Developer shows Walnut Street plans

Neighbors sound off about flooding concerns

Plans are in the works for a series of new houses near Walnut Street in Hatfield, and neighbors are already voicing their concerns.

“The reason this thing was so long and so difficult to do was because it had some wetlands in it, that we had to deal with,” said developer Jim Case.

At issue is a 6.9-acre parcel on the northwest side of Walnut Street just south of Cowpath Road, where Case is planning to build a complex of nine single family houses that would surround, and connect to, an extension of Fortuna Drive. The plans have been vetted and reviewed by the township and Montgomery County planning commissions, Case told the commissioners on July 25, and the plans call for a series of drainage channels and culverts to carry stormwater toward an existing basin behind a senior living facility directly adjacent to the property.

“We’re using that basin, primarily because all the water was going in there anyway, so we thought it would just be easier to put it in there, and manage it from there,” Case said.

Case and township planning and zoning officer Ken Amey said the main issue discussed by the township planning commission was how to manage stormwater flow through the lot, and Amey said the planning commission required that a homeowners association be created for the development, to be responsible for any stormwater management facilities on the lot.

Case said one of the houses on the plans was also moved in response to planning commission concerns, to create an additional ten feet of space next to the nearest neighbor.

“I would (move it farther) if

there was any more room, but there isn’t. We did move it all the way,” Case said.

That neighbor, Paul Mourt of Fortuna Drive, and commissioner Gerry Andris both took exception to that description.

“You haven’t done all you can to move the lot nine home or the building envelope. Another option would have been to make that a front-entry garage and shift that over further,” Andris said, comparing to the side entry garages shown on the current plans.

“I understand you’re not willing to do that, not wanting to do a neighborly thing for a homeowner, but there are options, and you chose not to pursue those,” he said.

Mourt reiterated to the commissioners the concerns he had addressed at the planning commission and in a written letter to the board: that runoff from the currently undeveloped property will only get worse, sending more water onto this property, if developed.

“In early July, there was a freak thunderstorm that was really intense, for about an hour — I know about it, because I was on Route 309 and it flooded,” Mourt said.

“What happens on my property is, that flow comes out of the woods, and heads straight to the two inlets that are already on my property, and gets diverted into a swale,” he said.

The swale was able to handle that July storm, Mourt told the board, but adding new development with impervious cover, and not increasing the amount of detention area, could only make matters worse.

“I’m very concerned that those intense storms are going to overrun my swale, and when it overruns, it’s going to flood parts of my yard that are not normally wet,” he said.

“I truly believe that, engineering-wise, the white elephant that the developer doesn’t want to address is that there should be detention upstream within the development,” Mourt said.

Township Engineer Bryan McAdam said the planning commission talks had led to an extra head wall and stormwater piping

being installed to help divert part of that flow directly to drainage inlets.

“I’m not suggesting ‘Hey, we fixed it,’ but there was a concerted effort to try to improve the condition, and reduce the flow that gets to his property,” McAdam said.

Neighbor Nancy Bergey, also of Fortuna Drive, said she lives next to the basin behind the senior center where the new development will send its water flow, and saw it come close to flooding during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

“What happens if that water rises up, and it goes over? What are we supposed to do? What authority do the homeowners have to maintain that?” she said.

Amey said that basin is owned and maintained by the owners of the nursing home it sits behind, but Case has worked out an agrement with that owner to modify the basin for additional flow from his development.

“One of the reasons the planning commission required that there be a homeowners’ association formed as part of this development, is so the homeowners association would then be responsible for maintenance on that basin, and all the other stormwater management facilities that are on the individual lots,” Amey said.

Amy Toth of Logan Drive said she already sees stormwater create small lakes in her yard during heavy storms, and said she also thought the new development would only make that worse.

“We have standing water, we have running water, and it’s just something that we live with,” she said.

“We’re very concerned this is going to remove even more surface area, and we want to make sure those wetlands are preserved, not built on top of,” Toth said.

Amey and Solicitor John Iannozzi said if the plans are approved, any new structures such as pools or sheds that would add to the impervious cover would need further approval from the township.

“Whenever a building permit is issued, we would look at the impervious cover for the entire lot, and make sure the impervious cover still complies” with township codes, Amey said.

Commissioner Bob Rodgers

asked if the homeowners association documents could include a condition that no structures such as pools or sheds be built on those lots. Iannozzi said those restrictions would likely not be legal, but those structure would be vetted by township engineering staff when an application is made.

“The main thing to this was creating the association, so there would ultimately be a body that’s responsible, when we do identify those issues, to rectify it,” he said.

“You can’t be in a situation where you could restrict, just to restrict. The code does not allow for such restrictions,” Iannozzi said.

Township Manager Aaron Bibro suggested case consider adding that restriction voluntarily, and Iannozzi said doing so could help the applicant’s odds of getting approval.

“Having a restriction that no structure can be placed in a way that would hinder the operation of those basins, actually helps the homeowners association, but that’s something we can address with you during the process of reviewing the application,” Iannozzi said.

“That would be fair. I would do that,” case replied.

Board President Tom Zipfel said the development was on the board’s July 25 agenda for discussion only, and further feedback will be welcome before any vote is cast. Andris said he would like to see the homeowners association documents include a condition that some minimum balance be carried in the fund, to cover the costs of any repairs so township taxpayers would not have to.

“I think the township should have some say on what is required to be in that fund, so when something happens, we’re not being a dead horse, and there’s not any money available to get things done,” Andris said.

“And then we’d have to go in and do stuff ourselves. I don’t want that to be the case,” he said.