Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer revises Farm’s Edge plan, seeks authorization to advertise zoning text for Shady Brook project
Summary
Fox Lane Homes presented a revised Farm’s Edge at Shady Brook plan May 12 that reduces units, expands open space and increases stormwater and landscaping commitments; supervisors did not authorize advertising of the required zoning amendment at the meeting.
MIDDLETOWN, Pa. — Fox Lane Homes and project landowners reviewed a reworked plan for Farm’s Edge at Shady Brook at the May 12 Middletown Board of Supervisors meeting, showing fewer units, expanded open space and new landscaping and stormwater commitments to address neighbors’ concerns.
The developer said the revised layout trims carriage homes from the earlier design (161 total units in the first version) to about 150 carriage units, removes a proposed road that had caused concern among neighbors in The Villas of Shady Brook and expands stormwater basins and landscape buffers along adjacent neighborhoods. The project team said the revised plan also includes walking trails, a clubhouse, pool and community garden and that its landscape architect (SikoraWells) would design meadow and planted buffers intended to screen adjacent homes.
Joe Morrissey of Fox Lane Homes told the board the revised plan reduced the number of units compared with the initial submission, enlarged stormwater measures where necessary and relocated or removed roadway connections that neighbors had opposed. Morrissey said the developers had met repeatedly with adjacent residential communities over several months and that the changes reflect that feedback.
Why it matters: The Farm’s Edge proposal would require a zoning text amendment to implement the developer’s preferred district and density. The developer said the revised concept generates substantially more municipal tax revenue per acre than a hypothetical by‑right single‑family subdivision while producing fewer or no school‑age children because the project would be age‑restricted. Supervisor questions focused on density, traffic and how the plan compares with a buy‑right single‑family alternative.
Supervisor concerns and next steps: Several supervisors expressed concern about density and asked whether a smaller unit count could maintain tax benefits while reducing the perceived impact on neighbors. Morrissey said the carriage‑home approach keeps more contiguous open space than a by‑right single‑family subdivision would, but supervisors asked for additional comparisons and for the formal petition language. Township solicitor Andrew Esposito told the board that advertising the ordinance is a ministerial step to place the zoning petition on a future agenda and does not approve rezoning; supervisors can still modify or reject the petition after public comment.
At the meeting the board considered — but did not approve — a motion to advertise the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The motion failed for lack of a second. Solicitor Esposito said a copy of the proposed ordinance would be circulated to supervisors for review ahead of the board’s next meeting; the developer requested that staff advertise so the full rezoning presentation could be scheduled for the June meeting.
What residents said: Several nearby residents spoke in the meeting. Tom Morelli of Chilton Place praised the applicant’s engagement and said version 2 addressed a number of stormwater and viewline concerns; other neighbors said they remained worried about overall density and its cumulative effect on the township.
What’s next: Developers will continue to work with township staff and neighbors. The board asked the solicitor to circulate the formal petition text to supervisors; the zoning amendment and the land‑development application may return to the board at a later meeting after notification and the public‑advertising process is complete.
