Website Resources

Contact Information

Buckingham Township

Township Office
4613 Hughesian Drive
P.O. Box 413
Buckingham, PA 18912

Phone : (215) 794-8834
Fax : (215) 794-8837
contact@buckinghampa.org

Hours: Mon-Fri, 7:30 AM-4:00 PM

Police Department

Emergency:  9-1-1

Non-Emergency Police Dispatch
(215) 348-7400 

Police Department: (215) 794-8813
Fax: (215) 794-9081 
police@buckinghampa.org -
(Not to be used for immediate police response) 

Hours: Mon-Fri, 7:30 AM-4:00 PM

Building & Codes Department

Phone : (215) 794-8836
Hours: Mon-Fri, 7:30 AM-4:00 PM

Water & Wastewater Department

Emergency : (215) 794-8854

View More Contact Information

Home > Website Resources > Meeting Minutes & Agendas

Meeting Minutes And Agendas

Filter:
Search: (optional)

Planning Commission
10/4/2017 7:30 PM

Buckingham Township Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

 

The regular meeting of the Buckingham Township Planning Commission was held October 4, 2017 in the Township Building, 4613 Hughesian Drive, Buckingham, Pennsylvania.

 

Present:        Andrea Mehling                      Chairperson

                        Patrick Fowles                        Vice Chairperson

                        Dr. Marc Sandberg                 Member

                        Louis Spadafora                      Member

                        John Ives                                  Bucks County Planning Commission

                        Dan Gray                                  Township Engineer

                       

Not Present:    Tom Baldwin                          Member

                           Rebecca Fink                          Member

 

 

Mrs. Mehling called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Consideration of approving Draft Planning Commission Minutes of the August 2, 2017 Meeting.

 

Mr. Fowles made a motion, seconded by Mr. Spadafora to approve, as most recently presented, the draft Planning Commission Minutes of the August 2, 2017 Meeting. The motion carried unanimously.

 

Consideration of recommending Preliminary Approval of the “Swank Tract” 2-lot Minor Subdivision Plan dated August 21, 2017, Township File SA 2017-01, TMP 6-18-71-4, 1481 Forest Grove Road, 16.155 Acres, located in the AG-1 Zoning District. The initial 90-day review period expires January 2, 2018.

 

Mr. Larry Byrne of Eastern/Chadrow Associates and Mr. Bill Swank, property owner, were present to discuss the proposed 2 lot subdivision of Mr. Swank’s property.

 

Mr. Byrne explained the project proposes a minor subdivision of a 16-acre flag lot, located at 1481 Forest Grove Road, into a 10.3-acre lot and a 5.7-acre lot currently owned by Mr. Swank, in order to create a lot for his daughter to build a 2500 square foot house upon, using a shared driveway.

 

Mr. Byrne said the project received variances granted by the Zoning Hearing Board on November 23, 2016.

 

Items within the Waiver Request letter dated October 4, 2017 were discussed:

 

- Section 9.23.B.1 – Stormwater management. Mr. Byrne thought it excessive to be required to provide stormwater management for the entire tract, and requested that it be provided only for the area being disturbed plus a small amount extra. Mrs. Mehling asked about existing stormwater management on the property, and Mr. Gray said there was none. Mr. Swank said there is an existing detention basin that Bucks County Conservation District had requested in years past, but it isn’t recorded. Mr. Gray said the engineers would agree upon a reasonable solution, adding that he may be able to support this waiver request, however any additional impervious in the future would need to be addressed by a new plan submission.

- Section 9.5.A&B – Floor elevation. Mr. Byrne noted they propose to set the basement floor as high as possible, however it will be lower than the seasonal high water elevation and will have a gravity foundation to drain via a 4” perforated pipe running around the foundation. Mr. Gray confirmed this is an appropriate plan for this lot and the location.

- Section 9.20.D.1&2 – Perimeter buffer. Mr. Byrne confirmed he had spoken with Carol Manicone, Landscape Review Consultant, and agreed a partial waiver would be requested with Ms. Manicone to visit the site to discuss where buffer planting would be appropriate. Ms. Manicone confirmed she would schedule a site walk with Mr. Byrne and Mr. Swank soon.

- Section 9.20.B.2 – Street trees. Mr. Byrne requested to waive the street tree requirement as there is only 25’ frontage and no reasonable place to plant a tree. This will be confirmed by Ms. Manicone during her site visit.

- Section 9.23.K.1.d – Rain garden emergency spillway construction to be constructed out of permanent turf reinforcement matting in lieu of concrete checker block; Mr. Gray had no problem with this substitution for this size of basin.

- Section 6.3.C.7 – Tree inventory. Mr. Byrne said they had physically located all standalone trees in the area to be disturbed. It was agreed that following Ms. Manicone’s site visit, a tree survey shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Landscape Review Consultant’s.

 

Mr. Ives reported there were no items that needed discussion in the September 18, 2017 Bucks County Planning Commission review letter.

 

Mr. Byrne indicated that all items within the September 29, 2017 Knight Engineering Inc. review letter were either “will comply” or will be worked out between the engineers.

 

Mr. Fowles asked why the proposed new house is being placed on the front narrow portion of the lot rather in the back where there is more space? Mr. Swank said it reduced the cost of running utilities and the driveway by placing it towards the front of the property.

 

Mr. Gray asked if the neighbors were aware of the proposed construction, and if they would mind seeing a house. Mr. Swank said the neighbors are glad his daughter is moving back, and that no one came to the Zoning Hearing Board meeting for which they were notified. Mr. Swank said from his property he cannot see another house.

 

Dr. Sandberg asked if the driveway is shared between two parties, either or both of which may be sold in the future, how is the agreement to maintain the driveway observed? Mr. Byrne said there will be a maintenance agreement between the residents. Mr. Gray said this will be a fairly typical driveway easement agreement that will cover snowplowing, pavement maintenance, etc., and will be recorded at the courthouse.

 

Mr. Fowles made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Mehling, to recommend preliminary/final approval of the “Swank Tract” 2-lot Minor Subdivision Plan dated August 21, 2017, Township File SA 2017-01, TMP 6-18-71-4, 1481 Forest Grove Road, 16.155 Acres, located in the AG-1 Zoning District, subject to:

1.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 29, 2017 Knight Engineering, Inc. review letter or agreement that matters will be resolved between the engineers, excepting:

 

Those comments requiring compliance with SALDO provisions for which a waiver is by this motion recommended to be granted pursuant to Applicant’s October 4, 2017 Waivers Request.

 

2.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 15, 2017 Landscape Review Consultants’ review letter or as agreed to following site visit of Landscape Review Consultant with Applicant.

 

3.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 18, 2017 Bucks County Planning Commission review letter.

 

4.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 27, 2017 Zoning Officer review letter.

 

5.         The waivers from SALDO requested in Applicant’s October 4, 2017 Waivers Request letter are recommended to be granted to the extent heretofore discussed.

 

6.         Applicant shall submit revised plans to the township addressing the noted comments prior to plan review by the Board of Supervisors.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

Consideration of recommending Preliminary Approval of the “Hirsch Property” Land Development plan dated September 8, 2017, Township File LD 2017-03, TMP 6-4-6, 3842 Old Easton Road, 6,000 square foot new building area on 1 acre, located in the PC1 Zoning District. The initial 90-day review period expires January 2, 2018.

 

Ms. Kristen Holmes, Holmes Cunningham Engineering, and Mr. Frank Hirsch, property owner, were present to discuss the plan for a proposed 6,000 square foot new building on a one-acre parcel located at 3842 Old Easton Road.

 

Mr. Hirsch explained his background as being a cabinet maker/woodworker for over 30 years, starting with a business at his Father’s house, then a shop in Danboro which was doing well so in 2000 he purchased the 3842 Old Easton Road property with the intention of putting up a building for his business. However, the shop in Danboro was struck by lightning forcing him to work for another company, until now when he has put together his team of professionals and individuals to implement his plan.

 

Ms. Holmes presented an overview of the project and plan, showing an aerial plan of the existing property, with a single-family dwelling which is occupied, a detached garage and driveway. Ms. Holmes explained the plan is to demolish the garage and build a 6,000 square foot pole barn to be used as a woodworking shop. She said they intend to extend the driveway and install the required number of parking spaces for both dwelling and craft use.

 

Items within the Waiver Request letter dated October 4, 2017 were discussed:

 

- SALDO Article 5.2.B.16 – Providing existing man-made features within 500 feet. Ms. Holmes explained the plan shows an overlap, but only shows existing features on their own property. She said this plan does not impact any other properties. Mr. Gray said he would support this request unless during the planning process more information is needed.

 

- SALDO Section 3.1 – Requesting preliminary/final review. Mrs. Mehling said the Planning Commission supports this request.

 

- SALDO Section 3.3.C – Providing existing resources inventory within 500 feet of the property. Ms. Holmes said this is the same as the first request, just a different ordinance section.

 

- SALDO Section 9.4.A – Providing a solar axis and access plan, and building placement. Ms. Holmes said due to the small and narrow size of the property, there is only one place possible to place the pole barn. Mrs. Mehling asked the construction type of the building, and Mr. Hirsch said it will be metal, but will not look like a typical metal barn. Mrs. Mehling asked if it would be insulated, and Mr. Hirsch said yes.

 

- SALDO Section 9.12.C, 9.17.A.1.a, 9.16.F.7 – Providing street pavement specifications for the proposed driveway. Ms. Holmes explained they are proposing to pave the driveway from the intersection of Old Easton Road to the first parking space (which will be handicapped), and then gravel the remaining driveway/parking area.

 

Mr. Gray noted for this waiver and the following one, they are appropriate for this use and this applicant. He explained it is important to note if there is a significant change of use in the future, the applicant or property owner will need to understand revisions may be needed. Mr. Gray said granting of these waivers with conditions will need to be made clear on the plan, and may include a covenant on the plan that will be worked out with the township solicitor and the Board of Supervisors.

 

- SALDO Section 9.16.F.6.b – Providing less than the required 26-foot-wide driveway for 2-way traffic. Mrs. Mehling asked if Mr. Hirsch expected any large trucks on the property, and Mr. Hirsch said no 18-wheelers.

 

- SALDO Section 9.17.A.1.a – Providing more than 25% of the parking requirements as compact spaces.  Ms. Holmes said all of the spaces will be compact.

 

- SALDO Section 9.18.A, Article 9.18.B, 22-9.7.A.13 and Article 9.18.C – Providing drainage, street widening, pavement improvements, curb, sidewalk and bicycle path to Old Easton Road along frontage of lot, and from providing a fee-in-lieu for these improvements. Ms. Holmes said the proposed development replaces a detached garage, and there are minimum front of property improvements. She said they agree to dedicate the required right-of-way to the township.

 

- SALDO Section 9.20.D – Partial waiver from providing required Type 1 buffer along property perimeter and to allow the buffer yard to overlap with front, side and rear yards. Mrs. Holmes said the Landscape Review Consultants had supported this request.  Mr. Gray explained there will be a note on the recorded plan that if the dwelling unit is ever removed, or there is a change of use, appropriate buffers will be required to be planted along the front of the site.

 

- SALDO Section 9.20.M – Providing required tree protection area around existing trees to be preserved, and from constructing a retaining wall when original grade cannot be maintained at the tree protection area line. Ms. Holmes requested this matter to be addressed when the Landscape Review Consultants have a site visit, adding they agree to resolve this to the Landscape Review Consultants satisfaction.

 

- SALDO Section 9.22.C – Providing limit of grading five feet from the property lines. Ms. Holmes explained this requirement is met throughout the property other than adjacent to the parking area where grading is shown up to the property line to allow for drainage to flow along the rear of the parking area. Mr. Gray requested the applicant have a letter signed by the neighboring properties allowing them to cross the line if needed for minor rounding of the grade, adding he did not think temporary construction easements would be needed as long as the letters were provided. Mr. Hirsch agreed to talk with the neighbor.

 

- SALDO Section 9.37 – Providing a Transportation Impact Study. Ms. Holmes explained this is required for any non-residential use with 10 or more parking spaces, and 13 spaces are proposed only to meet the zoning requirements, however there will be very limited traffic to and from the proposed building, therefore providing no impact to the surrounding road networks. Mr. Hirsch said he usually goes to a job site initially, and the customer may come to his shop to view the project in process. Dr. Sandberg why have so many parking spaces; and Mr. Spadafora asked if they could be reduced. Mr. Gray said there could be reserve parking areas deed restricted, that could be grass until needed in order to save Mr. Hirsch the expense of gravel. Mr. Hirsch said he appreciated the suggestions to save him money, but the gravel space may be needed to trucks to turn around, adding he would consider the idea.

 

- SALDO Section 9.23.K.1.v – Providing landscaping plan for stormwater management facility. Mr. Gray said this can be detailed as the stormwater plan is worked out; adding it will be likely be grass covered due to the design. Ms. Holmes said the site will have buffer plantings around the basin.

 

- SALDO Section 9.23.O.4 – Calculating existing conditions flow rate using existing impervious as meadow condition. Ms. Holmes explained the existing impervious surfaces have been in place for decades are proposed to remain largely undisturbed as part of this project. She proposed using this land cover in the calculation to provide an accurate representation of existing conditions. Mr. Gray said due to the footprint, he was agreeable to this waiver request.

 

- SALDO Section 9.23.O.1 – Requesting to use the Dekalb Rational Method to calculate runoff and peak discharge. Ms. Holmes explained the site is below 10 acres, which permits the use of Rational Method by ordinance with Township Engineer approval.  Mr. Gray said he approves.

 

Ms. Holmes confirmed that with the exception of waivers requested, all items within October 2, 2017 Knight Engineering Inc. review letter and the September 20, 2017 Landscape Review Consultants letter were either “will comply” or will be worked out between the engineers. Ms. Manicone requested to visit the site in person, and Ms. Holmes agreed it would be good for the landscape architect and Ms. Manicone to conduct a site walk.

 

Mr. Ives noted in the September 19, 2017 Bucks County Planning Commission review letter the following items were specifically raised, in addition to the items previously discussed in the waiver requests:

 

- Airport elevations – Suggesting the height limitations of the airport area protection standards found in Article 3 of the zoning ordinance be listed on the plan so that existing and future property owners may be fully aware of these requirements. Ms. Holmes noted the request.

 

- Sidewalk – Sidewalk is not displayed along the frontage of Old Easton Road as required per SALDO Section 9.18.B.1 to accommodate for safe pedestrian access.  Mr. Ives said in the Cross Keys overall plan, sidewalks are proposed on the opposite side of Old Easton Road, and it was up to the Planning Commission if they wanted to recommend them on this project’s side of the road as there are none there presently.

 

Mrs. Mehling asked if the audience had any questions.

 

Mr. Glenn Thomson, Lovering Drive, said regarding parking, how many employees would be working at the site, and if they would be permanent and/or subcontractor’s. Mr. Gray explained that typically parking requirements are based on square footage plus number of employees; so, if 50 employees, 50 parking spaces are required plus square footage. However, each use has specific requirements that must be followed. Ms. Holmes said the calculations for this site were based on the greater amount of square footage or employees, and in their case the square footage required the greater number of parking spaces.

 

Mr. Thomson asked, with regards to parking, how would the township know if the business expands. Mr. Gray explained that it is typically self-regulating as business owners usually make sure that there are parking spaces available to customers; adding the township would also notice parking in the street and/or receive complaints from the residents.

 

Mr. Hirsch pointed out that as a cabinet shop, if he needs more parking spots he is doing something wrong, as this is a labor of love, not a commercial venture.

 

Mrs. Mehling made a motion, seconded by Dr. Sandberg, to recommend preliminary/final approval of the “Hirsch Property” Land Development plan dated September 8, 2017, Township File LD 2017-03, TMP 6-4-6, 3842 Old Easton Road, 6,000 square foot new building area on 1 acre, located in the PC1 Zoning District, subject to:

 

1.         Compliance with all the comments in the October 2, 2017 Knight Engineering, Inc. review letter or agreement that matters will be resolved between the engineers, excepting:

 

Those comments requiring compliance with SALDO provisions for which a waiver is by this motion recommended to be granted pursuant to Applicant’s October 4, 2017 Waivers Request.

 

 

2.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 20, 2017 Landscape Review Consultants’ review letter or to be agreed upon following site walk with Landscape Review Consultant and applicant’s landscape architect.

 

3.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 19, 2017 Bucks County Planning Commission review letter.

 

4.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 28, 2017 Zoning Officer review letter.

 

5.         The waivers from SALDO requested in Applicant’s October 4, 2017 Waivers Request letter are recommended to be granted to the extent heretofore discussed.

 

6.         Applicant shall submit revised plans to the township addressing the noted comments prior to plan review by the Board of Supervisors.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

Consideration of recommending Preliminary Approval of the “Leaver Cable Funeral Home” Land Development plan dated August 25, 2017, Township File LD 2017-04, TMP 6-10-115-1, 4886 York Road, 2,205 square foot new building area on 2.0 Acres, located in the LC Zoning District. The initial 90-day review period expires January 2, 2018.

 

Mr. John VanLuvanee, Eastburn & Gray, Mr. Zachery Shearon, Shearon Environmental Design Company, Inc., Mr. Jim McAllister, Architect, and Mr. John Givnish, Property and Business Owner, were present to discuss the plan for a proposed 2,205 square foot new building area addition to an existing facility located at 4886 York Road.

 

Mr. VanLuvanee explained this subject was before the Zoning Hearing Board in May of 2017, and during that review a number of historical documents were located affirming the business use was approved by a court order, and that this is a non-conforming use in the LC zoning district.  Mr. VanLuvanee confirmed although this parcel is in a carbonate area, studies by Gilmore & Associates have established there is no limestone under this site.  Mr. VanLuvanee confirmed the Zoning Hearing Board approved an impervious surface variance to 33%, rather than retaining the 10% allowed in this carbonate geology area. Mr. VanLuvanee said the parking is located in the front of the facility, and they purposely have no landscaping buffer so that the business is visible from the street, as are other commercial properties in the vicinity.

 

Mr. VanLuvanee said about 1-1/2 years ago, this project was before the Board of Supervisors as a Request for Land Development Waiver, as the public courts say this is not Land Development, however the waiver was not granted. He added Mr. Givnish expected this project to take 6 months, not 2 years, and is frustrated.

 

Mr. Givnish provided history, saying he is the third generation of being in the funeral home business; that his parents had 6 children and they are all licensed funeral directors.  His family owns 22 funeral homes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Mr. Givnish said the Buckingham location has the least business of all of the funeral homes, with only 65 funerals a year (some others average 500 a year), however he decided to bring this building up to their brand instead of selling it.

 

Mr. Givnish said as far as traffic is concerned, 45% of their business is cremation, and most funerals are not held on site. He said they have private viewings, but had only 24 funerals at this location this year, with only 11 evening viewings, so they do not produce a lot of traffic. Mr. Gray asked how many people are typically at the funerals; Mr. Givnish replied there are typically 18 cars, with approximately 40 people. Mr. Gray asked if it would increase with the additional size, and Mr. Givnish said no, business is expected to remain the same, however the building is their best billboard for private funerals elsewhere. Dr. Sandberg questioned why they wanted to expand their space instead of remodeling the existing space, and Mr. Givnish said they have a brand to uphold.

 

Mr. Givnish said the additional space will hold a new chapel, with the current chapel becoming a foyer. He said they need different staging areas, using various rooms with TV’s and monitors to show a person’s life. He said they will have 9’ peak ceilings, and windows versus heavily draped areas.

 

Mr. Gray asked how they handle the offsite funerals. Mr. Givnish said they meet the family at the alternate location. He said if there is an expected large group at the funeral home, they would not put traffic out during rush hours. Mr. Givnish said in his experience, he has seen the average age if death change from 65 to 85 years old, and the procedure has changed from calling hours for evening viewing, to everything getting done in one day. Mr. Gray questioned if there were to be a larger crowd, would the facility operator have onsite traffic control to help people get out to the alternate locations. Mr. Givnish confirmed that they would provide staff to direct traffic safely onto York Road during large events.

 

Mr. VanLuvanee confirmed that with the exception of waivers requested, all items within the October 2, 2017 Knight Engineering Inc. review letter and the September 27, 2017 Landscape Review Consultants letter were either “will comply” or will be worked out between the engineers.

 

Ms. Manicone requested to visit the site in person, and Mr. Shearon agreed they would meet onsite to review possibilities for maintaining visibility while dressing up the property without installing a complete buffer planting. Ms. Manicone said there are only a couple of gaps on the two sides that will need some plantings.

 

Items of concern within the Knight Engineering Inc. October 2, 2017 letter were reviewed:

 

1.2 SALDO § 9.42.A - Wetland delineation study requirement. Mr. Shearon said Mr. Gray had sent them the Buckingham Pediatrics plan when they had discussed getting an easement across their property. Mr. VanLuvanee said the easement was agreed upon. Mr. Gray asked that they reference the Buckingham Pediatrics wetland delineation on their plan and maintain the appropriate setback from Buckingham Pediatric wetland areas, and Mr. Shearon agreed.

 

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 SALDO § 9.20.D.2.b, 9.20.D.2.d, 9.20.D.3.a(ii) -Applicant will meet with the Landscape Review Consultant onsite to discuss buffer yards, areas and berms.

 

Mr. Gray said the waivers regarding traffic (2.4 SALDO § 9.18.A.1 Curbs and 2.8 SALDO § 9.37 Transportation Impact Study) were present to provide the opportunity to converse during this meeting about traffic control and whether a larger improvement plan would be needed. Mr. Gray said the information as presented this evening is acceptable as far as traffic impact with the understanding that the Applicant will provide appropriate traffic control during larger events.

 

2.9 SALDO § 9.38 Requiring land development within carbonate limestone areas to follow additional restraints. Mr. Gray commented even though no limestone features were discovered during testing, there may be some found during construction as the property is located in the limestone valley. He requested this be addressed in the plan notes. Mr. Shearon agreed.

 

2.4 SALDO § 9.18.A.1 Curbs and other improvements. Mr. Gray noted a sidewalk along York Road was shown on the plan; however, Mr. VanLuvanee said they would prefer not to install it at this time. Mr. Givnish said in reviewing their budget, they are already far over their prediction and asked if the sidewalk could be installed in the future when the surrounding properties install theirs.

 

Mr. Ives, Bucks County Planning Commission, said making connection is important and the span between the existing Route 202 parkway trail and New Hope is part of the circuit trail system, so they recommend it be installed now as shown on the plan. Mr. Ives also noted that the Buckingham Township Ad Hoc Trail Committee was currently working on a Township-wide Trail Improvement Plan and that recommendations for the trail system in this area are forthcoming.

 

Mr. Gray said there would be a choice of macadam vs. concrete, and Mr. Shearon said macadam would be better in cost. Mr. Gray said a sidewalk would be 6’ or a path 8’, adding perhaps the Board of Supervisors would agree to a 6’ path as a compromise. Mr. Fowles noted the plan says a 5’ sidewalk.

 

Mrs. Mehling explained when the churches came into Buckingham the township envisioned residents walking from the churches to Buckingham Green shopping center, and now with the expanded Holicong Park, the village would finally be walkable. Mr. Gray agreed stating the township now has a policy of requesting the sidewalks or paths upfront, instead of waiving the requirement or having a note on the plan that the improvement may be installed upon request in the future.

 

Dr. Sandberg questioned if the township would want to request all the sidewalks be installed at the same time so that they would be constructed the same and be continuous. Dr. Sandberg suggested this be included in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Fowles reluctantly agreed, however said in general if you don’t start somewhere you won’t ever get it.

 

Mr. VanLuvanee agreed they would put a note on the plan, that upon request from the township the property owner will install the sidewalk.

 

Mr. VanLuvanee asked to discuss item 2.6 Construction materials of emergency spillways. Mr. Gray said the township would accept a permanent matting rather than checkerboard for a basin of this size. Mr. Shearon explained it is only a 5’ wide berm, and Mr. Gray agreed the 5’ wide berm could be provided with a vegetated spillway with a permanent matting.

 

Dr. Sandberg made a motion, seconded by Mr. Spadafora, to recommend preliminary/final approval of the “Leaver Cable Funeral Home” Land Development plan dated August 25, 2017, Township File LD 2017-04, TMP 6-10-115-1, 4886 York Road, 2,205 square foot new building area on 2.0 Acres, located in the LC Zoning District, subject to:

 

1.         Compliance with all the comments in the October 2, 2017 Knight Engineering, Inc. review letter or agreement that matters will be resolved between the engineers, excepting:

 

- Those comments requiring compliance with SALDO provisions for which a waiver is by this motion recommended to be granted pursuant to Applicant’s August 25, 2017 Waivers Request.

 

And with the agreement that:

- The Emergency spillway shall be permanent matting rather than checkerboard;

- A note shall be added to the plan to defer construction of the sidewalk or bike path until the Township determines that the sidewalk or path is to be installed.

 

2.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 27, 2017 Landscape Review Consultants’ review letter or to be agreed upon following site walk with Landscape Review Consultant and applicant’s landscape architect.

 

3.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 18, 2017 Bucks County Planning Commission review letter.

 

4.         Compliance with all the comments in the September 28, 2017 Zoning Officer review letter.

 

5.         The waivers from SALDO requested in Applicant’s August 25, 2017 Waivers Request letter are recommended to be granted to the extent heretofore discussed.

 

6.         Applicant shall submit revised plans to the township addressing the noted comments prior to plan review by the Board of Supervisors.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

Mrs. Mehling made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fowles, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:30 p.m. The motion carried unanimously.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Lori Wicen.

View Meeting Minutes prior to June 23, 2009