Developer won't reduce condos in complex
By: CHRISTIAN MENNO Bucks County Courier Times
The board can't come to a consensus on how to proceed with the development of the old Acme site on Sycamore Street.
Don't expect McGrath Homes to budge.The developer made it clear Wednesday that the company is unlikely to further reduce the number of condominiums in its proposedmixed-use complex dubbed the Promenade.After Supervisor Jerry Schenkman suggested that the zoning hearing board consider alterations to the plan - including a reduction inheight from 42 feet, 7 inches to 40 feet, and a reduction in the amount of condos from 27 to 22 - the company informed the board thatthose parameters would be unacceptable.Also, don't expect to see any legal representation for the supervisors when McGrath Homes appears before zoning officials June 4.After more than two hours of discussion and several failed motions, one thing became clear at Wednesday's supervisors meeting:The board cannot come to a consensus on how to proceed with development of the old Acme site on Sycamore Street.The supervisors couldn't agree whether to send solicitor William Bolla to the zoning hearing to oppose, support or simply observe theproceedings involving McGrath's plan for the long-vacant site.As a default rule, if no consensus can be found and no motion approved, the solicitor is not to attend the meeting, Supervisor TomJirele explained.McGrath's original design for the Promenade measured 59 feet at its highest point, with 32 condos.After much opposition from residents and supervisors, who cited the 30-foot maximum building height in the commercial district,McGrath presented several reduced versions of the plan over the last few months.Supervisor Robert Ciervo remained the most adamant opponent to the design's size, although he said the overall idea of a mixed-useretail outlet with residential space was appealing.His motion to send the solicitor to oppose McGrath's zoning application was seconded by Supervisor Phillip Calabro, which drewapplause from many residents in attendance. However, Supervisors Schenkman, Jirele and Mike Gallagher voted no."I think we're blowing an opportunity to develop this site as a great anchor to Sycamore Street," Ciervo said."I just see this same kind of complex being developed down the street, if these variances are granted. I think you can restrict how thisdevelopment affects Newtown by limiting the height."Ciervo added that the "intensity of the use" and traffic concerns are other factors for his opposition."It's just too intense for a little two-acre plot," he said. "Nowhere else do we have 22 residential dwellings on two acres of land."Calabro and Ciervo said the solicitor should be sent with specific direction from the board, while Jirele said that requesting partystatus will be enough to ensure the board will be properly represented at future zoning proceedings.Newtown council members Mark Craig and Mike Sellers attended the meeting and cautioned the board about moving forward withthe current design."I just don't see a great benefit to the community in this circumstance," Craig said."We in the borough see it as bringing significant negative implications - traffic being one," Sellers added. "But perhaps some of theseconcerns can be addressed in the planning process. Please keep in mind that this location is an anchor to the part of town that weshare with you."While some residents spoke out in support of the Promenade and praised the efforts of McGrath to compromise, the majority whospoke during public comment sided with Ciervo."This feels like situational zoning," resident Karen Katz said. "In other words, let's zone based on what you tell me today. I think this isa good project and I don't want to see it denied, but we need more interest-based bargaining."It was during the discussion about what direction to give to the solicitor, when Schenkman made his motion that included a reductionto 40 feet and 22 condos. Only he and Calabro voted in favor of this idea.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_time...1 of 25/29/2009 2:44 PM
Leave a Comment