Planning Commission
Wednesday, April 07 2010
Approved Meeting Minutes
The regular meeting of the Buckingham Township Planning Commission was held Wednesday, April 7, 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
Daniel Gray Township Engineer
Absent:
Rebecca Fink Member
Tom Baldwin Member
Marc Sandberg Member
Lynn Bush Bucks County Planning Commission
Ms. Mehling called the regular meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
1. Consideration of approving Planning Commission minutes of March 3, 2010.
Ms. Mehling made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fowles to table approval of the March 3, 2010 Planning Commission minutes. The motion carried unanimously.
2. SA2010-01 “Histand Tract/Mennonite Foundation”, 4280 Township Line Road, TMP# 6-23-47, 113.85 Acres, AG-1 Zoning, Preliminary/Final 3 Lot Subdivision. Review expiration date June 1, 2010.
Representing the applicant was Mr. Ed Murphy, Attorney and Mr. Greg Glitzer, Project Engineer.
Mr. Murphy summarized that years ago the Histand family and the Mennonite Foundation reached an agreement to establish a conservation easement on the various holdings of each party in the Wycombe Village. He explained that the easement allowed for three large lots to be developed and that major subdivision of TMP No. 6-23-47 was what was before the Planning Commission that evening. The existing 114.64-acre tract was being subdivided into three lots for proposed single-family dwellings with three defined two acre “Building Areas” in accordance with the Agricultural Conservation Easement. Mr. Murphy explained that the ultimate buyers for these properties were unknown and that the legal owner of this tract was the Mennonite Foundation. Mr. Murphy noted that the sketch plan was attached to the conservation easement and there was nothing new in this plan.
Ms. Mehling noted that she did not recall seeing this plan previously. Mr. Murphy explained that they had not been in front of the Planning Commission but that they had a master plan agreement. Mr. Glitzer provided an overview of the master plan agreement. He explained that the total holdings of the Histands and Mennonite Foundation was180 acres. The agreement allowed for three development sites on the south side and one on the north side (the three on the south side were being considered that evening). The plans propose that Lot No. 1 would contain both a new dwelling and the existing dwelling (to be used as a guest house or accessory structure). Both lots two and three would contain new dwelling units. Mr. Murphy noted that they wanted to provide frontage for the lots so they could stand on their own (all frontage is on Township Line Road). He added that the three lots would share a common driveway to the building envelopes which will take access to Township Line Road directly opposite its intersection with Cherry Lane. The common drive is primarily on Lot 2 and follows the existing farm lane. Mr. Murphy noted that the agreement provided flexibility to locate the two acre building envelopes anywhere beyond the resource protected land on the site. Mr. Murphy noted that the field was currently attached to lot 3, but could be annexed to other parcels if someone wanted access to the field/pasture.
Ms. Mehling asked if anything could be recycled from the existing barn if it were torn down. Mr. Glitzer responded that it was cinderblock and tin roof so there was not really anything to recycle.
Mr. Murphy noted that the 12 acre parcel should be excluded for the moment, but noted that it might become open space if they get environmental clearance as part of the Smith-Pfeiffer development.
Mr. George Michel asked for a description of how the tract ran toward the Carter Slack house. Mr. Glitzer provided the information.
March 16, 2010 Knight Engineering Review Letter
Mr. Murphy reported that the applicant would comply with all issues raised in the letter other than those discussed below.
I. 1.1 & 1.2 Mr. Glitzer explained that they tried to provide enough detail in stormwater design to make the Township feel satisfied, but that final work would be done when there were buyers. Mr. Murphy explained that they were trying to minimize the expense for Mrs. Histand and asking that the posting of escrows be done at building permit plan submission. Mr. Glitzer added that they were trying to strike a balance that provides flexibility and provide information for buyers for what can be done. Ms. Sutphin asked if the plans represented an average or a maximum. Mr. Glitzer responded that they put in a large house with a long driveway. Ms. Sutphin suggested increasing impervious area to accommodate guest parking. Mr. Glitzer responded that they allowed for an additional 2000 square feet, but they could add more if it was a real concern. Mr. Glitzer noted that they knew from septic testing that there was a high water table and they would look at bioretention. Ms. Mehling asked if these properties had to be utilized for agricultural use. Mr. Gray responded that there was an agricultural preservation easement and that the buyers could not do anything to harm the agricultural integrity of the property.
1.3 Mr. Gray noted that he thought the master agreement specified that if existing outbuildings were removed they had to be recreated on the new lots in the approved building envelope. Mr. Murphy was not familiar with that requirement. Mr. Murphy noted that the only building of consequence was the barn and everyone agreed that a cinderblock barn had no significance.
1.4 Mr. Glitzer noted that they had added into the master plan agreement the ability to have stormwater and septic systems outside of the building envelopes as long as they did not harm agricultural production. Mr. Gray suggested that they could do water quality and plant material in the envelope and do a larger area in the fields for larger storm events. Mr. Glitzer agreed that a combination approach might work and agreed to look into it.
1.5 Mr. Gray commented that if the existing house was going to stay then it must conform to the zoning for the confirmed use. Mr. Murphy responded that he thought the house was going to stay but he could not say if it would be the main house or an accessory. Discussion followed about having the applicant return to the Board to get approval for the building envelope. Mr. Murphy explained that the intent was to keep the homes further back so as not to disturb the viewshed on Township Line Road. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Glitzer agreed that the applicant would return to get approval from the Board for the location of the building envelope.
2.3 Mr. Glitzer reported that they did locate all trees out in the open and other trees in woods protected by the language of the conservation easement.
Ms. Manicone asked about the timing of the buffer plantings and who would be responsible if there were three different owners. Mr. Glitzer explained that he had talked to the Mennonite Foundation to see if they would consider doing the buffer plantings. Mr. Glitzer was going to get a cost estimate but he wanted to talk to the Wycombe neighbors to see what they wanted.
Ms. Ronnie Dager, 4294 Township Line Road, asked for a description of the buffer. Mr. Giltzer explained it would be a type 1 buffer, a mix of flowering and evergreen trees and understory shrubs along the Wycombe perimeter. He noted that it would go behind Ms. Dager’s property. Ms. Dager expressed concern about traffic and construction vehicles.
Ms. Cathy Frasier, 4250 Township Line Road, would prefer to see less buffering and expressed interest in purchasing a strip of land behind her house between 6-24-12 and 6-24-16 owned by the Histands.
Ms. Mehling explained that the buffer was required by Township ordinance but that it could be waived if the neighbors did not want it. Ms. Manicone asked the neighbors to consider that their present view was going to change and they might see houses or even outbuildings on the lots. She noted that given the size of the building envelope they could be sizeable homes. Ms. Dager asked who would maintain the buffer. Ms. Mehling explained that the buyers would be responsible for maintenance and they could let it go to woods if they did no maintenance.
Mr. George Michel, Pineville, noted that the buffer could have other roles other than viewshed such as wind, sound and snow protection.
Mr. Gray asked about the location of the construction entrance. Mr. Glitzer responded that it was off Cherry Lane for heavier vehicles, but noted that if someone came in just for horses, then there would not be construction.
Mr. Fowles asked if the buffer could be installed later. Mr. Gray responded that the concern he and Carol had was that it was a development like requirement and so they thought the costs should be shared across all the lots even though most of it was on lot one with $100,000 worth of work while the others had $5,000 worth of work. Mr. Glitzer noted that if there were less material it might be more palatable. Ms. Mehling expressed support for getting a head start on some buffering. Mr. Gray asked Ms. Manicone about doing deciduous trees and then a number of plantings would go around the development afterward. Ms. Manicone noted that it may be desirable in this situation to trade off some of the shrub or ground cover for more trees. She noted that if it were not maintained it would become more of a hedgerow look rather than a manicured look.
Mr. George Michel, Smith road, thanked Sarah Histand for this conservation easement. Mr. Michel asked about the farm lane that leads down through Cherry Lane and leads to each of the drives and then continues to Smith Road. Mr. Michel noted that it has been a preprepped roadway and asked the Township to take a stand on what its future use would be and whether there would be restrictions. Mr. Gray asked Mr. Michel if he wanted the road extended. Mr. Michel did not want it extended. Mr. Gray responded that it would continue to provide access to the back parcel. Mr. Gray explained that the terms of the conservation easement only allow driveways back to the envelopes. Mr. Gray suggested included a note on the plan that says no through traffic and no driveway access.
Ms. Frasier asked about the possibility of purchasing the strip of land. Mr. Murphy responded that it would be prohibited by the terms of the conservation easement. Mr. Gray explained that the property was preserved with a conservation easement and the easement prohibits any further subdivision and if they could do it, it could only be next to other preserved properties. Ms. Mehling explained that the PC could not do anything about it.
Waiver Request Letter dated April 6, 2010
Ms. Manicone noted that the Board would have to be OK with the representative sample. Mr. Murphy added that they would discuss the buffer plantings again with the Board of Supervisors but that they would leave them as is for now. Mr. Murphy noted that horse people do not like trees so the more trees there are, the less likely they are to purchase the land.
Ms. Sutphin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fowles to recommend Preliminary/Final approval to SA2010-01 “Histand Tract/Mennonite Foundation”, 4280 Township Line Road, TMP# 6-23-47, 113.85 Acres, AG-1 Zoning, Preliminary/Final 3 Lot Subdivision and recommend acceptance of the waiver requests as revised on April 6, 2010, recognizing that the building envelopes are somewhat flexible (and that the applicant would return to the Board for approval of the building envelope location) and that the drive between lots 6-24-16 and 6-23-47 not be used for heavy construction equipment. A note will be placed on the plan saying that driveway access to Lot 3 would be prohibited from Smith Road. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Continued Review of the Comprehensive Plan.
PC continued review of the Comprehensive Plan with Mr. Mike Roedig of the Bucks County Planning Commission in attendance.
Ms. 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
| 
