Our findings.
The sources. The open questions.

A special exception application, with further review ahead.

The September 14 cover letter submits a special exception application for Heritage Hills Associates. The narrative describes a proposed residential development and says detailed land-development review will follow special exception approval. Those statements describe the applicant’s request and proposed process; the supplied packet does not establish that approval has been granted.

Read: cover letter, PDF 1; narrative, PDF 7.

The narrative expressly describes an Alexis Drive connection.

The narrative and traffic study describe access through Shawna Avenue and an extension of Alexis Drive connecting to the existing Bridgewater community. The supplied annotated aerial map separately highlights a route around Duquesne Road toward Springwood Road. The map’s colored marks illustrate a concern; they do not independently establish an approved road, opening date, surveyed boundary, or traffic distribution.

Read: narrative, PDF 8; traffic study printed page 9, PDF 52; supplied annotated context map.

The packet contains differing unit figures.

The narrative on PDF 7 describes 27 detached, 120 attached, and 300 multifamily units, totaling 447. The opening paragraph on PDF 8 instead describes 25 detached, 121 attached, and 300 multifamily units; later on that same page it returns to the 447-unit study description. These are document descriptions, not independently established current or approved totals.

The earlier July 23 scoping letter describes another development mix. Different versions may explain some differences; the packet alone does not establish which version controls or why each figure changed.

Read: narrative, PDF 7–8; July 23 correspondence, PDF 67.

The applicant’s forecasts, and the Project 3 question.

Exhibit E contains TPD’s Transportation Impact Study dated August 31, 2026. Table 6 forecasts 3,080 average weekday vehicle trips generated by the site, including 198 trips in the weekday A.M. peak hour and 241 in the P.M. peak hour. These are forecast trip movements across the site, not unique vehicles, observed increases, or the totals at every intersection.

PM peak-hour delay at Chestnut Hill & Camp Betty Washington

Table 10 (printed page 15 / PDF 58) forecasts the following overall intersection control delay for Chestnut Hill Road & Camp Betty Washington Road (SR 2005). The 92.5% comparison uses the same 2035 year, without the modeled improvements:

Calculated change without improvements: 33.3 − 17.3 = 16.0 additional seconds per vehicle; 16.0 ÷ 17.3 × 100 ≈ 92.5%. This percentage is our calculation from the applicant’s delay forecasts, not an applicant-quoted traffic-volume increase. Control delay includes slowing, queueing, stopped time, and acceleration; the overall average is not an exact wait for each driver or each approach. The existing-condition overall delay in Table 10 is 15.3 seconds; that is a different baseline from the 2035 no-build value used here.

Improvement assumptions and the traffic-light question: the study describes a planned westbound left-turn lane/road widening and the Township CIP’s recommended conversion from two-way to all-way stop control (printed page 16 / PDF 59). It forecasts 23.9 seconds per vehicle with the modeled improvements, still 6.6 seconds above the 2035 no-build delay. Table 10 rates the northbound left turn F in the existing, no-build, and build-without-improvements scenarios. These approach-level results differ from the overall intersection rating.

The applicant’s signal-warrant analysis says the tested four-hour volume warrant is not satisfied: two hours exceed the threshold, where four are needed (printed page 19 / PDF 62). This guide does not establish that a traffic light is required. Ask the applicant and reviewing agencies to explain the warrant analysis, turning-movement delays, safety evidence, alternatives, and whether future development or updated counts change the result.

Read: Table 10, printed page 15 / PDF 58; improvement discussion, printed page 16 / PDF 59; delay methodology, printed page 12 / PDF 55; signal-warrant analysis, printed page 19 / PDF 62.

A separate measure: vehicle trips at Chestnut Hill & Shawna

The Appendix E worksheet dated August 26, 2026 for Chestnut Hill Road & Shawna Avenue (Synchro Node 1) compares the same 2035 design year with and without the proposal. Its intersection totals are:

How we calculated the percentages: (451 − 339) ÷ 339 × 100 = 33.0% in the A.M.; (745 − 607) ÷ 607 × 100 = 22.7% in the P.M., rounded to one decimal. The percentages are our arithmetic from the applicant’s forecasts, not an overall rate quoted by the applicant. They apply to this intersection’s total peak-hour movements. Other intersections and individual turning movements have different changes; do not add intersection totals together as unique trips.

The study’s printed page 7 describes August traffic counts, seasonal adjustment, and 0.33% annual background growth (3.01% compounded to 2035). That background-growth assumption is separate from the proposal’s added trips. The listed nearby development is a 150-unit Bridgewater Age Restricted Community. The worksheet’s background-development row reads “Bridgewater (Remaining Build-Out) Age Restricted” and adds six trips in each peak hour at this intersection. Neither of these pages separately identifies remaining Project 3 development.

The June 26 scoping memo lists “Bridgewater (Remaining Build-Out).” The July 23 scoping correspondence specifically refers to Projects 1, 2, and 3 when discussing school-in-session traffic data, describes Project 3 as in early construction, and separately describes Project 4 as an age-restricted development of 135 homes. The differing labels and unit figures need reconciliation; they do not by themselves prove that Project 3 was omitted from the final analysis.

Read: Table 6, printed page 11 / PDF 54; Appendix E intersection worksheet, PDF 166; background assumptions, printed page 7 / PDF 50; June 26 scope, PDF 71; July 23 scoping comments, PDF 67–68.

School capacity & student population need their own evidence.

The July 23 scoping letter discusses an Ore Valley school expansion and reports no increase to the school’s stated 600-student population in that plan. This is an assertion in the scoping correspondence about that school project. It is not independent confirmation of present enrollment, building capacity, available seats, or students generated by the proposed housing.

Read: July 23 scoping letter, item 2(c), PDF 68.

Make the distinction clear in your statement.

• Firsthand: what you personally experienced, where, and approximately when.
• Document-based: what a named source says, with its date, exhibit, and page. Attribute predictions and conclusions to their author.
• Concern or request: what you are worried may happen, and the specific explanation or evidence you want considered.

The application packet and two images were supplied by the organizer; their status as the latest official record was not independently authenticated. No claim about Phase 3’s home count, a missing analysis, illegality, or anyone’s intent should be inferred from this guide. Questioning witnesses, party status, and admission of statements remain subject to the applicable procedures.

View all supplied materials · Confirm official hearing information