30-unit condo complex OK'd
Springfield Township's Zoning Board approved the development of a three-story, 30-unit condominium building at 9425 Stenton Ave. on Mon, Oct. 15. Neighbors opposing the project were disappointed after the decision was announced and said they will likely appeal the board's decision.
The project was initially proposed in May as a 35-unit condominium. At a zoning board meeting that month, there was so much opposition to the project that the zoning board declined to act until the developers met with the neighbors to look at different solutions.
The developers met with the neighbors twice, once to present plans for a 28-unit townhouse development to which neighbors were also opposed. Their biggest argument was that the project was too large.
"It's too big is really what it comes down to," said Barbara Ganley, a neighbor who hosted the meetings with the developers in her home. "It's too many people on a small amount of space," she said of the original, 35-unit development. Complaints about the second proposed project sounded the same.
The way the property is zoned now, nine homes could be put on the property, but the developers have said that option is not financially viable. Renovation of the current buildings are also not being considered for the same reason.
John Bergman, who lives directly across the street from the property in Philadelphia County, said he thought a smaller project had a chance of approval.
"I think there's some number, well below 20, that people would be comfortable with," he said.
But the zoning board saw it differently, and in its final approval, required a reduction in condo units from 35 to 30.
At Monday night's meeting, neighbors did not feel the developers nor the zoning board did enough to make the project smaller.
"This is setting a precedent in the neighborhood," said Stephen Steinbrook, a resident of Springfield Township whose property is adjacent to 9425 Stenton Ave. "I'm pretty disappointed by the decision. We thought the Zoning Board was here to represent the neighbors, not the businesses."
At the meeting, board chair Daniel Clifford and vice chair Edward Fox said they both supported the development, which was approved unanimously, and were delighted that a commercial property was being transformed into residential, explaining that usually it is the other way around on Bethlehem Pike and Stenton Avenue.
"Right now, its in pretty bad shape," said Fox, referring to the current 91-year-old building, which will be demolished to make way for the new development.
Currently there are 15 commercial units and 13 residential in the main building and its carriage house, which Fox said he does not like, adding that he'd prefer a single use on the property.
"As a whole, I think [this development] is an improvement to this parcel," he said.
Neighbors disagree.
Bergman said after the meeting that there is likely to be an appeal, adding that a project that would still be feasible for the developers yet would be least invasive to the neighbors, which in zoning rulings is required to be considered, was not explored.
"They just went slightly lesser than the developers applied for," he said, referring to the 35- to 30-unit reduction.
After the meeting, Steinbrook felt like the neighbors' efforts to make their opinion known were futile. "This was essentially a snub to the neighbors," he said of the decision. "They approved the same plan as in May."
There will also still be an underground parking lot, which neighbors are opposed to.
Fox made it clear that the project still has not received final approval. It still has to go to the Planning Commission and township Board of Commissioners for approval, where neighbors can speak at meetings and the issues of traffic can again be addressed.
Other specifications that the decision included, besides decreasing the number of units, was that each unit must be at least 2,492 sq. ft. as single family dwellings — which was 300 more than the developers originally proposed.
Contact staff writer Kristin Pazulski at 215-248-8819 or Kristin@chestnuthilllocal.com.