While the discussions continue over a new middle school for the Upper Perkiomen School District in the community, arguments over the conditions imposed for approval of the project by Upper Hanover Township officials are making their way through the Montgomery County Court system.
At their Dec. 5 meeting, school board members voted to authorize their solicitor to file an appeal from the conditions imposed by the Upper Hanover Board of Supervisors in its Nov. 18 decision on the school board's Conditional Use Application.
According to court documents, the district filed a conditional use application to permit the construction of the school and install rooftop HVAC equipment in excess of 40 feet on the property, which is currently zoned as an R-1 (Agriculture and Low-Density Residential) District in Upper Hanover Township.
On Oct. 11, a conditional use hearing was held by Upper Hanover Township to, in part, allow for the construction of a middle school as an institutional use in the R-1 district. Later that month, the Upper Hanover Board of Supervisors Zoning Board rendered a decision to grant the conditional use application with three conditions related to the safety of students walking to school on Montgomery Avenue.
However, in November, the board mailed the district a letter listing 12 conditions for approval. School district attorney Mark Hosterman filed the appeal of the conditions, writing that the additional conditions are "vague, unreasonable, unnecessary to protect the integrity of the Upper Hanover Township Zoning Ordinance, and the health, safety and welfare of the community."
The first of the initial three conditions for approval required the district to request a state Department of Transportation (PennDOT) review of student walking routes for both sides of Montgomery Avenue between 11th Street and Route 663. The purpose of the review is to determine whether any of the routes are hazardous per PennDOT criteria for assessing student walking routes.
"Although it is not the only concern, of particular concern is the DOT definition of hazardous as any route with a shoulder of 4 feet or less and vehicular traffic greater than 45 cars in any 15-minute period when students are walking to and from school," according to a conditional use decision letter mailed to the district in late October.
Speeding was also mentioned as a concern.
"Any route deemed hazardous by the DOT should be bussed or the walking routes improved to a safe condition," the board decided.
Secondly, the conditional approval stated that in lieu of a review by DOT, the district could install curbed sidewalks along that the south side of Montgomery Avenue (the school side) from Route 663 to 11th Street.
The third condition stated that no land development approval would be granted and no building permits issued until DOT finds that none of the proposed walking routes are hazardous, or, that the district "agrees either through its plans or a developer's agreement that it will [make] sidewalk improvements consistent with the conditions."
But in mid-November, the board issued a written decision listing 12 conditions of approval, according to the Notice to Appeal filed by Attorney Mark Hosterman on behalf of the school district.
Additional conditions state that in lieu of installing sidewalks, the district could bus students who would otherwise walk to the middle school, as long as:
Those students are the last ones picked up and the first ones dropped off (to incentivize students to opt for the bus versus walking directly down Montgomery Avenue). This would also include high school students from the same locale;
The district sends letters to the parents of students advising them that Montgomery Avenue is an impermissible and hazardous walking route;
The district staffs Montgomery Avenue with personnel who will forbid any students from attempting to walk along Montgomery Avenue between Sixth Street and the school for the first 60 days of classes at the new school. In the event that students start using Montgomery Avenue, staffing would again be supplied as necessary to abate the problem;
Signage is placed where Sixth Street and Eighth Street intersect with Montgomery Avenue stating that students are prohibited from walking to school along that road;
The school district would not oppose a future ordinance prohibiting pedestrian traffic in general along Montgomery Avenue (if the township chooses to adopt such an ordinance); and
That these conditions will be made conditions of the Certificate of Occupancy issued for the new middle school.
The conditions also state that the District may opt to bus the students and then later install sidewalks without being in violation of the order.
Hosterman, in his appeal, wrote that the additional conditions, "[a]s written and without further clarification … are unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and an error of law."
On Jan. 20, Attorney Joseph Bresnan filed the response to the School Districts' appeal, challenging some and clarifying other statements presented by Hosterman.
"While the wording of the Order does not include every conceivable detail, its meaning is easily understood and consistent with the understanding between the parties that was reached prior to the issuance of the Order," Bresnan wrote in the township's reply. "The Order was intended to do no more than memorialize that upon which there was already agreement."
Although no court decision has been made yet on the outcome of the appeal, issues surrounding the construction continue to be publically debated as the District moves forward with some preliminary work on the proposed building site.
In recent weeks, Upper Hanover Township officials have indicated that they are planning to install sidewalks on Montgomery Avenue from the edge of the school property to Eight Street, and district officials have said they expected to install sidewalk from Walt Road to the end of the property on Montgomery Avenue, which falls short of the township's conditions.