Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends tentative approval for revised Hasson Road subdivision
Summary
Upper Providence planning commissioners recommended the Board of Supervisors accept a revised 14‑lot Hasson Road subdivision plan after the applicant moved lots, expanded open space and cut impervious cover; neighbors raised stormwater and slope concerns and a zoning special exception for steep slopes is still required.
The Upper Providence Township Planning Commission voted to recommend tentative approval of a revised 14‑lot subdivision for the Hasson Road site, after hearing a presentation from the applicant and several public comments about stormwater, slopes and trail safety.
Kevin Palmer, representing the applicants, told the commission the design responds to supervisor and neighbor input and preserves more open space than earlier versions. “Both plans have 14 lots,” engineer Anthony Hedlund said, and “now we're at 4 times the minimum, just over 11 acres, of the 28 acres.” Hedlund said the redesign eliminated a shared driveway that had drawn the fire marshal's concern, reduced impervious cover by about 0.6 acres and avoided disturbance to woodland on much of the site.
Neighbors urged caution. Kathleen Reed, a homeowner on Grace Street, asked the commission to examine off‑site runoff paths on Whitaker, saying drainage currently channels toward her garage. Dan Jarrett, who lives below Summit Drive, said several homes near the property already get water in basements after light rain. “We all get water constantly in our basement,” Jarrett said, and asked whether the revised layout could worsen that flooding.
Anthony Hedlund responded that the revised layout does not change watershed lines for the adjacent neighborhoods and that ridge lines separate drainage areas, saying the moved houses will not direct additional runoff toward the neighbors’ basements. He also said soil tests show Lansdale loam on site, which he described as well‑drained and suitable for foundations.
Commission members pressed both sides about why the plan evolved through earlier iterations. One commissioner said they were concerned the commission had recommended an earlier, less‑preferred layout; applicant representatives and staff described a collaborative back‑and‑forth with supervisors and engineers that produced the current alternative.
The commission recommended the applicant pursue the zoning hearing board process for the required special exception related to steep slopes and directed that engineering comments and fire marshal items be addressed at the preliminary‑plan stage. The commission voted to forward the tentative approval recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for its April 27 meeting; the motion passed with one commissioner abstaining.
Next steps: the applicant will file the zoning hearing board special exception before or during the preliminary plan process, and the Board of Supervisors will consider the commission's recommendation at its next meeting.
