified that there would be activity in the floodway.
Mr. Jastrzebski said that he does not know whether Brandywine could revise this plan so that there would not be any use or activity in the floodway.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that the TS&L had been prepared based on Geosystems references and HEC-18.
Mr. Coughlin objected to the questions being asked, stating that they are beyond the scope of cross-examination.
Mr. Auchinleck said that he did not know whether this would be relevant to the Board’s decision and asked Mr. Cappuccio to clarify.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that the TS&L submission sets the location, beam size, and abutment size. At the location in this TS&L, where these abutments are set, it is not possible to provide sufficient scour protection.
Mr. Cappuccio entered as Exhibit M-22, pages of the Nave Newell Floodplain Analysis issued March 29, 2002, and the Analysis dated February 3, 2005, containing the proposed 100-year floodplain computations, and the GeoSystems Consultants, Inc. “Calculation Sheet” dated June 18, 2003.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that the calculation sheet used numbers from the 2002 floodplain analysis, and rounding up, calculated the riprap size as R-6. He noted that the numbers from the 2005 analysis showed a higher velocity, and if those numbers had been used, and rounded up, R-7 riprap would be needed.
In response to Mr. Lionetti’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that the stations highlighted on Exhibit M-22 are locations above and below the proposed bridge crossing; although labeled differently in 2002 and 2005, they refer to the same locations. The significance of the change in the numbers from 2002 to 2005 is that there is an increase in velocity. When the second analysis was conducted the calculation sheet for scour protection was not changed. A higher velocity also requires a wider apron and causes deeper scour.
Mr. Lionetti noted that using the higher number, 6.28 fps, as it appears in the 2005 analysis, multiplied by the coefficient 1.8 equals 11.304. Velocities up to 12 fps require R-6 riprap.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that the apron length also should be lengthened to 14 feet 7 inches.
Mr. Cappuccio entered exhibit M-23, U.S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA NHI01-001, “Evaluating Scour at Bridges”. He read into the record from page 1.1, “The most common cause of bridge failures is from floods scouring bed material from around bridge foundations”. Mr. Jastrzebski agreed with this statement.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Jastrzebski said that there have been occasions when proposed locations for bridges have been changed, although it would be difficult to change this bridge location. He said that the Township Engineer could issue a comment letter that requests that the location be changed. Depending on when the application is submitted, and whether there are zoning issues, generally an applicant is given an opportunity to re-run calculations. If an applicant cannot demonstrate to a municipality that it cannot build a bridge in compliance with the municipality’s ordinances, then the municipality’s governing body can deny approval.
Mr. Coughlin reviewed the calculations used to determine the size riprap to be used, and Mr. Jastrzebski agreed that the discrepancy in the numbers used on the calculation sheet is inconsequential because the same size riprap is needed. However, if the numbers were rounded up to the nearest whole number, then multiplied by 1.8, R-7 size riprap would be required. This would require a redesign of the apron.
Mr. Cappuccio offered exhibits M-18, through M-23.
Mr. Sander objected to the inclusion of the first three pages of Exhibit M-22, as they refer to a prior application. He reminded Mr. Auchinleck that the 2002 Zoning Hearing Board decision from the 2002 application had been denied acceptance as an exhibit.
Mr. Auchinleck overruled, noting that this shows where the numbers used in the “Calculation Sheet” came from.
Mr. Coughlin recalled Mr. James Stellar.
Mr. Auchinleck reminded Mr. Stellar that he is still under oath.
Mr. Coughlin entered as Exhibit A-41, “Design Manual Part 4 Volume 1 of 2 Volumes – Structures – Procedures – Design – Plans Presentation” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s questions, Mr. Stellar said that PennDoT has specifications for scour protection. The scour depth, which is the amount of ground lost in front of abutments during a 100-year and 500-year storm, once calculated, sets the bottom of footing elevation and scour protection. According to these PennDoT specifications, the riprap for this project is R-6 size, for 1 foot below scour depth for the northern abutment, and 5 to 6 feet for the southern abutment. These plans show a 2-foot 6-inch depth for the northern abutment and a 6-foot 3-inch depth on the southern abutment. An open cut excavation will be made 17 feet from the abutment wall and filled with rock. This complies with all PennDot standards. Mr. Stellar said that he has worked as project engineer on over 200 PennDoT bridge projects.
Mr. Coughlin offered Exhibits A-40 and A-41.
Referring to Exhibit A-41, 7-2.4, Mr. Cappuccio asked if this is the minimum criterion.
Mr. Stellar agreed that it is the minimum, but that the plan exceeds the minimum. In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Stellar said that there are strike-off letters that are not included in the April 2000 edition of Exhibit A-42. He did not know what updates might have referred to scour. The figures on page A.7.4 are used on all PennDoT projects. The bridge was designed using the Nave Newell study, and although there has been some difference in the velocity on the two different studies, R-6 riprap is still used as scour protection, in accordance with PennDoT criteria.
Mr. Cappuccio referred Mr. Stellar to page 88 of the transcript dated July 14, 2005. Mr. Stellar said that he had reviewed the geotechnical report using HEC-18. Scour guidelines are the same as they had been in April 2000, which is the latest release. The scour Criteria are the PennDoT criteria. Even though the velocity had changed in the later report, the riprap size is still R-6, using the higher number. He said that the minimum standard could not be used because R-6 riprap is too large, at 30 inches in diameter. He disagreed that the scour protection is insufficient. He has not seen bridges constructed to these criteria fail.
In response to Mr. Cappuccio’s questions, Mr. Stellar said that Mr. Cappuccio has not seen the scour calculations because they will be submitted with the TS&L as the project moves forward. The total scour depth for aggregation and degradation are not referenced in these plans; they are at his office, and have not been referenced in these plans. The 2005 Nave Newell flood study was used for scour computation.
In response to Mr. Coughlin’s question, Mr. Stellar said that he is not aware of any strike-off letters that would change the calculations used.
Mr. Cappuccio objected to the submission of Exhibit A-41, as it is not complete, and the entire section is not available.
Mr. Auchinleck overruled this objection.
Mr. Wall again reminded the members of the public wishing to comment, that the Zoning Hearing Board can only consider the two variances and the special exception that are the subject of this application.
Mr. Emil Matchyshyn of 43 Violet Lane was sworn in.
Mr. Matchyshyn said that there has been a great deal of evidence to indicate that the applicant cannot meet the requirements of the Ordinance to build a bridge without any activity in the floodway. He also noted that there would be backwater onto adjoining properties, which is prohibited by the Ordinance. He said that although the current owners of the properties onto which backwater would flood have not objected, future owners are to be protected by this Ordinance. Mr. Matchyshyn expressed concern about increases in traffic along Penns Trail North during peak hours. He said that Mr. Cahill had indicated that there would be increased run-off and pollution because of the increase in impervious surface. He referred to Mr. Cahill’s testimony that the EPA would change its standards in the future. He expressed concern about the insufficient scour protection that Mr. Jastrzebski had discussed. He said that he did not think that sheet piling could be used to prevent activity in the floodway during construction. He said that he fears that the bridge, if dedicated to the Township, would become expensive to maintain. Referring to Mr. Smith’s testimony, he expressed concern that the plans being considered are not final plans. He expressed concern about the size of the office complex that is proposed. Mr. Matchyshyn referred to Ordinance 537.7 Chapter 22, which says that non-residential traffic shall not normally be extended to residential streets. He said that this Ordinance had been overlooked when the preliminary plan was approved.
Ms. Demery Roberts of 2 Kingsley Court was sworn in.
Ms. Roberts expressed concern about the increase in traffic on Penns Trail North, which has three school bus stops. She said that there are many children living in this development and the increased traffic would be very dangerous. She expressed concern that an unsafe bridge could be costly to the Township.
Mr. Larry Raffles of 11 Randolph Court was sworn in.
Mr. Raffles said that he was dismayed that although the chairman had said that public comment was limited to this application only, he has allowed other issues to be discussed. He said that he would have liked to comment on the financial impact of the proposed office complex versus residential development of that same property, but would, instead, submit his written analysis to the Board for their consideration.
Mr. John D’Aprile of 118 Broadleaf Court was sworn in.
Mr. D’Aprile said that he thought that the bridge, and the Brandywine complex would be good for Newtown.
Ms. Jennifer Dix of 10 Hartfield Road was sworn in.
Ms. Dix referred to Mr. Raffles’ letter to the Board members.
Mr. Auchinleck reminded Ms. Dix that Mr. Raffles acknowledged that the Board could not consider the financial impact of the Brandywine complex. He reminded Ms. Dix to limit her comments to this application only.
Ms. Dix objected to the construction of an office complex at this location, surrounded by homes. She expressed outrage about the impact of traffic on local roads. She referred to Ordinance number 534.7, which she said prohibits commercial traffic on residential roads. She said that Mr. Roth had said that the Township had planned Penns Trail North before the homes were built to alleviate traffic on the By-Pass. She expressed concern about the increased traffic causing an unsafe situation along Penns Trail, where children play, and where there are three school bus stops. She said that the maintenance of the bridge would be costly to the Township. She said that Brandywine does not have a hardship because the property could be developed as a smaller office complex or as low-density residential housing.
Mr. Rich Cirucci of 11 Kingsley Court was sworn in.
Mr. Cirucci said that he agreed with Ms. Dix’ testimony. He also asked that, if the bridge is approved, it not be connected with Penns Trail North for through traffic.
Mr. Phil Capriotti (no address given) was sworn in.
Mr. Capriotti asked that the application be denied. He said that a number of residents from the surrounding community had met with Mr. Remikis to discuss their concerns and to request buffering and trees. Mr. Remikis indicated to this group that the project would be built.
Ms. Christine Whalen (no address given) was sworn in.
Ms. Whalen said that the testimony indicates that this project would cause hardship for the surrounding areas and would burden the infrastructure. She said that Brandywine has a self-created hardship. She said that a variance cannot be granted if it is detrimental to the neighbors. She said that this project would create an unsafe environment for children and diminish the quality of life of the surrounding neighbors.
Mr. John Hitchner of 153 Upper Silver Lake Road was sworn in.
Mr. Hitchner expressed concern about the wetlands if the bridge is built. He said that he was concerned about the attitude of the builder, who had indicated that the project would be built with, or without the bridge. He said he is very concerned that Brandywine Boulevard not be connected with Upper Silver Lake Road. He also noted that the traffic light planned at the entrance to Brandywine Boulevard is very close to the light at Lindenhurst Road, and that this could cause traffic back up. He suggested that, instead of building the bridge, traffic should be diverted through the office complex to Lindenhurst Road.
Ms. Sue Herman, 1977 Boxwood Drive (Lower Makefield) was sworn in.
Ms. Herman said that she represents Residents for Regional Traffic Solutions. She expressed concern that the proposed bridge does not comply with the Township Ordinance and that it will become the southern end of a northern by-pass. She expressed concern for the safety of the children in the surrounding community.
Mr. Jerry Shenkman, 66 Copperleaf Drive, was sworn in.
Mr. Shenkman expressed concern about the possibility of flooding. He said that it is important to consider the “worst case scenario”, and put the safety of the residents first.
Mr. Auchinleck asked that the parties have all briefs submitted by September 6, 2005.
Mr. Lenihan moved to continue the application of Brandywine Realty Trust to September 12, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lenihan moved to adjourn at 11:00 PM. Mr. Lionetti seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mary Donaldson, Recording Secretary