Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Ms4 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DEP cites administrative MS4 deficiencies; council and staff raise stormwater questions over revised 26-unit building plans
Summary
Franklin Park staff reported DEP raised primarily administrative findings during an MS4 inspection and allowed time to correct them; council members also flagged revised building elevations and added upper balconies on a 26-unit development that could increase impervious area and trigger stormwater conditions of approval.
Franklin Park staff told council members that a recent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) inspection of the borough’s MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system) identified a number of expected findings that are largely administrative and correctable.
A staff member said the inspector “has given us 45 days to get the annual reports filed and to do a couple other things. He’s given us 6 months to update our stormwater ordinance because there's an EPP 2022 ordinance that we have to make sure our ordinance complies with.” The staff member said the inspector acknowledged that much of the underlying work was complete and that the outstanding items are documentation and summaries.
Staff said they expect to seek an extension from DEP to complete remaining physical work tied to easements and construction, and that the six-month period relates to updating local ordinance language to match state guidance. The meeting record notes DEP issued a model ordinance and that communities must adopt updates to address specific check-box requirements.
Later in the pre-meeting members reviewed revised architectural drawings for a proposed 26-unit multi-family development. Council participants said the new drawings show additional upper-floor balconies and extended rooflines that were not in earlier submissions and that the changes “changed the whole character of the building.” One member asked whether elevation types on the plans were matched to individual unit labels.
Staff and members raised stormwater and impervious-surface questions tied to the revised rooflines. A council member said the developer had previously assumed impervious-area allowances that included space for potential decks, but the added roof and extended trusses “could be even a larger impervious area.” The staff member noted as a likely condition of approval that the development will have to “comply with the stormwater requirements based on their maximum impervious surface.”
Staff said they will compare borough standards to the state’s model ordinance and work with county partners and the consulting engineer to confirm calculations for detention basins and as-built conditions. The borough will also verify developer assumptions on impervious area as building permits are issued so that cumulative impervious area remains within approved limits.
No formal action or vote was taken at the pre-meeting; staff described follow-up steps and anticipated regulatory coordination with DEP and county partners.
