Township reviews Section 6 draft covering streets, utilities and recreation fees; staff to revise and return

Unidentified Speaker 3 reviewed proposed Section 6 of the township’s draft subdivision and land development ordinance, which covers monuments, streets, sidewalks, utilities, fire hydrants and recreation dedication. The presentation framed cross-references to PennDOT guidance and county technical manuals and prompted several technical clarifications and policy questions.

The discussion centered on several decisions that will affect developers and future maintenance costs. Speaker 2 argued that requiring pavement-edge perforated drains at every inlet “is a little excessive” but said it would be “prudent to require those in areas of high ground water.” He recommended an objective standard and cited the Adams County soil manual as the baseline to define “high groundwater,” noting it is typically “within 2 feet of the surface.” Speaker 3 and others described a common process in which developers perform geotechnical testing; municipal or hired engineers then review the data and decide whether the drain requirement applies.

Speakers addressed private streets, noting Huntington Township currently has only a few private streets and does not allow new private streets as policy. Speaker 4 observed existing private streets—such as those serving lake communities—are often not built to public standards and later become expensive to maintain; Speaker 1 recommended that if a developer expects a private road will be turned over to the township, it should be built to the township’s public-street standards so the municipality is not left with substandard infrastructure.

The group also discussed street fixtures and landscaping. Speaker 3 said signs and posts should conform to the latest uniform traffic-control guidance and referenced PennDOT publications for material specifications. Tree-spacing attracted debate: Speaker 2 proposed changing the planting interval to an even number (from 45 to 50 feet), while others said tree intervals should match the ordinance’s minimum lot width (80 feet) to maintain consistent neighborhood rhythm. Speakers warned against single-species plantings to avoid systemwide disease impacts.

On public safety and utilities, Speaker 3 said any development on a municipal water system should provide hydrants so per-dwelling hydrant coverage is no more than about 600 feet, but noted that hydrant installation is an ongoing municipal expense and that local water providers may raise cost concerns. Section cross-references to underground utilities and gas-line controls were described as aligning with applicable pipeline and utility guidance.

Speaker 3 also summarized recreation dedication (a one-time per-unit fee) and said the per-unit example seen in other townships was on the order of “$600–$700” per new house; he warned the group the state legislature had changed the law on unspent recreation fees, making municipalities retain the funds rather than returning them after three years, per the presenter’s description.

Rather than making final policy votes, the group asked staff to incorporate objective triggers and clearer cross-references (for example, to the Adams County soil manual and PennDOT publications), refine definitions such as “high groundwater,” and return with revised language. Speaker 3 and Scott agreed to review the two draft versions and bring a recommended version back at the next meeting. The board set its next meeting for July 22 and then moved to adjourn.

The meeting produced direction and technical clarifications but no formal ordinance adoption; staff will rework the draft and present a revised Section 6 and corresponding zoning amendments at a future meeting.