September 7, 2017

Angst over the possible widening of Ridge Road led to a discussion of an unsubstantiated rumor during the Sept. 6 Chadds Ford Township Board of Supervisors’ meeting.

At the end of the meeting, township Manager Amanda Serock announced her resignation after three years on the job.

Early on in the meeting, Serock and township engineer Mike Schneider gave a brief update on Heyburn Road. The street has been closed to through traffic since July when a culvert failed, and a portion of the roadway collapsed.

Serock said work would likely start by the end of September after the fabrication of a new, 30-foot long culvert. Schneider said there’s no point in digging up the road until the new culvert is ready.

The discussion regarding Ridge Road and the commercial development in Concord Township began with township solicitor Mike Maddren giving a brief update on litigation over the matter. He gave a timeline of the legal filings and said the township had retained an insurance defense counsel. Maddren added that neither he nor the board could say anything else because of the ongoing litigation.

However, the discussion was prolonged when the board asked for public comment. Carolyn Daniels, a resident of the Ridings, has been the most active and vocal in her opposition to the development. She asked whether a traffic count Chadds Ford performed earlier this year has been submitted to PennDOT.

Township engineer Mike Sheridan said no, it was not submitted, but PennDOT has seen it. He added that PennDOT had not provided any feedback on the report.

Schneider’s said the new traffic count — done this spring — showed a 5 percent increase in traffic over a count done on behalf of Pettinaro in 2014.

“We did the updated traffic counts and projections based on currently proposed development in the area…The result was that there is an increase. How much of an increase – on how substantial it is— is subject to debate,” Schneider said.

(That traffic report is on the township website here.)

Maddren said the report was not officially submitted because it would be discoverable and could be used against the township. He also repeated there were things that could not be said without divulging the township’s litigation strategy.

“And we have to see whether PennDOT becomes a party, too,” Maddren said. “One of our objections is that we believe the PennDOT is an indispensible party to this process.”

Rumor came into the conversation when resident Sheriden Black told the board she had heard that Pettinaro Construction told the Homeowners Association at Springhill Farm — on the other side of Route 202 — that Pettinaro would help Springhill Farm improve its sewer plant if it stayed out of the litigation regarding the commercial development.

“I became aware of some sort of a transaction between Pettinaro and Springhill Farm regarding Pettinaro providing some sort of a sewer for Springhill Farm in exchange for their not objecting to…in exchange for this shopping center going through,” Black said.

Supervisors’ Chairman Frank Murphy acknowledged that Springhill Farm’s sewer plant will need to be replaced and that “some level of agreement” was reached between Pettinaro and Springhill Farm for some sewage facility, but that he has heard nothing about any deal between Pettinaro and Springhill Farm.

“I don’t know that. I have not heard that,” Murphy said.

Serock interjected, saying that Concord Township had previously agreed to take flows from Springhill Farm and that Pettinaro became part of the conversation.

Black did not say how or where she had heard the allegation. She added, “I honestly don’t know the whole story, but I was surprised that had happened at all since it involved Concord Township.”

Afterward, when asked who told her of the implied deal, Black could not come up with a name but said a member of Springhill’s HOA board gave her the impression that they wanted the suit to go away.

Go here for a review of the litigation’s timeline on the litigation.

Other business

Serock announced her resignation, saying it’s been an honor to work for Chadds Ford during these last three years. She said she was looking for an opportunity for further professional growth. Supervisors accepted her resignation effective at the conclusion of the Sept. 30 workshop.

 

 

According to Chadds Ford Township solicitor Mike Maddren, there is not yet a hearing date for the lawsuit over the proposed commercial development on Route 202 at Ridge Road in Concord Township. The property abuts Chadds Ford Township and involves widening Ridge Road to six lanes.

The suit now involves Pettinaro, Concord and Chadds Ford townships and possibly PennDOT, Maddren said other parties are scheduled to file their answer to Chadds Ford’s preliminary objections by Monday, Sept. 11.

The timeline of actions is this:

Concord Township approved Pettinaro — operating as Ridge Road Development — for a commercial development of the empty 20-plus acre field at Route 202 and Ridge Road in 2008 and reaffirmed it in 2014. Concord placed 21 conditions on approval.

Among the conditions set was “Condition 19,” which requires the applicant to have Chadds Ford sign off on highway improvements. Those improvements include having the main entrance for the shopping center on Ridge Road and that Ridge be widened from two to six lanes from Route 202 to the end of the proposed shopping center, about a quarter of a mile.

Chadds Ford Supervisors’ Chairman Frank Murphy wrote a letter in January that he would not sign off on the proposed improvements unless Chadds Ford residents’ concerns were addressed.

Early this spring, attorney John Jaros asked Concord Council to remove that condition, but they refused. In May, he filed a suit against Concord. Concord responded by saying Chadds Ford is “an indispensible party” to the action and that the applicant could not sue Concord with out making Chadds Ford a defendant. So, in July, the suit was amended with Chadds Ford named as a defendant.

Chadds Ford filed preliminary objections on Aug. 22 saying that PennDOT is an indispensible party and the suit could not go forward without PennDOT as a party.

On Sept. 1, Concord responded to the applicant’s amended complaint (naming Chadds Ford as a defendant) saying Ridge Road Development’s concern is with Chadds Ford, not Concord.

“While defendant Chadds Ford may properly be compelled to produce the letter required by Condition 19 in light of its course of conduct over the last nine years, Concord Township may not properly be forced to release the signed plans without compliance by [the] plaintiff with all of agreed upon conditions of plan approval,” the response reads.

Concord’s response also asserts that any damages to the plaintiff “were caused by the conduct of Chadds Ford Township.”

In the initial complaint filed on behalf of Ridge Road Development, Jaros asked that the court strike Condition 19 and order Concord to release the plans so his client could begin work on the project or, in lieu of that, declare that Chadds Ford officials, including two former supervisors and two current employees, have already acknowledged the highway improvements by signing off on related matters.

Murphy said those documents dealt with stormwater management, not widening Ridge Road.