Neighbors and engineers clash over Toll Brothers' proposed Bennett subdivision access, traffic and environmental trade-offs

Toll Brothers representatives and their consultants presented a revised design for the proposed Bennett subdivision and defended why the developer says an access road to Conestoga Road (Route 401) is not feasible under West Vincent Township ordinances and PennDOT sight‑distance rules. The developer’s attorney, Greg Adelman, told the board the township’s visual‑resource protections and steep‑slope rules limit where streets can be placed and said bringing a street through the ridgeline would “violate your ordinance,” arguing that Conestoga access would therefore be infeasible.

Traffic and site engineers for the project delivered contrasting technical detail. Mark Sarnowski, ESE’s project engineer, described the site’s constraints — riparian buffers, a 240‑foot swath of woodlands, and precautionary and prohibitive steep slopes — and said alternate access layouts would increase woodland disturbance and reduce the size of the conservation lot. He quantified possible impacts: one alternative would add about 1.36 acres of woodland disturbance and reduce farmland/conservancy acreage by several acres; another alignment would traverse the conservancy and shrink that preserved area by nearly 10 acres, he said.

Traffic planner Matt Hammond told the board that PennDOT and AASHTO intersection sight‑distance criteria are a central limit on access to 401. He said Conestoga Road carries roughly 6,200 vehicles per day versus 300–400 on South Chester Springs Road, and that the sight‑distance available at the proposed 401 access falls short of the minimum in at least one direction (an example figure cited was roughly 450 feet available versus 500 feet required), making a highway occupancy permit from PennDOT challenging. "Based on the location of this proposed access point ... we don't meet the sight‑distance criteria," Hammond said.

Neighbors and local advocates told the board they remained unconvinced. John Rice, representing nearby residents, said the same visual‑resource map that the developer cites does not on its face prohibit a road and asked the board to consider broader policy tradeoffs: routing additional traffic onto narrow country roads, or placing new disturbance on the ridgeline. Multiple residents and the township historian warned that widening South Chester Springs Road would remove mature trees and a historic stone wall and change the character of the road. One nearby resident described difficulty exiting Carriage Lane in current traffic and said the development would exacerbate access and egress problems for existing homeowners.

Historic‑resource speakers asked the developer to fund mitigation. Cindy Clark, West Vincent’s historian, and Bob Wise of the Historic Commission urged steps to offset the project’s impact on the Bennett farmstead — including interpretive signs, benches and a mitigating fund to research and preserve nearby historic agricultural properties — proposals the developer said it was still reviewing.

What happens next: the board did not take a final land‑development vote on the subdivision tonight. Consultants and neighbors repeatedly referenced reports and memos exchanged in the days before the meeting; several commenters asked for additional time to review newly submitted materials and for broader stakeholder conversations before any final decision or waivers are considered.