Newtown Supervisors Oppose Plan To Build 27 Townhouses

At the November 13, 2019, Newtown Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting, Durham Partners Group, LLC, submitted a Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) application for twenty seven townhouses and associated dimensional variances on a 5-acre parcel of land located at 413 Durham Road in the PS-2 (Professional Service) Zoning District. See plan below.

Representing the Durham Partners Group was Nate Fox, Esq. of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hipple, LLP, and Heath Dumack, P.E.

A “Super Dense” Plan

BOS Chair Phil Calbrao categorized the proposed development as “super density” and said “If you were to only build single-family homes with a front yard, back yard, and two side yards, I believe you could get only one-and-a-half homes on that particular property.” Calabro was citing what would be allowed as a “use by right” in the PS-2 district.

Mr. Dumack responded that the 27 townhouse plan would require 5 or 6 variances from the ZHB [the application actually calls for 7 major variances; see table], whereas sketch plans for 4 single family homes required one less variance. I’m not sure, but I think Mr. Dumack’s argument was spurious, or as some would say, “without merit.”

Variances Sought By Applicant

The BOS also heard from the applicant's professional that the proposed townhouse use would have a much lower impact from a traffic and development standpoint than a permitted 2-story medical office building.

A “Quasi Threat”

That opinion, however, was contested by Calabro who pointed out the “quasi threat” inherent in the applicant’s traffic impact statement; i.e., that all 165 parked cars would “filter out onto 413 [Durham Road] all at the same time, which I find unlikely,” said Calabro. In any case, Newtown Township has plenty of empty office space and, as Mr. Calabro said, “an office in this location would have to be the ‘miracle one’ to be totally occupied.”

In response to my inquiry about impervious surface requirements, Mr. Dumack pointed out that the plan required a variance request to increase the maximum impervious surface ratio from 8% to more than 36% (see Table above). Such a big ratio would IMHO have a negative impact on storm water management, especially considering the township’s plan to reduce pollution of the local streams and lakes (for more on that, read “Newtown Township’s Pollution Reduction Plan”).

Residents Express Concern

According to resident Mike Horbal in a private comment to me, “this is a classic example of ‘overdevelopment’ or, worse, ‘land grab.’ This use is not permitted as a use by right, a conditional use, OR a special exception in the PS-2 district,” said Horbal.

In comments before the BOS, Mr. Horbal noted that without any variances, only one single family home would be allowed at this location. He said “to propose twenty seven townhomes on a 5-acre property makes very little sense except for the developer.” Mr. Horbal said that if the town is really against overdevelopment this would be a “perfect example” to oppose. “Don’t come to town,” said Mr. Horbal, “if you can’t propose a project that meets the requirements of the zoning regulations.”

Resident Joyann Charlton echoed Mr. Horbal’s comments and implored the BOS to take a position against the development. Ms. Charlton mentioned the strain on already overcrowded schools and busing.

The Board’s Options

Township Solicitor Dave Sander laid out the options for the BOS to consider:

1. Take no action and wish the applicant “good luck.”
2. Authorize the solicitor to write a letter to the ZHB expressing the Board’s concerns with the proposed relief that is requested and perhaps include conditions on the approval of the application if the ZHB was of a mind to approve the application.
3. Authorize the solicitor to attend the ZHB and oppose the application.

I made a motion to go with option #3 and to send the Township Solicitor to the December 5, 2019, ZHB meeting to oppose the application. The motion passed 4-1. Voting in favor of opposing were Supervisors Mack, Fisher, Bobrin, and Calabro. Kyle Davis cast the sole “nay” vote.

The following is an edited 15-minute video of the presentation, discussion and vote. You can view the entire video of the November 13, 2019, BOS meeting on the Newtown Township website here.

UPDATE (1/31/2020):

What happened at the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) hearing last night regarding awarding variances to build 27 townhouses at 431 Durham Road on 4.5 acres of "damp" land?

The attorney representing Durham Partners - the developer - asked "to open the record for a LIMITED purpose": to change the conditions "under which the applicant will abide by"; i.e., reduce the number of townhouses from 27 to 21. First and foremost: 21 townhouses on a 4.5 plot of land in the PS-2 zone, which allows only 1 home on 3 acres, is STILL WAY TOO MANY! The Township Supervisors made it known that we do not approve of giving away variances in this case. I personally think this is a land grab by the developer and to award variances in this case - whether for 21 or 27 townhouses - serves the sole purpose of enriching the owners and developers. Whose interests does the ZHB have in mind? The residents/township or the developers?

Township Solicitor Dave Sander objected to this maneuver to make the project seem more palatable and the ZHB again adjourned without any further arguments and tentatively rescheduled the continuance of the hearing for its March 5, 2020, meeting.

As a Supervisor, I am concerned that the goal posts here have been moved without any input from the Supervisors. When I asked to make a comment at last night's ZHB meeting, I was denied. If the developer wishes to change the plan, they need to come back before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in an OPEN public meeting so that the public - including me! - can make comments.