Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Hilltown supervisors over traffic, safety after Max Performance sketch-plan presentation
Summary
Max Performance presented a sketch plan for a warehouse/storage facility on Bethlehem Pike; neighbors raised repeated concerns about truck access, sight lines at Keystone and Bethlehem Pike, early‑morning trash noise and property values. The board emphasized the formal planning review process and said a traffic study could be required at preliminary plan review.
Max Performance representatives returned to the Hilltown Board of Supervisors to present a sketch plan for a proposed storage and light‑assembly facility on Bethlehem Pike and to respond to neighbors’ concerns about traffic, noise and safety.
Eric Casperson, who said he runs Max Performance, and Anthony, a consulting engineer, described the operation as primarily wholesale and e‑commerce with about 11 full‑time employees, mostly assembly and warehousing work and little retail traffic. The applicants said the site would not store hazardous materials, would meet ordinance standards and that any large truck deliveries would be rare — “a literal tractor trailer might come in there once a month,” Eric said.
Neighbors in adjacent developments repeatedly told the board they were troubled by existing traffic patterns at the Keystone Drive and Bethlehem Pike intersection, limited sight lines over the hill, and the prospect of added trucks using neighborhood streets (Devonshire, Orchard) as shortcuts. Residents said the slope and current speeds make turning onto Bethlehem Pike hazardous for older drivers and pedestrians. “It’s a huge safety risk to add another building right now while no one’s doing anything about putting up a light or stop signs,” Marilyn Adamson said.
Other commenters asked whether the developer had requested state input about adding a traffic signal and whether an engineering traffic study had been performed. The applicant and the township engineer said a traffic‑impact study is not mandatory at the sketch‑plan level for a use of this size, but the township may require one when a preliminary plan is submitted if specific traffic or safety concerns are identified.
The applicant told residents the building footprint would be single‑story, buffered with landscaping, and that the company would discuss routing and supplier instructions to discourage deliveries on neighborhood streets. The presenters also said the business has operated since 1983, currently leases nearby space and prefers the proposed location for employee and family access.
Town staff and the solicitor emphasized that the sketch plan is an early step in a multi‑stage review under the Municipalities Planning Code: formal submissions to the Planning Commission, additional public hearings and possible review by the Zoning Hearing Board will follow. Several residents suggested the developer and neighbors hold a dedicated dialogue outside the public meeting to address site‑specific concerns.
No land‑development decision was made at the meeting; the board reiterated that precise design details (driveway geometry, truck turning templates, lighting, buffering and any traffic study requirements) would be examined during formal plan review.
