LOWER POTTSGROVE >> Six zoning variances are being sought by the Warminster-based developers who want to convert 51 acres of land near the Philadelphia Premium Outlets into a housing, office and hotel complex.
During Tuesday night’s hearing before the township’s zoning hearing board, attorney Frank Bartle and developer Ted Drauschak said that the variances needed for the project to move forward are largely relief from setback requirements.
Also sought are variances allowing the project to build residential units – 508 in all – with more bedrooms than the zoning currently allows.
If approved, that will result in a total of 1,184 bedrooms, calculated audience member Charles Nippert, who questioned if anyone has figured out the potential for the number of children that will add to Pottsgrove classrooms.
The answer appears to be – “not yet.”
However, zoning hearing board solicitor Ken Picardi said Nippert’s concerns will be taken into consideration by the board when it mulls the variance requests.
“We believe the project meets the vision the township commissioners have for the property,” Bartle told the zoning board.
Three residents, including Nippert, who spoke out at the hearing are not so sure they agree.
Evergreen Road resident Thomas Gyomber said he is concerned that the project will divert more stormwater onto his property.
Flo Hendrickson, also of Evergreen Road, said she is unhappy that one of the project’s access roads goes right by her house, and will ruin the view from her sun-porch.
“I will sit in my chair and they will need to remove me with a bulldozer before I will agree to this,” she said.
Adding that the project will lower the value of her home and has made it unsellable, Hendrickson added “why don’t they just buy us the hell out already and be done with it? I’m serious.”
The developers, Castle Cadecott LLC, want permission to build 166 three-bedroom townhouses, instead of the 152 the zoning would allow. They also want a variance from the zoning provision requiring some of the townhomes to have fewer bedrooms.
Draushak said he spoke to seven or eight national building firms who all told him they would not build two-bedroom townhomes because “there is no market for it.”
Similarly, the developers have asked for permission to build only 36 percent one-bedroom apartments as opposed to the 40 percent required by zoning.
Bartle said two-bedroom apartments – which would be fit into eight buildings – are more marketable because they allow tenants to have roommates to share the rent.
After negotiating with the township, the developers also withdrew their request for a variance to parking requirements as well as a donation of $100,000 and a 70-foot-wide strip of buffer to the township in lieu of complying with open space and recreation requirements, both of which must also be granted by the zoning hearing board.
Bartle said it made more sense to provide the township with a donation, which could be used to improve the adjacent Sanatoga Park, rather than have duplicate recreation facilities right next to an existing park.
The township supports the variance requests, Township Manager Ed Wagner told the zoning hearing board.
The zoning with which the project must comply was adopted by the township supervisors in 2014 after consultation with the property owners and over the objections of area residents.
It replaced a “limited industrial” zoning that had resulted in little to no development.
The zoning is called the “Gateway Mixed Use” zone as well as the “Gateway Residential Overlay District,” which covers the southern two-thirds of the mixed use zone.
Developers waived the requirement that the zoning hearing board rule on the variance requests within 45 days to allow time to add a letter and map amendment to the official record of the proceeding.
The board set July 19 at 6 p.m. as the next hearing at which a decision could be made.
Before construction can begin – assuming the variances are granted – the project must still go through the land development process involving the Lower Pottsgrove Planning Commission, the Montgomery County Planning Commission, the Montgomery County Conservation District and, possibly, PennDOT.
