Before Atonement gets another approval, answer the drainage and property-line questions

Atonement’s proposed subdivision returns to the Planning Commission on Monday, November 2 at 3:30 p.m. The proposal separates the church and parking lot from the community-center property, which the applicant says would be converted to a single-family home if the subdivision is approved. ^[1][2]

Planning will make recommendations to Council on the requested waivers and conditional plan approval. The Commission should withhold a favorable recommendation until the Borough explains the property boundaries, the exact zoning relief and the stormwater obligations that will survive the split. ^[1]

These are basic questions about what is being approved and who remains responsible for protecting neighboring property.

The response target falls after the meeting

I requested the official stenographic transcript, hearing exhibits and written zoning decisions on September 28. As of October 31, those records had not been produced to me. The Borough’s October 5 extension notices say it expects to respond on or before November 4. That target has not passed. The next approval stage should not outrun public access to the records needed to check the earlier one. ^[3]

The hearing video is available. It does not give us the complete marked exhibits or the written decision’s exact scope and conditions. Before recommending approval, commissioners should put the written order and the plan it covers alongside the current revised plan, make them available to the public, and explain any changes. ^[4]

Which property is being approved?

The Borough engineer’s own review gives a concrete reason to stop and resolve the record. McCarthy’s October 19 review letter, included in the posted draft packet, describes a two-lot subdivision, but flags an existing line through the southern parking lot that is not shown as extinguished and could leave three parcels. It also requests legal descriptions and parking calculations for each lot. The engineer says he reviewed an October 9 revised plan and two response letters, but those documents are not enclosed in the posted packet. They should be available for public review too. ^[2]

Which lines remain? Which land legally counts together for zoning? What are the lot areas, roof areas, paved areas and parking requirements for each resulting zoning lot? Does the September relief cover that exact arrangement?

Three parcels do not automatically mean three separate zoning lots or three required variances. But an unresolved boundary cannot simply be assumed away. If the actual layout needs relief beyond the written zoning order, the applicant should obtain it from the Zoning Hearing Board before final subdivision approval. ^[2][7]

Drainage duties already exist

The stormwater history also needs an explanation. A recorded 2019 agreement between Atonement and the Borough lists an infiltration bed, storm-sewer inlets and collection and conveyance systems. It requires maintenance, provides inspection access and includes obligations binding successors. It also calls for Borough inspections at least every three years during a ten-year period beginning with year one. ^[5]

That agreement does not prove the facilities were built, maintained or inspected. It does mean we cannot fairly say the church has no stormwater requirements. ^[5]

Show what was actually built, along with the construction and inspection records. Explain how much of the property it treats, where any remaining runoff goes, and who will pay for maintenance and repairs after the split. Put the facilities, access rights and continuing responsibilities on the revised plan where applicable. Neighbors deserve an answer supported by the actual system and enforceable documents.

“No grading” does not answer the waiver question

There is another immediate decision: the applicant seeks waivers from required site information. For section 403.1.M, its explanation is that no grading is proposed and contour lines are unnecessary. But that section covers utilities, drainage channels and other existing features too. The Commission should recommend denying that waiver as presently justified. Any narrower request should explain what information can safely be omitted and why. ^[2][6]

The Borough should also identify the stormwater requirements or exemption that applies to this subdivision and any associated utility work. A zoning coverage variance does not answer that question. Nor does a lot split, by itself, prove increased runoff or automatically require every existing paved area to be rebuilt. ^[6][7]

My request for Monday is specific: withhold a favorable recommendation, resolve the boundaries and coverage calculations, produce and compare the written zoning decision, and demonstrate how drainage duties remain enforceable. Require further ZHB relief if the actual plan needs it. Have the solicitor address the decision deadline rather than assume that tabling stops the clock. ^[7]

There is a useful comparison at 1139 Lehigh Avenue. In 2022, the Borough granted stormwater waivers for a new home while retaining an engineered control design and maintenance requirements. New construction and an existing-property split are different proposals. The fair question is which written requirements apply here, what relief is justified, and what enforceable protections remain. ^[8]

Apply one written standard to every applicant. Explain the exemptions, enforce the existing obligations, and settle the fundamental questions before recommending another approval.

Real Wyomissing Boro is independent and is not affiliated with the Borough of Wyomissing.