Neighbors press planners over drainage, blasting and cemetery risks at proposed Collegeville Road subdivision

Upper Providence Township Planning Commission members on May 20 received detailed public testimony and technical questioning about a proposal to subdivide 765 South Collegeville Road into 11 lots.

Allison Zara, representing General Hancock Partnership Enterprises LP, presented a combined preliminary/final plan showing an extension of a road (referred to in the plan as West Amanda Lane), 11 new lots with mostly individual driveways and one shared driveway, and no waiver requests. The applicant said third‑party permits are in place or have been received including NPDES approval and highway occupancy permits (HOPs), and that draft homeowners‑association documents had been submitted for township review.

Why it matters: neighbors said the site’s steep slopes and dense layout could increase runoff into adjacent properties and private wells, and several speakers warned that required excavation or blasting for retention basins and tall retaining walls could threaten Holy Ghost Cemetery and nearby foundations.

Residents pressed engineers and staff for specifics. John Malek, an adjacent landowner, summarized developer calculations for a 2.5‑inch rain over the site (he cited roughly 638,000 gallons on 9.4 acres) and urged commissioners to consider that runoff moving downhill concentrates on lower properties. The developer’s engineer said the site’s tests showed little or no natural infiltration at the depths tested, which led designers to propose a managed‑release (evapotranspiration/managed release) stormwater system that stores runoff and slowly discharges it through controlled orifices to meet township peak‑flow reduction requirements. The engineer described multiple inlets, a small stormwater facility near Collegeville Road and a larger basin that will convey the site’s runoff into the designed system.

Several neighbors raised blasting and vibration concerns. Victoria Schwartz, whose family is interred in Holy Ghost Cemetery adjacent to the site, told the commission she fears blasting will damage vaults, grave markers and wells and said ‘‘the desecration of the deceased is not acceptable under any circumstances.’’ Commissioners and staff replied that blasting is regulated at the state level, that licensed blasting contractors and state rules govern pre‑blast surveys and procedures, and that the township’s authority is limited to applying its ordinances and technical review standards. The township attorney told the audience that private legal remedies (consulting a private attorney) are the route for claims about damage, and staff advised residents to document existing conditions — for example, by taking dated photos or baseline well tests — before construction begins.

Traffic and safety issues also drew attention. Residents and commissioners discussed sight distance at the Lovers Lane–Collegeville Road intersection; the applicant said the plan aligns Amanda Lane to reduce left‑turn conflicts and noted the northern intersection will be configured as an all‑way stop, which changes the sight‑distance assumptions used in the review.

Other technical points: commissioners questioned retaining wall heights (up to about 18 feet in places). The applicant said a 4‑foot fall‑protection fence is proposed for the basin perimeter (higher privacy fences on private lots would be subject to code limits), and that the HOA declaration — submitted for review — anticipates routine maintenance responsibilities. The applicant said an HOA budget was included in submitted documents (the developer noted $2.25 per month per household in the draft declaration for long‑term maintenance). The developer also estimated typical home footprints at roughly 50 by 60 feet, characterizing the market price for the homes in the plan in the current market at roughly $1,000,000 to $1,200,000.

What the commission did: after extended questioning and public comment the commission declined to make a recommendation and tabled the item so the applicant can return with more targeted information — specifically, additional detail on blasting protocols and notification, whether the cemetery or particular structures are covered by pre‑blast survey zones, and clarified drainage and overflow arrangements. The applicant and staff agreed to provide the state‑regulation references and to circulate the information to concerned neighbors before the commission’s next meeting.

The commission also encouraged the developer to continue neighborhood outreach, and staff suggested residents obtain baseline water tests and keep dated photo records if they are worried about future construction impacts. The commission expected the applicant to return at the next meeting for follow‑up.

"We need more information about the blasting and the cemetery’s proximity before we can recommend this to the board," the Chair said when motioning to table the recommendation.

The discussion will continue when the applicant returns with the requested technical clarifications.