Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning Decision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission tables Living Lodge subdivision pending blasting and stormwater details

Upper Providence Township Planning Commission · May 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extended public comment on hydrology, blasting near Holy Ghost Cemetery and sight‑distance at Lovers Lane, the Upper Providence Planning Commission declined to recommend the 11‑lot Collegeville Road plan and asked the applicant for additional technical material before the next meeting.

The Upper Providence Township Planning Commission on May 20 declined to recommend a developer’s 11‑lot plan at 765 South Collegeville Road and instead tabled the matter, saying it needed more detailed information about blasting protocols, pre‑blast survey applicability and stormwater overflow arrangements.

During a long public‑comment period residents pressed the developer and township staff over whether retention basins on the sloped site would infiltrate or overflow, whether blasting to cut rock for basins and 18‑foot retaining walls would risk damage to nearby wells or to graves at Holy Ghost Cemetery, and whether the Lovers Lane/Collegeville Road intersection provides safe sight distances for new traffic.

Township staff and the developer’s engineers described a DEP‑approved managed‑release stormwater design and said required NPDES and highway occupancy permits had been obtained, but commissioners said neighbors needed more detail about state blasting rules and how the developer will notify or protect nearby property owners. The township attorney reminded the public that blasting is state‑regulated and that private legal remedies exist for property damage claims.

The commission asked the applicant to return with specific blasting and notification procedures, confirmation (with citations) of applicable state rules and details on stormwater overflow paths before the commission makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant agreed to return at the next scheduled meeting and staff agreed to circulate the regulatory references to affected neighbors.