132 Warwick Rd Expansion-Brandywine's Well Orchestrated Shell Game-Will HPC do the right thing again Wednesday night?

Provided below is a memo that was distributed for circulation by the neighbors of 132 Warwick Road. The Historic Preservation Commission meeting is tomorrow night at Borough Hall. The memo provides a very good summary of how the neighborhood has been worked over so far by this large corporation and their hired guns. This property owner has no existing right to any expansion let alone a nearly doubling of the size of this non-conforming use in a residential historic neighborhood. This is a really big deal and your fellow residents need your vocal support as your neighborhood could be next. 

Bill Tourtellotte

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Brandywine Senior Living

FROM:

Neighbors on Moore Lane and Warwick Rd.

DATE:

August 10, 2012

RE:

Proposed Construction of Haddonfield Facility

This is our response to the latest proposal from Brandywine, which was presented to us for the first time at a meeting on August 2, 2012 at Brandywine’s Haddonfield office, for the construction of an assisted living facility on the site of the former Haddonfield Home. 

Although we recognize that this latest proposal (the 3^rd one that we have seen) is an improvement in some respects as compared to the previous ones, it is still a far cry from what we would find acceptable for this property.  It is still much too large in mass, scale and scope for our historic neighborhood.  For example, despite that the new plan moves more of the facility’s amenities underground -- based upon your own stated dimensions -- the currently-proposed building entails less than a 4% decrease in the footprint and mass as compared to your previous proposal and also still represents a 53% increase in the above-ground footprint and mass as compared to the current building.[1] 

The neighbors who live in the vicinity of the Haddonfield Home, and particularly those families whose homes border directly on the Brandywine property, have stated consistently that they are opposed to any plan to replace the existing structure that involves anything more than construction of a new building similar in size, footprint and scale to the existing facility.  Yet, despite our vocal expression of that position, and despite public and private statements by Brandywine representatives that they want to work with the neighbors to develop a plan acceptable to us, every plan that we have seen so far involves the same massive expansion of the existing facility as the original unacceptable plan proposed by you.

Like every plan we have seen so far, the latest plan is unacceptably too massive in at least the following respects:

• It involves an over-expansion of the existing footprint.
• It involves an over-expansion of the existing square footage.
• The sheer scale of the planned facility in comparison to the historic and residential neighborhood that surrounds it on all sides and the historic building that sits in front of it is too large and out of proportion.
• The location of the proposed building on the property in each proposal is too close on one or more sides to the neighboring properties.  In fact our impression of the two revised plans that have been proposed to date is that, for the most part, all they have done is shift the burden of the over-sized building from one set of neighbors to another.  This latest proposal, for example, reduces the length of the building proposed for the south side of the property by increasing the size of the building on the north side.

We have also told you on numerous occasions that we oppose the proposed expansion of the existing facility because it will cause other related problems that will have a serious negative impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood.  These secondary problems include:

• Exacerbation of the already-existing parking problem, which deteriorates the surrounding neighborhood and causes potential safety hazards.  Quite simply, from our experience living where we do, we do not agree with your unsupported conclusions that the facility that you have proposed has an adequate number of parking spaces to handle the volume of (1) residents, (2) staff, (3) food service workers, (4) administrators, (5) maintenance, landscaping, cleaning, snow removal, etc. workers, (6) delivery trucks of all shapes and sizes, (7) waste removal trucks, (8) medical aides and other care-givers, (9) personal attendants and (10) visitors;
• Safety concerns caused by parking and increased traffic on Moore Lane, which has no sidewalks, including threats to children, pets and the elderly including Brandywine residents, and lack of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles;
• Loss of privacy due to the closer proximity of the new building to the neighboring homes;
• Excessive congestion, noise and other disturbances from the increase in delivery trucks, waste removal trucks, medical and other emergency vehicles and visitors.
• Dirt, noise, traffic problems and privacy issues all caused by the construction of the proposed facility in such close proximity to a residential neighborhood.
• Destruction of trees, including valuable historic ones, open space and privacy attendant to the construction and expansion of the proposed facility.

We and the Borough have not even begun to explore the additional burdens that will be imposed on our neighborhood and our town by your proposed change in use of the facility from a mere senior home to an assisted living facility.  We believe, however, that your proposal to change the use of the property will, indeed, cause further significant detrimental impact on our neighborhood, such as increased traffic and parking problems.  Nor do we or the Borough fully understand the impact on our neighborhood that will be caused by your proposal to build an underground parking garage on the property.  We simply do not know what an underground parking garage will cause in the way of dirt, noise, air pollution, traffic congestion, headlights beaming into bedrooms and living rooms and a myriad of other potential diminutions of the quality of our lives.  In short, although we recognize and support the need to modernize the existing facilities of the senior residence, we want Brandywine to recognize and acknowledge the significant detrimental impact its proposed facility will have on its immediate neighbors, the larger historic district, and, indeed, the entire community.

We are firmly opposed to any expansion of the existing building, whether it be an expansion of its footprint, square footage or scale.  We have heard your comments that Brandywine “needs” to expand the facility to make it profitable (as you have put it, “to make payroll”), but we have seen no financial analysis to support your contention, and, frankly, Brandywine’s profitability for the benefit of its investors is not our concern, nor should it be the concern of the HPC, the Planning Board or the Zoning Board. 

In fact, there is a sentiment among many members of our group and others in our community that a commercial venture such as an assisted living facility of any size, including one the size of the existing facility, simply does not belong in our neighborhood or any other residential neighborhood in our town.  To many of us who now live on Warwick Rd. and Moore Lane, this is perhaps an opportune time to correct the mistake made in 1953 of allowing the construction of the brick building in the middle of what is now a residential and historic neighborhood.  Of course, Moore Lane and its many homes did not exist back then, nor had the historic district been established in Haddonfield.  To the contrary, what was approved in 1953 was a senior residence next to a park, not an assisted living facility with the capability of handling Alzheimer’s patients surrounded by a densely-settled residential neighborhood.  The fact that a senior home was approved to be built under very different circumstances in 1953 does not give Brandywine the right to build anything close to what it has proposed.

Despite these sentiments shared by many of us that your facility does not belong in its current location, we are willing to work with Brandywine to try to achieve an acceptable compromise solution.  But we are nit willing to put up with any increase in the traffic, congestion and parking problems that currently exist, and we are willing to discuss a compromise only if Brandywine agrees to reduce the number of rooms in its proposal so that the new facility will fit within the existing footprint.  In other words, we will agree to live with the construction disruption and the additional operating headaches that accompany an assisted living facility, but only if you agree to keep the new facility the same size as the existing building.  In addition, if we are going to reach an amicable compromise, Brandywine must immediately stop:

• Proposing new plans that make only cosmetic or insignificant changes or which merely shuffle the pieces from one part of the property to another; we are not fooled by your “revised” plans and the illusory accommodations to our concerns that they purport to deliver;
• Touting to the press and other community groups that you are listening to the neighbors and working with them to alleviate their concerns, when, in fact, you are doing just the opposite;
• Telling the community that you have made significant concessions to the neighbors by redesigning the project but that the neighbors are being unreasonable, when the changes you have made so far do not reduce the detrimental impact of your proposed facility on our historic neighborhood;
• Changing your plans the day of public meetings, which guarantees that both we and the public body members will be unable to comprehend your revised plans;
• Scheduling meetings with little or no notice to us and without checking with us to see if the time you have selected works for us;
• Promoting this project to the residents of Haddonfield as though it were dedicated to their and their relatives’ use, when, in fact, only a small percentage of its residents will ever be Haddonfield residents or their relatives;
• Using scare tactics, such as telling people that, if you leave, something worse might be put in their back yards, which is akin to the hate-mongering and fear-mongering we are tired of hearing from our politicians.

In conclusion, Brandywine can expect a long and hard-fought battle if it does not take seriously our concerns about its facility and our issues with its proposals.  We are prepared to oppose your plans to expand the existing facility at every step along the way, including taking this battle to court if necessary to reverse any Planning Board or Zoning Board decision that is inconsistent with the law, ignores the facts or fails to account for our legitimate concerns.  We have both the means and the commitment to see this through to the end.  Nonetheless, having said that, we think it makes much more sense for all of us to work together to try to find an amicable solution.  We are ready to do that.  We are looking for a sign from Brandywine, other than lip service, that you are ready to do the same.

Note: [1] Our numbers are estimates based upon the numbers Brandywine representatives gave us at our meeting.  We have not been able to verify the accuracy of those numbers, however, because Brandywine continues to refuse to give us copies of its various plans, and, as a result, we do not accept their accuracy.  In fact, several of the dimensions that you have given in connection with this and earlier plans appear to be inaccurate.

Signed by

Karen Stanton & Dave Gottardi
Phil & Karen Kirchner

Mike & Tracey Moyer

Joseph Kist and Stefanie Davidson

Doug Brand Kristin Hammersmith

Phil & Karen Kirchner

Tony and Tara Van Dervort

Susan & John Gara

Elizabeth & Todd Wallace

Doug & Kelly Hager