Developer Taken to Task to Deliver What He Promised

Borough council will soon decide whether a developer must abide by his word or be allowed to not give the borough what it wants.

This month, Jim Moulton, owner of Moulton Builders, was before the code enforcement and land planning committee a second time, requesting a change for mesh grating on the windows of the ground-floor parking garage at the Moulton Builders-owned Turbo Lofts at Derstine Avenue and Valley Forge Road.

Last month, Moulton came before the board to protest the installation of mesh grating on the garage windows. Committee chairman Paul Clemente tasked Moulton with coming up with alternatives and come back to the committee in July.

A month later, Moulton returned—no alternatives and steadfast in his request to overlook the mesh window installation.

Moulton came to the committee this month with a letter outlining his opinion on the aesthetics of the mesh.

“I think you understand what my position is on it: I don’t think it enhances the building,” Moulton said.

A slew of residents who own condos in his Turbo Lofts were in attendance at the committee meeting to have Moulton’s back.

Turbo Lofts are upscale condos that cost upwards of $300,000 per suite.

Moulton said he put up a sample of the mesh so council and residents could see and visualize what it could look like. The residents, he said, would speak for themselves on that.

“I can tell you that the vast majority of them don’t want to see it go up,” he said.

Moulton said he wasn’t at the committee to “appear like I’m trying to get away from something.”

He said in 2006, he was asked by the prior council about the issue of the windows and asked, “What are you going to do?”

He said one notion was to do nothing and make it look like a normal garage.

“I really didn’t like that. I wanted to have something that dressed those windows up enough that they were in concert with the rest of the building,” he said.

He asked an architect to draw a sketch of the windows. Unfortunately,  he said, the architect put the mesh on the window.

Moulton said he was given the sketch minutes before the meeting where it was approved and that is how it was submitted.

“In essence, what I’m proposing, has nothing to do with mesh. We wanted to reproduce the look of the frames up above, and that’s what we did,” he said. “When we got started, we did pretty well, but maybe this one not so well.”

Clemente said had the mesh not been included, it wouldn’t be an issue.

“Here we are and it’s an issue,” Clemente said. “For the record, I’m not trying to make it more of an issue than it is.”

Clemente went on the record with a timeline of Moulton’s issue with the mesh and development of his property. He read from information in an open case file.

On Feb. 28, 2007, council granted Moulton a conditional use.

“You said you would complete the outside improvements within 18 months, which goes to August 28, 2008,” Clemente said. “In the same meeting, you said the mesh shall be substantially similar to what was presented by your architect.”

On Jan. 29, 2009, Moulton asked for more time, Clemente said, because the mesh grids for the garage opening were not done due to supplier complications.

“And you, Moulton Builders, decided to build them on site to be installed shortly thereafter,” Clemente said.

On Feb 4, 2009, council granted Moulton an extension to May 15, 2009 to get the mesh gratings.

“However aesthetically displeasing people may opine, it was supposed to have been done,” Clemente said.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the code enforcement committee decided it didn’t want the mesh eliminated, but it did want alternatives presented.

“That sounds like something we said a month ago,” Clemente said.

On Oct. 23, 2009, Moulton Builders requested a site meeting in that same regard, Clemente said. On Oct. 28, 2009, $46,620 was released from the façade improvements fund because “substantial completion was deemed to have happened by our prior borough manager,” Clemente said.

On June 1, 2011, Moulton came before the code committee to present alternatives.

Clemente said on June 29, Moulton presented a letter in which he said “For the life of you, you could come up with no alternative.” Clemente said Moulton installed a sample for council to review.

“I am not here to say I am the arbiter of what is pleasing to the eye; I am here because I head this committee and as such certain items that relate to code matters and land planning come before us, certain items that may have not been completed as they were supposed to have been legally,” Clemente said. “So that’s why we are here tonight.”

Moulton hit back with an accusation against borough council.

“We are making reference to a timeline, and yes, we didn’t meet those deadlines,” Moulton said. “Whether that matters or not, I will say the previous administration cost me a ton of time, and they were responsible for me not getting into the better market when I should have.”

Clemente shot back, saying the current council has been more than willing to accommodate Moulton.

“Need I remind you a couple months prior when we moved as a council ” Clemente said.

A handful of residents spoke up in support of the elimination of the mesh grating on the garage windows.

“It’s not something that I as an owner of a building would want to install,” said Charles Bogardus, who owns two units, Suites 306 and 309, in the Turbo Lofts.

“It’s unsightly. Being in the garage, where residents see this everyday, it’s very unattractive,” Bogardus said. “It’s very open and airy. To have the mesh cage on there gives it a feeling of being closed. Unless there’s some compelling reason to have it, I don’t see the benefit whatsoever.”

Ed Farrow, of Suite 314 at Turbo Lofts, said a lot of emails “came into my machine” and nobody there at the building thinks it is attractive.

“There are some who think that perhaps maybe we could do something to dress them up even more than the frames,” he said. “What I think is a nice addition in terms of a building to Lansdale and I wouldn’t put it up in a baseball field. It’s chicken wire.”

Farrow said it also makes a lot of holes in the “nice, pretty aluminum frames.”

“It will increase our maintenance over time. The openness is very attractive,” he said. “This is like spraying graffiti on the side of the building.”

Leif Skooogfors, of Suite 201, said he has received 20 responses from residents over the mesh.

“With the exception of two people who felt there was a security factor that the mesh provided – they leaned toward keeping the mesh – everyone else said, I guess the best thing I heard is ‘It’s ugly,’” Skooogfors said. “A lot of us are worried it would detract from future sales if any of us have to move and it would affect our property values.”

He said if it is kept there, the residents’ association would approach council to have it removed within a year.

Resident Carol Zellers, of Elm Drive, said she walks by the building four times a week. She agreed the “chicken wire” placed on the window is an “abomination.”

“It’s an interesting technique to install something that is so ugly that the only response can be to take it away and have nothing,” Zellers said. “That’s not the answer either.”

She was disappointed that, in a building of its magnitude, with the millions of dollars it cost to install the building, that a mesh grating was “the best of a builder of your reputation could afford.”

“It’s an extreme disappointment,” she said.

Councilman and committee member Jack Hansen said what was put up wasn’t even close to the architect’s drawing from Feb. 2, 2007.

“My suggestion is to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is going to look more attractive and see if that works and if residents like that,” Hansen said.

Moulton said the drawing called for a 6-foot by 6-foot metal mesh and the drawing was “a little deceptive” because of the limitations of drafting. He said the thickness of the pencil drawn for the mesh is much thicker than the mesh is in reality.

“People have asked about other alternatives and we thought long and hard about them,” Moulton said. “You need to also bear in mind the windows need to be open.”

He said screens on the windows would reduce airflow by 30 percent.

Clemente told Moulton that he told the committee a month would be enough time to come up with an alternative.

“This is your alternative and I accept that,” Clemente said.

He said perhaps a metal lattice would suffice.

“While I will personally tell you it looks horrible, I will also speak as chairman of this committee and what I’m bound to do with an agreement that is already in place,” Clemente said.

He said Moulton already suggested a similar alternative.

“Unless you take action to suggest that you ought not be required to do that item, then we have no choice but to say you’ve got to comply and that’s what I’m left with,” Clemente said.

Moulton said the committee does have a choice: to respect the opinions of the residents of the building.

“They are happy with it as is,” he said. “There are some variations that happen. It involves a little bit of judgement, and that’s what I’m asking you to do.”

Clemente said the mesh was not a completed item of the original total plan that was approved as the conditional use on Feb. 20, 2007.

“Do you recall in January 2009 coming before this committee or council or code enforcement office and saying you needed more time and the metal grates are not done due to supplier complications and you will build them on site to be completed shortly thereafter? Yes or no?” asked Clemente.

“Yes,” said Moulton.

“How much time elapsed between when you realized that the architect shoved it in at the last minute and oversight and January 28, 2009?” asked Clemente.

Moulton said he was amazed it has come to be a big issue.

“I thought council or the committee would allow us some latitude,” Moulton said.

“Which they’ve done on several occasions, Mr. Moulton,” Clemente said. “What I have taken offense to is you are here saying it’s no big deal, we can do this or do that. We are quite limited to what we can do.”

“I’m not making it a big issue,” Clemente said. “You have made it an incomplete issue.”

Moulton apologized for offending the committee. He asked if the committee would make a recommendation to council to render a decision on the change.

The committee voted unanimously to do just that.