UPPER PROVIDENCE — Township supervisors voted 4-1 in a special meeting Thursday to allow an alternative proposal for the development of the 176.4 acres of land around the Parkhouse nursing facility to proceed for further review by the township planning commission.
Supervisor William Starling cast the only no vote.
The vote, said supervisors’ Chairwoman Helen Calci “doesn’t lock the board into anything,” but simply permits the alternative proposal, which includes donating 50 percent of the land to the township as open space and reduces the number of proposed housing units to around 600, to be examined in greater detail before a final decision is made.
The vote also represents a reversal of the vote taken in January which essentially asked the same question — would the board consider an alternative to the existing zoning to allow for more open space and fewer homes?
The existing zoning allows the property owner, a corporate entity known as Royersford Holdings LLC, to build “by right” 1,203 units that would presumably be a companion for the Parkhouse Nursing and Rehabilitation Center facility already there.
A conditional use hearing on a 1,200-unit proposal was canceled in March and no new date has been set. Should the supervisors ultimately reject the alternative outlined Thursday, the township solicitor has been authorized to set the date for and advertise the conditional use hearing.
Many of those who spoke Thursday in opposition to the alternative plan being floated by Royersford Holdings, which would require a text amendment to the zoning that the developers’ lawyers have already written, urged the supervisors to stay the course and stick with the current zoning.
However, according to Gary Berman, the owner of Royersford Holdings LLC, he has been approached by some in the township, including the township solicitor, and asked to prepare an alternative plan that would result in fewer housing units and more open space. During the three-hour special meeting Thursday, that alternative plan was presented and, for the most part, critiqued by a steady stream of speakers.
Attorney Ed Mullin, who said the presentation was sought because “we haven’t had a chance to have this conversation yet,” led a cadre of engineers, planners, and traffic engineers through the plan which, at its most basic, calls for a mix of townhomes, some as tall as four stories (45 feet), “carriage homes” and single-family detached homes. About 25 percent of the homes would be age-restricted, sold to owners who are at least 50 and less likely to have school-age children.
Mullin said stormwater requirements in the township ordinance would result in “less run-off than we have today.”
The person in charge of planning for traffic said that the plan with 600 units would create 350 fewer cars on the narrow roads compared to the 1,203-unit plan. They mentioned that the developers would need to pay a $900,000 fee to the township to help with road improvements, including a planned traffic roundabout at Black Rock Road, Second Avenue and Dreibelbis Road.
The alternative plan would only bring 126 more children to the school district, a number that many people found unbelievable. Apart from one-time tax income, such as when the properties are bought and the transfer tax is triggered, the development would generate $623,415 in property taxes each year for the township and $4,479,606 for the Spring-Ford School District, according to the presentation.
If the supervisors still reject the alternative plan, Mullin said, "we accept that and will proceed with the 1,204-unit plan." He added, "We are genuinely trying to address the concerns that we’ve heard."
When Montgomery County sold the property for $41 million in 2014, it permanently protected 70 acres of land, Potter’s Field Park, across Black Rock Road, and imposed a five-year building ban on the remaining acres, which ended in 2019.
In 2016, the Parkhouse facility property was divided from the remaining open space, which spans 176.4 acres and is one of the largest undeveloped areas in the township and the county. It is bordered by Old State Road, Second Avenue, Black Rock Road, and Yeager Road and is one of the largest undeveloped tracts left in Montgomery County.
Most public speakers remained doubtful of the project and/or the information being presented.
“I can’t believe we’re still discussing high-density housing,” said Ray Rocchio, a member of the Save Parkhouse Farm organization who sponsored an online petition taking issue with parts of the first plan and which now has more than 2,500 signatures. “How many plans are we going to see? We don’t want 1,200 or 600 homes on that land. It doesn’t fit with the surrounding community.
Brad Berkowitz agreed. “You keep saying you want it to match what’s here now, but I don’t see any townhouses now.
“The township has nothing to gain from this development,” said Bill Felton.
Judy Conley said the project will require the construction of a new elementary school given that the nearest school, Oaks Elementary School, “is already at capacity now.”
Several speakers said the roads in the area are already dangerous and adding more homes, with more attendant cars, would create “literally a traffic nightmare,” said Tori Bright.
Bright criticized the supervisors for only giving the public four days to respond to the news of the hearing while the township and developer have had more time. “Shame on you,” she said. “This is being done solely to satisfy the developer’s interest who hopes to continue to wear down the citizens and elected officials. We’re not opposed to development, we’re opposed to high-density,” she said.
However, not everyone was against it.
Former township supervisor Al Vagnozi, who originally suggested the development but campaigned against it, has now changed his mind.
Vagnozi stated that he favors a negotiated development. He warned against rejecting the proposal outright, as it could result in legal action and a situation similar to King of Prussia. He emphasized the need for a practical approach, even if it's not popular.
The proposed alternative plan is seen as a way to prevent negative outcomes. He encouraged the supervisors to make practical decisions, even if they are not popular.
Lori Higgins agreed that achieving a completely open space without any homes is not feasible. She pointed out that the proposed compromise is necessary, considering the interests of all involved parties.
Berman mentioned being approached by the community to come up with an alternative. He expressed willingness to donate half of his land to the township. He emphasized the importance of considering the perspectives of various stakeholders and highlighted the irony of objecting to new neighbors when existing homes were once unwanted.
Supervisor Tom Yeager's main concerns are the potential impact on schools, roads, and open space. He approved a decision to allow the planning commission to address these issues further, as he felt there were still unanswered questions.
Starling expressed a desire for housing with a density no greater than R-1, that is, one house per acre. He raised doubts about the proposed stormwater controls and asked Berman to withdraw both plans.
Supervisor Kelly Stevens stated that Berman’s proposal did not alleviate any of her initial concerns. She highlighted the lack of affordability but supported sending the proposal to the township planning commission for more information, discussion, and negotiation.
Calci, who lives across the street from the property, expressed sadness at the potential development, having enjoyed walking her dogs there for years. She acknowledged that lower density is at least a step in the right direction.
