Comprehensive Plan Solebury Township
Solebury Township Comprehensive Planning Committee
Mitch Ardman Peter Brussock James Coan John Eichert Michael Farbotnik Gretchen Hampt Kenneth Kroupa David Martini Joseph McKeever Ralph OBanion John Touhey
Solebury Township Board of Supervisors
William E. Tinsman Stephen L. Phillips Thomas D. Caracio John Eichert J. Peter Grover
Technical Assistance Provided by Bucks County Planning Commission Brandywine Conservancy
Adopted December 17,2002 SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...... 1 Purpose of the Plan ...... 1 Solebury Township’s Comprehensive Plan ...... 2 Previous Comprehensive Plans ...... 3 Need for New Comprehensive Plan .2002 ...... 4 How the 2002 Comprehensive Plan was Prepared ...... 5 Comprehensive Plan Review Committee was established ...... 5 Community Participation in Preparing the Comprehensive Plan .. 6 Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Researched Planning Strategies ...... 8
CHAPTER I1 COMMUNITY VISION AND OBJECTIVES .A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY ...... 9 Regional Trends Affect Solebury Township ...... 9 New Plan Emphasizes Sustainability...... 9 Guiding Principles for a Sustainable Community ...... 11 Goals for Sustainable Community...... 12 Sustainability Objectives Form the Foundation for the Plan ...... 14 Agricultural Lands and Soil Resources ...... 15 Geology ...... 15 Water Resources...... 15 Biodiversity ...... 16 Scenic & Historic Resources ...... 17 Open Space Program ...... 17 Residential Development...... 18 Non-Residential (Economic) Development...... 18 Circulation ...... 19 Community Facilities & Services ...... 20 Air Quality ...... 20
CHAPTER 111 CURRENT CONDITIONS AND ISSUES FOR THIS FUTURE ...... 21 Population Issues ...... 21 Housing Issues ...... 22 General Community Service Issues ...... 22 Public School Issues ...... 23
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Water Supply/Wastewater Disposal/Stormwater Management Issues ...... 24 Agricultural Preservation Issues...... 25 Agricultural Soils ...... 25 Agricultural Security Area...... 26 Farms Permanently Preserved ...... 26 Farms in Solebury ...... 26 Plan Goal ...... 27 Circulation Issues ...... 27 Regional Forces Park & Recreation Issues ...... 28 Resource Protection Issues ...... 29 Role of the Region as an Arts Community ...... 31 Land Use Issues ...... 32
CHAPTER IV NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS ...... 35 Water Resources: Central to a Sustainable Community ...... 35 Soils: Critial to Food Production. Natural Landscapes. and Water Quality ...... 36 Biodiversity: Living with Nature ...... 36 Cultural Heritage and Scenic Landscapes ...... 36
CHAPTER V CHALLENGES TO THE VISION OF SUSTAINABILITY: Limiting Factors. Cumulative Impacts & Land Use Conflicts ...... 39
CHAPTER VI PLAN FOR LAND USE ...... 43 Planning Framework for Future Land Use Designation Factors to Consider in Land Use Plan ...... 43 Future Land Use Designations...... 45 1. Rural Conservation ...... 45 2 . Site-Responsive Rural Development ...... 46 3. Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center ...... 48 4 . Historic Villages ...... 49 Management of Environmental and Cultural Resources...... 50 Relationship to Surrounding Municipalities and Their Plans ...... 51 Multimunicipal Planning ...... 56
.. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
CHAPTER VI1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN ...... 57
CHAPTER VI11 PARKS. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANS ...... 59 Assessment of Parks and Recreational Needs ...... 59 Recommended Additional Recreational Facilities ...... 60 Recommendations for Existing Parks ...... 60 Recommended Coordination ...... 62 Recommendations for Parks and Recreation Operations ...... 62 Coordination with Agricultural Land Preservation and Open Space Planning ...... 63
CHAPTER IX TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PLAN ...... 69 Future Functional Classification/Antiapated Improvements ...... 69 Access Management ...... 70 Preservation of Local Road Character ...... 71 Alternative Transportation ...... 73 Circulation Funding Opportunities ...... 73 Township Initiatives ...... 74 Development Review and Regulation Initiatives ...... 74
CHAPTER X IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS MEASUREMENT OF PROGRESS TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY ...... 75 Agricultural Resources Policy ...... 76 Soils and Geological Resources Policy ...... 77 Water Resources Policy ...... 79 Natural Landscapes (Biodiversity) Policy ...... 83 Recommended Action Steps...... 83 Scenic & Historic Resources Policy ...... 89 Residential Development (Housing) Policy ...... 91 Economic Development Policy ...... i ...... 93 Circulation Policy ...... i...... 95 Community Facilities Policy...... 97 Implementation Requirements ...... 99
... 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
CHAPTER XI PLAN DOCUMENTATION ...... 101 Natural & Cultural Resources ...... 101 1. Geology...... 101 2 . Topography and Landforms ...... 103 3 . Soils ...... 104 4 . Water Resources...... 106 Precipitation ...... 109 Water Supply and Wastewater Impacts ...... 115 Stormwater Runoff ...... 116 Water Quality and Stormwater...... 118 Surface Hydrology - Streams, Rivers and Watersheds ...... 118 Watersheds...... 118 Wetlands and Floodplains ...... 120 5. Vegetation & Wildlife (Biodiversity)...... 120 6 . Historic Resources ...... 128 7 . Artistic Heritage ...... 131. 8. Scenic Landscapes...... 134 Existing Land Use/Development Patterns ...... 138 Population & Housing Characteristics & Projections...... 140 Community Facilities Inventory ...... 143 Parks and Recreation Invent0ry ...... 146 Roads and Circulation Inventory ...... 147 Consistency With Bucks County Comprehensive Plan ...... 151 1. 1 I, 1 f I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTERXI Figure1 Generalized Water Cycle ...... 107 Figure 2 Detailed Water Cyclewater Budget ...... 108 Figure 3 Annual Precipitation at Lambertville NJ (USGS 1994a)...... 111 Figure 4 Stormwater Runoff Impact Resulting from Land Development ...... 112 Figure 5 Pre-Development Water Cycle in Cross Section ...... 113 Figure 6 Post Development Water Cycle in Cross Section ...... 114 Figure 7 Hydrograph for Pre-Development and Post-Development Uncontrolled ...... 116 Figure 8 Hydrograph for Post Development with Detention ...... 117
Inventory of Preserved Lands
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MAPS Base Map Current Zoning Existing Land Use Plan for Land Use Utilities Parks and Recreational Sites Circulation Surface Geology ToPograPhY Steep Slopes Soil Resources (former SCS) Soil Resources (current NRCS) Water Resources Woodlands Natural Areas Networks Riparian Buffers Historic Resources Scenic Analysis
V 1 I Introduction to Solebury Township Comprehensive Plan
Solebury Township abounds with assets that inspire its residents and attract visitors from throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Residents enjoy a wide range of cultural and natural resources, gently rolling uplands, exquisite natural areas along stream valleys, historic villages, scenic views of the Delaware River, beautiful farmsteads, close proximity to major metropolitan areas, and a feeling of living history that emerges from the abundant historic resources. Solebury is an attractive blend of rural and suburban landscapes.
This comprehensive plan is the community’s blueprint for sustaining our community, its resources, and quality of life. Solebury has a diversity of scenic, historic, cultural, and natural resources that require active protection and management so that they can be sustained for future generations of residents. The comprehensive plan outlines a set of strategies and measurable goals that recognize the limits and susceptibilities of these valuable resources to unmanaged or unfocused growth. Sustaining the tangible and intangible features that make Solebury exceptional is dependent upon a comprehensive plan that can be used and referenced by any resident interested in the future of the Solebury Township.
Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan
Pennsylvania law has recognized the comprehensive plan as an important land use tool since 1968. The legal basis for municipalities adopting comprehensive plans was established in 1968 when the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code was enacted. The Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, in 1984, summarized the role of plans in Pennsylvania:
1 A comprehensive plan is a document that is designed to state basic policies and to guide future growth and development of the community.
It carries no [direct] weight of law, but it can assist decision makers.
It contains no rules or regulations, but it serves as a basis for any land use provisions enacted by the municipality.
It is broad in scope, examining the physical, social and economic characteristics that mesh to make the municipality of today, but it seeks to apply this knowledge to the future.
The comprehensive plan is, in part, a factual report that examines how the past has led to the present, as well as a report that can be used to chart the community’s path into the future.
The Solebury Township Plan addresses the components of the Municipalities Planning Code.
Solebuy Township’s Comprehensive Plan The township’s plan contains the following four components. These components are based on four fundamental questions:
1. Where is Solebury today? What are its characteristics, both good and bad? To answer this question, the plan contains information and data about the municipality’s natural environment, man-made features, development patterns, and population.
2. Where is Solebury going? What are the trends, forces, and pressures that will affect its future development?
The plan looks at the probable future condition of the township by considering the development trends, pressures from surrounding areas, and the probable needs of existing and future residents.
3. Where does Solebury want to be in the future? What are the goals of its residents? The plan contains goals and objectives developed by the community.
2 4. How does the township reach its goals? What steps need to be taken to achieve the future that we want for the community?
The plan is a Guide to the Future. The comprehensive plan provides a strategy for the community to grow in its chosen direction. By establishing goals and objectives, comparing these with the realities of the municipality’s dynamics, a set of policies and implementation actions are formulated. The plan is a basis for managing the future by providing a foundation for the community’s ordinances and planning process.
Previous Comprehensive Plans
Planning in Solebury Township grew out of a gradual recognition that the area was undergoing a noticeable development spurt in the mid-1970s. The 1975 plan was brief and very general. Since then, the growth and development pressures have accelerated.
A substantially revised and expanded plan was adopted in 1990. This plan recognized the community’s increased awareness of the environment. Cognizant of the fact that health, safety, and welfare of Solebury residents and that the precious natural resources, scenic areas, historic sites, and overall character of Solebury are vulnerable to development, the community began to contemplate methods of protecting these finite and valuable assets.
The 1990 Comprehensive Plan recognized new development is inevitable and emphasized managing growth in a planned manner.
In managing growth, the township also wanted to be sure that a variety of land use activities and housing opportunities could continue. The concerns of the community - development pressures, environmental protection, farmland preservation, providing areas for growth, and encouraging variety of land uses and housing opportunities - all pointed to the need for a new comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan addressed these concerns directly with specific policy recommendations and additional data needed to reach balanced land use and planning decisions. Overall, the plan was intended to guide future development, be the basis for a revised zoning ordinance, and provide a foundation for a growth management plan. .
3 Need for New Comprehensive Plan - 2002
The need for this new Comprehensive Plan revision was based on several factors:
Ten years have passed since the last revision and the population of the township has increased substantially as a result of additional development.
Recognition of the need for substantial revisions to the zoning and subdivision/land development ordinances, which must be based on a comprehensive plan.
School taxes are increasing relatively rapidly and are projected to increase with greater frequency, indicating an imbalance in the types of development and land use.
0 Traffic congestion is increasing in the frequency and number of locations, indicating a need to evaluate circulation patterns in the context of long term planning goals.
Increasing frequency of stormwater flooding indicating an imbalance in the water budget as a result of changing land use.
Ground water supplies are experiencing localized shortages during dry periods indicating an imbalance in the water budget as a result of changing land use.
Extensive water table depression has been detected in an area of high commercial pumping indicating an imbalance in the water budget. Additional high volume pumping is planned to supply new high density development possibly exacerbating localized ground water problems into more regional issues.
Increased fragmentation of open space and loss of prime agricultural land
Recognition that the current high rate of land use changes and the associated cumulative impacts require more specific strategies and measurable goals to manage growth in a balanced and sustainable manner.
4 The revision of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code Act in 2000 confirmed the need to adopt planning strategies to protect natural and historic resources and agricultural land. Specifically, Section 105 of the Act (Purpose of the Act) now states that the purpose of the act is to promote the presemtafion of the Commonwealth‘s natural and historic resources and prime agricultural land.
The objective was to revise the Comprehensive Plan based on updated data on the township and utilize a diversity of planning tools to minimize the impacts of land use changes and development consistent with the vision and goals of Solebury Township.
How the 2002 Comprehensive Plan was Prepared
Comprehensive Plan Review Committee was established
The Board of Supervisors established the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee (Committee) in January, 1999, consisting of four regular members, and five liaison members from other Committees, commissions and boards within the township. The purpose of the Committee was to review and update the Comprehensive Plan and recommend changes to the township ordinances consistent with the plan. This Committee’s organization was developed to ensure communication and feedback from residents involved in township management activities throughout the process of plan revision and subsequent development of proposed ordinance revisions. A liaison from the Board of Supervisors was established and the township hired a planning consultant to assist the Committee.
During the initial organization meetings, the Committee agreed to complete the revisions of the Comprehensive Plan prior to recommending any ordinance changes to the Board of Supervisors. This sequence of Committee activities was adopted to minimize the potential for any incompatible revisions between sections of the zoning ordinances or subdivision ordinances with the goals and policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Committee drafted a Vision Statement and Goals within a few months to serve as an organizing template and a means of stimulating input from the groups represented by liaison members of the Committee and interested residents. Upon completion of the draft Vision Statement and Goals, the Committee proceeded to meet with various groups from within the township and the New Hope/Solebury School Board to discuss their needs and concerns that could influence the short and long term planning within the township. Presentations
5 from the planning consultant were periodically scheduled to provide additional perspective to the Committee on planning and environmental issues and management options that could be incorporated into the revised Comprehensive Plan. Throughout this process, the Committee actively sought input from the community.
As the Committee’s vision of the revised Comprehensive Plan became more clear, the Committee and its consultant began drafting sections of the revised plan and distributing them among the Committee and interested parties for review, comment, and revision. Upon completion of the draft revision, a copy was made available for public review and comment prior to an advertised public meeting to obtain comments from the community.
Community Participation in preparing the Comprehensive Plan
Together the Committee members represent a cross-section of the township residents. Committee members recognized that they were selected on some particular expertise or experience with planning. The Committee actively sought community input throughout the process to ensure the plan emerges from the collective vision of the community, facilitated by the Committee.
Press Release Prepared - The Committee prepared a press release announcing the Committee’s formation, its objectives, and need for public input. Several local newspapers and the township newsletter published articles about the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan.
Citizen Survey Conducted - The Committee conducted a comprehensive survey of the views of residents on planning related issues. More than 800 residents completed the survey, which was distributed to voters by Committee members on Election Day and made available to all residents for a several week period at the township Building. Notice of the survey was published prior to Election Day. The results of the survey were published in the local newspaper and in the township newsletter prior to the completion of the draft plan.
Survey Results - A summary of the results is provided below.
0 Most of the respondents have lived Solebury more than 10 years (59%) with approximately 25% moving to the township in the last 5 years.
6 Thirty-five percent of the respondents work outside of Solebury, 23% are retired, 20% work at home, and 17%work in the Solebury/New Hope area.
Of nine reasons for moving to Solebury, only two choices were selected more than 35% of the time, Rural, Open Space (85%) and Scenic Beauty (79%). The next most often selected choice was low taxes (31%).
Factors identified as reasons for moving from Solebury were more evenly distributed with Area Becoming Overdeveloped being the widely cited (72%), Increased TraficlCongestion (41%), Environmental Degradation (38%), High Taxes (37%), Completion of a Route 202 Expressway Through Solebury (35%), and Changes in Unique Local Character (32%).
With regard to planning priorities, the community identified Natural Resource Protection (57%), Conservation of Scenic Landscapes (57%), and Retention of Rural Character (57%) as its top priorities, followed by Conservation of a Quality Water Supply (43%), Tra.c and Road Conditions (34%),Agricultural Preservation (33%), and Protection of Historic Resources (23%). Specifically related to recreation, residents identified the need for more Hiking TrailslBike Paths (63%) and Additional Access to the CanaUTowpath (32%)as top priorities.
Most residents expressed an opinion that current land use regulations are not strict enough (61%), and 75 percent felt the township should be more aggressive in saving open space and farmland.
Eighty-six percent supported the need for a second electoral bond issue for the purchase of open space while support for planning to protect groundwater supply and quality was overwhelmingly favored (93%). (A bond referendum passed with over 90% support.)
The township should pursue alternatives to road widening or more extensive tree trimming along roadways such as smaller maintenance vehicles and specialty fire equipment that can use the existing roads (71%).
Adequate Parks and Recreation Opportunities (38%) along with Activities for Youth (35%) were the most often selected choices for what is lacking or needed in Solebury.
A majority of residents (63%)indicated the New Hope/Solebury Schoo1,Board should explore other sources of tax revenues in addition to property taxes.
7 Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Researched Planning Strategies
As part of the Committee’s learning process, it looked at recently published literature on community planning techniques, as well as what other Pennsylvania municipalities and other municipalities with issues similar to Solebury had done. The Committee was interested in techniques. and strategies such as encouraging land uses that generate tax revenues with limited costs (for schools, road maintenance, natural resources depletion or degradation) to the township. These included large lot zoning, expanding commercial areas in villages, agricultural zoning, watershed planning, water budget management, sewer moratoria, expansion of historic resource identification and development of protection strategies, open space preservation, and conservation development techniques.
The Committee also studied the Pennsylvania Constitution, statutes and case law to determine what planning and management strategies could be developed for Solebury that would be legally defensible, typically acceptable and on what grounds. The Committee found that the residents of Pennsylvania are entitled to a high quality environment, free of pollutants and absent of significant threats to public health, safety and welfare. Authority and responsibility to sustain a high quality environment and quality of life is delegated, to a large extent, to local municipalities by the Municipalities Planning Code Act. Courts have specifically said that the municipality has a responsibility to protect limited resources, natural or man-made. The courts have also said that the municipality must plan for its existing and future residents.
The Committee recognized that a balance must be sought and maintained between growth/land use and the limited or sensitive resources found throughout the township. Solebury’s capacity for growth must not be exceeded by future demand, locally within the township or cumulatively over a larger portion of the township. Where capacity is exceeded, unacceptable adverse impact to the environmental quality and quality of life will occur. Natural and human resources will be diminished and not sustained for future generations. The Committee sought policies and methods to re-establish balance and then maintain that balance into the future.
8 11 Community Vision and Objectives - A Sustainable Cornmunitv
The Solebury Township Comprehensive Plan (1990) emphasized protection of public health, safety and welfare as well as protection of the community rural and historic character. Objectives and policies described the community vision and the resources that warrant protection or conservation. Township planning and regulatory tools - principally the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision & Land Development Ordinance - have been revised and amended many times to reflect these goals. Through implementation of previously stated objectives and policies, the community has advanced toward its overall goals in many ways. There remain gaps, deficiencies and inconsistencies in the regulatory tools that have become increasingly important as development pressure increases.
This section of the plan addresses Section 301 (a) (1) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. A complete list of all the plan policies and recommendations is contained as a section of this plan.
Regional Trends Aflect Solebu y Township A number of the township problems are caused by changing regional conditions. These include suburban sprawl related to Philadelphia disinvestment, economic growth and relatively high property taxes in surrounding areas, loss of rich agricultural land, fragmentation of open space, depletion of the quality and quantity of ground water resources, increases in stormwater flooding, stream quality degradation, rapid school budget increases and tax shortfalls, and ever-increasing traffic congestion.
New Plan Emphasizes Sustainability These symptoms lead the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee to conclude that current development patterns and land uses are out of balance and not sustainable. Consequently, the framework of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan emphasizes a Sustainable Community and Sustainable Development philosophy.
9 Solebury Township Vision Statement
Solebu y Township seeks to establish and maintain a Sustainable Community that balances the rights of property owners to reasonably use their land with the community’s expressed goal to conserve and preserve its natural and historical character for the benefit of all, present, and future residents. Aggressive conservation and preservation of natural and historic resources is necessa y to protect the health, safety and weyare of the residents from unreasonable risks and nuisances caused by the environmental, economic, and transportation impacts associated with unbalanced land uses. A holistic approach emphasizing thorough evaluation of the individual and cumulative impacts potentially associated with significant land use proposals must be evaluated in the context of the current and future projected land uses for surrounding properties and municipalities. This vision is derived from the residents of Solebu y Township.
Solebuy’s vision is consistent with the policies and resolutions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The Committee sought guidance from the policies and goals of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and based its plan on the official positions of the Commonwealth and its laws.
Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides:
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain these for the benefit of all the people.
The Pennsvlvania Municipalities Code Act amendments of 2000, the purpose of the Act (Section 105):
.. .to promote the preservation of this Commonwealth’s natural and historic resources and prime agricultural land; .. .to ensure that municipalities adopt zoning ordinances which are generally consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan; to encourage the preservation of prime agricultural land and natural and historic resources through easements, transfer of development rights and rezoning; to ensure that municipalities enact zoning ordinances that facilitate the present and future
10 economic viability of existing agricultural operations in this Commonwealth and do not prevent or impede the owner or operator’s need to change or expand their operations in the future in order to remain viable; . . .; and to permit municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or which may be foreseen and whenever the provisions of this act promote, encourage, require or authorize ‘8 governing bodies to protect, preserve or conserve open land, consisting of natural resources, forests and woodlands, any actions taken to protect, preserve or conserve I such land shall not be for purposes of precluding access for forestry. Executive Order 1999-1 from the Governor of Pennsylvania declares a land use l policy that calls for all levels of government to engage in sound planning in the long term interests of Pennsylvania, preservation of farmland and open space, reducing 1 sprawl by redevelopment of areas previously developed areas, planning beyond municipal boundaries, impact assessment of land use decisions, sustaining the economic and social vitality of Pennsylvania’s communities, and infrastructure 1 maintenance and improvement plans that are consistent with sound land use practices.
s The findings of the Governor’s 2lSt Centurv Environmental Commission that P reconnized: Goals of environmental quality, personal and community well-being and economic prosperity are not in conflict but, mutually dependent.
That after having corrected the undesirable legacies of past actions, we protect our 1 natural resources and systems, husbanding them as assets to be used in a sustainable manner that lets our children and grandchildren enjoy the same rewarding quality of life that we desire.
Solebury Township recognizes that a healthy environment, strong economy, and 1 viable community social structure are not in conflict but are mutually dependent upon one another. It bases its vision on the goals of its residents, with the support of s the goals, policies, and proclamations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1 Guiding Principles for a Sustainable Community The community has expressed goals and policies consistent with the statewide 1 policies and goals. The township needs more aggressive pursuit of these goals. The s 1990 Comprehensive Plan began the process. This Comprehensive Plan attempts to (I 11 complete the process of establishing a pathway toward a Sustainable Community (Krizek and Power, 1996).
The plan uses some guiding principles in setting the direction of sustainability:
Creating sustainable communities is not simply a matter of avoiding a few wetlands, m saving a few acres of open space, or putting in place a few nonpoint best management practices. Rather, it is a matter of considering ecological limits and environmental impacts at every aspect of community design, from the energy eficiency of buildings to the regional transportation system to how the industrial and commercial sectors go about business.
Timothy Beatley (From Krizek and Power, 1996)
The Committee reviewed the planning literature on sustainability to idenhfy the basic elements of sustainability and agreed on four key characteristics of sust ainability :
e Equitable sharing of resources among the current and future generations; e Protecting and living within the natural carrying capacity; e Minimization of natural resource use; and 0 Satisfaction of basic human needs.
Goals for a Sustainable Community
The Comprehensive Plan identifies goals to establish and maintain a Sustainable Community. The distribution and nature of land uses must maintain, restore or enhance the natural and historical character of the township. Goals of the plan are:
Protecting the natural environment and our resources - Conserve, protect and restore the natural landscapes of Solebury Township, including woodlands, wetlands, floodplains, streams and riparian corridors, meadows and hedgerows, providing a healthy living environment for people, plants and animals.
Conserve agriculture, aaricultural lands, and soil resources controlling growth, preserving farmland, and minimizing soil disturbance and preventing accelerated erosion, especially in highly valued and sensitive areas such as prime agricultural land and steep slopes.
12 Conserve and enhance natural vegetative cover to promote conservation of soil, water resources, and animal habitats.
Conserve, protect and enhance the quality and quantity of ground water resources for reasonable uses by the residents.
Maintain, restore, and enhance the quality of Solebury waterways through the prevention of degradation from increased sediment, pesticide, and nutrient loading, increased storm flows and decreased ground water discharges during low flow periods. Post-development runoff volumes from any land area should be minimized in relation to pre-development runoff, with permitted levels of impact related to the sensitivity of specific resource areas, such as Special Protection Waters, feeder streams to the Delaware Canal, headwaters areas, and first order streams.
Maintain the water budget on individual properties and throughout the township. To ensure protection of ground water resources and the processing capacity of subsurface soils for wastewater renovation, the volume of ground water recharge over any specific area must be maintained at predevelopment levels to the maximum extent feasible, through a combination of best management or engineering practices.
Protect, establish and maintain greenways and open space corridors as natural linkages between and among open spaces and developed areas, allowing people, plants and animals opportunities to thrive and move through the diverse landscapes of Solebury Township.
Protecting unique histo y and culture of Solebu y e Protect and promote the maintenance and continued economic viability of historic and cultural resources and scenic landscapes.
Accommodating development in a sustainable manner and achieving community balance -
0 Maintain the free flow of local traffic through a combination of traffic management techniques that protect the safety of residents as well as the scenic nature of the township roadways.
13 Review and refine township land use planning and regulatorv- tools to promote patterns of activity and conservation that facilitate achievement of these goals, including the zoning ordinance, the subdivision and land development ordinance, the Park and Recreation Plan, Open Space Plan, the Sewage Facilities Plan and relationship(s) with the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority.
Promote sustainable development that is designed to (1) conserve, maintain and enhance natural and cultural resources while providing opportunities to implement community development objectives and meet projected housing needs, (2) minimize traffic impacts, (3) minimize impacts on public welfare, such as unreasonable increased demands on public services and schools, (4) ensure wastewater disposal services can be maintained indefinitely on any developed property, without endangering public health, safety and welfare, and avoiding discharge of wastewater to surface waters, and (5) ensure a reliable and safe source of water supply can be provided indefinitely from water resources of the township, preferably from resources available on each property.
Prevent cumulative impacts from new land use practices and infrastructure from diminishing the quality of life or property values of Solebury residents. Cumulative impacts results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, eventually resulting in adverse effects on water resources, wastewater management, transportation, air quality, stability of tax revenues in relation to budgetary needs, etc.
Maintain and develop communitv facilities accessible to all residents, including township administrative services, fire protection, ambulance service, and libraries.
Develop, maintain, and enhance parks and recreation facilities throughout the township, preferably in close proximity to where people live and connected by public accessways or trails.
Sustainability Objectives Form the Foundation for the Plan More specific objectives for achieving a sustainable community are developed from the broader goals and from the specific issues and factors affecting Solebury Township, described in the plan.
14 Agricultural Lands and Soil Resources Protect agricultural lands from development, especially those with high percentages of prime agricultural soils.
0 Minimize both the extent and intensity of soil disturbance and avoid concentrations of stormwater runoff, particularly on steep slopes, to prevent accelerated erosion of soils.
0 Protect and maintain the processing capacity of wastewater in soils.
Geology Ensure that development is compatible with site-specific geologic conditions, particularly in limestone areas (Karst geology).
Prevent ground water contamination in highly permeable limestone aquifers, particularly due to inappropriate placement of on-lot septic systems.
Improve township knowledge and understanding of the location of Karst geology and the impacts of land use on the geologic conditions so that proper land use controls may be established.
Water Resources 0 Maintain, restore and enhance the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources on a watershed basis throughout the township, emphasizing the interconnectedness and interrelatedness of water resources with other resources and with land use.
Promote water resource management practices consistent with local stream quality designations while designed to ensure maintenance of a water budget that can sustain current and reasonable future uses.
Maintain volumes of stormwater runoff and peak flows at or below predevelopment levels to the maximum extent feasible through a combination of best management and engineering practices.
Maintain the volume of ground water recharge at predevelopment volumes to the maximum extent feasible. In areas where previous development has led to reduced ground water recharge and increased
15 runoff, seek to restore the water budget to predevelopment conditions through net increases in infiltration where new development occurs.
0 Prevent the volume of ground water withdrawals from exceeding a safe (sustainable) yield, considering current uses, reasonable future uses, and probable drought conditions over a 100-year planning horizon. Disruption of private potable well supplies must be prevented to avoid significant risks to public health, safety and welfare. Efforts must be made to address the water withdrawals made by stone quarries, and prevent disproportionate or unreasonable withdrawals that endanger public health, safety, or the environment.
0 Ensure that water resource planning efforts reflect the unique issues associated with direct drainage into the Delaware Canal.
0 Encourage all property owners and state agencies to minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
Biodiversity 0 Maintain and enhance local and township-wide biodiversity to provide a healthy living environment for people, plants and animals. Emphasize both preservation and restoration (including reforestation where appropriate) of a variety of natural landscapes/habitats, including woodlands, successional lands (meadows, old fields, thickets), wetlands, springs and spring runs, streams and riparian corridors, ponds, the Delaware River and Canal, and specimen vegetation.
Integrate a Solebury Township Natural Areas Initiative into the township Open Space Program potentially involving acquisition of land or conservation easements in critical natural areas. Acquisition of conservation interests in land should focus on priority core reserves and natural corridors identified in the Bucks County Natural Areas Inventory and in this plan, particularly where large contiguous areas of natural habitat are threatened by fragmentation due to development.
Provide for the restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of natural landscapes within development and infrastructure projects, seeking to prevent the destruction or fragmentation of notable or rare landscape features, and balancing unavoidable disturbance with enhancement of remaining landscape features, including stormwater management areas.
16 Deer overpopulation in suburban and rural areas bordering suburban areas is a major problem in Bucks County and the Philadelphia area. They substantially alter the composition of the herbaceous and understory woody plants in the short term and can cause changes in the overstory over the long term. Deer overpopulation poses a sigruficant safety threat to motorists and a growing threat to public health due to Lyme disease. They also cause substantial economic losses by grazing on cultivated plants on farms, residential and commercial properties. In consultation with state agencies, such as the Game Commission, the township must establish and seek to implement appropriate deer population reduction and management policies in order to protect the people and natural resources that are identified in this plan.
Scenic t3 Historic Archaeological Resources Conserve scenic landscapes through inclusion in the township Open Space Program and through regulatory means to minimize development impacts wherever possible and mitigate impacts where not.
Promote the conservation and continued economic viability of historical resources and their historical landscape integrity. Ensure that owners of historical properties are able to take advantage of conservation options and potential financial incentives.
Promote realization of National Register status for the qualifying properties and two districts (Aquetong and Solebury) deemed eligible, with the approval of affected property owners. Seek determination of eligibility (DOE) for the National Register from the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission for properties possessing architectural and/or historic significance worthy of further study and for the four potential rural historic districts noted in this Plan.
Open Space Program Advance the efforts of the township Open Space Program in continued pursuit of acquisition of conservation interests in open space lands.
Focus conservation efforts in areas with si@cant agricultural, natural and cultural resource values as discussed herein, in order to preclude potentially intense development in inappropriate locations, and in order to complement regulatory approaches to mitigate development impacts throughout the township.
17 s
Residential Development \B 0 Provide for continued residential development to the extent necessary to accommodate projected population growth and housing needs in a 5 balanced manner. Continue to allow for diverse housing types. I 0 Provide opportunities for development of age-qualified retirement communities and assisted living options to meet the needs of the growing elderly population sector and to complement other efforts to mitigate the I real estate tax impacts of conventional residential development. 1 0 Focus residential development in the most appropriate locations, proximate to existing infrastructure, avoiding sprawl patterns, and consistent with the conservation objectives herein. Coordinate diverse II means to guide residential development pressure, including regulatory means and acquisition of conservation interests in open space lands.
Non-Residential (Economic) Development 0 Provide sufficient opportunities for non-residential development to achieve balanced and sustainable land use, to help mitigate and balance the real estate tax impacts of conventional residential development, and to offer diverse economic activity, employment opportunities and commercial services that township residents desire.
Focus non-residential development, particularly larger-scale commercial and employment uses, along Route 202 in areas where higher-intensity development patterns already have emerged and where sewer and water infrastructure is available.
Link development opportunities and permitted intensities so that conservation objectives are achieved, particularly maintenance of the water budget.
Implement design standards to avoid sprawl and strip development patterns, mitigate aesthetic and environmental impacts of large expanses of parking, and provide for integrated development of diverse commercial and employment uses.
18 0 Provide for the integration of limited commercial and special-use development opportunities within otherwise residential districts to offer basic commercial services close to home, carefully managed to minimize impacts to residential neighbors. Allow for economic re-use of historical buildings so that they can continue to be part of the township landscape.
Provide for the ultimate reclamation of existing quarry operations for open space or recreational purposes or other viable economic use consistent with conservation and development objectives herein.
Circulation
0 Seek to eliminate any basis for development of a Route 202 expressway through Solebury, promoting alternative through-routes outside of the township, while managing land use change and circulation improvements to maximize the functional utility and efficiency of Route 202 in its present location.
0 Continue to plan and provide for the improvement of Route 202, in its present location, designed to manage turning movements.
0 Promote access management improvements along all arterial and collector roads, minimizing points of turning movement conflict, coordinating and channeling access from adjacent uses, and reducing the number of existing and substandard access points wherever feasible.
0 Seek to minimize the impacts of through traffic originating outside the township on minor collector and local roads, especially those designated as scenic roads.
0 Carefully manage roadway improvements to balance improvement objectives with the intent to preserve scenic roadway character and to minimize negative impacts to wildlife habitat.
0 Pursue alternative circulation opportunities, including bicycle and pedestrian links, integrated with development site planning, to minimize need for vehicular trips and improve access for transportation dependent persons.
19 0 Coordinate circulation planning efforts with neighboring municipalities to the greatest extent feasible, to optimize means to realize the stated objectives.
0 Coordinate circulation planning with land use planning so that land use decisions do not result in greater traffic or transportation burdens.
Community Facilities G, Services 0 Provide for development patterns and intensities that maximize use of current infrastructure and minimize need for additional infrastructure development.
0 Minimize the extension of water supplies, wastewater disposal, and stormwater systems to prevent adverse impacts to roadways and landscapes and to achieve the water resource conservation objectives discussed above.
0 Develop plan for conversion of wastewater and water services to means sustainable within the framework of the local water budget, abandoning connection to the Lambertville wastewater treatment plant.
Pursue funding sources (federal, state and local) for implementation of the recommendations of the Solebury Township Park and Remeation PZan. Balance opportunities to provide for active and passive recreational pursuit with the habitat needs of wildlife and other resource protection objectives.
0 Address community needs for libraries, schools and municipal buildings in concert with other plan goals.
Air Quality 0 Encourage development patterns and land use controls that minimize air pollution.
20 I11 Current Conditions and Issues for the Future
The Comprehensive Plan Committee examined current conditions in the township, the forces affecting its future, the area around Solebury, and identified some issues to be addressed by the plan. The analysis of these issues resulted in the statement of sustainability goals and objectives. This chapter addresses the requirements of I Section 301 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
I Population Issues: Need to accommodate up to 1,257 additional residents between 2000 and 2010. Population may be older, based on national and local trends.
@ Solebury’s population has fluctuated a great deal over the last 200 years. Since 1940, it has grown steadily, reflecting suburban and exurban growth pressure from the 8 Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas. Between 1960 and 2000, the population of Solebury Township increased roughly 2.5 percent every year, 8 resulting in a 160 percent increase over the forty-year period. Several factors are expected to reduce growth potential in the future, including I transportation, sewer, and water limitations, as well as, township initiatives such as the land conservation and the township’s program to conserve and preserve open 1 space. A reasonable estimate of population growth over the life of this plan offers the base s line for evaluating issues of sustainability. It defines the realm of human needs which must be met and among whom resources must be shared. A detailed discussion of population projections in contained in the Plan Documentation section of this plan.
Solebury’s year 2000 population was 7,743 persons. It is estimated that Solebury could have as many as 9,000 residents in the year 2010. The township wilI be able to take advantage of actual population numbers after the 2010 Census, at which time the 2020 projections can be made.
Nationally, the population aged 55269, will increase by fifty percent over the next two decades. The township has a slightly smaller proportion of population ’in the
21 over-65 age group than does Bucks County. In Solebury in 2000, 11.6 percent of residents were 65 and over. In Bucks County, 12.4 percent were aged 65 and over. The township has a larger group of middle-aged people, between 45 and 54 years, as well as a large population of people between 54 and 65 years, resulting in a higher average age (44 years in Solebury Township in 2000).
Housing Issues: Need to accommodate up to 500 new housing units between now and 2010 An increase in population of 1,257 persons during this decade can be converted into a projected need for housing units. Assuming a continued modest decrease in average household size, Solebury could expect to accommodate development of as many as 500 new dwelling units during this planning horizon. This represents a development pace of about 50 dwelling units per year.
Current zoning provisions and undeveloped lands can accommodate a variety of dwelling types and development patterns. The land use map illustrates areas that are undeveloped.
Projections for the year 2020 suggest population could reach as many as 10,473. This number should be re-examined in 2010 when new Census figures become available.
General Community Service Issues: Need to provide adequate and appropriate levels of services and facilities for new residents Solebury’s Sustainable Community objectives require careful provision for adequate community facilities, services, and utilities aiming to serve the growing population over time.
Electrical, gas, and telephone utilities are all provided at the regional level with systems in place to handle necessary expansion. These utilities can be readily expanded to cover new developments, with costs for expansion provided by existing and new utility customers.
Fire protection, police services, and emergency medical services are provided semi- regionally by quasi-public agencies with service areas that straddle municipal boundary lines. There is a real concern about future need for volunteers for fire protection and emergency services. Both services are staffed by community volunteers, and the number of volunteers is declining. Police service is provided by Solebury and its neighbors on an individual municipal basis.
22 Public School Issues: Need for new schools to serve new development; costs exceed revenues for school services Public schools can exceed their functional capacities through the addition of one or more new residential developments with school-age children. Over the long planning horizon to 2020, we can predict the addition of about 800 school-age children to Solebury’s population, of which, 710 will attend public school, based on the 89% ratio of school age children who attend public school in the New Hope - Solebury School System. Such growth in the school-age population could equate to a total enrollment in 2020 as high as 1,800 students in the New Hope-Solebury Schools, more than a 50 percent increase over current enrollment, not counting any increases which may result from development or other demographic changes in the Borough of New Hope. Short-term decisions dealing with school capacity issues will necessarily look at actual school census data collected from time to time. Throughout the next twenty year planning horizon, the actual distribution of students at the various school levels will vary cyclically as the existing population ages and new residents continue to move in. While juggling grades assigned respectively to high school, middle school and elementary school can address capacity issues at each level, the addition of at least one new school campus is likely to be needed.
A new parochial school serving Solebury residents may make a modest dent in the growth of the public school population.
Real estate tax revenues generated through increased property values of new residential development do not adequately cover the increased costs of education over time, particularly related to the increased enrollments resulting from such development. Capital costs of additional school facility development further dramatize the gap between revenues generated by new residential development and the costs to serve development. Based on current dollars, expenditures, tax assessment practices, and millage rates, it is reasonable to expect new residential development to generate roughly 55 percent of the real estate tax revenue needed to offset the annual operating costs associated with the education of the public school children who will reside in the new homes. The annual cost to Solebury taxpayers to educate one student in the New Hope - Solebury schools is $14,420. School tax paid on an average new single family home is $6,552, about 45 percent of the actual cost.
In today’s dollars, new dwellings anticipated by 2020 may result in a $2.5 million annual shortfall to the New Hope-Solebury School District. Commercial development and age-qualified housing help alleviate the shortfall, providing real estate tax revenue without adding school-age children. Modest amounts of
23 commercial/office development will make a modest dent and can help finance capital improvement costs. Age-qualified housing has been promoted as a way to meet projected senior housing need, provide increased residential real estate assessments and reduce school needs.
Water SupplylWastewater DisposalIStormwater Management Issues: Long-term protection of groundwater supplies must be achieved by addressing how water is used and conserved. Sustaining water resources over time, in the face of population increases, will require great care in the management of water supply, wastewater, and stomwater facilities. Solebury Township is completely dependent on groundwater for water supply. Ground water resources are particularly vulnerable to disruption of recharge capabilities as a result of development, through a combination of significant water withdrawals, increases in impermeable surfaces, exportation of wastewater, and the collection and discharge of stormwater runoff into the surface water system, bypassing recharge opportunities.
Individual, community and public systems must be evaluated on both an incremental and cumulative impact basis. New water supply wells must not be allowed to draw down existing wells on adjoining properties, or reduce the low flow levels of nearby creeks and streams. On-lot wastewater disposal systems such as septic fields and sand mounds provide a ground water recharge benefit, yet new on- lot wastewater disposal systems should not pollute or otherwise contaminate underlying aquifers or surface water resources. Direct discharge of any wastewater effluent into surface waters should be strongly discouraged.
Conveyance and discharge of Solebury and New Hope sanitary wastewater effluent to the Lambertville Sewage Treatment Plant for direct discharge into the Delaware River is a lost opportunity for recharge of the township’s ground water resources and is contrary to sustainable community objectives. The plan opposes this practice and recommends investigation of alternative wastewater solutions.
The township should continue to investigate methods by which quarry pumping and dewatering can be controlled. This will involve changes in state regulations that allow for quarries to pump ground water and discard it.
The township can promote recharge of its ground water resources by requiring stormwater management practices as part of all new development. Limitation of impervious coverage, careful conservation design, and limits to clearing of natural vegetation should be mandated, favoring natural features to control run-off,
24 encourage pollutant uptake by plants and promote groundwater recharge. Infiltration of stormwater run-off should be required so that there is no net change in the water budget locally and in any watershed in Solebury Township.
Public wastewater disposal and water supply infrastructure, where provided, is semi-regional in its service. The Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority serves more densely developed portions of Solebury and numerous other municipalities. In Solebury and New Hope, wastewater is conveyed across the Delaware River to the municipal wastewater treatment plant in Lambertville, New Jersey. There are no Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority service areas in Buckingham Township near Solebury Township. This system serves only the western corner of Buckingham closest to Doylestown Borough. Buckingham Township in the early 1980s adopted a policy of land application for all wastewater. Wastewater facilities in Buckingham Township are designed to treat wastewater without using a wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater is treated through a series of lagoons and then sprayed onto farm fields.
Neither Plumstead Township nor Upper Makefield Township has public wastewater facilities adjacent to Solebury Township.
Any extension of wastewater and water services has significant negative implications for development potential, landscape impacts, traffic impacts, and water resource protection efforts.
Agricultural Preservation Issues: Preserve prime agricultural’soils, in accordance with the mandate of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and protect farmland.
Solebury is one of Bucks County’s Significant Agricultural Areas
The township’s heritage is farming. The township is one of Bucks County’s designated Significant Agricultural Areas. These areas of prime soils and farming activities have been targeted as the primary areas for the county’s agricultural land preservation program.
Agricultural Soils The township has agricultural soils that are classified as prime soils (Class I, 11, and 111) that underlay more than half of the land area of the township. The major soil type is Class 11, and the best soils are located in the central northwest portion,of the township.
25 Agricultural Security Area The township established an Agricultural Security Area in 1986. Agricultural Security Areas may be initiated by townships under the authority of state law, allowing for voluntary enrollment by farmers whose soils and farming operations make them eligible. Solebury was the fourth municipality to establish a security area in Bucks County, and it now encompasses 123 properties and 5,375 acres.
This acreage represents areas engaged in active farming in Solebury Township and represents about one-third of the total land area of the township. There are other farms not yet enrolled in the agricultural security area but that are active and successful farms. Based on field surveys, estimated than at least 6,500 acres of land in Solebury Township are committed to agricultural use.
Farms Permanently Preserved Five farms have been permanently preserved by the Bucks County Agricultural Preservation Program or the Bucks County Open Space Program in conjunction with Solebury Township:
Glen Oaks Farm 78.7 acres Bradshaw Farm 181.2 acres Spring Hill Farm 123 acres Heme Farm 142.5 acres Zaleski Farm 62.2 acres
The township Open Space Plan’s numuer one goal is to preserve drmland. The plan makes the following statements of goals:
Preserve farmland and agricultural soils through farm easements in important farming areas throughout the township. Preservation of farmland will ensure preservation of a strong farming economy. The preservation of farmland helps to meet other township goals such as protection of viewsheds, protection of groundwater recharge areas, and preservation of natural areas. Preservation of farmland helps to protect natural areas such as limestone areas and woodlands associated with farm properties.
Farms in Solebury The township has a variety of farming operations including nurseries, crop farms and farms providing local food supplies. There is a group of farm markets with retail components, making them important parts of the Solebury economy and community.
26 Plan Goal The comprehensive plan embraces the goals of the open space plan and places a high priority on the preservation of agricultural soils and agricultural operations through acquisition of conservation easements and the adoption of ordinances to facilitate farming as a land use and to protect farm operations from attack based upon perceived negative impacts.
Circulation Issues: Need to accommodate increases in trafic due to regJona1 forces; Plan opposes development of a Rt. 202 expressway.
Ever broadening commuting patterns and diverse locations of regional commercial, employment, and institutional destinations, mean that traffic even within Solebury Township is often regional rather than purely local. This is particularly true on U.S. Route 202. This two-lane road has few access limitations and serves the function of principal arterial through Solebury Township and across the Delaware River to New Jersey via the New Hope-Lambertville Toll Bridge. Bridges at Centre Bridge and in the center of New Hope also serve to carry regional traffic to and from New Jersey.
To a lesser extent, major collector roads in Solebury Township also serve regional functions, including River Road (PA Route 32), Upper York Road, (PA Route 263), and Windy Bush Road (PA Route 232). River Road provides a critical link to Interstate 95 in Lower Makefield Township and also is an important scenic highway along the Delaware River, attracting tourist traffic.
Over time, cut-through traffic generated by increasing development in neighboring municipalities, or attempting to circumvent Route 202, may prove problematic at certain locations, particularly along Aquetong, Mechanicsville, Street, Sugan, and Upper York Roads and at their respective intersections.
Unacceptable levels of service already are encountered frequently on Solebury’s principal roadways, occurring not only during weekday peak hours, but also on the weekend due to tourist traffic destined for Lahaska, adjacent to the Solebury line in Buckingham, and on Tuesdays and Saturdays due to Rice’s Market. Regional traffic avoids the major highways, cutting through Solebury on minor collector roads such as Mechanicsville Road/Sugan Road.
At the regional level, the State and others have proposed extension of a Route 202 expressway through the breadth of Bucks County, supplanting the through-traffic role of the present two-lane arterial highway, including the Lower York. Road through Solebury.
27 The Committee concluded that such an expressway would be in complete conflict with the vision and objectives of Solebury Township as laid out in this plan, both because of the direct adverse impacts associated with the construction of such a roadway and the induced impacts (development, traffic and others) that would result upon completion of what would effectively become a new outer ring road around Philadelphia.
The township’s Comprehensive Plan Review Committee does not support the development of a new Route 202 expressway, viewing its potential benefits as clearly subordinate to overwhelming negative impacts relative to Solebury’s objectives to plan for sustainable growth management and resource conservation. The Committee recommends further traffic study on the part of Solebury Township, clearly also requiring careful monitoring of other regional traffic planning efforts and, ultimately, coordination with Solebury’s neighbors.
Public transit services available near Solebury include: long-distance bus service along Rt. 202 connecting Doylestown to New Jersey and New York; regional rail service is provided by SEPTA at Doylestown; and NJ Transit rail service in Trenton, New Jersey.
Regional Forces: Park & Recreation Issues
Provision for community parks and recreation services are regional in nature, serving both Solebury and the Borough of New Hope. Beyond the level of community recreational facilities, larger regional recreational facilities, as well as specialized facilities such as Bowmans Hill and the Delaware Canal, serve a much broader population base covering much of Bucks County and beyond. Because of their regional significance, such parks are usually provided by federal, state or county governments. They typically provide a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities -- both active and passive, particularly those requiring large land or water areas. Emphasis is often placed on recreation opportunities beyond the scope of those typically provided at local parks, including, for example, camping, boating and swimming.
Solebury residents are served by several regional recreational facilities within a reasonable driving radius. These include Nockamixon, Tyler and Ralph Stover State Parks, Dark Hollow, Core Creek, Peace Valley, Tohickon Valley and Lake Towhee Parks, and State Game Lands #56 and .#157, as well as regional facilities nearby in New Jersey. Specialized facilities which help to fulfill the regional park role include
28 I
I Pennsylvania‘s Delaware Canal Park and Washington Crossing State Park, including the Bowmans Hill Preserve.
I Solebury residents participate in a wide range of recreational programs including special community events, organized sports, arts and crafts, nature activities, and social activities. Due to geographic location and relatively limited local population density, many such programs are offered beyond the bounds of Solebury Township, even where oriented to local community service. Local recreational programs make use of both public and private lands and facilities, but are operated by quasi-public agencies, including youth and adult athletic leagues, social organizations, health clubs, schools, churches, YMCAs, senior centers, and so on. Most programs are offered based on local demand and are flexible to meet changing needs over time. Because such program providers, and the facilities they use, are scattered across the region, transportation becomes a potential limiting factor, particularly for youth and senior citizens who may be transportation dependent. The township, through its Board of Parks and Recreation, should consider on-going monitoring of local recreational demand and corresponding opportunities.
Recreational trails become regional facilities by nature of their linear character connecting diverse destinations beyond municipal boundaries. The well-used tow path along the Delaware Canal is a sigruficant local example. The Solebury Township Park and Recreation Plan recommends establishment of a township-wide system of recreational trails. The township also should monitor and coordinate trails planning efforts with adjacent municipalities. The Borough of New Hope has proposed a recreational trail called the Delaware Canal Walk, which would consist of a loop trail connecting the Canal towpath with New Hope’s Main Street. The Borough’s Comprehensive Plan proposed ultimate trail linkage extending from the Borough into Solebury along the Aquetong Creek. Upper Makefield’s River and Canal Access Study suggested cooperative ventures with Solebury Township, in part due to the location of Bowmans Hill as a significant recreational destination straddling the township line. That study recommended that Upper Makefield explore a potential joint venture with Solebury Township and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the development of a canoe launch along the canal within Washington Crossing State Park, as well as a boat launch on the Delaware River.
Regional Forces: Resource Protection Issues Resource protection issues transcend municipal boundary lines. While Solebury Township’s planning efforts must be focused within the township, those efforts should be framed with a regional perspective, particularly where a regional view
29 may translate into coordination of efforts with neighboring municipalities or the County.
Geologic Formations The geologic formations underlying Solebury lie in broad bands that continue across neighboring municipalities. Structural issues related to geology tend to be site specific. From a regional planning perspective, the most critical geologic issues are related to groundwater quantity and quality. A broad limestone belt crosses the township, extending from the central area of Buckingham Township to the Delaware River. This limestone is a very strong producer of high-quality well water and provides for excellent recharge of surface waters from underlying aquifers. The porous nature of the limestone also makes it susceptible to groundwater pollution depending on above-ground land uses. It is important for Buckingham and Solebury to address this resource issue in a cooperative manner.
The Stockton formation in the northern part of Solebury, and the Brunswick Shale in the south, extend into Buckingham and also into neighboring Plumstead and Upper Makefield townships. These formations also are generally good sources of potable water, but in this harder rock, caution must be taken with respect to the spacing of wells and cumulative groundwater withdrawal impacts. Solebury's wetlands and surface water system are fed by groundwater discharges from these formations, particularly in the headwaters areas along the Buckingham township line. Aquifer withdrawals which exceed recharge capacities in such areas can reduce low-flow stream volumes to very low levels, causing adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic communities. Opportunities for groundwater recharge, including open space set-asides, must be promoted.
Delaware River Corridor All of Solebury and its neighbors are part of the Delaware River watershed. Of the sub-basins draining Solebury, the Paunacussing and Pidcock Creeks also drain portions of neighboring municipalities. An anomaly in the surface water system draining Solebury is the Delaware Canal, an artificial waterway that receives direct stream flow from a number of sub-basins in and beyond the township, diverting that flow from its historical locations of confluence with the Delaware River. The canal is particularly subject to degradation due to sedimentation as faster flowing stream water is slowed in the artificial canal bed, dropping its sediment load. The cumulative impacts of conventional stormwater management approaches upstream can contribute sigruficantly to downstream flooding and sedimentation.
30 The Delaware River is a regional resource, a great natural waterway serving as an important water source for several metropolitan areas in the northeast. It is an important scenic and recreational resource and supports a diverse plant and wildlife community. The Delaware River corridor has been recognized by the U.S. Congress which granted wild and scenic status to the Lower Delaware River corridor. The river corridor defining the eastern boundary of Solebury Township is characterized by some of the most diverse and interesting stretches of the river, in terms of scenic and historic values and vegetation and wildlife communities. It forms a critical link in the Atlantic Flyway, the major migratory route for birds in eastern North America. On a much smaller scale, the forested stream corridor of the Paunacussing is a locally important wildlife corridor significantly impacted by land use activity.
A long largely-wooded diabase ridge extends from Upper Makefield Township at Bowmans Hill across the southern part of Solebury, forming Solebury Mountain, and into Buckingham as Buckingham Mountain. This ridge, while fragmented by the Pidcock Creek valley, occasional roads, utility lines, farm fields and residential developments, still represents one of the largest and most interconnected woodland habitats remaining in Bucks County and was identified as a site of county-wide significance for conservation in The Natural Areas Inventory of Bucks County (1999).
Regional Forces: Role of the Region as an Arts Community Along with its neighbors on both banks of the Delaware River, Solebury Township has enjoyed more than a century as a nationally recognized arts community. Since painters began moving here from Philadelphia in the late 19* century, the migration of artists to the area has continued virtually unabated. Now, as in the past, the area's attraction stems from its proximity to Philadelphia and New York and its unique mix of natural beauty, historic charm and cultural vitality. The historical landscape of Solebury Township, dotted with farm fields, villages and rural crossroads is shared with its neighbors, as is the threat to its integrity at the hands of encroaching development. Solebury and all of its neighbors have made conseryation of historical landscapes a comprehensive planning priority, but zoning and subdivision implementation efforts have been fragmented with results spotty at best. Agriculture, as an economic activity, contributes significantly to retention of the historical landscape, but is particularly sensitive to fragmentation on a regional basis, in terms of long-term economic viability. Studios and galleries also contribute character of landscape.
I 1 31 Regional Forces: Land Use Issues Land use change at the regional level can impact resource protection issues within Solebury Township. Demand for changes in land use is a function of regional population growth and redistribution at the hands of market forces as well as differential growth management practices around the region. As Solebury and its immediate neighbors attempt to manage growth to conserve resources and community character, their desirability is enhanced. Other areas in the region become over-developed or ridden with problems stemming from a lack of growth management.
Solebury and its Bucks County neighbors are in the unique position geographically to be subject to regional economic forces from two of the nation’s largest metropolitan regions, Philadelphia and New York. Regional growth management is subject to many forces well beyond the control of municipal planning, including regional economic health, state and federal policies, and the impacts of various forms of taxation.
Recent changes in Pennsylvania legislation have a goal of improving regional growth management opportunities. That legislation subtly strengthens the means by which individual municipalities may base growth management practices on resource protection priorities and comprehensive planning by requiring multi- municipal planning efforts, coordinated regulatory approaches and, formal inter- municipal agreements. Solebury should continue regional dialogue, particularly with its immediate neighbors, with an eye toward mutual implementation opportunities. Planning coordination with a single neighbor, so long as framed in a joint comprehensive plan and cemented by inter-municipal agreement, could allow for formal designation of growth boundaries and possible protection against some zoning changes.
Most non-residential land uses are subject to locational factors, market forces, transportation access and commutation patterns beyond the scope of municipal planning control. These include regional commercial facilities as well as employment centers. Except at the smallest scale, Solebury’s population on its own does not and will not support development of such uses. Markets exist in the broader central Bucks County region to support such uses.
Solebury should monitor opportunities for non-residential development throughout the region, ensuring that potential development is consistent with the township’s sustainability objectives.
32 Solebury Township should monitor planning efforts in its neighboring municipalities, seeking consistency in land use designations across municipal boundaries. There are neither significant conflicts among regional future land use designations nor in existing zoning regulations under present zoning and land use plans.
33 1
I Iv I Natural and Cultural Resource Analysis I Detailed information on the following natural and cultural resources is contained in the Plan Documentation Section of this plan.
Geology Topography & Landforms I Soils Water Resources Vegetation & Wildlife (Biodiversity) 1 Historic Resources Artistic Heritage I Scenic Landscapes. The Committee has reviewed Solebury’s natural and cultural resources in terms of 8 sustainability, with the goal of achieving the four elements of sustainability:
Equitable sharing of resources among the current and future generations; 1 Protecting and living within the natural carrying capacity; Minimization of natural resource use; and I Satisfaction of basic human needs.
Water Resources: Central to a Sustainable Community Resource issues most obviously related to sustainability revolve around water. Water is a basic human necessity; it is a limited resource; yet, when dealt with in 1 respect to its carrying capacity, it is renewable. Critical land use and infrastructure development policies can and should be focused on maintaining natural carrying I capacity, articulated in this Plan in terms of maintaining the water budget, limiting use and management of water resources so as to conserve surface and groundwater I quantity and quality. Issues of water quantity and quality are inextricably linked. They demonstrate the I critical interrelationship of seemingly diverse resources. The ability to obtain ground water for water supply is a function of underlying geology. Recharge of the ground water reservoir is a function of soil infiltration capacity and land cover and 1 topographic characteristics and is critically related to management of stormwater runoff and wastewater disposal.
35 Public health, safety and welfare can only be protected if no degradation of quality or diminishment of quantity is accepted. Even small restrictions lead to cumulative impacts that are unacceptable. Strict policies are necessary to reflect the township’s complete dependence on ground water for water supply. The community must recognize and plan based on the limited capacity of many soils in the township to provide for ground water recharge, the importance of high quality water to supply human uses, and the importance of maintaining the ecological integrity of surface waters in the township.
Soils: Critical to food production, natural landscapes, and water quality Soils are critical natural resources that contribute to basic human needs. Soils sustain the vegetation component of landscapes with minerals and stabile base, serve as the foundation for buildings, and support the renewable production of crops. Accelerated erosion or other degradation diminishes these resources and causes pollution of the township waterways and streams. In contrast, minimization of soil disturbance contributes to conservation of native habitat, maintenance of natural water regimes, and capabilities to accommodate storm- and wastewater infiltration and renovation
Productive agricultural soils are resources that are not renewable once removed for development. The township is committed to preservation of prime farmland sods, in accordance with the mandates of the Municipalities Planning Code.
Biodiversity: Living with Nature Human existence is part of a larger web of life. It is desirable to live within the context of a healthy green infrastructure and not depend upon technology to enable survival in an ecological desert. Conservation of the rich variety of native vegetation and wildlife, and the habitat conditions upon which they depend, contributes to maintenance of the water budget and to enjoyment of the rich quality of life available to Solebury residents, including scenic enjoyment, passive recreational opportunities, and environmental education.
Cultural Heritage and Scenic Landscapes Cultural resources - scenic and historic landscapes and local artistic heritage, though less clearly linked to basic human needs, play a major role in defining the quality of life which has attracted residents to Solebury. Their conservation clearly bears on the question of equitable sharing of resources with future generations. Once displaced, they cannot be renewed.
36 A number of resources, not generally viewed in terms of natural carrying capacity or recognized as serving basic human needs, do support basic needs. They help maintain the sense of place that has attracted residents to Solebury Township, as demonstrated by the results of the citizen survey. These findings and the overwhelming 90 percent approval of the $4 million bond in 1996 and the $10 million referendum in the 1999 election underscore the importance of Solebury's natural, scenic and historical landscapes. These landscapes constitute the unique natural and cultural resources that have inspired numerous artists, provided food and shelter to generations dating back to colonists and indigenous peoples, and continue to draw residents and visitors.
I The township is an important trustee of the natural and cultural resources that characterize Solebury. The township must conserve and maintain these resources in 1 a sustainable manner for the benefit of all of the residents, current and future. I I 1 I
37 8
I V 1 Challenges to the Vision of Sustainability: I Limiting Factors, Cumulative Impacts & Land Use Conflicts The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee has concluded that the township’s objectives for conservation and sustainable community development are achievable I in the context of an active and on-going planning program. Factors exist that could impede realization of these objectives if the plan is not considered carefully and I diligently and integrated into the land use regulatory program.
Several real and perceived impediments to sustainable development are related to 8 the development patterns that already exist, often typified as sprawl, and tendencies 1 to simply extend existing patterns. Existing sprawl patterns of residential and strip commercial development often pre- date environmental regulations that have been imposed today. Such patterns are in 1 conflict with the conservation and community development objectives articulated in this Plan, including diminishing water quality and quantity, soil erosion, 1 fragmentation of wildlife habitat, disruption of agriculture, intrusion upon scenic and historical landscapes, increased transportation dependence upon the private automobile, diminishing real estate tax revenue relative to costs to provide services, I and so on. It can be very difficult, if not impractical, to retrofit existing development patterns, forcing a focus on new development not only to deal with its own impacts 1 in a sustainable manner but, at least in part, to mitigate existing impacts.
The difficulty in turning the tide of sprawl is exacerbated by regional forces. The I ability of Solebury Township to influence development patterns beyond its boundaries is very limited, as is the ability to plan for infrastructure and circulation I improvements outside the township.
Recent cluster development approaches can produce more sustainable patterns of I development on a site by-site-basis. Yet if implemented over a broad area, the cumulative impacts of numerous clusters still can fail to avoid a number of the I negative results of conventional sprawl patterns, unless development is carefully coordinated across property lines along with the intervening open space network. I 8 I 39 To be effective in the face of variable timing of development and conservation efforts parcel-by-parcel, such coordination must be deliberate and must adequately consider the cumulative impacts that can result from past and future changes on surrounding properties through a reasonable impact assessment process.
The most direct way to control sprawl would be to impose absolute limits on development opportunities. Solebury Township can continue to improve its efforts at sustaining our natural and historic resources, both in the short and long term. The importance of the success of the township’s Open Space Program cannot be understated. It permanently protects properties from future development.
Recognizing that continued development and land use changes will take place, the township must hone its regulatory and plan review processes to create opportunities to enhance sustainability on a case by case basis. It may be necessary to favor or create incentives for appropriate development approaches in order to overcome the inertia of sprawl.
Forms of development preferred by the township, from a planning perspective, will not accidentally coincide with those put forth in response to market pressures, nor will they be necessarily politically popular or respond to the preconceptions of neighbors. Regional market preferences have continued to favor large-lot, single- family residential development, a preference that also tends to reflect the sentiment of existing residents who may be wary of unknown or preconceived impacts of other development types.
There is inherent conflict between open space conservation and development obiedives in that there is a limited supply of land in the township potentially available for either purpose. The cumulative effect of the successful open space program will be to add pressure on remaining lands available for development.
The township will encounter conflict among open space resource Drotection obiectives, even where conservation of an entire property may be assured. Scenic and historical landscapes, for example, are not natural, but are the result of 300 years of intervention in the landscape. Preservation of farmland, scenic views, or historical settings cannot always coexist with efforts to mitigate fragmentation of wildlife habitat or to reforest riparian corridors. Such issues must be addressed site by site and, ultimately, trade-offs will be necessary.
40 Public opinion favors means to reduce the real estate tax impacts of increasing public school costs, but residents may need to evaluate the potential benefits of non- residential development and retirement housing. The township may need to anticipate or facilitate the market potential for such development in order to stimulate response from the development community. While such development may provide for greater diversity in local economic and employment opportunities, Solebury cannot achieve a local employment base for the majority of its population while achieving its other objectives. Consequently, the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee has worked to develop a plan that recognizes Solebury Township as part of the regional plan.
It will not alwavs be feasible to extend or improve communitv infrastructure (highway, wastewater, and water systems) in a manner that supports the development patterns favored by of this plan. The township will be limited in its ability to require or financially justlfy improvements, particularly off-site, even where necessary.
Environmental issues also mav arise so as to preclude infrastructure extension in given instances, even where implementation would serve sustainable environmental objectives when viewed from beyond the context of site-specific plan review. It may be necessary to provide for infrastructure extension that appears inconsistent with long-term sustainability objectives, in order to achieve other desired community development objectives. For example, the long-term objective to disengage Solebury from its dependence on Lambertville’s wastewater disposal system, restoring the township’s own groundwater resource, may be put off by immediate wastewater service needs.
These challenges are highlighted to make it clear that taking control of the township’s future is no easy task. A consensus on the future may be reached, but many decisions and choices must be made to achieve the vision of sustainability, and there is not always agreement on how the reach our goals.
41 I
I VI I Plan for Land Use
I The Plan for Land Use for Solebury Township establishes a policy guide for land use in the township over the next ten years. It provides a vision for municipal policy and action, integrating the planning issues and factors addressed throughout this I Comprehensive Plan. A foundation for the Plan for Land Use is the Resident Survey and the Vision Statement articulated during the Comprehensive Plan review and I revision process. The factors most relevant to future land use planning are: projected population growth and housing demand 1 existing land use and development patterns; existing zoning; I existing and planned infrastructure, particularly water and sewer services; regional development influences and circulation patterns; natural and cultural resource conservation and sustainability objectives; I environmental constraints; and assumptions made with regard to the cumulative and induced impacts that will 1 accompany the changes in future land use. The Plan for Land Use is a general and long-term guide for land use based upon I sustainable community planning objectives and reflecting anticipated changes in population, housing, and public facilities and services over the life of the Plan. Specific I ordinances and codes such as the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, official map, and building codes are immediate and implementation devices, utilized to regulate land use on a day-to-day basis. A direct relationship between the Plan for 1 Land Use and specific land use regulations must be established by the township to work toward broad fulfillment of objectives over a ten to twenty year planning 1 horizon. The Plan for Land Use should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the desired goals of the township are being achieved. The Plan is designed to meet the I requirements of the Municipalities Planning Code. Planning Framework for Future Land Use Designation -Factors to Consider in Land I Use Plan Existing Land Use Patterns I Future land use patterns must consider existing land uses as well as the land use I implications of existing zoning designations. Future uses should be compatible with U 43 existing residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial uses, as well as historical village development centers. In large part, the future land use designations proposed in this Plan reflect existing development patterns and respect the land use implications embodied in existing zoning district designations.
Transportation and Community Facilities The location, classification, and capacity of the transportation network and access to community facilities, such as wastewater and water services, are major considerations in the location of higher intensity non-residential uses and higher-density residential uses. Route 202 serves as the major transportation corridor through Solebury, and the majority of non-residential uses in the township are located on or near this road. The need for access management and transportation improvements is critical to the planning of future land uses along the Route 202 corridor. Public wastewater and water are available in the Route 202 corridor adjacent to New Hope Borough.
Extension of public sewer and water services, absent radical changes to existing (or future) systems to favor groundwater recharge, is contrary to the objectives of this Comprehensive Plan. Other community facilities and services, such as the schools, police, and public administration are primarily located in the village of Solebury or in New Hope. Existing and probable locations of community facilities are a primary consideration for future land use designation.
Natural and Historic Resource Conservation Future land use designations, and the regulatory provisions which aim to implement them, must take into consideration the extent and location of environmentally constrained lands and the natural and cultural resource conservation objectives essential to maintaining the quality of life and sense of place that characterize Solebury.
Resources to be protected are: prime agricultural soils, floodplains and alluvial soils, wetlands, steep slopes, streams and riparian corridors, headwater areas, carbonate geologic formations, woodlands, and scenic and historical landscapes. The density and intensity of land disturbance associated with the future land use designations should be closely tied both to the constraints posed for development and the sensitivity necessary for resource conservation. The land use recommendations of this plan are designed to fit natural resource protection concerns foremost by directing development into appropriate areas and away from sensitive environmental resources.
44 Future Land Use Designations
For the purpose of planning land use, the township has been divided into four broad land use categories. Each is described below and displayed on the Plan for Land Use Map. The four land use categories are defined broadly. They are not intended to be discrete zoning districts. They suggest the predominant character of the landscape and a focus for ongoing land use planning within each area. Although some density ranges are recommended for future development, specific regulatory densities will be applied through the zoning ordinance. The four land use categories are:
1. Rural Conservation 2. Site-Responsive Rural Development 3. Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center 4. Historic Villages
1. Rural Conservation
The rural conservation land use category covers the largest percentage of the township and includes a broad range of rural and rural-residential landscapes, including extensive acreage already protected through both public and private means as permanent open space. Conservation of natural and cultural resources is particularly important, including woodlands, riparian corridors, headwaters areas, and working farms, as well as a broad range of scenic and historical landscapes which define the essential character of Solebury.
I The broad Rural Conservation land use designation is the logical focus for continued township attention by the Land Preservation Committee to promote public and i I private conservation efforts. This will involve formal and informal liaisons among the township and individual landowners, local conservation organizations, and I county and state programs for open space and farmland conservation. Most of the Rural Conservation area is zoned R-B, the provisions of which are I consistent with the intentions of this land use designation in terms of density of development. Current zoning district provisions are not, however, specifically aimed at fulfilling the natural and cultural resource protection objectives of this I Plan. Scattered across this land use category are fairly extensive areas where large- lot residential development patterns already have been set. Under appropriate I design constraints, this pattern might be allowed to continue. Critical issues involve minimization of soil disturbance and vegetation removal, reforestation of open I I 45 I riparian corridors, maximum recharge of ground water and retention of stormwater, I and careful placement of development to conserve scenic landscapes.
In contrast to the large-lot residential development that has predominated across I much of the Rural Conservation area to date, creative use of flexible design approaches at low gross densities of development can provide a means to fit I development into the landscape while guaranteeing conservation of large expanses of permanent open space. The township should consider means to ensure that criteria for selection and management of open space are consistent with resource I protection objectives articulated by this Plan. Standard policies for open space management, such as riparian reforestation, meadow management, etc. might be I developed for use during the plan review process. In addition, developer applicants could be required to demonstrate how proposed open space management methods address resource issues and impact mitigation identified in the required I Environmental Impact Assessment Report. I 2. Site-Responsive Rural Develapment
The Site-Responsive Rural Development category encompasses those areas of the I township that have already been substantially developed in conventional one to three acre single family development patterns, as well as a fair number of open or agricultural properties in the vicinity of existing development. A number of such 8 parcels are literally in the midst of existing development patterns and are logical candidates for in-fill development. Much of the area within this land use designation I are presently zoned R-A, allowing for moderate development density. Large areas now zoned in the lower-density R-B district also fall within this designation, reflecting existing patterns of development. Throughout this rural-suburban area, a fingery I pattern of lands constrained by steep slopes, water courses or wetlands still remain, offering natural habitat, cover, and travel ways for wildlife, as well as scenic and, I potentially, recreational open space values. Remnant historical landscapes dot this area, helping to link the contemporary rural-residential landscape with its historical roots. It is envisioned that permitted density and design criteria for development will I be site responsive, based on location relative to arterial roads, capacity of sewer and water infrastructure, thorough site analysis, consideration of natural and cultural I resources, relationships to adjacent land uses, and protection of neighboring property values and community character. This will require careful review and potential revision to current and zoning and subdivision/land development provisions. The I application process should be restructured to require an initial concept plan stage, with environmental constraints outlined to assist in developing a responsible/responsive I plan. A site analysis and resource conservation plan should be required. I 46 I I
I The Comprehensive Plan Committee recognizes that in-fill development will continue the conventional subdivision pattern experienced to date, yet with greater attention to I conservation of open space resources and community character on a site-by-site basis. Particularly on larger undeveloped parcels, flexible development approaches should be encouraged. An average density of one dwelling unit per one to two acres is I suggested throughout the Site-Responsive Rural Development category, with maximum permitted density available only through use of flexible development I provisions and links to implementation of specific community infrastructure needs. Most development across this land use category will be dependent upon individual I wastewater disposal systems, although development of community/public wastewater disposal system should not be ruled out, especially if realization of the open space and I groundwater recharge objectives of this Plan might be achieved. Existing provisions should be reviewed to ensure that they adequately relate overall permitted density of I development to natural constraints. Net densities within any given development might be allowed to vary, provided that 1 there is a detailed analysis of the impacts on natural and cultural resources, and other community planning objectives, including housing affordability, provision for open space, preservation of neighborhood and community character, etc. A variety of 1 dwelling unit types could be permitted within the overall framework of permitted density, ranging from individual single-family homes to townhomes, apartments, I mobile homes, and retirement units. Portions of this land use category are within the Mobile Home Park overlay district. The township may wish to use discrete zoning district provisions for specific dwelling unit types but may also consider mixing I housing types, using appropriate deign and landscaping requirements. I Retirement communities, including opportunities for assisted living, might be provided for in the Site-Responsive Rural Development area, potentially offering a variety of housing types and other services to serve the growing sector of the 1 population beyond normal retirement age. This population sector tends to place fewer demands on community facilities and services, with little or no generation of school- I age population. Limited commercial and other non-residential development might be considered for I appropriate locations in this predominantly residential area, where direct access to the arterial roadway network can be provided and with careful consideration of potential 1 impacts to existing residential neighbors. Community facilities, recreational uses, and appropriate institutional uses might be integrated into this area. Design criteria, I wastewater and water service standards, stonnwater management guidelines, I 47 I highway access-management requirements, and means to buffer existing residential I neighbors must be carefully articulated for non-residential uses.
In all development scenarios, carefully regulated access management must be a I primary consideration. Techniques such as shared driveways and marginal access roads, which run parallel to major roadways offering access to individual properties I while limiting direct access onto such roadways, should be incorporated into land use ordinance requirements to ensure they are implemented. I 3. Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center I In the east-central portion of the township, adjacent to New Hope Borough and along Route 202, is an elongated area denoted Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center. This area responds in part to existing development trends and is intended to provide for two I land uses: 1) the location of higher-intensity non-residential development, including larger scale commercial uses, as well as employment generating uses such as office I development; and 2) the location of specialized residential development not in character with conventional residential neighborhoods. The latter might include, for example, nursing homes, assisted living opportunities, and high-density multi-family B development. I In the Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center area, further development of higher-intensity non-residential uses, as well as any high-density residential use, should be conditioned upon several planning and design criteria: I 1) provision for access management to preclude conflicting turning movements I and to facilitate arterial highway functions;
2) provision for adequate parking and non-vehicular access; I 3) provision for connection to public wastewater and water or acceptable I alternative system($;
4) conservation of notable (small-scale) open space and historical resources I within development areas; and I 5) structural design and landscape plantings that will maintain or enhance visual landscape qualities and/or buffer incompatible uses. Most of the land area in Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center lies within three higher- I intensity zoning districts: the LI Light Industrial District at the intersection of Routes 32 e 48 I 1
I and 202; the HC Highway Commercial District on the south side of Route 202 immediately west of New Hope Borough; and the RD Residential Development I District on the north side of Route 202 adjacent to New Hope. The intended development area within the RD-C Residential Development-Conservation District I (Aquetong Preserve Lot #lo) also falls within this land use designation. I 4. Historic Villages The landscape of Solebury is dotted with several historical villages and crossroads hamlets. Larger villages like Carversville and Lumberville exhibit very clear traditional I village development patterns and host a mixture of existing land uses. The village of Solebury is a mixed cluster of historical and contemporary uses and hosts several 1 community facilities. Philips Mill and Centre Bridge are sigruficant historically, but represent rural clusters of historical buildings, or hamlets, rather than extended village development patterns. Such hamlet-like patterns also are evident at Cottageville and at I two crossroads locations on Aquetong Road, at Lower York Road (Route 202) and Windy Bush Road (Route 232). Two other areas shown are Historic Villages 1 designation on the Plan for Land Use Map are extensions of village landscapes in adjacent municipalities: the area along River Road just north of New Hope Borough, I and the area near Lahaska extending across the Buckingham township line. The Historic Villages land use designation is intended to recognize the spatial and land I use characteristics of the existing hamlets and villages. The conservation of village character is an important consideration in this Comprehensive Plan. Factors to address include: potential preservation of open space immediately around the villages, the I continuation of village lot patterns, and the protection of existing historic structures. Conservation of historical structures, to be economically viable, may require I conversion from historical uses. Such use conversion should be conditioned upon careful preservation of historic character, including consideration of the impacts of I access and parking. Conservation of historical character need not be limited to conservation of the D existing built environment, but might extend to the design of both infill development and entirely new development that builds upon or extends existing village patterns. Revisions to the zoning ordinance should ensure that the traditional I development pattern is allowed to continue. Incorporation of further historic preservation regulations and incentives is recommended to address village I conservation issues, along with design review criteria for new development.
49 I
In addition to residential in-fill development at traditional village scales, small-scale I convenience-commercial, professional office, community institutional, and other non- residential development also might be considered in the Historic Villages, where designed to fit into the character of the village. Design criteria must be carefully I articulated for non-residential uses to ensure both economic and physical integrity of predominantly residential properties. Locations for non-residential development could I continue to be governed by zoning districts or could be provided through use of special purpose overlay districts. I The township plan is designed to meet the mandate of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code to protect and preserve historic resources. I Management of Environmental and Cultural Resources I Zoning Ordinance Provisions Important natural, historic, and cultural resources exist throughout Solebury I Township across all land use designations. These resources must be protected on an individual basis by resource protection standards that apply throughout the township. Current zoning regulations offer some protection of resources through I provisions for the Flood Hazard District and the Steep Slope Conservation District, both of which are overlay districts with township-wide applicability. The Zoning I Ordinance also provides for increased setbacks from the Delaware Canal, from the boundaries of National Register historic districts, and from carbonate geologic features. Most development plans are subject to extensive site analysis and I Environmental Impact Assessment study, but no provisions specifically link development approval to minimization or mitigation of identified impacts. Impact I mitigation might be required as a condition of plan approval, particularly where conditional use approval is otherwise required, or as a qualifying condition for use of special development options. Additional zoning provisions could be developed to I promote protection of scenic, natural and cultural resource values. Performance standards could be applied to all development to limit woodland removal, to I reforest in accordance with the township plan, and to establish riparian buffer zones.
SubdivisionlLand Development Ordinance Provisions I The Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance contains requirements for hydrological study, and design standards for carbonate geologic areas and for 1 stormwater management, but does not focus on ground water recharge. The township should require further study of ground water resources, recharge capacity, and development impacts in order to link permitted development intensity with I achievement of ground water recharge objectives. I 50 I I
I Historic Resources and the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) The township has established the Historical Architectural Review Board, as authorized I by Pennsylvania Act 167, which allows for review of building changes proposed within certified historic districts. This is limited to Carversville and Philips Mill. The township should assess potential interest and the relative benefits of establishment of I additional historic districts in accordance with Act 167, as a means to offer I additional opportunities for protection of existing villages and historic clusters. Because historic resources are not limited to discrete village landscapes, the township should consider expanding incentives for conservation of historic I structures and landscapes throughout Solebury, as required by the planning code. Added design standard flexibility or allowance for certain additional uses, beyond I those otherwise authorized within the zoning district, could be considered. Use of bonus provisions, as a way to make preservation of historic structures feasible, could be linked to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or ‘I imposition of conservation easements to guarantee appropriate and permanent conservation. The purpose would be to make conservation at least as financially I feasible as demolition and replacement. The township should consider discouraging the demolition of historic resources, I establishing a process for the granting of demolition permits, including an alternatives review prior to permitting demolition. During such a period, the I applicant might have the opportunity to explore potential opportunities to re-use historical structures, particularly where additional use opportunities or other I provisions have been afforded historic resources. Three areas in Solebury Township are deemed potentially worthy of nomination to I the National Register of Historic Places, These include the area between Upper and Lower Mountain Roads as an extension of the agricultural belt which spans central Buckingham, the area extending from Buckingham between Sawmill and I Mechanicsville Road, still retaining farmsteads part of the original land patent, and I the hamlet of Cottageville. I Relationship To Surrounding Municipalities and Their Plans I New Hope Borough Solebury Township borders New Hope Borough on three sides. The Borough of I New Hope, a fine arts community and regional tourist destination located along the I 51 Delaware River, updated its 1962 Comprehensive Plan in 1997. The 1997 New Hope Borough Comprehensive Plan includes a vision for the Borough that draws upon the artistic and cultural resources of the community for attracting visitors and tourists, yet protects the existing residential neighborhoods, and provides necessary institutional and commercial services to support Borough residents (and to some extent, Solebury residents).
Solebury’s plan designates future land use in the area adjoining New Hope as Mixed Use Rural-Suburban Center. This is the most intense and most diverse land use designation in Solebury and is consistent with existing development patterns on both sides of the municipal boundary. It is generally consistent with existing zoning designations.
Much of the adjoining land in New Hope is zoned for either HC-Highway Commercial or RB-Urban Residential, providing for mixed dwelling unit types on small lots. Lower-density portions of the borough are consistent with adjacent designations in Solebury which are either Site-Responsive Rural Development or Rural Conservation.
The Borough’s updated Plan considered Solebury Township and New Hope Borough to complement one another, with existing land uses along municipal boundaries similar in character. No major land use changes are recommended by New Hope’s 1997 Comprehensive Plan for properties adjoining Solebury Township.
Zoning of privately-owned properties within the Borough which adjoin Solebury Township is, for the most part, R-1 District (Single-family Residential), with a minimum lot area of roughly one acre. Properties within the Borough that front on Business Route 202 are zoned HC District (Highway Commercial) and provide for a range of commercial and institutional uses. A relatively narrow band of lands leading to the town core from Solebury Township are zoned R-B (Urban Residential District), with lots as small as 6,500 square feet, with detached and attached dwelling units permitted.
The Borough’s Plan includes a recreational trail proposal called the Delaware Canal Walk. This would consist of a loop trail connecting the Canal towpath with New Hope’s Main Street and extending north and south in both directions. One proposed link would be with the planned trail along Aquetong Creek. Solebury Township may wish to investigate the opportunities of this trail link to provide its residents with access to the existing Delaware Canal State Park and future Delaware Canal Walk.
52 I
I Areas of Mutual Concern with New Hope Borough: Traffic; Route 202; Delaware Canal I Upper Makefield Township Solebury’s Plan for Land Use designates all future land use adjacent to Upper E Makefield as Rural Conservation, the lowest intensity designation in the township. I Solebury Township lies immediately north of Upper Makefield Township. This township is part of the Newtown Area Joint Municipal Planning Council, which updated their 1983 Comprehensive Plan in 1997. The land use recommendations of I the 1997 Comprehensive Plan did not change for those lands adjoining Solebury Township. Two land use categories - Conservation Management and Jericho I Mountain Resource Protection Area - still apply and are intended for natural and cultural resource protection and very low density residential use.
I Upper Makefield Township is opposed to public water and sewer infrastructure I improvements within its Conservation Management District. Upper Makefield’s River and Canal Access Study published by Upper Makefield’s Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) discussed cooperative ventures with I Solebury Township due to the locations of Washington Crossing State Park and Bowman’s Tower Park in Solebury. That Committee recommended that they explore I a joint venture with Solebury Township and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the development of a canoe launch along the canal within Washington Crossing State Park. A future boat launch for the Delaware River was also considered I appropriate under the same joint venture. I Areas of Mutual Concern with Upper MakefieEd Township:Bowman’s Hill Area; open space preservation; Delaware River
I Buckingham Township
~I Solebury Township’s western border is Buckingham Township’s eastern border. Buckingham Township’s Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1991 and designates, lands along Solebury’s western border north of Lahaska as Rural Areas. This is I consistent with the future land use designations on the Solebury side of the line. Lands along the common boundary south of Lahaska are designated by the I Buckingham Comprehensive Plan as Conservation Management areas. Such areas are considered appropriate for lower density forms of residential development, I utilizing on-site or on-lot sewage disposal and large lots or clustered developments I 53 I to retain open space, natural resources, and agricultural practices. This designation I is consistent with the future land use designation in this Plan for Land Use, which calls for Rural Conservation in that area. I The Village of Lahaska along Routes 202 and 263 is the exception to Buckingham Township’s rural conservation along the Solebury line. Lahaska is designated in the I 1991 Plan as a Commercial Village Center, appropriate for the tourist-oriented village shopping uses existing in Peddlers Village on both the Buckingham Township side and the Solebury Township side of Street Road. Additional lands in I this area are designated Village Center - Planned Residential Area, which is intended to provide for low-density residential development adjacent to the I Peddlers Village development. These designations, and corresponding zoning, are consistent with Solebury’s future land use designation of Historic Village and recognize the Peddler’s View development in Solebury Township. I
Lands along Solebury’s western border south of York Road are designated by the I Comprehensive Plan as Conservation Management areas. Rural areas are considered appropriate for lower density forms of residential development, utilizing on-site or on-lot sewage disposal and large lots or clustered developments to retain open I space, natural resources, and agricultural practices. Buckingham township‘s zoning for Rural areas (except for those older neighborhoods) is AG-2, Agricultural District, I and allows for a 1.8-acre minimum lot size for conventional subdivisions. Flexible lot size, clustering, and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) options also exist within the AG-2 District. I
Conservation Management areas are characterized by the township’s I environmentally sensitive lands, and remain largely in agriculture, woodlands, or other open space uses. Residential development in Conservation Management areas would be very low density, or preferably either proposed as part of a rural village I expansion, or sent to a more appropriate receiving area as part of the township’s TDR program. Buckingham’s zoning for these Conservation Management areas is I AG-1, Agricultural District, and allows for a 1.8-acre minimum lot size for conventional subdivisions. Flexible lot size, clustering, and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) options also exist within the AG-1 District. I I R 1 54 I I
I Areas of Mutual Concern with Buckingham Township: Open space and farmland I preservation; BuckinghamlSolebuy Mountains; limestonelkarst areas; Route 202; Lahaska Pl umstead Township
I The portion of Plumstead adjacent to Solebury is rural in nature, with farms, extensive woodlands, steep slopes forming the western side of the Delaware River I valley, and within that valley, the continuation of the Delaware Canal State Park. Plumstead Township’s Comprehensive Plan Update (1992) recommends Rural Residential land uses for those lands adjoining Solebury, with low-density I residential development, served by on-lot water supply and wastewater disposal. This land use category is implemented through the Rural Residential (RO) and I Resource Protection (RP) zoning districts. These designations are consistent with this Land Use Plan, which calls for Rural Conservation along the Plumstead boundary. Solebury’s only exceptions along the Plumstead line are the Historic Village I designations at Carversville and Cottageville. 1 The township’s Rural Residential Land Use category is currently implemented through the Rural Residential (RO) zoning district, and the Resource Protection (RP) I zoning district, adopted in 2001. The RP District also has a 3-acre minimum lot size and does not provide the cluster I option. This district is specifically intended for agricultural and resource uses and low-intensity residential development. It incorporates a riparian buffer requirement as well as the recommendations of the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River I designation. I The township is part of the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority service area. The portion of Plumstead bordering Solebury is outside the authority’s service area, I and no public infrastructure exists. Plumstead Township adopted an Open Space Plan in 1999. Several properties within I the eastern half of Plumstead Township have been preserved as open space by the township. I I I 55 I
Areas of Mutual Concern with Plumstead Township: Open space preservation; I Delaware River; Lumberville; Carversville; Paunnacussing Creek
Mu 1timunicipa 1 Planning I Solebury Township sees the benefit of participating with neighboring municipalities in multimunicipal planning. Development, land use, conservation, transportation, I and community needs cannot be addressed effectively without cooperation and coordination. I The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code amendments of 2000 encourage multimunicipal planning. State agencies have followed suit by giving preferential I funding for multimunicipal planning projects.
The concept embodied in the planning code amendments is to allow groups of I municipalities to meet their land use obligations on a joint basis. It can result in a more logical land use pattern by accommodating growth and density in areas where I this makes sense and by preserving areas of land where conservation is essential.
This comprehensive plan provides a foundation for cooperation with neighboring D municipalities. I I I I I I I I 1 56 I VI1 Communitv Facilities Plan
The sustainable community objective of the 2002 Solebury Township Comprehensive Plan calls for growth management and development over the twenty-year planning horizon through provision of adequate public and semi-public facilities, services, and utilities while observing natural resource limits. Population I projections from the year 2000 to 2010 will add 1,257 new residents to the township. New development will place additional demands on existing utilities and I community facilities and services and on natural resources such as groundwater. The township wants to insure that its current and future water supply, stormwater, 1 and wastewater management practices protect and preserve the quantity and quality of ground water and surface water resources upon which its residents, businesses, and plant and animal communities depend. What its neighbors do in I terms of impacts on township resources is also relevant. New supportive policies related to rural, suburban and village development are necessary to guide the I township in this direction. A sustainable community requires careful management of growth and development I based on the ability of natural and built systems to retain their functional capacities. It also requires a greater balance between new residential and commercial/industrial I land uses.
Integrated Water Resources Planning: Guidelines for Stormwater, Water Supply and I Wastewater Policy e Individual actions must be evaluated on both an incremental and cumulative impact basis to protect the water resources of the township.
I Proposed on-lot wells should not significantly draw down existing wells on adjoining properties, or reduce the low flow levels of nearby creeks and streams. For I the township’s suburban lands and villages, the need increases for a more system- based infrastructure management application. Community water system wells should not result in a depletion of groundwater resources or a significant draw I down of existing wells on adjoining properties. As part of the township’s I environmental impact assessment process, groundwater and surface water impact I 57 studies should be required of all new major subdivisions and multifamily, commercial, and industrial land developments prior to township application approvals.
On-lot sewage disposal systems such as septic fields and sand mounds provide a ground water recharge benefit, yet new on-lot wastewater disposal systems should not pollute or otherwise contaminate underlying aquifers or surface water resources. Regular maintenance and rehabilitation of failing systems is required.
Direct discharge of wastewater effluent from on-lot or small community systems into creeks, streams and the Delaware River should be strongly discouraged. This is especially relevant in Exceptional Value (EV) and High Quality (Ha) designated streams and streams that feed into the Delaware Canal, although certainly applicable to all surface water features.
The township can promote recharge of its ground water resources by requiring innovative stormwater management practices as part of all new development. Surrounding municipalities have already enacted requirements for infiltration of stormwater. Where low-density residential development is proposed, innovative stormwater management approaches which limit impervious areas, limit clearing of natural vegetation, and utilize natural features to control run-off and encourage pollutant uptake by plants and recharge of stormwater should be mandated. Conservation design at the planning stage can help. In suburban and urban village settings, a combination of non-structural and structural controls for achieving infiltration of stormwater runoff may be necessary due to the relatively high amount of impervious area typically associated with medium and high density development. Infiltration of stormwater into ground water should be required wherever feasible.
Conveyance and discharge of Solebury and New Hope sanitary wastewater effluent to the Lambertville Sewage Treatment Plant for direct discharge into the Delaware River is a lost opportunity for recharge of the township’s groundwater resources. The potential environmental impacts to the Delaware River, and expenditure of resource energy required to convey untreated effluent to the plant are contrary to the sustainable community approach.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the township’s Ad 537 Sewage Facilities Plan be brought up to date to reflect the sustainable community objectives.
58 VI11 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plans
This section of the Comprehensive Plan is summarized from the Solebury Township Parks and Recreation Plan, which was completed in 2000, and the Solebury Township’s Open Space Plan. The complete plans are available through the township for more detailed review. The purpose of the park plan was to inventory the existing parks and recreation facilities available to the residents of Solebury Township, to evaluate the recreational needs of current and future residents, and to assess the potential for expansion of the township’s park and recreation system to meet those needs. The purpose of the open space plan was to set a strategy for continued open space preservation.
Assessment of Parks and Recreation Needs
A survey was distributed to Solebury Township households seeking input for planning for recreational facilities. Survey responses were treated as strong indications of township residents’ perception of recreational needs and were deemed collectively representative of the various age groups comprising survey respondents. The plan’s recommendations were tailored in response to preferences as well as needs objectively measured by comparing current and projected population of the township with nationally accepted recreation standards set by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA). Population figures and projections to the year 2020 were utilized.
Analysis completed for the Parks and Recreation Plan found that existing township parkland, measured in acres, meets both existing and projected need to the year 2020, based on application of NRPA standards. The plan recognizes, however, that not all township parkland is appropriate for recreational development and concluded that a prudent long-term policy would be to seek acquisition of more land for the township park system. The plan also noted the unique recreational opportunities represented by the Delaware River corridor, as well as the specific issues related to private property concerns and increased traffic associated with the tourism attracted to the corridor. The plan recommended that the township explore means to increase the number of public access points to the river, in order to make best use of its recreational potential.
59 Evaluation techniques developed by NRPA indicate that the number of baseball fields are adequate until 2010 and the number of soccer fields are adequate until 2020. Strict application of NRPA standards is not representative of actual recreational participation in Solebury Township. Using a ratio approach to the number of participants and the number of fields available, the plan concluded that two new baseball fields and one new soccer field would be needed by 2020. Public tennis, volleyball, and basketball facilities were deficient when measured against NRPA standards. The deficit in tennis courts, however, is tempered by the availability of six courts at the New Hope-Solebury High School.
Because neither population projections nor survey responses can be treated as a precise indication of park and recreation needs over the ten to twenty year planning horizon, nor can all park and recreation needs be anticipated, recommendations must be viewed flexibly over time. The Parks and Recreation Plan should be reviewed periodically to assess progress the township has made in implementing its recommendations, to compare projected population growth with actual growth, and to assess actual levels of usage at all recreational facilities. Opportunities for acquisition or development of parkland that could not have been anticipated at the time the plan was prepared should be reviewed carefully and accommodated if they appear to meet unmet needs at the time they arise.
Recommended Additional Recreational Facilities
0 Please refer to the March 2000 Parks and Recreation Plan which contains detailed recommendations for additional recreational facilities by the year 2010. Many of these facility recommendations have been completed or are in the process of being completed.
Recommendations for Existing Parks
The Parks and Recreation Plan made the following recommendations for existing township parks. The future park site on the Marshall TractNorth Pointe was included because of its potential and importance in the township’s park and recreation program.
Marshall Tract/ North Pointe Within one to five years, an analysis of the site and a master plan should be prepared, addressing that portion of the site identified for active recreational use, as well as related passive recreational areas including trails. Future updates of the .
60 Parks and Recreation Plan should include detailed implementation planning for park development, funding and management.
Canal Park The 11.9-acre undeveloped Canal Park presents excellent opportunities for increasing the scope of the township park system. The preparation of a site analysis and master plan should be done. A primary consideration in the development of a master plan for Canal Park is the two utility rights-of-way and the restrictions they carry for the use of the land. The location of Canal Park presents an excellent opportunity to provide an access point to the towpath of the canal and a linkage to a township-wide trail system. A bridge over the canal is the obstacle that must be dealt with in order to provide access to the towpath
Magill's Hill Park Magill's Hill is a special-purpose park used exclusively for sledding when there is sufficient snow. A stipulation of the acquisition of the land limits its use to open space with no improvements for active recreation. This park could be considered as a destination point for the township trail system. It should be actively maintained so that it continues to be available for sledding in the winter. The area at the bottom of the hill has the potential to be used as a general playfield.
Laurel Park The park on Laurel Road is the home of the baseball and softball fields that are used by the New Hope - Solebury Little League. In addition there is a field that is used by the soccer club for the youngest teams and a snack bar and maintenance building. With the current high level of interest in the youth baseball/softball leagues expected to continue, establishment of an active maintenance program for the fields should be a priority.
Pat Livezey Park The Pat Livezey Park is the primary location for the league games of the New Hope - Solebury Soccer Club. The park has a new softball field, a building housing a snack bar, restrooms and storage, a small playground, picnic tables, a practice field and a natural amphitheater. Because of its diversity, the Pat Livezey Park serves as a community park for the residents of Solebury Township.
61 Recommended Coordination
The Board of Parks and Recreation should continue to review all major residential subdivisions and land developments submitted to the township for approval. Such review should occur at the sketch plan and preliminary plan stages.
0 The township should annually examine the schedule for the payment of a fee in lieu of dedicating land in residential developments.
0 The Board of Parks and Recreation should maintain an active liaison with all township commissions, boards and committees.
Continue the working relationship with the New Hope - Solebury Soccer Club, the New Hope - Solebury Baseball Association, and all other community organizations.
Maintain a liaison with the Bucks County Department of Parks and Recreation to:
As plans for improvements to the Delaware Canal State Park are implemented and as the township proceeds with establishment of a trail system, maintain a working relationship with the superintendent of the Delaware Canal State Park.
0 Maintain a relationship with the director of the Washington Crossing State Historic Park, noting the potential for the park as a destination point for the township-wide trail system as well as the potential for jointly sponsored activities and programs.
0 Maintain a close relationship with the Honey Hollow Environmental Education Center.
0 Continue use of recreational facilities at the New Hope - Solebury School District sites, especially for jointly sponsored activities and programs.
Recommendations for Parks and Recreation Operations
The Board of Parks and Recreation should continue with the following operational activities on an on-going basis:
62 0 Encourage the organization of volunteers to serve as friends of the parks and trail system to assist with the maintenance and installation of facilities. e Evaluate the adequacy of the parking in all parks.
0 Periodically inspect all parks and recreational facilities for safety and make necessary repairs. e Prepare a maintenance program and schedule for all parks. e Maintain a current schedule for the fee that is paid in lieu of dedicating land in residential developments. e Pursue grants for land acquisition and development of facilities as opportunities arise. e Prepare and maintain a capital improvement program for park and recreation facilities, including both short- and long-term projects. e Ensure that all new recreational facilities are designed with cost effectiveness in mind, including initial cost, durability of facilities, and short- and long-term maintenance costs.
e Devote a section of the township newsletter to parks and recreation news and seek periodic publishing of articles in local newspapers.
e Continue to publish the yearly information guide on parks and recreational facilities and programs throughout the township.
Coordination with Agricultural Land Preservation and Open Space Planning
The township’s open space vision is to continue a well-planned program of preservation of farmland, natural areas, scenic areas, and other open spaces. The goals of the adopted Open Space Plan are:
1. Preserve Farmland - Preserve farmland and agricultural soils through farm easements in important farming areas throughout the township.
Preservation of farmland will ensure preservation of a strong farming economy.
63 The preservation of farmland helps to meet other township goals, such as protection of viewsheds, protection of groundwater recharge areas, and preservation of natural areas.
Preservation of farmland helps to protect natural areas such as limestone areas and woodlands associated with farm properties.
2. Protect Critical Natural Resources - Protect important environmental features such as forest, floodplains, the stream and river corridors, slopes, wetlands, and limestone/carbonate areas.
Preservation of natural areas will protect against environmental damage and will preserve wildlife habitat.
The preservation of natural areas helps to meet other township goals, including directing development into lands that can sustain development and protecting those lands that are sensitive and susceptible to damage.
3. Protect Ground Water Resources - Protect the quality and quantity of ground water resources using tools to protect the ground water aquifers, recharge areas, and prevent nonpoint source pollution.
Residents are dependent on ground water resources for safe and reliable drinking water. Stream flows are dependent on the recharge of ground water. By protecting ground water resources, the township can protect future safety of residents and protect the natural areas from damage.
4. Provide Greenways and Trails - Plan to preserve greenways along stream corridors and establish trails for recreation as part of the open space strategy.
The township Park and Recreation Plan recommends a greenway and trail system. This recommendation is strongly supported by the Township survey of residents who identified greenways and trails as the number one recreational priority. Bucks County Audubon Society’s study also places a high priority on contiguous properties that create linked landscapes as the best method of protecting wildlife habitat.
The Park and Recreation Plan supports a conceptual plan to link the Township’s parks and open spaces. These plans should be integrated with the Township’s Open Space Plan.
64 5. Protect Scenic Views
In 1989 the Land Use Committee created a scenic viewshed map that identified those historical, rural, village or watershed locations that should be protected. A Scenic Analysis map was adopted by the township as a policy guide in 1997. Twenty-five roadside viewsheds have been identified as sites worth preserving.
6. Support Overall Land Use Planning - Integrate open space preservation with other planning and growth management programs to support land use plans.
Open space plans and policies should support the comprehensive plan and zoning map of the township. Some important open space areas cannot be preserved using zoning or land use controls. These should be addressed through open space efforts. Zoning and planning can be used to support open space efforts by requiring protection of environmental features, such as limestone areas, slopes, wetlands, floodplains, and woodlands.
7. Work with Landowners - Pursue the best method of preservation for the township, taking into account available funding, landowner needs, and township goals.
The township’s Open Space Preservation Program is designed to work effectively with individual landowners to meet their needs and to support township goals. The township has established a formal program for approaching landowners whose properties would enhance the overall township open space program. Members of the Land Preservation Committee are assigned to meet with landowners. All discussions are kept confidential. Individual conservation desires and financial considerations are blended with township goals to develop an effective preservation plan. This results in a range of options, including donations of easements, purchase of easements, limited development, and cooperation with other preservation programs.
The land preservation program only works if there are willing landowners, and the township program has been successful because it has recognized the importance of individual needs in the pursuit of community goals.
65 8. Protect Scenic Roads - Adopt scenic roads maintenance and planting guidelines to protect scenic roads and corridors.
The township has established a policy of protecting the character of local roads to protect scenic qualities. By maintaining roadside vegetation, the appeal of local roads is retained and a natural buffering is kept in place. (Scenic roads are listed on pages 135-136).
These goals are consistent with the overall vision for the township comprehensive plan.
Success of Open Space Preservation Program
The township’s program for open space and farmland preservation has been extraordinarily successful. Even before the completion of the open space plan in 2000, the township and its elected officials had embraced the goal of preserving the land and landscape of Solebury through land use regulations and cooperative activities with conservancies.
66 Inventory of Protected Lands Open space, parkland, and farmland has been preserved in Solebury by state, county, township programs, and private initiatives. STATE LANDS Acres Delaware Canal State Park 61 Ingham Spring and Lake 48 Bowman's Hill Wildflower Preserves 221 Hendrick Island 135 River Road State Forest Preserve 56 BUCKS COUNTY LANDS Hal Clark Park 28 River Road tract 7 SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS Canal Park 12 Pat Livezey Park 18 Laurel Park 11 Limeport - open space/conservation 5 Magill's Hill Park 5 Marshall Tract Open Space and Recreation Land - North Pointe 104 Cuttalossa - open space/conservation 34 Laurel Run - open space/conservation 18 Reeder Road open space 1 Sugan Road open space 0.3
SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Thirteen properties preserved through conservation easements (purchase and donation) 887
BUCKS COUNTY AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM AND SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP Four properties preserved through joint state/county/township conservation easements 587
CONSERVANCY PROPERTIES - OWNED OR PROTECTED WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Heritage Conservancy properties 946 Easements 761 acres Owned 185 acres Natural Land Trust properties - Easements in Aquetong Valley Preserve 990
TOTAL PRESERVED LANDS (acres) 4,179
67 IX Transportation and Circulation Plan
The purpose of the Circulation Plan is to create policies that will achieve the circulation goals of Solebury Township. The main circulation goals of Solebury Township are to continue and enhance the efficiency and safety of the current circulation system while preserving the rural character of the community. A principal means for achieving this will be to encourage through traffic to use highways functionally designed to accommodate through traffic and to refrain from making major changes to local roads serving local traffic.
Future Functional Classificationltlnticipated Improvements
The future functional classification of the road network is a useful guide for the placement of future land use. Although Solebury Township wishes to preserve the rural character of the local road network, there are some roads that may not merit the same level of preservation because of the current or future function they serve. Those roads that serve a higher function are Lower York Road (U.S. Route 202), River Road (PA Route 32), Upper York Road, (PA Route 263), Windy Bush Road (PA Route 232), Aquetong Road, Greenhill Road, Mechanicsville Road, Philips Mill Road, Sugan Road/IGtchens Lane, Stony Hill Road, Street Road, and the short leg of PA Route 179 leading from Route 202 into New Hope Borough. Nearly all of these roads are scenic along most of their lengths.
Development needs to be guided to areas with collector road access to the arterial network in order to maintain efficiently managed access and safety control. Most larger developments underway or anticipated are located in areas with direct access to the collector and arterial road system.
The township does not envision any changes to functional classification across the planning horizon for this plan.
The township does not support the development of a new Route 202 expressway to the current Doylestown bypass (Section 700) or beyond Doylestown (Section SOO), particularly through Solebury, to supplant the through-traffic role of Lower York Road (Route 202).
69 Further consideration should be given to modifying land use controls in order to ~ focus future development to areas where existing or planned road function and I design are most appropriate.
Improvements to intersections of Route 202 at Kitchens Lane, Logan Square, and Shires Drive have been completed.
Further study of the circulation system should be undertaken as a follow-up to this plan to deal with the following:
e ascertain current traffic volumes and levels of service;
project traffic impacts of current and anticipated new development within the township and short- and long-term increases in background traffic originating outside the township, coordinating such study with surrounding municipalities;
study relationship between congestion on Route 202 and traffic volumes on alternative through routes utilizing the collector road system;
assess community impacts and potential limitations, and improvements needed, for effective accommodation of alternative through-traffic movement on the collector road system;
investigate the potential for alternative routing of Route 202 through-traffic (such as Route 413 to 1-95)! avoiding Solebury and fully obviating any need for an expressway solution;
assess improvements to traffic flow as major improvements at critical intersections;
assess potential future traffic impacts (direct, indirect, induced, and cumulative) of on-going development in the context of the Plan for Land Use.
Access Management
To maintain flow of traffic flow and public safety, the township must control residential, commercial, institutional and industrial access along the main highway corridors, particularly Route 202. Too many access points will exacerbate congestion and safety problems. The development of large-scale commercial, industrial and, potentially, institutional property is of greatest concern, likely to generate large
70 J
traffic volumes entering and exiting the highways. The interaction of traffic entering and exiting needs to be regulated in such a manner that will enable a safe and efficient vehicular flow. Residential development tends not to create the same problems as commercial or industrial development because of the difference in trip generation. Residential access also must be managed carefully.
Measures need to be developed to limit direct access to major roads and guide development access toward interior/common access circulation roads. This will help to insure that multiple access points do not become a problem in the future. There are many ways to channelize traffic, ranging from simple methods involving a single parcel or lot, to creating a plan for future development of an area. Some of the simpler ways for direct traffic include:
Relocate access; Realign access points; Eliminate access points; One-way patterns; Side access; Deceleration lanes; Combine access points; Reverse frontage.
The township should pursue the creation of an Access Management Plan for the roadway corridor of Route 202 and possibly for other locations in the township. The township could designate areas most suitable for access points and locations where access should be limited or avoided. The plan will also identify ways of achieving controlled access along highways.
Preseruation of Local Road Character
The survey of township residents conducted in this planning process found that the major reason residents had moved to Solebury was its rural, open space character and scenic beauty. Conservation of scenic landscapes and retention of rural character were' at the top of the list of planning priorities. An inventory of scenic landscapes has been developed and is included as part of this Comprehensive Plan. Scepic landscapes have been inventoried as viewed from public roads. Often the character of the roads themselves is a critical element of scenic landscape quality. Narrow winding cartways, confining earthen banks, ample landscaping, low traffic volumes and speeds, and the absence of developed road frontage make these roads pleasurable to drive.
71 While appropriate land use and open space planning efforts are obviously critical to maintenance of scenic landscape qualities, retention of rural character also can be enhanced through the continuance of the rural road character. Current road design standards should be reviewed not only in terms of their adherence to broad circulation and land planning objectives, but in terms of their compatibility with rural character. Access management provisions, viewed principally for their role in reduction of turning-movement conflicts, also can extend to regulation of the placement and number of curb cuts on local roads to limit scenic disturbance.
Care should be taken to maintain the rural character of the road network as improvements respond to safety concerns and the impacts of continued new development. Critical aspects of rural roadway character also should be extended into new development, particularly at their entrances, avoiding unnecessarily harsh contrast. This can be achieved through the use of flexible roadway treatment and design. Rote imposition of existing standards may not be appropriate for all types of development or in all situations. Low density residential development or village- scale residential development should not require the same design standards as commercial or industrial development.
Unnecessarily wide roadways contrast sharply with their scenic predecessors. Road width should be reviewed in the context of other safety concerns, such as characteristics of the roadside edge (i.e., flat shoulder vs. steep bank), sight distances and, whether or not on-street parking should be permitted along the roadway. Grassy swales along roadways are preferred over curbing to increase or maintain infiltration and recharge to ground water.
The preservation of existing vegetation also can go a long way toward retaining rural character. Introduced vegetation, including shade trees, can be placed along new and old roadways to frame views and diminish the visual prominence of the asphalt. Regulations to limit disturbance and promote the preservation and use of native vegetation should be pursued. Roadside signage and paving materials should be evaluated for their impact to rural and village character.
The township also can promote other initiatives to aid in the preservakon of rural and scenic qualities, including township-wide road trash pick-up programs, including construction trash.
72 Alternative Transportation
The rural and scenic characteristics of Solebury Township make it an excellent place to utilize alternatives to the automobile for transportation, particularly for recreational activities. The Delaware Canal towpath is a major trail resource. Further efforts should be undertaken toward developing a local trail or pathway network for recreational uses such as hiking, biking or horseback riding. These can range from providing access to an informal trail network to establishing designated bike lanes along local roads. Regional planning efforts should also be considered to coordinate recreational trail planning on a regional or multi-municipal scale.
In areas designated for development, design concepts can help to create a development pattern with an appropriate density and mix of uses and services to give residents the opportunity to walk between them. Concentrated development, as anticipated in the future Mixed Use designation, will allow for walking and the potential for future transit service.
Pedestrian circulation should be considered in every type of development. Pedestrian access can take the form of informal paths, macadam walkbikeways, or constructed sidewalks, depending upon the location and the uses to be served. Pedestrian improvements should be required within major development proposals. Consideration should also be given to interconnection of walkways or paths between proposed developments.
Circulation Funding Opportunities
To implement roadway improvements, it is necessary to have appropriate funding. The funding source for circulation-related projects depends on such factors as: ownership of the road (state or municipally owned); the type of project, whether it is a road or bridge project; and the magnitude of the project, whether it is a resurfacing, widening, or a road relocation project.
Municipalities receive funds directly from the state under the Liquid Fuels Fund program. These funds are acquired by the state through taxes received through the purchase of fuel. The funds are allocated according to a legislative formula that takes into consideration mileage of municipal roads and municipal population. Liquid Fuel Funds are used by municipalities to maintain roads and to make minor improvements.
73 Improvements to state-owned roads, if Federal or State funds are used, are accomplished through the PennDOT 12-Year Program and the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although financial responsibility for maintaining or improving state-owned roads is placed on PennDOT and the state, municipalities are responsible for alerting the proper authorities about safety conditions and needed improvements. For projects that require PennDOT attention, Solebury Township must participate in the biannual TIP process by submitting project recommendations to the Bucks County Planning Commission.
All Federal funds become available through the PennDOT 12 year program and the regional TIP.
Township Initiatives
Solebury Township has the responsibility to study, recommend and even design needed improvements to state roads. PennDOT no longer has a traffic planning staff to study roads and propose improvements. The initiative of local and county governments is an important factor in the state's decisions supporting road improvement requests.
The township should evaluate the potential usefulness of Act 209, which allows municipalities to impose impact fees for road improvements provided that the township has done a thorough traffic improvements plan.
Development Review and Regulation Initiatives
Major subdivision and land development applications should continue to include a Traffic Impad Study. A Traffic Impact Study should identlfy the amount of traffic expected to be generated by a development and how the traffic will be distributed over time to the surrounding roads. Traffic Impact Studies also should identify road improvements that would be needed to handle the increased traffic volumes, as well as potential pedestrian, bicycle and other alternative transportation means. Based on these studies, responsibility for implementation of improvements needed on site can be identified.
74 X Implementation Recommendations Measurement of Progress Toward a Sustainable Communitv
The Committee identified the following Planning Principles and Policies for Progress Towards a Sustainable Solebury through the work and analysis presented above. They are grouped into several categories that are regarded as key interconnected topics in planning a sustainable community. Incorporation of these principles and policies into the township ordinances and acceptance of these guiding factors into the review process of land use decisions in the township is essential to the establishment of Solebury as a sustainable community. The specific sustainability indicators identified with each grouping of principles and policies should be actively tracked and evaluated on an annual basis to gauge the township’s progress in achieving sustainability and protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
To achieve the vision of a sustainable community, the residents, elected officials, and township employees of Solebury Township must strive to restore, maintain, and enhance the local environment, while responsibly managing community development. Diligent stewardship of the township’s natural and historic resources must be a constant focus to avoid the cumulative adverse impacts that can accompany development and land use changes. To do less would lead to sigruficant threats to public health, safety and welfare. This chapter addresses the Municipalities Planning Code requirements regarding implementation strategies. (Section 301(a) (4.2))
75 Agricultural Resources Policy
Preserve prime agricultural soils, in accordance with the mandate of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and preserve the farming industry in Solebury. This is necessary to sustain the prosperity of the township by protecting one of its major industries and to provide local and regional food supplies.
Recommended Action Stqs
Continue aggressive land preservation program, focusing on farmland preservation, through township efforts and cooperation with the Bucks County Agricultural Land Preservation Program.
Evaluate and adopt land use and related ordinances which will promote farming, protect farming operations from claims related to perceived negative impacts and protect agricultural soils.
Preserve farms in significant farming areas to protect the critical mass of farming operations.
Work with state legislators on property tax reductions for preserved farms.
Accommodate multiple uses on single properties in agricultural production.
Sustainability Indicators
0 Number of farm acres preserved through farm easements.
0 Long-term health and vitality of farm markets.
0 Area of prime agricultural soils preserved.
0 Acreage of land with agricultural crops.
0 Provide for retail sale of agricultural products.
0 Reduce requirements for adding agricultural buildings.
76 Soils and Geological Resources Policy
Conserve soil resources by minimizing soil -disturbance and preventing accelerated erosion, especially in highly valued and sensitive areas such as prime agricultural land and steep slopes. Soils are the part of the physical template that sustain the vegetation component of landscapes with minerals and stabile base, serve as the foundation for buildings, and support the renewable production of crops. Accelerated erosion or other degradation diminishes these resources and causes pollution of the township waterways and streams.
Ensure that development is compatible with site-specific geologic conditions, particularly in limestone areas (Karst geology). Prevent groundwater contamination in highly permeable limestone aquifers, particularly due to inappropriate placement of on-lot septic systems.
Recommended Action Steps
Review and revise existing provisions for limitation or exclusion of critical topographical resources (i.e., steep slopes, alluvial and hydric soils) for purposes of determining maximum permissible density or intensity of development (net- out);
Minimize the area and intensity of soil disturbance wherever it occurs (i.e. encourage appropriate farming and tillage practices; development practices such as clustering; minimize earth disturbances; maintain buffers around disturbance areas);
Employ soil erosion controls that combine several best management practices to minimize the erosion of soil from a project site, taking into account the relevant site features;
Encourage all property owners and state agencies to minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides;
Protect agricultural lands, especially those with prime agricultural soils, from development;
77 0 Protect waterways with the prohibition of steep slope and 100-year floodplain disturbance, as well as, the maintenance of riparian buffers;
0 Integrate the conservation of soil resources with the protection of water resources;
0 Improve understanding of Karst geology and incorporate strict standards for development around limestone areas, using the authority of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code which allows special zoning treatment for areas of unique geologic formations; work with Buckingham Township on a scientific study of the Karst areas.
Sustainability Indicators
0 Conservation and enhancement of natural vegetative cover to the maximum extent feasible to promote conservation of soil and water resources,
0 Evaluate effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on all disturbed soil areas, especially those required to have Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plans,
0 Measure the rate of sedimentation and stream bank erosion from the township in several streamsnear the Delaware River;
0 Measure rate of Canal sedimentation.
78 s
I Water Resources Policy
i Maintain, restore and enhance the quality and quantity of all water resources in the township. As a trustee of these resources, the township I 1 must conserve and maintain these in a sustainable manner for the benefit of all of the residents, current and future. Public health, safety and welfare can only be protected if no degradation of quality or diminishment of quantity is accepted. This strict policy is necessary because of the township’s complete dependence on ground water for water supply, the recognized limited capacity of many soils in the township to provide ground water recharge, and the importance of high quality water in maintaining the human uses and ecological community integrity of surface waters in the township. Management practices should be adjusted to meet the uses and needs in each watershed in the township, recognizing factors such as the stream quality designations and impacts on recreational facilities such as the Delaware Canal. The interconnectedness and interrelatedness of water resources with other resources and land use must be emphasized in order to ensure no cumulative degradation.
Recommended Action Sfqs
The township should revise and update its water resources ordinances to ensure maintenance of a water budget that can sustain current and reasonable future uses on individual properties and watersheds throughout the township without impacting streams or the Delaware Canal through increased peak flows or depressed base flow conditions. The water budget is defined by the proportionate movement of rainwater into soils, plants, and ground water with the remainder traveling across the surface to waterways or accumulating in ponds and lakes or evaporating. The township should seek to maximize the correlation between the type/intensity of land use and concurrent impacts upon the water budget. Consider further study of groundwater resources, recharge capacity, and development impacts in order to link permitted development intensity with achievement of ground water recharge, resulting in no net loss to the ground water reservoir.
79 Establish the protection and management of water resources based on a watershed approach. Water withdrawals should be minimized where the discharge of the used water would be a significant distance from the point of withdrawal because of the adverse effect on the water budget. New transfers of water out of a watershed should be prohibited and existing transfers minimized to the extent practicable. Minimize the permitted levels of impact to sensitive watershed areas, such as Special Protection Waters, first order streams and the watersheds that sustain their flow.
Maintain, restore, and enhance the quality of Solebury waterways through the prevention of degradation from increased sediment loading, increased storm flows and decreased ground water discharges during low flow periods.
To ensure protection of ground water resources (quantity and quality) and the processing capacity of sanitation wastes in subsurface soils, the volume of ground water recharge over any specific area must be maintained at predevelopment rates and total volumes to the maximum extent feasible, through a combination of best management or engineering practices. Where previous development has occurred in a particular watershed leading to reduced ground water recharge and increased runoff, restoration of the water budget to predevelopment conditions through net increases in infiltration where new development occurs.
To ensure protection of ground water resources (quantity and quality) and the processing capacity of sanitation wastes in subsurface soils, the volume of ground water withdrawal must not exceed a safe yield (sustainable yield) considering current uses, reasonable future uses, and probable drought conditions over a 100 year planning horizon. No significant impact to private potable well supplies is the highest priority due to the high risks to public health, safety and welfare from any disruption of private potable well supplies.
To ensure the protection of surface water resources (quantity and quality) the volume of runoff and peak flow must be maintained at predevelopment levels to the maximum extent feasible through a combination of best management or engineering practices. Where previous development has occurred in a particular watershed leading to reduced ground water recharge and increased runoff, restoration of the water budget to predevelopment conditions through net increases in infiltration where new development occurs. Stringent post- development monitoring requirements should be established in the township ordinances.
80 1
I 0 All increases of impervious surfaces over 1000 square feet should be accompanied by best management or engineering methods that result in no net d change in ground water quality or recharge volume. Encourage the use of advanced treatment design for on-lot systems in limestone I areas. This precautionary requirement is necessary because of the propensity of septic systems to contaminate limestone formations and the dependence of I Solebury residents on ground water for potable supply.
Revise the township Act 537 Sewage Facilities plan to incorporate formal development of long-term plans to retrofit public wastewater disposal systems, in favor of dispersed land application of treated wastewater.
Review and consider revisions to existing provisions for limitation or exclusion of critical water resources (i.e., wetlands, ponds, streams, riparian corridors, hydric soils) when determining maximum permissible density or intensity of development (net-out).
Establish protective riparian buffer zones along stream corridors, stipulating an effective setback distance from streams (ex. minimum of 75’ measured from each bank) which is to remain vegetated and is wide enough to protect water quality; provide for appropriate and prohibited activities and uses within the buffer zone. The removal of native vegetation from within the buffer zone should be prohibited. Buffer zones generally range from 25 to 300 feet wide, with 150 feet (total width) often being used. To establish the appropriate buffer widths, the township will need to consider adjacent land uses, the degree of slope and the extent of wildlife habitat desired;
Enhance wetlands protection and establish monitoring procedures.
81 Sustainability Indicators
0 Stable ground water supply evidenced by no potable wells going dry for the first time or with increasing frequency.
0 Periodic flooding along watercourses within the range encountered historically with no progressive increases in magnitude or duration.
0 The incidence of water borne illness does not increase locally or throughout the township.
0 Periodic monitoring of streams during significant storm events supports a conclusion that the volume of runoff per equivalent unit of rainfall does not increase more than 10 percent over any ten-year period for any portion of the township.
0 The baseflow in streams remains stable from year to year based on background data or reference streams.
82 Natural Landscapes (Biodiversity) Policy
Conserve, protect, and restore the natural landscapes of Solebury Township, with a focus on the rich variety of native vegetation and wildlife and the habitats on which they depend, including woodlands, wetlands, ponds, floodplains, streams and riparian corridors, springs and spring-runs, the Delaware Canal, the Delaware River, meadows, hedgerows, and successional lands (old fields and thickets), providing a healthy living environment for people, plants and animals.
Recommended Action Steps
Natural landscapes should be regularly evaluated and prioritized for conservation and restoration. Provide public education and incentives (reduced taxes or otherwise) to protect natural landscapes and where warranted, prohibit the disturbance of environmentally special areas, specimen trees, and wildlife refuge habitats. Protect from further fragmentation and reconnect large open and forest (undeveloped) areas that serve as wildlife habitat and corridors for their movement. Protect rare landscape elements, guiding development toward areas of landscape containing common features.
Establish an Environmental Advisory Council.
Continue to utilize the efforts of the Land Preservation Committee to promote publidprivate conservation efforts, facilitating both formal and informal liaison between the township and individual landowners, local conservation organizations, and county and state programs for open space conservation. Given the accelerating rate of development, the township Open Space Program should be used to facilitate private open space conservation actions and aggressively pursue Federal, State and County grant money to support preservation of open space. Total protected open space (private and public) should increase in a reasonable proportion to the land that is developed.
The township should continue its policy supporting conservation easements as a means to achieve community open space and environmental resource protection objectives, supporting landowners' ability to utilize charitable gift provisions in the tax code while meeting public conservation obiectives.
83 0 Establish a deer population reduction and management policy that includes a combination of all available means, such as extended harvesting periods, harvesting by special permits, encourage planting of vegetation that does not enhance the deer population, discourage purposeful feeding of deer. The overpopulation of deer in Solebury has diminished the natural landscapes through the overgrazing of natural habitats and the destruction of cultivated plants. Young trees and understory plants are destroyed and lead to forest degradation. The deer population poses a threat to public health because of the role deer play in the increasing incidence of Lyme Disease and the hazard they pose to motorists on township roads.
0 Require that all land use changes and development result in the restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the natural landscape of the project area. Destruction or fragmentation of high priority landscape features should be prohibited and destruction of notable landscape features (specimen trees, large hedgerows, etc.) must be balanced with enhancement of the remaining landscape features. Clearing of woodlands over one acre must be balanced with the creation of new woodlands of an equal area of greater habitat quality or twice the acreage of eventual equal value. Such a requirement is necessary to meet the mandate of the township residents to maintain the Solebury landscape and to offset the diminished use and value of the township’s woodlands during the disturbance and forest recovery period, typically several decades (Sauer. 1998). Exception provisions for agriculture should be provided.
0 Create a new Rural Conservation District to minimize development impacts, favoring use of a revised Open Space Design Option where development does occur. Mapping of this district should encompass much of the current RA and RB districts and reflect the recommendations of the Plan for Land Use.
0 Develop overlay zoning provisions to aggressively promote protection of natural resource values, with specific focus on identified riparian corridors and priority Habitat Conservation Areas (per Bucks County Na turd Areas Inventory).
Ensure that criteria for selection and management of open space, as provided in the Open Space Design Option, are consistent with resource protection objectives articulated by this Plan; develop standard policies for open space management. Link required open space management planning to resource identification and impact mitigation per the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIAR).
84 0 Review and streamline Site Analysis and EIAR requirements. Enact new site analysis and resource conservation plan requirements that require site analysis prior to site planning. Require acknowledgement of review and reference to the resource mapping included in this Plan as part of every plan submission.
Balance the desire for road improvements with the habitat needs of wildlife.
0 Balance the opportunity for recreation by the public with the habitat needs of wildlife.
0 Encourage the incorporation of wildlife cover into the design of developments, especially open space areas and drainage control structures.
0 Prioritize Natural Areas Networks based on Core Reserves and Natural Corridors.
Establish priority networks (Natural Area Networks) of natural areas and corridors for protection to support Solebury’s diversity of native plants and wildlife. Natural Area Networks listed here include both Core Reserves and Natural Corridors, and generally represent the largest, most interconnected, highest quality, most mature, diverse, or least common habitats.
The recommended Natural Areas’Networks are:
Core Reserves (Major): Center Bridge Woodland Aquetong Lake/Ingham Spring Sugan Lake Bowman’s Hill/Pidcock Creek
Core Reserves (Minor): Forest-Interior Habitats ( > 30 acres in area, roundhquare in shape) Broad Successional Areas (> 3 acres in area) Broad Wetland Areas (> 1 acre in area)
Natural Corridors (Major): Delaware River Corridor Paunacussing Creek Cutalossa Creek Laurel Run Solebury Mountain
85 Natural Corridors (Minor): Stream corridors (floodplain width) Utility/transportation right-of-ways (electric, gas, fiber optic, railroad)
Major Core Reserves and Major Natural Corridors are recommended as Highest Priority conservation areas that should be protected as nature preserves as part of a long-term Soleburv Natural Areas Initiative. This Initiative should involve direct conservation techniques such as acquisition of land or conservation easements by a publidprivate partnership of township, land trusts/conservancies, county or state parks agencies, or other conservation groups.
0 Use all available land use tools, such as the zoning, subdivision ordinances as well as the environmental assessment requirements to protect significant natural areas.
0 Enhance Stormwater Management Program through use of Native Plants
Solebury’s stormwater management requirements can be enhanced to incorporate the protection and creation of native vegetation and wildlife habitat as part of innovative stormwater management systems. Land development plans should be designed to minimize grading and clearing of natural vegetation utilize plants and soil to increase recharge of groundwater and generate less stormwater runoff than conventional developments. The addition of native trees, shrubs, grasses and wildflowers (instead of turf grasses) in swales, berms, filter strips, riparian buffers and recharge beds, and the construction of stormwater management wetlands can turn the hard engineering of conventional stormwater management into a green infrastructure that protects water resources and expands natural habitat.
Establish a Forest Management Program
While woodlands are one of the most important community resources in Solebury Township, they are largely privately owned and are subject to periodic timber harvesting activities. Regulation of forestry activities is often limited to permits required for stream crossings or timbering on steep slopes, leaving municipalities out of the loop in terms of promoting best management practices for timber harvesting. Municipalities in Pennsylvania are required to allow for forestry and timber harvesting under the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and can to adopt ordinances for the protection and preservation of natural
86 resources and agricultural land activities. Solebury Township may adopt a Forest Management Program ordinance to govern the proper management of woodlands consistent with best management practices for forestry. The major standards that can be addressed in this type of ordinance include:
0 The commercial harvesting of timber should only be permitted subject to a Forest Management Permit issued by Solebury Township. The township should require the landowner to submit a Forest Management Plan prepared by a registered forester to the township for review by a township Forester or Arborist. A permit would be issued based on approval of a Forest Management Plan that demonstrates compliance with Best Management Practices for forestry as established by the township in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. These practices should include, among other things, selective thinning without high- grading or diameter-limit cutting, retaining substantial (75 feet or greater) . undisturbed riparian and wetland buffers, minimizing the width and location of roads, stream crossings, storage areas for logs and equipment, replanting of native trees, etc. Ordinance will be written to address development plans submitted after logging occurs. Plans must take into account trees removed through foresting.
The Forest Management Plan should include a Declaration of Intent signed by the landowner stating that the Plan has been prepared for the sole purpose of harvesting timber and not for any other purpose, including submission of a Subdivision and Land Development plan or Building Permit application. The Declaration acknowledges that no land development plan will be submitted within a 5 year period following the proposed timber harvest. This helps to avoid the possibility of a developer or builder clear-cutting all or part of a woodland and then submitting a Subdivision and Land Development plan or Building Permit application for a non-wooded area.
0 Permit Natural Landscaping.
Solebury Township can encourage residents to increase biodiversity and reduce the amount of lawn. Residents have the right to landscape their properties with wildflower meadows, native plantings, hedgerows, reforestation areas, ponds and wetland creation projects. The township encourages residents to intentionally manage their properties to provide natural habitat by establishing a
87 Backyard Habitat registry and by organizing community native plant sales (including plants rescued from development sites).
Sustainability Indicators
The amount of land protected from development increases through time;
0 The acreage of forest land remains constant or increases in order to mitigate for recent and past losses; forestry practices are sound, where forestry occurs;
0 Changes in the ratio of developed land to undeveloped land occurs slowly and eventually the ratio becomes constant; and
0 The net quality and quantity of high quality and notable natural landscapes should be maintained.
0 The deer population is reduced to a level that minimizes the threat of Lyme disease, automobile collision incidents, plant biodiversity losses, and economic losses due to grazing on farm and landscape plants.
88 Scenic t3 Historic Resources Policy
Conserve scenic landscapes through inclusion in the township Open Space Program and through regulatory means to minimize development impacts wherever possible and mitigate impacts where not. Promote the conservation and continued economic viability of historical resources and their historical landscape integrity, extending regulatory means where appropriate.
Recommended Action Stqs
Consider establishment of scenic road guidelines relating to road widening and other road improvements where necessary as well as to treatment of the roadside edge and adjacent scenic views, to be made available to development applicants, and to be utilized by the township’s Environmental Advisory Council, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors during review of conditional use, subdivision, and land development applications.
Promote National Register listing for individual historic resources and historic districts, focusing on those resources deemed eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register. Consider periodic re-evaluation of the inventory of historic resources and its assessment of relative historical significance, under the purview of the township HARB.
Explore potential interest and relative benefits of establishment of additional historic districts in accordance with Pa. Act 167 to offer additional opportunities for protection of existing villages and historic clusters.
Consider zoning provisions to promote protection of scenic and cultural resource values, with specific focus on identified Visually Signhcant Landscapes, National Register Historic Districts, and the Delaware River and Canal Heritage Corridor.
Review current zoning provisions and zoning map, as applicable to each of Solebury’s historic villages, to determine the extent to which existing regulations protect the historic, small-scale character of these areas. Appropriate design standards should be added, including appropriate flexibility, to encourage new development that enhances rather than detracts from each of the township’s unique villages, and allows for appropriate levels of residential and small-scale
89 non-residential growth. Support mixed uses in traditional villages, as well as creative reuse for existing buildings. Emphasize the unique traditional village character present today, seeking attention to architectural scale and design; creation of pedestrian-friendly village greens; and maintenance of scenic open space vistas and surrounding buffers where appropriate. The township should consider requiring submissions of architectural plans and elevations for any land development within the village zoning districts, where not otherwise required under HARB purview. Architectural style would not be dictated, but plans and elevations reviewed to determine compatibility of scale and character with existing and historic development patterns and architecture.
0 Consider expanding incentives for conservation of historic and architecturally sigruficant structures and landscapes, offering added design standard flexibility, or allowance for certain additional uses, beyond those otherwise authorized within the zoning district, and including establishment of an evaluation of alternatives based on identified criteria prior to permitting demolition. The essential purpose of any bonus would be to make conservation at least as financially feasible as demolition and replacement. Use of bonus provisions could be linked to Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation or imposition of conservation easements to guarantee appropriate and permanent conservation, as a way to make preservation of an historic structure feasible.
0 Enact stringent regulations on lighting to prevent excessive lighting overhead sky glow, intrusive light pollution that will alter the character of the township and adversely affectits character.
Sustainability Indicators
0 The amount of land designated as Visually Sigruficant Landscapes that is permanently protected as open space increases over time;
The number of historic structures on the National Register or in National Register Districts increases over time;
The number of historic resources and the degree to which historical landscape settings are included in permanent open space/conservation lots increases over time;
90 The number of demolition requests for historic buildings remains small and decreases over time;
Economic reinvestment in historical structures keeps pace with the overall rate of growth in the township.
Light pollution is prohibited by enactment of ordinances and enforcement of ordinances.
Residential Development (Housing) Policy
Provide for continued residential development to the extent necessary to accommodate projected population growth and housing needs. Continue to allow for diverse housing types. Revise ordinances to mandate compliance with community planning objectives.
Recommended Action Steps
Create a new Rural Conservation District encompassing much of the current RA and RB districts and reflecting the recommendations of the Plan for Land Use. Development provisions for this district should enhance resource protection objectives, including mitigation of impacts from existing residential development where feasible.
In the area designated as Site-Responsive Suburban Development on the Plan for Land Use Map, provide for continued in-fill development consistent in character with existing residential development. Favor flexible approaches linked to achievement of resource protection objectives and buffering potential impacts to existing neighbors.
Amend the subdivision/land development submission process to stress the township’s community design objectives for residential development. Submission requirements should include:
- Applicant’s review and understanding and acknowledgment of this Plan and the township Open Space and Park and Recreation Plans; - Detailed site analysis, mapping of township resource protection objectives; - Designation of appropriate development areas as a result of first defining prospective open space to meet township resource protection objectives; I I 91 - Demonstration of how proposed plans conform to designation of appropriate open space and development areas; - Assessment and mitigation of unavoidable development impacts; - Substantiate incentives for the filing of sketch plans before the engineering for preliminary plans. - Environmental impact studies.
Periodically review the extent and nature of remaining development opportunities within the R-D high-density residential zoning district and the MHP Mobile Home Park Overlay District, as well as opportunities for provision of multi-family development.
Consider expanding opportunities for development of age-qualified retirement communities and assisted living options to meet the needs of the growing elderly population sector and to complement other efforts to mitigate the real estate tax impacts of conventional residential development.
Sustainability Indicators
Restrict or limit development unless the resource sustainability indictors are achieved and maintained for all development plans and cumulatively for the township as a whole.
Resource Sustainability Indicators are achievable in the context of each development plan to the extent applicable;
-Development applications, particularly in the Rural Conservation area, result in significant open space protection;
Cumulative results of on-going residential development is consistent with future housing projections;
Dwelling unit mix (single-family, multi-family, age-qualified, etc.) results in average household size consistent with population projections and in sustainable proportion of school-age population relative to real estate tax revenue generated by new development;
Periodic review determines that opportunities remain available to meet requirements for diverse housing types and densities.
92 Economic Development Policy
Provide sufficient opportunities lm non-residential wvelopment to help mitigate the real estate tax impacts of conventional residential development, to offer diverse economic activity, employment opportunities and commercial services for township residents, and to promote on-going economic viability of historic structures.
Recommended Action Steps
Promote retention of the agricultural community, including means to promote long-term economic viability of agricultural uses. The township can continue to encourage participation in and continuation of the Agricultural Security Area, monitor state and county programs for purchase of development rights, and otherwise consider priority for agricultural lands in furtherance of the township’s open space conservation program.
Focus non-residential development, particularly commercial and employment uses along Route 202 in areas where higher-intensity development patterns already have emerged and where sewer and water infrastructure is available. Link development opportunities and permitted intensities to achievement of the conservation objectives, particularly maintenance of the water budget. Implement design standards to avoid sprawl and strip development patterns, mitigate aesthetic and environmental impacts of large expanses of parking, and provide for integrated development of diverse commercial and employment uses. Restrict large-scale enterprises in favor of smaller-scale non-residential I development. Review and revise applicable zoning provisions and the zoning map to I discourage strip/sprawl commercial development, particularly along Route 202; consider designation of mixed-use district(s) where appropriate to allow for mixed-use in-fill development opportunities on Route 202 and possibly at the u villages of Solebury, Carversville, and Lumberville.
I Review current zoning provisions and zoning map, as applicable to each of Solebury’s villages, to consider the extent to which non-residential development opportunities might promote economic viability of historical buildings while I allowing for relatively small-scale neighborhood commercial and employment I opportunities. 1 93 0 Expanding incentives for conservation of historic and architecturally significant structures and landscapes, offering added design flexibility, or allowance for certain additional uses, beyond those otherwise authorized within the zoning district in order to promote long-term economic viability of historic resources;
0 Periodically review extent of the R-D and non-residential zoning districts as well as provisions for development intensity; monitor development opportunities.
0 Provide for the integration of limited commercial and special-use development opportunities within otherwise residential districts, particularly where affording economic re-use of historical buildings, to offer basic commercial services close to home, carefully managed to minimize impacts to residential neighbors.
0 Provide for the post-reclamation of existing quarry operations for open space or recreational purposes or other viable economic use consistent with conservation and development objectives herein.
Sustainability Indicators
0 Resource Sustainability Indicators (previous sections), particularly those related to water resources, are achieved and maintained for new non-residential development plans to the extent applicable;
0 New non-residential development avoids stereotypical strip-center design and minimizes and/or mitigates the visual prominence of large single-story buildings and proportionately large parking lots;
0 New non-residential development continues to maintain or expand relative proportion of non-residential development and the non residential real estate tax base;
0 Periodic review determines that opportunities remain available to meet MPC requirements for all reasonable land uses.
0 Taxes are stabilized.
94 Circulation Policy
Maintain and enhance the efficiency and safety of the current circulation system while preserving the rural character of the community. Encourage through traffic to use highways functionally designed to accommodate through traffic, avoiding through traffic impacts on local roads.
Recommendations
Undertake additional traffic study. Consider study approaches consistent with the requirements of Pennsylvania Act 209, to enable the township to collect traffic impact fees from developers.
Eliminate any need for development of a Route 202 expressway through Solebury; promoting alternative through-routes outside of the township, while managing land use change and circulation improvements so as to maximize the functional utility and efficiency of Route 202 in its present location.
Minimize traffic impacts of new development on Route 202, focusing access at signalized intersections and minimizing intervening access points and potential turning movement conflicts.
Promote access management improvements along all arterial and collector roads, minimizing points of turning movement conflict, coordinating and channeling access from adjacent uses, and reducing the number of existing and substandard access points wherever feasible.
Minimize the impacts of through-traffic originating outside the township on minor collector and local roads, especially where designated as scenic roads. Coordinate with surrounding municipalities and utilize traffic studies to develop successful strategies. Carefully manage roadway improvements to balance improvement objectives with the intent to preserve scenic roadway character and to minimize negative impacts to wildlife habitat.
Pursue alternative circulation opportunities, including bicycle and pedestrian links, integrated with development site planning, to minimize need for vehicular trips and improve access for transportation dependent persons.
95 I
Coordinate circulation planning efforts with neighboring municipalities to the I greatest extent feasible, to optimize means to realize township objectives.
Monitor availability of funding for transportation improvements on an on-going I basis, including funding for alternative transportation means (i.e., trails, public transit) and related improvements. I
Establish scenic road guidelines relating to road widening and other road improvements where necessary as well as treatment of the roadside edge and I adjacent scenic views, to be made available to development applicants, and to be utilized by the township’s Environmental Advisory Council, Planning I Commission, and Board of Supervisors during review of conditional use, subdivision, and land development applications. I Upgrade critical intersections and increase capacity during peak travel periods without significantly reducing traffic flow during non-peak periods, using I intelligent transportation systems and other means.
Sustainability Zndicators
Acceptable levels of service are maintained at intersections on local and collector roads throughout the township;
0 An expressway solution is not considered for Route 202 through Solebury;
Turning movement conflicts are reduced over time and access management improved through coordination of development planning, particularly along Route 202;
Necessary safety improvements along scenic roadways are accomplished with minimal disturbance to scenic roadside qualities;
Alternative circulation opportunities, particularly trails, are extended through coordination with development planning efforts.
Funding for improvements to existing roadways increases to improve levels of service.
96 Community Facilities Policy
Provide or facilitate provision of adequate public and semi-public facilities, services, and utilities, accommodating anticipated population growth while observing natural resource limits.
Recommended Action Steps
Coordinate development patterns and intensities which maximize utility of current infrastructure and minimize need for additional infrastructure development;
Manage wastewater disposal and stormwater systems so as to achieve the water resource conservation objectives discussed herein.
Discourage extension of public water supplies and public wastewater facilities.
Seek conversion of sewer and water services to means sustainable within the framework of the local water budget and reduce the dependency on the connection and interstate transfer of water and wastewater to the Lambertville sewage treatment plant.
Pursue implementation of the recommendations of the Solebury Township Park and Recreation Plan. Balance opportunities to provide for active and passive recreational pursuit with the habitat needs of wildlife and other resource protection objectives.
Monitor community recreation needs on an on-going basis, paying particular attention to potential gaps in recreation service to specific population groups, especially those that tend to be transportation dependent, such as senior citizens and youth;
Continue to accept and utilize developer contributions for neighborhood and community park development; taking advantage of existing fee-in-lieu provisions, review those provisions relative to the new Park and Recreation Plan to ensure compliance with MPC provisions.
97 Consider a township-wide Community Trail Program To Promote Open Space Linkages through a combination of public and private efforts. The trail network could be initiated using existing township road rights-of-way and a mapped route for pedestrians and cyclists. Through changes to the township’s land development regulations, those incomplete portions of the mapped trail (or sidewalk) would be provided as part of new development’s public street frontages, or through dedication of public rights-of-way and trail easements through stream valleys and floodplains included in a development’s open space;
0 Monitor potential for cooperative efforts with neighboring municipalities to meet community park and recreational facility and program needs.
0 Update the subdivision/land development ordinance to require infiltration of stormwater to replenish ground water.
Sustainability Indicators
Existing community services and facilities continue to meet the needs and demands of a growing population;
0 Where necessary to serve new development, community services are extended in coordination with development planning;
Sewer and water services are managed with increasing consistency with resource sustainability indicators described above;
Recreational opportunities are increased over time consistent with the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Plan.
I
98 Implementation Requirements
Successful implementation of these policies and recommendations is dependent upon an enhancement of the township planning program and p an review processes, including the following:
> Commitment on the part of the township Board of Supervisors to:
Support the township manager to manage of administrative details (fiscal, grant writing, contracts, etc.) and coordination of boards, commissions, committees and supporting contractors/consultants within the township, as well as coordination with other townships.
Develop and maintain a professional support staff (legal, conservation and environmental planning, engineering) with high degree of expertise and commitment to the highest ethical standards and advocacy on behalf of municipalities.
Develop and maintain the funding necessary to meet the township’s Vision and Objectives, through a diversity of local, regional, and national sources.
> Establishment of an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) to assist the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission in evaluation of the environmental impacts of development proposals.
> Commitment on the part of the township (elected and non-elected officials) to:
Strive for consistent administration of regulatory provisions to protect critical environmental resources, monitoring performance of existing regulations and administrative procedures relative to resource protection objectives on an on- going basis;
Require that Subdivision/Land Development applications include a written statement certifying that their submittal is consistent with the township’s policies and ordinances based on a diligent review of by the applicant or their agent;
99 Promote effective use of the Sketch Plan to engage potential applicants in productive evaluation of a development site as early in the process as possible. The township should consider convening concept committee meetings with Applicant and township representatives to make Applicants explicitly aware of the resource inventories prepared as part of this Plan and the Open Space Man, to demonstrate the township’s concerns for community resource protection and limitation of development impacts, and to gain a mutual understanding of development objectives while site planning remains at the conceptual stage..
0 Evaluate the environmental impacts of all project in relation to the township’s policies and respond to such proposals in specific reference to those policies, consistent the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code Act.
0 Update township Act 537 Sewage Facilities plan consistent with the objectives of this Plan and with subsequent amendments to the Zoning and Subdivisiofiand Development Ordinances.
Coordinate local planning efforts with neighboring townships, boroughs, Bucks County, and other regional organizations, particularly in regard to planning for infrastructure improvements, development of regional trail and open space networks, addressing of watershed-based resource protection issues, and review of development plans with potential multi-municipal impacts.
0 Initiate efforts to establish a Multi-municipality Comprehensive Plan to ensure coordination with surrounding municipalities and take advantage of benefits provided for under the provisions of the Municipalities Planning Code Act, as amended in 2000.
0 Seek to educate developers and residents regarding resource-sensitive and open space-oriented land use options, using the township Newsletter, local media, and potentially additional pamphlet(s), informational meetings, or other informational means.
0 Adoption of ordinance revisions that provide a definitive framework of inducements and prohibitions consistent with sustainable growth management objectives; make applicants clearly aware of all environmental regulation and to stress the township’s interests in resource protection. .
100 XI Plan Documentation
The sections that follow provide documentation and background information on the township, its resources, and the basis for the policies and recommendations in the plan.
NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Geology The underlying geology of an area is a major natural influence, affecting landforms and slopes, water supply, the quality and composition of soil, and, by extension, the suitability for human life. There are eight geologic formations in Solebury Township - Stockton Sandstone; Allentown, Beekmantown and Leithsville Dolomitic Limestone; Brunswick Shale, Diabase Intrusions, Wisconsin Glacial Deposits, and Lockatong Argillite. Figure -: Surface Geology shows the location of the major regional formations in the township. A brief discussion of each formation is presented below, followed by a discussion of land use and natural resource protection issues.
Stockton Sandstone Formation
The Stockton formation, including a band of Stockton Conglomerate, underlies the northern third of the township. The rolling fields seen along the northern end of Aquetong Road are characteristic of the Stockton formation. This formation is comprised of light-colored sandstone, arkosic sandstone, and conglomeratic sandstone. It also includes red to purplish-red sandstone, shale, and mudstone.
Groundwater supply from the Stockton Sandstone Formation is very good. Yields up to 300 gallons per minute have been obtained from wells drilled 500 feet deep. The groundwater is of calcium bicarbonate type and of generally good quality. Surface drainage is very good.
The Stockton formation is considered to have the highest average permeability of any aquifer in Bucks County, although there is a wide range in specific permeabilities. The specific capacity of the Stockton ranges from 0.35 to 44 gallons per minute per foot.
Allentown, Beekmantown and Leithsville Dolomite Limestone Formations
A broad limestone belt, composed of the three above-named limestone formations, crosses the township from Buckingham to the Delaware River creating a shallow valley that almost divides Solebury in half. Limestone varies greatly in its supply of water and is susceptible to groundwater contamination, sinkholes, and solution channels. Groundwater contamination is a particular problem because contaminated water can move rapidly through solution channels, threatening an extensive area in a short period of time. Equally important, the movement and percolation of surface waters can also result in underground erosion of limestone formations, creating the potential for sinkholes and land subsidence. Other carbonate valley phenomena include disappearing and influent streams, ghost lakes, land surface mottling, and cave formation.
101 Brunswick Shale Formation
The Brunswick formation underlies the southern one-third of Solebury, and typically consists of reddish-brown shale, mudstone, and siltstone. Beds of green shale and brown shale occur. It can be very fine-grained, but near its base, the rock is tough. Red argillite is interbedded sometimes with dark-gray argillite. The surface drainage associated with this formation is good.
The Brunswick formation is generally considered to be a reliable and important source of water for domestic, industrial, and municipal supplies. Reported well yields indicate a range of 0.3 gallons per minute to over 500 gallons per minute. Yields ranging up to 20 gpm can be expected from wells located in fractured areas. Highest yields were obtained from wells ranging in depth from 200 to 550 feet. When wells were spaced less than 2,000 feet apart, interference was generally shown.
Diabase Formation
Diabase, also known as traprock, is a metamorphic intrusion. It is characteristically a hard crystalline rock that has pushed through softer sedimentary rock, Diabase is usually black and consists of 90 - 95 percent labradorite and allgite. Because it is metamorphic, it is close-grained, hard, and essentially nonporous. The high density and lack of joints, fissures, and fractures in diabase translates to little storage capacity for water and low we11 yields. It offers inherent difficulty for excavation. The Diabase formation occurs in a long stretch across the southern part of the township, broken into two parts, associated with the high ridges known as Solebury Mountain and Bowman's Hill.
Trenton Gravel
An area of Trenton Gravel is found on a terrace along the Delaware River and generally within the floodplain in the southern part of the township, below New Hope. This rock is outwash gravel from the Wisconsin glacial period along with coarse sand. It is usually overlain by a thin bed of sandy loess. Deposits are bright, light-yellowish-brown, dark yellowish-brown, and reddish-brown; gravels consist mainly of pebble, but large cobbles and boulders are also present. A large part of the sand is cross-bedded. Earlier geologic mapping showed more extensive areas of glacial outwash and alluvium in narrow bands along the Delaware, including the river islands.
The Wisconsin deposits and more recent alluvium provide good surface drainage, and where coarse sand is present, they are highly porous and permeable. The cobble portions plastered with clay and sand show little effective porosity.
Groundwater in the outwash deposits occurs under both water table and artesian conditions. The water table aquifer is composed of the sands, clays, and gravels. This aquifer is recharged mainly by local precipitation and subsurface drainage from nearby upland areas. Additionally, some water may be obtained by infiltration from the Delaware River. These unconsolidated sediments provide some of the largest and most reliable supplies of groundwater in Bucks County. Average well yields are 304 gpm.
102 Lockafong Argillite Formation
A small wedged-shape area of the Lockatong formation occurs in the central portion of the township, near the New Hope border. This formation is comprised of dark gray to black argillite with occasional zones of black shale. Lockatong is a particularly hard rock with few fractures to allow for the downward or horizontal movement of groundwater. As such, it is not a strong well water producer.
Geologic Resource Issues
In terms of the sustainable communities focus of this plan, geologic resources must be approached with an understanding of land use and resource protection implications.Their hydrologic value must be accounted for in the establishment of land uses in terms of sustaining domestic water yield potentials, maintaining base stream flows, reducing impervious surfaces, and encouraging groundwater recharge. Their development constraints must also be factored as part of resource protection strategies, land use allocations, and regulatory recommendations.
Those geologic formations that are typically good water producers for various land uses are Stockton Sandstone, Allentown, Beekmantown, and Leithsville Dolomite Limestone, Brunswick Shale, and the Trenton Gravel. Both the Limestone and gravel formations have development constraints that require special regulatory oversight to ensure that structures are both safe and habitable.
While the Stockton formation and the Bmwick Shale are a good source of potable water, caution must be taken with respect to the spacing of wells and the cumulative groundwater withdrawal impacts. Water supply to wells in this formation is dependent on the lateral movement of groundwater and generally occurs under artesian conditions. These hydraulic conditions make proper spacing of wells especially important because wells that are too closely spaced may have appreciable mutual interference. Also, because the township’s streams and wetlands are often fed by groundwater discharges from these formations, aquifer withdrawals that exceed recharge capacities can reduce low-flow water volumes to very low levels, seriously affecting plant and animal communities dependent on these surface water resources.
Because of its highly resistant, nonporous characteristics, the Diabase formation is a poor source of water and not suitable for septic systems. Excavation in this rock is difficult, requiring blasting in most cases. The Lockatong formation is not considered to be a reliable aquifer for high yield wells. (Wells yield an average of 10 gpm) Low yield characteristics cause the Lockatong to be generally restricted to domestic water supply uses.
2. Topography and Landforms
Solebury Township lies entirely within, and is typical of, the Piedmont Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This great band of rolling country stretches from New York to Georgia and is comprised of gently rolling uplands with occasional low hills and ridges atop more resistant rocks. Piedmont soils, topography, and climate have created the eastern deciduous forests.
Solebury Township lies well north and inland of ‘the fall line’ that separates the rolling hills and clay soils of the Piedmont Province from the flat, sandy Coastal Plain. Cities such as Philadelphia and Trenton were settled along this fall line, which generally marked the furthest navigable point along major rivers.
The topography of Solebury Township largely can be characterized as an upland, with broad, rolling areas averaging 300 to 400 feet above sea level in the northern part of the township, 200 to 300 feet in the central Aquetong valley, and 100 to 200 feet in the southern Pidcock Creek valley. The Delaware River cuts an abrupt and relatively narrow valley through the upland, lined by dramatic palisades, particularly in the northern part of the township. Elevations along the river shore range from approximately 20 feet at the Upper Makefield border to 60 feet at the Plumstead border. The general lay of the land gradually slopes southward and eastward toward lower Bucks County and toward the Delaware River, and comprises the headwaters of numerous small streams. These streams cut deep narrow ravines as they approach their confluence with the Delaware River, particularly the Paunacussing, Cuttalossa, and Copper Nose creeks and Laurel Run. In the southern part of the township, the lower uplands are dramatically punctuated by long ridgelines nearing 500 feet in elevation. These ridges are found atop lines of resistant diabase, and are known locally as Solebury Mountain and Bowmans Hill. Buckingham Mountain in neighboring Buckingham is an extension of this same diabase area.
Although most of Solebury Township can be characterized as gently rolling, scattered areas of steep slope are found, particularly along the narrow ravines of the Delaware tributaries, the palisades of the Delaware,' and the slopes of Solebury Mountain and Bowmans Hill. Other steep slopes occur in small areas throughout Solebury and help contribute to the variety and interest of the landscape.
Steeply sloped areas are often undevelopable not only for the technical problems they pose, but due to their vulnerability to increased erosion when their vegetative cover is removed and/or they are disturbed through grading. Although erosion is a natural process - indeed it has created many of the earth's landforms - human activities can greatly accelerate this process. Accelerated erosion disturbs soils, water and wildlife resources, both locally and downstream.
When erosion washes soil particles into streams at a faster rate than the stream can handle them, the resultant sedimentation damages the stream ecosystem and threatens aquatic life. Sediment decreases stream capacity, worsening flooding problems. Sedimentation can also wreak havoc upon downstream water supply and industrial intakes. Construction on moderate and steep slopes requires careful attention to structural design, vegetation removal, landscaping, and stormwater management to minimize these effects.
3. Soils
Soil has been one of the most important factors in land use. The soils that had proper slope and sufficient moisture were farmed, and those that were too steep or too wet were used for grazing and woodlots. Soil also has been one of the most abused resources because it has been viewed as limitless and, if scarred, able to heal itself over time. The same qualities of soil that made it viable for agricultural production--slope, drainage and regenerative capabilities--also made it desirable for development. As our dependence on food and forage production within Solebury decreased, and our ability to reshape the landscape and change drainage characteristics increased, the role that soil played in land use was substantially weakened.
104 The wide variations in the chemical and physical properties of the soil, along with the conditions under which they are found make soils mapping one of the most useful planning tools. Soils mapping, particularly detailed mapping specific to individual development plans, helps enable appropriate planning decisions, such as placement of roads and buildings, suitability for septic effluent renovation, and potential groundwater recharge, as well as decisions relative to preservation of special or unusual wildlife habitats.
According to the Soil Survey of Bucks and Philadelphia Counties, Pennsylvania, considerable variation exists in the types of soils covering Solebury Township. For purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the following soils groupings are highlighted:
Prime Agricultural Soils Alluvial Soils Hydric Soils Soils with Shallow Depth to Bedrock
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), has recently completed revised soils mapping for Bucks County. For the most part, mapped soils are 4 consistent in their characteristics with the formerly accepted mapping. Some variations are noted, including a more narrowly defined area of alluvial soils along the Delaware River, a less extensive network of hydric soils (particulariy in upland headwaters), and slightly less extensive area of soils I with shallow depth to bedrock along the Paunacussing and Cuttalossa Creeks.
Prime Agricultural Soils
A review of the Solebury Township soils reveals a fact well-known to local farmers: much of the area is widely covered by valuable agricultural soils. The NRCS classifies soils, among other I characteristics, for their suitability for agricultural use. Prime agricultural soils (Classes I and 11) are soils that are deep, not prone to erosion, nearly level, well-drained, and generally devoid of stones and rocks. The gently sloping topography of the upland areas in Solebury, combined with the nature 1 of the soils, has allowed full development into mature, fertile soils. In the absence of agriculture, these soils could support a richly mixed forest of oak, beech, and hickory. Prime agricultural soils are I especially predominant in the northern and central upland areas of the township. Alluvial Soils
I Alluvial soils have resulted from the repeated deposition of floodwater sediments over millennia; they indicate not only past, but potential future flooding. Floodplains often comprise alluvial soils, and are low-lying areas of land, adjacent to bodies of water, and often at risk for unpredictable, I recurrent, and possibly life-threatening inundations of floodwaters. Floodplains provide a critical overflow area during particularly heavy storms; one clear hazard of settlement in a floodplain is danger to human important life. But floodplains also support natural functions which are critical to I the long-term health of the ecological system, including: agricultural and timber productivity; groundwater recharge areas; fertile areas for the growth of vegetation (which stabilizes stream banks and traps sediment, minimizing sedimentation); and finally, wildlife habitat corridors and resting areas. In Solebury, alluvial soils are found along the Delaware River, and, to a lesser extent, in major tributary stream valleys.
105 Floodplains, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Flood Insurance Program, also have been mapped for this Comprehensive Plan. These extend considerably further up the reaches of the stream valleys than does the mapping of alluvial soils, incorporating considerable areas mapped as hydric soils.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are soils that are formed under anaerobic or saturated conditions; they are a strong indicator of possible wetlands. (See separate discussion of Water Resources). Hydric soils lie along the stream corridors, and extend in finger-like branches into lower-lying areas, and seeps and springs at headwaters throughout the township. Such soils frequently exhibit very shallow depth to seasonal water table. Hydric soils are not generally suitable for development. They may cause wet basement problems and will not adequately absorb wastewater. Pollutants of any sort might easily enter the groundwater system through these soils, potentially contaminating water supply sources or reappearing in surface waters downstream.
Soils with Shallow Depth to Bedrock
Soils with shallow depth to bedrock are frequently unsuitable for any extensive development. Such soils are indicators of locations where wastewater^ disposal systems are unlikely to be permitted due to the potential for groundwater pollution through proximate fracture zones in the bedrock, along with insufficient soil depth to properly renovate wastewater.
Mapping of soils with shallow depth to bedrock also can indicate a likely need for significant excavation of rock and potential need for blasting, if even minor changes to existing grade are needed to accommodate development. In Solebury Township, soils with shallow depth to bedrock are concentrated along the steeply sloping valley “walls” of the Paunacussing and Cuttalossa Creeks, Coppernose Run, and the upper portion of the Delaware River. In addition, a large area of soil with shallow depth to bedrock is found atop the Brunswick geologic formation adjacent to New Hope Borough. This, somewhat ironically, is the area of most intense development in Solebury Township, but it also is the area where public sewer service exists or is planned.
4. Water Resources
Water Resources is broadly defined as the totality of the various components, which we understand as part of the water cycle. These components include precipitation, stormwater runoff, infiltration, water supply from groundwater, and stream flow. Each of these components is &ked and a change in one will (by laws of physics and nature) cause a change in another. The most critical water resource issues relative to land use planning efforts are water quality and quantity. Water resources within Solebury Township are inextricably connected to daily life, wildlife and vegetation, and can be affected significantly by development. This section is intended to review strategies to maintain a sustainable and viable water system in the context of on-going development and explore means to mitigate the effectsof development through appropriate planning and other means.
106 The Water Cycle
The concept of the water cycle is key to understanding water resources. Figure 1 illustrates in simplified form the essential dynamics of the water cycle.
Figure 1: Generalized Water Cycle
The water cycle arrows make the point of continuous movement. Of all the aspects of the water cycle that must be emphasized, its dynamic quality -- the never-ending cycling from atmosphere to the land and then to surface and groundwater pathways and back to the atmosphere -- probably is most critical to appreciate. The often-heard observation that we drink the same water today that the Indians drank hundreds of years ago is a reflection of this continuous cycling and recycling.
107 Figure 2 Detailed Water Cycle/ Water Budget
I I 15" . wm 15" - Rcsrvoit
---)rnfilmh.36" 37"
1" I.
II
45"
I
The water cycle, or " water budget," includes a variety of components that can be diagrammed in greater detail with a relatively simple system flow chart (Figure 2). This diagram also indicates the relative quantity represented by each component (the example diagrammed is based on total annual precipitation of 45 inches, which would represent a fairly average year in Solebury). It is important to appreciate that the water system itself is a closed loop, a giant continuum interrelating precipitation, groundwater, and surface water. What goes in must come out. Impacts on one part of the cycle by definition create comparable impacts elsewhere in the cycle. If inputs to infiltration are decreased by 10 inches, then inputs to surface runoff and/or depression storage must be comparably increased by this amount.
Planning and management actions that do not account for the critical interdependence of all of the different components of the water cycle are likely to be seriously flawed.
108 Precipitation
The water cycle begins with precipitation. Precipitation data is based on precipitation gauges and includes data recorded over many years at many different stations. Official weather station data from nearby stations at Lambertville, NJ and Neshaminy Falls, PA report average annual rainfall (1961-1990) of 45.43 inches and 47.47 inches respectively. Precipitation can vary dramatically from I. year to year, as indicated in Figure 3, which shows annual precipitation between 1970 and 1993. Rainfall tends to be rather evenly distributed across the months of the year, as indicated by average monthly precipitation, charted below.
Average Monthly Precipitation in Bucks County, PA (from Bucks County Conservation District)
January 3.56 February 3.15 March 4.02 April 4.03 May 3.93 June 3.81 July 4.04 August 4.02 September 4.49 October 3.81 November 4.16 December 4.34 Annual 47.36
Also important to understand is the distribution of rainfall by size of event. Studies of precipitation patterns generally indicate that precipitation occurs mostly during relatively small storm events. If rain gauge records are examined over an extended period for this region, it is apparent that the vast . bulk of storms tend to be smaller than the 1-year storm (a storm which has a 100 percent chance of occurring once during any particular year; the 1-year storm in Bucks County happens to be 2.4 inches of precipitation during a 24-hour period). Collectively, those small events also account for as much as 85 percent of total annual precipitation. Using long-term precipitation records, recurrence intervals for different size storms have been estimated, typically defined as precipitation occurring during a 24-hour period, as follows:
Storm Events in Bucks Countv Size of Storm Precipitation (in) 1year 2.3 2 year 3.0 5 year 4.0 10 year 4.8 25 year 5.3 50 year 6.0 100 year 6.7
109 Groundwater and Stream Basejow
As indicated in the water cycle diagrams, precipitation can take several routes after falling to earth. Infiltration and surface runoff are of most interest. Infiltration is defined as that precipitation which is absorbed into the ground. It is clear from the diagram that infiltration and runoff work in opposition--that any action which increases surface runoff means infiltration decreases and vice versa. Land development creates both impervious surfaces and pervious surfaces such as lawns, both of which result in reduced quantities of infiltration when compared with the pre-development condition. Important here is the pre-development vegetation at the site; existing stands of forest or meadow and even scrub vegetation allow for considerably more infiltration than will occur with a post-development lawn on a disturbed and at least partially compacted soil base. Land development has come to mean a significant change in the natural landscape, including creation of impervious surfaces, clearing of dense vegetation and replacement with far less absorbent lawns, plus substantial compaction of the soil mantle. The result is increased surface runoff. Figure 4 (below) demonstrates the impact, contrasting a Natural Ground Cover scenario with 10-20 percent impervious, 35-50 percent impervious, and 75-100 percent impervious scenarios. Increasing surface runoff volume translates into significantly reduced volumes of infiltration, with significant consequences later in the water cycle. ,
A critical water cycle issue here involves the groundwater reservoir component, also commonly referred to as groundwater or aquifer recharge. Decreases in infiltration by definition mean decreases in recharge of the groundwater reservoir. Groundwater moves gradually through a myriad of pathways, ultimately flowing out steadily in the form of stream baseflow. "The movement of groundwater normally ocms as slow seepage through the pore spaces between particles of unconsolidated earth materials or through networks of fractures and solution openings in consolidated rocks. A velocity of one foot per day or greater is a high rate of movement for groundwater, and groundwater velocities can be as low as one foot per year or one foot per decade. In contrast, velocities of stream flow generally are measured in feet per second." 1
In Southeastern Pennsylvania, the direction of groundwater movement, while slow, otherwise tends to mirror surface water flow. This is in contrast to other parts of the country where geological conditions give rise to underground rivers or vast confined underground reservoirs, put in place millions of years ago. Exceptions to the normal similarity between surface and groundwater flow patterns also exist in this region and in Solebury Township, most notably when limestone formations are encountered. The porosity of such geology, compounded by the presence of open underground channels, can significantly alter normal groundwater flow patterns.
' P. 8 USGS W.R.
110 I Figure 3 Annual Precipitation at Lambertville NJ (USGS 1994a) I
I I I I I I
Contrary to popular belief, a relatively small proportion of stream flow is comprised of stormwater I runoff. Much of the time, stream flow consists of stream baseflow discharged from the groundwater system. “The contribution of groundwater to total streamflow varies widely among streams, but hydrologists estimate the average contribution is somewhere between 40 and 50 percent in small and I medium-sized streams.”Z While stormwater causes sudden surges in stream flow at isolated points in time, stream baseflow discharged from groundwater occurs continuously, a reflection of the I continuous movement occurring within the groundwater system.3 I I I p. 7 USGS W.R. I p. 8 USGS W.R. I 111
~~ Figure 4 Stormwater Runoff Impacts Resulting from Land Development
40% A Eveqm - transpirelion tansplrallon Natural 10-20% ' Ground Paved Cover Surfaces 10% Runoff 1 20% Runofi I 21 % Deep' 25% ShaIbW Shallow Deep InlUlraUon V tntittration 25%
35% I Evapo- Evapo.. lransplration lranspiretlon 35.50% 75-100% Paved Paved , Surfaces 65% Run& surfaces 30% Aunofl 4-L' 20% Shallow 0-P Shallow Inliltrelion IntiltraUon InlUtra!lon htiilrah 15% . . . . -...... , . . . ..- _... - . . .. :Tvplcalchanges In runoff rehting from paved 8urfarces.
Reduction in the infiltration component of the water cycle will result in reductions in the groundwater reservoir. As such reductions continue acre-by-acre, development-by-development, their cumulative effect grows larger. As the effects accumulate, groundwater reservoir depletion grows more serious, and the water table, the uppermost surface of this groundwater reservoir, will decline. Figure 5 (below) illustrates a simplified pre-development situation in cross-section, where normal precipitation patterns combine with natural vegetation to produce a partidar groundwater reservoir or aquifer condition. In the post-development Figure 6 (below), well water supply and impervious surfaces have been developed, resulting in reduced inputs to and subtractions from the groundwater reservoir. The water table declines. If the effect of drought further reducing groundwater reservoir inputs and further lowering the water table is added into the equation, the cumulative effects of development and drought become quite significant. Springs and streams-- especially headwaters streams--are jeopardized and may even dry up. Wells, especially older shallow wells, may fail, and wetlands, fed by groundwater discharge, will be adversely affected. In addition, public safety is endangered when the water table drops below the porous surface soils where sewage effluents and loam chemicals are not evenly attenuated (dispersed). When the water table is in the bedrock, the time water spends in the porous soils decreases substantially, leading to higher concentrations of pathogens and chemicals in groundwater supplies.
112 I I I 1 I
I Figure 5 Pre-Development Water Cycle in Cross Section 1 Adding to the seriousness of the problem is the fact that these impacts are magnified in the headwaters of the total stream system. Headwaters are defined here as “first-order” perennial streams, where the stream system along with its aquatic community originates. In headwaters, I stream baseflow is modest even in pre-development and non-drought conditions. Runoff as a stream flow component drains off most rapidly. Therefore, any subtraction from baseflows in these small streams proportionally has greatest adverse impact. Headwaters are the locations of critical I ecological functioning where exchange of energy from land to water occurs most directly and is most ecologically vital. Even if stream baseflow is not entirely eliminated, due to reductions in infiltration, reductions in flow can occur which also adversely stress the aquatic community in a variety of ways, I well before total depletion occurs. In some cases the groundwater reservoir does not discharge to a stream, but rather to a wetland. I Typically, wetlands are zones of groundwater discharge and are in fact “fed“ and kept alive by the groundwater reservoir. Some wetlands, where located in perched water table conditions, may occur at higher elevations and may not be intersecting groundwater. The persistence of wetness for many .I wetlands is dependent on a relatively stable influx of groundwater throughout changing seasonal I I 113 and annual climatic cycles.4 In most cases, reduced infiltration and a lowered water table ultimately translate into loss of wetlands themselves, if not reduced wetland extent, reduced wetland vibrancy and richness, and other wetland functional losses.
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON GROUNDWATER TABLE
Figure 6 Post Development Water Cycle in Cross Section
It should be noted that this presentation of the water cycle and the groundwater phase of this cycle has been highly simplified. In fact, Solebury's hydrogeological context can be quite complex, as rock types vary from higher capacity formations to tighter and less water-yielding rock. Such variations and complexities notwithstanding, the basic dynamics of this simplified hydro-geological model described above remain valid.
A factor with significant impact to Solebury's groundwater supply has been the continuous pumping at the New Hope Crushed Stone and Lime Company. This quarry is located off of Philips Mill Road, adjacent to the Primrose Creek. The quarry operation and its impacts to groundwater levels and surrounding wells was the subject of a study entitled "Primrose Valley Groundwater Level Study, 1997-1998, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania" as prepared by Vincent Uhl Associates, Inc. for Solebury Township. The study found that over one 10-year period (1987 through 1996), the reported discharge from quarry pumpage averaged 1.75 million gallons per day. The quarry began operations in the late 1800s. Pumping has been a common practice for over 40 years. The report notes that the
p. 42 USGS W.R.
114 I
long-term pumping for quarry dewatering has resulted in the development of a hydrologic sink for groundwater and surface water. As such, Primrose Creek has become a losing stream in the valley as the top of the water table is currently well below the bottom of the stream. Likewise, groundwater flow in the immediate vicinity is directed from all four compass directions to the quarry pumping center.
I The report concludes “the data and historical record are definitive in their depiction of a deep cone- of-water-level depression present in the valley as a result of the quarry pumpage. This cone reaches outside the valley itself and extends into a small drainage basin to the northeast of the quarry.” The I report recommends monitoring water levels in the area (immediate and long-term), further study of the water balance in the area, and action to correct imbalances where feasible. Any proposed development within the area should be carefully reviewed and require a thorough water supply I report. I Water Supply and Wastewater Impacts The goal of water cycle balance requires the integration of all aspects of water -- stormwater, wastewater, water supply -- into a comprehensive management program, which sustains water I resources, water quantity, and water quality. Water supply and wastewater management both figure into the equation in important ways.
In the ideally balanced and sustainable land management program, land development translates into reliance on local (Le., within the watershed) water supplies, in contrast to systems where significant transfer of water from one watershed to another occurs. Land Development often relies on community wells and individual on-site wells. This is true for the majority of Solebury’s residential and nonresidential properties. Most of these wells are private and individually owned and operated by each lot owner (either residential or non-residential). Other properties are served collectively by I community water systems supplied by one or more wells. Whether the water system is an individual on-site or a larger community system, water withdrawals, constitute a subtraction from the groundwater reservoir. Pumpage, large or small, will create a cone of depression5 surrounding the I wellhead itself (Figure 6)where the most significant withdrawal of groundwater occurs. At the same time the entire water table level in the system is reduced. Such reductions to groundwater ultimately result in reductions to stream baseflow.
Water supply and wastewater also are intimately related. In fact, if wastewater is recycled with the proper technologies at or near the source of water supply, groundwater and stream baseflow impacts can be substantially minimized. Conversely, if wastewater is piped away to another watershed or to a point well downstream in the same watershed, then loss to the groundwater and stream baseflow can be total and quite serious. Sewage collection and conveyance systems can actually drain groundwater from areas, especially if the system is older and prone to leaks.
From the standpoint of wastewater management, the keys to sustainability of water quantity is simply to rely on land-based treatment systems which recycle treated wastewater effluent water back to its source, as close to the point of ”origin” as possible. Of course, these objectives are not always achievable. Where soils are poor and impermeable (shallow depth to bedrock, high water table, and other constraints), they are not likely to be acceptable for various approaches to land application of I For more on cones of depression see p. 14 USGS W.R. I 115 I wastewater effluent. Nevertheless, in many developing areas, there are opportunities to achieve sustainability objectives by integrating land-based wastewater treatment, as well as stormwater I treatment into development design from the outset. New technologies such as drip irrigation are expanding the wastewater management toolbox and allowing for greater flexibility even at problem sites. I
In sum, the water quantity impacts resulting from reduced inputs to the groundwater reservoir and stream baseflow, as a result of land development, have serious and far-reaching consequences. I Comprehensive water resources management must strive to recognize the full range of impacts occurring as new land development occurs. Management strategies must strive to maintain as many of these critical water cycle-linked functions as possible. I Stomwater Runofi I The most visible portion of the water cycle, after precipitation, is stormwater runoff. The type of land cover, soils characteristics and slope of the land affect the volume, rate, and quality of runoff. Runoff from any particular property combines with water from adjoining lands and flows overland until it I reaches the nearest waterway (ditch, stream, or river). There are cumulative impacts on both land and waterways from the combined runoff flowing from multiple properties. If existing patterns of runoff are altered on one or more properties, there will be impacts upon the entire system. As I discussed in prior sections, the alteration of runoff patterns will affect groundwater supplies as well as stream flow. I Runoff starts occurring earlier post-development because portions of a site have been made impervious and immediately start to discharge runoff as rain begins to fall. More importantly, post- development uncontrolled runoff rapidly increases and peaks out at a runoff rate level which is I considerably higher than the peak rate of runoff for Pre-Development. (See Figure 7). The extent of this peak rate increase is very much linked to the amount of impervious surface and other land cover changes involved in the development process. If only ten percent or so of a development site were to I be made impervious, for example, then the increase in peak rate would not be so great. If fifty percent of the site is made impervious, the extent of increase in peak rate will be dramatic. (See Figure 4). As critical as the peak rate of runoff (and less frequently accounted for) is the total volume I of stormwater runoff. Figure 7 Hydrograph for Pre Development and Post Development Uncontrolled I 15 1 I I I I I I I I I c s $0 I S 0 .-UJ 05 I I
Time Interval (hrs) I 116 I Peak rate control is a stormwater management strategy in large part designed to protect the adjacent downstream property (Figure 8). That objective usually is acheved. Yet if the perspective is extended to the broader sub-watershed or watershed zone, the effects of increased volume of runoff being discharged along with that from many different sites throughout the watershed are significant. Resulting cumulative watershed impacts are reinforced by real world experiences where whole watersheds or sub-watersheds have been developed with reliance on a “no increase in peak rateldetention basin” philosophy and where flooding has worsened nonetheless. This worsened flooding occurs because all of these increased volumes of water are being released from detention facilities over an extended period of time and thereby adding to flows from other properties with which under pre-development conditions, they would not have interacted. As a result, downstream flows increase, and floodmg worsens in spite of all the detention basin structures. In addition, the overall duration of flood flows can extend tremendously. I
Figure 8 Hydrograph for Post Development with Detention
15- I I I I 1 I I I 1
n 8 Y-
Yo 10
5
Time Interval (hrs)
This increased flooding results in serious impacts to the stream system, affecting its very nature and the health of the aquatic community within that system. Impacts can include:
0 stream bank erosion
0 bank undercutting
0 elimination of meanders changes in the essential morphology of the stream, including channel widening and straightening 0 increased sedimentation and deposition elimination of pools and riffles
0 reduced stream ecological value
Over time, these impacts can transform a high quality stream, with excellent species diversity and richness, into a functional storm sewer.
For instance, sedimentation carried by stormwater runoff has resulted in notable degradation of the Delaware Canal. Problems associated with sedimentation are exacerbated when streams are degraded, as noted above, which discharge into the Canal. A report prepared for Friends of the Delaware Canal, Inc. by Environmental Liability Management, Inc. (April 1999) documents the
117 I
magnitude of the accelerated soil erosion and sediment load rates to the canal, resulting from increased runoff in streams intercepted by the Canal. 1 Water Quality and Stomwater I Nonpoint source pollution -- the mix of pollutants that is washed off the earth's surface with each precipitation event -- is often cited as the primary water quality problem in the nation today. Nonpoint source pollutants vary with type of land use and intensity of land use and have been 1 shown to include bacteria, suspended solids, nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, herbicides and pesticides, toxins, and organic matter. Pollutant loads are generated both from impervious areas which are created ("hot" spots such as gas stations, fast food parking lots, and heavily traveled I roadways are primary culprits) as well as from pervious zones, such as chemically-treated lawns. Some nonpoint pollutants are even air-borne, deposited onto the land surface and then washed into receiving water bodies. Examples of sources of nonpoint pollution include: I vehicles I vegetative decay (leaves, grass, etc.) . direct atmospheric deposition general litter, including pet litter soil erosion I road surface applications (salt, sand, etc.) fertilizer pesticides/herbicides. I
Pollutant-laden stormwater brings obvious water-quality ,impacts to receiving streams. Stormwater management best management practices (BMPs) that promote groundwater infiltration can reduce 8 pollutant loads and improve the quality of runoff before reaching the stream system. However, groundwater impacts of nonpoint source pollutants should also be considered. "Because of generally low groundwater velocities, once contaminants have reached the water table, their movement to I nearby surface-water discharge areas or to deeper parts of the groundwater-flow system is slow. For the same reason, once parts of an aquifer are contaminated, the time required for a return to better water-quality conditions as a result of natural processes is long, even after the original sources of I contamination are no longer active."6
Surface Hydrology - Streams, Rivers and Watersheds I
Surface hydrology refers to bodies of water and to the delineation of and activity of surface water within watersheds. It is also concerned with the amount of stormwater runoff, the direction in which I it flows, and its quality. In Solebury, the regional focus of the hydrologic system is the Delaware River. The Delaware River forms the eastern boundary to Solebury and separates it from New Jersey. The Delaware is an I important water source for several metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States. It serves domestic, agricultural, and industrial needs. More locally, it is an important scenic and recreational resource, and it supports a diverse plant and wildlife community. It is, of course, a critical element in I stormwater and floodplain management. I p. 59 USGS W.R. 1 118 I I
I There are several streams in Solebury that are significant for their scenic and recreation value as well as their sensitivity to stormwater impacts and their contributions to wildlife. The Paunacussing, Cuttalossa, and Laurel Run creeks are notable for the topographic conditions surrounding them and I for the attractive mature and contiguous vegetation that borders them. These larger streams along with the many small streams throughout the township are important for their role in stormwater management, erosion control, and maintaining water quality. The streams also contribute to the I overall beauty of the landscape and create a highly valued quality of life. Wildlife and their habitats are also dependent on the quality of the stream corridor.’ All of these issues are important to the I protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Solebury residents. I Watersheds A watershed encompasses the land area that drains to a particular watercourse. There are three major watersheds that drain Solebury - the Paunacussing, Aquetong Creek, and Pidcock Creek, I which all drain to the Delaware River. These watersheds are relatively small, thus creating a network that is sensitive to increases in stormwater runoff. Management of land use impacts to this network I is critical. The Paunacussing drains the northwestern sector of the Township from midway between Honey Hollow and Mechanicsville Roads west into Plumstead Township. There are numerous small 1 tributaries in Solebury as well as Buckingham and Plumstead Townships. Two branches merge in the center of the village of Carversville and flow to the Delaware River parallel to Fleecydale Road. Flooding in the Carversville area is a problem to which a satisfactory and affordable solution has yet I to be found.
The Aquetong Creek watershed is the largest in Solebury. There are many small tributaries and I minor branches with a main branch becoming obvious east of Reeder Road. The limestone geologic belt coursing throughout the Township is located almost entirely within the Aquetong Creek I watershed. This watershed drains to the Delaware, in New Hope Borough. Pidcock Creek drains the southeastern end of Solebury Township. The headwaters of the northern branch of the Creek are in neighboring Buckingham Township. A southern branch begins in I Wrightstown Township and flows through Buckingham and Upper Makefield Townships before it enters Solebury at Street Road. The Pidcock Creek joins the Delaware River in Washington Crossing I State Park. There are also several other minor watersheds that drain directly into the Delaware. They include Copper Nose Creek, Cuttalossa Creek, Laurel Run, Primrose Creek, Rabbit Run, and Dark Hollow I Run.
A small area of the Township, along its western boundary, is in the Neshaminy Creek watershed and I drains into Buckingham Township. The watersheds are delineated on the Water Resources Map. I ’ A stream corridor typically means the stream itself, the adjoining floodplain, wetlands and hydric soils and associated steep slopes that roughly parallel a stream for portions of its length.
119 I
Wetlands and Floodplains ‘ I Surface hydrology also includes wetlands and floodplains. Wetlands are defined by a high water table, soil type, and vegetation. Hydric soils also may indicate wetlands because of their high water table and typical soil types. It is not always possible to use vegetation as an indicator of the presence I of wetlands because the soils may occur in an area where vegetation was not allowed to grow (e.g., on a farmfield). The presence of hydric soils should precipitate the need for further site analysis. I Wetlands are valuable for their aquifer recharge potential, and they also act as holding and cleansing areas for stormwater. They support vegetation and wildlife and are often part of breeding and travel corridors. They are not usually suitable for developed uses without special protection. Within the I last decade, wetlands have come to be recognized as an important natural resource that cannot be replaced. In the past, wetlands have been abused by being filled, developed, or otherwise destroyed. Local, state, and national efforts are now calling for the protection of wetlands by designating them I as “critical areas“.
Floodplains are typically flat areas of land bordering streams or rivers that are periodically inundated I by floodwaters. Generally, less frequent rainstorms of severe intensity cause the entire natural floodplain to flood. It is desirable to limit development on floodplains because of the damage flooding can cause. Floodplains are important as aquifer recharge areas and for wildlife habitat. I They also serve an additional purpose by acting as a natural filter of stormwater runoff. They help to purify the runoff before it reaches the flowing water. Furthermore, floodplains act as a natural buffer between the stream and a developed use. The buffer usually has scenic as well as practical value. I Finally, floodplains often provide suitable areas for accessing the river, thereby offering recreational opportunities to the public. I Floodplain boundaries have been delineated on the Water Resources Map, based on mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEW) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodplain boundaries are not static. In fact, they shift according to other I activities that are occurring within the floodplain, on wetlands, or the watershed. For example, development on a floodplain that reduces the amount of pervious cover will typically increase the size of the floodplain. Building and landfills on the floodplain also obstruct and magnify the force of I floodwaters. These obstructions displace an equivalent volume in floodwater which is forced to overflow onto areas which were previously free of flooding. Left unmanaged, continued development on a floodplain - more impervious surfaces, more obstructions, greater volumes - will I continuously increase the size of the floodplain. The risk of destruction is too great to permit development on the floodplain. Similarly, increased runoff caused by development within the watershed can also increase the size of the floodplain. I 5. Vegetation & Wildlife (Biodiversity) I Biodiversity (an abbreviation of biological diversity) can be described as “the rich variety of native vegetation and wildlife and the habitats on which they depend.” Solebury Township includes a rich natural landscape of woodlands, meadows, hedgerows, wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, and a river I that support thousands of species of native plants and wildlife. This diversity provides numerous benefits and ecosystem services to the residents of the township and should be evaluated for protection as part of the necessary green infrastructure of a healthy, growing community. The nahral I systems of plants, animals, soils and water that make up Solebury’s biodiversity are nature’s life- I 120 I I
I support systems, providing clean air and water, and regulating climate extremes and flooding. Local biodiversity directly supports timber production and provides opportunities for residents and others to enjoy scenery, recreation, environmental education, hunting, fishing, birdwatching, and outdoor I activities.
This section evaluates Solebury's vegetation and wildlife and their habitats, the community benefits I they provide, and the issues affecting them, and prescribes strategies for ensuring their protection as part of balanced growth. c The Natural Cornrnunifies of Solebu y Township
Solebury is situated in the northern Piedmont section of the Eastern Deciduous Forest. Its dominant I natural vegetation is mixed-oak and oak-hickory forest, with four main habitat types:
0 Woodlands; I Successional Lands (meadows, old fields, thickets); 0 Wetlands; I 0 Streams (from small tributaries to the Delaware River). These natural areas provide habitat for a wide variety of native vegetation and wildlife, particularly where they occur in large, interconnected networks. The most functional habitat networks for native I species can best be understood as core reserve natural areas linked together by natural corridors These natural areas and corridors are not distinct, they often overlap in places such as forested wetlands, forested stream corridors, wetland meadows. In fact, some of the most diverse natural I areas in the township are those areas where two habitat types come together.
The Natural Areas Inventory of Bucks County (the Invenfory) documents an incredible diversity of plants P and animals, most of which can be found in Solebury Township. These include: 2,038 species of plant (the greatest diversity of any Pennsylvania county); 135 species of breeding birds and 117 species of transient or occasional visiting birds; 10 species of turtles; 15 species of snakes; 11 species of frogs and i toads; 12 salamander species and 2 lizard species; over 40 species of large and small mammals; a variety of cold-water and warm-water fish species; and a vast number of mosses, lichens, algae, fungi, microorganisms and invertebrates (butterflies - at least 30 species - other insects, freshwater i mussels). From the smallest insects and lichens to top predators such as bobcats and bald eagles, Solebury plays an important role in supporting biodiversity along the rapidly growing lower I Delaware River watershed. Woodlands
I Woodlands in Solebury occur as a scattered patchwork quilt of various sizes, shapes, ages and types. Topography, hydrology, and soils are the most influential natural factors in determining woodland types. These variations are important in supporting Solebury's rich diversity of plants and animals I species. Woodlands play a vital role in recharging groundwater and reducing stormwater runoff and flooding in the township through their ability to intercept rainfall and direct it down toward aquifers through root systems and forest soils. Solebury's woodlands promote clear! air by producing oxygen I and reducing carbon dioxide, and also moderate temperature and wind extremes experienced by residents. Some of the most scenic areas and popular recreational and educational sites in the i township are found in woodlands. I 121 Large Upland forest (> 100 acres). The wooded diabase ridge in the southern end of the township (Solebury Mountain) supports a dry, acidic red oak-mixed hardwood forest type with rich hemlock - mesic hardwood forest slopes that represent one of the largest and most interconnected remaining woodlands in Solebury. Though fragmented by occasional roads, utility lines and residential developments, the series of woodlands of 50 to 100 acres or more along this ridge form a nearly continuous corridor from the Delaware River at Washington Crossing State Park to the Buckingham Mountain area at the township line just below Lahaska. The Natural Areas Inventory of Bucks County (the Inventory) identifies Bowmans Hill and Pidcock Creek together as one of thirty-nine Priority 3 sites of county-wide significance for conservation. The Inventory describes the site as follows:
”Bowmans Hill, a slightly disjunct continuation of the diabase ridge that forms Jericho Mountain, straddles the boundary between Upper Makefield and Solebury Townships. The forested slopes on the north and east sides are the site of the Bowmans Hill Wildflower Preserve, established in 1934. A stone observation tower commemorating a Revolutionary War lookout is located on the eastern end of the hill. Bowmans Hill has been suggested as a potential geological natural landmark (Butler et al. 1975), it is also a site well known by birders who have recorded 59 bird species, including 11 rare breeders. In addition to the many native plants introduced to the site, Bowmans Hill has a naturally occurring stand of a rare native orchid, Spring coralroot.
The Wildflower Preserve also includes the lower portion of the Pidcock Creek Valley. Pidcock Creek drains the area between Jericho Mountain and Solebury Mountain and is known for its high bird diversity, 67 species, including eight rare breeders and one species of special concern.” (Rhoads and Block, 1999)
A second major block of upland forest is situated on a narrow plateau above the Delaware River just south of Center Bridge and adjacent to the Laurel Run valley. This woodland is valuable as part of the upland forest habitat bordering the Delaware River Corridor, providing excellent habitat and an important stopover point for migratory birds. Woodlands of this size, known as deep woods or forest-interior habitat, support conditions of shade, dense understory vegetation, and moist soils that are closest to those found throughout the region prior to European settlement in the late 17th century. These refuges from intensive human activity are critically important habitats for many species of native plants and wildlife, including migratory songbirds such as warblers and wildflowers such as orchids.
Forested Stream Corridors
Solebury’s natural landscape includes several of the most pristine forested stream valleys in Bucks County and a number of streams bordered by more narrow woodland corridors. These forested stream corridors vary greatly in width and length, yet they constitute some of the most important habitat for native plants and animals living within and along streams in the township. -
, There is a direct correlation between presence of streamside (or riparian) woodlands and the quality of the stream ecosystem. Riparian woodlands provide shade and organic matter to support aquatic organisms such as larvae and nymphs that form the base of the food web in a stream. They also provide important ecosystem services to the community by stabilizing streambanks, reducing erosion and sedimentation, moderating flooding, and filtering out pollutants from runoff. Forested stream corridors also provide important habitats to support stable populations of species such as mink, Louisiana waterthrush, freshwater mollusks, native brook trout and spotted salamander.
122 Red maple-sycamore is the forest type frequently found in the broader floodplains along limestone streams in the central portion of the township, whereas the steeper stream valleys in the Stockton Sandstone Formation in the northern half of the township have narrow floodplains and support more of a mixed-hardwood forest type with some hemlock.
The Paunacussing Creek, Cuttalossa Creek, and Laurel Run corridors bordering the Delaware River each support healthy, diverse forested slopes and narrow ravines with relatively high quality stream ecosystems. The Cuttalossa Creek valley is identified as a Priority 2 site in the Natural Areas Inventoy of Bucks County due to its forested stream and sloping woodlands habitat, which supports at least 59 bird species including 8 rare breeding bird species. Along Laurel Run, The Inventory describes the David R. Johnson Natural Area as a State-managed Priority 4 site three-quarters of a mile northwest of Center Bridge. The site is noted for its rich hemlock - mesic hardwood forest, red oak - mixed hardwood forest, and a variety of amphibians in the stream.
Delaware River Corridor
The Delaware River is one of Pennsylvania's great natural waterways, and the corridor defining the eastern boundary of Solebury Township is characterized by some of the most diverse and interesting 1 stretches of the river. The area supports steep forested slopes with mixed hardwoods, hemlock, and rhododendron, sloping down abruptly to the floodplain forests of sycamore-river birch-box elder along the river's edge. The corridor forms a critical link in the Atlantic Flyway, the major migratory route for birds in eastern North America, Federally-listed species such as Bald Eagle and Osprey can both be found feeding along the Delaware River.
The Natural Areas Inventoy of Bucks County lists Hendrick Island and the Hal Clark County Park and adjacent areas of Delaware Canal State Park as Priority 3 sites for conservation. Hendrick Island is noted for its diverse vegetation, including silver maple floodplain forest, sugar maple-basswood il forest, young river birch-sycamore floodplain forest, river beach bar community, and the largest butternut (Juglanscincera) tree in Pennsylvania. The Inventory describes Hendrick Island as follows:
"This 112 acre Delaware River island is located just north of Center Bridge. It was formerly inhabited and farmed, a bridge linking it to the Pennsylvania shore was washed out in 1955. The island is the site of archaeological studies focusing on use by native tribes from 3000 BC to 1000 AD. As is typical li of river islands, it is wedge-shaped with scoured sand and cobble deposits at the upper end and elevated bluffs and ridges with mature forest toward the lower end. The interior of the island contains riparian Sugar maple (Acer sacchariurn) forest and a diversity of other mature trees along the eastern edge. Many nonnative weedy species are present in successional old fields that were previously farmed. Hendrick Island became part of Delaware Canal State Park in December 1996."
Hal Clark County Park and adjacent areas of Delaware Canal State Park are prioritized in the Natural Areas Inventory due to the combination of riparian forest (sugar maple-basswood and red maple-black gum) and floodplain forest (sycamore-river birch-box elder) along the shores of the Delaware River, successional old fields, forested wetlands, and a portion of the Delaware Canal. A large population of Common hop-tree, a shrub listed in Pennsylvania as threatened, was also noted. ~B I I 123 Small Woodland Networks
The majority of the woodlands in Solebury are small (2 to 20 acre) woodlands commonly found in the central and northern sections of the township. Many-of these are woodlots managed for lumber and firewood by local landowners. These woodlots have noticeably square boundaries that follow roads and property lines, and are often interconnected by hedgerows following fence lines. While trees . have been regularly harvested in these woodlots, these may be among the oldest continuously- managed woodlands in the township. The network of small woodlands linked by hedgerows and streams plays an important role in connecting the natural fabric of habitat found in larger woodland networks. Without them, even larger woodland networks become more isolated and their diversity can be expected to decline.
Wetlands
Solebury Township’s network of lakes, ponds, emergent wetlands, wet meadows, scrub-shrub wetlands, and forested wetlands represent a variety of habitats for plants and animals created by the intersection of soil and water. Over 50 percent of the wildlife species inhabiting Pennsylvania depend on wetland habitats for at least a portion of their food, cover, or reproduction requirements. The diversity of birds, reptiles and amphibians in the township would be greatly diminished without a healthy number of wetlands of all types.
The most unusual of these wetlands, listed for countywide importance in the Bucks County Natural Areas Inventory happen to be man-made lakes. Aquetong Lake and Ingham Spring are together listed as one of thirty-three Priority 2 Sites in the Natural Areas Znventory of Bucks County, indicating county- wide significance due to their overall quality and diversity and the importance of their resources. The site, located on Route 202 approximately one-half mile east of Lahaska, is defined in the Natural Areas Inventory as follows:
“This site consists of a limestone spring located on the edge of the Holicong Valley and a 15-acre artificial lake below the spring. The lake is an important wintering site for birds as the temperature of the water emanating from the spring prevents it from freezing. Ingham Spring, which has a yield of 2,000 gallons per minute, is the largest spring in Bucks County and is identified as an outstanding scenic geological feature of Pennsylvania.” (Geyer and Bolles, 1987) (Rhoads and Block, 1999).
Sugan Lake is listed in the Inventory as one of the thirty-nine Priority 3 sites of county-wide significance in Bucks County. As described in the Inventory, ‘’This site consists of a six-acre lake formed by a dam on Aquetong Creek. Rich deciduous forest clothes the slopes above the lake and includes diverse spring herbaceous flora. Waterfowl are abundant.“ (Rhoads and Block, 1999)
In addition, Solebury includes a number of wetlands associated with limestone sinkholes, primarily along the western boundary of the township. These are areas where the underlying limestone geology has deteriorated and collapsed, causing subsidence of soils at the surface. These sinkholes frequently form wetlands with high water table. Forested wetlands, open marshes, or wet sedge meadows may result. These areas also provide important habitat for reptiles and amphibians such as frogs, salamanders, and turtles.
124 Other wetland habitats can be found where seeps and springs emerge at the headwaters of streams or along broader floodplains. Forested wetlands tend to grow in areas without recent disturbance, whereas open wet meadows or emergent marshes tend to occur in areas that have been historically cleared and drained for agriculture. The recolonization of beavers in the area reintroduces one of the original natural creators of open wetland habitats. By cutting trees and building dams, beavers remove riparian woodlands and create flooded environments that favor herbaceous plants such as sedges, rushes and wetland wildflowers. Beaver dams may also create wet meadows in streamside areas previously supporting pasture, cropland or lawn areas.
Successional Lands
Successional lands in Solebury Township can generally be described as areas that have recently been abandoned from agricultural use and that have reached various stages of regrowth. Successional lands ranging from meadows to old fields to thickets are important habitats for vegetation and wildlife, particularly where they provide buffers or corridors between other natural areas. They add to the variety of ecosystem services provided by other habitat types, particularly as natural alternatives to lawn or paved areas.
Open space areas in the early stage (1 to 5 years) of succession are generally considered meadows or grasslands. Some landowners prefer to manage these areas by once or twice annual mowing, to encourage grassland habitat for species such as wildflowers, butterflies and grassland nesting birds, and to maintain the aesthetics of an open, rural landscape without the cost and environmental impacts associated with lawn care.
Without disturbance such as mowing or burning over a 5 to 10 year period, abandoned fields will reach the old field stage of succession. While this stage may not be considered as aesthetically pleasing as a wildflower meadow, the mixture of grassland vegetation, shrubs and young trees supports a wide diversity of wildlife species and provides excellent bird habitat.
Between 10 and 15 years the woody trees and shrubs become dominant, forming thickets as the last stage before becoming a young woodland. These thickets include fast growing pioneer trees such as black walnut, black cherry, ash, sassafras and red maple that help to establish a young woodland. Unfortunately, many thickets are dominated by non-native invasive vines and shrubs such as oriental bittersweet, Japanese honeysuckle, mile-a-minute weed, and mu1 tiflora rose. Without selective management, these species will out-compete young trees and prevent establishment of woodlands.
Threats to Biodiversity
The greatest threat to biodiversity in Solebury Township is the destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat due to development.
The Natural Areas Inventory of Bucks County states that "the most important threats to the conservation of natural resources and biological diversity in Bucks County are incompatible land use resulting in destruction or degradation of habitat, fragmentation, altered hydrology, pollution, invasive exotic species, and excessive browsing by overly abundant deer." The natural landscape of forests, streams, and wetlands and the species it supports has undergone centuries of intensive alteration. Forests have been cleared, streams have been dammed, and wetlands have been drained.
125 For the past 50 years, however, Solebury’s natural areas have been experiencing a dual trend - a process of regeneration and fragmentation. Much of the land cleared for farming has been left to regenerate as woodland and wetland areas. Abandoned agricultural fields are growing up with grasses, wildflowers, trees and shrubs. Wetlands once drained for agriculture are reverting back to wetlands. Old mill and pond dams are no longer in use, allowing streams to once again flow freely. Yet amidst all of this regeneration, suburban development has been steadily fragmenting and isolating those newly expanded natural areas. While it may take a woodland or wetland 20 years to grow back following abandonment from cattle grazing, it only takes a construction company a matter of weeks to clear the native vegetation and begin building roads and houses.
Suburban roads, large residential lots, highway commercial shopping areas and officelindustrial parks are rapidly fragmenting the habitats that have rebounded over the last half-century. Increasing numbers of woodlands, successional lands, streams and wetlands are becoming fragmented by development, resulting in isolated pockets of habitat that are too small, too isolated, too irregular in shape, and too poor in quality to support viable populations of the native plants and animals that once inhabited the area. Lawns and pavement are biological deserts compared to the rich habitats they replace. The resulting environment favors the hearty habitat generalist species such as white tailed deer, Japanese honeysuckle and Canada geese that can adapt to urbanized areas, and excludes the more vulnerable habitat specialists such as minks, bald eagles, and native orchids that depend on specific, undisturbed habitats. One of the habitat generalists, the white tailed deer, itself poses a threat to natural diversity and to human health. The overpopulation of deer in Solebury has diminished both natural and scenic landscapes through the overgrazing of natural habitats and the destruction of cultivated plants. In addition, the deer population poses a signhcant threat to public safety because of the role deer play in the increasing incidence of Lyme Disease as well as the hazard they pose to motorists on township roads.
I Opportunities for Protecting and Restoring Solebu y ’s Biodiversity
The Natural Areas Inventory of Bucks County concludes that ”meaningful protection of natural biological diversity, including rare species and their habitats, depends on maintaining functioning ecosystems that have long term sustainability.” In Solebury this means that sufficiently large, healthy examples of each of the natural areas described above must be protected from destruction or degradation and, whenever possible, these should be maintained, restored and expanded as interconnected networks of habitat. The following strategies are recommended:
Strategy 1 Prioritize Natural Areas Networks based on Core Reserues and Natural Corridors
Establish priority networks (Natural Area Networks) of natural areas and corridors for protection to support Solebury’s diversity of native plants and wildlife. Natural Area Networks listed here include both Core Reserves and Natural Corridors, and generally represent the largest, most interconnected, highest quality, most mature, diverse, or least common habitats. While these recommendations represent a thorough assessment of available information, a more detailed and comprehensive assessment and prioritization of Natural Areas Networks should be considered, combining a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and database with detailed field surveys of vegetation and wildlife populations and habitats.
126 The recommended Natural Areas Networks are:
Core Reserves (Major): I Center Bridge Woodland Aquetong Lakefingham Spring Sugan Lake I- Bowman’s HillPidcock Creek
Core Reserves (Minor): I Forest-Interior Habitats ( > 30 acres in area, round/square in shape) Broad Successional Areas (> 3 acres in area) 1 Broad Wetland Areas (> 1 acre in area) Natural Corridors (Maior): Delaware River Corridor t Paunacussing Creek Cutalossa Creek Laurel Run I Solebury Mountain
Natural Corridors !Minor): d Stream corridors (floodplain width) Utility/transportation right-of-ways (electric, gas, fiber optic, railroad)
1 Strategy 2 Solebury Natural Areas lnitiative
I Major Core Reserves and Major Natural Corridors are recommended as Highest Priority conservation areas which should be protected as nature preserves as part of a long-term Soleburv Natural Areas Initiative. This Initiative should involve direct conservation techniques such as acquisition of land or a conservation easements by a public/private partnership of township, land trusts/conservancies, county or state parks agencies, or other conservation groups. Acquisition of land or easements in these areas will likely involve a long-term process of negotiating with landowners and will include I both purchase, donation, or a combination (bargain sale). Funding sources may include township open space funds, Pennsylvania Keystone grants for municipalities and land trusts, the Pennsylvania Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, and grants from private foundations, businesses and t individuals. I I I I
127 Strategy 3 Biodiversity Conservation through Zoning & SubdivisionILand Development Ordinances
As a minimum, all Core Reserves and Natural Corridors (Major and Minor) are recommended for protection with options for promoting conservation-oriented land development through the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.
Environmental Impact Assessment
The Biological Resources Inventory component of the Environmental Impact Assessment requirement of the Zoning Ordinance should be used to require identification of any Core Reserves or Natural Corridors (Major or Minor) that occur on any tract of land proposed for development. Once identified, the applicant should be required to reserve these areas as part of the protected open space for the plan. Applicants who successfully demonstrate that protection of a major or minor Core Reserve or Natural Corridor is not feasible must propose Mitigation Measures that accommodate the development plan while maximizing the ecological function of the natural area as habitat for native vegetation and wildlife. Examples of Mitigation Measures for natural areas may include reducing forest fragmentation by limiting development in a woodland to an area within 100 feet of a woodland edge with minimal tree clearing, or protecting a stream corridor by reforesting a minimum of 75 feet on either side of the stream.
6. Historic Resources
Not many places share Solebury's wealth of unique and irreplaceable historic resources.:.Despite considerable change in the landscape in recent years, from Bowman's Hill to Ingham Spring to the village centers, there remains in Solebury today almost a timeless sense of history. Conservation of historic resources is not just for Solebury today; it is for future generations who may learn from and appreciate their past. Historic resources, which include structures, sites, and landscapes, are vital to the definition of Solebury's special sense of place. They impart the area's heritage and when valued and protected, they can and should guide and inspire new development.
In Solebury, there is a wealth of historic resources dating from the advent of European settlement in the seventeenth century. The area had earlier been inhabited by the Wolf Tribe of the Lenni-Lenape Indians. Although there are few obvious reminders of pre-European settlement, a general rule of thumb is to treat any area adjacent to a watercourse as having at least medium potential for artifacts, based on the general settlement patterns of Native Americans in this region.
In 1681, King Charles I1 conveyed a large tract of land to William Penn, creating the first boundaries in the area. Many English Quakers settled in the area around the year 1700, at which time Solebury was part of Buckingham Township. The exact date of separation from Buckingham is not known, but it is believed to have occurred before 1703. In that year, records show that Solebury consisted of 28 tracts of land, distributed among 23 landowners. Agriculture played a dominant role in Solebury Township throughout its development. In fact, Solebury has the highest number of well-preserved large stone farmhouses and barns in Bucks County, including one of the highest concentrations of eighteenth-century stone structures. Early highways such as the Upper and Lower York Roads and Pennsylvania Canal played a significant role in the development of the township. Solebury also
128 boasts numerous buildings and places associated with the American Revolution and subsequent historical events.
Over time, seven villages or hamlets developed in a scattered pattern across Solebury Township. These include Aquetong, Carversville, Centre Bridge, Cottageville, Lumberville, Phillips Mill, and Solebury. An eighth hamlet or cluster of historical structures is found at Cuttalossa, essentially an extension of the village of Lumberville. Each village has a distinctive quality and contributes to establishing the character of the area that immediately surrounds it, as well as the township as a whole. Some villages are clearly defined by natural or physical features; others have boundaries that are not so easily discerned. The historical and architectural characteristics of each village are unique, irreplaceable, and worthy of preservation.
Historically, the predominant land use in many of the villages was residential; however, a few were more commercially oriented. Building types associated with commerce mostly fall into the category of agricultural service activities. Resources included taverns, hotels, blacksmith shops, general stores and combination shops. Many old commercial structures have survived with good integrity.
Religion also wrought a legacy on the historical landscape. Some of the churches that held services for the original Quaker, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian settlers still survive to this day.
In 1992 the Heritage Conservancy (then Bucks County Conservancy) completed the Bucks County Historic Resource Survey. The survey documented all pre-1941 historic resources not already listed on the National Register of Historic Places (individually or in districts) in Solebury Townd~ip.In all, there are four individual properties in Solebury Township listed on the National Register and 311 located within National Register districts or National Historic Landmarks.
The Honey Hollow Watershed, comprising 17 properties, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1969, as authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935. This honor recognizes the significance of earlier efforts by Honey Hollow landowners to manage soil, water, forest, and wildlife in accordance with a total watershed conservation plan. Although the Landmark status does not afford any special protection for the site, (except for federal programs) it does imply a preservation commitment on the part of Honey Hollow residents. The Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal and Washington Crossing State Park also are listed as National Historic Landmarks. There are six National Register historic districts in Solebury, including Carversville (95 properties), the Upper Aquetong Valley (32 properties), Centre Bridge (59 properties), Lumberville (82 properties), Phillips Mill (16 properties), and the Cuttaloosa area.
The Conservancy’s 1992 Survey concluded that another 33 individual properties were clearly eligible for National Register designation. In addition, both Aquetong village and Solebury village have had preliminary studies done to have them listed as districts on the National Register. The Survey concluded that both villages appear eligible. There are other collections of buildings that do not appear immediately eligible as districts based on architecture alone. They are the small hamlet in the northwest comer of the township known as Cottageville and a collection of buildings on Old Windy Bush Road. Both areas are worthy of future study as possible National Register historic districts.
The Survey also concluded that as many as 48 individual properties did not appear to be immediately eligible for listing on the National Register, but possessed architectural and/or histwic significance worthy of future study. Some of these were documented as pre-Revolutionary while others exhibit
129 segmental relieving arches above the window openings - a feature common to the c. 1740-1770 period. Several properties were associated with the nineteenth-century poet John Greenleaf Whittier and twentieth-century artists such as Daniel Garber, Ethel Wallace, and George Nakashima.
Further areas were deemed worthy of future study as possibly contributing to multiple resource property nomination(s) as rural historic districts. Several such areas that have both a common history and maintain their historical associations include:
The area encompassing Paxson, Comfort, and Laurel Roads, settled by the Paxson family and containing an unusual number of eighteenth-century stone houses.
0 The area between Upper and Lower Mountain Roads as an extension of the agricultural belt which spans central Buckingham Township. The two largest properties in this area have been rated as being individually National Register eligible.
The area extending from Buckingham Township between Sawmill and Mechanicsville Road, which still retains farmsteads surrounded by agricultural lands and was originally part of the same land patent.
0 The area around the intersection of Greenhill and Mechanicsville Roads, including several large farms with fine collections of vernacular rural architecture.
In addition, the area paralleling the Cuttalossa Creek and Cuttalossa Road, noted above as the eighth village in Solebury, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in June 2002, based on the theme of milling. This collection of properties is one of the best preserved areas in the township, and has witnessed little intrusion upon its historical character.
Planning lmplications
While Solebury boasts an amazing concentration of resources on the National Register, including National Historic Landmarks, such listings do not provide special protection. For the most part, these designations simply express national recognition of the worthiness for preservation. Protection under the National Preservation Act of 1966 is limited and is not adequate to guarantee preservation. It does, however, mandate an additional level of review (known as Section 106 Review), should a federal action, or federally funded action impact the property physically or visually. Examples of actions that would trigger a Section 106 review include a project funded with money from one of the federal grant programs, a project that would involve a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, or a project which would involve Federal Highway money (which would trigger a review called a Section 4F review, the transportation equivalent of Section 106).
Overall, the greatest threat to historic resources in Solebury Township is not federally funded projects such as road widenings or urban renewal, but destruction or alteration by private property owners. Many agricultural buildings are threatened or have been destroyed, as traditional farmland becomes . residential subdivisions. Surviving buildings have often lost most of their rural context. In many other situations the integrity of the historic buildings themselves has been compromised. Many farmhouses that were owned by a family for multiple generations are being sold to more affluent purchasers. These buildings routinely undergo unsympathetic alterations, modernizations,’ or additions. Underused outbuildings, if not razed, have been neglected and allowed to deteriorate.
130 Nevertheless, in addition to the added level of review, listing on the National Register does enable the owner of a listed property to rehabilitate the property for income-producing purposes and take a 20 percent Investment Tax Credit on his or her Federal Income Taxes. Additional regulations - the Secretary of the Interior‘s Standards for Rehabilitation - apply to this process and must be stringently adhered to in order to qualify for the credit. A similar but lesser credit (10 percent) is also available for owners who rehabilitate older structures not on the National Register.
At the local level, the Solebury Townshp Zoning Ordinance requires that a 175-foot setback be provided around the boundary of each village on the National Register. The recently adopted Open Space Options (OSO) provide for additional density, beyond that otherwise stipulated, for dwelling units created through rehabilitation of historic structures. The township also has established an Historical and Architectural Review Board (HARB) which has purview only within the villages of Carversville and Philips Mill. Within those districts, HARB reviews all significant exterior structural changes and new construction for historical appropriateness and advises the Board of Supervisors upon the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit within those discrete districts. No other formal protection for historic resources exists in Solebury.
Of course, conservation and preservation of historic areas, buildings, and sites do not necessarily mean the area must remain unchanged and the setting static. They do not mean an end to development. They do suggest, however, that ongoing care is required to assure the protection of historic resources. A number of additional approaches might be taken to encourage resource protection efforts including, for example, special use provision or conversion standards for historic structures, expansion of provisions for architectural review, provision for delay of demolition, or bonus density or use provisions in turn for preservation.
Potential archaeological sites enjoy even less protection from land disturbances. The prime exception to this is the Act 537 sewage facilities planning process; sites proposed for development that require wastewater facilities approval must be evaluated for the potential existence of archaeological resources. In all cases, however, these potential resources should be given enough attention, on a site-by-site basis, to assure that important opportunities for research and discovery are not lost.
I 7. Artistic Heritage Along with its neighbors on both banks of the Delaware River, Solebury Township has enjoyed more than a century as a nationally recognized arts community. Since painters began moving here from i Philadelphia in the late 19&-century,the migration of artists to the area has continued virtually unabated. Now, as in the past, the area’s attraction stems both from its proximity to Philadelphia and 1 New York and its unique mix of natural beauty/ historic charm, and cultural vitality. I The New Hope Impressionists Blaze the Trails Historians note that two real estate hansactions - concerning the same property - probably sparked the creation of the New Hope arts colony. In 1894, a young Philadelphia surgeon purchased the E Phillip’s Mill (located on present:day Route’32) but, unable to spend much time there, decided to rent the property to a friend, the painter William Lathrop. Lathrop and his wife purchased a portion of the 1 mill property the following year and soon began hosting Sunday afternoon teas where artist friends
131 L Special vegetation, including occasional tree-lined drives, individual great trees, and unique stands of understory vegetation such as mountain laurel and rhododendron. Great trees are individual specimen trees located prominently in a field, or alongside roads or streambanks. Ponds, as flat, open water bodies, often offer strong visual foci; sharply contrasting both the rolling upland and the steep-sided stream valleys. Their value to wildlife cannot be underestimated. Other visual accents include rock outcroppings and historical man-made features such as stone walls, bridges, and canal aqueducts.
Visual intrusions, in contrast, are objects which noticeably detract from the scenic quality of the landscape; to be considered a visual intrusion, an object must be: (1) a disjunctive visual element - an element of the landscape which would not normally be considered characteristic; and (2) just as an accent, be located in such a way as to provide a focal point (albeit negative or intrusive) for the public view. Visual intrusions may include some industrial or commercial uses, intrusive utility rights-of-way, water towers, transmission lines, junk yards, buildings in styles disjunctive to their landscape context or neighboring buildings, etc.
Scenic .vistas can be mapped from vista points along public roads where relatively long views are attained - a mile or more, often overlooking immediate roadside landscapes. Magnificent views may be seen from upland areas, looking over long rolling landscapes toward distant hills or focal points.
Scenic Roads
In the course of development of the prior Comprehensive Plan, the then constituted Land Use Committee developed a definition of most scenic and moderately scenic roads. Then it designated those roads that met either definition. The designation most scenic was attached to those roads which pass through woodlands, watershed areas and/or other environmentally sensitive areas showing minimal change to their virgin state, documented by the age and species of trees, steep slopes, wetlands, viewsheds, and fertile farmland that they pass through. The roads in this most scenic category are, in whole or in part:
Armitage Road Cuttalossa Road Fleecydale Road Laurel Road Meetinghouse Road Old Carversville Road Paxson Hill Road Paxson Road T Pidcock Creek Road (East of Route 232) River Road C The designation moderately scenic was attached to those roads that in themselves are very beautiful, but have seen more construction than the first category and are, in some cases, quite built up. Those roads have, nevertheless, retained an overall feeling of lovely country roads. The roads in the category are, in whole or in part:
Aquetong Road Comfort Road Covered Bridge Road r 136 r L Creamery Road Ely Road Greenhill Road Lower Mountain Road Old Windybush Road Phillips Mill Road Pidcock Creek Road (West of Route 232) Sawmill Road
137 EXISTING LAND USWDEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
Solebury Township incorporates an area of 27.08 square miles or 17,331.2 acres. Existing land use patterns inventoried for the 1990 Comprehensive Plan were updated to reflect recent changes in land use. Sources for updated information included recently approved development plans, aerial photography, and knowledge of the planning committee and other township officials.
Solebury Township continues to be characterized as predominantly rural, in spite of on-going suburban and exurban development. The underlying matrix of family farms and distinct village areas that characterize Solebury was determined by early agricultural and commercial activities over several centuries. Today, slightly less than half of the land in the township remains as agricultural; the majority of the remainder is single-family residential. Until recently, much if not most of the land in single-family residential use could still be characterized as rural, with relatively large lots and homesites tucked into the rural landscape. The residents of Solebury are concerned about protecting this character. While fully forty percent of the respondents to the Resident Survey reported moving into the township within the last ten years, 85 percent of all respondents selected rural, open space as a principal reason for living in Solebury.
The rural landscape of Solebury is dotted with several historical villages and crossroads hamlets. These include Aquetong, Carversville, Centre Bridge, Cottageville, Lumberville, Phillips Mill, and Solebury. An eighth hamlet-like cluster is found at Cuttalossa, essentially an extension of the village of Lumberville, and a ninth on Old Windy Bush Road. The village of Lahaska in Buckingham Township also laps across the township line into Solebury. Some of Solebury's villages are clearly defined by natural or physical features; others have boundaries that are not so easily discerned. While each of the villages and hamlets has evolved at relatively high densities of development, they nevertheless are critical elements in defining the overall rural character of the township. While most began life with a mixture of land uses, the predominant land use in the villages today is residential.
Each of the land use categories inventoried can be described as follows:
Agricultural. As inventoried, agricultural lands comprise over 8,000 acres or nearly half of the' land mass of Solebury Township. For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, land use was considered agricultural wherever agriculture is a principal land use over broad landscapes, even while principal residential use(s) also share the same property. Such lands also often include areas of woodlots and oldfields no longer actively agricultural in use.
Residential. Residential land uses account for nearly 35 percent of all lands in Solebury Township, and fall into four subcategories - single family units, multi-family units, mobile homes, and residences with commercial uses. Single family units dominate the housing stock. Individual single- family residential lots are scattered throughout Solebury Township, as are full-scale subdivisions. Much of the township continues to be characterized as large-lot residential. Ten-acre rural residential lots were created routinely during the time when such lots were exempted from proving ability to accommodate on-site wastewater disposal systems. Additionally, throughout the township, lots frequently were created from a farm's perimeter, usually along existing public road frontage, perhaps to provide building lots to family members or to generate extra income. More recently, full-scale sub- divisions have been developed, with the introduction of new public roads, often cul-de-sacs. These developments have tended to fully lot-out former farms into rather uniform distributions of one- to
138 three-acre lots. Most recently, higher density small-lot developments have added significantly to the single family housing stock. Largely the result of curative amendments to the township Zoning Ordinance, such development has been limited to areas served by public sewer systems along the Route 202 corridor.
Multi-family uses account for a very small portion of Solebury's total land area. They are concentrated in relatively large numbers in the area along Route 202 just west of New Hope Borough. Smaller multi-family uses are found on Phillips Mill Road near the quarry, near Ingham Spring on Mountain Road, on Reeder Road, and Upper York Road, and Aquetong Road south of Peters Comer. Mobile home uses are located on two small sites. One site is on Solebury Mountain Road, and the other site is on the northwestern border of the township adjacent to Plumstead.
Residences with commercial uses, whether single family units or multi-family units, are located along Route 202 and on scattered individual lots throughout the township. Commercial uses associated with residences vary, ranging from retail to office use.
Institutional. Under the general category of Institutional land uses, there are four subcategories. These include land for government buildings or uses, religious uses, school or education al uses, and other miscellaneous tax-exempt uses. Such uses are scattered throughout the township and are generally on relatively small parcels. Examples include the municipal building on Sugan Road, the fire station, the Solebury Elementary School and several churches. An example of a larger-scale institutional. use is the Solebury School. Overall, institutional uses comprise less than two percent of the total land area in the township.
Commercial. Hotels and motels, offices, and retail establishments are included in this category. Such uses are concentrated along Route 202 just west of New Hope Borough. In fact, it was construction of the Holiday IM in this vicinity that financially justified a sewer tie-in to the Lambertville treatment plant. This set the stage for both high-density residential and concentrated commercial development that followed. Commercial uses also are found on sites scattered throughout the township and are associated with the villages of Aquetong, Centre Bridge, Carversville, Lumberville, and Phillips Mill to varying degrees. Commercial uses also comprise less than two percent of the total land area in Solebury.
Industrial. The major industrial use in Solebury is the limestone quarry. It is located in the central part of the township and covers approximately 167 acres. A second, smaller industrial parcel is located along River Road at the access point to the Route 202 bridge to New Jersey. Industrial uses comprise just one percent of the total land area in the township.
Public Open Space. Public open space lands are generally recreational in nature and include state, county, and municipally owned properties, ranging from Bowman's Hill (Washington Crossing State Park) and the Delaware Canal, to Hal Clark Park, Magill's Hill, and the Laurel Road ballfields. The recently approved development of the Marshall Tracts at Sugan Road and Route 202 will result in the acquisition by the township of a significant new open space preserve along the Aquetong Creek. Public Open Space comprises almost five percent of the total land area in the township.
TransportationKJtilities. Transportation and utility lines criss-cross the township. Where rights-of- way traverse lands clearly occupied by other land uses, other principal land uses have been inventoried. Lands left designated as Transportation/Utilities appear generally not to have any other
139 principal use. The actual land area involved in public roads has not been separately inventoried and is not included in this category. Examples of lands in this land use category include the New Hope & Ivyland Railroad, transmission corridors owned in fee, and the lands involved in the approaches to the Route 202 bridge to New Jersey. As inventoried, such lands total between one and two percent of the township land area.
Undeveloped/Vacant. Undeveloped or vacant lands, as inventoried, encompass some 3.3 percent of the total area’of the township. These lands do not include properties categorized as agricultural.
Open Space Program
Almost regardless of actual land use, a sense of open space dominates the landscape of Solebury Township. As noted, about five percent of the township land mass is open space formally in public hands. Some additional open space is held by private conservation organizations, notably including the Heritage Conservancy. The vast majority of lands perceived as open space are in private hands. Some of these lands have been placed under private conservation easement, limiting their future development potential in favor of open space conservation. Other lands are voluntarily restricted through enrollment in preferential real estate tax assessment programs available under state Acts 319 and 515. While conservation easements are usually granted in perpetuity, restrictions under Acts 319 or 515 are essentially temporary and may be broken subject to penalty. Tax penalties may dissuade many landowners from hasty development decisions, but are not likely to deter developers from moving forward with plans, if other financial aspects of a development proposal are favorable.
POPULATION & HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS & PROJECTIONS
A projection of population change over the planning horizon of this Comprehensive Plan is necessary to support recommendations regarding growth management and concurrent circulation and community facility recommendations.
The population projections are not intended to be a goal or a target. They are intended to provide an indication of the number of people who may live in Solebury Township within a planning horizon to the year 2010. Information from the US Census, the Bucks County Planning Commission, and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission was used.
Historic Trends
Solebury’s population has fluctuated over the almost 200 years for which data is available. In 1800, ‘ there were 1,524 residents of Solebury Township. In 1860 the population reached a high point at 3,014, and then steadily declined through 1930 when, at 1,564, it was almost as low as at the first census. Beginning in the 1940s and continuing to the present time, the population of Solebury has grown steadily, reflecting the township’s evolving character and its proximity to the Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas. Between 1960 and 2000, the population of Solebury Township has increased on average 2.5% each year, totaling an approximate 160% increase over the forty-year period.
140 Solebu y Township Papulation, 1960-2000
Density Year Population per square mile Numerical Change Percent Change
1960 2,972 110
1970 3,547 131 + 575 + 19.4%
1980 4,827 178 + 1,280 + 36.1% 1990 5,998 221 + 1,171 + 24.3% 2000 7,743 286 + 1,745 + 29.1%
Current Population 6 Projected Population
The US Census for 2000 shows Solebury’s population at 7,743 persons. This section of the plan establishes the basis and rationale for population and housing projections for the future.
In 1998, the Bucks County Planning Commission estimated the population of Solebury Township to be 7,732. The 2000 Census essentially verified such a rate of growth during the 1990s and established a total 2000 population of 7,743 - nearly identical to the earlier county estimate. Bucks County had based their 1998 estimate on current housing unit estimates (based on building permit records) in comparison with 1990 U.S.Census data for housing occupancy rates, household size, and persons in group quarters. For purposes of estimation, the County assumed that the overall percentage of housing units occupied and the percentage of persons in group quarters remained the same since 1990. The 1990 figure for household size (persons per household) was adjusted annually since 1990 to reflect Census Bureau observations of declining household size. Over the past few decades, the persons per household figure for both Bucks County and the Northeast region of the United States have,been declining. In recent decades, the Bucks County figure has been higher than the Northeast US. region, but has declined at a faster rate. Suspected reasons for the decline in household size include: 1) persons living longer and remaining healthy and independent household residents as couples or singles without children; 2) smaller number of children per familyhousehold; 3) increasing number of single-parent headed households; and 4) increasing numbers of single person households due to divorces and later marriages.
The Bucks County estimate for 1998 was based on an estimated increase of 761 dwelling units in Solebury Township since 1990 and on an estimated average household size of 2.57 persons..The 2000 Census results showed both of those estimates to be slightly high. Actual Census data indicated an increase of 704 dwellings since 1990, with average household size declining even more than anticipated, to 2.52 persons. Taken together, these factors explain the modest discrepancy between the County estimate and the actual Census count.
The 1990 Solebury Township Comprehensive Plan reported future population projections provided by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) for 1990, 2000, and 2010. At the time of the 1990 Plan, DVRPC had forecast Solebury’s population at 6,340, 7,860, and 9,110, respectively, for those three benchmark years. The 1990 Census count of 5,998 proved the initial 1990
141 projection to be too high. Yet the 2000 count of 7,743 nearly reached the old DVRPC year 2000 forecast. Bucks County issued projections through the year 2020, anticipating a total population in Solebury Township of between 7,430 and 7,560 in 2000, between 8,550 and 8,980 in 2010, and 9,580 - 10,870 in 2020. While the actual 2000 population exceeds Bucks County's projected range by nearly 200 persons, these projections fall within the ranges that can be established through arithmetic and geometric projections based on recorded population change between 1960 and 2000. Arithmetic projections assume continuance of average historical rates of numerical population change; geometric projections are based on past growth rates expressed as a percentage change over base population.
Projections prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in 2002 suggest a slightly higher population for Solebury Township in the future. The DVRPC projections for Solebury are:
Year Population 2000 7,743 2010 9,960 2020 11,980
DVRF'C's projections have, in the past, proven to be too high. The projections prepared by DVRPC in the 1980s, for 1990, were high, as were the projections for 2000, completed in the 1990s.
DVRPC Projections of Population Compared with Census Figures DVRPC Projected Population for 1990 (prepared in 1987) 6,340 Actual 1990 population 5,998
DVRPC Projected Population for 2000 (prepared in 1999) 8,060 Actual 2000 population 7,743
Several factors could limit growth potential in Solebury Township. Over time, there is less and less land potentially available for development. Recent development activity, as well as the township's open space conservation program, reduce the area that can be developed in the township. Diminishing supply of land, the continued desirability of Solebury as a place of residence, and the increasing cost of land may nudge development toward less costly areas beyond the bounds of Solebury. It would seem unreasonable to plan for future population based solely on replication of past trends.
Bucks County's population projections through 2020 appear to offer a reasonable basis for comprehensive planning purposes, once adjusted slightly to reflect actual recent Census results. Charted below are population projections based on the averages of the ranges provided by the Bucks County Planning Commission. The projected year 2000 figure has been replaced by the actual Census count. The 2010 and 2020 projections represent the average values in the ranges offered by the Countjr, adjusted slightly upwards to reflect the 248-person gap between the year-2000 projection and the actual Census count.
These projections also are not out of line with Solebury's neighbors in the region. The 2020 projection represents a 74.6 percent increase over the 1990 census figure in Solebury. Bucks County projections place neighboring Buckingham at a similar 78.1 percent increase over the same thirty years, Plumstead at 66.8 percent, New Hope Borough at 31.2 percent, and Upper Makefield at 104.1 percent.
142 New Hope’s slower projected growth can be explained by the limited available land in the small municipality, while Upper Makefield’s higher rate logically reflects its greater proximity to regional employment centers and transportation routes.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES INVENTORY
Utilities and community facilities comprise the public and semi-public infrastructure established to support the township’s residents, businesses, and governmental functions. Some of these infrastructure needs are met locally while others are often met through systems established to serve a larger region. However they are provided, Solebury’s existing utilities and community facilities need to be assessed in the Comprehensive Plan to understand current and future demands and potential impacts on both natural systems and the built environment. Under a sustainable community approach, their efficient use, management, and long-term availability must be ensured to meet future needs.
Utilities
Electricity: Local electric service is supplied by the PECO Energy Corporation (PECO) via overhead lines along all roads within the township. PECO pays for and extends service to new developments when requested. New subdivisions are typically provided service through underground lines.
The Plan‘s Utilities Map also shows the location of two overhead high voltage electric lines owned by PECO Energy Corporation. One 500,000-volt line comes from Plumstead Township at the northwestern edge of Solebury and continues across the township, crossing the Delaware. River at a point near the US. Route 202 interchange. It has a 200- foot right of way. The second line is a 220,000-volt line that runs from a Substation in Buckingham Township through Solebury and across the river at a point just northwest of the Solebury - New Hope border. It has a 150- to 180-foot right of way. These lines do not provide direct electric service to Solebury Township.
Pipelines: Natural gas for heating and appliances is provided to Solebury Township residents via two high-pressure gas lines. One gas line runs from Peddlers Village along Route 202 to New Hope. The second line runs from Route 202 to Route 263 to Aquetong Road. These lines are shown on the Utilities Map and are owned by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). Natural gas service is supplied to developments by PECO when requested, with some extension and installation costs passed on to the developer.
In addition to local lines, two twenty-inch gas pipelines owned by Texas Eastern traverse I the township from Buckingham Township to and across the river. Texas Eastern also has - 24-inch, 30-inch, and 36- inch lines that run from Buckingham to and across the river. These pipelines do not provide any type of local service; their location is noted for land I use planning purposes.
Communications: Solebury Township residents are provided telephone service by AT & T. I An AT&T buried telephone cable is located in a 16.5-foot right-of-way which runs from I the western comer of Solebury to and across the Delaware at a point near Hendrick Island. I 143 Because of the highly scenic nature of the township, and a high visual impact potential of cellular towers, their location within the township must be sensitive to visual resources and require the use of local zoning regulations.
Wastewater Treatment: Much of Solebury Township is unsewered, and new development in these unsewered areas is largely dependent on individual on-lot wastewater disposal systems. A small portion of Solebury Township on either side of State Route 202 and all of the Borough of New Hope are served by a municipal wastewater treatment system operated by the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority as shown on the Utilities Map. Wastewater effluent is collected and conveyed through pump stations and force mains (pipes) across the Delaware River to a treatment plant located in New Jersey and operated by the Lambertville Sewerage Authority. This treatment facility provides secondary treatment via a rotating biological capacitor, and has a design capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day. In addition to Solebury Township and New Hope Borough, it serves Lambertville, Stockton, and Delaware Township in New Jersey.
The township prepared an Act 537 Official Sewage Facilities Plan in 1970, and most recently revised it in 1992. That revision reported the need for several wastewater conveyance improvements including two pump station upgrades, a force main extension, and reconstruction of the Delaware canal cast-iron pipe crossing. The Authority is in the final pre-construction stages of a project to provide those improvements by 2001. The 1992 revision also reported that the long-term projected wastewater flow and the projected wastewater flow at build-out would have a fairly significant shortfall in allocated capacity. Although long-term is not clearly defined in this revision, it is assumed to be beyond the next several years. Regardless, given that the Authority was only using about half of its allocation in late 1998, the predicted shortfall described in the 1992 revision has not yet arrived, nor is it planned to occur in the next five years.
Water Supply: Again, most of Solebury Township relies on on-lot wells and groundwater supplies. However, in several recently developed, higher density residential areas, community water systems have been provided. These include the Marshal Tract and Fieldstone developments, and the soon-to-be constructed Aquetong Preserve residential development.
Within the Lambertville sewer service area there are seven municipal wells that serve homes within the sewer district. Even though the township’s eastern border is the Delaware River, it is not a public drinking water source for the township.
Existing projections for sewer plant utilization assume less water-efficient plumbing fixtures than required by present water conservation ordinances. Water conservation has the same net effect as increasing treatment capacity. It has the advantage of being consistent with the present Act 537 Plan, which limits sewered areas to a portion of the Route 202 Corridor.
Community Facilities: Solebury is served by a number of typical community facilities, many shared with New Hope Borough. A number of community facilities are located in the village of Solebury near the intersection of Sugan Road and Upper York Road. The township Municipal building, police and road departments, New Hope Eagle Fire
144 Company sub-station, New Hope-Solebury School District's elementary school, Solebury Post Office, and Trinity Episcopal Church are clustered in this area.
Another major grouping of community facilities is located in the Borough of New Hope. Found there are the Borough Municipal Building with police and road departments, New Hope - Solebury Free Library, New Hope Eagle Fire Company Main Station, New Hope Post Office, St Martin's Catholic Church, and a Synagogue.
In Lambertville, New Jersey, a fire station and ambulance squad serve Solebury in the event of an emergency. The Midway Fire Company in Lahaska (Buckingham Township) also serves Solebury.
In addition to New Hope and Solebury villages, post offices also are located in Carversville and Lumberville. Other churches include the Lahaska Methodist Church, New Hope-Lumberville Methodist Church, the Thompson Memorial Presbyterian Church, and St. Phillips Chapel. The closest hospital is in Doylestown, about six miles west of Solebury.
Schools: Solebury is served by the New Hope - Solebury School District. There are three public schools in the district. The elementary school is located in Solebury and has kindergarten through fourth grade. A middle school with grades 5 through 8 and a high school with grades 9 through 12 are located in New Hope. A private school, the Solebury School, located along Phillips Mill Road serves enrolled students in grades 8 through 12.
Currently, there are about 1,200 students in the public school system, with projections to the 2003-2004 school year increasing to 1,433 students. A new elementary school is being planned for construction in New Hope Borough. Even still, classroom capacity is an issue due to the relatively dramatic increase in new township residents with school-age children, and the inability of the School District to cover the costs of educating new students and expanding classroom and other facilities.
Formal day care is available at the Club House for Kids, Trinity Episcopal Church, Kinderworks, and the Thompson Memorial Presbyterian Church.
Police: A police force of seven full-time, two part-time officers, and a chief provide protection to Solebury. There is one police officer for approximately every 740 residents. In addition, the Borough of New Hope's police force provides assistance in protecting Solebury.
Fire/Emergency Squads: There are a number of fire and emergency squads in the Solebury area. These squads are served by volunteers and the units which answer calls in Solebury are listed below.
Eagle Fire Company Midway Fire Company Pt. Pleasant Fire Company Stockton Fire Company Lambertville - New Hope Rescue Squad
145 In addition, the Central Bucks Ambulance and Rescue Unit in the Borough of Doylestown, with eleven emergency vehicles and thirty-five active volunteers, will send its power medic unit and provide emergency care to Solebury. It does not provide routine service.
PARKS AND RECREATION INVENTORY
In the year 2000, nearly 900 acres in Solebury Township were dedicated to some form of park, recreation, or open space use. Inventory efforts conducted for the Solebury Township Parks and Recreation Plan indicated a total of 898.5 acres, including 227.84 acres of park and open space land owned by Solebury Township. The New Hope-Solebury School District provides an additional 82 acres at public school facilities, Bucks County 34.9 acres and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 520.8 acres of public parkland. The non-profit Honey Hollow Education Center provides 120 acres of open space and makes a variety of trails available to the public.
Solebury Township parks include the Pat Livezey Park, Laurel Park, Magill's Hill Park and Canal Park. The township also owns land at the municipal building complex as well as undeveloped open space lands at Cuttalossa Road, Laurel Run, and Limeport. The township received 104 acres dedicated from development lands at the Marshall Tract (North Pointe); 30 acres are intended for active recreational development.
The Pat Livezey Park encompasses 18.07 acres, has two soccer fields, a snack bar, playground, picnic tables and a pavilion complying with American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The Solebury-New Hope Soccer Club administers the youth soccer program for the community. The Laurel Park encompasses 11.05 acres and has 2 regulation little league fields, a softball field with bleachers, and a snack bar. The New Hope-Solebury Little League uses the baseball fields for practice and league play. At both the Pat Livezey and Laurel Road Parks, the buildings housing snack bars also are used to store maintenance equipment. Magill's Hill Park encompasses only 4.92 acres. It is a steeply sloped mowed field, restricted to use in winter for sledding and tobogganing with stipulations for no improvements. Canal Park, acquired by the township, comprises 11.91 acres and has the potential for recreational use because of its level topography and open condition. However, recreational use of the land at Canal Park is somewhat restricted by the presence of utility rights-of-ways. The Solebury Township municipal complex comprises 5.16 acres of the land, but none is dedicated to recreational use.
An area totaling 30 acres at the Marshall Tractworth Pointe is suitable for active recreational use and offers significant potential to provide for additional baseball fields, soccer fields and other recreational facilities not currently available within Solebury Township. Additional adjacent open space lands are appropriate for trails development and other passive use. Ultimate recreational potential here must be determined through further site analysis and the preparation of a master plan for park development.
Township-owned open space lands at Cuttalossa Road comprise 34.28 acres, are steeply sloped and densely wooded, and are subject to deed restrictions which limit recreational use in an effort to protect the site's natural resources. Open space at Laurel Run, totaling 17.68 acres, also was acquired to preserve natural resources in the watershed of Laurel Run. The Limeport tract, at 4.77 acres, is a small, shallow track with little, if any, potential for recreational facilities.
146 I New Hope-Solebury School District facilities were included in the township’s inventory of recreation facilities because they are community facilities available for use when not being used for school activities. The Elementary School, located near the heart of Solebury Township, has 8.2 acres and n includes a hard surfaced play area with play equipment and a basketball court, an indoor gym facility and outdoor playgrounds, and a conventional-sized soccer field which can accommodate multiple games simultaneously for beginners. The Middle and High School properties, located just I across the municipal line in New Hope Borough, have the usual athletic fields - baseball, soccer, field hockey, tennis, and basketball. While these facilities are, of course, provided primarily for the use of the students, they are heavily used by the community as well. The Solebury-New Hope Soccer Club I uses the field at the elementary school for its youth program. The tennis courts at the High School are available to the public when not being used by the school. In addition, the township’s basketball I program is held in the high school. Bucks County owns the Hal Clark and River Road Tract Parks, both undeveloped open space, comprising 27.5 and 7.4 acres respectively. The County has no current plan for recreational I development of these parksites. Adequate public access to these parksites would require that an existing bridge be upgraded or replaced. Their location, however, presents an opportunity to provide I for ultimate access to the Delaware Canal and to the Delaware River. Park and open space lands maintained by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are not intended to serve Solebury residents alone, but by their location within the township offer significant recreational e opportunities to township residents. The state owns four separate facilities within Solebury, including portions of the Delaware Canal and the Washington Crossing State Historic Park, as well as Ingham Spring and Hendricks Island. The historic route of the Delaware Canal, a National Historic I Landmark, extends from below the falls at Trenton to the Lehigh River at Easton. An important historical resource, its towpath also is heavily used for hiking, biking, and picnicking. Canoeing is available on portions of the canal. Washington Crossing State Historic Park is operated by the I Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission with a principal purpose being the permanent preservation of this historic site. While much of the park is located in adjacent Upper Makefield Township, the Bowmans Hill Nature Preserve component is located largely within Solebury. Its 1 character encourages and provides for nature study, birdwatching, walking, hiking, jogging and picnicking, as well as historical interpretation.
I Ingham Spring is a spring-fed lake that is publicly owned for the purpose of preservation of its natural resources. The township has initiated negotiation with the state for acquisition of this site. The township would continue to preserve the site but also utilize its potential for educational I opportunities. Commonwealth ownership of Hendricks Island stems from an effort by the state to preserve the islands in the Delaware River that are important stopover points for migratory birds. State game lands, also owned by the state, are intended to conserve wildlife habitat. Recreation is I limited to hiking, birdwatching, and nature study. 8 ROADS AND CIRCULATION INVENTORY This section of the comprehensive plan addresses the elements of the existing circulation system of Solebury Township. At present that system is comprised almost exclusively of the public road I system. Important for moving goods and people, the road system also is important for influencing land use decisions because of their character, condition, and capacity. Conversely, land use patterns 8 both within and outside Solebury can affect the use and efficiency of roads within the township. II 147 Traffic circulation throughout Solebury Township is becoming an issue of increasing concern. Conditions along the main highway corridor that traverses the township - Lower York Road (U.S. Route 202) - are well known. This highway exhibits the highest traffic volumes and the highest traffic accident, frequencies in the township. SeveraI other roads in the township have problems with relatively heavy traffic, occasionally poor road surface, limited sight distance, or awkward alignments.
Despite localized traffic problems, when a resident of or visitor to Solebury drives through the countryside, one of the things taken for granted are the rural roads. They are typically narrow, winding, curbless, and often hilly byways, lined in some areas by trees, in some areas by steep embankments, and in other areas, by older homes or buildings. Ditches along the sides take away the rainwater, and hedgerows mark the borders of adjoining fields, providing a rhythm and scale that is understandably rural. This rural character experienced along the roadways, to many people epitomizes Solebury. Significant portions of the local road network are especially scenic, as described in the Scenic Resources Inventory. The preservation of these scenic resources needs to be balanced against the correction of safety problems. It is desirable to discourage the use of local roads for the movement of through traffic by both supporting the type of improvement projects aimed at maximizing capacity along the major highway corridors in the township and discouraging improve- ments that increase capacity and attract through traffic to the local roads.
Functional ClassiFcation
Solebury Township has a total of 99.1 miles of public roads within its boundaries. These roads are owned and maintained both by the township and by the State. The State owns 43.1 miles, which consist primarily of major and minor collector highway network of the community. Township roads account for 56 miles of the network and are comprised of a combination of rural and scenic roads and streets within residential neighborhoods. Maintenance of Street Road is shared with Buckingham Township.
Roadways have been classified according to the function they serve in the overall network. Function is based on volumes of traffic, travel speed, accessibility, relationship to places, and relationship to other roadways. Some carry higher speed through traffic, some carry local traffic between neighborhoods, and some provide access from individual residential driveways. Road function helps to define the character of the road, and ultimately, the design and access treatment.
Expressways service the highest volumes for the highest average trip lengths. Expressways are designed to provide access only at interchanges whiie providing linkages on an interstate or inter-regional basis. Expressways allow the highest level of mobility for trucks and are intended to allow the highest levels of speed for all vehicles.
Solebury Township does not contain any expressways.
Principal Arterials have as their major function, the movement of large volumes of traffic at relatively high rates of speed, often at 55 miles per hour. They provide higher types of service and facilitate traffic over longer distances on an intercounty or interstate basis. Access points are generally limited and controlled.
148 US. Route 202, while largely two-lane and with little access limitations, serves the function of Principal Arterial through Solebury Township. It is carried over the Delaware River to New Jersey via the New Hope-Lambertville Toll Bridge.
Minor Arterials interconnect with and augment the principal arterial system. These roads provide services for trips of moderate length and have controlled access points. Minor arterials provide greater access to adjacent land than principal arterials.
Currently there are no roads in Solebury Township that fall into this category.
Major Collectors connect municipalities and population centers. These roads are the major contributors to arterial traffic and carry fairly heavy traffic volumes at moderate rates of speed. Access points are somewhat controlled on collector roads. It is not uncommon for major collector roads to span the entire length of a community.
River Road (PA Route 32), Upper York Road, (PA Route 263), and Windy Bush Road (PA Route 232), are considered to be major collector roads in Solebury Township. River Road provides an important link to Interstate 95 in Lower Makefield Township and also is an important scenic highway along the Delaware River, attracting tourist traffic. In addition to the New Hope- Lambertville Toll Bridge mentioned above, two other bridges provide vehicular access across the River, the Centre Bridge-Stockton, on which Route 263 runs, and the New Hope-Lambertville (non-toll) Bridge, at the center of New Hope Borough.
Minor Collectors facilitate relatively low volumes of traffic at lower speeds. They gather traffic from local roads and direct it to the arterials and major collector road networks. Minor collectors often provide traffic circulation between and within larger residential neighborhoods.
The minor collectors in Solebury Township include Aquetong Road, Greenhill Road, Mechanicsville Road, Philips Mill Road, Sugan Road/Kitchens Lane, Stony Hill Road, Street Road and the short leg of PA Route 179 leading from Route 202 into New Hope Borough.
Local Roads provide the greatest access to adjacent land. Local roads provide for short distance, low speed travel, and make up the majority of township owned roads. The number of access points are greatest on local roads.
The remainder of the roads in the township may be identified as local roads. They are mainly to handle local traffic and are primarily used by individuals in the community.
Level of service
Level of service analysis is used to establish the level of efficiency that is being obtained on a roadway segment, intersection, or roadway interchange. Level of service is a comparison between the volumes of traffic that use a road or intersection and the maximum capacity that the same road or intersection is able to handle. The capacity of an intersection or roadway is based on a number of factors:
0 number of lanes;
0 width of the lanes; 0 presence or absence of any turning lanes;
149 0 percentage of trucks present; and, 0 type of traffic control device.
I Level of service is expressed using the letters A through F. A is considered to be the best possible driving situation in which a driver may move totally independently and without the influence of other motor vehicles. With a level of service of A, a driver feels the least amount of anxiety because of the ability to drive at any desired speed without pressure from outside influences. As the level of service moves toward F, driving becomes more difficult. It is necessary to move at the same speed as other vehicles, and it is difficult to maneuver from one lane to another. Driving at level of service B is more difficult than A, C is more difficult than B, and so on until a level of service F is reached. At a level of service F, volumes of traffic can become too large for the capacity of the road or intersection. Traffic volumes at level of service F are forced and heavy traffic backups may result. Roadways and intersections are generally designed to handle heavier volumes at a level of service C in rural conditions and level of service D in built-up areas.
Roadway Conditions
The existing local roadway network serving the township is comprised primarily of two-lane rural- type roadways, ranging from 16 feet to 24 feet in width. An exception is Lower York Road (U.S. Route 202) whose width, kcluding shoulders, varies from 34 to 45 feet within the township.
With few exceptions, notably problems associated with heavy traffic on Route 202, the conditions of the roadway network in Solebury Township are adequate for the current traffic and population of the area. Except for intersections along Lower York Road (U.S.Route 202), 'the levels of service encountered on roads and at intersections throughout the township are generally acceptable due to the limited number of signalized intersections and the rural character along many of the roadways.
Otherwise, few traffic volume problems are encountered. The intersection of Mechanicsville Road and Greenhill Road reportedly operates at a poor level of service when Rice's Market is open. However, as traffic has increased on Route 202, there have been noticeable increases in cut-through traffic on local roads which offer an alternative to Route 202, particularly Mechanicsville Road, Sugan Road-Kitchens Lane, and Philips Mill Road.
150 i
I Consistency with Bucks County Comprehensive Pian
Bucks County is required by the Municipalities Planning Code to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan, and the County has done so over the years. County plans are typically policy- oriented. The County is unable to implement its Plan through measures available to municipalities like zoning and subdivision ordinances. Counties usually attempt through planning to establish a broad vision for lands within their boundaries and hope that townships and boroughs contained within will support all or relevant parts of that vision through their planning and regulatory programs.
Bucks County’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993, and serves as an update to 1977 Plan. Bucks County uses functional plans, or plans focused on particular issues, to form its overall policy I plan. The 1993 Plan was based on the following functional plans: 1986 Natural Resource Plan, the 1986 Parks and Recreation Plan, the 1989 Housing Plan, the 1989 Wastewater Facilities Plan, the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan, the 1992 Community Facilities Plan, the 1993 Land Use Report, and I 1993 Growth Projections.
The County divides its land into regions and then again into planning areas for organizational I purposes. Solebury is located in the Central Bucks Region, along with the other townships mentioned above. The Solebury Planning Area includes New Hope Borough and Solebury Township. The Comprehensive Plan addresses issues of County significance, and includes growth management and I implementation strategies that apply to municipalities along with other county, state, and regional organizations. Portions of the County Plan relevant to Solebury planning efforts include measurements of growth, housing and economic activity, community facilities, resources and I recreation, and infrastructure and basic services.
In addition, Bucks County has recently published a three-part Land Use Plan series for facilitating I municipal planning and regulatory efforts in addressing rapid growth and development. These three publications include: Factors/Impacts of Development and Assessment of Problems and Issues, Tools and Techniques, and Courses of Action. Portions of these three publications are relevant to Solebury’s 1 planning efforts.
The County updated its 1986 Natural Resources Plan in March of 1999. Its section on Policy 1 Implementation applies to Solebury’s efforts to conserve natural resources, particularly soils, woodlands, water supply and quality, floodplain, wetlands, wildlife, and geology.
The Solebury Township Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the county’s plan. 1 I
151 I
1 SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP INVENTORY of Preserved Lands and Farmland I Preserved Lands Acres Township Easements and County Easements 1,474 Township Open Space/Recreation 213 I Heritage Conservancy Easements 761 Heritage Conservancy Owned lands 185 1 Natural Lands Trust Easements 990 County-owned lands 35 State-owned lands 521 ~I TOTAL 4,179 1 Farmland Agricultural Security Area 5,374.47 Other farmland 1,111.61 I Total acres farmed in Solebury Township 6,486.08 I I I 1 I I I
I 1 153 STATE LANDS for Open Space Purposes
Propertv Name Tax Map Parcel Acres Delaware Canal State Park 41-18-57; 14-28-56; 41-28-73; 41-36-102; 41-18-54 61 Ingham Spring & Lake 41-22-108; 41-22-109 48 I Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve 41-36-64; 41-64-1; 41-36-65 221 Hendrick Island 41-1 8-5 1; 4 1-18-56 135 River Road State Forest Preserve 41-1 8-132; 41-1 8-35 56 I TOTAL State-preserved 521
1 BUCKS COUNTY OWNED LANDS - OPEN SPACE/RECREATION PURPOSES Hal Clark Park 41-28-57 28 I River Road tract 41-18-37 7 I TOTAL County Preserved Land 35 acres I I 1 1
155. INVENTORY -Preserved lands Acres Township easements: 1,474 Township Open Space/Recreation 213
Heritage Conservancy easements: 761 Heritage Conservancy owned lands 185 Subtotal HC 946
Natural Lands Trust 990 County 35 State 521
Farmland Agricultural Security Area 5,374.47 Other farmland 1,117.61 TOTAL 6,492.08
157 I
1 Solebury Township 1 PRESERVED PROPERTIES BY TOWNSHIP OPEN SPACE PROGRAM I. Properties Given to the Township Tax Map Parcel # Acres Ryan 41-19-14,19-17 2.2 1 McClintock 41-13-37,13-39 54.8 I Yerkes 41-18-21 16 11. Properties Eased jointly with County Agricultural Program and Township Funding I Glen Oaks Farm-Kale 41-18-33-1 78.7 Bradshaw 41-21-7 17.6 41-21-7-2 163.6 Pending Final Settlement Spring Hill Farm -Imperatore 41-36-2 123 William Henze Farm* 41-2-102,103,104 142.5 see * below
III. Properties Eased through Township Funding Fitting 41-13-25-2,25-3 25.2 Fell 41-22-120,22-126,22-173 118 Carey 41-2-88 48 Tuckwinensing - Klingensmith 41-13-33,13-41 118 coan 41-13-21 48 Marsh Gibbon-Glover 41-18-13-3 48.5 Audubon-Honey Hollow 41-13-81-3 9.5 (Held with Heritage Conservancy) Faraway Farm-Plumb 41-36-63 107.5 Spring Oak Farm (Welch) 41-1-29 118 swan 41-2-60 30 Tollgate Farm - McArdle 41-2-3 63 Rivinus 41-18-19 50 I Henze Farm* 41-13-31 30
I IV. Property Preserved through Township Funding and County Municipal Open Space Grant I Zaleski Farm 41-13-46 62.2 I Total acres preserved (July, 2002) 1,476 I 159 PROPERTIES PRESERVED IN SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP
V. Properties Preserved through Natural Lands Trust Conservation Easements in Aquetong Valley Preserve Tax Map Parcel # Acres 1. Rachel Kamen 41-13-72-1 80.14 2. Ruth Kamen 41-13-78 47.04 3. Arthur Rosenberg 41-13-77-1 12.745 4. Tony Anton 41-13-76 28.26 5. Charles and Susan Eaton 41-13-75 5.96 6. Russell W. and Pussy 0. Palmgren 41-22-3-1 5.005 7. David Marshall 41-13-85 @13-86 103 9. Walter M, Jr. and Valerie 0. Phillips 41-13-83 34.9 10. Walter M, Jr. and Valerie 0. Phillips 41-13-83-1 21.003 11. Walter M, Jr. and Valerie 0. Phillips 41-22-3 47.002 *12. James Lobley 41-22-4 23.61 “13. Katz 41-22-4-1 51.2132 14. Anthony Salvo 41-22-4-3 25.0092 15. Anthony Salvo 41-224-2 20.0722 16. Henry and Rita Lowe 41-22-54-1 34.3568 17. Benjamin and Marie Miller 41-22-56 62.548 18. Steve Grabowski 41-22-54 33.249 19. Cheryl Olsten, Lee Hulko 41-22-53.001 44.704 20. LeeHulko 41-22-53-2 54.9107 21. Lee Hulko 41-22-53-6 22.582 22. Thomas and Joan Holmes 41-22-50 22.7 23. Thomas and Joan Holmes 41-22-50-1 62.22 24. Robert and Sherry Lynn Delamontagne 41-22-53-8 29.6148 25. Thomas and John Holmes 41-22-53-7 37.8 26. John D. Hess 41-22-1 36.679 27. James Wm. Pollard 41-22-53-9 20.537
990 acres
*May have changed ownership.
160 PROPERTIES PRESERVED THROUGH HERITAGE CONSERVANCY CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Property Name Tax Map Parcel # Acres 1. Daniel and Sherry Tinsman 41-2-68-1 20.8697 2. Tinsman 41-2-68-2 19.25 3. Deborah Tinsman 41-2-68-3 26.05 4. Tinsman 41-2-68 21.77 5. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-2-1 10 42.49 (Note: 110-5 and 110-6 combined under 110) 6. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-2-110-1 52.19 7. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-2-1 10-7 11.0 8. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-2-110-14 22.2 9. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-2-1 10-15 22.71 10. Gregory Downs and Nora Jean Scalia-Downs 41-2-110-13 7.2491 11. Ronald Eydelloth 41-2-110-12 6.0032 12. Jack and Kathy Wyszomierski 41-2-110-11 6.0258 13. Jack and Kathy Wyszomierski 41-2-110-2 6.37 14. Roland and Mary Massimino 41-2-110-3 11.13 15. George and Judith Yerkes 41-2-110-8 6.5362 16. Bruce and Nancy Kanter 41-2-1 10-9 6.0016 17. Willard and Nancy Shelley 41-2-110-10 11.0 18. Douglas R. Carmichael 41-7-24 -5 37.960 Carol A. Schaller 19. Mathew and Jill Asplundh 41-2-1 12-1 11.17 20. Commonwealth of PA 41-2-7-5 1.25 21. Bucks Cnty Audubon Society 41-13-81-2 45.3199 22. William and Jane MacDowell 41-13-81-4 15.050 (Honey Hollow) 23. Patrick Bell & David Guilmet 41-13-88-3 17.81 24. Patrick Bell& David Guilmet 41-13-88-4 4.5 25. Brian & Maryanne Smith (Peco) 41-13-95-2 33.749 (Honey Hollow) 26. Anthony C. Canike 41-1 3-88-05 8.1746 27. John S. and Geraldine Merriam 41-18-25-1 38.923 28. Reilly and James 41-18-12 5.10 29. Alex and Ada Katz 41-18-15 15.2389 30. William and Nancy Williams Short 41-18-24 100 31. Paxson Estate 41-22-16 30.10 32. Paxson Estate 41-22-26 38230 33. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-2-1 01 63 Total preserved HC Easements 761 161 I I PROPERTIES OWNED BY HERITAGE CONSERVANCY Propertv Name Tax Map Parcel # Acres I Rossfields 41-13-27-2 15.41 41-13-27-1 9.06 I Tuckamon y 41-13-80 4.60 41-13-80-2 50.50 Roberts 41-18-11 35.73 1 OConner 41-18-36 7.46 Hartman 41-18-26 1.10 I Hartman 41-18-30 9.20 Hartman 41-18-24-1 2.10 Hartman 41-18-133 .90 I Trik 41-18-13-4 8.87 Cole 41-28-50-4 3.93 I Cole 41-28-50-3 4.0 Knudsen 41-36-30 31.77
I Total properties owned by HC 185 1 I
Dl I I I I I
I' 163 I
I Solebury Township I PARK & RECREATION / OPEN SPACE LANDS Site Name Purpose Acreage Tax Map Parcel #41- Canal Park recreation 11.91 28-61-35 I Cuttalossa open space/ 34.28 2-112; 2-114; 7-13-3; conservation 7-20; 7-20-2; 7-12-1; I 7-12-16; 7-12-21 Laurel Road Park recreation 11.05 13-62-5; 13-62-11 Laurel Run open space/ 17.66 18-23; 18-32 I conservation Pat Livezey Park recreation 18.07 28-63; 31-41 I Limeport open space/ 4.77 28-60 conservation Magill's Hill Park recreation 4.92 28-67-5 R Marshall recreation/ 30 22-63-1 open space 74.20 I Reeder Road open space .84 22-125-3 Sugan Road open space :29 15-17 Sunset Drive open space .24 24-14 I Township Bldg. facility 5.16 13-62-1 I COMMONWEALTH OF PA LAND Acres Delaware Canal State Park 61 I Ingham Spring/Ingham Lake 48 Bowman's Hill I Wildflower Preserve 221 Hendrick Island 136 I River Road State Forest Preserve 56 BUCKS COUNTY LAND I Hal Clark Park 28 River Road tract 7 I I I I 165 1
1 Solebury Township I AGRICULTURAL SECURITY AREA Propertv Owner Tax Map Parcel # Acres 1. William and Nancy Short 41-018-024 100 1 2. Malcolm P. Crooks 41-013-080-001 63.34 41-013-080-002 I 3. Willis M. Rivinus 41-018-019 49.62 4. Michael & Marcella Farbotnik 41-001 -027 51.931 41-001-027-001 24.539 5. Richard K. and Meridith Glover 41-018-013-003 48.4 6. Bromley and Suzanne Lowe 41-007-020-001 10.2 7. William J. Henze 41-002-102,103,104 180.79 41-01 3-03 1 William J. Henze and 41-002-076-001 48.583 Anna L. Trautmann 8. John W. and Priscilla Stone 41-035-001-002 13.69 s 9. Heritage Conservancy 4 1-018-0 1 1 35.723 Manoff Orchards-Comfort Rd. 10. George and I Joanne Walker 41-018-049,41-018-058 39.81
I 11. Joseph and Jillian McGlone 41-018-016 16.023 12. John W. Jr, and Mary Alice Subers 41-018-016-001 14.93 I 13. David and Sandra Samuels 41-018-016-003 22.64 14. Whitney W. Watson 41-021 -033 84.51 I 15. Dr. Stephen Flashner and 41-036-078-002 12.7141 Deirdre M. Collins 16 Walter and Natalie Witoshkin 41-036-078-003 11.033 I 17. A. T. Chadwick 41-036-078-005 14.1849 18. Andrew and Patricia A. Smith 41-036-076-001 10 I 19. Reed D. and Sally N. Denby 41-036-078-001 10 41-036-078 50.0367 41-036-078-004 10 20. John S. and Geraldine Merriam 41-018-025-001 38.923 21. Alex and Ada Katz 41-018-015 15.2389 22. Robert and Jane Dusek 41-013-057 72.489 23. David Mc Shane 41-018-009,018-010-002, 30.6 018-010-003,018-010-005
167 I
Propertv Owner Tax Map Parcel # Acres 8 24. Stephen and Joanne Raab 41-013-025 @ 013-025-010 23.3 41-013-025-005 10.28 I 25. Raab Partnership V 4 1-013-025-004 24.1 Stephen Raab I 26. Mr. and Mrs. Dan Fest 41-021-007-002 163.635 Mr. and Mrs. Ken Coles Mr. and Mrs. Dan Fest 41-021 -007 17.593 I
The remainder of the 219.09 acres of the original Bradshaw Farm I (approx. 38 acres) will be developed as 7 estate lots.
27. Thomas and Joan Holmes 41-022-050-001 62.22 I 28. Ruth Kamen 41-013-078 47.04 29. Rachel Kamen 41-013-072-001 80.14 I 41-13-72 10.44 30. Bernard & Marguerite Berlinger 41-001-026 64.64 41-001 -028 63.321 I 31. Wayne and Victoria McDonald 41-036-079 12.739 32. John B. and Jane V. Hess 41-008-035 68.475 I 41-008-036 18.557 41-13-72 0.89 41-22-01 36.679 I 33. James S. and Clara Coan 41-013-030 25.57 41-013-021 48.28 I 34. Patricia Knight 4 1-018-O77-001 9.38 4 1-018-077-004 2.54 41-01 8-077-005 3.264 I 35. Robert E, and Jane King 41-002-083 15.85 36. Walter M. Jr. & Valerie Phillips 41-013-083 34.9 I 37. Edward and Alexandra Leydon 41-028-005-005 14.24 41-028-005-006 15.665 41-29-05-01 0.98 I 38. Solebury Farm, LLC 41-002-050 24.75 39. Walter M. Jr, & Valerie Phillips 41-013-083-001 21.003 1 41-022-003 47.002 40. Margot K. McClintock 41-013-039 @ 013-037 64.69 I 41: Jonathan & Nicola Brown 41-013-033 63 013-041 115.81 . 42. Richard J. Hargreaves 41-002-067 28.846 1 168 I I
I Propertv Owner Tax Map Parcel # Acres 43. Frederick P. & Marylou Belforti 41-002-067-001 10.13 I 44. David Braff 41-008-001-007 30.264 45. I.H. & Birgitta von Zelowitz 41-013-055-001 17.079 46. Edwin and Elizabeth Harrington 41-002-004 10.495 47. James and Christine E. Wilson 41-036-025-006 10.369 ~' 48. Mr. & Mrs. Louis Morsbach 41-002-042-002 12.6657 49. Clarence H. &Joyce E. Overpeck41-002-084 @ 002-082 17.14 ~' 50. Roger and Patricia Stikeleather 41-002-042-004 16.2067 51. Harry Duce 41-013-017-002 16 I 52. Karen Greene 41-013-055 8.1025 53. Lee R. Hulk0 41-022-053-006 22.582 I 54. Joseph F. Matejik 41-001-030 56.59 55. Douglas Pearson 41-018-130 28.18 56. Robert L. and Karen Guthrie 41-002-051-005 27.001 I 57. D. Rumsey & Constance Plumb 41-036-063 107.574 58. William and Eileen Mulligan 41-002-110-001 2.19 I 450 Sugan Rd. 41-002-110-005,006 @ 42.49 41-002-110 63 41-002-106-004 2.18 1 41-002-110-007 11.0 41-002-110-014 22.2 I 41-002-110-015 22.71 59. Jack and Kathy Wyszomierski 1-002-110-002 6.37 41-002-110-011 6.0258 I 60. Roland and Mary Massimino 41-002-110-003 11.13 61. George and Judith Yerkes 41-002-110-008 6.5362 I 62. Bruce and Nancy Kanter 41-002-110-009 6.0016 63. Willard and Nancy Shelly 41-002-110-010 11 64. Ronald S. Eydelloth 41-002-110-012 6.0032 I 65. Gregory Downs, 41 -002-110-013 7.2491 Nora Jean Scalia-Downs I 66. Douglas R. Carmichael, 41-007-024 37.960 Carol A. Schaller 67. Matthew and Jill Asplundh 41-002-112-001 11.17 I 68. Commonwealth of PA. 41-007-005 1.25 69. Douglas & Wendy Kale 41-018-033-001 94.717 I 70. Edward P. McArdle, Jr. 41-002-003 62.95 I I 169 1
Property Owner Tax Map Parcel # Acres I 71. Phillip and Joy Johnson 41-021-026-002 34.616 41-021 -032 41- 021-032- 001,002 I 72. George and Anne Yarnell 4 1-002-064-001 15.73 73. Arthur Imperatore 41-036-002 187.92 I
2001-1 Robert W. and Ruth J. Buckman 41-002-051-001 46.28 I 2001-2 Benjamin Haskey, I11 41-008-030 32.854 41-008-017 @? 41-008-033 62.484 I 2001-4 David E. and Alyssa M. Wachob 41-022-027 54.0565 2001-5 John and Susan Eichert 41-028-053 18.42 41-28-53-05 20.6644 1 41-28-53-1 0 4.8954 41-28-53-09 4.0478 I 41-28-53-02 2.97 41-28-53-11 2.3229 2001-6 John Peter Grover 41-028-017 52.17 I 41-28-37 14.53 41-028-017-002 6.00 I 2001-7 Nicholas Zelenevich 41-001-023,41-002-040, 68 41-00 1-023-002'41-002-041-001 2001-8 Joseph A. and Martha J. Murphy 41-036-058 38.2 I 41-22-159-5 14.7891 41-22-162 32.11 I 2001-9 Robert N. and Jane Dusek 41-013-057 (97.489) 25 New 41-23-56-03 13.489 I 2001-10 Ralph D. and Janet R. O'Banion 41-021-034-001 10 2001-11 Richard and Sandra J. Kittredge 41-021-034 8.3967 1 2001-12 I.H. and Birgitta von Zelowitz 41-013-056-001 (47.92) 25.495 New 2001-13 Kenneth Coles 41-008-002 @ 8-2-2,8-2-4 56.84 I 41-08-02-03 11.18 41-08-02-01 18 I 2001-14 Donald Fitting 41-013-025-003 24.09 41-1 3-25-02 1.125 I I 170 I Propertv Owner Tax Map Parcel # Acres 2001-15 Richard G. Augenblick 41-036-108 @ 116.37 Mark Augenblick 036-100,100-001, 100-118,100-119 200 1-16 Mary B. Martin 41-013-107-001,013-096-004 20 2001-17 William and Jane MacDowell 41-013-081-001 9.55 41-13-81-04 15.050 I 2001-18 Malcolm J. Borthwick, Jr. VMD 41-028-043 7.048 Mary Borthwick 41-028-043-001 13.481 @ 41-028-043-003 I 2001-19 Thomas H and 41-013-107 @ 41-013-099-003 11.063 Margaret MK Dietterich 1 2001-20 Daniel F. and 41-002-068-001 20.8697 Sherry B. Tinsman 2001-21 Earl H. Jamison 41-035-001 41.01 2001-22 Victor, Charlotte, Doris, 41-036-062 @ 036-056 135 Janet C., Raymond, iind 41-036-071 6.09 I Susan Potter 2001-23 Edward S. and Odette T. Swan 41-002-060 70.5 2001-24 Sanford Baldinger 41-036-007 30.01 I 2001-25 Susan Kroupa 41-018-013-006 7.629 2001-26 Thomas A. Holmes, 41-022-053-007 37.8 I John Holmes Thomas A. and Joan M. Holmes 41-022-050 22.7 2001-27 Cheryl Olsten 41-022-054 33.249 1 2001-28 Robt. & Sherrilyn Delamontagne 41-022-053-008 29.6148 m 2001-29 Arthur Rosenberg 41-013-077-001 12.745 200 1-30 Charles and Susan Eaton 41-013-075 5.96 2001-31 William J. Pollard 41-022-053-009 20.537 I 2001-32 Cheryl Olsten & Lee Hulko 41-022-053.001 44.704 2001-33 Lee Hulko 41-022-053-002 54.9107 1 2001-34 Brian W. and Maryanne J. Smith 41-013-095-002 33.749 2001-35 Brian W. Smith 41-013-030-003 24.3 I 2001-36 Bucks County Audubon Society 41-013-081-002 45.3199 41-013-081-003 9.4596 I 2001-37 Daniel and Jennifer Fest 41-002-088 48 2001-38 Deborah Tinsman 41-002-068-003 26.0492 I
171 I
Propertv Owner Tax Map Parcel # Acres I 2001-39 Heritage Conservancy 41-013-027-001 15.41 (Rossfields) 41-013-027-002 9.06 200 1-40 Heritage Conservancy 41-018-013-002 2.65 I (Trik) 41-018-013-004 8.87 2001-41 Heritage Conservancey 41-018-024-001 2.10 i (Hartrnann) 41-018-026 1.10 41-1 8-30 9.30 41-18-133 .90 I 2001-42 Heritage Conservancy 4 1-018-036 Rejected 200 1-43 Heritage Conservancy 41-028-050-004 3.93 I (Cole) 41-028-050-003 4.00 2001-44 Heritage Conservancy 41-036-030 31.77 (Knudsen) I 2001-45 John and Bonnie Sylvester 41-2-93 80.67 41-2-93-2 3.55 I 2001-46 Michael and Christine Welch 41 -22-51 96.622 2001-47 Anthony C. Canike 41-013-088-005 8.17 2001-48 Dorothy Downie 41-013-084 2.34 I Robert Orrill 200 1-49 John R. and Mary Walchonski 41-36-25-7 10.056 I 2001-50 Judith Robertson 41-13-20 50.0 I TOTAL acres in Solebury Agricultural Security Area (July,2002) 5,374.5 I I 1 I I I I 172 I FARMLAND - Lands farmed but not enrolled in the Agricultural Security Area
Landowner Tax Map Parcel # 41- Acres Ansley, Mark & Peter Miller 2-1 10 10 Leeside Bock, Thomas 36-58 38.2 Windy Bush @ Pidcock Creek Bogdnoff, Harris & Wade, Catherine 22-4-1 51.21 Aquetong Preserve Broad, Todd & McNutt, Leona 2-64-2 13.80 End of Sugan Rd Busik, Joe & Edith, Joseph & Julia 18-3 200f 65.42 Paxson Rd Carlin, Edwin & Fluitt, Lynda 13-45-1 15.05 Greenhill Rd 1 Cepparulo, Albert & Jarin, Andrew 13-46 62.2 of 74.8 Sugan Rd I Fest, Dan and Jennifer 2-88 48 Aquetong Rd. (Carey Farm) Hansen, Christian I11 2-54 11.09 I Aquetong in Carversville Hixson, Ted &Joyce 21-25-1 33.82 Street Rd./Bradshaw Johnson, Philip & Joy 21-26-1 14.90 Stoney Hill Rd. Jubelt, Andrew 28-41 15 Phillips Mill Rd. I Katz Estate 22-4 23.61 Aquetong Preserve FellLivezy Trust 22-173; 120; 126 118 I Stoney Hill/Aquetong Lowe, Henry & Rita 22-54-1 34.35 1 Aquetong Preserve MacKnight, Ian & Alison 13-27 12.15 @Rossfields/Greenhill I Marshall, David & Sandy 13-85@13-86 103.0 Aquetong Preserve I McArdle, Edward Jr. 2-85 10.62 Meranze, Walter 36-136 13.l1 Pidcock Creek 36-135 16.12
173 Landowner Tax Map Parcel # 41- Acres Miller, Benjamin & Marie 22-56 62.54 Aquetong Preserve Mills, Floyd & Overpeck, Joyce 2-84 and 2-88 17.14 Aquetong Rd. Molloy, Nicholas 6% Roberta 13-70-1 15.74 Upper York Rd. Roeser, Gerald 21-6 99.99 Street RdDradshaw Salvo, Anthony 22-4-2 20.07 Aquetong Preserve 22-4-3 25.00 Schulz, Homer & Noma, Tr. 28-41-1 9.66 Phillips Mill Rd. Slate Sista Farm, LLC 13-62-14 1.54 Upper York Rd. 13-62 12.41 13-62-17 11.0 13-62-27 4.0 Sloan, Gurney & Faith 2-11-4 12.00 Leeside Spivak, Jon 2-54-3 27.27 Aquetong/Carversville Spivak, Joshua & Hogg, Brenda 2-54-4 12.71 Aque t ong/Carver sville Stewart, David & Marilou 21-19 and 21-20 19.01 Street Rd. Town, Eric 18-78 and 18-77-2 67.0 Phillips Mill Rd. Watson, Donna 13-34 11.65 Creamery Rd. Weiner, Jeffrey & Andrea 18-8 15.16 Paxson Rd. Worthington, Albert 28-44 and 28-42 &45 13.49 Phillips Mill Rd.
TOTAL lands farmed but not in ASA 1,111.61
174 I
I BIBLIOGRAPHY I The Solebury Township Comprehensive Plan Committee extensively utilized a diverse assortment of planning and technical literature. In addition, Committee members reviewed relevant case law and relevant Pennsylvania environmental I policies. Consequently, the Committee is confident that the goals, objectives, and policies established for Solebury in the Comprehensive Plan are based on well I established planning principles as well as proven engineering and technical practices. The following is a listing of some of the many resources used by the Committee. Although not referenced throughout the Plan, many of the documents I and articles are applicable to several parts of the Plan and can be used as reference u material for users of the Plan. Alley, W M, T E Redly, 0 L Franke, 1999. Sustainabilitv of Ground-Water Resources. U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Geological Survey B Circular 1186. I Arendt, R G, 1996. Conservation Design- for Subdivisions. Island Press. Berke, P, M M Conroy, 2000. Are We Planning fur Sustainable Development?: An I Evaluation of 30 comprehensive Plans in the Journal Of The American Planning 1 Association, Volume 66, Number 1, Winter 2000. pp. 21-33. Blaesser, B W, A C Weinstein, Eds, 1989. American Planning Association.
1 Bosselman, P, M E MacDonald, 1999. Livable Streets Revisited. in the Journal of The American Planning Association, Volume 65, Number 2, Spring, 1999. pp. 168- I 180. Brooks, J P, 2001. Land Use Planning in Karst and Recharge Zones. Published in "Land I and Water", May/June 2001. pp. 26-29.
I Burchell, R W, D Listokin, W R Dolphin, L Q Newton, S J Foxley, 1997. Development Impact Assessment Handbook. ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
I Butcher, J B, 1999, June. Forecasting Future Land Use Fur Watershed Assessment in the Journal Of The American Watershed Association, Volume 35, Number 3. pp. I 555-565. 1 I 175 Callies, D L, Eds, 1996. TakinPs - Land-Development Conditions and Redatorv Takings After Dolan and Lucas. American Bar Association.
Carlson, D, D Billen, 1996, October. Transportation Corridor Management: Are We Linkinn Transportation and Land Use Yet?. Institute for Public Policy and Management.
Charles, E G, C Behroozi, J Schooley, J L Hoffman, 1993. A Method for Evaluation Ground-Water-Recharge Areas in New Tersev. NJDEP - Division of Science and Research. New Jersey Geological Survey Report GSR-32.
DeGrove, J M, Eds., 1991. Balance Growth, A Planning Guide for Local Government. International City Management Association.
Ground Water Protected Area Regulations. 1998, January. Delaware River Basin Commission.
Executive Order 1999-1 Land Use Planning, 1999. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor’s Office. pp. 1-3.
Faludi, A, 1994. A Reader In Planning Theorv. Pergamon Press.
Field, R, D Sullivan, Eds, 2002. Wet-Weather Flow in the Urban Watershed. Lewis
Publishers. i
Fleming, B, D Henkel, 2001. Community&zxd Ecological Monitoring: A Rapid Appraisal Approach. In the Journal Of The American Planning Association, Volume 67, Number 4, Autumn, 2001. ,pp. 456-465.
Grant, J, P Manuel, D Joudrey, 1996. A Framework for Planning Sustainable Residential Landscapes in the APA Journal, Summer 1996. pp. 331-344.
Greenberg, F, J Hecimovich, 1984, October. Traffic Impact Analvsis. American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 387.
Hecimovich, J, Eds.,1998, September. The Principles of Smart Development. American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 479. p. 7.
176 I
I Hollander, J B, 2002. Measuring Community: Using Sustainability Indicators in Devens, Massachusetts in the Planner's Casebook, Winter 2002. pp. 1-9.
I Hoyle, C L, 1995, July. Traffic Calming. American Planning Association. Planning I Advisory Service Report Number 456. James, S, J Power, C Forrest, 1999, April. Policv Guide On Sustainabilitv. American I Planning Association. pp. 1-18. Kelly, E D, B Becker, 2000. Communitv Planning;, An Introduction to the I Comprehensive Plan. Island Press. pp. 17-21; pp. 48-51. Krizek, K J, J Power, 1996. A Planners Guide To Sustainable Development. American Planners Association. Planning Advisory Service Report Number I 467. rn Krueckeberg, D A, Eds, 1983. Introduction To Planning History In The United States. Center for Urban Policy Research.
I Lerner, S, W Poole, 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space. The I Trust For Public Land. Mandelker, D R, 1997. Land Use Law, Fourth Edition. Lexis Law Publishing.
I Maser, C, 1997. Sustainable Communitv Development. St. Lucie Press.
1 McHarg, I L, 1992. Desim With Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Moore, T, P Thorsnes, 1994, January. The TransportationLand Use I Connection.American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service 1 Report Number 448/449. Morris, M, Eds, 1996, December. Creating; Transit-Supportive Land-Use Rem1ations.American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service I Report Number 468.
I Nelson, A C, J Duncan, C J Mullen, K R Bishop, 1995. Growth Manarement Principles and Practices. American Planning Association.
I Noss, R F, M A OConnell, D D Murphy, 1997. The Science of Conservation I Planning. Island Press. I 177 1
Olshansky, R B, 1996, November. Planning For Hillside Development. American I Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 466. I Pelley, J, 1999, January. BuiZding Smart-Growth Communities in Environmental Science and Technology/News, January 1,1999. pp. 28-32. 1 Pennsylvania Code. 1997 (Amended) Title 25 - Environmental Protection, Part I - Department of Environmental Protection, Subpart A - Preliminary I Provisions, Article I - Administrative Provisions, Chapter 9 - Environmental Master Plan, Subchapter A (Environmental Policy Planning Program) and I Subchapter B ( Policies for Critical Environmental Areas).
Specifically, the STCPRC considered Pennsylvania’s legislative mandate (P.L. 1 834, No. 278, December 3, 1970) and the Environmental Mater Plan for the Commonwealth that: Recognizes “A broad approach is necessary because traditional programs 1 for environmental protection have been inadequate for the following reasons: I (1) Narrow program concerns provide solutions which may cause problems in other areas of the environment. I (2) Interrelated character of the environment makes it impossible to impact only a single part of the total system. (3) Incomplete knowledge about the complex workings of the IC environment increases the potential for unintended or irreversible consequences. (4) Preoccupation with short term goals and satisfaction of I continually growing demands precludes an analysis of the long term impacts of current activities on a limited resource base. 1 (c) A broader view of the total environment recognizes man as a member of the biotic community. His social and economic activities are as much a part of the whole environment as the I forests, mountains and streams. However, human survival, the survival of all other living things, and the general well-being of 1 society depend upon the health and maintenance of the natural environment, clean air, pure water and the protection of the I complex ecological relationships. Incorporates a ”understanding of and a respect for ecologic values into the existing social structure requires a rethinking of traditional man- 1 environment relationships. There must be an attempt to challenge and 1 178 I I
I change those attitudes which do not reflect an overall sensitivity for the environment. Traditional attitudes related to the environment can be characterized by the following statements: I (1) Growth is good. (2) Technology can solve any problem. 'I (3) Economics is a higher concern than environmental protection. (4) Maintaining a natural environment is not a productive use of I the land. (5) Lessening population growth eliminates resource consumption problems. 1 (6) Nature can be protected by setting aside small areas of the envirorurient. (7) The knowledge and superiority of man places him above the I laws of nature. 0 Adopts an ethic or set of principles reflecting a change in traditional I attitudes toward man-environment relationships. Those principles include: Man is a part of the total ecosystem and a citizen within the I biotic community and is to be recognized as a trustee of the earth's resources. 1 The total dependency of man upon the infinite air, water and land resources of the earth is to be acknowledged for the long term survival of society. I Complex' interrelationships and interdependencies of the natural environment are to be recognized and respected. I Environmental values which maintain the quality and productivity of natural resources, processes, and systems of the environment are to be protected. I Environmental resources are to be managed recognizing the natural capabilities and assimilative capacities of the total 1 environment. The activities of man creating adverse impacts on human health I and the natural environment are to be minimized. In preparation of the revised Comprehensive Plan, the STCPRC has strived to I avoid the pitfalls of traditional attitudes and embrace the ethic and principles of changing attitudes towards man-environment rela tionships. I I I 179 Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, 1999.m Comprehensive Plan in Pennsvlvania, Planning Series #3. Governor’s Center for Local Government Services.
Porter, D R, R H Platt, C Leinberger, E J Blakely, S Maxman, 2000. The Practice of Sustainable Development. ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
Sanders, W, 1980, December. The Cluster Subdivision: A Cost-Effective Approach. American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 356.
Schoon, J G, 1996. Transportation Svstems and Service Policy, A Proiect-Based Introduction. International Thomson Publishing.
Schueler, T R, H K Holland, Eds, 2000. The Importance of Imperviousness, in The Practice of Watershed Protection. The Center for Watershed Protection. pp. 7-18.
Schueler, T R, H K Holland, Eds, 2000. Dealing with Septic System Impacts, in The Practice of Watershed Protection. The Center for Watershed Protection. pp. 597-604.
Seif, J A, 1997, February. DEP Wetlands Protection Action Plan. Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Protection.
Seif, J M and C E Glotfelty, Co-Chairpersons, 1998. Report of the Pennsvlvania 21Sf Centurv Environment Commission.
Smith, H H, 1993. The Citizen’s Guide to Planning. American Planning Association.
Smith, H H, 1983. The Citizen’s Guide to Zoning. American Planning Association.
Smith, T P, 1983, August. Flexible Parking- Requirement. American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 377.
So, F S, Eds, J Getzels, Eds, 1988. The Practice of Local Government Planning. International City/County Management Association.
180 aome, L c, ms., iwu. itesiaentiai streets, secona caition. American soaety or uvii Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
Solin, L, 1997. Professional Practice Manual. American Planning Association.
Sustainable Communities Task Force, 1998, August. Working Together to Build Sustainable Communities, Task Force Report. County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.
Thompson, J W, K Sorvig, 2000. Sustainable Landscape Construction. Island Press.
Walter, M T, M F Walter, E S. Brooks, T S Steenhuis, J Boll, K Weiler, 2000. Hydrologically Sensitive Areas: Variable Source Area Hydrology Implications for Water Quality Risk Assessment. in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. pp. 277-284.
Warbuton, D, Eds., 1998. Communitv and Sustainable Development, Participation in the Future. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. pp. 52-67; pp. 81-95.
Wear, D N, M Turner, R J Naiman, 1998, August. Land Cover Along An Urban-rural Gradient: Implications For Water Quality in Ecological Applications, 8 (3), 1998. pp. 619-630.
Warren, W D, 1998, Winter. Developing a Model for Open Space Planning in the Environmental Quarterly. pp. 8-13.
181