ADAMS TWP — Adams Planning Commission determined it wasn't a slippery slope to discuss proposed slope ordinance revisions during its work session Monday night.

Township supervisors last December had a public hearing about a proposed steep slope ordinance, during which several community members voiced their concern that language in the draft needed to be clarified.

Supervisors tabled approval of the proposed ordinance in December following the public hearing comments. At that time, the drafted ordinance was sent back to the planning commission and township engineer for revisions.

With several members of the public in attendance, the planning commission Monday discussed the latest updates to the proposed ordinance.

Martin McKinney, planning commission chairman, reminded the public that part of the revision process included a visual understanding of a steep slope.

“We challenged the code enforcement division here with giving us a visual,” McKinney said. “What is a slope?”

McKinney said according to township code enforcement officers, the land by the township building between the parking lot and soccer field is a “3-to-1 slope,” which is a 1-foot rise over a 3-foot run.

“To give you real perspective of what those numbers mean,” McKinney said, “a 3-to-1 is really almost too steep to maintain with a (mowing) machine.”

Allowing slopes no steeper than 3-to-1 was proposed earlier in the revision process. That slope ratio is typically acceptable for maintaining natural vegetation, according to McKinney.

Sean Gallagher, township solicitor, recommended that remain the same, with a maximum slope distance of 100 feet.

Gallagher pointed out a few changes made to the drafted ordinance. One of those updates includes asking developers to provide the township with visual documentation.

“One of the things that we're looking into acquiring is a topographic map,” Gallagher said.

These documents would ask for a mapping of the contours of the land as well as any contours the completed slopes would impose.

Gallagher said specifically, developers would be asked to show slopes on the property as well as those falling into three categories of grading: 0 to 15%, 15 to 25% and greater than 25% grades.

“We want to see a breakdown,” Gallagher said. “That's for both pre-construction/pre-grading and post-construction/post-grading.”

Gallagher said this will help the township identify changes during the construction process.

Gallagher said he also wanted to bring attention to a provision that a property can't be developed with slopes greater than a 25% grade from what was present before construction.

Brett Schultz, vice chairman for the planning commission and a developer, said he disagreed with that limitation.

“If I have a site that's relatively flat ... and I'm creative with my design and minimize the disturbance ... but I create one square foot of 25% slopes, I didn't meet the ordinance,” Schultz said.

Rob Crouthamel, a resident who voiced concerns about slope requirements in the past, said Schultz had a point.

“That's what we'd like to encourage be developed first, right? The flat sites,” Crouthamel said. “(This ordinance) is to encourage development on the flat land and discourage development on the slopes.”

Members of the planning commission and township engineer Ron Olsen agreed to try developing a formula that would manage grade development, but take into consideration flatter building sites.

Before the work session ended, Crouthamel verified the township will be reviewing specific cases and comments mentioned during the public hearing last year. Olsen said township officials will be going through the hearing notes.

The township will continue developing the ordinance.