After more than two-plus years of discussion and controversy that included more than a year of often tedious testimony, the Concord Ventures PRD hearing has come to a close in Concord Township. Attorneys made closing comments Oct. 1 and council members are scheduled to vote on the matter on Oct.15.
Concord Ventures is seeking tentative approval for a Planned Residential Development off of Watkin Avenue near southbound Route 202. The plan calls for 29 townhouses in six buildings and 166 apartments in three five-story buildings. The township Planning Commission originally recommended denial in January of 2018. Hearings for the PRD were suspended later that year after a zoning variance expired without the applicant filing for an extension. Concord’s PRD code calls for a minimum of 50 acres but the site involved is 49.02 acres.
When hearings resumed in September of last year, the applicant’s attorney, Marc Kaplin, conducted a testimony by the numbers with the applicant’s engineer, Ben Crowder. He had Crowder read from sections of the township code, then asked if the plan complied with the section read. This type of inquiry was repeated throughout the engineer’s testimony.
Kaplin’s closing comments were more concise and direct. He said PRDs were regulated by a different section of the state’s Municipalities Planning Code than standard land development plans, but that Concord Ventures had shown that the plan complies with both standard development and PRD requirements.
He said that, by law, tentative approval must be granted if objective conditions are met and that there is no harm to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Kaplin added that approval can’t be denied because of subjective measures.
He added that zoning may not interfere with legal uses of a property, that “any ambiguities [in the zoning code] must be interpreted in favor of the applicant” and that a tentative plan must be judged by the specifics of the PRD ordinance.
He also said the plan met with the conditions of the township engineer’s and land planner’s review letters and that county, state and federal agencies had granted permits for the plan and that testimony has demonstrated there is a minimization of any negative impact.
“The plan meets the requirements and we are entitled to approval,” Kaplin said.
Attorney Marc Jonas, representing protestant Lori Kidd, disagreed saying “It’s a bad plan with 35 ordinance violations that are contrary to the public interest.”
Jonas said that if the plan was a television show, it would be called “Unsolved Mystery.”
“Who designed the plan? Why does the plan not show elevations? Why place high rise apartments 50 feet away from the existing neighborhood?,” he asked.
Jonas said the township must consider the purpose of the PRD. Purposes include innovation and must relate to type, design and layout to the particular site.
“This plan offers no innovation,” he said, adding that even the applicant’s engineer acknowledged that.
Jonas continued, saying the PRD ordinance requires the plan to minimize the loss of open countryside and encourage more flexible land development.
“This plan doesn’t do that,” he said. “The code says it must serve the public interest. Is it in the public interest? It’s only in the interest of the developer.”
Jonas also said the plan does not fully comply with land planner Tom Comitta’s review letter, does not preserve property values and fails to integrate buildings with the surrounding land, among other violations.
Again, council members will vote on the matter during their Oct. 15 meeting.
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.
(7 votes, average: 1.71 out of 5)
Loading...
Comments