Trailer Park Averted: Many Relieved, Others Worry About Precedent

A townhome community will likely be constructed at the Newtown Swim Club site instead of a trailer park after the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday passed a resolution indicating that's their preference for the site.

The board, by a 3-2 vote, said it would agree to a series of parameters set forth by County Builders for the construction of townhomes instead of a mobile home park on the 16.5-acre site.

Rob Ciervo and Phil Calabro voted against agreeing to the project on the developer's terms.

Ciervo said County Builders should be required to follow the typical guidelines for approval, which includes going to the Zoning Hearing Board for permission to construct more units than permitted on the lot.

Under current township zoning, the only "by right" use on that lot is single family homes. The size of the land would permit the developer to construct 30 single family homes unless a variance was sought for more units or for a different kind of housing, like townhomes.

"This does not mean townhomes are approved," Board Chairman Mike Gallagher explained. He added "at some point in the future" the applicant would have to come before the township for approval.

The move came as a relief to many adjacent property owners, who have worried since the 56-pad trailer park plan was submitted in December that their property values were in jeopardy.

But not all residents were on board with the supervisors' acceptance of County Builders' terms, saying a poor precedent will be established in which developers can expect unwarranted flexibility outside of township zoning laws.

In a five-page letter sent to the township in March from the developer’s lawyer, County Builders said it would consider filing a second application for the site that consists of 56 townhomes—four more units than original townhome application that was not supported by the board—provided the board agree to a series of parameters.

The letter says the second application for townhomes will only be submitted if officials agree to six conditions, including seven waivers of the township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance that pertain to street size, parking locations and dedicated open space.

As set forth in the letter, township officials must agree that County Builders can have the townhome plan and the mobile home plan pending simultaneously.

Ciervo, who spoke in depth of how the current course of action strays from normal land development procedures, said the developer has demonstrated a lack of compromise with the township.

"This is not an issue of townhomes versus single family homes. It is an issue about how many units this developer can cram onto this lot," Ciervo said, noting the area already has traffic and congestion issues.

Calabro, in his dissent, said the land should be taken by eminent domain and made into a township community center. His motion to that that effect died for lack of a second.

Wednesday's vote to give a head nod to the townhome development does not mean the controversial trailer park proposal has been withdrawn. Instead, it simply indicates the board will agree to the conditions set forth by County Builders in order for it to resubmit a townhome plan.

Dozens of residents attended the meeting, most to urge the supervisors to support the townhome plan. 

Dave Wagner, who serves on the HOA board for nearby Headley, said he polled his neighborhood and found 90 percent support the 56-townhome development.

Representatives from Wiltshire Walk and Newtown Walk spoke publicly in support of the newest proposal.

But not everyone in attendance was enthusiastic about the newest turn of events.

John D'Aprile, a resident of Newtown Grant, said the situation seemed political. "This whole thing reeks of political patronage," he said, adding the supervisors weren't taking into account all township residents when making a decision. 

Jay Sensibaugh said the fact that the supervisors are giving the developer leeway in light of the trailer park threat just opens the door to other landowners demanding flexibility without following the proper processes.

"From my perspective, I’m concerned about the precedent. I’m concerned it’s going to effect land near my home. I would just urge the supervisors to follow and to tell the applicant to follow all of the legal, normal land development processes," Sensibaugh said.