Applicant seeks input on 3.5‑acre Limehill Pike townhouse proposal as traffic, utilities and pedestrian connection remain unresolved

Rob Bedlam, attorney for the applicant, presented preliminary plans on behalf of West Room Development Company for a proposed townhouse project on roughly 3.5 acres along Route 152 (Limehill Pike) and asked the planning body for additional input rather than a formal recommendation.

Bedlam said the plan shows six buildings containing a mix of three‑ and four‑unit townhouses, each with front‑entry two‑car garages and driveway space so that, by his count, each unit would be associated with about four parking spaces. The site plan includes two guest parking areas (one with six spaces, one with seven). "We're not here tonight for a recommendation, but just to obtain some additional input so that we can revise and resubmit the full application," Bedlam said.

Why it matters: the proposal affects local traffic patterns, pedestrian access to a neighboring shopping center and nearby residents’ privacy and stormwater flow. Project approvals will require coordination with utilities and state transportation authorities before final subdivision or zoning approvals can be granted.

Leslie, a project presenter, described utility and stormwater work. "Public water on this site will be serviced by Aqua," Leslie said, adding that Aqua requested meter pits and separate domestic and fire lines for each unit. Sanitary service is planned to tie into an existing gravity main in Limehill Pike and would be provided by Bucks County Water and Sewer, Leslie said. The team reported it performed about eight to ten infiltration test pits and described two proposed stormwater basins — a larger central basin and a smaller southern basin — that would tie into a new storm sewer along Route 152; neither basin is proposed as a surface basin.

Bedlam said the applicant has received a will‑serve letter and a reservation‑of‑capacity form from the water provider. The reservation form, he said, typically requires a 10% payment to secure capacity; Bedlam said the applicant expects a signed agreement to appear on the next submittal.

On access and pedestrian connectivity, Bedlam said the planning commission has recommended a connection to the shopping center across the street, while traffic consultants and engineers raised concerns about cut‑through traffic. He said consultant Smythe and others had discussed safe crossing locations and that the logistics of any pedestrian link must be worked out with PennDOT. "There was extensive discussion with Mr. Smythe, the traffic engineer, and that was the subject of at least two meetings," Bedlam said, noting the consultants advised against a through connection for the proposed residential use but that the commission pushed connectivity as a design objective.

Design details under review include sidewalk width (the team suggested a narrower 4–5 foot sidewalk may be likely), landscaping and buffering (the applicant proposed dense landscaping rather than a fence), and minor grading details to route runoff into the planned SCMs to avoid retaining walls. Review comments from township staff and consultants will be incorporated into revised engineering plans and the applicant said it will return with updated drawings.

Next steps: the applicant will revise the plans to address reviewer comments, provide any required reservation‑of‑capacity paperwork from the water provider, and continue coordination with PennDOT on access and pedestrian crossing solutions. No formal motion or vote occurred during the discussion.