Development still wanted, residents still object

A basic plan for a text change to Concord Township’s zoning ordinance that was shot down in December was heard once again during a hearing on May 13.

The propsal, if approved, could eventually allow for the development of the 17-acre Hall family property at Featherbed Lane and Bethel Road. That development plan calls for greater density than currently allowed. While the proposal in December was denied, the new submission reworded the suggested amendment to make it more specific to the property in question.

Supervisor Dominic Cappelli said after the hearing that the original could be applied to too many properties.

“We didn’t want that,” he said. “We wanted it narrowed down to [the Hall] property.”

Supervisors’ Chairman Dominic Pileggi added that the new proposed change affects only properties in the R2 and R2D zoning districts and requires that historic buildings be preserved.

Supervisors have planned a meeting for May 27 to announce their decision. Even if the text amendment passes, the applicant would still need to go through a conditional use hearing and the normal land development procedure before work could begin.

Engineer Matt Houtmann, testifying for the applicant, said the property could be developed now to include about a dozen homes, but that would not be economically feasible given the extensive improvements that are planned. Those improvements include building a sewage pump station that could handle flows from 150 homes in neighboring developments. It could also handle flows from the Garnet Valley School District property to the north if the district chose to abandon its own treatment facility, Houtmann said.

Also included is a plan to extend Perkins Lane from Cambridge Downs through the proposed Hall development to Bethel Road. That would provide another access point for the existing Cambridge Downs and Clayton Park developments.

That new access is necessary based on the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s plan to widen Route 322 — the Conchester Highway. That widening would eliminate two left turns — at Cambridge and Merion drives — into and from Cambridge Downs along Route 322.

Pileggi said he’s especially interested in seeing better access for Cambridge residents.

Another consideration in developing the property is that it is a hilly area with steep slopes on the southern portion of the site and there is a need to do extensive grade work to put in the roadway and pump station, Houtmann said.

In return for the improvements, the applicant wants to increase the density to 44 homes. Houtmann said there would only be four houses in a row so that they would appear more like carriage houses than townhouses.

Many residents, including the township Historical Commission, oppose the idea.

Other residents asked whether the township would be responsible for maintaining the new internal road. Houtmann said that road — the extension of the existing Perkins Road — would be offered to the township for dedication and that Concord would then be responsible for its maintenance. Concord would also be getting  liquid fuel taxes from the state for that.

Another resident wanted to know if Bethel Road would have to be widened. Houtmann said it would, but only at the approaches to the panned development.

Roughly three dozen residents requested party status, meaning they would have standing to appeal a decision they didn’t like. The meeting room itself was filled to capacity with a number of people standing along the walls.

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.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Comments

comments

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. Dan Levin

    I attended the entire meeting last night, which rehashed many of the supposed benefits to the township itself and residents of communities that would become neighbors to the proposed luxury townhome (~$500K/house) community.

    Pileggi highlighted many of those benefits, leading me to conclude that the BoS will likely pass the zoning ordinance change, and rely on either general indifference and/or the argument that it will really only impact the Hall property.

    They may be right and our neighbors in Cambridge Downs may see some benefits from an additional egress once PENNDOT finally makes its long-awaited changes to US 322. Most of those residents who spoke, however, opposed the backassward nature of the addition of a new street through a historic property that would probably serve the community better as a park. PENNDOT should deal with Cambridge Downs resident access to/from US 322, duh.

    The Halls and their representatives are doing their best and seem earnest and forthright in trying to make a development work for everyone. Their base motive, however, is profit so the rest of us are perfectly without our rights to make sure that their profit is not our loss.

    To that end, nobody can say how the zoning change for higher density — which is a predicate for THIS development — will impact any other properties in Concord now … or in the future. Once in place, the Woodlawn property, Concord Country Club, and how knows how many other existing parcels or created parcels would meet the new zoning requirements and build at the enhanced densities. The BoS seems perfectly willing to ignore that nobody can answer that for the supposed goodies the Hall property developer is offering (maybe) today.

    But just like the awful e-billboard, once the zoning ordinance is in place, I’m sure the BoS — likely still all Republicans and likely still all connected to construction and developers and likely still eager to sell off chunks of Concord for development — will shrug their shoulders again and say that property owners have these rights now.

    One long-term resident pointedly asked the BoS at the meeting “When is enough enough?” Of course, they weren’t answering any questions and know they don’t have to with safe positions and powerful friends.

    So I’m going to answer that question for them, in their place, but with candor that they would never deploy:

    “If there’s money to be made, never.”

    Dan Levin
    2013 Concord Supervisor Candidate
    (1850 votes in Concord, but lost to incumbent Dominic Cappelli 56% – 44%)

  2. Rob Gurnee

    I am a pretty big sports fan and Rich when I read your articles about anything involving the Concord Township Supervisors, I come away with the distinct impression that you are sports equivalent of a “homer.” A homer announcer is someone who will call a play markedly differently from objective reality because of allegiance to the home team. Does access to decisionmakers, a predictable news flow and a philosophy of deference to elected officials do that?

    How is it Rich that you did not give any flavor in your article for the emotions displayed by the long line of people that stood in line to ask questions and make comments in opposition to this zoning amendment? How can you not comment on the fact that Supervisors were shouted down and forced to change their practice of asking residents to state how close they lived to the Hall property, when it was pointed out that the amendment, by the Supervisors own admission, will apply to the entire Township thus making proximity to the Hall property irrelevant (and a tool for trying to marginalizing those that spoke). Why quote Dominic Cappelli, who did not utter a single word at the hearing, saying that the amendment will not affect other properties in the Township when in fact no evidence was presented that definitely answered that question. Why not point out that some residents were represented by counsel, who elicited from the engineer witness that the developer’s profit from higher density will be a windfall compared to improvements they are proposing to undertake? Why not ask Supervisors why they didn’t advocate with PENNDOT for a traffic light at Route 322 and the entrance to Cambridge Downs, a simple solution that would solve safety concerns and eliminate the need for this convoluted proposal.

    An objective review of the record is that Concord Township’s Code simply does not meet best practice standards on a variety of issues, the Supervisors have a “build first” mentality, development and traffic have increased at alarming rates, Concord Township decisions are negatively affecting quality of life for not only Concord residents but also those of Chadds Ford and neighboring areas, and there is a growing movement of people who are rising in opposition to the way Concord Township does business.

    Please provide balanced coverage.

    Rob Gurnee
    Concerned Citizen

Leave a Reply