Marina feasibility study Ridley Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

4qm
Marina
Fea.8qs4qimb0qim0qi4qimty
Study
Q:
2 RIDLEYTOWNSHqI8qPq9PAs

fl6qa

jig

Tc ENTEDBYTHE PA. DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
328 76q@8q'Eq,R THE PA.COASTA56qL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
.M375
1989 2qRE56q&ION ASSOCIATES .... C08q12q4SU8qLTANTS .... SPRING HOUSE, PA .... JULY 1981

MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY

RIDLEY TOWNSHIP,

DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

DIRECTION ASSOCIATES, INC.

PLANNING CONSULTANTS

H. GILROY DAMON ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Funding for this study is provided by the Federal Government through
the office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmosphe-
ric administration under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) acting through the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, office of Resources Management.

RIDLEY TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Joseph P. Cronin, Jr.Esq., President
Paul G. Mattus, Vice President
Anthony D. Daliessio
Timothy J. Murtaugh
Nancy M. Collins
William L. McGrossan

Leroy P. Rogo
Peter T. Maginnis
Barry D. Mabry

RECREATION COMMITTEE

Timothy J. Murtaugh, Chairman

Paul G. Mattus

Anthony D. Daliessio

PROJECT COORDINATION

Ridley Township, Anne E. Howanski, Township Manager.

Delaware County Planning Department, Lois Binder, Planner.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

Including Project History . . . . . . . . . . . ii

GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

Including Ownership Considerations 1

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Topography . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

On-Site Vegetation . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 7

Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Site Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

ZONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

MARKET ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

SITE SUITABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS . . . . . 28

ESTIMATED SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . 35

FUNDING SOURCES AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . 37

Z'O APPENDIX I - CROSS SECTION PROFILES

APPENDIX II - MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

APPENDIX III - RIDLEY TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE
SECTION 10.0-00 FP FLOOD PLAIN
DISTRICTS

APPENDIX IV - SITE APPRAISAL, RICHARD G.
deGROUCHY

TABLE OF MAPS

Map Page

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .

COASTAL ZONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ON-SITE VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

GENERALIZED LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SITE ACCESSIBILITY . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, TINICUM
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

EXISTING DISTRICT ZONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS

MARINA FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

SCHEME 1, ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . 29

SCHEME 2, ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN . . .. . . . . . . . . 30

SCHEME 3, ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . 31

SCHEME 2, ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN/
PECO EASEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Regional Location Map

PHILADEL NIX

CHESTE COUNTY

D AWA U NTY

Phil. tPh
1. w.,i ... 17
Ject-st

. . . "age...

STATE F NEW JERS

STATE OF DELAWARE

'INTRODUCTION

Ridley Township is one of several communities that have been
awarded a grant to conduct a planning study of a proposed project
within the Coastal Zone of the Delaware River. These grant
funds are Federal funds that have been appropriated by Congress
for distribution to Coastal Zone states under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. 'In the State of Pennsylvania, these funds
are administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.

The Coastal Zone Management Act states, as a general goal, a nat-
ional policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible,
to restore or enhance the resources of the Coastal Zone. The
funds appropriated are to be used to develop specific Coastal
Zone policies, objectives and goals within each state and to con-
duct planning studies for projects that are consistent with these
policies, objectives, and goals.

The planning grant awarded to Ridley Township is to be used to
conduct a feasibility study for a site located along Darby Creek,
near the intersection of Sellers Avenue and the Industrial High-
way, to determine the potential for its development as a marina/
boat ramp/recreation area. This study is consistent with the Common-
wealth's goals of: improving public access for recreation opportuni-
ties within the Coastal Zone, and encouraging planning and development
in the-flood plains which is consistent with sound land use practices.

The first public meeting conducted under this study resulted in
significant public comment (See Appendix II, Minutes of Public
Meetings). Principal among these comments was a questioning of
the need for an additional marina in this area rather than another
type of recreation/water access facility. As a result, the Town-
ship Commissioners, after conferring with the Delaware Valley Region-
al Planning Commission, The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources and the Delaware County Planning Commission, requested
that the planning consultant, Direction Associates, Inc., revise
the focus of the study to an analysis of the feasibility of develop-
ing the site as a public boat ramp/passive recreation area.

The following report has responded to this request. While
reading this report, it is important to remember that this
study is "site specific," i.e., the report analyzes the
feasibility of developing a particular use on a particular
site. Alternative sites are not considered in this r.eport.

Prior to the availability of planning grants under the Coastal
Zone Management Program, Ridley Township sought funding for
the acquisition of this site from the Pennsylvania Department
of Community Affairs, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.
This was prompted by the fact that the owner, The Boeing-
Vertol Company, had listed the property for sale. When the
Township was not successful in securing such funding, it avail-
ed itself of the opportunity provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Program.

GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

The map, Coastal Zone, identifies the land area in Ridley
Township that lies within the Coastal Zone and the relation-
ship of the site to the boundary of the Coastal Zone. The
site is one of two (2) undeveloped areas with water frontage
in the Coastal Zone in Ridley Township. To the south and west
of the site, the Township's Coastal Zone area is developed for
industrial use (Boeing-Vertol). This includes land area fronting
on the Delaware River. North and east of the site, land area
along Darby Creek includes commercial (The Ponderosa Restaurant
and Morrow's Marina) and public recreational use (Leedom Estates
Park). The second undeveloped area lies between these two (2)
land uses.

The land use pattern found within Ridley Township's Coastal Zone
area is consistent with@the following statements describing develop-
ment in the Delaware Estuary presented in the Pennsylvania Coastal
Zone Management Program Technical Record (p. 5-18):

"Along the Delaware Estuary most of the shorefront
is occupied by intensive industry, port facilities,
utilities, and urban uses. Relatively few areas
have been developed for public access and some of
these have been allowed to deteriorate and become
unattractive or unsafe."

The Sellers Avenue site selected for this study is one of the few
remaining areas of vacant land that provides the opportunity for
public access to Darby Creek and the Delaware River.

The site selected for analysis is a 5.7 acre tract of land located
on the northeast corner of the intersection of Sellers Avenue
and Route 291, the Industrial Highway. The site lies on the
western bank of Darby Creek, between the Route 291 bridge and the
1-95 bridge. It is approximately 3-2 mile north of the mouth of the
Delaware River.

PA
CRK, A
199
ts
Nv VA 0
'R@
v.
6wq

4
w
4. -

P @M4-

@!-CQITONWOOD LA
M,
SUBJECT SITE
A LP@
P,

4
4TH !I
RR

7-
ILL
A OF -IC
SIGI
JUNAL,
MUKI OR CULTURAL VALUE

...... ......
\FD-ELAWARE R!VERI I DAL FIL
.%AREA OF SIGNIFIC
ANT NATURAL VALUEP*:@@
LITTLE TINICUM IS@A@.%@

.......... . .

Coastal Zone

MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
RidleyTownship, Pa. N
0 1000, 2000' 30 0' . Alit-
Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

The site is presently owned by the Boeing-Vertol Company. Several
years ago, the site, which is vacant, was advertised for sale. The
site remains available for sale and the Township has expressed its
interest in the property to Boeing-Vertol. During the course of
this study, the Philadelphia Electric Company approached the Boeing-
Vertol Company to pursue the conveyance of an easement across a por-
tion of the site. Such easement is presently being negotiated. The
easement involves .284 acres which traverses the width of the site
in its extreme southern portion. It is anticipated that.the ease-
ment will be used for the placement of an aerial tower to carry PECO
transmission lines across Darby Creek.

'BOEING-VERTOL

1V
_53:

:CT SITE
..........

TINICUM
MIVIRONMENTAL
CENTER

7'
TE 420

Stephenson Air Photos, Mount Laurel, New Jersey.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

TOPOGRAPHY

The map, Topography, defines elevations on the site at one (1)
foot intervals; cross section profiles are provided in Appendix I.
Using Sellers Avenue as a point of reference at elevation 10 feet,
the site drops abruptly from the roadway to an elevation of 7 feet,
and 6 feet. As Sellers Avenue approaches the Industrial Highway,
this descent becomes more severe with Sellers Avenue rising to
meet the Industrial Highway at elevation 25 feet.

After the initial drop from Sellers Avenue, the site slopes gently
to Darby Creek. The middle portion of the site maintains an elevat-
ion of approximately 8 feet. In the north, the elevation descends
to 2 feet and 3 feet in the areas adjoining Stony Creek, a tributary
of Darby Creek. In the southern portion of the site, an elevation
of 6 feet is generally maintained.

The elevations identified on the site all fall below the elevation of
10 feet. The Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that elevation 10
feet defines Zone A4 the 100 year flood plain

A considerable area beyond the site is included within the 100 year
flood plain. It should be noted that a floodway is not defined for
this portion of Darby Creek. A floodway is an area in riverine
situations which includes the channel and overbank areas that must be
kept free of encrouchment to allow for the 100 year flood to be
carried-without substantial increases in flood heights. However,
this concept applies only to fluvial flooding; backwater computat-
ion to determine floodway limits are not appropriate.*:This area
of Darby Creek is tidal; flooding is produced by storm tides in
the Delaware River that result from prolonged high winds from the
east.

Flood Insurance Study, Township of Ridley, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration, May 25, 1981. p.15

"The Natural Features of Tinicum Marsh with Particular Emphasis
on the Vegetation. Jack McCormick, Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, p. 21.

4.3

DENSE TREES

DENSE TREE S

C')

6,6

16,4
56,
16.1
'6', Co.,
CO
-IT
- , Q, :"* ,-
CC
B, T.

S'l

01
X

-----------------------

A.E@

MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
Topography RidleyTownship, Pa. N
"i 0

Direction Associates, inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

Z
ONE
A 5@i@@
7
ZONE

q
ZONE B"-
WILL4RD
DRIVE

ZONE C

'7.:

.7
291

0 -'.RM18

ZONE A4
10)
:'Co

ZONE B

PRIVATE
ROAD ONE C

291

Flood Insurance Rate Map
Revised Preliminary/ May28,1981

ZONE A

Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined.

ZONE B
Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-
year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flood-
ing with average depths less than one (I ) foot or where
the contributing drainage area is less than one square
mile-, or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
ZONE C

Areas of minimal flooding.
MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
RidleyTownship, Pa. N

Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

ON-SITE VEGETATION
The maps, On-Site Vegetation and Topography, indicate that dense
trees occupy a substantial portion of the site. This is apparent
in the photograph presented below. Also apparent in the photo-
graph is the existence of spatterdock and mixed aquatic vegeta-
tion along the bank of Darby Creek.

A view of the water frontage of the Sellers
Avenue site. This photograph was taken from
the Route 291 Bridge looking north on Darby
Creek to the 1-95 bridge.

The spatterdock and acquatic vegetation occur within the area sub-
ject to tidal influence. The mean high tide in this section of
Darby Creek reaches an elevation of 3.5 feet. A comparison of the
On-Site Vegetation Map with the Topography Map supports this rela-
tionship.

Such vegetation occurs within wetlands and flood plain areas. In
1973, the Academy of Natural Sciences conducted the Delaware River
Estuarine Marsh Survey in which they defined wetland areas. This
information was used in the preparation of the Pennsylvania Coastal
Zone Management Program Technical Record. In this survey, the sub-
ject site was not identified as a wetland area; it is identified
only as flood plain in the Technical Record.

UpEm STREAM
0 "Ohs 4
X,

7 71 f
S
R,
NZ
<

f 9 INI-Cai
00.@
cn@ 0 P E N ST REAM

0
N

*0
00

------------

0106

V41!

'6.4

DS
O1OF
ollbra _0
Ott

'85 0. T

0.
po

P..-G A-E-

MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
On-Site Vegetation RidleyTownship, Pa. N
SOURCE: TWO STUDIES OF TINICUM MARSH. 50 0 so '00 to 200
THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, 1970 1&
Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

LAND USE PATTERNS

The site is entirely vacant at present. However, there are rem-
nants of one or two buildings which area residents say were once
dwellings. It is likely that these dwellings were damaged or de-
stroyed in flood waters and were subsequently abandoned.

Immediately to the north of the site, on the'opposite side of
Stony Creek, a new sanitary sewage pumping station has been construct-
ed. This pumping station is part of the DELCORA system; it dis-
charges into Darby Creek adjacent to the pumping station. North of
the site there are also two isolated dwellings. The 1-95 bridge
crossing Darby Creek adjoins the.residences and the pumping station.
On the northern side of the bridge, commercial uses (a restaurant
and a private marina)occupy the waterfront area. Adjoining these
commercial uses on the west or inland side is a densely developed
residential area.

Land area on the opposite side of Sellers Avenue (the western side)
is mostly undeveloped. This land is part of the holdings of the
Boeing-Vertol Company whose principal facilities lie farther to the
west and south. Immediately north*and south of this vacant land
area are two developed land uses, public and commercial. The pub-
lic development is an old sanitary sewage treatment plant that has
been phased out of use with the construction of the new pumping
station. The commercial development occurs in the form of a gas
station at the corner of Sellers Avenue and the Industrial Highway.

Ilk,

Generalized Land Use

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

PUBLI-C

_J
INDUSTRIAL

VACANT LAND

J4
MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
RidleyTownship, Pa. N

9 oirection Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

The balance of land area on the western bank (Ridley Township) of
Darby Creek is owned and has been developed by the Boeing-Vertol
Company for industrial use. This includes all of the land area
between the site and the mouth of the Delaware River. The Dela-
ware River frontage illustrated on the Generalized Land Use Map
is the only river frontage within Ridley Township. All of this
river frontage has been developed for industrial use.

Land uses on the eastern bank of Darby Creek lie within Tinicum
Township. The area on the opposite bank of the Creek, between 1-95
and the Industrial Highway, is shown as vacant land. As is the
case with the subject site, this land area is not identified as a
wetlands area, but rather as a flood plain area. Immediately to
the north of 1-95 we find a public land use. This is the beginning
of the 1,200 acre tract of the Tinicum National Environmental Cen-
ter. To the south of the Industrial Highway there is a commercial
use, the tract of the Ramada Inn. Farther south, industrial use
identifies the railroad right-of-way. Between the railroad right-
of-way and the mouth of the Delaware, the land on the eastern bank
of Darby Creek is undeveloped.

SITE ACCESSIBILITY

A very important consideration in the analysis of a site for
public access to water resources is the ease of access to the
site. In reviewing accessibility there are several points of
concern: are there adequate roadways to the site; will the
traffic generated by the use of the site adversely affect sensit-
ive uses along these roadways, and; is the site easily accessible
from the water resource? The map, Site Accessibility, summarizes
the conditions of access to the site from the existing road system
and water resources.

HIGHWAY

The site is visible and accessible from two (2) of the most heavily
traveled roads in the region, 1-95 and the Industrial Highway.
Sellers Avenue intersects the Industrial Highway adjacent to the
site. Sellers Avenue also intersects Chester Pike northwest of the
site. A major interchange for 1-95 is located approximately @-2 mile
from.the site. Finally, the intersection of the Industrial High-
way and Route 420 (Wanamaker Avenue) is approximately 1 mile from
the site. Route 420 is an important north-south route which, at
this location, also forms part of the second major interchange in
the immediate area for 1-95.

3
_\ t7@ V,
- x"r
.-.r 16 'OA-@

AV
x@

%
\\71;'
VA
0_1

NTERCHANGEVE,@'
11 NTE@@HAN,@E _mr @Imkr_ -

0
CT S1
SUBJE
RAP@P @R
LO3X( tM, I
ILE

R R
jD

IP
La

Z.:

FD-ELAWARE RIVER!
(@:EL @_ITT
@LETINI@CUI@LA@NQ

Site Accessibility

MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
RidleyTownship, Pa.
0 2000'

1000, 3000'
Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

1 1

This photograph was, taken from the gas station
at the intersection of Sellers Avenue and the
Industrial Highway looking north on Sellers Ave.
The subject site is the densely wooded area

This photograph was taken from the same location
looking 5outh on Sellers Avenue to its intersection
with the Industrial Highway. The subject site is
the densely wooded area on the left.
*Ipom RE- a

Sellers Avenue maintains a 36 foot cartway within a 56 foot right-
of-way. This allows for two (2) traffic lanes south and one (1)
traffic lane north. This is more than adequate for a Collector or
a Local street. Because of the steep drop from the roadway to the
site, there is little usable shoulder area and a metal guard rail
has been provided. There is presently no access road from Sellers
Avenue into the site. The Sellers Avenue intersection with the In-
dustrial Highway provides for free flow right-hand turning movements
from the Industrial Highway west to Sellers Avenue north, and from
Sellers Avenue south to the Industrial Highway west.

The 1974 Comprehensive Plan for Ridley Township classified highways
by their function in the circulation system. 1-95 was identified
as a Principal Arterial Highway; the Industrial Highway as a Minor
Arterial Highway, and; Sellers Avenue as a Collector. Prior to the
opening of 1-95, traffic in this area of the Industrial Highway was
heavy (36,800 ADT in 1972). Accordingly, traffic on Sellers Avenue,
a Collector which feeds the Industrial Highway, was also relatively
heavy (12,700 ADT in 1972). one of the,products of this heavy flow
of traffic was the listihq of the Sellers Avenue and Industrial
Highway intersection as one of a number of "hazardous intersections"
in the Township.

Subsequently, Route 1-95 was opened to traffic in this area with
the anticipated result that traffic volumes on both the Industrial
Highway and Sellers Avenue will decline. With reduced traffic vol-
umes, it is also assumed that traffic accidents will decline, re-
moving the Sellers Avenue/Industrial Highway intersection from the
list of "hazardous intersections". Further improvements in traffic
flow are anticipated when the final section of 1-95 near the Phila-
delphia Airport is completed. As a result, the Major Thoroughfare
Plan in the Comprehensive Plan reduces the function of Sellers Ave-
nue from a Collector to a Local street.

Each of the roadways identified provides the potential for access
to the site on a regional, as well as local, level. It is import-
ant to note that traffic generated by the development of the site
should not adversely affect traffic flows on these roadways.

WATER
The subject site is located on the western bank of Darby Creek
approximately 1-2 mile north of the mouth of the Delaware River,
Immediately to the north of the site, upstream on Darby Creek,
boating activities lead to the Tinicum National Environmental
Center. At the present time, there is only one water access
facility, a canoe landing, in the Environmental Center. This
facility is in the northeastern portion of the Center in Phila-
delphia. The stream at this location is not navigable at low tide.
Future plans for the Environmental Center include the development
of a canoe landing area in the tidal lagoon west of Wanamaker Avenue
(Route 420). This new facility will offer canoe rentals.

N,
RD
-12 Nd/ O-L'!

W
-nd
IT ca
A
N".
AV Z
NLOSWJit,
I WSW

AV
A - -- 1! 11 a) E
AVI,
'S
IOAV 0
At/ 188v.)
IT >
-'40, CENTER A'V:,li 9L 39%vs!)v,
j Wr
AV
NN JL

A
,NS AV!"

OR,:

7r,

PORI

71
39o@

The subject site provides convenient access to the Tinicum National
Environmental Center; particularly for motorboats. However, motor-
boats must regulate their speed in the Environmental Center so as not
to produce a wake. Canoes and sailboats may also launch from the sub-
ject site for access to the Environmental Center. However, the nar-
rowness of the stream and the strength of the tidal current suggest
that the proposed canoe landing in the tidal lagoon is a more likely
location for the use of these types of boats.

It is anticipated that the principal type of boat using a facility
at the subject site will be a motorboat. It is also anticipated that
the majority of these boats will seek access to the Delaware River.
In doing so, there is an important factor that requires discussion.

The passage from the site to the Delaware River requires a boat
to pass under three (3) bridges, the Industrial Highway Bridge
and the former Pennsylvania Railroad and Reading Company railroad
bridges. The Industrial Highway bridge is high enough and the
supports are wide enough so as not to present difficulty for boats.
However, the railroad bridges are very low, making passage impossi-
ble at high tide. To overcome this problem, the railroads con-
structed drawbridges which can be raised for the passage of boats.
The regulations governing the use of these drawbridges are pre-
sented in Exhibit I.

The provision which raises immediate concern is the stipulation
that draw tenders need not be in constant attendance. However,
the regulations proceed to require that the drawbridges be opened
at specified times of the day during the boating season (May 15
to October 15) and "at other times on signal during these hours",
(7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.). No complaints were noted concerning the
operation of these drawbridges.

On June 4, 1981,asite visit was conducted usingaboat.
This photograph, and those on the following page, were
taken during the site visit. The site visit was conducted
at low tide. This photograph was taken as the boat tra-
veled south on Darby Creek towards the Delaware River.
The raised railroad bridge remained in this position
during the site visit.

495 Azxp@,
MIR- -

This photograph was taken as the boat passed
under the raised bridge and approached the
second bridge fixed in its lowered position.

The markers on the railroad
bridge indicate the clearance.
It appears that there is less
than a 5 foot clearance at high tide.

EXHIBIT I

CODE: OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

CHAPTER I - COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

�117.228 Darby Creek, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Railroad
Company and Reading Company b@ Essington.

(a) The owners of or agencies controlling these bridges will not
be required to keep draw tenders in constant attendance.

(b) Between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. each day from May 15 to Oc-
tober 15 inclusive, the draws of these bridges need not be
opened for the passage of vessels.

(c) Between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. each day from May 15 to Oc-
tober 15, inclusive, the bridges will be opened upoff signal
from an approaching vessel or vessels at 7:15 a.m., 10:30
a.m., 1:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m. and at
other times on signal during these hours if such openings
will not unduly delay railroad operations. Any vessel which
may have passed through one of these bridges shall be passed
through the draw of the other bridge without delay. When
once opened for the passage of any vessel or craft the said
bridges shall remain opened sufficiently long to permit the
passage through both bridges of all vessels or craft which
may be engaged in passing and all accumulated vessels pre-
senting themselves for passage.

(d) From October 16 to May 14, inclusive, whenever a vessel un-
able to pass under the closed bridges desires to pass
through the draws, 24 hours advance notice of the time open-
ing is required must be given to the authorized representa-
tive of the owner or agency controlling each of the bridges
to insure prompt opening thereof at the time required. On
receipt of such advance notice the authorized representative,
in compliance therein, shall arrange for the prompt opening
of the draw on proper signal at,approximately the time spe-
cified in the notice.

(e) in an emergency, the drawspans of these bridges will be
opened as soon as possible after notification.

(f) The owners of or agencies controlling these bridges shall
provide and keep in good legible condition two board gages
of a type to be approved by the Commandant to indicate the
controlling minimum vertical clearance under both closed
drawspans at all stages of the tide. These gages shall be so
placed on the upstream and downstream ends of the right chan-
nel drawspan piers or fenders so that they will be plainly
visible to the navigators approaching from either direction.

(g) The owner of or agency controlling each bridge shall keep
conspicuously posted on both the upstream and downstream
sides thereof, in such manner that it can easily be read at
any time, a copy of the regulations in this section together
with information as to whom notice should be given, as spe-
cified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, when it is
desired that the bridge be opened and directions for commu-
nicating with such person by telephone or otherwise.

(h) The operating machinery of the draws shall be maintained in
a serviceable condition, and the draws shall be opened and
closed at intervals frequent enough to make certain that the
machinery is in proper order for satisfactory operation.

ZONING

The Zoning Map for Ridley Township, May 25, 1977, defines two (2)
zoning districts on the subject site; these are "I" Industrial and
"FP" Flood Plain.

The area zoned Industrial includes a portion of the site that fronts
on Sellers Avenue; the balance of the site is zoned Flood Plain.
A variety of manufacturing and related uses are permitted in the
Industrial Zoning District. While public recreational facilities
are not included in the list-of permitted uses, "transportation
facilities" are permitted.. It is possible that a marina or a boat
ramp might be considered to be such a transportation facility.
That judgement must be m .ade by the Zoning officer. However, dist-
rict regulations also allow the Zoning Hearing Board to permit
"uses which are of the same general character as those listed as
permitted uses and which will not be detrimental to the intended
purpose of the district." It is likely that a decision on either
of these issues would allow the construction of a marina or boat-
ing access facility thereby avoiding the need for a zoning change.

74
'A

0145
0-4% -zA -

#_1V_ VW1
Existing District Zoning

PP
_00
"C" RESIDENTIAL V e, -

COMMERCIAL I

Wen-
PO W_ ge oc -.
INDUSTRIAL

FLOOD PLAIN

MARINA FEASIBILITTSTUDY
RidleyTownship, Pa. N

Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

The regulations for the Flood Plain Zoning District govern the
major portion of the site. These regulations are provided in
Appendix III. However, it is important to note that any build-
ing that would be proposed for construction in the portion of the
site zoned Industrial, would also fall under the provision of the
Flood Plain District which states that development or construction
within 100 feet of the flood plain requires approval by the Town-
ship Commissioners as a Conditional Use (Section 10.203, Require-
ments).

There are no specific uses listed as permitted uses in the Flood
Plain District. The district regulations state objectives that
should be considered in reviewing proposals for development. All
such proposals are reviewed under the Conditional Use procedure.
The objectives relate to the flow of flood waters and compatibility
with the preservation of natural conditions. A properly designed
marina, boat ramp or recreation area should be able to meet these
requirements.

MARKET ANALYSIS

The project, as now proposed, calls for the development of a boat
ramp and a passive recreation area. Such facilities usually do
not produce income. As a result, it is not necessary to determine
that there will be a certain number of people using the facility
producing income sufficient to meet expenses. However, the expen-
diture of public funds for such facilities requires an assurance
that the facilities are needed. As a result, it is necessary to
examine boating access and recreational facilities, and to define,
at least generally, the existing and potential demand for such fa-
cilities.

As an opening comment, it must be stated that there are presently
no public boating access-facilities to the Delaware River in
Delaware County; those which exist are privately owned and oper-
ated. The following is a list of these marinas and the launching
facilities they provide.

TABLE I
DELAWARE COUNTY
COASTAL ZONE BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES
Delaware River Ramp Ramp Fee Railway Boat Lift Crane

Anchorage Marina - - 20.Ton 13 Ton
Fox Grove Marina - -
Tinicum. Yacht Yard - - 2/25 Ton/401
Rosse Boat Repair
and Storage Yard - - 3/30 Ton/50'
Philadelphia Sea-
plane Base, Marine 12 Ton
Division 16' $4.00 15 Ton/45' 25 Ton 25 Ton
Riverside Yacht NOT IN OPERATION
Club

Governor Printz NOT IN OPERATION
Marina

Corinthian Yacht PRIVATE CLUB - ALL FACILITIES - AVAILABLE
Club ONLY TO CLUB MEMBERS.

Darby Creek
Morrow's Marina 301 $4.00
Prospect Park
Marina 301 $3.00

Ponderosa DOCKING FACILITY ONLY.

Source:. Boating Almanac, 1981; Boating Guide to Pennsylvania
Waters. -

of the eight (8) marinas located on the Delaware River, only two
(2) have boat ramps, one of which is restricted to club members.
The facilities available at the four (4) operating marinas which
lack ramps are the type used to place large vessels in the water
for the boating season. These facilities are not intended to ser-
vice the smaller vessels (less than 26 feet) which are carried by
trailer for weekend use and*are stored on the trailer usually in
the owner's yard rather than at a marina.

On Darby Creek there are two (2) additional marinas, both of
which have ramps; a third location has a docking facility, but no
ramp. As a result, there are four ramps available to boaters in
Delaware County for access to the Delaware River, one of which is
operated by a private club for club members only. To determine
if this number is sufficient, it is helpful to examine character-
istics of the population and boating registration.

In Pennsylvania, all boats operated by propelling machinery (motor-
boats) must be registered. Sailing vessels, canoes, etc., need
not be registered. A motorboat must be registered in the state in
which the boat is principally used. If the boat is waterborne in
Pennsylvania waters more times than it is on waters of another
state, it must be registered in Pennsylvania, regardless of where
the owner lives. Boats registered in other states are granted
reciprocal privileges in Pennsylvania for a period of sixty (60)
days.

The table presented below provides data for boat registration in
Pennsylvania.
TABLE II

REGISTERED MACHINERY-DRIVEN PLEASURE BOATS

Percent 1980 Percent''
County 1972 1980 Change Change Population Change

Bucks 4,512 7,598 3,086 +68.4 479,211 +15.0

Chester 1,348 2,511 1,163 +86.3 316,660 +14.0

Delaware 3,021 3,051 30 + 1.0 555,007 - 8.0

Montgomery 4,102 5,993 1,891 +46.1 643,621 + 3.1
ow

Philadelphia 3,666 4,209 543 +14.8 1,688,210 -13.4

Total 16,649 23,362 6,713 +40.3 3,682,709

Allegheny 15,202 21,584 6,382 +41.9 1,450,085 - 9.7
Source: Pennsylvania Fish Commission/Boat Registration Division.

PARA "140 1
CIR
r
q
0

P"
Ilk
<

PROSPECT PARK
-3-7

L ES PARK
\0, OM ESTA
'25

V@@, "4-. 1 LLUI
S

"IMOR

POND ROS

C
-4-

ISS1
9SUBJECT SITE P,

RR
0
119A -
- 05F- Lj P 0

r
2ND
%
Q :,GOVE OR PRINZ ST
ATE PAR

tE RIVERI
(Z@=Ll -@LETIN:W@@_-@SLAN@--\,,

Marina Facilities

MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
RidleyTownship, Pa.
0 2000'

1000, 3000'
Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

2 2

Morrow's Marina is the only
boating access facility in
.7.
Ridley Township. It is lo-
cated just north of the
subject site. The photo
graph on the right shows
the entrance drive to
Morrow's Marina. Swarth- a
more Avenue deadends in
to MR
the marina access drive. %Z
1-7
Swarthmore Avenue is a

n -
densely developed reside
tial area. Traffic gener-
ated by the marina has a
negative impact on this
residential neighborhood

fie,
'J4

tot,

IL
Aaw

The photograph above was
taken from Swarthmore
Avenue, looking into
the marina. Dry storage
areas are on the right
and the left of the access
drive. The access drive
leads to the boat ramp.

the photograph on the
right is a waterfront -on IWORP a ;10
MARINA
view of Morrow's Marina
A W
looking north on Darby &x
Creek.

The Table, Registered Machinery-Driven Pleasure Boats, provides
data for counties in the Philadelphia area, including Delaware
County, in which Ridley Township is located. Data is also pro-
vided for Allegheny County. The purpose is to provide comparative
data for an area which lacks competing water resources. All of
the counties in the Philadelphia area are relatively close to
boating access facilities on the New Jersey shore, Chesapeake Bay,
and the State of Delaware. This enables residents of the Phila-
delphia area to use and register their boats in other states.
Allegheny County is significantly more distant from such competing
water resources, while having substantial water resources of its
own in the Ohio, Monongahela, and Allegheny Rivers.

The result is a significant difference in boat registration. With
a population of almost a quarter of a million less than Philadel-
phia County, there are five times more boats registered by Allegheny
County residents. In fact, there are nearly as many boats regis-
tered to Allegheny County residents as there are to the residents
in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties
combined, an area with more than twice the population of Allegheny
County.

our basic assumption is that there are a large number of residents
of the Philadelphia area who have boats registered in other states.
There are several reasons for believing that this has occurred.
First, competing water resources are relatively accessible.
Second, there are not sufficient boating access facilities in the
Philadelphia area to encourage people to use their boats princi-
pally in the waters of Pennsylvania. As we have stated, there are
only four (4) ramps in Delaware County; there are 19 in Allegheny
County. Finally, there is a known practice in Pennsylvania and
other states on the Eastern Seaboard, of selling boats in one
state, to be technically "delivered" and registered in the State
of Delaware to avoid the sales or property taxes that are normally
levied on the sale of boats. Delaware levies neither of these
taxes.

To further support this assumption, it is helpful to examine trends
in participation in boating activities. One means of doing this is
to use data assembled in The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Ac-
tivities, presented below.

TABLE III
PARTICIPATION IN BOATING

Income Range (1970)_ Participation Rate
Under $5,000 10.0%
$ 5,000-$ 7,499 20.5%
$ 7,500-$ 9,999 24.5%
$10,000-$14,999 33.0%
$15,000 and over 29.8%
Source: The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities,
Preliminary Report 1972.

This table provides an indication of participation in boating ac-
tivities by income for the nation as a whole. Basically, the
higher the income group, the larger the percentage of that income
group participating 'in boating activities. This is principally
due to the greater amount of disposable income available for ex-
penditure for boating as a source of recreation. To provide us
with some idea of the potential demand for boating facilities, it
is helpful to correlate these participation rates with the popu-
lation of Ridley Township and Delaware County.

TABLE IV
POTENTIAL BOATING PARTICIPATION Potential Boating
Population Participation Participation
1970 Income Ridley/Delaware Rate Ridley/Delaware
Under $5,000 808 15,272 10.0% 81 1,527
$ 5,000 to $ 7,499 985 16,847 20.5% 202 3,454
$ 7,500 to $ 9,999 1,747 23,760 24.5% 428 5,521
$10,000 to $14,999 3,951 49,247 33.0% 1,304 16,252
Greater than $15,000 2,546 46,843 39.8% 1,013 18,643

TOTAL: 3,028 45,697

This same methodology produces the sum of 125,618 persons partici-
pating in boating in Allegheny County. Using 1972 boat registra-
tion, this results in 8 persons per boat registered in Allegheny
County. Applying this same ratio, there would appear to be a po-
tential for 5,712 boats to be registered to Delaware County resi-
dents, and 378 boats registered to Ridley Township residents.
The actual registration for the County was far below this number;
data for communities is not available.

If we assume that such potential boat registration exists, the next
question is whether there are sufficient boating facilities to at-
tract and serve these boats. As an initial comment, the lack of any
public access facility in this area would, in and of itself, appear
to justify the existence of at least one such facility. However, how
much of a potential demand exists? Using 1970/1972 statistics, we
can attempt to reach some concept of whether existing facilities
are adequate.

The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities found that the av-
erage number of days of participation in boating was 10.3 days/year
per person. For discussion purposes, we will estimate that the
15,202 boats in Allegheny County in 1972 were used for a total of
156,580 boat/days; in Delaware County the total use of the potential
boat registration would have been 58,834 boat/days. The boating season,
May 15 through October 15, contains 150 days. As a result, there
was an average of 1,043 boats in use a day in Allegheny County and

392 in Delaware County. The daily ratio of boats to access facili-
ty for Allegheny County (19) was 55; for Delaware County (4), it
was 98.

While there are many problems with this methodology (example: boat
registration by class, i.e., size is not available - the larger
boats do not use ramps) it is at least an attempt to provide a
feel for the situation. Similarly, information resulting from a
recent survey (although it had a limited response) is helpful in
assessing the situation. The survey was conducted by the League
of Womeon Voters of Pennsyvlania; the subject was "Demand for Rec-
reation Access to the Lower Delaware". The survey was conducted
in 1980.

A total of 175 people responded to the questionnaire; 45% of those
responding were residents of Delaware County. The following state-
ments were included in the findings of the survey:

Boating is the most,popular forn of recreation along the
river, but viewing the river is as important as fishing and
other forms of active recreation.

Boaters are dissatisfied with the present facilities and com-
plain about crowded and poorly maintained facilities.

Although the question of ramp condition was not included in
the survey, a significant number of boaters wrote in that
launching ramps are in poor condition.

Fishing in the Delaware River is hindered by the lack of boat
launching areas.

our analysis suggests that there is a strong latent demand for boat-
ing access facilities in Delaware County. By providing new ramp -
facilities, it is hoped that residents who register their boats and
use :these boats in other states will be attracted back to Pennsyl-
vania for a part of their boating activities. It is also possible
that residents who have been considering the purchase of a boat
will be encouraged to do so by the existence of new facilities.
While rising energy costs would seem to work against such trends,
they might, in fact, support them as people choose to eliminate the
long and costly drives to the New Jersey *shore, the Chesapeake and
Delaware because of the availability of nearby boating access facil-
ities.

In 1974 Ridley Township prepared a Recreation and Park Study to
assess the needs for recreation in the community. Included in this
study was a survey questionnaire which was distributed to students
in the high school and junior high schools, and to Township resi-
.dents at random. The results of the survey showed "boating" as one
of the top ten recreational activity choices of the students (8).
As a result, the Study recommended that increased emphasis be
placed on boating activities in the Township's recreation programs.

The Study also included an assessment of existing recreational fa-
cilities conducted on a Township-wide and neighborhood level. The
subject site was included in the Leedom Neighborhood. This neigh-
borhood is a very densely developed area with little open space
other than that found along Darby Creek. Existing recreation fa-
cilities include the Leedom Elementary School, Stony Hill Road
Park, Taylor Drive Park, Willow Park, Leedom Estates Park, and
Morrow's Marina. The Study recommended that an additional recrea-
tion area be developed along Darby Creek between Morrow's Marina
and Leedom Estates Park. The site which is the subject of this
Study was identified as an industrial area; it was assumed that
industrial use would continue. However, this assumption was not
maintained in the Comprehensive Plan prepared in the same year.
The land use proposed for the subject site in the Comprehensive
Plan is "Open Space".

The adequacy of the site recommended as a "waterfront recreation
area" in the Recreation and Park Study did not include an assess-
ment of the site as a boat launching area. In recent years, the
residents of the Leedom Neighborhood, particularly those on
Swarthmore Avenue, have complained of the heavy traffic related
to Morrow's Marina. Access to the site proposed in the Recreation
and Park Study is possible only through the same residential area.
As a result, its development as an additional boat launch area,
would generate increased conflict with area residents.

Despite this problem, the conclusions of the Recreation and Park
Study generally support the proposed project. It identifies a
need for the development of increased waterfront recreation areas,
open space and boating activities in Ridley Township, and in the
Leedom Neighborhood.

SITE SUITAB ILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

Earlier sections of this study have described the physical charac-
teristics of the subject site. We must now review these physical
features to determine if the development of a boat ramp/passive
recreation area is advisable on this site.

One of the primary criteria established by the Township was an
assurance that the development of a boat ramp facility would not
adversely affect "Local" streets in residential areas. It is im-
portant to note that Sellers Avenue has not served as a "Local"
street in the Township's thoroughfare system. It has been a
"Collector" whose function has been to carry substantially higher
volumes of traffic than "Local" streets. While this was expected
to change as a result of the opening of 1-95, Sellers Avenue re-
mains physically capable of carrying higher volumes of traffic.

I
Equally important are the probable routes of access to Sellers
Avenue. It has been noted that there are several major highways
in the immediate area which provide convenient access to Sellers
Avenue (Routes 291, 420, and 1-95). These highways would most
likely carry residents of other communities in Delaware County to
the facility. As a result, there is no need for persons, other
than Ridley Township residents, to travel on "Local" streets
through residential neighborhoods to gain access to the site.

This first criterion having been satisfied, we are now able to
continue to more specific elements of the site. The topography
of the site proves to be the most critical physical factor re-
lated to site suitability. Here we find that the entire site
lies below the elevation of the 100 year flood plain. Also, the
difference in the elevation of Sellers Avenue and that of the
site requires that the site be filled to provide an appropriate
access drive and parking area. As a result, an additional cri-
terion for assessing the development potential of the site in-
cludes minimizing the amount of fill material. This will reduce
the cost of development and will reduce the potential impact
upon the elevation of the 100 year flood plain.

In preparing design alternatives, it is also necessary to de-
velop a facility which will meet the minimum requirements of
potential funding sources. one such source is the Municipal
Lease Program of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. This program
requires a minimum of 50 parking spaces for cars and boat trailers
for boat ramp facilities.

With these criteria in mind, we have prepared three (3) design
alternatives for the site: Scheme 1, Scheme 2, and Scheme 3.
In each of these Schemes, it is assumed that the Township gains
control of the entire 5.7 acres, with the exception of the
proposed PECO easement.

:5-

A@,
J-

:10e

Ez@i

Scheme 1 MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
Illustrative Site Plan RidleyTownship, Pa. N
0 50 100 150 200

Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

2 9

NZ,

7@)

1,44

Scheme 2 INA FEASIBILITY STUDY
I I lustrative Site Plan RidleyTownship, Pa. N
0 50 100 150 200

30 Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

# 2q@"o'Ovxq@q@

Scheme 3 MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
Illustrative Site Plan RidleyTownship, Pa.
0 50 100 150 200

Direction Associates, Inc. ..... Consultants ..... Sp r Ing House, Pa.
31

Scheme 1 includes a parking area for 50 cars and trailers, addition-
al parking for cars, a boat ramp, a dock for rental canoes, a ser-
vice building for canoe rentals, and a passive recreation area with
picnic tables and landscaping. This scheme proposes that the park-
ing lot and access drive be constructed in the lowest area of the
site and that the passive recreation area be developed on a rela-
tively flat, higher area near Route 291. To accomplish this, it
is proposed that the access drive be constructed over a tributary
to Stony Creek. This requires the piping of the tributary.

While Scheme 1 provides.for all of the uses requested, i.e., boat
ramp, parking area and passive recreation area, it raises several
problems. There are a number of negative aspects related to the
piping of the stream. It requires that the site be filled to a
higher elevation to provide adequate cover for the pipe, and; pip-
ing in a tidal area requires constant maintenance to remove silt
from the pipe. The location of the passive recreation area is also
questionable. The high traffic volumes on Route 291 produce noise
levels and air quality that are not desirable in passive recrea-
tional areas. Also, the flood plain status of the site limits the
desired development of facilities and equipment in the recreation
area. All equipment should be anchored,and buildings, such as the
service building shown, should be eliminated. The storage of ren-
tal canoes in the flood plain is also not desirable.

Recognizing these problems, we have designed Schemes 2 and 3 which
alter the location of the access drive, boat ramp, and parking
area, and eliminates the service building. By moving the access
drive and parking area to the southern portion of the site, we
can reduce our requirements for filling the site. In the new lo-
cation, the access drive no longer passes over the stream, elimi-
nating the need to pipe the stream and the fill requirement that
relates to providing adequate cover for the pipe. In Schemes 2
and 3, we are also eliminating the need to fill the lowest lying
areas of the site. We do so, however, at the loss of a passive
recreation area with landscaping and equipment. Schemes 2 and 3
propose that the lowest lying areas be preserved in their natural
state as public open space.

A more detailed analysis of the development proposed in Scheme 2
is provided by the cross section profiles presented in Appendix 1.
Cross section profile elevations of the existing site and the pro-
posed fill and grading were taken every 50 feet. The cross section
profile elevations from Sellers Avenue, across the access drive and
parking lot, up to and including the boat ramp, is presented on the
following page.

Darby Creek Elevations at Profile Line D PREPARED BY
H. GILROY DAMON ASSOCIATES. INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS

.10. EXTREME HldtH WAT R FT-1-TION 8.4'

+5-
I.E. HIGH WAT N 315'

WATER ELEVAT1011-2
A'.

_101

U
In

-20'
Z
0

0 100, 200' 300' 400' 500'

VERTICAL SCALE

(The vertical scale is 10 times the horizontal scale.)

The proposed access drive will be constructed at a 6% grade from
Sellers Avenue to the edge of the-parking lot. The parking lot
will have a gradual slope of 1-1/2% as it drops from an elevation
of 10 feet to an elevation of 6 feet at the edge of the boat ramp.
The ramp will be constructed with a grade of 13%.

The fill proposed in all of the schemes will leave the site below
the elevation of the 100 year flood plain (10 feet). As indicated
in cross section profile, line D., a 100 year flood will cover the
boat ramp and the entire parking area; the access drive to Sellers
Avenue will be above the 100 year flood. This proposal is compat-
ible with the flood plain environment as the amount of fill mater-
ial is minimized, reducing the potential effect upon the elevation
of the 100 year flood. The calculations for the excavation and
fill required for Scheme 2 are presented below:

Parking Area and Roadway:
Excavation (7,000) cubic yards
Fill 10,400 cubic yards
Ramp/Access Drive:
Excavation (700) cubic yards
Fill .800 cubic yards'
Net Fill 2,700 cubic yards
Source: H. Gilroy Damon Associates, Consulting Engineers.

Based upon the limitations imposed by the flood plain environment,
and a desire to keep the costs of the development of this facility
at a reasonable level, it is recommended that Scheme 2 be the
selected design for the site.

Scheme 2 was developed prior to the notice of negotiation of an
easement for the Philadelphia Electric Company. As a result, there
is a need to determine the potential impact of the PECO easement on
this design alternative.

In the map below, the PECO easement has been placed upon the Illus-
trative Site Plan for Scheme 2. The easement includes an area used
for 8 car/boat trailer parking spaces needed to meet the 50 space
minimum; additional spaces shown are extra spaces for cars only.
Parking is generally permitted by PECO within such easements. As a
result, it appears that the 8 car/boat trailer spaces can be pro-
vided,while it is expected that most of the extra spaces will be
lost.

0-1

Scheme 2 M -RINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
RidleyTownship, P3.
Illustrative Site Plan/PECO EASEMENT
0 51) 100 ISO 200
2

Direction Assoclates.inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House.Pa.
go
34

ESTIMATED SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS

The costs associated with the development of Scheme 2 have been
prepared by H. Gilroy Damon and Associates, and are presented in
Table V below. It should be stated that the same cost would apply
to the development of Scheme 3. Costs for Scheme 1 have not been
estimated, as this design alternative was not recommended. However
it can be stated that Scheme 1 would be more costly due to the pro-
vision of piping, additional fill, a service building, and the
landscaping and development-, of a passive recreation area:

TABLE V
COST ESTIMATE
SCHEME 2

Parking Area and Roadway:

Excavation 7,000 cu.yds. @ $ 4.00 $ 28,000

Fill and Grading - 10,400 cu.yds. @ $ 13.50 $140,400

Ramp:

Excavation - 700 cu.yds. @ $ 16.00 $ 11,200

Fill - 800 cu.yds. @ $ 13.50 $ 10,800

Ramp and Apron:

Reinforced Concrete - 230 cu.yds. @ $130.00 $ 29,900

Parking Area and Roadway:

Paving - 7,700 cu.yds. @ $ 15.00 $115,500

$335,800

Plus Fees and Contingencies @ 15% $ 50,370

TOTAL: $386,170

Source: H. Gilroy Damon & Associates, Inc.

In addition to the development costs, there is a need for the
Township to gain control of the site. This may be accomplished
by acquisition, or long term lease. It is recommended that the
Township pursue the acquisition of the site. Accordingly, an
appraisal of the site has been prepared in conjunction with this
study. The appraisal is included in Appendix IV. The appraisal
finds the site to be valued at $59,850. As a result, total costs
for acquisition and development are $446,020.

TABLE VI

Land Acquisition $ 59,850
Development 386,170

Total Cost $446,020

The operation of this facility requires a minimum of maintenance.
However, there is a cost,associated with such maintenance, whether
it is borne by the Township or another body or agency. Typical
maintenance costs for a boat ramp facility of this type range
from $2,500 to $4,000 per year.

FUNDING SOURCES A14D PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

There are a number of potential funding sources which can be em-
ployed in order to implement the recommendations detailed in the
Development Plan. Many of the funding programs which have been
traditionally used to construct park, recreation, boat launch and
other passive recreation facilities are in a major state of tran-
sition at the present time. The Federal government has numerous
programs which have, in the past, provided funding components for
projects involving the types of activities proposed in this plan.
However, a number of the programs have been eliminated; and almost
all of the remaining programs have been severely reduced'in terms
of the magnitude of funds available; and a backlog of projects is
building up which have already been submitted requesting Federal
funds.

Similarly, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's program of providing
grant funds for recreational facilities is declining. This is
occurring for two reasons: the first is that State agencies fre-
quently process Federal funds which are now declining in the
amount of money available, and secondly, because less money has
been made available in the State budget for 1981-1982 for park
and recreation facilities. Therefore, it is important to identify
programs that exist now and will continue to exist in the future
and set forth a realistic strategy for implementing this plan.

As a Coastal Zone community, it was originally hoped that funding
sources specifically designated for such communities would be
available to Ridley Township. Prior to the implementation of
this study, the Township investigated the potential for including
this project in the Coastal Energy Impact Program. It was found
that various program criteria eliminated this project from funding
consideration.

Another source of Federal funds that was considered was the
Coastal Zone Management Program's Section 306 Program for the
development of recreational opportunities. However, while this
project was certainly eligible for funding, the program has been
one of the Federal programs most affected by the recent budget
cuts. As a result, there are no funds available under this pro-
gram for fiscal 1982.

A final source of Federal funds is the Community Development Block
Grant Program. Ridley Township receives funds from this program
as a participant in Delaware County's Community Development Pro-
gram. However, the use of the funds is restricted to the pursuit
of two (2) fundamental objectives: the removal of slums and
blight, and projects principally benefiting low and moderate income
persons. It does not appear to be likely that this project can

be funded under these criteria. However, proposed changes in the
eligibility standards for this program suggest that it may even-
tually be a source of funding for this project.

There are two (2) funding sources available from the State that
the Township has already approached. These are the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission's Municipal Lease Program and the Bureau of
Recreation and Conservation of the Department of Community
Affairs.

The Township has learned that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission
has, in the past, considered the subject site for the development
of a boat ramp facility. As a result, the Township has submitted
a request to the Pennsylvania Fish Commission for "site approval"
under its Municipal Lease Program. The Township is presently
awaiting a response.

Should "site approval" be granted, the Township would be eligible for
consideration in the awarding of a grant to develop the site. An
important element of this consideration is the ability of the com-
munity to control the site. The most desirable situation is where
the community owns the site; however, the Fish Commission may also
fund development on sites where the community has a long-term
lease (50 years minimum). Under the most optimistic. circumstances,
site approval would be granted and the Township would be awarded
funding to cover the development of the site in fiscal 1982, con-
tingent upon the Township's acquisition of the site or the nego-
tiation of a long-term lease.

The second Commonwealth funding source, while administered by the
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, is directly depen-
dent upon funding available from the Federal Land and Water Con-
servation Fund. Ridley Township has submitted a letter of intent
to the Department of Community Affairs for funding under this
program. If it is successful, it will receive 50% of the acquisi-
tion costs of the site. No response has been received from the
Department of Community Affairs concerning the status of the
Township or the program.

The Consultant has assisted the Township in pursuing these fund-
ing sources. At this point in time, it is a matter of waiting
for responses to determine the next course of action.

If the Township is successful with its applications to the
Pennsylvania Fish Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of
Community Affairs, it will still be necessary for the Township
to provide approximately $30,000 towards the acquisition of the
site. This assumes that the Boeing-Vertol Company would be
willing to sell the site at the appraised price. The local share

of the acquisition ocsts must either be provided from the Township's
general fund, or if the regulations change, from the funds available
to the Township under the Community Development Program.

Given the indefinite status of funding for this project, the prepa-
ration of a timetable is of questionable value. However, it should
be stated that construction activities would appear to be the least
time-consuming of the necessary actions; construction is estimated
at less than six months. As an initial course of action, following
the review of this report the Township should approach the Boeing-
Vertol Company to discuss the acquisition of the site. During this
period, it is expected that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission will
respond to the request for a determination of "site approval". If
this is granted, it will be necessary to negotiate with Boeing-
Vertol and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission over the option of ac-
quiring the site versus leasing the land, as this could be an im-
portant factor in the To'wnship's competitive rating for funding
under the Municipal Lease Program.

APPENDIX I

0 CROSS-SECTION PROFILES

-.10

1-3t'

A
A

T-
/B

V X

v1.

Prof i les
sheet 1 of 3
Reference Map
EXISTING CONTOUR
FROPOSED'CONTOUR

PREPARED BY
H. GILROY DAMON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
MARINA FEASIBILITYST
RidleyTownship, a4,/N
0 so 100 150

Direction Associates, Inc ...... Consultants ..... Spring House, Pa.

F ;IOU

r,
;o rn
C)0
o
C, U,
1p2p rn :x 0
&A X 8qM
CA >
CA C,) CA

EDGE OF CONCRE-2qf2qt

Ln EDGE PARKIN;
@EA

-rq- AREJ k
_'q,EDGI__qQF PARqt
AREA

EDGE )F PARKI
0
qM6qz EDGE F ARKq@NG
AREA
>

tqi PARKING
kREA

FA
08qz
oql (A > 4qtqz4qi
qt-q qtlqj qt1qi
tam qtlqj
>
q"6q@6q@EDGE

rn w m
z 0 0

m >
rn :r
;o 0
AA = m 0
> C03
LA -n
in
cn

>
rn
c-

W
4.n
EDGE OF CONCRETE

PAR UNG
KING ADGE OF
PAREA PAR]
AREA

gn
'A
0

'ED E Of PARKI
0 N,
M P REA
ri
0 > H
5;-' t,4 t-I EDGE CP t-4
-PARKIb G H PARKIN, H
0 AREA z , I z
0 ti AREA
3 ti ti

C-4
r >

'a
JEI
;,E G
E 0
PARKIN
A

0
c

APPENDIX II

MINUTES OF' PUBLIC MEETINGS

-1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Files

FROM: Direction Associates, Inc.

DATE: June 8, 1981

SUBJECT: Ridley Township Coastal Zone Management Program
Marina/Recreation Feasibility Study

The first public meeting for the Ridley Township Marina/Recrea-
tion Area Feasibility Study was held before the regular meeting
of the Recreation Board at 7:30 p.m., June 8, 1981.

The meeting had been advertised in the newspaper and the notices
were sent to persons and organizations indicated at the end of
this memorandum.

The purpose of the meeting was to advise the public of the study
which was being initiated by Ridley Township and its consultants,
Direction Associates, Inc., and H. Gilroy Damon Associates, Inc.
It was hoped that public comments would be received concerning
the concept of a marina facility and a recreation area for the
subject site on land owned by Boeing-Vertol Company, located at
the northeast corner of Sellers Avenue and the Industrial High-
way.

Mr. Robert Kelly of Direction Associates introduced the study by
explaining the Coastal Zone Management Program and funds provided
by the study under this program. He then proceeded to identify
the location of the site to be studied and briefly explained the
scope of the study. He indicated that there would be a review
of the physical feasibility of developing a recreation/marina
facility on the site, as well as an anlaysis of the financial
feasibility of such a proposal. He concluded by stating that
the study had not yet commenced and that this evening's meeting
was, in fact, the initiation of the study.

CONSULTANTS * COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES - URBAN [DESIGN
R. 0. SOX 314, BETHLEHEM PIKE. SPRING HOUSE. PENNSYLVANIA 19477 TELEPHONE (215) 643-5200

Memo To: Files
June 8, 19 81
Page Two

The meeting was then turned over to Mr. Timothy J. Murtaugh,
Ridley Township Commissioner and Chairman of the Recreation
Board. The following is a list of comments received during
the public session.

1. There was some concern raised with respect to the market
demand for a marina facility in this area. One commenter
believed that there were five marinas along the Delaware
River that had been shut down. He did not see the need
for a publicly owned marina constructed with public
funds immediately adjacent to an operating marina,
Morrow's 1111arina.

Also, concern was raised over the fact that a public ma-
rina was being constructed while a proposal to develop a
privately owned marina had been denied (i.e., a proposal
by Mr. Richard Belk).

2. Mr. Morrow of Morrow's Marina suggested that the Township
consider purchasing his marina, rather than constructing
a new one, or opening a new access to his marina to enable
people using his facility to avoid using Swarthmore Avenue.
The residents of Swarthmore Avenue have expressed dis-
pleasure with the volume of traffic generated by the
marina, particularly vehicles towing boats on trailers.
A new access would overcome this objection to his opera-
tion.

3. Concern was raised over the railroad bridges which cross
Darby Creek. These bridges must be raised for a vessel
to pass under it. It was noted that there was no permanent
operator controlling the bridges.

4. One member of the audience noted that a marina would be a
facility most likely used by those of higher income, and
that the development would have little benefit to those
of low and moderate income. The Township residents of the

0.-A.RtM=rU0TNt.

Memo To: Files
June 8, 1981
Page Three

immediate area (i.e., Sixth Ward), in this person's opinion,
would not benefit from such a facility. It was his opinion
that Federal or State funds, if available, should be used
for a recreation facility which would benefit the residents
of the immediate area.

5. There was some discussion with respect to the manner in
which such a project would be funded. It was noted that
a municipal bond issue was one means of funding a public
marina. There were various opinions on this subject. One
individual felt that it would be best to pay for such a
facility with a municipal bond issue to retain local con-
trol of the project. Another individual strongly opposed
the use of local tax-payers' money to develop a project
when funds might be-provided by the State or Federal gov-
ernment.

6. The question df a marina versus a boat ramp facility was
raised. In one commenter's opinion, it was felt that a
marina was not financially feasible, whereas, a boat ramp
would be financially feasible and would meet an existing
demand for such a facility in this area.

At the present time there is no public boat ramp/boating
access facility to the Delaware River. The marinas located
along the Delaware River in Essington require the use of
travel lifts and cranes to*place boats in the river. These
are expensive to use and are only practical for the larger
vessels. A boat ramp for smaller out-board vessels would
be heavily used in this area. As an example, the individual
noted the heavy use of the Linden Avenue boat ramp in
Philadelphia .

7. A question of the interest in boating in the area and the
status of the marinas along the Delaware River was commented
upon by a Vessel Examination Officer. It was his belief
that there is a strong interest in boating in this area.
He noted that the only marina that was closed was the
Governor Printz which was closed two years ago.

0.*@1"FVET=,T'1tMgNcT AkM'SrMCtf@A-T.'ell'Sros

Memo To: Files
June 8, 1981
Page Four

The Philadelphia Seaplane Base, Rossels, Tinicum, Foxgrove,
Anchorage, and Harbor Light were all operating marinas.
The individual further commented on the drawbridge for the
railroad bridge. It was his understanding that the bridge
required a twenty-four hour notice to be raised.

8. Concern was raised with respect to the cost of providing
navigational bouys on the river side of the railroad bridge.
The individual commenting believed that such bouys were
necessary and that they would impose an additional cost
upon the project which would most likely be paid for by
local tax-payers.

9. Another individual commented upon the demand for public
boat ramps. He stated that this would be an ideal devel-
opment and that we should provide a three-boat access ramp
and a large parking lot. His experience with a boat ramp
facility in Reading was that it often filled a parking lot
on weekends which provided parking for approximately 100
cars and boat trailers.

10. It was noted that Morrow's Marina had a ramp for which a
fee was paid. There was some discussion with respect to
the ramp. One individual felt that the slope was too steep
and that it was not in good condition, and that he had ex-
perienced damage in using the ramp. Mr. Morrow disagreed.
Mr. Morrow indicated that the development of a public boat
ramp would result in loss of income to him.

Mr. Morrow suggested that the Township consider acquiring
only his ramp and that it be made into a public ramp, and
that development funds be directed towards a new access to
his facility. It was his belief that the cost of construc-
ting a road and acquiring his boat ramp would be much less
than the cost of developing a new marina.

11. It was indicated by one member of the audience that if the
Township developed a marina facility, it might be wise to
lease the operation and management of the facility to a
private developer.

aYUR2F=@MT'rVOZW-- A@@M.SiO=f-AVVErSf.:,@. IW=_

Memo To: Files
June 8, 1981
Page Five

12. Another individual further supported comments concerning 7
market and demand for boating access areas. This individual
stated that there was a National shortage of boating access
areas and dock space.

13. Concern was raised with respect to the fact that the study
was only concerned with the development of the site for a
marina. The individual commenting believed there should be
a study of the recreational needs of the entire community
and possibly another use was more appropriate for this site.
He further stated that if a marina or a boat ramp were con-
structed on the site, the provision of boats for rent would
make the facility useful for persons who did not own a boat.

Mr. Kelly responded to the fact that the funds provided for
this study were provided under the Coastal Zone Management
Program. The purpose of the Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram planning funds was to provide for the study of increased
public use and accessibility to the water resources of the
Delaware River. As a result, only sites within the defined
coastal zone could be considered. Also, the specific site
had been selected for study by the Township. Finally, the
Township has already prepared a recreation study which re-
viewed the Township's recreational needs in all areas.

Mr. Murtaugh closed the public comment session of the meeting by
indicating that a second public meeting would be held on June 17,
1981, at which time the consultant would provide answers to some
of the questions raised this evening. He restated the position
that the Township was neutral with respect to the development of
a marina or recreation facility on this site, and that they would
rely heavily on the results of the feasibility study and public
input before determining in favor or against the project.

MI R[Er=7-1-0:PJ* A@SiSt-0:-CMA&rEESrt-,- 1-PJ*C%,

MEMORANDUM

Will,
TO: Files

FROM: Direction Associates, Inc.

DATE: June 17, 1981

SUBJECT: Ridley Township Coastal Zone Management Program
Marina/Recreation Feasibility Study

The second public meeting for the Ridley Township Marina/Recre-
ation Area Feasibility Study was held before the regular monthly
meeting of the Township Supervisors. As a result, in addition
to the public in attendance, the meeting was also aired on cable
TV. Mr. Timothy J. Murtaugh opened the meeting and introduced
Mr. Robert M. Kelly to present findings of the Feasibility Study.

Mr. Kelly's initial comments were directed to a handout that had
been provided which explained the Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram and the planning grant awarded to Ridley Township. Mr. Kelly
then proceeded to advise the public of a change in the future
funding available under the Coastal Zone Management Program which
affected the proposed project. Under the original concept, a
planning grant might be expected to be followed by a grant of
funds to develop a project, should the project prove feasible.
However, the budget cuts proposed for the new Federal budget in-
cluded the elimination of funds for development grants under the
Coastal Zone Management Program. As a result, it appeared that
development funds could not be expected for this project should
it prove feasible.

Based upon this loss of a potential funding source and substan-
tial public comment at the first public meeting in support of a
boat ramp facility, Mr. Kelly explained that the Township, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission will agree to re-
vise the scope of the Feasibility Study. The new scope would
limit the Feasibility Study to the determination of the use of
the site for a public boat ramp and adjoining recreation area.

CONSULTANTS m COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT - PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES - UREIAN DESIGN
P. 0. (BOX 314. BETHLEHEN1 PIKE, SPRING HOUSE. PENNSYLVANIA 19477 TELEPHONE 12153 643-5200

A@"SZr=RtC31%=-t`A6V,, EMT, V rjt=

Memo To: Files
June 17, 1981
Page Two

Mr. Kelly then proceeded to present three potential development
schemes for the site which include, in scheme 1 a boat ramp,
parking area, and passive recreation area, and in.schemes 2 and
3, a boat ramp and parking area only. Mr. Kelly indicated that
H. Gilroy Damon Associates, Inc., engineering consultants, were
in the process of analyzing the physical problems of developing
these facilities on the site and the results would be reported
at a later meeting.

Mr. Kelly then presented information concerning marketability.
He confirmed that the Governor Printz Marina was definitely no
longer operating, but that the nine remaining marinas in the
area were in operation. He then proceeded to explain that sta-
tistics for boat registration by county were perhaps misleading
for Delaware County. In a chart outlining boat registration for
Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties,
M. r. Kelly indicated that Delaware County had the least growth
in boat registration in the last eight years of all 5 counties.
He also stated that total registration for the five county
area was disappointingly low, suggesting that there was not much
market for a boating facility. This information was then com-
pared with the boat registration for a single county in the
western part of the State, Allegheny County. While Allegheny
County contained a population of less than one-half that of the
five county area, it had almost an equal number of boats regis-
tered to its residents. The explanation appears to be that
people in the five county area have relatively easy access to
boating facilities along the New Jersey shore and in Maryland
and Delaware.

As a result, many people with boats in this area will register
them in the State in which they use them or store them to take
advantage of a reduced boat ramp fee, marina charges, and sales
tax. This leads one to believe that there is a hidden market
of boat owners residing in Delaware County which would make sub-
stantial use of any boating access facility that would be pro-
vided in this area.

Mr. Kelly then proceeded to provide a-slide presentation of
boat ramp facilities in Bucks and Philadelphia Counties. He
noted that many of the boat ramp facilities in Bucks County had

Memo To: Files
June 17, 1981
Page Three

been constructed in the period between 1982 and 1980. He then
referenced the boat registration statistics previously presented
and indicated that there was a substantial increase in boat
registration in Bucks County in this period, suggesting that
the provision of such facilities contributed to this increase.
Following the slide presentation, Mr. Kelly turned the meeting
back over the Mr. Murtaugh for public comment.

The first individual to speak was one who had spoken at the
first public meeting in opposition to a marina facility. He
now stated that the revision of the project to a boat ramp/
recreation area facility was in line with what he felt was neces-
sary for the site, and complemented those responsible for the de-
cision to change the project.

A member of the Board of Supervisors commented that the loss of
funds for the development costs for such projects is not yet
certain and could, in fact, be over-turned in a future Federal
budget.

An additional comment concerning the marina facility was made by
Mr. Belk of Belk's Marine Supply, who suggested that comments
concerning the financial feasibility of a marina were incorrect.
Such comments made by Mr. Kelly had alluded to the fact that
prior feasibility studies suggested that a marina facility of
the type envisioned was not financial feasible without a grant
of some form to subsidize the project. Mr. Belk stated that he
had investigated the financial feasibility of marinas and it
was his opinion that such a facility could operate at a profit.

Mr. Murtaugh closed the public comment session by advising the
public that a third public meeting would be held at a date yet
to be determined, at which time information concerning the cost
of the project would be presented.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Files

FROM: Direction Associates, Inc.

DATE: August 10, 1981

SUBJECT: Ridley Township Coastal Zone Management Program
Marina/Recreation Feasibility Study

The third public meeting for the Ridley Township Marina/Recrea-
tion Area Feasibility Study was held before the regular meeting
of the Recreation Board at 7:30 p.m., August 10, 1981.

Mr. Timothy J. Murtaugh, Ridley Township commissioner and Chair-
man of the Recreation Board, opened the meeting advising the
public that there would be a presentation of project findings,
followed by a period open to public comment. Mr. Murtaugh then
turned the meeting over to Mr. Kelly of Direction Associates.

Mr. Kelly provided a brief review of the information concerning
the Coastal Zone Management Program, site location, market in-
formation, site accessibility and preliminary site plans. He
then provided more detailed information concerning the flood
plain status of the site, the oridinance regulating the Conrail
Railroad drawbridges, and the development costs of the site.

Mr. Kelly identified the site as falling within the 100 year
flood plain of Darby Creek as determined by the Flood Insurance
Rate Map, dated May 28, 1981. He indicated that the site devel-
opment proposals would be subject to the Township's Zoning Ordi-
nance, which included a flood plain zoning district and the pro-
visions of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. He went on to
state that the potential flooding of this site had an impact
upon the development proposals, which he would present later.

The ordinance regulating the Conrail drawbridge was presented
by Mr. Kelly. It was stated that while there was no provision
that the drawbridge be permanently manned, the ordinance pro-
vided that the drawbridges be raised at specific hours during
the prime boating season (May 15 through October 15). While
this suggests that the bridges be manned during this period, the
ordinance specifically states that the owners of these bridges
will not be required to keep draw attendees in constant attention.

CONSULTANTS w COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT - PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES - URBAN OESIGN
P. 0. BOX 314. BETHLEHEM PIKE. SPPING @10LISE. PENNSYLVANIA 19477 TELEPHONE (215) 643-5200

'C@
UN".M.

Memo To: Files
August 10, 1981
Page Two

Between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day from May 15 through
October 15. The bridges will be opened upon signal from an
approaching vessel or vessels, at 7:15 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 1:00
p.m., 3:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m., and at other times
upon signal during these hours if such openings will not unduly
delay railroad operations. During the period October 16 through
May 14, it is necessary for those requesting the bridges to be
opened to provide 24 hours advance notice.

Mr. Kelly then proceeded to review the three alternative site
plans and the development costs from the recommended site plan.
Scheme 1, included a boat ramp facility, parking area, and
passive recreation area. However, it was determined that this
proposal would be the,most costly and prone to damage in the
passive recreation area as a result of flooding. This proposal
would require a culvert to be constructed for Stony Creek and
increased fill to be placed on the site to allow for an appro-
priate cover and entrance drive slope into the site.

Schemes 2 and 3 were presented as being less costly than scheme
1 in that they eliminate the passive recreation area and move
the entrance drive to a location below Stony Creek, eliminating
the need for a culvert. As a result, less fill is needed on-
site and the potential for damage from flooding is reduced.

Mr. Kelly then presented the results of the engineering analysis
prepared by H. Gilroy Damon Associates and the accompanying es-
timate of development costs. Based upon a proposal to develop
scheme 2, the total development cost would be $386,170, which
would include the cost of excavation, fill, grading, paving the
parking area, and the construction of a concrete boat ramp fa-
cility.

Mr. Kelly reported that a portion of the site was presently being
negotiated for purchase as an easement by the Philadelphia Elec-
tric Company. At first there was fear that this would have a
significant negative effect upon development potential of the
site, however, in placing the easement over the development plan
for scheme 2, it appears that the potential effect is to include
a small portion of the parking -area in the easement near the
intersection of Sellers Avenue and the Industrial Highway.
Mr. Kelly reported that if an aerial tower is constructed in such
an easement, parking is normally permitted within the easement.
As a result, it is believed that the easement will not have a
significant negative effect upon the project.

D' . I- R`E-@ MTA O@ 01M. U Av'r-'E:, S@;j I @'N':
Ni@- A@,SiSt

Memo To: Files
August 10, 1981
Page Three

Mr. Kelly indicated that the site had been reviewed for considera-
tion by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission at a prior time as a
boating access area. Based upon this earlier review, the Fish
Commission indicated that the site appeared to be eligible for de-
velopment funds under its Municipal Lease Program. Mr. Kelly
recommended that the Township submit a formal request for site
approval for consideration forfunding under this program. One
element of the Municipal Lease Program which needs to be resolved
is the ownership of the site. Mr. Kelly indicated that the
Township could secure development funds if they owned the site
or if they entered into a long-term lease for the site. However,
he suggested that the project would be more competitive if the
Township owned the site. He went on to explain that there are
several sites being considered for funding under this programf
including a site in Marcus Hook. Finally, Mr. Kelly indicated
that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission requires that the community
pay for the operating and maintenance costs of such a facility.
These costs average approximately $2,500 per year.

Mr. Kelly also indicated that acquisition costs for the site
might be secured through a grant from the Department of Community
Affairs. He stated that the Township was presently preparing a
Letter of Intent for such funds which would be submitted at the
end of August. However, he also stated that it was not certain
that funds would be available under this grant program. He
recommended that the Township use a portion of its Coastal Zone
Management Program planning funds to secure an appraisal of the
site.

Mr. Kelly then turned the meeting over to Mr. Murtaugh, who
opened the meeting for public comment.

There was general approval of the boat ramp proposal expressed
by the public, along with disappointment that the passive recre-
ation area was not included. One commenter noted that the
project costs appeared a bit low, and in examining the proposal,
suggested that this was because there was no bulkheading pro-
posed for the project. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Damon both indicated
that bulkheading would raise the cost of the project considerably
and that it did not appear to be necessary at this point in time.
Mr. Wolf of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission com-
mented that the flood plain status of the site and the develop-
ment of the parking lot on a slope to encourage the return of
any flood waters to the creek appear to reduce the need for
bulkheading.

Memo To: Files
August 10, 1981
Page Four

Another commenter opposed the expenditure of Township funds to
pay for the operation and maintenance of the site. It was in-
dicated by this individual that there were numerous facilities
in Pennsylvania that were operated and maintained by the Fish
Commission, and that this should be requested in addition to the
development funds for the site.

At an earlier meeting there had been some interest expressed in
developing a boat rental facility on the site. There had also
been expressed an interest to encourage the use of the site as
an access point to the 'Tinicurn Environmental Center, particularly
through the use of canoes. Mr. Kelly responded that he had
met with the manager of the Tinicum Environmental Center and had
reviewed the master plan for the center. The master plan included
several canoe launch areas, one of which occurred in a lagoon just
north of the 1-95 bridge. Because of the proposal to develop
such facilities, and because of the flood plain problem with
respect to constructing buildings, it was recommended that boat
rental facilities not be included in the final design of the
project.

Mr. Murtaugh closed the meeting to public comment, indicating
that he was pleased with the detailed information provided by
the consultants. He then stated that the Township still had not
taken a position on the project, and that any future decisions
concerning the project would occur at regular meetings of the
Township Board of Supervisors.

APPENDIX III

0 RIDLEY TOWNSHIP -ZONING ORDINANCE:

SECTION 10.200 "FP" FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICTS

-01

10. 200 "FP" Flood Plain Districts.

10-201 INTENDED PURPOSE: These districts are intended
to provide suitable controls for the use of flood plains
and wetlands and to protect areas subject to and
necessary for flood wate rs and tide waters. The
special provisions contained herein shall apply to
flood plain and wetland areas (the term flood plain
as used hereinafter shall be construed to mean both
flood plain and wetland) in order to:

10.201.1 Combine with present zoning require-
ments, certain restrictions made nec-
e'ssary for the flood plains to promote
the general health, welfare and safety
of the Township.

10.201.2 Prevent the erection of structures in
areas unfit for human usage by reason
of danger from flooding, unsanitary
conditions or other hazard.

10.201.3 Minimize danger to public health by
protecting the water supply and pro-
moting safe and sanitary drainage.

10. ZOI. 4 Reduce the financial burdens imposed
on the Township, its governmental
units and its individuals by frequent
and periodic floods and overflow of lands.

10.201.5 Permit certain uses which can be ap-
propriately located in the flood plain
as herein defined and which will not
impede the flow of flood waters, or
otherwise cause danger to life and pro-
perty at or above or below their loca-
tions with the flood plains.

10-201.6 To permit only those uses in the flood
plain compatible with the preservation
of natural conditions which are con-
ducive to the maintenance of constant
rates of water-flow throughout the year.

10. 201. 7@ Provide sufficient drainage courses to
carry abnormal flows of stormwater
in periods of heavy precipitation.

10.202 DELINEATION OF FLOOD PLAIN: The limits of
the flood plain as indicated on the Zoning Map include
the following:

10. 202. 1 Areas subject to Standard Project Flbod
as defined by the Corps of Engineers.

10.202.2 Data based on alluvial soils information
as defined in the "Soil Survey of Chester,
and Delaware Counties, 11 produced by
the U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service in 1963.

10.203 REQUIREMENTS: No development or construction
within 100 feet from the flood plain and no change
to topography of the area within 100 feet from the
flood plain whethex by removal, addition or rearrange-
ment of soil or material, shall be commenced unless
approval is granted by the Township Commissioners
through a Conditional Use.

10. Z03. 1 The Township Commissioners shall grant
a Conditional Use for development and/or
construction within the flood plain (based
upon the recommendations and comments
received from the Township Planning
Commission, Township Engineer and the
Zoning Hearing Board) having determined
that such -development or change is in
compliance with the objectives set forth
in this Ordinance and in the Ridley Town-
ship Comprehensive Plan.

10.203.2 If development and/or construction within
the flood plain is given approval by the
Township Commissioners, the following
conditions apply:

10.203.2. 1 Building Elevation:

No building or any
portion thereof shall be
erected unless the finished
surface of the ground is
higher than or raised by
filling to an elevation of
at least one (1) foot above
the elevation of the outer
limits of the flood plain
as herein defined, except
as provided in sub-section
10. 203. 2. 5 below.

No first, basement or
cellar floor of any building
shall be constructed at an
elevation of less than one
(1) foot above the elevation
of the outer limits of the
flood plain as herein defined.

10.203.2.2 Structure Anchoring: Any
structure placed in the flood
plain shall be firmly anchored
to prevent flood waters from
carrying it downstream.
Such anchoring shall be suf-
ficient to withstand a flood
velocity of six (6) feet per
second. The Zoning Officer
shall require the applicant
to submit the written opinion
of a registered professional
engineer that the proposed
structural design meets this
standard. Such anchoring shall
be subject to the approval of the
Township Engineer at the cost
of the applicant.

10. 203.2. 3 Private Sewage Disposal Systems:
No part of any private sewage dis-
posal system shall be constructed
within the flood plain as herein
defined, unless approved by the
Department of Environmental
Resources of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.

10-203.2..4 Storage of Materiais: No
materials that can float,
are explosive or are toxic
to humans, animals or
vegetation shall be stored
in the flood plain.

10. 203. Z. 5 When permitted as a Con-
ditional Use by the Township
Commissioners, any building
within the flood plain at the
time of enactment of this
Ordinance may be altered
or extended, provided:

The alteration or extension
conforms with all applicable
regulations of this Ordinance.

Any increase in volume or
area shall not exceed an
aggregate of more than 25
percent of such volume or
area during the life of the
structure.

An increase of any on-lot
sewer system presently lo-
cated either wholly or partially
in the flood plain shall be re-
quired.

10.203.2.6 Installation of Fill Materials:
Fill may be placed within
the outer limits of the flood
plain only when allowed as
a Conditional Use by the
Township Commissioners, and
by the Department of '
Environmental Resources
of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Detailed plans
shall be submitted showing
existing and proposed con-
ditions. If a structure is to
be placed on the fill, the plans
shall show the structure as
well. In considering the
application for a Conditional
use, the

Township Commissioners
shall base its decision on
the recommendations and
comment of the Township
Planning Commission,
Township Engineer, the
Zoning Hearing Board and
the objectives established
in this Ordinance and in
the Ridley Township Com-
prehensive Plan.

10. 203. 2. 6. 1 The following
additional standards:

- Fill shall consist of soil
or rock materials only;
sanitary landfills shall not
be permitted in the flood
plain.

- The cross-sectional area
of the flood plain shall not
be reduced by more than 3
percent ori either side of the
centerline of the water-

course.

The Township Commissioners
shall require written evidence
of approval of the proposed
fill by the Division of Dams
and Encroachment of the
Water and Power Resources
Board of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Resources.

APPENDIX IV

SITE APPRAISAL, RICHARD G. deGROUCHY

I
4!

114

I
A@

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CO',1&PJNITY AFFAIRS N,,,mbers:
Bureau of Recreation and Conservation Proj@:-ct -
Land Acquisition Assistance Program P rea -
APPRAISAL REPORT Lot -
Legal Name of Applicant:

TITLE DATA
1. Owner: Boeing Company
2. Property Addresa: In@ustrial Highway
Eddystone, PA 19013
3. Date Acquired: 3-31-60 DBV 2014 Pag@e 344
Consideration or-Revenue StampiE;:
$41,000..Penna.-Stamps
4. PURPOSE: -The purpose of this Appraisal is to estimate the mar@et
value of the f ee simple intere 'st'of the property herein described.
Market Yalue is defined as the highest price in money wbich a
property will bring if exposed for sale in the open market allow-
ing a reasonable time to find. a purchaser who buys with knowledge
of all the uses to which it is adapted and for which it is
capable of being used.

SUI-MRT
Type of Propert-v:. Unimproved land in
Date, Value
flood plain Estimate Applies: 10/7/81
6. Current U!�e: unde-@reloped

7. Plot Size - Whole: 5. 70 acres + 7
Takin : 5.70 acres �Remainder:
(Attach -plat map or sketch with dimensions and bldg. locations)
8. Zonin : Industrial & Flood Plain Which Allows: 'See attached pages
as shown on Ridley Twp.toning Map from zoning book.
9. Street Improvements: Concrete 2 lane
Utilities at Site:All public utilities are available to the site.
10'. HiChest and Best Use:
(See explanation in Apppaisal Guide)
11. Indicated By Replacement Cost Approach $ Not applicable
Value 68,400.
Estimates: By-Mapket Data Approach $
By Income Approach $ Not applicable
12. Correlation:
Land Buildings Total
"Before"Yalue $59,850. none $ 5T, 85-0
"After"value None none none
Damages $59,850. none $59,850.

Appraiser
(Typed)Rich
_4rd chy
(Appraiser sbould read the Department's "Appraisal Guide" prior to
completing this form.)
PaF-C, I

Data
2p004;604;24;20q.nd: Buildin@s: Total:
An1p880;804;48;88qial Taxes: Flood plain and Phila. Electric CO- easement
Easements or Use Restrictions:

Description of City, Borou6qqh, Township, or County:
(Industrial types, commercial, residential, educational, growth pqztttern)

See-pages 2A B C D.

Description -of Nqe0qiF_rhbqorhood: (Land- Use, Facilities., Schools, Recreation)

.See 'Page, 2E.

Description of Property:
(Topography, terrain, streams, vegetation, road frontage, pqrqoxiqm0qit4qy.o0qf
development. -List approximate acreage for each.uqs0qe. Give size,
description, use and condition of bu2qlld4q�n0qgs. Attach photos of land and
buildings. Aerial photos desirable. 48q4

See.6qpage 2F

Reproduction Cost and Depreciation: (If not applicable, so ;State)
BUILDING: SF-CF $
Less Depreciation:
Physical Not a64qulicable unimproved 1q.and
Functional
Economic.
Depreciated Value of Bldg.:
Depreciated Value of Aux. Bldg.(2qs)q:
LAND: FF-SF-Acre
Indicated Value - Cost Approach

Explain various items of depreciation Additional sheets as required)

Page 2

DELAWARE COUNTY

Delaware County is located in the very southeast corner

of. the Commonwealth of Oennsylvania. It is bounded on the

north by Montgomery County, on the east by the City of Phila-

delphia, on the south by the Delaware River and State of

Delaware, and on the west by Chester County.

21 The County is the third smallest in Pennsylvania, but

fourth largest in population. Since the 1920's it has

rapidly expanded and is now equal to or greater than nearly

half of the 100 largest SMSA's (Standard Metropolitan Statis-

tical Area) in the United States. It is comprised-of 185

square miles and has a population of 726,800 for the year

1980.

Delaware County is "one of the most affluent counties in

the SMSA, second only to Montgomery County. The median in-

come for the United States was $8,861. and the. comparable

figure for the County was $11,822.

-The leading industry i,s manufacturing, which in 1973,

employment ranked 11th in the state with the value of production

ranking llth in the State. Also contributing to the economy

of the County were sales realized from wholesale-retail trade

outlets. Agriculture is also an important industry despite

the dense population and the fact that the County is the third

smallest in the State. There are approximately 120 working

DELAWARE COUNTY (cont'd.)-

farms with the principle products being ham, grain, fruit,

and cut flowers.

The County is served by a far-reaching transportation

complex that keeps industry close to .raw materials and markets.

1-95 links Philadelphia to Wilmington-and also Con-Rail, B & 0

Railroad, and Amtrack along with passenger commuter service

to,Philadelphia and Wilmington, There are 1,600 miles of

highways, six heliports for private use and the Philadelphia'

International Airport and Greater Wilmington Airport are only

minutes away. SEPTA Red Arrow division and Greyhound serve

as bus lines.

Electric power and gas are abailable from the Philadelphia

Electric Company and water is available from various companies

getting th6ir supply from the Octoraro Creek, Susquehanna

River, wells, creeks, springs, and rural streams. At the

present time there are 13 sewer authorities in the County.

Sources: Delaware County Land Use Plan 2000, Delaware County
Planning Commission, January 1976.

Delaware County Water.Supply, Delaware County
Planning Commission, 1974.

The PENJERDEL location and market guide, The Greater
Philadelphia Chamber of-Commerce, 1978, pp. 267-2170.

AREA DESCRIPTION

The subject property is situated in the industrial

section of lower Delaware County between the City of

Philadelphia and the City of Chester, this industrial area

extends along the north and south sides of the Industrial

Highway, Pa. Route #291. Major industrial and commercial

Ohl
complexes in this area consist of the Philadelphia Inter-

national Airport, the Folcroft Industrial Park, Westing-

house plan in Lester,'Boeing Company, Philadelphia Electric

Company plant in Eddystone, Sun Ship, Scott Paper Company,

Sun Oil Company, British Petroleum Company, etc. As you

leave Delaware County and go eastward toward Philadelphia

along the Industrial Highway you enter into the large

industrial-area of southwest Philadelphia, this includes

large refineries, large industial plants and the Philadel-

phia Naval Ship Yard. As you leave Delaware County from the

west end of the Industrial Highway you enter the industrial

area of Claymont, Delaware.

This industrial area of lower Delaware County borders

the north and south sides of the Industrial Highway.and

just north of, and roughly paralling it,*is Interstate High-

way 95. There is a 4 way interchange at 1-95 within ;@ mile

of the subject. Other major highways that influence this

2-A

AREA DESCRIPTION,(,cont'd.)

area are the Schuylkill Expressway in Philadelphia, the

Walt Whitman Bridge, Pa. Route #420 which connects the

Industrial Highway at Essington with the Baltimore Pike

at Springfield, Pa. Route #320 which connects the City of

Chester with the Baltimore Pike at Springfield, Pa. Route

#352 which connects the City of Chester with the Baltimore

Pike at Middletown Township, Pa. Route @452 which connects

the industrial area of Marcus Hook with the Baltimore Pike

at Lima and U.S.Route #322 which connects the City of Chester

with the Baltimore Pike near U.S. Route #202. Generally

bordering the south side of the Industrial Highway you have

the tracks of the Penn-Central Railroad, in the area you

also have the tracks of the Reading Railroad and the

Baltimore & Ohio. Another major influence in the area is
40
the close proximity to the Philadelphia International Airport.

There is a good supply of skilled and semi-skilled labor

in the area due to the close proximity to the City of'

Philadelphia and also due to the good highway pattern which

enables this area to draw from New Jersey and Delaware. The

industrial plants in the general area have not been prosper-

ing over the past 10 years and there has been a sizeable

reduction in the labor force. Upon completion of the

2-B

AREA DESCRIPTION (cont'd.)

enlargement of the International Airport and the complet-

ion of the proposed highway development in the area, it is

expected that this industrial area of Delaware County will

expand and increase its labor force. This is one of the

few areas remaining where you still have some large land

holdings and the zoning is very favorable.

2-C

DESCRIPTION OF TOWNSHIP

Ridley Township became a first-class township in

1906 and contains an area of 5.8 square miles and a pop-

ulation of about 32,500. The township abutts Springfield

Township, Swarthmore Boro and Morton Boro to the north,

Upper Darby Township, Darby Township and Glenolden Boro to

1W
the east, Darby Creek, Prospect Park Boro and Norwood Boro

to the south, and Eddystone Boto, City of Chester and

Nether Providence Town8hip to the west. The Boro of Ridley

Park lies between the northerly and southerly sections of

Ridley Township, this can be seen on the attached plan.

The township has a wide and varied range of industrial

and commercial uses. The range would run from Boeing Co.,

a large employer in the aircraft industry, to small indus-

trial shops. The heaviest concentration of industrial uses

would be along"Chester Pike and the Industrial Highway.

The main arteries of commercial development are MacDade

Boulevard, Chester Pike, Fairview Road and Kedron Avefiue.

The uses range from the MacDade Mall to small owner-operated

stores.

Ridley Township is a desirable residential community#,

essentially a township of single family dwellings with a

price range of $50,000. to $75,000. There is little

2-D

DESCRIPTION OF TOWNSHIP (contd.)

residential land left for development, this is also true

of industrial and commercial land.

The educational system in the Ridley School District

is highly regarded and considered to be one of the best in

Delaware County. In addition to the academic and secre-

tarial courses, Ridley Township uses the Voc-Tech school

which is highly regarded.

2-DD

DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD

The subject property is in an industrial-commercial

area dominated by the large Boeing Co. plant. This plant

is on the north and south sides of the Industrial Highway

in the immediate area of the subject. Further to the

west, and along the Delaware River, is the Philadelphia

Electric Plant. To the east is Tinicum Township and the

Westinghouse Electric Co. plant, and east of this is the

Philadelphia International Airport.

All public utilities are generally available in this

area, the exception is lack of public sewers in part of

Tinicum. along the north side of the Industrial Highway.

As described on the previous page, the schools are most

desirable. Widener University is but 5 minutes away in

the City of Chester, just off 1-95.

Recreational facilities are considered fair to good

in Ridley Township but there is a definite lack of facil-

ities along Darby Creek. There is no available land along

the Delaware River as all the frontage is owned by Boeing

Company plus a small parcel owned by the Philadelphia

Electric Company.

2-E

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

The subject parcel contains 5.70 acres � of generally

low land at the northeast corner of Sellers Avenue and

the Industrial Highway,, 111A Route.291. As can be noted from

the attached plan, the subject parcel has 833.41'+- along

the east side of Sellers Avenue, 50' along the arc connect-

ing Sellers Avenue and the Industrial Highway and an irreg-

ular frontage of 261.22' along the north side of the Indus-

trial Highway. The easterly property line contains 810'�

along the low water mark--of--Darby-Creek-and-the northerly'

property line contains 7901� along the centerline of Stoney

Creek.

The frontage along the Industrial Highway drops off

sharply from the roadway down to Darby Creek, this is shown

clearly in the pictures attached to this report. There is

a guard rail along this road frontage.-

At the north end of the frontage along Sellers Avenue

the roadway is about 2' above the adjacent land, and then

the land drops off to Darby Creek. As.you go south along

Sellers Avenue the drop off the road increases to about 10',

then it becomes 61 at a point opposite the Exxon station.

The drop off along the arc connecting the two roads is

extremely - sharp.

2-F

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (cont'd.)

This land is subject to tidal flow as it is about

2,000' from the point where Darby Creek flows in and out

the Delaware River. This is all low land and would be

most difficult to develop commercially or industrially.

The best use of the land would be for recreational pur-

poses and its frontage on Darby Creek indicates a use for

a marina.

This appraiser is aware that this property is encum-

bered with an easement to Philadelphia Electric Company.

It is this appraiser's understanding that there is pre-

sently in progress a proposed agreement to relocate the

easement for the convenience of Ridley Township.

2-FF

Form BCP-70-8A

COMPARABLE SALES DATA

A minimum of three sales is generally desired, preferably in the same
neighborhood of the subject. If not available, sales in similar
neighborhoods may be used. At times more than four may be required,
2p1p P
particularly if portions of subject have different highest and best
uses or different values. Comparables and subject must be indicated
on an accompanying location map.

I Consideration $ 24,000. .#2 Consideration $ 950,000.
Date of Transfer: DBV 8qPEqr - Date of Transfer: DBV 8qP
7q"18-74 2514 475 11-10-78 2673 52q@
Plot Size: 3 acres Plot Size: 137.24 acres
1pdress:N/S Darby Creek-W. of WanamakeqT Addreqss:E of Wanqamaker Ave.,South sid
Ave., Ridley Township. - of Darby Creek, Tinicum Twp..
Unit Value: Zoning: C-Resid1l. Unit Value: $6922/a4q@2q@0qiqn6q@:
$8,000/a'q:q@q'.
Grantor:' aqn8q@ Flood Plain Grantor: Special Use
Leedom Fire Co. #1 Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Grantee: Grantee:
Richard S. Belk, etal. United States of America
Location relative to subject: Location relative -to. -q@ubqjq@qgc :
about 20001 NE of subject along Darby About q16qi mqiqIes qNrl U1 :@LqWqJt;-L;L. 0qAong
Creek 2q@pqt6q%y Creek.
3 st
Hiqahest 6q& Best Use: i8qg qe Best Use: . creational
Marina marina or Re
Description of Build0qineq:s:- Description of Buildings:
Land only Land only

q#3 Consideration $934,500. #4 Consideration 8q$ 84,013.
Date of Transfer: DBV 4qT0qKq__ Date of Transfer: DBV 6qTqr
8/14/79 2706 436' 6-15--;76 2571 748
Plot Size: 78.4 acre's Plot Size: 5.50-cres
Address:W/S Wanamaker Ave.,N or 1-95, Address: S of Darby. Rd. at Hoffman Dr.,
.6qTIrqlicum Towns along Darby C4qjeeqlq@,Ridley. Twp.
Unit Value. 6qRinL-,*: Unit Value,. oniqn :
$11,920/ac. Special Use $15,275/ac.incl.bldg. Coqm0qmll.& Fl0qooqe
Grantor: Layne Investment Corp., Grantor: John W.Taylor,Jr., Plqair
Grantee: Grantee: Sheriff
.United States o8qf America Morrow's Marina,Inc.
2qL8qgca,ti48q2n r12qplative t 6qo 32qjub88qject Location relative to subject:
IR I-lqoqo-T- I 0qMq-qLq-qL4qe 08qNqkq; 2q0q1 qs00quqj8qD8qj6qect along Darby About 2000q1 NE of subject along Darby
Hi!q@8qhqest 8qE8q@ Best Use: Creek. 8qRiqF_qrhest 28q& Best Use: Creek.
Marine or Recreational Marina
Description of Buildinq-16qZs: Description of Buildinq!0qZs:
2 story CB bldg.q,unfinished-2800# boat
Land only ramp -
Land - $50,000. Improvements $34,013.
Land @ 0q!2q@9q,2q18q08qU./acre.
Page 3

ADJUSTMENT GRID FOR COMPARABLE SALES

The total consideration need not be allocated to land buildings, and
other, unless a portion less than the whole of the property is to be
acquired, or if a comparison is to be made between land and land,, or
buildings and buildings, separately, rather than betqween the proper-ties
as a whole. Preferably, land adjustments should be made on a unit Am
basis (acres, FF - SF).
Any adjustments required because of differences should be listed below.,
as either plus or minus dollar amounts. For example, if values hav@
increased an average of 6q5% in the 'neighborhood, since the sale of the
comparable, a' + amount equal to of the comparable's consideratiori,,
would be the adjustment. Land
Allocation
Sale Number: 1 2
CONSIDERATION q$24,000. $95q0jq0q0q0- q$934,500.- $ 50,000.
ALLOCATED TO LAND $ $ $ $
Per Acre, 8qK2qY6q4Xq@q50qM $ 8@1000. $ - 6,922. $ ll..920. $ 9,100.
BUILDINGS $ $ $ $

OTHER $ $ $
1. TIME ADJ`USTM8qENTS 2q+0.35 +0.6q10 2q+0.q10 4q+0.25

2. LOCATION - NEIGHBORHOOD

-0.20
3. TOPOGRAPHY -0.25

OTHER PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

4. Access 8q+0.20 4q+0.25 -0.20 .10

qS.

NET ADJqT2qS TMENTS 2q+0.35 8q+0.35 q-0.,q1q0 8q+0.q10
INDICATED VALUE OF SUBJECT (Unit 10,800/aqc' $9,345/ac. q@10,7q@8. -_0q@101010-
FINAL MARKET DATA INDICATION $ lo,q5q0'q0. X 5.70acres $59,850.
(a cireqs., FF., SF)
Buildings
Total $59q,850.
EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS:
1. Real estate values have been rising in.this area since 1968 and each. sale
was adjusted on its own merit.
3. This adjustment reflects the more desirable topography of the comparables
due to more hard surface and use6qable area.
4. Sale #3 has good access off Wana2qmaker Ave., the'other sales have liqnqtite72qd 400q1
or very poor access.

I (Be sure to s0qi6q-6q-2qn Certification on reverse hereof)

Page 4

Fo BCP-70-8
Attachment - BOR Application

Tabulation of History of Conveyance: (Property sales and tratsfers)
Include parties to the transactions, dates of purchase., and amounts
of consideration for at leastlOyears prior to appraisal.
The subject 5.70'acres Js part of a larger tract of _358.2'66 acres.
on 3-31-60 Vertol 'Aircraft Corp. transferred to Boeing Airplane Co.
282.48 acres, more or less, for a cons *ideration of $1.00 with
$41,000. of Pa.*stamps affixed. 37.05 acres of this was condemned
by Penna. Dep't. of Transportation on 10/15/70 for a section of
1-95. On 9/17/65 General Steel Industries, Inc. transferred to
Boeing'Co. 112.13 acres, mor6 or less, for a consideration of
$1,950,000. , being the tract sopth 'of the Industrial Highway.
On May 3, 1961 the official name of.the company was changed to
Boeing Company.

Leg 1 Descri-Dtion of Taking:.
A legal description 6f. the taking was'no t furnished to this appraiser.
A copy of the take area is attached, this was secured from a plan.
prepared for Vertol Aircraft Corp. (see above conveyance) on
2/25/57 and last revised 12/14/59.- -This pldn agrees with the
tax maps of Delaware County-and appears to. agree with the plan
desicpated Marina Feasibility Study.

CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL

1, the undersigned, do hereby declare that I have inspected the
property described in this Appraisal Report on 9/15/81
In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) the property owner or a
designated representative was given the.opportunity to accompany me during
this inspection.

That to.the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained
in the appraisal herein set forth are true, and the information upon which
the opinions are based is correct; subject to the limiting conditions
therein set forth, and that I have viewed any comparable sales listed.

That neither my employment nor my'compensation for making the
appraisal and report are in any way contingent upon the value herein
posted.

That I have no direct or indirect, present or contemplated personal
interest in such property or in any benefit from the acquisition of
such property appraised, whatsoever.

That I have not and will not reveal the findings and results of
such appraisal to any one other than the proper official of the public
body for whom this service is rendered, or until' I am*.released from this
obligation by having publicly testified as to such findings.

That my opinion of the value of the property appraised is in the
amount as set forth herein.

/0/YA-/ 4
Ila t q' Apprais6r
Richard G. deGroi@chy
Richard G. deGrouchy Agency, Inc.

Page 5

Springfield 0

Clift.. H.ighta

k da

k arby

Collin
-340 0
INO
120
\0
!0
0
....... 30

21ore -
WIETIC
VN

&
7@- 0
-Z 7r@
'tGlenulden
z

orwood
ovMO
PWR
0. CAB

110
Q,
C:O 0
Ofe Q
091 -------

too
00 / 60
Wo lyn 190 17V A
Ridle@ Ark

Crum L yn

E -Ystone S CK
n Easin tort
Al

2 41

....... ........ ....
RADAR
10: 14 ..... ......... .... ......
STACK Wor '** .... ...... MARKER jiq
'A 9 46- A., 9 13 9 15 10
2 L 7 5
" 10
10
........... 7 7
F.T 0
13 ........ . ...... . if
2

14 2
3 213 -IC L 91
it ".2
......... ............
0 2 .............. 181ond -.20
- 6 .. -, 1 37@'
............... 0 . ....... F1 -
.. .... ...... as
3
GS
33 LIS
-3 7'INICUA-f RAI'.IGLr 10 L'@Yf C 7" CHANNLIJ
- --15 3@-
27 -------- 1
.3 - J-6 @J@ Z- tit t-,-L
27 -
Are 9 41 53
29 43 ONE 0A r/ 11 6 ---r
........... j -
2 ..... .........
.1. 34 3
6 51 -:' 0 .
4 2 24 2a
ED 3 24 2325
2 ....... B,.M.tl Pt.
2
2

.C, %

T7 KIC.
0

wi
Z:Z,
0- 'A

till',
x0o
S,

C-

RD
/*

c;:v

RIDLEY
EYB

17.
rn
-4
10
>
T plt;
AV V- T,
V "A
!: @WARWJ@K
JI 7A m

pe
PRIM AV AV
- 7, ;-@@ ,
LA GRANGE

AV i
CXRCI
smim. &Am ,l4lf
it-:T AV

xsn,
JANSIN LZ
AV
i_,, =T.
I liln

n
c

ta
z
/-n L,

Nc>rzrH

0" COMPAMr
p
At ro-7- 2,5' 4 9- E

RAD 40. 00' EL N
PARC
AP c. 49.8,&' AREA 0- 264 A--- (4
CJ4D S lu
*G. -7/'

-4,cyge of 141*2hwot R-"5?bt op wo-Y Line

ikA

jm7.- q
s@zz
ty.

1*
4 P, Og. IN.
Sw

t @o T,

al b I`

7 A
-I.Prip R
-!fr , - I ". -
kk-
it - .;; I ; - i i.

77t

r 4

I A
1, 4,

I
V11-11, )c

;.2 1@
-Ar 4
1 21,11

Ile
fvi

'Inv,

'17
gl
ec; -
0/ 7'O"o e.

r%IFP

OL
Qb

74P -,;Z- -c-

N-ft
-M
C,p
ZIP

P'.3

.747

View looking west on
Industrial Highway from
the bridge over Darby
Creek.

IFR*-,

View of the subject siteF
as seen from the bridge
over Darby Creek.

Wilk

*WIEW

View similar to #2.

AL
"A M

"A6

View of the intersection
of the Industrial High-
way and Sellers Ave.

View looking north along,
the east side of Se si,
ller
Avenue, as seen fr m
0
d1k the Industrial Highway.

-NMI
lip;
W.1464
71WA

View looking south along
Sellers Avenue towards
the Industrial Highway.

RICHARD G. deGROUCHY AGENCY, INC.

565-3390 9 WEST THIRD STREET MEDIA, PA. -.9063
Real 6stale Appraisals

QUALIFICATIONS AS A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER

EDUCATION

B.S. in School of Business Administration, Lehigh
University, 1947.

One year appraisal course, Wharton School, University
of Pennsylvania, 1957.

Two year appraisal course, Philadelphia Board of Realtors,
1958 and 1959.

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

Society of Real Estate Appraisers

Anerican Right of Way Association, Senior Member
President (1979-80) , Chapter 9.

American Society of Appraisers, Senior Member

Association of Delaware County Real Estate Appraisers

REAL ESTATE

Licensed as a Real Estate Broker, May 1, 1953.

lbaltor Member of Delaware County Board of Realtors

Pennsylvania Realtors Association

National Association of Real Estate Boards

CONSTRUCTION

Residential and apartment house construction, experience
in Chester and Delaware County. Residential land develop-
ment in Chester County.

COURT EXPERIENCE

Court of Common Pleas and Boards of View in Delaware,
(hester and Montgomery Counties. Boards of View in
Philadelphia, Berks, Erie and Dauphin Counties. Court
of Common Pleas in Allegheny County. United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Penna.

CLIENTS

United States Department of the Interior

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation
Department of Forest and Waters
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Environmental Resources

County of:

Delaware and Chester

Townships of:

Chester, Concord, Darby, Ridley, Tinicum, Upper Darby,
Haverford, Upper Chichester, Newtown, Marple, Nether
Providence, Birmingham, Thornbury, East Marlborough.

Boroughs of:

Media, Sharon Hill, Norwood, Colwyn, Phoenixville,
Eddystone, Ridley Park, Clifton Heights, Brookhaven,
Collingdale, Lansdowne, Prospect Park, Rose Valley,
Trainer, Upland, Darby, Swarthmore.

City- of:

Chester

School Districts of:

Ridley, Upper Darby, William Penn, Penn-Delco, Inter-
boro, Marple-Newtown, Rose Tree-Media, Southeast Delco,
Wallingford-Swarthmore, Chester-Upland, Haverford,
Downingtown Area, Chichester.

Redevelopment Authorities of:

Delaware County, Chester County and City of Chester

Parking Authority of:

Borough of Media, Borough of Norwood

Sewer Authorities:

Valley Forge, DELCORA, Central D elaware Co., Caln Twp.,
Municipal Authority, Oxford Municipal Authority.

CLIENTS (cont'd.)

Major Oil Companies:

Gulf., Mobil, Shell, American, Sun Oil, Exxon.

Pipeline Companies:

ARCO, Texas Eastern

Employee Relocations:

Homequity, Chrysler Corp., E.R.Squibb & Sons,Inc.,
Smith, Kline & French, Scott Paper Co., 3-M Company,
Sperry Rand, Ticor Relocation Mgt., Employee Transfer Co.

Financial Institutions:

First Penna. Co., Girard Bank, Bryn Mawr Trust Co.,
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., Erie County Savings Bank,
Greater Delaware Valley S & L, Third Federal S & L of
Phila., Community Federal S & L, Trevose.S & L, First
Federal S & L of Phila., Collingdale Federal S & L,
Hamilton Federal S & L, Downingtown Federal S & L,
Main Line Federal S & L' First Federal S & L of
Pottstown, Title Abstract Co., Fireman's Fund Insur-
ance Co., Colonial Mortgage Co. and Central Mortgage Co.

3 6668 14103 1759