Planning Commission
Monday, May 17 2010
HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING Monday, May 17, 2010 7:30PM
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Hilltown Township Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mark Funk at 7:30PM and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.Also present were Planning Commission members Kirk Hansen, Jeff Lapp, Joe Marino, Lori McCauley, and Andrew Mele, along with Township Engineer, C. Robert Wynn.
A.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Action on the minutes of the March 15, 2010 Meeting – Motion was made by Ms. McCauley, seconded by Mr. Marino, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as written.
B.PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY:
C.CONFIRMED APPOINTMENTS –
1.Mr. Robert Gundlach – Middletown Mortgage Concept Plan (aka: Hilltown Walk/Guttman Tract) – Mr. Robb Gundlach, the applicant’s legal counsel, along with Mr. Paul Catinella, landowner, Mr. Joe Duckworth of Arcadia Land Company, Mr. Doug Sanders of the Brentwood Group, and Mr. David Horner, the applicant’s traffic consultant were in attendance to present the newly submitted concept plan.Mr. Wynn’s review dated May 7, 2010 was discussed.
The site has been the subject of various subdivision proposals in the past, including a petition approved by the Supervisors in March of 2005 to rezone the property from RR to CR-2 Zoning District subject to a Declaration of Intent filed by the then applicant, D’Angelo Construction.The Petition stipulated that the applicant could not exceed a total of 45 lots, including three lots containing existing single family dwellings, such that only 42 building lots could be proposed.The total number of permitted building lots was determined on the basis of a yield plan designed to maximize density considering area and dimensional requirements for single-family detached dwelling uses in the RR District.Subsequently, a preliminary plan was filed proposing a total of 45 lots, four open space areas totaling 32.278 acres (net) designed under provisions of Use B-3, Single Family Detached Cluster Option 2 (minimum lot area – 20,000 sq. ft.) permitted by-right in the CR-2 District.The plan also incorporated extensive street improvements along Green Street within the entire frontage of the site, extension of public water/sewer facilities to serve the proposed uses, as well as providing for an interconnection of homes within identified problem areas referenced in the Township’s Act 537 Plan, and recreational facilities to include two playfields, pedestrian paths, and a 50 space parking lot nearest to Al Reese Park in Silverdale Borough.The preliminary plan received approval from Hilltown on August 28, 2006, however final approval is still pending.
Most recently, the applicant filed a petition to rezone the property from CR-2 to the VC District to develop the property for a Traditional Neighborhood Development.Several concept plans identifying a mixture of residential and commercial uses were submitted in conjunction with the Page 2 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
rezoning petition, which have been reviewed at various Planning Commission meetings during the last year.
This latest concept plan proposes subdivision of the property into 99 single-family detached dwelling lots.Lots are designed having a minimum area of 10,000 sq. ft., and are arranged in a cluster layout providing for 47+ acres of open space and preservation of the existing farmstead in the northwest corner of the site.The building lots contain frontage on an internal roadway network, having three proposed access points along Green Street.Layout of open space is designed to preserve environmental resources, and provide active recreation opportunities, including walking trails and open space nearest to Silverdale Borough’s Al Reese Park.Although not specifically noted on the concept plan, it is presumed that public water and sewer facilities are proposed to serve the cluster subdivision via an extension of the existing facilities owned by HTWSA.
Mr. Gundlach’s correspondence dated April 26, 2010 notes that the applicant is no longer requesting that the subject property be rezoned from the CR-2 District to VC District.The proposed concept plan eliminates all uses other than single-family detached dwellings, reduces the proposed density from 150 dwelling units to 99, increases open space area, provides for the preservation of the existing farmstead, incorporates traffic calming improvements along Green Street, utilizes integrated walking trail/sidewalk improvements to link surrounding areas, and proposes additional landscaping buffers along Green Street.
Mr. Wynn’s review notes that the Zoning Hearing Board on February 23, 2006, granted variances of various Zoning Ordinance provisions to facilitate proposed development of the tract as shown on the preliminarily approved plan.Variances granted by the ZHB at that time included allowing increased woodland disturbance exceeding 20%, reduced open space ratio less than 0.65, and provisions associated with flag lot use in the CR-2 District and permitting a flag lot area less than 10 acres.Apparently, the applicant will also be seeking approval of the ZHB to ratify the relief granted under their Decision dated February 23, 2006, and allow the new Concept Plan to be substituted for the plan referenced in the original ZHB decision.Further, the applicant will seek approval from the Supervisors to amend the Declaration of Intent (dated August 2005) to remove the 42 building lot density restriction.
Mr. Duckworth provided a presentation showing additional details of the concept plan, and discussed the Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated April 23, 2010 as prepared by the applicant’s Traffic Engineer, Horner and Canter Associates (a copy of which is available for review in the Township office).
Planning Commission Comments:
1.Mr. Marino commented that there are many, many outstanding items in Mr. Wynn’s review dated May 7, 2010, which need to be addressed.Of particular concern was Item #4, with Page 3 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
respect to a possible amendment to the Declaration of Intent, which Mr. Marino feels the applicant should have resolved with the Supervisors prior to revising and resubmitting the plan.He also noted that the applicant is seeking quite a few waivers as well as relief from the Zoning Hearing Board.Mr. Gundlach explained that the applicant is not seeking to build any additional homes than they are otherwise permitted to construct under the CR-2 Zoning.If the Board of Supervisors is amenable to amending the Declaration of Intent, the applicant will then appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board for relief to reduce the lot size from 20,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft., to reduce the lot width from 85 ft. to 80 ft., and to reduce the rear yard requirements from 40 ft. to 25 ft.
2.Chairman Funk stated that the applicant is claiming to have reduced the density, however the approved plan permits 42 dwelling units, yet the current concept plan proposes 99 units.Mr. Gundlach explained that it is a reduction from the last (TND) plan, but agreed that it is an increase from the previously approved plan and the Declaration of Intent.He feels that the larger home style for the 42 lot plan no longer works in this market place and does not meet the demand of current homebuyers.Although this concept plan is an increase in density, Mr. Gundlach focused on what this type of plan would bring, including additional open space, Green Street improvements, and the extension of public water and sewer service to the neighborhood, which he believes is better for the community, for the existing neighbors, and for the future homeowners.
3.Mr. Lapp advised that the original zoning change approval allowed for a significant density increase and was based on market statistics at that time, yet now the applicant is once again requesting a significant increase in density from what is presently allowed for that site.Mr. Gundlach believes it is a better plan for the long-term future of the Township, and noted that the approval of this plan would facilitate a contribution to the Township of approximately $250,000.00.Mr. Duckworth believes that the current Concept Plan contains the best of the TND Ordinance amenities, with adjustments to address some of the negative comments expressed by the PC in the past.When asked the size of the proposed dwellings, Mr. Duckworth replied that they will be 2,400 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. in size.In today’s market, he believes the cost would be $399,990.00 up to $500,000.00.
4.Mr. Lapp commented that the question remains as to whether or not the Declaration of Intent can even be amended, and if the Supervisors would even entertain the increase in density.Mr. Wynn noted that there would also be an increase in density in what is permitted in the CR-2 Zoning District under current regulations.He advised that the CR-2 Zoning District allows two single-family cluster designs – the first with 30,000 sq. ft. plus 55% open space, and the second with 20,000 sq. ft. plus 65% open space.Using either the 20,000 or 30,000 sq. ft. cluster development equation, only 61 units are permitted on this particular sight. Therefore, Mr. Wynn stated that the proposed concept plan would be a substantial increase in the number of permitted units.
Page 4 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
It is Mr. Gundlach’s legal opinion that the Declaration of Intent can certainly be amended.As to the density, he believes the proposed improvements would justify that increase including a greater amount of open space, a large contribution to the Township, and extension of the public sewer.Discussion took place.
Mr. Wynn referred to the applicant’s reference to recreation fees that would generate approximately $250,000.00 for the Township.He reminded the Planning Commission that the previous plan included recreational facilities which are not proposed on the current concept plan.
Public Comment:
1.Mr. Ed Stahley of 322 Green Street read the following prepared statement into the record:
“My wife and I have been residents of Hilltown for my entire career at North Penn School District, including ten years of my retirement.We’ve been very lucky to this point in time to have been able to live in the country.Obviously, a decision will be made shortly to forever change that for us.The Guttman Tract could be used for open space or park facilities.Although that would be the best solution for Hilltown, we believe this will never happen and it is inevitable that a proposed development will be installed across the street from us, probably within our lifetime.Not every developer will go bankrupt.The economy will grow again, foreclosures will stop.
The latest proposed plan is for 99 single homes.The previous plan included townhouses and stores.This plan is better in that respect.Owners of single family homes will tend to take better care of their properties than renters.Let the new homeowners travel to their shopping like all of us who live in the country always have had to do.This new proposal has three entrances off Green Street that will need to service all 99 homes.Most homeowners have at least two vehicles, so one estimate is that at least 200 vehicles have to travel from their homes at least twice a day or more - at least 400 to 500 trips in and out of this development a day.This will certainly change the character of Green Street that is a convenient short cut right now for most local citizens to get from Rt. 113 to Hilltown Pike, a major road like Rt. 113 or Rt. 152.Backed up traffic in Silverdale if there is not another traffic light at Green and Rt. 113, the people then will learn to use those Silverdale streets that cut over to Rt. 152, and that is not a good idea.Backed up traffic from Hilltown Pike will make people use Mill and Rickert Roads for the same reason.This is being done now; I do it occasionally when traffic is heavy and I can guarantee it will happen more in the future.It is beyond my comprehension why a street in this development cannot be extended to Fairhill Road and/or Rt. 152.An unused or private roadway to Fairhill Road seems to be showing in all proposed plans.Property could be acquired to have a road extended from the development to Rt. 152, where that drive goes in from Maregan Drive across the street.I feel in fact that most of the possible roads would go through existing Hilltown open space, such as the north end of the existing soccer field at the corner of Fairhill and Rt. 152.I doubt that the proposed Green Street traffic calming areas that have been presented will slow Page 5 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
traffic to 45 mph.I had someone in my ditch again last week, I’ve had my mailbox knocked down – my gutter is the famous one.Putting trees or bushes in the center of these calming devices would be very dangerous.Everybody driving in these important areas must be able to see in both directions clearly without any obstructions.The large Orchard Hill development on the other side of Silverdale Borough has two entrances on two separate streets, and a traffic light at Walnut Street (Rt. 152).This new highly populated development would probably need the same.
Some changes to this plan that might be helpful: Maregan Drive shows a full intersection with the development at the upper end of the plan.It would be helpful if the left entrance of the proposed central community green would be opposite the current existing Trinka driveway, creating a second full intersection.This shift would necessitate the elimination of the potential fishing pond, but would allow space for a few lots on the adjacent left corner of the development.The back set of houses would have to shift to the left also.This move would also make it possible to put a second U-turn in the development to the right of the green.These changes would help accessibility to Green Street for the existing homes across the street from this new proposal.”
2.Mr. Todd Seidel of 421 Green Street is in favor of this new concept plan, and feels it is a better alternative to the previous TND plan.
3.Mr. Stan Critowski of Silverdale Borough asked if a traffic signal is proposed for the Rt. 113/Green Street intersection.Mr. Horner replied that it is not, however one could certainly be considered, but it would take discussion with Silverdale Borough with respect to the current signal at Rt. 152/Rt. 113, and also an analysis by PennDot.Mr. Critowski asked if three turn lanes would really be possible at that narrow intersection, without reconfiguring the sidewalk locations.Mr. Horner explained that the applicant was limited to no physical to avoid compromising the sidewalk or the existing homes.The lane striping shown on Green Street would require width waivers.Mr. Critowski wondered how striping would impact the width and therefore, the turning radius, and how striping would improve the intersection function.Mr. Horner replied that striping would not improve the intersection however its function would be to gain more capacity at the intersection to see if there was a way to do so without physically widening the area.
4.Mr. Joe Montgomery of 110 Green Street supports Mr. Stahley’s earlier suggestion for additional ingress/egress onto Fairhill Road and/or Rt. 152.He asked if there will be traffic calming measures on Green Street down the hill toward Silverdale Borough.Mr. Horner replied that the proposal Mr. Duckworth spoke about, which is conceptual at this time, is located along the frontage of the site and is considered to be a way to extend the currently posted 25 mph speed limit.The traffic calming would be something that would enhance and support that speed limit.The applicant is not proposing traffic calming or those same islands in between the applicant’s frontage and Rt. 113. Page 6 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
5.Ms. Deb Foster of 1723 Fairhill Road feels this concept plan, compared to the previous TDN plan, is definitely something that would work for the community.Unfortunately, development is something that will occur, like it or not, so she urged the Planning Commission to work together to get the best plan possible for the location.
6.Mr. Dina Roman of Oak Drive in Silverdale Borough has continuing concerns with this plan, particularly the density and proposed traffic calming.She does not believe the proposed traffic calming measures directly in front of the development will adequately address the path of least resistance for traffic that can and will be backed up. Ms. Roman does not feel the applicant has provided a convincing argument as to why a 99 lot development is now the best fit for this property, when not more than four years ago, the density was much less with larger lot sizes.She wondered how the applicant can be so confident with current market speculation, knowing that it can take up to a few years from the approval process to actual construction, and then sale of homes.
7.Mr. Mike Pasqualone of 417 Green Street prefers this plan as compared to the previous TND plan, and he would be in favor of extending public sewer up Green Street to the benefit of all residents.
8.Ms. Amy Riddle-Montgomery of 110 Green Street, Silverdale Borough, thanked the applicant for listening to the resident’s comments at previous PC meetings, and for eliminating the conceptual proposal for commercial development in this area.Ms. Riddle-Montgomery still has concerns about the Green Street/Rt. 113 intersection, particularly the queuing problem which would not be resolved by restriping.She would support the traffic calming as proposed and would like to see it extended a bit further toward Silverdale Borough.While it would be preferable to have fewer lots, Ms. Riddle-Montgomery is satisfied that there has been movement in the right direction with respect to the plan.
9.Mr. Matt Rosa of Oak Drive is opposed to this concept plan, citing the extremely high density.He would support the originally approved 42 lot subdivision, which would contemplate the extension of public sewer to the area.He does not believe that the market study information provided by the applicant is accurate, and feels that the developer could certainly derive a profit from the construction and sale of 42 homes as proposed on the previously approved plan.
There was no further public comment.
Page 7 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
Mr. Wynn once again pointed out that the request is to slightly reduce the open space requirement from the 20,000 sq. ft. lots and increase the density from 61 to 99 lots with respect to the CR-2 Zoning District requirements. If that is the desire in this case, Mr. Wynn suggested that perhaps the CR-2 Zoning District requirements should be revised to allow that development option anywhere in the zoning district.
At the time this site was rezoned to CR-2, Mr. Marino felt the Declaration of Intent was abundantly clear with respect to prohibition of smaller lots and greater density for this site.Mr. Marino does not feel it is the Planning Commission’s place to ask the Supervisors to amend the Declaration of Intent.Nor does he feel that the Planning Commission should provide opinions or continue to meet with the developer time after time, particularly if the indication from the Supervisors is that they do not want this plan to move forward.
Mr. Gundlach stated that the developer will request a Confirmed Appointment on the Board of Supervisors May 24, 2010 meeting agenda to seek input on a possible amendment to the Declaration of Intent.If a positive response is received from the Supervisors, the developer will again appear before the Planning Commission to move forward with the details of the sketch plan.
D.PLANNING:
1.Koszarek Subdivision (Preliminary/Final) – Mr. Paul Dietz, the applicant’s engineer, was in attendance to present the plan.Mr. Wynn’s review dated April 19, 2010 was discussed.The common property boundary between TMP #15-29-26-1 (Nace) and TMP #15-29-27 (Koszarek) is proposed to be adjusted for conveyance of 0.135 acres from TMP #15-29-26-1 to TMP #15-29-27.Both parcels are zoned within the CR-2 and RR Zoning Districts, with the area to be conveyed between parcels zoned exclusively within the RR District.TMP #15-29-26-1 currently contains a single-family detached dwelling and driveway access along Blooming Glen Road.TMP #15-29-27 contains an existing single-family detached dwelling and driveway access along Blooming Glen Road.Both parcels are served by on-lot water and public sewer.No development activity is proposed in conjunction with the lot line adjustment.
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
-SALDO Section 140-29 – Roadway widening of Blooming Glen Road.
-SALDO Section 140-35 – Curbing along Blooming Glen Road.
-SALDO Section 140-36 – Sidewalks along Blooming Glen Road
-SALDO Section 140-16.B(1) – Plans drawn at a scale of 1” = 50 ‘ or 1” – 100’.
Page 8 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
Motion was made by Mr. Lapp, seconded by Mr. Marino, and carried unanimously to recommend granting the four waivers as noted above for the Koszarek Lot Line Adjustment Subdivision.
Motion was made by Mr. Mele, seconded by Ms. McCauley, and carried unanimously to recommend conditional preliminary/final plan approval to the Koszarek Lot Line Adjustment Subdivision, pending completion of all outstanding items as noted in Mr. Wynn’s review dated April 19, 2010, as noted above.
2.Pileggi Land Development (Preliminary) – Action on this plan is required by June 13, 2010.It was noted that the applicant provided correspondence today withdrawing the plan from tonight’s agenda.
Motion was made by Ms. McCauley, seconded by Mr. Lapp, and carried unanimously to recommend denial of the Joseph Pileggi Land Development for non-compliance with the engineering review dated March 29, 2010 and the Bucks County Planning Commission review dated April 1, 2010.
E.ORDINANCES:
1.Subdivision Ordinance/Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Landscaping and Buffer Yards – Mr. Wynn’s memo dated January 19, 2010 to the Board of Supervisors was discussed, and the following comments and suggestions were made:
-Section B – Plant Material Specifications, Item #8, Installation, Mr. Lapp suggested that this sentence should state “All street trees and buffer trees to be installed shall be balled with untreated burlap, in accordance with American Association of Nurserymen Standards.”
-Section D – Landscaping of Parking Areas, Item #4, Subsection (b)2, which states “The Township may accept an applicant’s offer to plant the required number/size of trees on riparian areas that may or may not be owned by the Township, or other Township owned property as designated by the Township.”Mr. Lapp suggested that additional language be considered noting that there is some sort of conservation easement on private property.
-Section E – Open Space Plantings, Item #2, last sentence of first paragraph should state “Noxious weeds include, but are not limited to the following”
-Section E – Open Space Plantings, Item #3, Subsection (b) – Mr. Lapp suggested that a specific survivability ratio be included.Mr. Wynn explained that by not adding a Page 9 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
survivability ratio, the applicant would have to comply with 100% survivability. He intends to insert language stating that the trees must be covered for a minimum of five years.
-Section G – Replacement Trees/Reforestation, Item #6, Mr. Lapp again suggested that additional language be considered noting that a conservation easement is required on private property.
-Plant Lists – Native Shrubs – With respect to the requirement for 3 ft. minimum height at installation, Mr. Lapp noted that some of the shrubs never reach 3 ft. in height. Discussion took place.Mr. Wynn commented that shrubs are used in two different manners – buffers and wetland/native plantings, and as such suggested that a separate list of shrubs permitted for buffer use, and a separate list of shrubs to be used for wetland/native plantings be considered.
-Plant Lists – Medium to Large Deciduous Trees – Mr. Lapp suggested that Red Mulberry and Lacebark Elm be removed from the planting list. -Plant Lists – Small Deciduous Trees – Mr. Lapp referred to Trident Maple and Amur Maple, which he believes are now listed as invasive, and suggested a thorough review of the most recent invasive plant listing.
Mr. Wynn intends to make additional revisions to this draft document, and will then provide it in Ordinance format with the new revisions highlighted in a different color.
F.OLD BUSINESS: None.
G.NEW BUSINESS: None.
H.PLANS TO ACCEPT FOR REVIEW ONLY: 1.Koszarek Lot Line Adjustment – Blooming Glen Road.
I.PUBLIC COMMENT:
1.Mr. Mike Bement has lived at 2002 Broad Street for the past twenty years.In the summer of 2007, he and his family were awakened late at night to the sound of dump trucks and bulldozers operating on the neighboring Joseph Pileggi property.After investigation, Mr. Bement discovered that Mr. Pileggi had permitted James Morrissey Construction Company to dump grindings from the Rt. 313 resurfacing project on his property.Mr. Pileggi had also constructed a wide lane, approximately 200 yards long from the front of his property to the rear of his property.The construction of this lane has resulted in a great deal of flooding on Mr. Bement’s lot and on the adjacent lots as well.Mr. Bement provided photographs of the Page 10 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
flooding that has affected his and neighboring properties due to Mr. Pileggi altering the way water flows across the property.He wondered how he and his neighbors can seek redress for the damage Mr. Pileggi’s disregard for the law has caused them.Apparently, it is Mr. Pileggi’s plan to construct a 15,000 sq. ft. building (50 ft. wide and 100 yds. long) in the RR District of his property, which happens to be located directly behind Mr. Bement’s property line, rather than within the commercial portion of his property which is located closer to Rt. 313.Mr. Bement encouraged the Planning Commission and the Township to force Mr. Pileggi to use his property the way it is zoned.
Mr. Bement’s daughter, Ms. Emily Wikle is most concerned about Mr. Pileggi’s plans for the proposed construction of this 15,000 sq. ft. building.When asked why the asphalt road was being constructed in Mr. Pileggi’s cornfield in the middle of the night, Mr. Bement was told by the contractor foreman that the Township would likely shut down the operation if they were aware of it.Mr. Pileggi then relayed to Mr. Bement that the road was being constructed for planting of nursery stockonly .However, as time goes on, Ms. Wikle has noticed that Mr. Pileggi’s plans continue to evolve – going from planted nursery stock to running a business on the property, with a proposed 15,000 sq. ft. building to be constructed directly behind her father’s home.Further, in a recent newspaper article concerning Mr. Pileggi’s plans for the site, he is quoted as wanting a “Peddler’s Village-style garden center.”Ms. Wikle echoed her father’s opposition to Mr. Pileggi’s blatant disregard for the Township’s zoning laws, and asked the Planning Commission to act accordingly.For clarification, Chairman Funk explained that only the front portion of Mr. Pileggi’s property along Rt. 313 is zoned for Commercial use, while the rear of the property, closest to Mr. Bement’s home is zoned RR.
Discussion occurred.Chairman Funk had assumed that the water issues on Mr. Pileggi’s site were resolved with the construction of a large detention basin.Mr. Wynn stated that Mr. Bement lives above the property, and the water can no longer flow onto Mr. Pileggi’s property to reach the basin.He explained that there used to be a pipe that drained the water from a swale behind the Bement house toward Rt. 113 and down through what is now Mr. Pileggi’s nursery stock.Mr. Wynn advised that Mr. Pileggi crushed that drainage pipe during his grading operations and the pipe no longer functions, which creates the water to back up onto the Bement property before it gets high enough to crest the berm.Mr. Bement and Ms.Wikle asked how this situation can be resolved.Chairman Funk suggested Mr. Bement contact the Board of Supervisors or the Township Manager who will properly direct the Zoning Officer to investigate the matter further.
J.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS:None.
K.PRESS CONFERENCE:There were no members of the press in attendance at this time.
Page 11 Planning Commission May 17, 2010
L.ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by Mr. Mele, seconded by Ms. McCauley, and carried unanimously, the May 17, 2010 Hilltown Township Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:55PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Seimes Township Secretary (*These minutes were transcribed from recordings taken by Mr. Kirk Hansen, Planning Commission Secretary, and should not be considered official until approved by the Commission at a public meeting).
| 
