Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks waivers for 658 Jefferson affordable‑housing twin; council told to review discrepancies
Summary
A developer proposes subdividing an approximately 31‑acre lot at 658 Jefferson into two parcels for two attached single‑family homes funded by an affordable‑housing grant; staff flagged shared‑parking arrangements and inconsistencies in the applicant’s waiver requests and said council must act by July 12 or accept an extension.
Planner Matt presented the proposal for 658 Jefferson at the June 3 Pottstown Committee of the Whole meeting, describing an approximately 31‑acre vacant lot the developer proposes to subdivide into two parcels and build a 'twin' (two attached single‑family homes) funded by an affordable‑housing grant.
Key planning issues: Matt said the zoning ordinance requires two off‑street parking spaces per dwelling but the plan consolidates all parking on the north‑northwesterly parcel with both homeowners accessing spaces via a single driveway. He characterized the arrangement as permissible under an ambiguous ordinance provision the ordinance review committee is now examining, but said the developer will be required to sign and record a shared‑parking agreement if approved.
Waiver discrepancies and timeline: Staff noted the applicant’s waiver letter listed five requested ordinance waivers while the plan set forth six; the applicant also appears to seek full waivers from open‑space and street‑tree requirements rather than the usual fee‑in‑lieu. The planning commission recommended approval and council must act on the application by July 12 unless staff obtains an extension while clarifications are made.
Council options and next steps: Planner Matt said he will reach out to the developer to clarify the missing or inconsistent waiver documentation and intends to request an extension if needed; staff told council the item will be placed on Monday night’s agenda for action or pushed to July if the outstanding issues remain unresolved.
Context and limitations: The transcript records staff concerns and the planning commission’s recommendation but contains no council vote on the application during the committee meeting. Specific technical designs, final waiver texts, and recorded guarantees are to be verified in the application file; staff advised members to review submitted plans and to raise concerns before the action deadline.
