Lower Pottsgrove projects re­solve, ex­plore wa­ter is­sues

The Community Connection - - LOCAL NEWS - By Evan Brandt ebrandt@21st-cen­tu­ry­media. com @PottstownNews on Twit­ter

As two of the larger de­vel­op­ment projects in Lower Pottsgrove are mak­ing their way through the plan­ning process — de­ci­sions about one mat­ter cru­cial to both oc­curs in bor­ough hall.

The Pottstown Bor­ough Au­thor­ity runs the wa­ter sys­tems that pro­vides most of the pub­lic wa­ter to Lower Pottsgrove Town­ship and as such, both the Sanatoga Green and Spring Val­ley Farms projects are look­ing to that sys­tem to sup­ply their wa­ter.

In at least one case, how­ever — the 500-unit mixed res­i­den­tial com­mer­cial Sanatoga Green pro­ject near the Lim­er­ick out­lets — de­vel­op­ers may have to look else­where.

Dur­ing Tues­day’s Bor­ough Au­thor­ity meet­ing, au­thor­ity en­gi­neer Tom Weld said he and Pub­lic Works Direc­tor Doug Yerger met with the Sanatoga Green de­vel­op­ers on Aug. 15 and dis­cov­ered they now want an in­crease in wa­ter vol­ume of more than 1,000 per­cent — from 174 gal­lons per minute, sought in Jan­uary, to the 2,160 gal­lons per minute out­lined last month.

But flow tests show the most the au­thor­ity sys­tem can de­liver — with­out a pump or wa­ter tank con­structed on the site — is 1,992 gal­lons per minute, ac­cord­ing to an Aug. 16 memo from Weld to Au­thor­ity Man­ager Mark Flan­ders.

Be­cause nei­ther the idea of pay­ing for a pump booster sta­tion or wa­ter tank is par­tic­u­larly at­trac­tive to the Sanatoga Green de­vel­op­ers, they are now in­quir­ing with Penn­syl­va­nia Amer­i­can Wa­ter Com­pany to see if they can pro­vide the wa­ter needs for the pro­ject.

As for the 178-unit Spring Val­ley Farms pro­ject, lo­cated near the in­ter­sec­tion with Bleim and Pleas­antview Roads, blast­ing and con­struc­tion on that pro­ject be­gan this week, ac­cord­ing to the Sanatoga Post.

Sup­ply­ing wa­ter to that de­vel­op­ment means the wa­ter tank built on New Hanover Square Road 10 years ago, but never used, will fi­nally be put into ser­vice.

Weld ex­plained that de­vel­op­ment of the Spring Val­ley tract was first pro­posed 12 years ago but floun­dered in the re­ces­sion, after the wa­ter tank had al­ready been built — and it has sat dor­mant ever since.

Tues­day night, fi­nal agree­ments be­tween the au­thor­ity and Spring Val­ley Farms de­vel­op­ers were ap­proved, in­clud­ing a $52,500 pay­ment for its share of the cost of a pipe con­nect­ing the tank to the de­vel­op­ment.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.