Planning Commission
Wednesday, March 03 2010
Meeting Minutes
The regular meeting of the Buckingham Township Planning Commission was held Wednesday, March 3, 2010 in the Township Building, 4613 Hughesian Drive, Buckingham, Pennsylvania.
Present:
Andrea Mehling Chairperson
Patrick Fowles Vice Chairperson
Ann Sutphin Member
Glynnis Stone Tihansky Member
Rebecca Fink Member
Mark Sandberg Member
Tom Baldwin Member
Daniel Gray Township Engineer
Lynn Bush Bucks County Planning Commission
Ms. Mehling called the regular meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Ms. Mehling announced that Histand tract had been removed from the agenda.
1. Consideration of approving Planning Commission minutes of February 3, 2010 Ms. Sutphin made motion, seconded by Ms. Tihansky to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3, 2010. The motion carried unanimously with Dr. Sandberg and Mr. Baldwin abstaining.
2. SA2010-02 “Trycieki Tract”, 3251 Durham Road, TMP# 6-6-64 & 6-14-5, 34.133 Acres,
VC-1 & AG-2 Zoning, Lot Line Change. Review expiration date June 1, 2010.
Representing the applicant was Mr. Dean Reneker, Gilmore & Associates and Mr. Tom Trycieki. Mr. Reneker explained that the two tax parcels 6-14-5 (almost 33 acres) and 6-6-64 (about 1.138 acres) were owned by Mr. Trycieki’s mother. Mr. Reneker explained that the lot line change involved the transfer of .157 acres from the smaller parcel to the larger parcel in order to rectify an existing boundary line encroachment of an existing metal building. Mr. Reneker noted that the majority of 6-14-5 was part of a conservation easement that the Township was purchasing and the lot line change was necessary to finalize the transaction. Ms. Mehling asked why lot 1 was included on the plan. Mr. Reneker responded that lot 2 was the area conveyed to the Township in the easement and that lot 1 was a future building lot. Mr. Reneker explained that the note on the plan would be removed as they did not want to convey in any way that this was a subdivision.
Ms. Manicone commented that there were no landscaping requirements.
Ms. Bush noted that the Bucks County Planning Commission (BCPC) review was not out yet but they had no major issues with the lot line change.
Mr. Gray commented that the biggest issue was removing the reference to lot 1. The applicant agreed to comply with all issues raised in the February 26, 2010 Knight Engineering and BCPC reviews. Mr. Gray noted that he recommended granting the waivers requested in the February 5, 2010 waiver request letter.
Ms. Tihansky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fowles to recommend approval of SA2010-02 “Trycieki Tract”, 3251 Durham Road, TMP# 6-6-64 & 6-14-5, 34.133 Acres, VC-1 & AG-2 Zoning, Lot Line Change and to recommend approval of all waiver requests noting that Lot 1 would be removed from the plan and the applicant would comply with all issues raised in the consultant review letters relating to this lot line change. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Trycieki, on behalf of his family, thanked the Board for their support.
3. LD 2009-02 “CB East Addition & Renovation” Holicong & Anderson Roads, TMP #6-14-12, 66.01 Acres, I Zoning, Final Plan of Land Development. Review expiration date May 4, 2010.
Representing the applicant was Mr. Tom Hanna, Project Engineer and Mr. Giannini and Mr. Rodemer, Central Bucks School District. Ms. Mehling recused herself from the vote.
Mr. Hanna reported that the final plan application had been filed in January, 2010 and there had been no major changes to the layout of the plan. Mr. Hanna reported that he had received copies of permits from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the response for the planning module submitted was that there was no planning necessary. Mr. Hanna also announced receipt of a letter of adequacy from the Conservation District and NPDES permits.
Mr. Hanna announced the only issues to discuss were the Kinney Smith buffering plan and the Fire Marshall’s comments regarding traffic calming in front of the school. Mr. Hanna reported that the buffering plan was submitted to Ms. Manicone with quantities and it was discussed with neighbors and everyone was in agreement with the plan. He noted that they would be buffering the South side of the playing fields in two phases. Phase 1 would be completed during spring 2010 and the remainder would be done during the fall 2010 planting season. Mr. Hanna noted that the School District intent was to have this portion of the landscaping plan remain as an individual plan so that the district could implement it over the next year and not be held up should the rest of the plan be delayed. Mr. Hanna noted that the Bretzes had filed appeals. Mr. Gray commented that logistically it could work to separate this portion of the landscaping plan even though it was included in the preliminary plan as a condition of approval. Mr. Gray did not think the Board would stop the District from doing the work and suggested that they ask the Board to remove that condition of approval. Ms. Manicone expressed support for separating the landscaping and getting it done sooner rather than later.
After discussion the PC unanimously agreed that the plan should be kept the way it was with four speed tables on Holicong Road and two on Anderson Road. Mr. Hanna provided a description of the advance warning signage that would be provided. Ms. Sutphin asked about access between Anderson Road and Route 202. Mr. Hanna explained that the pedestrian path was still part of the plan. Ms. Mehling asked about a tree on the Wyneck property. Mr. Hanna and Ms. Manicone were in agreement that they could go around the tree.
Ms. Manicone asked the applicant to fill out the balance of the tree inventory.
Mr. Giannini reported that they would like to go out for bid in the spring and that the only threat to the project was legal.
Ms. Tihansky asked if the Bretzes had appealed this plan. Mr. Hanna responded that they had appealed the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) decision and the Supervisor’s approval of this preliminary plan.
Discussion of February 23, 2010 Landscape Review Consultants Letter
The applicant agreed to comply with the issues raised in the letter but noted that item #2 they were technically considering an off- site improvement. Mr. Gray asked if they could show the setbacks as on the stadium plan. Ms. Manicone suggested clearing up the issue with the Board.
Discussion of February 22, 2010 Knight Engineering Review Letter
The applicant agreed to comply with all issues raised in the review letter and noted that item 16 from Section I. Township Solicitor’s Preliminary Approval Letter – January 12, 2010 would be worked out between the Solicitors.
Mr. Fowles made a motion, seconded by Mr. Baldwin to recommend approval of LD 2009-02 “CB East Addition & Renovation” Holicong & Anderson Roads, TMP #6-14-12, 66.01 Acres, I Zoning, Final Plan of Land Development subject to compliance with all issues raised in the February 22, 2010 Knight Engineering Review letter and the February 23, 2010 Landscape Review letter and all other related consultant review letters and to recommend approval of the applicant’s desire to separate the landscape plan on the Kinney Smith parcel development plan in order that they may begin installation of the vegetation during the spring 2010 planting season. The motion carried unanimously with Ms. Mehling abstaining.
2. Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Gray explained that the first part of the amendment was to allow the condominium units in Arbor Pointe to share impervious surface in order to allow for the building of decks. Mr. Gray explained that there were four actual lots with approximately 100 units each and that two of the lots were located within the internal road network and two were along buffer and open space area. Because of the way the lots were laid out the two lots on the internal road system were limited in their green area (right at 60%) but the exterior ones were at 35%. Mr. Gray explained that the lots were owned by the community association and all permit applications would go through the association. Mr. Gray explained that stormwater was designed to accommodate 60% impervious across the site. Mr. Gray reported that the amendments also cleaned up some discrepancies and overlaps. Ms. Mehling asked if the improvements were for the life of the owner. Mr. Gray responded that the revision allows those four lots to share impervious surface. Ms. Mehling asked if the ordinance could be applied to another development. Ms. Bush noted that it was for the whole Planned Business & Residential (PBR) Zoning District as specified in the ordinance.
Mr. Gray reported that the adult commercial was revised to require it as a conditional use so that if anything came in it would come before the Board. Ms. Bush noted that it was only allowed in PI1.
Mr. Fowles expressed surprise by the definition of adult movie house and questioned the use of the word obscene because he felt it was subjective and did not think it was legal. Mr. Fowles asked that Solicitor Smith look more closely at the definitions. Ms. Bush noted that the BCPC had not reviewed this amendment but that they would make sure that all the cross references were correct. Ms. Tihansky asked how this ordinance compared to others received. Ms. Bush acknowledged that she was not an expert at this particular ordinance but that she felt this one was appropriate and that she had felt others were too descriptive. Mr. Mike Roedig, Bucks County Planning Commission noted that there had been a problem when there was no provision for live entertainment.
Mr. Fowles made a motion, seconded by Ms. Tihansky to recommend approval of the Buckingham Township Zoning Ordinance Amendments as submitted on February 24, 2010 by Smith and McMaster, P.C. with the suggestion that the Township Solicitor review the definition of adult movie house which depends on the definition of obscene and the definition of other adult oriented uses which depend on the definition of sexual titillation. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Continued Review of the Comprehensive Plan.
The PC reviewed the trail path and sidewalk network plan of the Township. Mr. Mike Roedig was in attendance for the discussion.
Mrs. Mehling made a motion, seconded by Ms. Tihansky to adjourn the meeting at 9:15p.m. The motion carried unanimously.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Suzanne Safran
| 
