Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage And Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board carries Hampshire Court variance after neighbors press for more drainage mitigation
Summary
The board carried the Hampshire Court lot‑coverage and rear‑setback application to June 17 after neighbors and board members pressed for supplemental stormwater mitigation beyond a proposed drywell that only covers the net 800 sq ft increase.
The Township of Springfield Board of Adjustment on May 20 carried an application for Hampshire Court (application 2025‑94) after extended testimony revealed the property is already substantially over its zoning’s permitted lot coverage and neighbors described standing water problems.
The applicant is seeking rear yard setback and lot coverage variances to add a patio and pool connection that increase recorded lot coverage to about 42.4 percent from 39.1 percent; the zone’s permitted coverage was cited as 22.5 percent. An engineering plan presented by the applicant includes a seepage pit/drywell designed to capture the net increase (about 800 square feet) but board members and the municipal consultant questioned whether that mitigation sufficiently addresses historical runoff that already exceeds the permitted envelope.
Board members asked whether additional mitigation — for example, collecting rear gutters or adding more seepage volume in the rear yard — should be required as a condition of any approval. One engineer testified the proposed pit provides the volume required for the net increase but "on lesser storms a lot of that water is going to go into a seepage pit to restore groundwater," while noting that the design will not fully remedy runoff during major storms. The engineer gave the pit’s storage as roughly 373 cubic feet in the applicant’s design.
Several neighbors testified to recurring standing water and prior, costly attempts to manage drainage (one neighbor said they had spent about $20,000 on a swale and drain). Neighbors and board members asked for a more complete engineering plan, a landscaping plan showing proposed plantings, and consideration of additional mitigation placed at the rear of the property to protect downstream neighbors.
The board voted to carry the matter to the June 17 meeting and asked the applicant to bring supplemental engineering detail and, if possible, a landscape plan showing species and placement for review. If the applicant proceeds on June 17 no new notice will be required.
