It’s not final approval, but Pennsbury Township supervisors and Pennsbury Village Associates have reached an agreement allowing the planned village project to move forward.

While several residents urged a “no” vote and one former supervisor criticized the current board, incumbent Supervisor Charles “Scotty” Scottoline said he was pleased with the outcome.

“It’s a relief,” Scottoline said. “Personally, I’ve been involved since 2003 when I was on the Planning Commission and others were involved even prior to that. So, it’s been a long arduous path [with] lots of puts and takes, lots of differences of opinion between different boards, but at least we finally got to an end point which, at least this current board thinks, reflects the will of the voters.”

Scottoline explained that the current board members, he, Aaron McIntyre and Supervisors’ Chairman Wendell Fenton, won their respective primary races with an average of 70 percent of the vote.

Supervisors approved the stipulation 2-0 during a special meeting April 1. Scottoline and Fenton voted for the stipulation. McIntyre abstained although the developer said that was not necessary, according to township solicitor Tom Oeste.

Oeste said during the meeting that the agreement ends several lawsuits between PVA and the township, including one that names Fenton and the township as defendants. The agreement does not eliminate a suit naming McIntyre as a defendant, Oeste said.

He added that the agreement clears the way for the project to go forward: “It approves a revised development plan for the property consisting of 111 dwelling units on the east and west parcels [on either side of the township building] and five units on the Hickory Hill parcel,” Oeste said.

Some of the housing units will be singles. Others will be attached. The project covers approximately 18 acres of land with parcels on each side of the township building.

PVA must still get the necessary state permits—including a Department of Environmental Protection permit for wastewater discharge—as well as final approval from the township supervisors, Oeste added.

“It will be quite some time before ground is broken,” he said.

The agreement is 21 pages long and deals with the number of homes on the Hickory Hill site—reduced to five from eight—as well as weather-sealing and possibly moving the Hope House, the building to the west of the township building. The Hope House is currently being used as a retail shop La Maison.

Oeste said Judge Thomas Gavin, of the Court of Common Pleas, must still review the agreement.

Prior to the vote, two residents urged the supervisors to reject the stipulation.

John Blankenbaker said the plan would lead to more traffic at school bus stops along Hickory Hill Road and Charles Axarlis said the plan puts a wastewater seepage bed too close to the well on his property.

The plan, which began as a multi-use development combining residential and commercial properties in one area, has been controversial for at least a dozen years. It remains so even though the retail businesses are, for now at least, off the table.

One person involved for a long time is Karen Wood who dealt with the plan as a member of the Planning Commission and as a supervisor.

It was during her term on the board—along with former supervisors Bill Reynolds and MaryAnna Ralph—that the project came to the forefront of township politics.

Even after the April 1 vote, the plan evokes emotion.

“Approval for this development comes only after many years of relentless interference and obstruction from the Defenders of Pennsbury” Wood said. “Facts and critical thinking—the basis for productive—honest argument were never employed by them. Their sole objective was to prevent this development from becoming a reality and, indeed, was a campaign promise by at least one [current supervisor],” she said.

Defenders of Pennsbury was a citizens group formed to fight the original development and the use of township land for the project.

Wood added that current board members have ignored the Sunshine Law in pursuing personal agendas and that the Defenders of Pennsbury involved in “gratuitous legal excess” to make the plan go away at a high cost to the township in legal fees.

“Today there is nothing positive to show for this completely unnecessary expenditure,” she said.

Also chiding the current board members was resident Ward Kissell.

He said he was glad that the board agreed to the stipulation but urged the members to listen to the residents.

“Try to make this a friendly township. I’d like to suggest that you people consider a public relations program to answer the concerns of the people of the township. When meetings occur, there’s a tension, a suspicion and everybody’s not being honest,” Kissell said.

He said it seemed as if the board members had their own agenda without any regard for the wishes of the residents.

“I don’t think you get the input from the people that you should get. I don’t know whether it’s out of fear or whether it’s because the majority of the people of the township won’t come to these meetings,” he added.