April decision planned for townhouse rezoning

Chadds Ford Township supervisors concluded the hearing on proposed zoning changes that could lead to a new townhome development. A decision is tentatively scheduled for the board’s April 1 meeting.

Hovnanian Homes wants to build a 107-unit townhouse development on Brandywine Drive at Route 1, but the 20-plus acres parcel is zoned PBC for a planned business campus. The hearing was held to determine whether or not to change the zoning to PBC-1 and then add a text amendment to allow for townhomes — with conditional use approval — in such a zoning district.

The March 9 session continued the hearing that was opened Feb. 2. At that time, attorney John Jaros, representing the applicant, had concluded his opening presentation and the supervisors began hearing from residents before continuing the hearing until March.

Leading off was Chadds Ford resident Valerie Hoxter who asked a series of questions directed to the board and to the applicant.

Her primary question was procedural in nature, asking why the hearing was being held before a firm plan for the development had been submitted.

Jaros explained that the applicant has been working with the township Planning Commission for two years to come up with an acceptable approach.

He recounted the attempts citing an initial approach to develop an overlay district, but that was shot down. They then proposed changing the parcel’s zoning to RM, residential multi-family use. The commission gave thumbs down to that also.

The proposal to change the zoning to PBC-1 along with a text amendment was met with the commissioners’ approval.

“We have worked closely with the township to develop this application,” Jaros said.

However, Jaros noted that even if supervisors approve the zoning change and text amendment, that still does not mean the project would become reality. K. Hovnanian would still need to go through a conditional use hearing. Even if use is approved with conditions, the development would still need preliminary and final land development approval from the supervisors.

He also said that without the text amendment, it would make no sense to go through the expense of delving deeper into engineering.

Other areas of concern for Hoxter and other residents — including newly appointed Supervisor Samantha Reiner — involved traffic, stormwater management and the number of school-aged children the development would bring into the school district.

Reiner said she wanted to see more detailed traffic and stormwater management plans and a more complete review by the township’s professional consultants.

(Reiner was not on the board when the hearing began on Feb. 2. She was appointed two weeks later to replace Keith Klaver who resigned in January, but Jaros agreed that she could review the first night’s testimony and vote on the matter.)

Stormwater runoff is a major concern, especially for residents of Painters Crossing Condominiums where a runoff problem already exists.

Hoxter lives at the condominiums and the president of the condo board, Clark Hoffman, requested party status in the hearing when it began last month. He said then, and repeated the point during the March session, that he opposes the proposed changes because of stormwater problems that already flood parts of the condo property.

Land planner John Kennedy said the plan already meets the township’s requirements for impervious coverage with a maximum building coverage of 30 percent and an impervious coverage area of 50 percent.

The number of new students coming into the school district was also questioned.

Another land planner, David Babbitt originally said the development, as planned would add 10 new students. However, he was questioned because of a student population projection study performed by a firm the school district retained when it was investigating the possibility of redistricting the elementary schools.

That firm, McKissock and Associates, looked at the K. Hovnanian concept and projected there would be 42 new students, 0.39 students per home.

Babbitt said he questioned the people at McKissock and learned that they used a different methodology, looking at the 2000 census and basing their projections factoring in all homes in the district.

Babbitt’s calculations, he said, were based on type of home, multi-family units, cost of the units and their style.

Half of the units proposed would be age targeted toward buyers 55 or older who are usually empty nesters. Those units would have the master bedroom on the ground floor, called “master down.” They are planned to sell for $563,000.

The other units would be what he called “open market” homes with an upper floor master bedroom. It’s from those units that the students would be coming from, he said. The cost for those homes is projected to be $499,000.

Babbitt’s figure of 10 students comes from using those variables to come up with 0.19 students per open market home.

He said that figure matches with the school district’s numbers from four townhouse developments in Chadds Ford, Pennsbury and Pocopson. That same figure, 0.19 students per unit, also coincides with a report from Rutgers University. Rutgers did a study for all 50 states, Babbitt said.

“Townhouses have fewer students than single family homes,’ he said.

Jaros closed by reminding the board and the residents that approving the zoning changes does not end the approval process. He also reminded them that the township‘s Comprehensive Plan recommends having residential and commercial uses in that area near Routes 1 and 202.

About Rich Schwartzman

Rich Schwartzman has been reporting on events in the greater Chadds Ford area since September 2001 when he became the founding editor of The Chadds Ford Post. In April 2009 he became managing editor of ChaddsFordLive. He is also an award-winning photographer.