Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1160 GorenIn Re: Ann Goren Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair Julius Uehlein John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket File Docket: 99- 010 -C2 X -ref: Order No. 1160 Date Decided: 06/20/00 Date Mailed: 07/07/00 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation as to the above -named Respondent regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which inter alia provides for the completion of pending matters under that Act. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved and the Stipulation of Findings appears as the Findings in this adjudication. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Ann Goren, a public official in her capacity as a supervisor for Newtown Township, Bucks County, violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 et seq.) when she used the authority of her office for a private pecuniary benefit by participating in actions and discussions of the Board of Supervisors regarding denials for use of properties zoned office research at a time when she was filing lawsuits regarding her own property being zoned office /research. II. FINDINGS: 1. Ann Goren served as a supervisor of Newtown Township, Bucks County from January 1994 through December 1999. a. Goren also serve as a member of the Newtown Joint Municipal Zoning Board from 1994 through 1999. 2. In August 1983 the communities of Newtown Borough and the townships of Upper Makefield, Wrightstown and Newtown entered into an agreement to adopt a Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. a. The communities developed a Regional Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code. b. The plan is to serve as a guide for land use allocation, environmental protection and community infrastructure for each community within an area -wide framework. c. The premise of the plan was that the administration of the Regional Zoning Ordinance continue to be the responsibility of each municipality elected and planning officials. 3. The jointure was formed pursuant to provisions of the Pa. Municipal Planning Code. a. Members of the individual governing bodies served as members of the joint council. 4. Article XI of the Pa. Municipal Planning Code provides for two or more municipalities to cooperate in the development of a Regional Comprehensive Plan. a. The scope of these plans is expanded to include a number of municipalities where regional land use patterns, transportation systems, etc. need a broader perspective. 5. The zoning map approved by the joint council created an Office /Research (OR) district. a. Approximately 350 acres of the southeast corner of Newtown Township (Township) was zoned OR. b. Approximately 200 acres remain undeveloped. 6. The Office /Research District was described in the Joint Ordinance as follows: Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 3 Corporate office and research related facilities shall continue to be specifically provided for within the Newtown Area. These uses complement the manufacturing and assembly type uses provided for within the Newtown Industrial Commons. In addition, the potential revenue and employment opportunities which they create relative to the municipal services which they require, is seen as a critical counter point to the projected residential development throughout the Newtown Area. The area currently designated for office and research type facilities located one -half mile from the 1 -95 Interchange shall be expanded to provide for future capacity after the completion of the Newtown Bypass. A portion of the undeveloped land opposite the current Office /Research District along Newtown - Yardley Road and which will also front onto the new highway, shall be designated for future expansion of the Office /Research District. 7 The land use plan for the Office /Research District was described as follows: The typical large per lot acreage requirements associated with corporate headquarters, administrative and /or research facilities shall be provided for within this planning area. Interim low intensity uses such as various agricultural activities shall also be permitted within the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Prior to August 1983 the southeast corner of the township was zoned residential. 9. In approximately June 1983, subdivision plans had been submitted for a residential housing development known as Norwalk by developer 1205 Inc. for an area located in the southeast corner of the township. a. On June 20, 1983, the subdivision plans were denied by the township board of supervisors. b. The denial was appealed. 10. While the appeal was pending, the township entered into the joint council and the property was rezoned Office /Research. 11. A settlement was reached between the township and 1205 Inc. on February 6, 1984, which permitted the subdivision to continue under the prior residential zoning criteria, even though the property had been rezoned OR. 12. The area of Newtown Township known as Norwalk Development continues to be zoned OR. 13. Ann Goren and her husband, Dennis Goren, reside at 81 Autumn Drive, which is located in the Norwalk Development. a. The Gorens entered into an agreement of sale on March 12, 1989, for a home on Lot No. 16 at a price of $340,900. b. The agreement was with American Planned Communities, Inc. (APC), the Norwalk Developer. 1. APC has assumed development of Norwalk. 14. The Goren property abuts a farm which is located north of the Norwalk subdivision and which constitutes a large portion of the undeveloped land. Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 4 15. At the time of the purchase of Lot No. 16 the Gorens believed that Lot No. 16 was zoned residential. 16. On or about December 1995 the Gorens discovered their property was zoned O/R not residential. 17. On August 29, 1997, the Gorens filed a civil suit in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas against American Planned Communities and James C. Hugill, APC President. a. The suit sought a judgment of $80,000 plus costs and legal fees. b. The suit alleged the representations of the zoning to the Gorens was false. 1. Goren believed that at the time of purchase of the property was zoned residential. c. The Gorens believed their property is undervalued by $80,000 as a result of the zoning. 18. Since her election to the board of supervisors, Goren has opposed land development in the OR zone which is in close proximity to her residence as well as land development in other areas of the township. a. Goren sought the office of township supervisor on the platform of preserving open space in all areas of the township. b. Ann Goren advocated during public meetings that the township should rezone the O/R district, purchase the property or buy the development rights in the zone to preserve open space. 19. Goren participated in discussions and actions of the board of supervisors opposing development plans in the OR district between 1995 and September 1997. a. 1995: Goren voted against a land development plan submitted by Lockhead Martin for a communications satellite research and testing center. a. 1996: Goren voted against a motion to send to the Planning Commission for review a concept plan of road construction and improvements around the OR district to provide access to undeveloped areas. Goren voted in favor of a motion requesting the Joint Planning Commission review standards for residential development in the OR District. b. 1997: March 12, 1997, Goren voted against a motion condemning 29 acres of land for roadway and stormwater improvements, including a new segment of road providing access to the west side of the OR district. 20. Approximately two months prior to filing the lawsuit against Hugill and APC, Goren participated in discussions and actions of the board regarding limiting uses for the OR district. Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 5 a. 06/25/97: OR Zoning District Alternatives Analyze Study: Motion to appoint consultant to perform traffic analysis study passed by a 4 to 1 vote. Goren opposed. Goren questioned the study, saying the action will promote office development. She agreed to traffic study but changed her mind after the study. Goren asked when the board would listen to what the people want to try to preserve open space. Goren wants to consider farms in the OR district for open space. Goren suggested rezoning the area or purchasing development rights. Supervisor Michael questioned whether Goren had a conflict of interest since she lives in the OR district. b. 07/09/97: Goren stated she did not know her property was zoned OR when she bought it. She said the recent election has given her the message that the people want open space rather than large -scale development. Goren believes the board position is to consider only residential parcels as open space. Goren responded to the questions stating that she has no conflict of interest in this area. 23.[sic] Goren continued to participate in discussions and actions of the board regarding the OR District after she filed the lawsuit against APC. a. 02/25/98: Goren motions to look at other possible uses for the OR district, and the traffic impact. Motion failed by a 3 to 2 vote, Goren voted in the minority. Goren opposed a motion authorizing the manager to prepare a proposal for the study of economic impact of a zoning change for the OR District from the point of view of both the school district and township. The motion carried by a 4 to 1 vote. March 25, 1998: The topic of cluster housing in the OR District was addressed by Supervisor Goodnoe. Goodnoe read from the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance regarding the intent for the O/R District, which he said is not for high density residential, but for office /campus use. Goren advises that at a previous meeting she discussed a CM District density instead of the 15 acre minimum for residential lots in the OR District. May 13, 1998: Goren participated in discussions regarding site plans and proposed roadways through OR district on the plans. Discussion focused on Community Association of Underwriters' land development plan which showed several proposed buildings in the OR District and a proposed right -of -way across the CAU property to allow for a future access road to the OR district. Goren made a motion directing the manager to not require a 60' right - of -way and to communicate with applicants not to feel compelled to show the road (Concept Way) in their plans. Motion failed by a 3 to 2 Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 6 vote. May 27, 1998: Goren reported about attending the Joint Planning Commission meeting and a draft ordinance on residential standards in the OR District. June 10, 1998: Goren responded to resident's questions regarding an article she authored. Goren described how the group she was involved with worked with Philadelphia City Council to limit high density development. She wants to see Newtown Township do more to preserve open space and limit the kind of development that produces high density traffic. She said single family homes, parks, farms and open space are examples of uses that generate less traffic than the uses currently permitted in the OR District. June 24, 1998: CAU Preliminary Plan discussed. Goren questioned the route of the access driveway, the density of the project and the traffic study. Goren voted no on the motion to approve the CAU preliminary plan which passed by a 3 to 2 vote. July 8, 1998: Goren comments about zoning in the OR district. Goren wanted to preserve more land for farming but where it is not possible, she prefers uses that limit traffic volume. Goren denied having a conflict of interest when voting on OR matters since she does not stand to gain materially. August 26, 1998: LaSalle Land Use Option Study for OR District presented. Goren questioned choice of industries, as models for OR use, market estimates of land in the township and the review of possible tax records. September 9, 1998: McMahon traffic study for the OR district reviewed in conjunction with LaSalle. Goren opposed and voted no on a motion to send 5 areas of the traffic study to the Planning Commission and Traffic Impact Advisory Committee. Goren saw no need to consider items tested in the study. Goren advocated buying development rights in the undeveloped land in the OR district. Goren claimed the LaSalle study was incorrect concerning land preservation costs as open space and revenues from OR development. November 4, 1998: Goren opposed to amounts budgeted to be transferred to the open space acquisition fund. Residents question whether Goren has conflict of interest regarding Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 7 her participation in OR issues. 24. On November 25, 1998, APC and James Hugill, original defendants in the Goren lawsuit, filed a complaint joining Newtown Township and two other defendants. a. The township was notified on or about December 7, 1998. b. The township has since been dropped from the lawsuit. 25. Prior to receipt of the complaint, the township board of supervisors and township solicitor were unaware that the Gorens had initiated any lawsuit against APC and Hagill. a. When participating in actions and discussions regarding or O/R issues, Goren did not advise the board of the existing lawsuit against APC and Hugill. 26. During an Executive Session of the board held on December 9, 1998, Solicitor Harris advised the board of the lawsuit. a. A decision was made to refer the matter to the township insurance carrier. b. Goren was present during this meeting. 27. During a regular board meeting held on December 16, 1998, Goren read a statement into the minutes regarding allegations of conflict of interest: I was disappointed to read the response some of my fellow board members had to plans Mr. Gavaghan and I developed to find money for open space preservation without raising taxes. Plans which my board challenged me to find. I find it hard to understand being criticized for doing what I was asked to do. I was also surprised to read in the Bucks County Courier Times the township solicitor's response as to whether or not he felt I had a conflict of interest in actions involving zoning in the OR district. When this issue was first raised at a public board of supervisors meeting, Mr. Harris stated that I did not have a conflict of interest. Last Sunday, Mr. Harris stated that because of a lawsuit my husband and I are involved in, the entire matter has to be rethought.' When I called him the next day he still had no recommendations to give me. Several people have suggested that I ask the State Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion as to whether or not I have a conflict of interest. I think this is a good idea. Therefore, I have instructed my attorney, Mr. Paul Beckert, to request a written opinion from the Ethics Commission and I am now publicly stating that I will abide by whatever decision they reach on this matter. I hope this will put to rest any speculation regarding my intentions where open space preservation or zoning are concerned. Perhaps now this board will focus its attention on taking care of the needs of this township instead of politicizing my family's private affairs. 28. Goren requested a confidential advisory opinion from the State Ethics Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 8 Commission dated December 16, 1998, and provided additional information dated December 29, 1998. a. Goren requested advice on the following issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act presents any prohibition or restrictions upon a township supervisor with regard to a certain "OR" district (permitting office development) or particular properties zoned "OR" that adjoin or are in the vicinity of the development in which the supervisor resides, where the supervisor and her spouse have sued the developer alleging misrepresentation of their property as zoned residential, when it is instead OR, and where the township has been joined as an additional defendant in that litigation. 29. A confidential Advice of Counsel (99 -503) was issued to Goren on January 25, 1999, outlining the following factual scenario based on information submitted by Goren: In your public capacity, you serve as a Supervisor in Township A ( "Township "), County B, Pennsylvania. In your private capacity, you and your husband have sued a developer alleging misrepresentation as to the zoning classification of a certain property which you own. You have submitted copies of various pleadings which have been filed in the lawsuit, including the original Complaint and the Complaint by which the Defendants joined additional Defendants including the Township. The Sales Agreement by which you purchased your property is attached as an exhibit to the original Complaint. Included among the exhibits to the Defendants' Complaint are an Answer and New Matter to your Complaint and the recorded final plan for the subdivision which includes your property. All of the submitted documents are incorporated herein by reference. It is noted that the Sales Agreement, dated March 12, 1989, indicated that your property was zoned residential. Similarly, the final plan for the subdivision which includes your property indicated that the zoning classification was AR -2. Your Complaint alleges that the Defendants represented that the property which you purchased was zoned residential, and that the representatives of the Defendants also represented that the land adjoining the development was likewise zoned residential (Corn plaint, paragraphs 5 -6). The Complaint further alleges that at all times unbeknownst to you and your spouse, until approximately December of 1995, your property, the development in which your property is located, and the adjoining properties were in fact zoned OR (Complaint, paragraph 7). It is alleged that after December 1995, the Township began expressing an interest in developing the OR district, and that plans have been brought before the Township for the development of substantial office complexes within the OR district, as well as additional roads to serve said district. Your Complaint seeks damages for the alleged depreciation of the value of your property from what it would have been had it in fact been zoned residential, together with costs and interest. The Complaint filed by the original Defendants, by which the additional Defendants including the Township were joined, alleges that from the date of the recording of the final plan for the subdivision in which you reside (July 27, 1987) through and including July 23, 1996, the Township represented the zoning classification of the property to be R -2. The Complaint further alleges Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 9 that in zoning permits and certificates of occupancy, the Township has also represented such to be the zoning classification of the single - family homes within the subdivision. The original Defendants have alleged that they relied upon the representations of the Township regarding the zoning classification of your property. Their Complaint contends that, to the extent you have incurred any damages, the additional Defendants are either solely liable, are liable over by way of indemnification, or are jointly and severally liable on your cause of action. Having submitted the above, you note that there are several large tracts of property which adjoin or are in the vicinity of the development in which you live and which are zoned OR. As a Supervisor, you have supported what you term the "pro- active policy" of the purchase of open space and development rights throughout the Township including areas within the OR district which are presently farmland. You have also opposed the condemnation of certain properties adjacent to the OR district intended to facilitate a four -lane highway to service the OR district. As for the future, you note that there has been public comment, but nothing firm, regarding the possibility of rezoning some or all of the property within the OR district. You state that issues have been raised as to whether, in your capacity as a Township Supervisor, you would have a conflict of interest with regard to matters involving the OR zone because such could or might impact upon the value of your home. You seek an advisory from the State Ethics Commission as to your prospective involvement in issues concerning the OR district or particular properties zoned OR. 30. Advice of Counsel 99 -503 concluded that there was insufficient facts on which to base a conclusion whether the Ethics Act presented any prohibitions or restrictions on Goren with regard to her participation in "OR" district issues. 31. Following receipt of Advice 99 -503, Goren abstained from voting on issues pertaining to the OR district. 32. Goren's opposition to commercial and development in the OR district and other areas of the township did not effect the lawsuit filed against APC and Hugill. 33. The township was subsequently dropped as a defendant in the lawsuit by APC Development. 34. Any action taken by Goren to approve open space or limit development in the OR district would equally affect the other properties in the Norwalk Development. a. There are twenty -eight (28) other homes in the development. 35. Bucks County Chief Property Appraiser, Richard Brosius, determined there would not be a significant increase to the value of the Goren's property if the surrounding OR district was rezoned for residential or some other permitted use. a. Mr. Brosius' opinion is that the Goren's property has steadily increased in value along with other houses in the area of comparable size. Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 10 III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Ann Goren (Goren), has been a ublic official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998. The issue is whether Goren violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation that she used the authority of her office for a private pecuniary benefit by participating in actions and discussions of the Board of Supervisors regarding denials for use of properties zoned office research at a time when she was filing a lawsuit regarding her own property being zoned office /residential. 65 P.S. §403(a). Section 403. Restricted activities. (a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under the Ethics Act as follows: Section 402. Definitions. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts. Goren served as a Supervisor in Newtown Township and as a Board Member of the Newtown Joint Municipal Zoning Board from 1994 through 1999. In 1983, Newtown Township and other municipalities entered into an agreement to adopt a joint municipal zoning ordinance and zoning map. The Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 11 agreement was to serve as a guide for land use allocation, environmental protection, and community infrastructure for each member municipality. Members of the individual governing bodies served as members of a Joint Counsel of the Newtown Joint Municipal Zoning Board. The zoning map approved by the Joint Counsel created an office /research (OR) district consisting of 350 acres in the southeast corner of Newtown Township, which was previously zoned residential. In 1983, 1205, Inc., a residential housing development corporation, submitted Norwalk Subdivision Plans for property located in the southeast corner of Newtown Township. After the Township Board denied the subdivision plan, an appeal was taken. During the pendency of the appeal, the Township became part of the Joint Counsel and the property in question was rezoned OR. Despite the OR zoning, a settlement was subsequently reached which permitted 1205, Inc. to continue with the subdivision under the prior residential zoning criteria. Goren and her spouse reside in the Norwalk development. At the time the Gorens purchased their lot, they believed that the area was zoned residential. In December, 1995, when the Gorens discovered that their property was zoned OR, they filed a civil suit in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas against the Norwalk developer. The Gorens in their lawsuit averred that their property was undervalued by $80,000 because of the OR zoning. Goren, as a Supervisor, opposed land development in the OR zone which is in a close proximity to her residence. Goren participated in discussions and actions of the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors in opposition to development plans in the OR district between 1995 and 1997. In fact, approximately two months prior to filing the lawsuit, Goren participated in discussions and actions of the Board regarding limitations upon the uses for the OR district. Such actions of Goren are delineated in Fact Findings 19 through 23. In November, 1998, the developer Joined Newtown Township and two others as defendants in the Gorens' lawsuit. Prior to the receipt of the complaint, the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors and the Solicitor were unaware that the Gorens had filed the lawsuit. During executive session on December 9, 1998, the Board referred the matter to the township insurance carrier. At a December 16, 1998 public meeting, Goren read a statement in the newspaper that referenced a comment by the solicitor that he would have to rethink the issue of whether Goren had a conflict because of the lawsuit that she and her spouse had filed. Subsequently, Goren requested a confidential advice from this Commission which was issued on January 25, 1999, as Advice of Counsel 99 -503. The Advice concluded that there were insufficient facts on which to base a conclusion as to whether there would be any prohibitions or restrictions upon Goren's activities in participating on OR issues. However, following receipt of the Advice, Goren abstained from voting on issues pertaining to the OR district. Goren's opposition to development in the OR district did not affect the lawsuit that she and her spouse filed against the developer. Further, any action taken by Goren to approve open space or to limit OR development would equally affect other properties in the Norwalk development. In this regard, the Bucks County Chief Property Appraiser determined that there would be no significant increase to the value of the Gorens' property if the surrounding OR district were rezoned for residential or other permitted use. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Goren violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Goren, 99- 010 -C2 Page 12 The parties have submitted a Consent Agreement together with a Stipulation of Findings wherein it is proposed to resolve the case by finding no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when Goren participated in actions and discussions of the Board of Supervisors regarding the re- zoning of the office /research tract of land in Newtown Township. In applying the provisions of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, any violation must be based upon a use of authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for the public official, a member of the immediate family, or business with which associated. If the requisite elements of Section 3(a) are not present, there is no violation of the Ethics Act. See, McGuire and Marchitello v. SEC, 657 A.2d 1346 (1995). The actions of Goren in this case reflect a use of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. However, in our review of the record, we do not find that such use of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for Goren or her spouse. In this regard, the Bucks County Chief Property Appraiser concluded that Goren's property in the development appreciated no differently than other houses of comparable size in the area. We must therefore conclude that there was not a use of authority of office on the part of Goren to obtain a private pecuniary benefit. Accordingly, Goren did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in actions and discussions of the Board of Supervisors regarding the re- zoning of the office /research tract of land in Newtown Township. As to the Stipulation of Findings and Consent Agreement, we believe that the Consent Agreement is the proper disposition for this case based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Ann Goren, in the former capacity as Supervisor in Newtown Township, was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as now codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. 2. Goren did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in actions and discussions of the board of supervisors regarding the re- zoning of the office /research tract of land in Newtown Township which is in close proximity to her residence. In Re: Ann Goren ORDER NO. 1160 File Docket: 99- 010 -C2 X -ref: Order No. 1160 Date Decided: 06/20/00 Date Mailed: 07/07/00 1. Ann Goren, as a Supervisor in Newtown Township, did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in actions and discussions of the board of supervisors regarding the re- zoning of the office /research tract of land in Newtown Township which is in close proximity to her residence. BY THE COMMISSION, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR