The discussion on the parcel lasted almost five hours.
At its June 11 meeting, the Upper Dublin Township Board of Commissioners discussed a project for 530 Virginia Dr., a space of land neighboring the township building itself at 520 Virginia Dr. Upper Dublin Township Engineer Thomas Fountain, presented plans on the address, in both the discussion portion of the meeting, and later, as an action item.
“This is going to come back on the agenda as an action item,” said Commissioner and Board President Ira S. Tackel, who asked that those from the public that spoke on the matter during the “Discussion” portion of the meeting not repeat themselves in the later “Action Items'' section. “We just want this not to go till midnight, and it certainly could.”
As it turned out, Tackel was not too far off, as the meeting which started at 7 p.m., lingered on for four hours and 52 minutes in total.
Defining the Land Parcel at 530 Virginia Drive
This June meeting was not the first time the commissioners had heard plans for the neighboring 18-acre property, which includes woodlands, the public works facilities, the Camp Hill Athletic Complex (CHAC), and what Fountain called “a small strip of land along Highland.”
“Part of our previous project was that we have to subdivide 12 acres off in order to make the project work, and then CHAC would have the remaining five-and-a-half, six acres,” said Fountain. The engineer said the piece of land had a “multi-year history” with the township.
“I want to be very clear for the board and for the residents,” said Tackel, as he asked Fountain to clarify precisely which land the engineer was discussing before presenting options. “There were emails flying all over the place identifying 16 acres?”
The commissioner asked Fountain to help all to understand how the land was divided.
Upper Dublin Township “The discussion that we’ve had forever with regard to this particular parcel at 530 [Virginia Drive], which is being considered is 12 acres, and the development component of that is less still, to be around four,” Tackel said. “Is that correct?”
“Yes, the primary developed area is approximately 5.1 [acres],” said Fountain. “I’m going to the way that we’re reducing the amount of disturbance to that property so that it gets down to about 3.7 acres.”
Tackel said he still did not understand why the board continually had spoken about 12 acres of property, if there were, in fact, 18 at 530 Virginia Drive.
“Back in February of last year, the original project talked about the entire parcel and how we’re going to …”
“But we’re not touching CHAC; we’re not touching the sliver, none of that?” interrupted Tackel.
“None of it, no,” clarified Fountain.
Township Manager Kurt Ferguson also stepped in to add clarity.
“But, I also want to make a clarification,” said Ferguson. “The proposal that is being outlined would not be to sell 12 acres.”
“That’s correct,” said Fountain.
“I understand we’re subdividing property, but I just want to make these distinctions,” said Ferguson. “We’re talking about a subdivision of 12 acres, but with only four and change or five that would be put up for bid with the remainder of the property to be owned by the township.”
“Yes,” agreed Fountain.
“And remain as open space,” added Tackel.
“Yes,” said Ferguson.
What the New 530 Virginia Proposal Includes
“A series of plans have been presented over the last years,” said Fountain. “Let’s get to the current history, then. The proposal as of last August, which was the last time the board saw this plan, was to present a plan which could be vested with the development rights in which the township could solicit bids for the evaluation of the value of that asset prior to making a sale.”
At the time, the plan did not move forward, as several concerns were raised by both board members and the public. Overall, the primary concerns boiled down to flood plain issues, wetlands, removal of trees, and access to Highland Avenue.
Since last August, there have been many changes, though Fountain first reminded the board at what was reviewed at that time. That older plan included two buildings located, a three-story building on Highland, a four-story building further into the site, and a main driveway between the two buildings.
“That main driveway was the focus of some concern, because it was only about 100 yards from Highland Avenue and the current police driveway that goes out from the library to Highland,” said Fountain. “There was also an extended parking area that went closer to the wetlands.”
However, Fountain said, this older plan was an “interim” plan.
“I’ll get to this plan that is currently before the board as part of this presentation,” said Fountain. “What you see here are the changes made to address some of these concerns.”
The engineer noted that there was now a single footprint building that consisted of both three- and four-story areas, as well as a moved driveway, now 150 yards closer to Virginia Drive, in the new proposal.
“This driveway here is about 200 feet from Virginia Drive, and it’s moved down from the original driveway about 450 feet,” said Fountain of the new location. “So now we are a total of about two-and-a-half football fields from Highland Avenue.”
The changes didn’t stop there.
“Another change to this plan is to reduce the area of parking, and its location to the wetland area,” said Fountain. “And a fourth proposal, which I’ll get into, is a portion of the parking in reserve.”
He then went on to describe each of the four outlined changes in further detail.
Parking in the Floodplain
According to Fountain, this new apartment plan requires 264 parking spaces. The current zoning ordinance in Upper Dublin does allow parking in a floodplain, “subject to specific relief from the zoning hearing board.”
“When people think of relief from the zoning hearing board, they usually think of a hardship option,” said Fountain. “That isn’t the case for parking in the floodplain. There is a specific set of guidelines that relate to maintaining the hydraulic aspect of the floodplain, can it carry the flood waters without it being adversely affected.”
And, while this plan did include some of the parking being in the floodplain, Fountain said it would not change the grade or the topography, the contour of the floodplain area.
“The hydraulic aspect has been preserved,” he said. “We don’t anticipate the zoning hearing board rejecting the request for the variance for parking in the floodplain because the ability of the floodplain to carry the flood is the same as it was or better than before.”
Addressing Wetland Concerns
“There were also concerns about the wetland,” said Fountain of previously presented plans from 2023. “There were prior concerns that the development area was too close to wetlands. Both this plan and the prior plan indicate that we’ve moved the development area, and basically it is the parking.”
Fountain pointed out to the board via a laser pointer projected onto the plan’s map to show two different areas that were previously discussed as a matter of worry.
“We’ve moved the parking at least 50 feet away,” he said of the change. “It’s beyond what our ordinance requires. But, it respects the concerns of the residents and the commissioners who expressed some desire to move that parking away from the wetland areas. Fifty feet away, in some areas, and 75 feet in most areas. No negative impact on the hydraulics of the wetland areas is anticipated.”
Floodplains Are Not Wetlands
Though in various stages of planning and comments, Fountain noted that the terms “floodplain” and “wetlands” were being tossed around rather interchangeably.
“That’s certainly not the case,” he said. “It is used interchangeably by some laypeople, but we discussed here that, as far as wetlands and floodplains are concerned, they are two different entities. They’re governed by two different organizations. The wetlands are governed by the federal government, and the floodplain is governed locally.”
Fountain said that wetlands are low-level areas characterized by saturated soils, which have nowhere to drain. He said wetlands offer different vegetation types and biological habitats as opposed to up-land or dry areas.
“Down here, closer to Virginia, is where the wetlands’ stream runs through,” said Fountain, again indicating on the plan’s map. “That’s where we’ve taken some pains to move the parking further away so that we don’t affect the wetland hydrology.” The moved driveway, he noted, also accommodated preservation concerns.
Floodplains, Fountain said, also exist in low-lying areas, but “over periods of time they’ve established this kind of geography that carries periodic waters, so they are not saturated all the time.”
“In fact, floodplains are usually dry, and they dry out after a rain event, and they’re not typically comprised of saturated soils,” he said. “You could say that all floodplains have some wetlands, but not all wetlands are located in floodplains.”
For the property at 530 Virginia Drive, the area of wetlands is limited to a small area near Virginia Drive, which Fountain said is not subject to any disturbance beyond what the federal law allows. He said only the driveway crossing may approach wetlands.
“The floodplain area on the right side of this plan, this is a large portion of the plan,” said the township engineer. “However, its regulated locally by township codes, and as I indicated earlier, there is the possibility that the zoning hearing board grants variance to allow the parking in the floodplain. That’s a development subject to engineering calculation. You have to demonstrate that the flood capacity of the floodplain is preserved or enhanced.”
The Driveway Crossing
Comprising around 900 square feet of the proposed development area, the driveway crossing, at 0.02 acres, is a small fraction of the 1.38 acres total on the site. This makes the “area of disturbance” about 0.4%, which Fountain said, “as part of the project protocol, where we disturb 0.02 acres, we would require the creation of 0.04.”
“So, there is a two-for-one creation of wetlands where we are disturbing some portion,” said Fountain. “So the area of the wetlands would be increased after the project.”
Removal of Trees
Fountain said that an area, denoted by “brown hatch on the right side” of planned maps, includes 132 parking spaces.
“As I indicated earlier, there are 264 spaces required,” said Fountain. “The zoning hearing board allows, with the board of commissioners approval, that the parking can be cut by 50%. What we are showing here is 132 spaces in the brown hatch that would be in reserve. It wouldn’t be constructed at the outset of the project.”
The engineer noted that, by putting the parking in reserve, the township would preserve 1.04 acres of woodlands at this time.
“Future parking needs would be reevaluated by the township after development of the property,” said Fountain.
He noted that developers in the area are starting to think that a parking ratio of 1.1 or 1.2 might be “more appropriate” than previous rates of 1.5 or more (ratio of parking spaces per unit). After some units were built and occupied, the developer could request, or the township could request, that more spaces be built. It could be decided later whether or not the spaces held in reserve would be needed, and if so, the wooded area would be considered at that time.
Fountain also explained to the board that, as part of the prior history of the property and proposed projects, there are also 76 existing spaces in the back corner of the library’s parking lot that are seldom used.
“They’re used by some police staff and public works vehicles at this time,” he said. “They would be available and leased to the apartment operator as supplemental parking.”
These library spaces, as well as some in front of the apartment building, could accommodate the initial parking needs.
“The combined two of what would be constructed with this outline, and what would be sitting there is like 196 spaces, is that correct?” asked Ferguson.
“It’s more than half on here, but probably more than one space per unit,” said Fountain.
“A lot of developers have reflected projects in Upper Dublin and out that they are seeing one space per unit, and that one space per unit and a 10% visitor parking calculation, if you took that literally on this, it would translate to 176 spaces. So, it does give room for additional cars in there, so it gives you some thought as to where that number came from.”
Highland Avenue Access
As a fourth area of general concern, Fountain noted that the proximity of the “old” driveway entrance to Highland Avenue access. As indicated in new plans, the driveway was moved from that old location and “put it down, across from where the police material shed is now, their equipment shed,” which he said is about 750 feet from Highland Avenue.
“A combination of moving that driveway down further toward Virginia, also accommodating it with striping and traffic restrictions,” would prevent or discourage those coming from the apartment area toward the Highland Avenue access.
Changes were made specifically to address concerns that came forward during October 2023 presentations of the plan.
Next Steps Required
Fountain said that the newly proposed plan includes three authorizations the staff is asking the board of commissioners’ approval on, which include:
Board of Commissioners Discuss 530 Virginia
The action item the board would consider in the evening’s meeting was not to sell the property at 530 Virginia Avenue, which Tackel made clear at the onset.
“The motion is to approve sending 530 Virginia Drive to the planning commission, to the zoning hearing board, and I believe simultaneously it will be sent to the Montgomery County planning commission as well, and to advertise it for bid, so that we can determine what this development is worth to the township, in terms of millions of dollars or not,” said Tackel following Fountain’s presentation. “The expectation was that this development that you’re seeing is approximately 160 doorways. And right now, contrary to emails flying back and forth, there is nothing preconceived. We have ideas of what we think it COULD be worth, upwards of $40,000 per doorway, to a developer. Or not.”
Tackel said, while he hoped not to be defensive, he had read most of the emails that had been circulating throughout the board, which came primarily in the days leading up to the June 11 meeting.
“I want to correct some of the lies, misrepresentations, and embellishments,” he said. “I present you with the facts. I also recognize that it is very difficult to alter one’s perspective even when those lies, misrepresentations, and embellishments are corrected.”
Firstly, he wanted to address emails that pertained to meeting scheduling.
“There were a number of emails that said, ‘how dare we schedule our meeting across from the graduation,’” said the commissioner. “First of all, our meetings are scheduled years in advance, not days or months, years. It was the graduation that was scheduled against our stated meeting. Our stated meetings are every second Tuesday of every month. Our apologies that it happened to conflict, but if you have a gripe with that, you might want to raise it to the school district.”
Tackel also noted that the acreage was a point of confusion in many emails, miscalculating the total to be 16.
“What we’re talking about is roughly four or five acres, the rest being maintained as open space, untouched, either governed by the township or restricted in perpetuity by the developer,” he said.
The commissioner also said there had been absolutely no discussions about Section 8 Housing, nor was there any discussion to “garner money from the sale and buying up other open space.”
“That is really not what this was about at all,” he said. “The notion of potentially selling really predicated on what the value of this property is, and we’re talking again about the four, to four-and-a-half acres of development.”
While he noted he could not speak for the whole board, if bids came back low, like $1 to 3 million, the “juice is not worth the squeeze,” meaning that they’d not likely sell to a developer should estimates come in low. He also noted that the board had the right to reject any bid.
Tackel said that obligations to meet EPA requirements for open space may be covered by the profits of the land sale. In years to come, the only other alternative would be hefty tax hikes.
“For me at least, [this proposal] is not a single issue, it is multiple issues,” said the commissioner. “It is looking toward the future, as well, and knowing what’s coming down the pike.”
He continued, saying while the value of doing or not doing this action item was up for debate, the facts of the matter were not.
“I am opposed to putting 530 Virginia Drive up for sale, I think putting the land out to bid is the same, as far as I am concerned, as putting it up for sale,” said Ward One Commissioner Harm J. Scherpbier, as the public applauded. “It is a distinction without a difference. You are putting a ‘For Sale’ sign on the property. You’re walking us right to the line of actually selling the land once we get a bid.”
Scherpbier said that he did not believe claims that it was simply going up for bid “but don’t intend to sell it.”
“It will require another vote [to sell], but it is disingenuous,” he said. “It is misleading to any project developer who would put a bid on the property, while it might not actually be for sale. It is also misleading the people of Upper Dublin. You’re telling them we’re not intending to sell while we’re going right up to the line of actually selling. I think it is misleading to my fellow commissioners into the same proposal.”
He said his biggest problem with the proposal, and reason he is most opposed, is that there is “no clear reason for putting this property up for sale at this moment. If we’re going forward with this sale, we need to be very clear about why we need this money, and why we need it now or soon.”
Scherpbier asked the township manager if a ballpark amount of $6 million was needed for the present budget for the township. Ferguson said that, pending a grant that is still outstanding and an inflation credit, both of which the township is “hopeful” for obtaining, they were covered.
“We’d essentially have the township project, for the most part, funded,” said Ferguson, meaning no additional income was required at this present time.
Scherpbier also noted a $9.5 million Community Reinvestment Fund, which was used in the past for projects such as Twining Valley and the library, was a rather healthy cushion.
“For the past three or four years, that fund has been stable at $9.5,” he said.
He said that stormwater interventions (EPA-sanctioned possible future expenses that Tackel noted) are not in the plans presently, as far as he is aware. As one of 13 municipalities on the Clean Water Partnership, Upper Dublin is represented by Ferguson and Scherpbier, the co-chair of the group, soon to be called a consortium.
“There is no plan on the books that would require Upper Dublin or any of the other municipalities to spend millions of dollars on stormwater mitigation today,” said Scherpbier. “It is not in the plan today, and any project under that stormwater consortium would primarily be funded through grants. There is no $6 million stormwater mitigation plan waiting in the wings.”
He said that this means there is no clear and present reason for this sale. Instead, any income from the sale would be there “just in case,” waiting for a future use.
“And, Mr. President, ‘just in case’ is not a justification,” he said. “My ‘No’ is not a ‘No’ forever, but a ‘No’ for right now,” indicating he would not be voting in favor of even seeking a bid.
Tackel said that two developments already underway in the township, totaling 900 units, will be the end of development in the township for the present time. He worried if the township did not act now, they never would.
“It would be a lost opportunity,” he said.
Ward 2 Commissioner Meredith L. Ferleger said she “whole-heartedly” disagreed with Scherpbier.
“From my perspective, yes, we have the opportunity for a very, very large bond, in order to fill the void that we need in order to fund the township building,” said Ferleger. “Absolutely, we have that because of Kurt and Johnathan’s unbelievable financial savvy. For someone who’s been on the board for six or seven years now, and sat through six or seven budget cycles, for us to be in a position where we are completely at our max ability to float a bond without a tax increase is incredibly irresponsible of this board.”
“We have never been in a position where we have been faced with any form of unexpected expense,” she said. “Whether it is unexpected or just with the passage of time, like a $1.5 fire truck, any other capital project that may come up in the future, and they invariably do come up because they always come up, the township continues to grow and develop and there are always going to be capital projects that are needed.”
Ferleger said that putting the township in a position where the only alternative option would be a massive tax increase was “unbelievably irresponsible.”
“This process to sell 530, or get to this point that we are tonight, has take us six or seven years, because this was originally going to be discussed to fund this incredible building that we are now sitting in,” said the Ward 2 Commissioner. “It was taken off of the docket because it was not needed at this point, but this has been discussed for as long as I’ve been on the board now. It isn’t, as you say, when we need it let’s get it done. It takes a very long time to get these things done in order to make them viable to put them out to bid.”
Ferleger said, from her perspective, “this is simply a matter of putting the board in the absolute best position to make all of the decisions we need to make.” She also noted if the bid was too low, it wouldn’t be worth it.
Ferguson said, while not advocating for either side, he wanted facts to be clearly presented.
“We have a stormwater study that is going on this year, and I cannot define specifically what those costs will be,” he said. “We know we do have one in Willow that’s going to be between $1 and $2 million. That’s not a big project either, that’s a smaller one, and there will be some others.”
He clarified other stats that were up for discussion and debate.
“Harm, you are also 100% correct, with the Wissahickon Watershed, now we have a five-year exemption because we received a credit from the dam that was built when we got that credit,” said Ferguson. “We’re on the clock for that for five years.”
He said that with Pennypacker Watershed, there is likely to be ongoing work “yet to be defined” that will require investment sometime soon in the township. He said many of these things will come up in this year’s budget presentation, where the township’s administration is considering options for a five-year capital project improvement plan.
To help the board understand, Township Finance Director and Assistant Township Manager Jonathan Bleemer said that for each million bonded (or in other words “borrowed” by the township), it would mean a half a percent increase in real estate taxes for the residents.
Ward Six Commissioner Alyson J. Fritzges asked if capital improvements, and any corresponding tax increases, could be planned and timed out, spaced over time to make it easier on residents, which may take the threat of massive unknown expenses off the table. She noted “there are ways” even with multiple smaller bonds, to cover unexpected costs.
Others on the board also weighed in prior to the mic opening for public opinion.
“I understand the concern that things might be coming down the pike,” said Ward 5 Commissioner Cheryl Knight, who noted she “seconded” what Scherpbier had said. “I just don’t see that this would be our saving grace. I hate to see open space go.”
Comments from the Public on 530 Virginia Drive
First to the mic, once it was the public’s turn to voice opinions on the potential action item, was Ed Bruno, of Highland Avenue, who had concerns about access points to his street.
“I tried four times to get the chief of police to get a speed trap on that road,” he said, who said some commuters sometimes peak over 50 to 60 miles per hour. “And now you’re bringing out another driveway onto Highland Avenue?”
“Just to be clear, there is no entrance or egress from this proposed development onto Highland,” said Tackel. “It would be emergency use only. The way this is reconfigured … Once the police are out of this building, I would propose they close off the other entrance off of Highland today.”
Next was Claire DiDonato, a resident of more than 50 years of the township.
“The commissioners want to move forward with this development plan to build apartments and high-density housing in Upper Dublin,” said DiDonato. “The response to the survey said that very few people want more housing in this township, and definitely not high density.”
She said most residents want open space, and not more residents. She said that people move to Upper Dublin to live in the suburbs.
“This township is so overbuilt at this point, it’s horrible,” she said. “The traffic situation is terrible and growing worse. It is like city traffic.”
She also said that 66% of people that took the survey felt housing was “adequate,” while 92% felt their housing needs were being met.
“Why are you ignoring the other major issues that the residents are concerned about?” she asked. She said formerly filled business parks used to help keep taxes low, and also requested more assistance to add restaurants, not apartments.
Another concerned citizen, Kristen Mattioni, agreed that land developers may want to continue to develop other township land, and as the board had pointed out, that was up to them as they had land rights. However, she was worried land the township owned and could control was also being considered for sale for the development of apartments.
“We do have control over this,” she said. “I think it is irresponsible for future generations to develop it. I think we can take other cost-mitigation strategies. I understand that there are unexpected costs that you incur, whether your household or your business. There are ways you can plan and strategize to reduce existing costs for future costs. It’s true, you can.”
Mattioni also had some concern about where the children living in these new apartments might attend school.
“There’s not been a study for that,” said Ferguson. “But what I can tell you is that what would be proposed for this site or is suggested are units that would be smaller in size, that the evidence has indicated would not generate school-aged children.”
Ferguson cited The Promenade, which included an additional 404 units for the township, yet only added 19 children to the school district.
“It’s not a guarantee of anything,” he said. “I will say, with some of the projects we’ve seen, when those are more tailored to smaller units, we’ve not seen a resulting influx of dozens or hundreds of kids.”
Mattioni countered that she lived in New Jersey communities that held many family members even in small apartments of one bedroom capacity. She said too that rent at The Promenade, where she herself had lived in the past, was high meaning it was less attractive to families.
“I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, or something you can make an assumption on,” she said.
She also asked if no study was done on schools, was any done for traffic?
“Our traffic engineer has looked at the site,” said Ferguson. “Jack Smyth, who is the traffic engineer, has done a preliminary review. This would not have had a full-blown traffic study at this stage. As part of that preliminary approval, it would take several months to come before the Planning Commission, during which time full studies would be conducted.”
Smyth, who was attending the meeting via teleconferencing, said he had looked how many “ins and outs” would come out of different streets, but had not done a full review. He said such a study would look at where residents are going, and which roads they would use to access such needs.
“How do you discourage people from using the Highland rear driveway?” said Smyth. “Disconnecting parking spaces shown on the 520 lot, doing things of that nature to discourage as best you can the use of the Highland driveway in particular, but a full traffic impact study has not been done.”
Mattioni said she did not feel comfortable with the board moving forward with any steps toward a sale.
“I just want to restate, I highly discourage the board from voting ‘yes’ for even the bid,” she said. “I think we need to preserve as much land as we can. I know I don’t speak on behalf of everyone in this township, but I would gladly, you had mentioned half a percent for a $1 million bond? I’d gladly pay a 3% increase in taxes every year, or even more, to preserve open space in our community. I think it is that valuable.”
She even had her own concept to save the township money by crowd-sourcing funds to save open space. Since that time, a Change.org petition has been started by Julie Watt here.
Residents continued to file down to the microphone to voice concerns about additional apartments in the area, including worries about condensed open space, reduced wildlife, and loss of trees.
Among them was also Ted Fricker, who previously served on the Upper Dublin open space committee with the parks and recreation department. He said that 46 properties were identified as “desirable” and had a list of requirements that fit the bill. Of those, he said that all were included in the 530 Virginia property.
“This property, that hits all those check marks, Isn’t on the 46, because we owned it,” said Fricker. “It was not on our plan. So, now we’re going to sell out one of the better pieces of property that we could buy in the township for development.”
While he said the concerns of the board were valid, he felt that preserving the land was of the utmost importance.
“To develop undeveloped land, to do that while there is all this other developed land that can be knocked down and rebuilt as something else, doesn’t really make that much sense,” said Fricker. “It’s frustrating that we sit here and watch as we watch we knock down and just destroy this open space. It is the most finite natural resource we have in this town. There will never be more. They're not going to go build an apartment building here, then go knock down an industrial park and put a forest up, it’s just not going to happen. Bruce Toll is not going to do that.”
Fricker asked if the township had considered liability issues given that the driveway would be a shared space with both the developer and the township for access to the library.
As did other residents, Fricker also pointed out the “irony” that a motion (Ordinance #24-1391) to authorize open space taxes (a proposed earned-income tax addition) for a ballot question to be acted upon in the same meeting in which the township considered the potential steps toward a sale of open space.
“I’m not against a tax for open space,” he said. “At the same time, we’re talking about selling land and not putting any of this money toward open space.”
Tackel said the funds would not be used to acquire open space, but did not say what the funds would be earmarked for, other than not being used for general fund costs.
Another resident whose own home “kisses” the driveway at Highland Avenue added the does not feel heard. Karen Mette said she wanted the impacts on residents to be considered prior to a vote.
“I’m totally opposed for a number of reasons,” she said. “Being in property management, I can tell you it is not that easy. There’s going to be problems. You’re not considering all of the problems. You’re not considering the ingress and the egress. You’re not considering the impact on us. And, I guarantee if we were talking about putting this in any one of your neighborhoods, facing your property, you would all vote against it, and in your hearts I think you know I’m telling the truth. So, I would strongly urge each of you to consider that when you vote tonight.”
Steve Stoughton, of Camphill Road, was concerned about the impacts on the library’s parking lot and why leasing spaces to a private developer would even be considered.
Ferguson said that, regardless of a new project, there was room to adjust available parking as it was not often used. He said that the librarian was consulted when deciding if these spaces were filled.
Stoughton was also worried that “reserve parking” did not limit future use for parking. He also asked if such “waivers” would be considered if the owner of the property was not the township itself.
Fountain said that no waivers were being requested, only a variance from the zoning hearing board, which “operates independent of this board.”
As many other residents also noted, Stoughton also said that labeling a driveway as “emergency use only” had not worked in the past, and that he was skeptical it would stay that way this time around. Stoughton said too that he was curious why a topic that was previously “voted down” was back on the table, referencing prior years when the proposal was tabled.
“It was never voted down,” said Tackel. “So the reason that we’re here is to put finality on it. Either up or down. But, from my perspective, I’d kind of like to know. Is it $20,000 per doorway, Is it 10? Is it 40? I’d like to know.”
Stoughton said that the queries were “costing us a lot to know.”
Ferguson interjected that, thus far, it had cost the township $70,000 for the research and process involved.
“Frankly, with all due respect to the board members sitting here, because we’ve started and stopped on this a couple of times, we’ve redesigned, initially, what you see is a redesign, as well,” said the township’s manager. “So, in the end, we’ve spent about $70 [thousand]. If it goes forward, there will be more dollars to spend to do the full plan set.”
But Ferguson was waiting to see if the board was willing “to proceed.”
Stoughton said that, according to his records and research, the property was acquired by Upper Dublin Township on “using funds from the Montgomery County Open Space Board” on Dec. 5, 1996. He said the property cost the township $279,000 from its prior owner.
He proceeded to say he would read from “Paragraph Five, from Resolution 16-69 of the township” which he said reads “the township will use the property and the adjacent parcel for recreation, park land open space, and buildings and accessory structures related to such, such as parking, restrooms, and equipment storage. If the township evades the parcel at any time, the township will simultaneously acquire the same, or approximately the same acreage, in the township for similar uses.”
“If I understand this correctly, this is the property that is where the playground is, next to the yellow building,” said Stoguhton. “If the township sells the adjacent property which is CHAC, and 530, they have to buy another piece of property.”
Fountain said that was incorrect.
“That’s reversed,” he said. “CHAC was purchased with the open space funds, and the 12 acres that was donated is the adjacent property.”
Stoughton disagreed.
“No, the little sliver of 2.7 acres, is what this is referring to,” he said. “Which is adjacent to whatever that building is called, the playground area and parking.”
“We can take a look at this,” said Fountain. “We did look at this.”
However, Stoughton relayed the resolution numbers to be sure they were reviewed. He also noted the condition under which the purchase of the land was made by the county, which included specific regulations about its use, biodiversity, and approvals and “restrictions on the deed” the county noted at the time.
As the board had no knowledge of the presented documents, multiple commissioners asked to cease Stoughton’s time until the township’s solicitor could review both the validity and meaning of the claims.
“We haven’t had a chance to review,” said Ferleger. “Just because, based on history, there have been other documents that Mr. Stoughton has interpreted in one way that our solicitor clearly advised have entirely different interpretations, so I really don’t think this board should continue to attempted to be educated on something that is based on his interpretation of documents that none of us have seen.”
At that point, Stoughton asked if the board would table the vote and not proceed until such determinations could be made.
“I’m not prepared to give you an answer yet,” said Tackel. But instead asked that he provide the documents to the board for further review.
One resident supported the sale of the property. Bob Danaher, of Maple Glen, said he felt like Frankenstein when the villagers showed up, because he was in favor of a sale of 530.
“We discussed stormwater as a community, and we are currently studying stormwater throughout the township,” he said. “We have a stormwater problem.” He noted that decisions made by the 1970s or 80s leadership allowed development that in the long run created stormwater problems.
“Why has Upper Dublin been far more successful in acquiring grants? Way better than any of the surrounding communities,” said Danaher. “Because we do our homework. When they say we need this much engineering, we give them a little more.”
This citizen felt that since grant money could be matched by the township, and the guarantee they could always do a project if paid, has made the community successful when requesting funds.
A Final Vote on 530 Virginia
Following the public comment, the board opted for a 10-minute break, as the meeting had, at that point alone, been going on for four hours.
“Since it is almost midnight, and almost tomorrow, I’d like to make a motion to approve sending 530 Virginia Drive for consideration to the planning commission, our planning commission, the Montgomery County Planning Commission, the zoning hearing board, with the ultimate goal of advertising it for bid with the contingency that there are no restrictions on the property [to be sold],” said Tackel. “This motion is to simply prepare it, so that it can be bid, to determine the value. And, then the board has a very difficult decision about what to do. That motion is seconded.”
Prior to a vote, Scherpbier said he wanted to remind the commissioners of the number of responses they’d heard, with 39 emailing against the motion, while in person 15 persons spoke against the option, and only one in favor.
“I think that weighs heavy on our decision, and I hope you all will consider that,” said Scherpbier.
Ward Three Commissioner Gary V. Scarpello said he wanted to remind the board of its past fiscal responsibility.
“I just want to say that in 2018, we had the 530 out for the possibility of paying off whatever debts we would have,” said Scarpello. “As it turned out, we were under budget, and we didn’t need to sell the property. And with the township building, once again, 530 came up again, and we were right on budget, and we didn’t have to sell the property. I think we will deal with it when we get to it.”
After hours of hearing comments, at tail end of its “Action Items,” the property was once again up for an official vote. As the action stated, the commissioners weighed whether to send the planning for 530 Virginia Drive to the Planning Commission and Zoning Hearing Board, and to simultaneously advertise to bid.
A roll call vote resulted in a 4-3 vote to defeat any progression forward, with Scherpbier, Knight, Scarpello, and Fritzges voting “no.”
“The motion is defeated, and there is nothing else to do for 530,” said Tackel, who thanked “the true die-hards” who stuck it out to “the bitter end.”
