Testimony focused on open space, stormwater basins, paper streets and potential impacts during the fifth hearing on the 92-acre proposal
Hatfield Township’s engineer testified that a proposed 162-home cluster development from Pulte Homes had not fully demonstrated compliance with township zoning requirements, citing concerns involving fragmented open space, stormwater facilities, paper streets, parking and the project’s potential effects on municipal services and surrounding properties.
Engineer Bryan McAdam presented the township’s first testimony Wednesday during the fifth conditional-use hearing on the proposed development.
The application seeks permission to construct 162 detached single-family homes on about 92 acres in the township’s RA-1 Residential District. The property has limited access to Welsh Road and is surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhoods.
Plans call for new streets, sidewalks, pedestrian connections, stormwater basins and about 16.8 acres identified as common open space.
A cluster development allows smaller residential lots in exchange for preserving open space. Under Hatfield’s ordinance, such developments are permitted in the RA-1 district only through conditional-use approval from the Board of Commissioners.
McAdam, who has worked on Hatfield engineering matters since 2006 and served as appointed township engineer since 2013, was accepted as an expert in civil engineering.
His review was based on revised plans dated March 30, 2026 and the testimony and exhibits introduced during the previous hearings.
McAdam told Township Solicitor Christen Pionzio that the applicant had established a need for housing but had not provided a detailed analysis of the development’s potential effects on schools, police, fire and emergency services, traffic or township finances.
“A project of this size will have an impact on the community of some sort,” McAdam said.
The information submitted by the applicant did not allow commissioners to compare the cost of providing services with the taxes or other revenue the development could generate, he said.
McAdam also raised concerns about two conceptual stormwater detention basins located near proposed homes.
He said above-ground basins require emergency spillways capable of safely releasing water if a basin exceeds its normal capacity. One proposed basin appeared to be surrounded on three sides by residential lots, while another could direct water toward neighboring property.
“Our office would not permit an emergency spillway to discharge toward the back of somebody’s house,” McAdam said.
The applicant’s attorney objected that final stormwater engineering is generally completed during the land-development process rather than at the conditional-use stage.
During cross examination, McAdam acknowledged that the basins had not been fully engineered and that the ordinance does not require final stormwater design during conditional use proceedings.
He maintained that the conceptual configuration raised a legitimate question about whether the planned number of lots left enough room for safe stormwater facilities.
“If you had less units, you would probably be able to provide more appropriate locations for spillways,” McAdam said.
Much of the testimony concerned whether the development’s proposed open space satisfies Hatfield’s requirement that common open space form a continuous and interconnected system.
The plans identify multiple areas under the same open-space designations even though roads or residential lots separate them.
“In my opinion, it’s inconsistent,” McAdam said of the plan’s compliance with the township’s open space requirements.
He pointed to a narrow strip behind proposed homes near Leon Drive as one example. That area is intended to contain a pedestrian path, berm and landscaping while retaining existing trees.
McAdam questioned whether all those features could fit within the proposed strip without extensive tree removal.
“I don’t feel like that meets the spirit of open space from the perspective of a cluster subdivision,” he said.
The purpose of cluster zoning, McAdam said, is to permit smaller lots while creating larger and more useful areas of preserved land.
“The whole idea behind a cluster subdivision really is to allow for smaller lots and provide larger areas of open space that have some benefit to either the immediate community or to the township at large,” he said.
Other proposed open space areas contain wetlands, waterways and floodplain soils. McAdam acknowledged that the ordinance does not prohibit those environmentally constrained areas from being included as open space and that their inclusion is common in residential developments.
However, he questioned whether the overall configuration provides enough accessible, usable space to justify the smaller residential lots permitted through cluster zoning.
The applicant’s attorney established during cross examination that the plan provides more than the calculated minimum open space acreage. McAdam agreed that the submitted calculations show about 13.3 acres required and about 16.8 acres provided.
His disagreement centered on whether every area shown should count and whether separated parcels constitute the continuous system required by the ordinance.
“When something’s separated by the road, it is not continuous,” McAdam said.
The applicant’s attorney cited other Hatfield cluster developments with open-space areas separated by streets or sidewalks. McAdam responded that every property must be evaluated on its own circumstances.
Plans provide on-street parking along one side of the proposed roads but do not show dedicated parking near recreational areas or trail connections.
McAdam recommended adding several off-street spaces near pedestrian access points so residents from elsewhere in the township could use the trails.
“If you’re going to have connections to other properties, as you often see with open space areas and trailways and connectivity, it’s very common for small two-, three-, four-car parking areas to be provided at what’s often referred to as trailheads,” he said.
The applicant’s attorney noted that other township cluster developments do not have dedicated parking for their open-space areas.
McAdam said those developments differed in their configurations, proposed trails and surrounding neighborhoods.
Another major issue involves unbuilt streets shown on older subdivision plans, commonly called paper streets.
McAdam said Hatfield historically treated those rights-of-way as streets when calculating building setbacks. He questioned whether the applicant properly deducted all relevant easements and paper streets when determining developable acreage.
The applicant has separately initiated quiet-title litigation involving ownership and legal rights associated with the paper streets.
The applicant’s attorney argued that Hatfield’s zoning definitions do not specifically identify paper streets as deductions from developable land. She also noted that the applicant previously testified that the project would remain within the permitted density even if those areas were removed from the calculation.
McAdam said he had evaluated the calculations appearing on the submitted plans and would prefer to see the applicant’s revised calculations documented.
“As presented, the math works that it’s less than the maximum density,” he acknowledged.
The plans also show a possible future 30-foot access between lots 132 and 133 leading toward a paper street.
McAdam said that access would create setback problems for the two adjoining lots if retained. Under questioning, he acknowledged that the connection is not required and that removing it would resolve that particular concern.
The applicant’s attorney emphasized that the outcome of the separate quiet-title litigation could eliminate some paper-street and setback issues.
“If something doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist,” McAdam said. “If the paper streets are erased, if you will, then obviously setbacks would not have to be taken from them.”
The development’s primary entrance would connect with Welsh Road, where previous testimony contemplated installing a traffic signal.
McAdam said widening, turning lanes or tapers could require the developer to acquire additional right of way from nearby properties. Existing septic systems near the road also could be affected.
No final road improvement design has been completed.
The applicant’s traffic and engineering witnesses are expected to address those issues as the proceedings continue.
McAdam ultimately testified that the project had not demonstrated compliance with all general and specific conditional-use standards in its current form.
He acknowledged that some concerns could be resolved during later design and land-development reviews if conditional-use approval is granted.
The hearing concluded at about 9:21 p.m. after McAdam’s testimony and cross-examination.
Commissioners unanimously continued the hearing until 7 p.m. Sept. 29. The township expects to call transportation and planning witnesses in an effort to complete its case.
No decision on the application has been made.