Laverock building plan meets further opposition
Despite revisions, plans for a housing development on the sprawling grounds of the Laverock Hill continued to draw numerous objections from neighbors at a July 9 presentation.
At the community meeting, representatives for Hansen-Lloyd LP unveiled an updated design proposal for a residential complex on the 42-acre property, which straddles the border of Cheltenham and Springfield townships southwest of Route 309 near the Willow Grove Avenue overpass. They were met by blunt objections from residents of both townships who raised a litany of complaints about the proposed development's impact on traffic, overcrowding, rising costs for local schools, public transportation, flood controls, green space and utilities.
"This will so drastically alter the Laverock area, it's just unacceptable," Mary Harkins of Springfield said after the meeting. "What you are seeing tonight is these two groups, Cheltenham and Springfield, who didn't know each other, coming together with a common voice."
The new plan, which includes 150 age-restricted units in five buildings in Cheltenham and 120 units in age-targeted townhouses in Springfield, was created in response to reactions from residents and Cheltenham township officials to an earlier proposal that would have demolished the 19th-century buildings and gardens on the property, Ross Weiss, attorney for the development group, told the residents.
The original development plan, which featured a 216-unit age-restricted housing complex on the roughly 10 acres of land on the Cheltenham side of the border — with no development on the Springfield side — was reviewed by the Cheltenham Township Planning Commission in February.
Cheltenham Township Zoning Officer David Lynch described it as too dense, according to the minutes from the planning commission meeting.
While Weiss requested that the neighbors consider the development as a single property, explaining that the second proposal mitigated the density issue and preserved the historic structures by spreading the new residences into both townships, not one community member at the meeting publicly supported the new plan.
"It seems like the second plan, though it's nice that the buildings aren't torn down, that it's worse than the first plan," said Joseph Callahan of Springfield. "You've got more units, and they are not age-restricted. Any number of families could move in."
Although the Springfield townhouses would not be legally restricted to a certain age group — as would those in Cheltenham, according to the plan — they would be designed, with few bedrooms and masters on the first floor, to be unattractive to families and thus "age-targeted," said Ed Zoller, a consultant for Hansen Lloyd.
With a price point around $250,000 to $350,000 — Zoller's rough estimation — the homes would be cheaper, however, than many of those on nearby streets, according to residents.
The audience was also unimpressed by Weiss' description of the vision and imagination it took to engineer a development in two townships at once, and took issue with his characterization of the housing complex as "progress" in the community.
"When I read about developments that are new and visionary, they are energy efficient," said Natalie Hursky of Cheltenham. "Why is it that progress means building and building without any thought to the environment or quality of life? It's not vision and progress. It's a way to make money."
The development, as proposed, is not a done deal, Weiss said. Upcoming meetings in both municipalities will address traffic, utilities, open space, land development and zoning issues, and the design will continue to be tweaked, he said.
In Cheltenham, the property is in an R-3 residential district, which mandates single-family homes, but it would be eligible for the township's age-restricted overlay ordinance via a special exception, Lynch said Monday.
Unlike a typical zoning variance, in which the applicant must prove hardship, the special exception is based on objective qualifications such as road frontage, and the onus is on the township to prove that allowing the exception would have an adverse affect on the community, Lynch said.
In Springfield the property is zoned AA residential, but Weiss said Hansen-Lloyd will try to adopt the same cluster residential zoning that currently instructs the Stotesbury development in Wyndmoor. This change would allow the group to construct 120 units in Springfield as opposed to the 40 allowed by the AA regulation.
While a change of zoning is possible, and there is a provision in the township's zoning code for larger subdivisions to change regulations, the Stotesbury development is probably not a good model to use in this instance because the zoning changes were made 30 years ago, and the property was in a "derelict state" at the time, Springfield Township Zoning Officer Rob Dunlop said Tuesday.
Recently the Springfield Township Board of Commissioners approved a zoning change for a large parcel in Oreland, the Piszek property, but there was a benefit to the township, in that 75 percent of the property was preserved for open space, Dunlop said.
"Generally, there needs to be something the township would gain for [the commissioners] to allow a greater density and nowadays typically that means open space," Dunlop said.
Although Montgomery County could place some restrictions on a new zoning overlay, in general the board of commissioners has the legal ability to make any changes to the zoning code it wants, Dunlop said.
Development groups for the Boorse and Tecce tracts, two other proposed housing complexes in Springfield, were able to negotiate zoning changes to increase density with an age-restricted qualification, Dunlop said.
"It's a difficult case because we are dealing with two townships with very different zoning regulations. The density allowed in Cheltenham is much greater than that allowed in Springfield," he said.
Springfield Township commissioners have discussed the Laverock Hill property as a possible route for the Cresheim Valley Trail, though they have not contacted Hansen-Lloyd about this use, according to Bud Hansen of Hansen-Lloyd.
This is one of a variety of aspects of the complex that could be negotiated with the municipalities during land development, Hansen said.
Although Weiss, who is also representing James Nolan, the developer of the Tecce tract along Ridge Pike in Springfield, asked the Springfield Township Board of Commissioners in April to remove an age-restricted zoning overlay from that property because the regulation was an "impediment" to selling the residences, Hansen said after the meeting that he did not foresee the age-restriction as a barrier to selling his homes.
Any construction at the site is likely "at least five" years away, Hansen said.