Zoning board defers decision
The future of 9425 Stenton Ave., Erdenheim, remained undecided Monday, when, after nearly three hours of testimony and cross-examination, the Springfield Zoning Hearing Board deferred a vote until October.
The board is considering the application of 9425 Stenton Avenue LLC, a development firm, for variances that will allow the construction of a single building containing 35 luxury condominiums and an underground parking garage.
Residents of Whitemarsh Avenue oppose the development, which they say is out of character with the neighborhood and will generate more traffic than they experience now.
Two buildings currently stand on the property. The larger is a two-story building with 8,000 square feet of office space on the first floor and 13 efficiency apartments on the second. The other building is a carriage house that also contains offices.
The larger building was erected in 1916 and was originally a hotel, according to the Springfield Township Historical Society.
Instead of a new development, neighbors would prefer to see the building renovated and its mixed use retained, said Steven Steinbrook, a spokesman for the opposition.
The developers have rejected renovation as too expensive. The Flourtown real estate agent Dan Helwig, one of the principals of 9425 Stenton Ave. LLC, said he could not estimate the exact cost of renovation, because of the large number of variables.
Frank Tavani, a traffic engineer and a witness for the developer, testified that the condominiums would have less impact on traffic than the current use, as measured by national standards for apartments and offices, Helwig said.
Residents have countered that the businesses currently on the site generate traffic only during business hours, whereas 35 luxury condominiums, with an underground garage, could have vehicles entering and exiting at all times of the day and night.
Under current zoning, a restaurant, health club or other high-traffic businesses could occupy the building in the future, Helwig said, but residents remained skeptical that a purely residential block would be an improvement.
"The commercial uses that are there now are definitely low impact," Steinbrook said. "At one time, there was a restaurant there. It could go back to that, but once it's developed to a 35-unit condominium, there's no going back."
Representatives of the developer met with residents twice before Monday's hearing and showed them an alternative proposal for the site, consisting of 28 town home condominiums.
Residents opposed the alternative plan as well, since it also contained an underground garage and was still denser than the neighborhood housing, Steinbrook said.
"We're definitely are still very far apart," he said.
The developer did not present the alternative plan to the zoning board, Helwig said, because it did not pertain to the subject of the hearing.
"We listened to the neighbors," Helwig said. "We told them we would work with them and their concerns."