October 3, 2018

Concord Township Council, Tuesday night, approved what was considered a “minor amendment” to the controversial Shops at Ridge Road plan that allows a new shopping center at Ridge Road and Route 202.

A series of lawsuits in 2017 — with Chadds Ford Township involved — led eventually to the original plan going through, but a member of Concord Township’s Planning Commission discovered an error in the impervious ground cover calculations in June of this year.

That discovery caused the applicant, Petinarro Construction, to fully engineer new plans, which led to a reduction in the size of the center. The size of the center was reduced by almost 25,000 square feet and the impervious coverage reduced from 74 percent to the allowable 70 percent. The number of parking spaces is now reduced from 1,045 to 977 with more grass and more pervious coverage along the north and west side of the property.

One of the original controversial points is that Ridge Road will still be widened from the current two lanes to six lanes for the first quarter of a mile from Route 202.

Several Chadds Ford residents attended Concord’s meeting to argue against an immediate vote. Carolyn Daniels and Sheridan Black, both of whom live in the Ridings off of Ridge Road, wanted Concord to postpone the vote until the Planning Commission could review the amended plan. Both have been in opposition to the center because of the road-widening provision, citing a fear of increased traffic.

Black also questioned whether there were other errors in the plan and called Petinarro “arrogant.”

Attorney John Jaros, representing Petinarro, said having the Planning Commission review the change would redundant since Nate Cline, Concord’s engineer, had already reviewed the updated plan and deemed it correct. The Planning Commission he said, would just have Cline duplicate his efforts.

Cline confirmed that he had reviewed the amended plan and that it meets township code.

Chadds Ford Board of Supervisors Chairman Frank Murphy also attended. He said his primary issue was stormwater management and how the change might affect runoff into Chadds Ford. He, too, wanted a delay but so Chadds Ford Township could review the stormwater management plan.

“I am disappointed that Concord Council approved the revision to the Shops at Ridge Road final plan.  Chadds Ford was given no notice of this plan and no chance to review it before Concord Council approved it.  While the revisions did not address the main concern of Chadds Ford — the increase to six lanes of Ridge Road — stormwater control was addressed.  Concord Council concluded that the amended plan reduced the stormwater runoff and therefore was a net positive to the community.  On behalf of Chadds Ford, we requested a delay in Concord Council acting so Chadds Ford could review the plans in greater detail to protect our residents. While I am disappointed with the outcome, I will never stop advocating for the residents of Chadds Ford.”

Also urging delay was Concord Township Council member Joshua Twersky. He argued that the amended plan was not minor and that it should have to go through a full review all over again.

Several times during the meeting, reference was made to a letter Jaros had written to the township saying he would have to file suit if the amended plan was not approved. Several people called that a threat but Jaros responded saying he is only doing what he has to do to properly represent his client.

Concord solicitor Hugh Donaghue, who is also a Chadds Ford resident, said his legal analysis to recommend Council approve the plan has nothing to do any threat.

He explained his analysis based on a series of questions. Does the change increase the size of the development? “No, it does not,” he said.

Does the plan adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of Concord or Chadds Ford residents? Again, he said that was not the case.

Was there any fraud involved with the incorrect calculation? The answer was no, again.

Donaghue also supported Jaros’ contention that having the Planning Commission review the new plan is unnecessary.

“The Planning Commission has no business in this now. They already gave approval,” he said. “There’s no legal basis for them to get involved.”

In light of the analysis, Donaghue said, “This Council cannot seize upon an error, which has been corrected, to revoke prior approval. It would be a violation of law to deny approval.”

There is no word yet when any work will begin on the project.