Towamencin board votes down Freddy Hill zoning change

A key vote Wednesday night now rules out 300-plus homes on the Freddy Hill Farms site in Towamencin, but it may mean less township control over what happens there next.

The township’s supervisors voted four-to-one on Wednesday night against a rezone request from developer Pinnacle Realty that would have allowed hundreds of townhouses on that site.

“All I’m asking for you is to, not approve this plan, is to afford the opportunity for the board and residents to hear facts from experts, and have your own experts weigh in,” said developer Tony Maras of Pinnacle.

The future of the Freddy Hill site has been discussed since March, when longtime owners the Seipt family announced plans to close the dairy farm, store, ice cream parlor and entertainment complex they’ve run since the early 1970s. Throughout the summer, the township has fielded dozens of comments urging preservation of at least some of the site, and in May Pinnacle presented two possible plans for the Freddy Hill site, one using a cluster development plan under the site’s current zoning to build a total of 141 housing units in three new neighborhoods, and a second with more density, featuring a total of 321 units  in a mix of townhouses and single-family detached homes.

In July, Pinnacle showed an updated version of the plan with the number of apartment units revised up to 338 and a major change in the configuration of the site, adding a fourth leg to the current T-shaped intersection of Sumneytown and Troxel by moving a house that stands there now. A new north-south roadway heading into the new development and parallel to Kriebel Road was meant to reduce traffic, and the developer said in July that the increased number of homes were meant in part to cover the costs of doing so, and would require a change to the township’s zoning map to do so.

That zoning change, to allow the township’s mixed-use residential cluster development, was the subject of dozens of public comments on Wednesday night, with the board considering a request from Pinnacle to proceed with review of their plans for the more dense development.

“If the board elects not to engage the review process, development of the Freddy Hill property will be limited to its current R-175 residential zoning, which yields 141 single family homes by-right,” said supervisors chairwoman Joyce Snyder, introducing the motion for debate.

Maras then outlined changes since the prior presentation, including a reduction down to 303 total units from the prior total of 338, and providing a fiscal benefit study showing the number of students projected for the development would be roughly 131 new students in the 141 single family house site, and 162 for the 300-plus townhouse plan.

“There was a lot of comments from people, maybe 80 to 100 people about this. There are 18,000 people in this township. There are hundreds of thousands of people, that travel along Sumneytown Pike from the turnpike, down to Merck, and Valley Forge Road, and everywhere else,” he said.

“All I’m asking for is the board to allow a hearing — not even that, to send us to the county planning commission, and send us to your planning commission. Let’s talk about compromise, too. But under your ordinance, you only have two options right now,” Maras said.

Residents remain opposed

Dozens of residents spoke out against the proposed development, largely reiterating commonly noted concerns over flooding, traffic, and preservation of open space on the site. Lynn Fox questioned whether the parcels in question could be combined together to apply for the new zoning prior to the board approval, while Ezra Schwartz said he had reviewed the maps and proposed overlays, and asked if the developer’s definition of open space included constructed basins to retain stormwater.

“You were elected to represent us, not to advocate for your own housing ideals or pet projects. And Pinnacle, do any of you live here?” he said.

Ashley Campisi asked if the supervisors were listening to those opposed: “Not one resident has stood up and said ‘Yes, we want high density housing, and more homes being built,’ but we are still talking about this — why? I thought we elected supervisors to be our voice, to fight for us against overdevelopment, but I guess I was wrong.”

Sue Rieck said she was concerned about the streets being able to handle the traffic, and was “not against appropriate growth in the township, but I am against irresponsible growth,” and Diana Blystone said she had concerns about classroom size and whether students could get the attention they need if hundreds of new homes are added.

Former supervisor Rich Marino added some rough calculations ot the debate: assuming one car for each of 300 units, and an average length of 18 feet per car, traffic backups could reach 5,400 feet or over a mile if those cars all try to leave at rush hour, and that total length could run all the way down Kriebel past the property itself, or along Sumneytown Pike past Kriebel and Troxel Roads and the entire length of the Freddy Hill site.

“You’re talking about a significant number of vehicles added to roads that really can’t handle it. And I doubt the developer will do the road improvements necessary,” he said. “Even if you look at peak rush hours, if you figure only 200 cars in a two-hour period, that’s 25 cars every 15 minutes. You’re putting a lot of cars into a small area at the same time.”

Pete Van Thuyne said he thought the residents were “looking for adults to lead: we keep mentioning the same factors, whether it’s safety, whether it’s water flow, whether it’s crowd congestion at the schools,” and Sarah Tarpey said she appreciated the support from residents outside that neighborhood, and felt like a “broken record” voicing concerns about traffic and safety on Anders Road: “I have kids that go to elementary school, and I have neighbors that cross the street, and every single afternoon, my heart jumps when cars do not slow down.”

Supervisor candidate Christina Eppolito said she thought the board should listen to the dozens who turned out to oppose the rezone.

“I don’t want the traffic, I don’t want people crammed in, and I think all of us are here because we feel the same. None of us want this. Please listen to us in the room, and reflect on that when you make decisions for us,” she said.

Mike Cunningham added that the developer won’t have to live with the impact, but the neighbors will.

“The folks that will benefit from this, they’ll be long gone. They don’t live here. They’ll be taking buckets of cash to wherever their vacation homes are, and we’ll be left with the consequences,” he said.

Family act

Casey Hannings, the Kriebel Road resident who has started an online petition and Instagram account pushing to preserve the property, repeated his concerns for the wildlife and grasslands on the site — “One you lose a space like Freddy Hill Farms, you don’t get it back” — and said the 141-unit plan was “objectively worse for the environment” and could add more impervious coverage to the site via larger lot sizes. He also brought reinforcements: brother Evan said he typically encounters traffic while commuting in that area, which more development would only make worse. “Traffic definitely does build up, especially in school (hours). Adding these homes is going to definitely be detrimental. Then I’m gonna be extra late to work, which definitely isn’t fun,” Evan said.

His job at a car rental shop in the area gives him a close view of one downside of that traffic: “Based off of the work I get in, I’d say 75 percent of my customers come from accidents. If you add in all those homes in the area, there’s going to be a lot more accidents.”

Brother Jaden added a reminder for the supervisors, that those speaking out against the rezone are also voters: “If you’re choosing not to listen to everyone here, you’re going to lose your job at some point. That’s how elections work.”

And dad Jason Hannings said he’s recently retired from 25 years in law enforcement, and worried about the public safety angle: “You’re gonna need a lot more than one or two more officers to keep everything safe here, whether it’s traffic, or domestic” incidents that could happen among residents — “you’re going to need a lot more, and it’ll be a burden on them, and the township itself, to keep them safe.”

Supervisors split

Supervisor Kofi Osei, who ultimately cast the only vote in favor of continuing the review, said he thought the full board should have done so in order to explore alternative plans that might have higher density, but could also be configured to preserve more green space.

“I really do think it is better for the community, no matter how much I’m getting yelled at, to at least talk through the potential compromises. Because if we get the 141 (plan), that has more impervious surface , that has less open space, that doesn’t have the intersection, we are getting a lot of the problems that everyone’s talking about,” said Osei.

“By our laws, they could build 141 by right. So if we vote to deny this, we’re probably going to get houses quicker, than by going through this review process,” he said.

Some have opposed the development because of flooding concerns, others cited traffic, and more wanted as much open space preserve as possible, and allowing more units in taller buildings could allow for less impervious coverage than in a by-right plan, plus come with an estimated $2 million in the intersection improvements, Osei said.

“All of you are saying ‘No rezoning,’ and I do hear that. But you’re saying it for different reasons,” he said. “I would like to vote for this so we can release the plans, we can have a hearing, you guys can ll make comments again, and if it’s a worse plan, it’s a worse plan.”

Supervisor Chuck Wilson said he’s still against the change, for reasons discussed during prior talks: “I will not vote for any zoning change for this site that results in a higher density than is allowed by right,” he said.

Residents then asked if the vote Wednesday night would include any plan approval, and solicitor Bob Iannozzi clarified that it would not: “What’s before the board is whether they’re going to go forward with the process…whether or not they green light, or red light, this ordinance.”

Supervisor Kristin Warner added that she thought the prior boards that created current zoning map “did so with a lot of thought,” and the dense plan “would disagree with the character of what that (property) was intended to be” by changing the current residential zoning.

“If you had come in with something that was a compromise, that would be a win-win, I would vote for it. But this is not a win-win. This is, I believe, you winning more than giving to the township.”

The board then voted four-to-one to deny the request to begin the review process, with Osei casting the only vote in favor.

Towamencin’s supervisors next meet at 7 p.m. on Sept. 24 at the township administration building, 1090 Troxel Road. For more information, visit www.Towamencin.org.

This article appears courtesy of a content share agreement between North Penn Now and The Reporter. To read more stories like this, visit https://www.thereporteronline.com