The property, zoned 80,000 sq. ft residential, was 45 acres, in PA act 515, with an old farmhouse and tenant house on the eastern side of the property. The property was partially wooded with some open areas, sloping generally away from the road. Drainage in most areas was poor and there were some areas of steep slope. The tract was located in a difficult township which tends to resist change of any sort, and tends to attach seemingly unrelated conditions to any conditional use application. The property had been under agreement with developers previously, who were unable to find areas suitable for on site sewage systems. No public water or sewer was available.

The goal:
A subdivision plan that would allow an incremental sale of the lots or sale to a single entity, while keeping the farmhouse back, on a larger lot. It was important to balance the ordinance requirements, the market, and the client's goal of a timely and cost effective approvals process. The value of the property was to be maximized, while keeping the lot size and character in keeping with the neighborhood.

The challenge:
On site soils investigation of test pits with our soils scientist showed that there were very few locations where in ground septic systems could be placed. Additionally, there were areas of steep slope that would have to be avoided so conditional uses would not be required. So that the property could be sold on a lot by lot basis, common improvements and access roads would have to be avoided.

The solution:
First, areas were tested for suitability for on site systems, and a general idea of buildable areas was quickly established with our soil scientist. A sketch plan was generated and the areas we knew were good were tested under supervision by the Health Department and passed. A plan was generated which avoided building and grading on steep slopes, allowed all lots direct access from the street and provided room on each lot for its own septic, well, and stormwater retention. This allowed flexibility for individual lot sales without investment in infrastructure. Conditional uses, special exceptions, variances, common facilities and streets were avoided. Building sites were located in areas where a minimum amount of trees had to be removed and existing trees provided buffers between building sites. Costly in ground retention areas were avoided. Instead of common drives (to reduce curb cuts) as requested by the township, individual drives were arranged so that they were adjacent at the street only, but provided separate access to the lots. This increased flexibility for individual lot sales and marketability.