Board of Supervisors
Monday, September 28 2009
Pg. 7574 HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING Monday, September 28, 2009 7:00PM
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Hilltown Township Board of Supervisors was called to order by Chairperson Barbara A. Salvadore at 7:00PM and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also present were:John B. McIlhinney, Vice-Chairman Richard J. Manfredi, Senior Member Christopher S. Christman, Township Manager William E. Wert, Asst. Mgr./Dir. Of Parks, Recreation & Open Space Christopher E. Engelhart, Chief of Police Francis X. Grabowski, Township Solicitor C. Robert Wynn, Township Engineer Lynda S. Seimes, Admin. Asst. to Twp. Manager/Asst. Secretary
A.ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1.An advertised Conditional Use Hearing is scheduled for 8PM this evening to consider the application of MetroPCS Pennsylvania LLC, to co-locate a 155 ft. high telecommunications tower with an existing 145 ft. high PECO Energy Company transmission tower on TMP #15-22-229-1 located near the intersection of Diamond Street/Mill Road.
2.The Township has received one proposal for addition to its Agricultural Security Area, which will be available for public review at the Township office.Any affected municipality or individuals owning land within, adjacent to, or near the area proposed for inclusion may propose changes to the addition within 15 days of this notice.
3.Chairperson Salvadore congratulated Supervisor Manfredi, who was recently selected to serve as the next Executive Director of the Bucks County Association of Township Officials, and will be responsible for the business and public policy affairs of the Association, which will soon begin its 100th year.
B.PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY: None.
C.CONSENT CALENDAR: -Minutes of the September 14, 2009 regular Supervisor’s Meeting. -Minutes of the September 14, 2009 Community Development Block Grant Public Hearing. -Manager’s Report. -Solicitor’s Report. -Notification of advertisement of Fuel Bids. -Penn Foundation Subdivision Mylars for Signature. Page 2Pg. 7575 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to approve and accept the above noted items on the Consent Calendar.Prior to a vote, discussion took place.
Supervisor Manfredi abstained from the approval of the minutes of the September 14, 2009 regular meeting and the September 14, 2009 Community Development Block Grant Public Hearing due to his absence that evening.
Chairperson Salvadore noted the following correction to the September 14, 2009 Minutes of the Community Development Block Grant Public Hearing:
-Page one, second paragraph, second to last sentence should state “Mr. Buzby, Director of Public Works estimates that the total cost of this project would be approximately $138,760.00, and would include the paving of Reliance Road from Summit Street to the Telford Borough line, including full width milling, leveling course, and wearing course.” - Motion carried with Chairperson Salvadore’s correction to the minutes, and with Supervisor Manfredi’s abstention from approval of both sets of minutes due to his absence at that meeting
Public Comment:
1.Mr. Ron Theis of Narothyn Road asked when the Board would hear public comment on the proposed ATV Ordinance.Supervisor Salvadore replied that public comment would be heard on that agenda item after Board discussion but prior to any vote on the matter.
There was no further public comment.
D.LEGAL – Mr. FrancisX. Grabowski, Township Solicitor –
1.Penn Foundation Subdivision (Agreements) – Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to accept the Financial Security Agreement, Subdivision/Land Development Agreement, and Stormwater Facilities Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement for the Penn Foundation Subdivision; and to adopt Resolution #2009-30, accepting the Street Light Petition for the Penn Foundation Subdivision, as noted above.There was no public comment.
2.Miller Tract Subdivision – Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to accept and approve the Miller Tract Subdivision/Land Development and Financial Security Agreement.There was no public comment.
Page 3Pg. 7576 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
3.Reserve at Hilltown (Modification Agreement) – Solicitor Grabowski explained that the Modification Agreement for this project provides for the substitution of a Performance Bond by Western Surety in the amount of $353,489.00, which is the retainage on the Reserve portion of the project.He noted that there is language in the Agreement by which the developer has agreed that the development notification sign would be removed if the Board of Supervisors so desires.Supervisor Manfredi has communicated with homeowners in the Hilltown Ridge Subdivision, advising that no action would be taken this evening relative to a decision about the possible removal of the development signage, an issue that will be addressed by the Board at a future meeting.
Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to accept and approve the Reserve at Hilltown Subdivision/Land Development Modification Agreement.There was no public comment.
4.Scholl (Spur Road) Stormwater Project (Agreement) – Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to accept and approve the Scholl Stormwater Management Agreement.There was no public comment.
E.PLANNING – Mr. C. Robert Wynn, Township Engineer –
1.Penn Foundation II Subdivision – Approval of Sewage Facilities Planning Module – Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution #2009-31, accepting and approving the Sewage Facilities Planning Module for the Penn Foundation II Subdivision.There was no public comment.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1.Award Bid #2009-4 – One (1) 2010 or Newer Truck Chassis – One proposal was opened on Wednesday, September 23rd.The FY2009 budget appropriated $120,000.00 in the Road Equipment Fund for the purchase of a new large dump truck with plow and spreader.PennDot has notified Hilltown that emission standards would be changing beginning with the 2011 vehicle model year.All 2010 model year vehicles are grandfathered under 2007 emission standards.The change in emission standards will increase the cost of the vehicle.To accommodate those wishing to purchase trucks under the 2007 emission standards, dealers are reserving manufacturer building slots for 2010 model year vehicles.
The lone bid received from Bergey’s Truck Centers in Franconia provides separate prices specified for both 2010 and 2011 year models (to include the equipment price and the item with warranty): -2010 model year (2007 EPA Standards) $96,725.00 -2011 model year (2010 EPA Standards) $107,817.00. Page 4Pg. 7577 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
Mr. Buzby recommended acceptance of the bid at the higher cost in case the manufacturer runs out of 2010 model year building slots.
Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to accept the proposal from Bergey’s Truck Center for Bid #2009-4 for the purchase of a 2010 or Newer Truck Chassis with the Equipment/Item with Warranty cost at a cost not to exceed $107,817.00.There was no public comment.
Supervisor Manfredi encouraged Mr. Christman to review the 2007 versus the 2010 EPA Standards with respect to environmental impacts.
2.Award Bid #2009-7 – Bucks County Consortium Salt Bid for 2009/2010 - Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to award Bid #2007-7 – Bucks County Consortium Salt Bid for the 2009/2010 Fall/Winter season to International Salt Company, LLC for a delivered price of $57.85/ton.There was no public comment.
3.Review of Draft Open Space Plan – Mr. Wert briefly presented the draft Open Space Plan, specifically outlining the required next steps for adoption of the Plan and its submission to the Bucks County Open Space Committee for reimbursement funding.The Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to table the draft Open Space Plan for further discussion and a more in depth review at the October 12, 2009 meeting.
4.Discussion of draft ATV Ordinance – Mr. Christman’s memo dated September 3, 2009 notes that a draft ATV Ordinance was sent to a group of interested individuals comprised of those who oppose and support the use of ATVson July 30, 2009 in order to solicit input and gain additional perspective on how best to regulate ATV usage in Hilltown.A total of 38 packets of information were mailed, with 16 responses received.
Public Comment:
1.Mr. Ron Theis of 4 Florence Circle was pleased with the proposed prohibition of ATV usage on properties less than 3 acres in size.With a majority of the lots in his neighborhood being only 1 1/3 acres in size, Mr. Theis noted that the constant riding of ATVs on adjacent properties for hours on end becomes unbearable with noise and dust issues.
2.Mr. Bill Cottington of 205 Beech Lane also supports the 3-acre minimum in the draft Ordinance.A neighbor consistently rides ATVs all hours of the day and night, which interferes with Mr. Cottington’s personal enjoyment of his own property.Due to lack of a physical buffer or fence separating the properties, Mr. Cottington often feels compelled to bring his young children inside for their own safety when ATVs are in use on the adjacent property.The issue of noise is another detriment for him and his neighbors. Page 5Pg. 7578 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
3.Mr. David Poirier of 418 Fairhill School Road, who is an ATV enthusiast agreed that sometimes the need for regulation is inherent, but he also feels the regulations in the draft document would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet.For instance, the requirement for the planting of buffer trees and the 75 ft. setback would be extremely expensive and virtually impossible to adhere to on his slightly more than 3 acre property.Mr. Poirier suggested that the Township focus instead on the noise regulation aspect and the hours of operation.
4.Mr. Steve Gerber of 113 Highland Park Road recognizes the right of an individual to ride an ATV, but wondered about his personal right to enjoy his property without dust, and continuous, excessive noise.He thanked the Hilltown Police Department for their assistance in the recent apprehension of unauthorized individuals riding on his property.He has posted “No Trespassing” signs, though they are often removed within days, and Mr. Gerber continues to be concerned with liability issues.
5.Mr. Mike Nichol of 201 Beech Lane referred to a neighbor that constantly runs several ATVs, dirt bikes and Jeeps on an adjacent property, causing excessive noise and dust with no regard for others.Mr. Nichol acknowledged that the 3-acre minimum requirement is a nice beginning, and hopes that fair and equitable regulations can be adopted.
6.Mr. Kevin Lewis of 815 Blooming Glen Road stated that the main complaint appears to be disrespectful ATV riders who do not take their neighbor’s feelings into consideration.Mr. Lewis, who races motocross, currently rides his dirt bikes and ATVs on a friend’s farm in Bedminster Township, where a peaceful arrangement has been established with the neighboring property owners.Mr. Lewis stressed that common sense and respect for your neighbors when riding ATVs is key to a peaceful coexistence.
7.Mrs. Maureen Theis of 4 Florence Circle hopes that a Noise Ordinance is adopted, which would provide some relief for her and her neighbors.She is, however concerned with the proposed 3-acre minimum and feels the lot size minimum should be increased.Mrs. Theis recommends sound barriers be required and also suggested that the Township create an ATV park for public use on one of its open space parcels.
8.Ms. Allison Poirier of 418 Fairhill School Road asked the Board not to punish all ATV riders due to the disrespect and carelessness exhibited by a few.Ms. Poirier’s younger brother, who has been riding since he was two years old, did not feel the proposed Ordinance was fair to him and others like him who do not abuse their rights to ride ATVs on their own property.
9.Mr. Jim Sensinger of Rt. 113 believes that regulating ATV usage oversteps the bounds of Township authority.He wondered if the ATV riders that trespassed on an earlier speaker’s property were ever cited for their actions.Mr. Sensinger feels that the entire matter could be resolved with timely and consistent enforcement of laws that are already in place.Mr.Sensinger also questioned the fact that the proposed Ordinance does not establish a maximum parcel size. Page 6Pg. 7579 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
Chief Engelhart commented that a compromise will be necessary if the Board decides to adopt an Ordinance regulating ATV usage.He noted that any Ordinance that is adopted will require very specific regulations in order to make it enforceable, and those regulations should include a minimum/maximum parcel size limit, a setback requirement, etc.
Supervisor McIlhinney referred to the time restrictions in the proposed Ordinance, which permits riding of ATVs from 9AM to 7PM Monday thru Friday, and 10AM to 5PM on weekends.He feels that a longer period of time for riding should be permitted on weekends, with a shorter allowable riding time during the week.Further, in light of the fact that the current 3 acre zoning calls for a 150 ft. lot width, which is generally up to 650 ft. deep, Supervisor McIlhinney wondered how the proposed 3-acre minimum requirement could be achieved.Personally, he feels the true point of contention is noise, and believes that is where the Township should spend their efforts if they wish to move forward with this Ordinance.Supervisor Manfredi agreed that noise is a big issue however he also believes that regulations with respect to parcel size and buffer requirements must be considered as well. Lengthy discussion occurred regarding the logistics involved with enforcing a Noise Ordinance.
10.Mr. Mike Nichol of 201 Beech Lane explained that he is a Vietnam veteran who wears hearing aids, and is therefore very sensitive to sound.Mr. Nichol has been “serenaded” for the past 9 years with excessive noise from his neighbor’s constant use of ATVs.
11.Mr. Jim Sensinger of Rt. 113 recognizes the difficulty involved with enforcing a Noise Ordinance, and suggested the Township establish a program to register and certify locally-used ATVs, dirt bikes, etc. on the level of noise each vehicle would generate.Mr. Sensinger wondered how many individuals have been fined for trespassing with their ATVs and assumes that once someone has been fined for illegal trespass, they would discontinue the practice.He believes that enforcement is the key.
12.Mr. Ron Theis of 4 Florence Circle explained that he cannot enjoy his own property due to the constant noise and dust generated by a neighboring property owner, and therefore feels that a minimum acreage requirement is critical.
13.To answer Mr. Sensinger’s earlier question, Mr. Steve Gerber of 113 Highland Park Road advised that the Police Department did apprehend and cite the individuals who had trespassed on his property.He believes that if any further incidents occur, they will lose their vehicles and will be fined.
14.Mr. Scott Passerini of 944 Blooming Glen Road felt that the survey should have been sent to every resident of the Township.While he would support the adoption of a Noise Ordinance, Mr. Passerini believes the proposed 3-acre minimum was too restrictive, and would infringe on the rights of individuals with smaller properties who are entitled to ride ATVs on their own lots. Page 7Pg. 7580 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
15.Mr. Albert Anderson of 203 Beech Lane asked the Board to also consider the safety issues involved with ATV and dirt bike usage.He recently experienced a dirt bike riding along a neighboring property line and traveling at a high rate of speed while he was mowing his lawn.Mr. Anderson could have unknowingly turned into its path with disastrous results, or his grandchildren could easily have wandered into the path of the speeding dirt bike.
There was no further public comment at this time.
The Board of Supervisors advised that they would take all of the comments and suggestions heard this evening into consideration while making revisions to the proposed Ordinance for consideration at a future meeting.
***7:58PM – Chairperson Salvadore recessed the regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting of September 28, 2009 to enter into an advertised Conditional Use Hearing for MetroPCS Pennsylvania, LLC.
Solicitor Grabowski advised that the Conditional Use Hearing was properly advertised pursuant to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.Proof of Publication is on file at the Township office.Additionally, certifications relating to the posting of the property, mailing of the legal notice to nearby residents, and a copy of Mr. Wynn’s engineering review dated July 30, 2009 were introduced into the record. Solicitor Grabowski presided as moderator for the hearing.The applicant was represented by Jack D. Wuerstle, Esquire, and witnesses for the applicant included Ms. Christine Johnson, Senior Site Acquisition and Zoning Specialist, Mr. Traian Popescu, Senior RF Engineer, and Mr. Philip Vitale of CMX Engineering.Ms. Gail McCarthy was the official court stenographer.Mr. Wuerstle presented an Offer of Proof of Testimony by identified witnesses of the applicant if they were to testify in person, and said three witnesses were sworn.The following individuals requested Party Status: Edward Rumer, Patt Webster, Tammy Suyematsu, William Halberstadt, David McClure, Katharine Williamson, and Jean Williamson.
The following Township Exhibits were introduced into the record: -T-1Official application filed for Condition Use. -T-2Proof of Publication of the Legal Notice. -T-3 Mailing Notice Certification. -T-4 Posting Notice Certification. -T-5 September 23, 2009 letter of Township Engineer C. Robert Wynn to the Board of Supervisors, which provides conditional recommendation of approval by the Hilltown Planning Commission.
The following Applicant Exhibits were provided for the record: -A-1Deed of subject property. -A-2Lease Agreement relating to use of property. Page 8Pg. 7581 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
-A-3Curriculum Vitae of Design Engineer. -A-4Site Plan (revised to reflect the recommendations of the Township Engineer). -A-5Structural Review Report. -A-6Curriculum Vitae of Radio Frequency Engineer. -A-7Federal Communications Commission License. -A-8Chart of Existing Coverage. -A-9Chart of Proposed Coverage.
The applicant proposes to install a 155 ft. high telecommunications tower within an existing 145 ft. high PECO Energy Company transmission tower on the 6.337 acre parcel (TMP #15-22-229-1) located along the east side of Diamond Street in the RR District.Additionally, the applicant proposes installation of three equipment cabinets on a 10 ft. by 16 ft. concrete pad within a fenced compound area at the base of the transmission tower.Access to the tower site is proposed via an existing unpaved driveway intersecting Diamond Street within the PECO Energy Company parcel.As the facility is proposed to be unmanned, no water or sewage facilities have been proposed.
***8:21PM – Solicitor Grabowski recessed the Conditional Use Hearing to allow for the individuals requesting Party Status to review all Exhibits and to address questions directly to the applicant off the record.
***8:42PM – Solicitor Grabowski reconvened the advertised Conditional Use Hearing for MetroPCS Pennsylvania, LLC.
Public Comment:
1.Mr. Dave McClure who resides directly next to the site, asked why the next tower down, which happens to be located in the middle of a farm field, was not considered for this project.He expressed concern with a decrease in his property value.Mr. Wuerstle explained the process for site acquisition involves consideration of several different locations that comply with many different characteristics and criteria, which include topography, environmental constraints, the willingness of the landowner to lease or sell the property, and whether or not the site meets the radio frequency characteristics.Further, the municipality would prefer that the antennae be placed on an existing tall structure, rather than the construction of a new structures.Supervisor Manfredi asked if the applicant could confirm that they did indeed consider the other neighboring tower.Mr. Wuerstle has no personal knowledge as to whether or not that other tower was considered.He also noted that PECO, as the property owner, may have dictated the use of this specific tower.
2.Mr.Bill Halberstadt of 2815 Diamond Street is vehemently opposed and was upset that the applicant would not consider a different site located further away from existing residential Page 9Pg. 7582 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
properties.Mr. Halberstadt cited the aesthetics of this tower, and how all the neighboring residents would have an even clearer view of the site once winter comes and the leaves are off the trees.
3.Ms. Judy Wamsher of Mill Road asked what type of additional traffic the construction of this antennae would generate.She noted that Diamond Street is a poorly maintained PennDot roadway, and commented that the portion from Rt. 113 to Hilltown Pike is very narrow with many potholes.Ms. Wamsher is neither opposed to or in support of the proposal this evening; rather her concern lies with Diamond Street and the possible increase in traffic.Mr. Wuerstle explained that the proposed facility is unmanned, would not experience any day-to-day traffic, and routine maintenance would only be experienced through approximately 10 to 12 visits per year.Mr. Popescu provided a brief explanation of how locations are scouted and considered, noting that it is preferred to install the sites closer to the area where they expect individuals would be using their MetroPCS phones.
4.Ms. Sandy Williamson of Mill Road expressed concern that since each of PECO’s many, towers in that area provide only 1 to1-½ miles of coverage, there could generate a wide range of additional antennae proposed in the future.Solicitor Grabowski explained that the existing Zoning Ordinance provides for cell towers in the RR District to be co-located, and therefore the scenario Ms. Williamson referred to could conceivably occur.Mr. Wuerstle noted that the other cell phone carriers operate under different frequencies, and their needs may already have been met in this area, so regardless of the availability of the other PECO towers, they may have no need for coverage.
5.With reference to the 1-½ mile coverage area, Mr. Bill Halberstadt of 2815 Diamond Street wondered how many MetroPCS customers live within that 1-1/2 mile radius.Solicitor Grabowski replied that the Zoning Ordinance does not address those issues, and therefore, the Board of Supervisors cannot consider it from that perspective.
There was no further public comment.
Supervisor’s Questions/Comments:
1.Supervisor McIlhinney asked the diameter of the proposed pole.Mr. Wuerstle replied that the pole diameter is 18 inches and is constructed of galvanized steel.Supervisor McIlhinney asked how the pole and other equipment would be maintained.Mr. Wuerstle stated that there is a periodic maintenance schedule principally to examine the equipment cabinet and the materials on the ground, but also to investigate the status and condition of the pole itself.Certainly if maintenance is needed, the applicant would protect their investment.
Page 10Pg. 7583 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
2.It appears to Supervisor McIlhinney that the topography of the plans show the next tower would be located uphill from the proposed site, and therefore, in his opinion, the pole would be even more noticeable.
3.Supervisor McIlhinney asked if the three future antennae would be higher or lower.Mr. Popescu explained the process involved with any future increase in capacity, and replied that future antennae would remain at the same height.
4.Supervisor McIlhinney wondered how intrusive an 18 inch diameter pipe running through an existing 145+ feet tall PECO tower would be.Personally, he does not believe it would be very noticeable next to what he considers “monster-sized” existing PECO tower.
5.Supervisor Manfredi was still unclear as to whether the applicant did or did not consider the next PECO tower, and asked if the Board could get confirmation that investigation did occur.Mr. Wuerstle repeated that he did could not confirm that information this evening, since none of his witnesses could definitively testify to which specific site locations were considered and which were not.Discussion took place.
***9:12PM – Solicitor Grabowski recessed the MetroPCS Conditional Use Hearing. ***9:14PM – Solicitor Grabowski reconvened the MetroPCS Conditional Use Hearing.
Upon review of Exhibits #8 and #9, Solicitor Grabowski asked Mr. Popescu if the applicant chose the specific site (TMP #15-22-229-1) because of the radius and the demand of that particular area, rather than the other nearby PECO tower referred to by Mr. McClure.Mr. Popescu replied that was correct, and stated that the selected site best suits his client’s needs.
Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously to grant conditional approval to the MetroPCS Conditional Use application of July 30, 2009, pending satisfactory completion of any outstanding items in the Township Engineer’s review dated July 30, 2009, as modified by his most recent memo of September 23, 2009.There was no public comment.
***9:18PM – The advertised MetroPCS Conditional Use Hearing was adjourned, and the regularly scheduled Hilltown Township Board of Supervisors meeting of September 28, 2009 was reconvened.
***NOTE: An official copy of the Conditional Use Decision for MetroPCS is attached to these minutes.
Page 11Pg. 7584 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued):
5.Discussion of cost estimates for items in 4/209/08 PennDot letter – Mr. Andreas Heinrich, Township Traffic Engineer – Mr. Heinrich advised thatfor the signalized intersection of Rt. 113/Callowhill Road intersection, PennDot has suggested split phase traffic signal operation for the two Callowhill Road approaches to the intersection.He believes this modification would entail the removal of two of the current three-section signal heads (one facing each direction) and replacing it with a four-section signal head with the bottom bulb being a left-turn green arrow; as well as the addition of a couple of signs to indicate “Left Turn Signal” and some new wiring.Mr. Heinrich estimates the cost to do that between $3,000.00 and $5,000.00.
At the unsignalized intersection of Callowhill Road and Rickert Road, the improvement according to the sketch PennDot prepared involved new line painting and a number of new or revised signs placed at the intersection, larger double arrow signs at the end of the Callowhill Road approaches, and right-clearance markers at the end of the guiderail in the corner at a stone culvert.Mr. Heinrich estimates a cost of approximately $5,000.00-$6,000.00.He noted that as an isolated intersection improvement, the cost may be a bit higher than that.Mr. Heinrich also pointed out that the signal permit for Rt. 113/Callowhill Road would require revision, which may incur some minor engineering costs.Further, the Callowhill/Rickert Road intersection may require a Highway Occupancy Permit for the signage and line striping improvements.
Mr. Christman advised that these intersection improvements were not budgeted items for 2009.Supervisor Manfredi suggested that both estimates be included in the proposed 2010 Capital Projects Budget.Supervisors McIlhinney and Salvadore agreed. Supervisor Manfredi also suggested that consideration be given to appropriating funds for the Rt. 113/Callowhill Road intersection in 2009 instead of waiting for the 2010 budget, due to the close proximity of the elementary school to the intersection.Based on the draft 2010 Budget that the Board expects Mr. Christman will be providing to them shortly, the Supervisors will consider whether or not to appropriate funding for the Callowhill/Rt. 113 intersection in the 2009 Budget or to wait until the 2010 Budget.
Mr. Heinrich advised the Board of PennDot’s new ADA pedestrian requirements, particularly for the signalized Rt. 113/Callowhill Road intersection.He has reviewed the intersection and does not believe it would be possible or feasible to provide crosswalks, however it would be at PennDot’s discretion as to whether or not they would be required.If so, Mr. Heinrich advised that it would increase the cost of the traffic signal improvement significantly to install pedestrian push buttons, paint crossroads, and installing pedestrian countdown signal heads.Discussion occurred.
6.Status Report of Rt. 152/Hilltown Pike Traffic Signal – Mr. Andreas Heinrich, Township Traffic Engineer – Mr. Heinrich explained the history of the site, noting that the Page 12Pg. 7585 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
original PennDot approval was for the church’s driveway would be made a one-way inbound.However, due to the intersection off-set, PennDot would not permit phasing of the traffic signal so that both sides could move simultaneously, which would create an oncoming head-on condition.Subsequently, Mr. Heinrich was asked to provide alternative suggestions because the remaining church driveways located further north of the intersection would then become the only way to exit the site and would suffer from visibility issues.
Mr. Heinrich suggested that the driveway be made a one-way out instead of a one-way in, using the split-phasing operation, where a detection device in the driveway would change the light to green, with the other three approaches remaining red.As with the last agenda item, Mr. Heinrich noted that PennDot’s new pedestrian ADA requirements must be investigated, which could possibly require a crosswalk pedestrian facility.After a field inspection with a PennDot engineer, it was determined that a wheelchair landing ramp could be provided on two corners, along with the construction of a crosswalk.While Mr. Heinrich does not feel it is feasible, he is still required to file a report stating so in order to meet PennDot criteria.If in fact the ADA improvements are required, Supervisor McIlhinney asked what the cost might be.Mr. Heinrich has not yet determined what the costs would be for line painting for the crosswalk, two 5ft. X 5ft. bituminous landing areas (one on each side of the intersection), two pedestrian push-buttons, and two countdown signal heads.Chairperson Salvadore believes the installation of these requirements would actually make the intersection more difficult.With respect to cost, Supervisor Manfredi noted that it is H and K’s responsibility to install the traffic signal according to the Agreement the Township entered into with them.Supervisor McIlhinney asked if this, in any way, would impact the Church’s ingress/egress thru that driveway.Mr. Heinrich replied that it does not, however the difficulty lies in the fact that there is only a fixed area that these landing areas can be installed, and unfortunately, he has already designed pedestal poles to be installed in those very areas.Lengthy discussion occurred.
Public Comment:
1.Pastor Harper Turney of Good Shepherd Church lives on the rectory property located next to the Church. Unfortunately, there is no right-of-way access to the rectory property, without going thru the Church parking area, which would create a problem should the Church ever decide to sell the rectory property.PennDot’s possible requirements for ADA compliance for this traffic signal/intersection would, in Pastor Turney’s opinion, be dangerous and totally unnecessary.Mr. Heinrich commented that cross easements between the Church and the future owner of the rectory property would be required.
2.Mr. A.C. Russell, Senior Warden of Good Shepherd Church, explained that for a new owner to gain access to the rectory propertyt, they would have to turn into the parking lot, go around the Church itself and then into the driveway to the dwelling.While that may not be a issue during the week, there are activities and functions at the Church, such as weddings,
Page 13Pg. 7586 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
funerals, Election Day, etc. that would present great difficulties for the new owners of that property.
3.Ms. Bobbie Livesty, Parish Administrator of Good Shepherd Church, stated that the Church and the rectory property are two separate parcels with two separate tax bills, and as such, she feels that the rectory should have a separate access since it is a private home.
Discussion took place about the rectory property.Mr. Russell felt it would be impossible to create an additional driveway since the rectory property is book-ended by the German-Hungarian Club driveway and the Church intersection access.
4.Mr. Wayne Turney stated that the only place to install a new driveway so that it would be convenient to the rectory garage would be to install it just inside the treeline on the opposite side of the property.
Mr. Heinrich offered a third alternative, which would be to reconstruct the driveway to serve both properties by making it wide enough for two-way traffic and realigning the intersection with Limekiln Pike.This would eliminate the access for the rectory property through the Church parking lot.Supervisor Manfredi asked Mr. Christman to investigate the possibility of stimulus funding for the realignment of this intersection.
Supervisor McIlhinney suggested the Church make application to PennDot now for a driveway to service the rectory property.Mr. Wynn stated that recent PennDot requirements invalidate a Highway Occupancy Permit after 12 months, and the HOP can only be renewed twice, so it may behoove the Church to wait before applying for a permit.Further, Mr. Wynn does not believe that PennDot would issue a driveway permit at that intersection without simultaneously requiring another signal plan revision.For the HOP to be issued for a separate driveway, Mr. Heinrich advised that the Church would have to demonstrate that the driveway could be positioned as it intersects Hilltown Pike, which is not within the confines of the traffic signal.The new driveway would have to be offset just enough so that it does not need to be regulated by its own signal head.Lengthy discussion took place.
The Board directed Mr. Heinrich to continue moving forward with the PennDot permitting process, and hopes that the new ADA requirements will not be an issue for this site.
G.NEW BUSINESS –
1.Consider H & K Quarry request for extension of hours of operation of the Asphalt Batch Plant - Correspondence was received from the H&K Group to request an extension of hours of operation for the asphalt batch plant from October 2, 2009 thru the end of the normal PennDot paving season, which typically ends on October 31, 2009.H&K is requesting the asphalt plant hours of operation be amended to begin at 4:00AM and close at normal business Page 14Pg. 7587 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
hours of 6:30PM.As per Section 10.2 of the Agreement, H&K is required to notify the Township of a request for extension of hours, and the Board then has 14 days to consider and respond to the request.If the Supervisors fail to act within the 14-day period, their approval of the request shall be deemed approved.
Motion was made by Supervisor McIlhinney to grant the request of H&K Group to extend hours of operation at the asphalt batch plant from October 2, 2009 thru October 31, 2009, amending the hours of operation to begin at 4:00AM and close at 6:30PM.Chairperson Salvadore seconded the motion for discussion purposes only.Supervisor Manfredi abstained.Prior to a vote, lengthy discussion occurred.
Chairperson Salvadore was very concerned with the early start time, and wondered why the additional hours couldn’t be extended past the 6:30PM closing instead.Mr. Christman quoted the September 18th letter from the H&K Group, which states that the request is being made as a result of communications regarding scheduling and orders from their customer, J.D. Eckman, to supply hot mix asphalt to their portion of the Rt. 202 construction project.Chairperson Salvadore was not comfortable with the early start and its effect on Township residents with noise from the additional truck traffic and quarry operations that early in the morning.
Chairperson Salvadore needed further clarification, and asked that Mr. Christman contact H&K to request that the additional hours be accomplished past the 6:30PM closing, rather than beginning at 4:00AM. . A vote was taken on the original motion.Chairperson Salvadore was opposed, and Supervisor Manfredi abstained.Motion failed.
H.SUPERVISOR’S COMMENTS:
1.Chairperson Salvadore asked Mr. Christman to provide an update on EMS.He explained that he and Chairperson Salvadore met with Bucks County on August 31st.At that time, they were advised that the new GIS program the County is putting in place is still in its infancy, and the earliest a map may be prepared would be at the end of November.In the absence of the map, the 911 Center forwarded all of the physical locations currently being served by the four ambulance squads.At this point, Mr. Christman is seeking guidance as to how the Board would like to proceed with the contracts.Solicitor Grabowski has prepared contracts for three of the four ambulance squads.Currently, there is $42,000.00 in the 2009 Budget allocated for disbursement to the EMS squads if the Supervisors so desire.
If a map is not available showing, Supervisor McIlhinney felt it was pointless to proceed at this time and he would not be agreeable to moving forward without a clear and concise service territory maps.Supervisor McIlhinney was also not comfortable with the fact that a fourth squad, Grand View, had been added without the consent of the original three squads with respect to coverage area.Chairperson Salvadore noted that Bucks County is not determining anything Page 15Pg. 7588 Board of Supervisors September 28, 2009
new as far as coverage area.She explained that each squad continues to service the area is has always serviced.Her only concern is that the patient receives the shortest possible response time.Supervisor Manfredi recalls that a draft map had been forwarded to the County who were to clearly define those borders.If the County cannot, Supervisor Manfredi suggested that Mr. Christman attempt to provide a better defined map.Further, Supervisor Manfredi noted that he has received solicitation material from several different ambulance squads, and is sure other residents have as well. He would like to move forward with a draft map so that residents know which ambulance squad they are served by.Chairperson Salvadore agreed that the Township could move forward with a more clearly defined draft map.She also explained that the County has agreed to field phone calls from any residents who may still be confused by the map to determine which specific ambulance squads covers their location.Lengthy discussion took place, and it was determined that this matter would be an agenda item at a future meeting.
2.Mr. Christman advised that upcoming board and commission vacancies for 2010 will be advertised on October 7th, according to the Board’s predetermined policy.
3.Due to scheduling conflicts for legal advertisement, Mr. Wert clarified that the 15-day public comment period for the proposed addition to the Agricultural Security Area began last Wednesday, September 23rd.
I.PUBLIC COMMENT:
1.Mr. Hans Sumpf of 9 Beverly Road requested confirmation of which ambulance squad services the Deep Run Valley Sports Association located at 953 Callowhill Road.Mr. Christman will review the map and forward that information to Mr. Sumpf.
On a different subject, Mr. Sumpf suggested that the Board consider establishing an ATV park on the open space parcel they just recently purchased for over $1 million dollars.
J.PRESS AND MEDIA TIME – No questions were asked by the members of the press in attendance.
K.ADJOURNMENT:Upon motion by Supervisor McIlhinney, seconded by Supervisor Manfredi, and carried unanimously, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Hilltown Township Board of Supervisors was adjourned at 10:26PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Seimes Admin. Asst. to Twp. Manager/Assistant Secretary (**These minutes were transcribed from recording and should not be considered official until approved by the Board of Supervisors at a public meeting).
| 
