Residents Flood Meeting With Objections to Proposed 26‑Unit Townhouse Project on Byberry Road

Applicant representatives presented a revised sketch plan for 90‑106 Byberry Road seeking to develop a 26‑unit, RM2 townhouse community. The applicant said the updated plan relocates the main entrance to the eastern edge of the site to maximize sight distance on Byberry Road, proposes four parking spaces per unit plus roughly 44 visitor spots, and includes class‑B buffering to reduce visual impacts.

Township consultants and staff emphasized that the sketch plan phase is informational but described technical constraints that would govern the next stages. Key consultant concerns: steep and very steep slopes across the property; potential need for waivers for slope disturbance; constructability of a sanitary sewer within an existing 20‑foot easement (possible need for temporary construction easements or additional permanent easements); the stage‑by‑stage construction sequence required to protect downhill residents; and PennDOT sight‑distance requirements. A traffic reviewer said PennDOT calculations could require more than the township's 400‑foot ordinance sight distance (applicant's preliminary estimate for PennDOT was a little over 500 feet depending on 85th‑percentile speeds).

Multiple commissioners said they were not comfortable with the risk profile as presented. Commissioner comments focused on construction‑phase runoff and erosion risks to downhill neighbors, the difficulty of grading Byberry Road to meet sight‑distance requirements, uncertainties about underlying soils and bedrock, and whether the township would accept dedication of the internal road network or require an HOA to maintain private streets and storm infrastructure.

Public comment was lengthy and strongly opposed. Residents living on Hillside, Bent and Byberry Roads reported frequent speeding and crashes on the Byberry crest, recounted flooding events, cited historic or wildlife‑habitat designations for the property, and warned about potential contamination or drying of private wells and aquifers. Several speakers asked the township to buy back or preserve the parcel rather than permit higher‑density infill. One resident referenced a prior 2016 denial of a similar townhouse plan and urged the board to reject the application.

Township staff and consultants said the next step for the applicant, if it wishes to proceed, is scoping with PennDOT for access and additional detailed engineering submissions (infiltration testing, soils/bedrock investigation, detailed stormwater designs and a clear construction sequencing plan to protect downstream properties). Commissioners did not vote on the sketch plan; staff will continue technical review and the public record will remain open for subsequent Land Development filings.