Upper Providence vote will allow alternative Parkhouse development plan

UPPER PROVIDENCE — Township supervisors voted 4-1 to adopt a zoning amendment that will allow for the alternative plan for the development of the 176.4-acre Parkhouse property to move forward.

The site, known for its rolling fields and woodlands, is adjacent to the Parkhouse Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, is one of the largest undeveloped properties in both the township and in Montgomery County.

The May 29 vote came at the end of a special three-hour meeting at which more than 20 people spoke. Supervisors’ Vice Chairwoman Kelly Stevens cast the only “no” vote. She offered no reason publicly for her vote. By contrast, Supervisors’ Chairwoman Helen Calci and Supervisor Tom Yeager offered detailed explanations for theirs.

The vote made moot the conditional use hearing scheduled for May 30 which would have been the next step in the development process for the property had the zoning amendment option been rejected by the supervisors.

In essence, there were two choices on the table for the property; stick with the current zoning, which would have allowed a minimum of 1,203 age-restricted housing units to be built; or accept the text amendment to the zoning and allow 600 mixed housing units, 25 percent of which would be age-restricted.

In the wake of talks with township officials, developer Gary Berman submitted a written covenant that reduced the number of housing units to “no more than” 585 housing units and 80 acres of contiguous open space.

As proposed, the project would have 44 single-family homes; 153 age-restricted “carriage house” units; 177 “front-loaded” townhomes, and 226 “rear-loaded” townhomes. The developer’s latest offering eliminates the “stacked townhomes” that would have been over 35 feet and could have required the purchase of a ladder truck for the fire department.

Experts for the developers testified that, according to the Spring-ford School District’s own projections, the project would not require the construction of a new school; that road improvements made as part of the project would mitigate the impact of the increased number of cars on the road, which would be fewer than if the 1,203 units the current zoning allows were to be built.

In all, land planner Erik Hetzel of E.H. Creative Services LLC testified that his financial impact study showed the township earning at least $676,000 more in new annual tax revenues than the development would require in additional services. The school district, which passed a budget Tuesday raising taxes by 5.3 percent for the coming school year, would receive $2.5 million more in tax revenues than the cost of the additional students.

Prices for the new homes were estimated at about $1 million per single-family home, in the “upper $700,000s” for the 55-and-older carriage-houses and between $400,000 and $500,000 for the townhomes.

The text of the amendment was written and submitted by the property owner and developer, Royersford Holdings LLC, and reviewed by lawyers for the township. The Friends of Parkhouse group, formed in opposition to many of the development plans proposed for the property over the last few years, calls the text flawed in many ways.

They are not alone in this view.

The majority of those who spoke, many of whom reminded some of the newly elected supervisors that they had run on a platform of not changing the Parkhouse zoning, opposed the change.

Alfred Wolfram warned the supervisors that the text amendment to the zoning would affect other properties as well and what Gary Berman the developer had promised for Parkhouse would not apply to those other properties, an observation with which Yeager agreed.

“The amendment does not indicate (the developer’s) intentions,” warned Victoria Bright.

“As a community, we should not let the developer dictate to us what our community looks like,” said Marnie Laska.

John Wesler told the board that he believes the number of children the developers estimate the project would add to the schools has been underestimated. “This is about profit,” he said.

“It’s not the township’s job to make sure the developer makes a profit,” said Diana Kirsch.

John Suplee is worried about more traffic from the residents of those new homes. “Getting across the Schuylkill River every day is already horrendously hard. Route 113 can be a nightmare at certain times of the day.”

Mark Connolly told the board it was being “transactional” and should instead stand up for its values. “Values have to cost something and it’s worth it.”

“The zoning is in place to protect against this kind of monstrosity,” said James Hoffman. He urged the supervisors to “stand your ground.”

Of the roughly 25 people who spoke during the meeting, only five spoke in favor of the plan, identifying it as the best deal the township was likely to get in an unfortunate situation.

“I don’t want this property developed ever,” said Gloria Higgins. “I also don’t have $50 million to $80 million to buy it back and the state gives control to the property owners.”

Higgins, who said her husband is an attorney, quoted one of his sayings: “When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When the law is with you, pound law. When neither are with you, pound the table and shout a lot. We’ve been pounding the table for years now.”

“We are out of time and this is not a game,” resident Steve Teufel told the board. “Consider compromise a victory.”

“An emotional vote is a failure of your fiduciary responsibility as township supervisors,” former supervisor Al Vagnozzi told the board, arguing that rejecting the amendment and forcing and rejecting the conditional use process would end up with big legal bills, a lost case “and a judge telling the developer they can build whatever they want.”

In the end, however, the majority of the board, at least those who spoke about their vote, said several lawyers told them that if they went the conditional use route, and fought the development, recent court cases had determined they would most likely lose.

Yeager ticked his way through the considerations, roads, impact on schools, open space and said in each case, the zoning change offered the better option. The developer’s pledge to stick to a 35-foot height limit eliminates the need for a ladder truck and the township’s ambulance services is underfunded now and will have to be addressed “either by the township or regionally?” Fewer senior citizens is likely to result in fewer ambulance calls, he argued.

As for the already crowded roads, “no matter which door we go through, they’ll need to be addressed.” Yeager said he spoke to school officials directly and they told him “There is capacity in the schools.” As for open space, he said many were pointing out that the 1,203-unit plan would have 50 percent open space, but it would not be contiguous. “So it’s a question of what kind of open space do we want?”

Concluded Yeager, “It’s a tough decision, it’s a lot of facts.”

Calci told the crowd that “I’ve had Parkhouse on my radar since 2013,” and further explained that the supervisors “had to hold ourselves neutral” in case the conditional use option ended up being the option taken. In that process, they would need to sit in a “quasi-judicial” setting and any preferences expressed publicly prior to that could have legally jeopardized their final decision.

Lawyers advised the board that if a conditional use process was used “it is extremely likely that we would have at least 1,203 units on that property,” Calci said. “And I have a fiduciary responsibility not to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a battle we most likely will not win.”

Also weighing in on the decision was the township staff. Township Manager Timothy Tieperman spoke on their behalf.

“It is our job to provide you with counsel devoid of emotion, to help you make an informed decision. When we remove the tortured history of this site, the decision becomes really not that complicated,” Tieperman said. “The end result” of the supervisors’ vote, “brings certainty and closure to this 10-year saga.”

Going the conditional use route was “a very dangerous chess game which multiple attorneys said the township will lose and we cannot justify the expenditure for a return on investment that is non-existent” he said.