Delancey Court Residents Oppose Toll's Proposed Settlement Plan

At the September 22, 2021, Newtown Board of Supervisors meeting, several residents of Delancey Court - including members of its HOA board - commented on the Toll Bros All Saints Cemetery proposed settlement plan.

This new plan is part of a proposed settlement of Toll's appeal of the denial of the September 9, 2020 decision of the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors (BOS) denying Toll’s conditional use application. That application sought to develop 45 single family homes on approximately 158 acres of the All Saints Cemetery property located along Twining Bridge Road near its intersection with Durham Road (S.R. 413). The plan was unpopular with residents because it would use Twining Bridge Rd for access and create traffic problems. The new plan eliminates access to Twining Bridge Rd and proposes to use Municipal Drive to access Durham Road (see this plan below).

Toll's Letter to Residents

On August 27, 2021, Toll sent a letter to over 280 residents - including 33 Rittenhouse Court residents in Delancey Court - who live within 500 feet or so of the property. Find the letter here.

Residents complained that they were not given adequate notice and that Toll is "controlling the narrative." To that point, in its letter to residents, Toll says "After filing the appeal, Toll and the Board discussed a possible settlement that greatly improves the proposed development site layout and furthers the purposes of the Conservation Management District."

The Board of Supervisors have NOT discussed this settlement with Toll. The BOS DID discuss the proposed settlement in two Executive Sessions (in January and March 2021). No representatives from Toll Bros participated in these meetings, although I am sure "input" from supervisors regarding the proposed settlement was forwarded to Toll.

Specific complaints from residents included: (1) the planned access to Durham Road via Municipal Drive was unsafe, (2) a 2008 Durham Road Traffic Study concluded that the preferred access to Durham Road from any development in the area is North Drive, and (3) the Township should not be giving up public land to allow access to Municipal Drive.

Watch the video from the meeting:

Written Comments From Residents

The following is a sampling of written comments by residents who requested their comments be included in the public record; i.e., attached to the official meeting minutes.

Joe Hillock, 37 Rittenhouse Circle, Delancey Court. Currently the President of the Delancey Court Homeowner’s Association. Some points made/questions asked:

• Why did Toll not consider North Drive in their development plan? [See Figure 7b from the 2008 Durham Road Traffic Study below.]
• A traffic light at Municipal Drive/Durham Road must be installed before construction begins.
• Would welcome any township supervisors at a Delancey Board meeting to further clarify and discuss this situation.

Bill Schreiber, 105 Rittenhouse Circle, Delancey Court. Some points made/questions asked:

• The solution being proposed takes almost 40%, or 2.8 of the 7+ acres owned by the township. Why would the town concede valuable property and forego the possibility of expanding township services to a $7 Billion dollar company?
• How are township and its citizens being compensated for giving up this important town asset?

Frank McCarron, 42 Rittenhouse Circle, Delancey Court. Some points made/questions asked:

• The Board of Supervisors owes the residents of Delancey Court an explanation as to why we were kept in the dark about this proposed settlement for what appears to be nearly a full year.
• Residents of Delancey Court should be allowed to advocate their position with PennDot as part of this process.
• By Supervisor Phil Calabro voicing his objections during the August 26, 2020 BOS meeting about North Drive, given he lives near that intersection and his prior representation of residents of Newtown Grant, I believe that Mr. Calabro has demonstrated a conflict of interest in this matter. Mr. Calabro, said Mr. McCarron, should recuse himself from this matter or, at a minimum, if this proposed settlement is brought to the Board of Supervisors for a vote, that the Chairman abstain from voting.
• Finally, Mr. MaCarron called on the Township to undergo an independent review as to whether the ICMA Code of Ethics has been followed in this matter.

Maureen Schreiber, 105 Rittenhouse Cir, Delancey Court. Some points made/questions asked:

• The thought of mixing residential traffic with Emergency and service vehicles’ only egress is "irresponsible and could delay response time when minutes or even seconds matter."
• Has the Chief or Police or Fire Marshall been informed of the proposed plan to use Municipal Dr for residential access? More importantly, has anyone sought input from folks with ‘boots on the ground” such police officers or firefighters or snowplow drivers?
• "I spoke with a township representative responsible for land development who was unaware that the proposed settlement used township owned land to connect to Municipal Dr. Who else has been left out of the loop?"

My Opinion

I've heard that “It’s going to happen and if they [Toll] wanted to do Twining Bridge Road [the original conditional use plan that was rejected] they can. They don’t need [BOS] permission.” FIRST, however, they have to win the court case. IMHO, the township has to stand up to developers and defend its decisions in court when sued rather than accept a "compromise" settlement that satisfies no one except the developer.

When I voted against the original plan, I cited three reasons:

1. In general, I do not believe that the applicant demonstrated that the proposed development is consistent with the spirit, purposes and intent of the Conservation Management zoning district.
2. On the developer's efforts to preserve agricultural soils at the site, I do not believe that the applicant demonstrated that every effort has been made to provide a maximum amount of farmland preserved for agriculture.
3. I do not believe that the applicant demonstrated that the proposed development is not a detriment to the property in the immediate vicinity.

I have to ask - What has changed with Toll's new plan?

What's Next?

Unfortunately, residents may not know the details of the settlement until they see it. My suggestion is that we have another executive session to discuss the settlement, but this time invite representatives/residents from Delancey Court and Twining Bridge Road, Toll Bros, and PennDOT to attend.

Meanwhile, the township asked Toll to prepare and submit a "signal warrant analysis application" (i.e., a warrant is a condition that an intersection must meet to justify a signal installation) to PennDOT related to the intersection of Durham Rd. & Municipal Drive so that it can determine where PennDOT stands on that issue. Toll has agreed and are currently working on revising traffic counts. When that information is available, the township will schedule a meeting such as the one I suggested above.

Additional Comments & Background Information

• A History of How We Got to This Point
• Toll August 27, 2021, Letter to Residents
• Landscape Buffer Along Twining Bridge Road - What the proposed development will look like to Twining Bridge Road residents and traffic.
• Steve Pfanstiel's Detailed Comments on the Settlement Plan (sent via email to all supervisors)
• Delancey Court HOA Comments to Newtown Supervisors (sent via email to all supervisors), Note that the proposed traffic exit onto Durham Road via Municipal Drive is directly across from Delancey Court's access to Durham Road.
• Steve Wolfe's (Atty) Comments to Newtown Supervisors (sent via email to all supervisors)
• Maureen and Bill Schreiber Email to Delancey Court Residents - also forwarded to Newtown Supervisors.