Hilltown Farmland Preservation

Supervisors approve sewer accord that settles lawsuit | 19 July 2007 | Intelligencer

Editor's Note: It seems that Hilltown is not the only township that has disagreements about public sewer delivery.

Supervisors approve sewer accord that settles lawsuit

By RILEY YATES
The Intelligencer

A divided board of supervisors early Wednesday approved settling a lawsuit with the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority, in a vote held after hours of acrimonious debate.

With a few amendments, the 3-2 decision came about 2:10 a.m. and could end a fight that has raged since April.

The agreement would establish a Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority district that includes the stretch between routes 413 and 611.

Three developments calling for site-specific plants would be placed onto authority lines, while future tie-ins would be set for failing septic systems and future industrial and residential development in the corridor.

The deal will be sent to the sewer authority, where it must be endorsed by its board. It would then head to Bucks County Court for approval by a judge.

On Wednesday, supporters touted the agreement, saying it will limit the sewer authority's scope in the future, while bailing the township out from site-specific treatment plants that have proven problematic.

They noted the authority claims all of Plumstead as its purview, with the suit alleging the township violated a 1978 agreement to stay out of the sewer business.

"We finally have a limit on the number of sewer connections that can be brought into the town," said Supervisor Vince Formica, who was joined by Stacey Mulholland and Chairman Frank Froio.

"This settles the size of the sewer district in Plumstead," he said. "Legally, it's done."

Opponents charged extended sewers remove a key check regulators have on future development.

They said the sewer lines may hurt the township's aquifer by pumping sewer water to plants outside Plumstead.

And they expressed unhappiness that the deal was agreed to without a study on the impact it might have on water.

Residents say they were kept in the dark about sewer plan | 18 July 2007 | Intelligencer

Editor's Note: Portents of things to come in Hilltown...?

Residents say they were kept in the dark about sewer plan

By CHRISTINA KRISTOFIC
The Intelligencer

David Murray had heard for years that public sewers would come to Doylestown Township, but he didn't know it would come to his Buck Road house until an acquaintance sent him an e-mail telling him a legal advertisement had appeared in the newspaper.

He remembered seeing an article in the township's spring newsletter about the proposed $59 million sewer expansion project, which identified the neighborhoods in need of sewers as Dell Haven, Pebble Ridge, Woodridge, Pebble Hill, Tabor and Tower Hill, Pheasant Run, Sugar Bottom and Furlong. It didn't mention the costs of installing the sewer system, which are estimated to be between $20,000 and $30,000 per household, depending on the house's location and whether it connects to the sewer system.

"It is anticipated that as all of the financial facts are gathered, more information will be forwarded to township residents," the article said.

Murray never got more information.

Sewer hookups to cost plenty | 18 July 2007 | Intelligencer

Editor's Note: The saga continues for Doylestown...Will we be ready when Hilltown sewer projects are extended to our homes?

Sewer hookups to cost plenty

By CHRISTINA KRISTOFIC
The Intelligencer

Doylestown Township officials are considering a sewer project that could cost 1,300 homeowners more than $20,000 each.

Hilltown's Planning Commission reviews the new AQRC Ordinance | 21 May 2007

* Chairman Kulesza called for a short recess at 9:55PM.The regularly scheduled meeting of the Hilltown Township Planning Commission reconvened at 10:00PM.

E.OLD BUSINESS:

1.Review of proposed AQRC Ordinance (Continued) – The Planning Commission continued review of the proposed AQRC Ordinance, which had begun during their special meeting from 6:30PM to 7:30PM prior to this meeting.

For clarification purposes, Mrs. Hermany asked if two types of housing units would be permitted in the proposed Age-Qualified Residential Zoning District with both a B1 single family detached dwelling, as well as a quadruplex unit.Mr. Wynn explained that once the Township establishes an Age-Qualified Residential Zoning District, within that District there could be an Age-Qualified Community with both quadruplex dwelling units and single-family dwelling units as a B-9 Use; or there could be a B-1 Use (single-family dwelling development) within the AQRC Zoning District.

Mr. Hansen questioned Section 160-23 – Use Type Regulations (9)(c) [10], which states “Parking: Two and one-half (2.5) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit.Spaces within a garage may count toward this minimum requirement, provided conversation of the garage into habitable or storage areas that preclude the parking of vehicles is prohibited in the Declaration recorded against the property.”Mr. Hansen wondered how that requirement could be enforced.Mr. Wynn understands that the Declaration that is filed and recorded against the property that can be enforced not only by the Homeowner’s Association, but by the Township as well, which would include several issues, such as restrictions of open space, as well as the garage use as noted above.

Mr. Funk asked whether or not on-street parking would be permitted.Mr. Wynn referred to page 4, (f) General Requirements, [3], which states “Streets shall have a minimum cartway width of 26 ft. and be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.The Board of Supervisors may impose parking restrictions on one side of the streets within the community and may ban parking on both sides of the streets if a street centerline radius is approved which does not meet requirements of the SALDO for street alignment for local streets.”It was Mr. Funk’s opinion that 26 ft. cartway width was too narrow, even with parking permitted on only one side of the street.

Page 14
Planning Commission
May 21, 2007

Discussion took place concerning Section 160-23(0)(f)(4) on page 4, which states “A pedestrian circulation system shall consist of sidewalks on one side of internal streets provided as an integral part of the proposed development.”Chairman Kulesza felt that this requirement should be in the SALDO, rather than the Zoning Ordinance, and Mr. Wynn agreed.

Motion was made by Mrs. Hermany, and seconded by Mr. Funk, to recommend removal of Section 160-23(9)(f)(4) from the Ordinance, which requires a pedestrian circulation system with sidewalks on one side of internal streets, while indicating that this item should be a requirement of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.Ms. McCauley was opposed.Motion carried.

Ms. McCauley expressed concern with Page 4, Item 6 – Declaration of Age Qualification, and wondered if the requirement binding the property and owners to the minimum of one permanent occupant being age 55 years or older in accordance with both Federal and State Law, could somehow be legally challenged.Mr. Wynn recalls that there had been a great deal of discussion about this issue at the Supervisor’s level with the Township Solicitor.

Mrs. Hermany noted that requirements for handicapped accessibility appear to be removed from the proposed Ordinance.Mr. Marino commented that the reference to the Pennsylvania State Human Relations Act is sufficient and would address handicapped accessibility.Chairman Kulesza noted that the current requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for “Retirement Village” calls for a minimum of 5% of the housing units to have barrier-free to accommodate the physically handicapped.Mr. Wynn reminded the Commission that the Retirement Village Ordinance is very outdated.

Mr. Wynn pointed out a typographical error on page 5, (f) [8], last sentence, which should be revised to state “…shall be submitted for approval to the Board of Supervisors before any building permits can be issued.”

Motion was made by Mr. Lapp, seconded by Mrs. Hermany, and carried unanimously to recommend the addition of the word “floodplains” to the list of natural features as contained within Section 160-23(9)(i)(2)[h].

Motion was made by Mr. Lapp, seconded by Mr. Marino, and carried unanimously to recommend the addition of language to the site capacity calculation of impervious surface ratio contained within Section 160-25; specifically the phrase “or private street constructed pursuant to an approved Age-Qualified Residential Community Plan” is recommended to be added to the calculations requirement under “divide by net buildable site area less all land area required for proposed public streets…”

Page 15
Planning Commission
May 21, 2007

Review of the proposed AQRC Ordinance concluded.Chairman Kulesza commented that while the Planning Commission anticipates which particular parcels might be included in the AQRC District, he felt that it would have been an easier, more effective review process if the PC had been made aware of the district location along with the use.Personally, Chairman Kulesza believes that this type of housing development belongs in the development district where many services would currently be available, and commented that he is not certain the Minsi Trail portion of the Township is appropriate for this type of development.

F.NEW BUSINESS: None.

G.PLANS TO ACCEPT FOR REVIEW ONLY:None.

H.PUBLIC COMMENT:
1.Mrs. Nancy Boice of Mill Road wished to clarify the term “quadruplex,” noting that it is defined on page 2, with the minimum lot area of 9,600 sq. ft. for each quadruplex.She then referred to page 3, items #6 and #7, which states that the minimum quadruplex lot width is 40 ft. while the minimum quadruplex lot depth is 60 ft.Mrs. Boice believes it would be more clear if Items #6 and #7 refer to the quadruplex “unit” rather than the quadruplex or quadruplex lot, which would actually be the entire structure consisting of four units.

Mr. Wynn agreed with Mrs. Boice’s suggestion, as did the Planning Commission.After discussion, it was unanimously agreed that Items #6 and #7 should be revised to state “Minimum Quadruplex Unit Parcel Width: Forty (40) feet” and “Minimum Quadruplex Unit Parcel Depth: sixty (60) feet.”

Hilltown OKs zoning change for builder | 26 June 2007 | Morning Call

Editor's Note: We are crying.

Hilltown OKs zoning change for builder

But plans for 55-and-over development expected to draw scrutiny.

By Patrick Lester Of The Morning Call
June 26, 2007

Hilltown Township supervisors have approved a zoning change that would allow a Bucks County builder to turn 183 acres of farmland into as many as 268 homes -- more than double the amount it could have built before the change.

McGrath Homes, following three years of lobbying, convinced supervisors that its plan for a 55-and-older community at Route 313 and Minsi Trail was more appealing than a plan for 95 homes the company said would add children to the Pennridge School District and increase property taxes.

But it could be awhile before homes are built. McGrath, based in Langhorne, is months away from submitting a development proposal that is expected to draw close scrutiny from township planners and supervisors.

The supervisors' vote Monday night didn't come without criticism, with at least two people suggesting the measure could be challenged in court.

''Perhaps you may be opening yourself up to a spot zoning challenge,'' Sandy Williamson told supervisors.

Tom Hecker, the attorney representing McGrath, said the zoning change was ''clearly not'' spot zoning, calling the new designation a ''legitimate recognized use'' in an appropriate part of the township.

Township residents have raised other concerns about the proposal, saying it would worsen congestion on an already-busy Route 313 and that well-drilling would exacerbate a yearslong groundwater contamination problem in that area.

Gary Brown, a King of Prussia-based engineer representing Route 313 residents Lawrence and Cindy Owen, said an underground plume of the gasoline additive MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, could spread if McGrath drills wells for its development. The Owens also have asked for a study to determine the historical significance of the land, where a number of arrowheads and other Indian artifacts have been found over the years.

The development calls for up to 268 homes restricted to people 55 and older. The homes would be built on 107 acres. The balance of the land -- 75 acres -- would remain open space.

McGrath, which has built a number of other 55-and-older communities in the region, first pitched the project in 2004, proposing 450 homes.

Over the years, it whittled down that number after a series of meetings with supervisors and township residents.

The company said houses on the property, now mostly farmland, are inevitable, and it's just a matter of which plan supervisors preferred.

(Editor: Why stop with 95 homes when you can have 268?)

McGrath has long argued that a housing development without school students would create less of a burden on an already-growing school district. The company says the age-restricted plan would add about 482 residents to Hilltown and, compared with the 95-home plan, would provide double the amount of tax revenue for the township and Bucks County.

(Editor: An old argument - and illegal. Basically, anytime the residents of the new community vote to discontinue the Age Requirements, they can).

Opponents of the plan say McGrath underestimates the impact the 268 homes would have on the area.

They argue that people moving into the 55-and-over community would leave single-family homes in Hilltown, thus opening them up to other families to move in and bring school-age children with them.

patrick.lester@mcall.com
215-529-2612

Hilltown OKs ordinance for use of barns | 27 June 2007 | News Herald

Editor's Note: Hilltown continues its longings to shed its rural history and become a bonafide city. Notable is the increase permitted in impervious surfaces in the Rural Residential zonings, a pretty-please request from Toll Brothers - now up from 9 to 15 percent. At Tussock Sedge Farm, we look forward to the increased flooding and erosion we will enjoy due to this visionary edict...

Hilltown OKs ordinance for use of barns

By: Emily Morris, Staff writer
06/27/2007

Hilltown Board of Supervisors passed five new ordinances in rapid succession at the board's June 25 meeting, mostly designed to help improve the quality of life and options for property use within the township.

Most of the ordinances have been under discussion for many months and have been reviewed by the township and county planning commission to make sure they meet the desires of everyone involved. The ordinances involve the use of barns, how farmsteads can be used, whether or not a trade business would be permitted on a residential property and even whether someone might be allowed to create an accessory dwelling unit to help keep a sick or older family member in their home as long as possible.

The latter is an ordinance that will allow one residence accessory to a single-family detached dwelling to allow for related family members or healthcare workers to reside on the premises. It does not allow for the creation of apartments to be used for profit to a family in any area where that type of use isn't already permitted by the township ordinance.

That ordinance limits the size of the accessory dwelling to no more than 50 percent of the area of the principle residence and the occupant can only be a child or stepchild, parent, stepparent or parent-in-law, brother, sister, niece, nephew, grandparent, uncle, aunt or children of uncles or aunts. The new residence can be within the principal dwelling or an accessory structure, but not a basement, and the new dwelling has to meet the approval of the county department of health.

For those in the Rural Residential zoning district, the township also passed an ordinance that changes a Farm Unit to a Farmstead and elaborates on that definition. The ordinance amends the township zoning ordinance to require that buildings where livestock, horses, fur-bearing animals or poultry are kept and raised be not less than 100 feet from a side or rear property line. Additionally, it defines a farmstead within the RR district as a minimum lot of three acres that must be designated as a farmstead on an approved subdivision plan or restrictive covenant as recorded at the county courthouse. It also outlines maximum impervious surface and yard setbacks and a minimum lot width of 150 feet. A farmstead does not have to connect to public water or sewer, and can have agricultural or horticultural uses in compliance with the use regulations.

Resident's response to McGrath's AQRC

Hilltown to vote on age qualified community ordinance | 13 June 2007 | News Herald

Hilltown to vote on age qualified community ordinance

By: Emily Morris, Staff writer
06/13/2007

In response to comments from the Hilltown and Bucks County planning commissions, Hilltown Township Supervisors made the final round of adjustments and approved advertisement of an ordinance that would create an Age Qualified Residential Community (AQRC) zoning district in the township at the board of supervisors' May 31 meeting.

It is one of the final steps before the ordinance could be voted on for approval - something supervisors said they expect could happen as early as the board's June 25 meeting or possibly in July. The drafting and lengthy discussions over the ordinance occurring over the past six months are the result of a proposal by McGrath Homes of Langhorne to place a 268-unit age-qualified community on approximately 186 acres off Minsi Trail located near the intersection of routes 113 and 313.

Supervisors have carefully worked to draft the ordinance so that its standards would be applied to any area of the township where an AQRC might be proposed, not just the McGrath property or the desires of that applicant. However, in its review, the Bucks County Planning Commission requested the township identify the exact property where the zoning district would be located in order to avoid any potential challenge to the ordinance. In response, supervisors specified that at this point the AQRC district would be applied to the several tax parcels that make up the McGrath property.

While there were several other suggestions from the township and county planning commissions regarding the draft ordinance, township supervisors found that most of the suggestions had either been addressed already or were in conflict with what supervisors would like to see. The board did approve suggested changes regarding flood plain specifications and a clarification of impervious surface ratio for the properties.

Some suggestions the board did not take include recommendations on items like minimum open space percentage, pedestrian circulation system, allowed dwelling types and building setback. The township planning commission recommended the board increase the minimum amount of open space required in an AQRC to 50 percent of the property rather than the 40 percent proposed. Supervisor Jack McIlhinney said that with the 40 percent requirement, the McGrath property would provide 136 acres of open space, which he felt was adequate.

McGrath a Copycat +55 Builder

McGrath is known for forcing +55 developments on townships. This is what we hear on the grapevine:

On McGrath's first development he had RYAN homes as his partner. He got the supervisors to rezone industrial land -- the Buel Airfield -- for a shopping center and more than three hundred 55+ homes. 

The second one in Middletown is similar to what he is now proposing in Hilltown - basically a devil's bargain - take single family homes or very high density 55+ homes. In Middletown, McGrath promised some neighbors some buffering if they didn't oppose the rezoning. In the end it was all about profits. Typically McGrath uses the "no school children" argument, but Middletown is actually losing school kids due to an aging community. 

In Newtown it was a backroom deal that is technically illegal but nobody is standing up and saying so.

Perhaps McGrath thought he could charm his way into Upper Makefield and rezone but they simply said no and he is building within the zoning.

So, Hilltown, all we need to do is say 'No'! Why didn't we think of that!

Is Supervisor McIlhinny the cause of Planning Board Members resigning?

Excerpt from Supervisor's Minutes - Is Mrs. Kachline correct???

Supervisor'€™s Reorganization

January 2, 2007

U.PUBLIC COMMENT:

1.Mrs. Alice Kachline of Mill Road commented that both Mr. and Mrs. Antunes, along with herself, were the oldest members of the Hilltown Civic Association.

Mrs. Kachline was confused by the nomination process and the lone appointment to the Planning Commission.She was surprised and disappointed that Nancy Boice, who is very knowledgeable and attends every Planning Commission meeting, was overlooked for that particular appointment.Further, it is Mrs. Kachline€™'s personal opinion that Supervisor McIlhinney, in one year'€™s time as chairman of the Supervisors, was responsible for the unprecedented exit of over half of the most experienced and knowledgeable Planning Commission members. As a former Commission member, Mrs. Kachline is aware of how much time and effort they spend reviewing plans and Ordinances to provide recommendations to the Supervisors.

Supervisor McIlhinney stated that when the four members of the Planning Commission who either resigned or did not seek reappointment when their terms expired, tell him that he was responsible for their exit, he will respond to Mrs. Kachline's comments.

County preserves 138 acres of livestock farm | 24 May 2007 | Courier Times

Editor's note: We applaud the Keller families for their bold and visionary actions - and their contributions in perpetuity to Bucks County!

County preserves 138 acres of livestock farm

May 24, 2007
By JENNA PORTNOY
phillyBurbs.com

Bucks County moved closer to its goal of preserving 10,000 acres of farmland Wednesday with the purchase of development rights for 138 acres in Springfield Township.

Preservation of the working livestock farm cost taxpayers about $1.7 million with the county paying 40 percent of costs, or $660,000. Funds allocated through the state's agriculture preservation program covered the rest.

The land belongs to John and Linda Keller of Crowthers Road and is within a mile of 1,000 acres already preserved, said Richard Harvey, who runs the county's farmland program.

It's a priority "to preserve family farms first rather than farms the owner rents out or doesn't farm," Harvey said.

John Keller has 90 head of cattle and grows corn, hay, wheat and soybeans to feed them. He began thinking about preserving the farm about a year ago to ensure the land remains pristine no matter what his three children or any future owners may do.

"Any true farmer doesn't want to see his farm cut up for houses," he said. "That's how I feel."

The Kellers' farm brings the township's total land preserved to 615 acres, including John Keller's brother James and his wife, Dolores', 167-acre farm. It's the last dairy farm in Springfield.

"It's a good way of life and I think it's important for the food supply for Americans," said Dolores Keller. "People don't always realize where their food comes from."

County commissioners are considering an open space task force's recommendation to borrow $92 million to preserve open space for another decade. If commissioners approve the proposal, the issue will appear on the fall ballot in the form of a referendum.

The task force would like to continue these programs, add a riverfront component and give built-up municipalities more freedom to buy land for trails and recreation with dollars allocated to them based on land area and population.

Jenna Portnoy can be reached at 215-345-3060 or jportnoy@phillyBurbs.com.

May 24, 2007 5:50 AM

Blooming Glen supporters hope to see village on national register

Blooming Glen supporters hope to see village on national register

By: Emily Morris, Staff writer
05/30/2007

A trip through the village of Blooming Glen can be like a trip back in time. Historic brick homes and converted barns line the street, with the occasional white picket fence surrounding a well-manicured lawn. But with traffic flying past on Route 113, some residents are ready to take action to help preserve the village's unique character.

Approximately 40 residents of the village joined together May 26 to discuss the possibility of putting the village on the National Register of Historic Places and what it might mean for residents of the village as well as in the greater picture of planning in the region.

Blooming Glen and the National Registry of Historic Places

Please join us for a discussion with Kathryn Auerbach, Preservation Consultant,

on the facts about the National Register of Historic Places and the placement of the Village of Blooming Glen on the National Register of Historic Places Village of Blooming Glen

Time: 12:00 - 2:00
Saturday, May 26, 2007

Hosted by:
Charlotte & Henry Rosenberger
Lawrence & Cindy Owen
Victoria & David Halliday

12:00 - 12:30 Food & Refreshments
(courtesy of Tussock Sedge Farm)
12:30 - 1:00 Presentation by Kathryn Auerbach
1:00 - 2:00 Questions and discussion

Morris Run Stone Arch Bridge - 1 of 5 Remaining!

MORRIS RUN STONE ARCH BRIDGE

Here's more photos of our super cool stone arch bridge at Route 113 and Minsi Trail.

It would be a real SHAME to lose this lovely bridge in the name of 'progress'. Sadly, it's in need of a little TLC - your letters can change this!!!!!

REMEMBER TO WRITE to PENNDOT BEFORE APRIL 27TH TO SAY YOU THINK THE BRIDGE SHOULD BE SAVED!!!!! We provide a few hints on things you can say here.

You can send email directly to these two addresses: (1) stonebridge "at" skellyloy "dot" com (2) stonearchbridges "at" skellyloy "dot" com. If you prefer paper, see this post for addresses.

Morris Run Stone Arch Bridge - Preserve it or Lose it!

THE FUTURE OF THE MORRIS RUN STONE ARCH BRIDGE DEPENDS ON YOUR LETTERS!

The People of Hilltown have a chance to offer their suggestions and comments by letter to save one of the last 5 stone arch bridges in Hilltown Township - by April 27, 2007!

You can send your comments at the Pennsylvania's Project Keystone "Send a Comment" , or send your letter directly to Gerald Kunico, and send a second copy to PennDot District 6-0:

(1)
Gerald Kunico
Shelly and Loy, Inc.
2500 Eldo Road, Suite 2
Monroeville, PA 15146-1456

(2)
Penndot District 6-0
Project Keystone - Bridge Review Committee
7000 Geerdes Blvd.
King of Prussia, PA  19406-1525

Below are some suggestions you can add to your letter. You can also go to PennDot's Bridge Management site to look at their survey of Bucks County (a 6Mb pdf document). Section 4.0 of the Bridge Management document specifies the public involvement procedure for help or issues of the importance of this bridge.

COMMENTS ON ARCH BRIDGE SURVEY
With reference to the Morris Run Stone Arch Bridge
ROUTE 113 AND MINSI TRAIL, BLOOMING GLEN, PA. 18911.

I am dismayed and perplexed that this location has not received higher scoring on the survey.

There are many reasons why our Morris Run Bridge should be preserved:

• It serves two-lane traffic at the speed limit.
• It is located at the junction of two historic routes: Minsi trail and Route 113.
• The bridge is on the North approach to historic Blooming Glen Village, which is eligible for National Registry.
• Visually, the bridge strongly accents the historic setting of preserved farmland, old stone farmsteads, and the old tollhouse on Route 113.
• The old race to Schwenk Mill still remains along the Minsi Trail.
• As tourism is second only to agriculture for Pennsylvania, this setting offers unique history for Bucks County tourism.  Tourism will be seriously hurt by the loss of the bridge.

I strongly suggest that proper maintenance be given this bridge.  I believe it will serve well for another 100 years.  Proper care will be far less expensive than a year of closure and replacement with a non-descript ugly concrete bridge, the kind which appears on the west side of historic Blooming Glen village. We want to maintain the historic feel of the Hilltown area, and the Morris Run bridge is an important part of that.

A modern concrete bridge creates a speedway for cars. We need a calming effect on Route 113 through our historic village. The old Morris Run stone bridge well maintained would do just that, with the integrity of the history and extravagant beauty it offers.

We ask you to re-examine the Morris Run Bridge and maintain it for longevity and our enjoyment.