Supervisors Approve Hotel Development, No New Road for Gwynmont Farms

You can’t always get what you want.

Residents of Gwynmont Farms went home a bit disappointed Monday night from the supervisors meeting and now await the construction of a four-story, 83-room hotel and two separate commercial buildings on a commercially zoned 12-acre parcel adjacent to their community.

Supervisors Monday night unanimously approved the preliminary and final land development of Hawthorne Court, a project by Surati Management and Trefoil Properties.

“They never took the big picture into consideration: The hotel is so close to our neighborhood,” said resident Mark Selverian.

“I don’t think Trefoil took the neighbors’ concerns into consideration,” said resident Dela Payne.

"They have not discussed the day care center or office space in their plan. They just want the hotel," said Pam Lambert, adding that Trefoil's properties in Towamencin and elsewhere remain unoccupied.

Their battle was in vain, as the hotel, as well as the proposed uses of a day care center and office building, are permitted uses under the township ordinance.

Had supervisors denied the project, they would have faced a legal battle in court from the developer and needed to offer specific proof as to why the project violated township zoning codes.

But it wasn’t all bad news for the community.

A proposed road being built to provide access to the new development across from Gateway Crossing on DeKalb Pike near Route 63 is not going to cut through and connect to Gwynmont Drive.

The road will be constructed up to the left turn entrance into the commercial development. It will be a signalized intersection.

“We had heard from a number of residents when we were out to walk the property, through emails, through letters, through phone conversations, about their preference not to have this road connect to their development, and my interpretation is it’s an overwhelming preference on part of the residents,” said supervisor Mike Fox.

“If their preference is not to have a road put in, if they can still exit their development safely, and the developer has offered to provide the township with a fee in lieu for that portion, so that if we ever decide to put it in, or if the residents request we put it in, I would support it,” he said.

Fox wanted to be sure that not constructing the road did not present any safety issue. He turned to traffic consultant Kevin Johnson, police Chief Richard Brady and fire services director Rich Lesniak for their opinion.

Johnson said a traffic signal study was conducted at the existing Gwynmont Drive and DeKalb Pike, but the volumes were not met to determine a traffic signal installation.

“One of the things we did find is there were some sight distance issues at that intersection, and not necessarily now while road is under construction, but once widening is completed and be a five-lane cross section, there would be a sight issue with vehicles exiting Gwynmont Drive,” said Johnson.

A recommendation to fix the sight issue was forwarded to PennDOT, and PennDOT will be making the changes to address the issue, he said.

Brady suggested renaming the soon-to-exist access road from Gwynmont Drive, so to eliminate confusion with the other Gwynmont Drive up the road that serves as the main access into the neighborhood.

“Otherwise, you’re going to have motorists making that right turn, going into there, thinking they’re going into the development and not being able to get in there, circle around and come out and be lost in space,” he said. “It’s not a designated roadway right now.”

Lesniak said plans for the project were reviewed by former fire marshal Bill Brightcliffe. He reviewed the file, and all concerns were satisfactorily addressed.

The township is getting something out of the approval as well, aside from business tax dollars.

The developer, under the guise of Hawthorne Court Associates, will escrow $25,000 to the township post-landscaping of the development, at its discretion.

“So that the township has the opportunity to fill in gaps, if there appeared to be places in the landscaping that you could see through too easily, you can use that money to go back and throw some trees in there and landscape either of the two perimeters of the property that abut up against single-family residential homes,” said Hawthorne Court Associates attorney Jim Garrity, of the law firm Wisler Pearlstine in Blue Bell.

He said one of the ways he has seen the escrow used in the past is to build out the project, put in landscaping and walk the berm to see where landscaping might be lacking.

“At that moment, there are so many trees, you may not be able to find a place to put them in, but we’ll offer the money anyway,” Garrity said.

Supervisor Joe Walsh said the escrow proposal came up in a discussion on constructing a wall between the neighborhood and commercial property as oppose to a fence.

“The chairman and myself met with Mr. Garrity and several of the developers and we had a meeting to see what they could do to further buffer this plan from the neighborhood. We had gotten estimates in respect to the wall and they were somewhere in the $300,000 to $400,000 range,” Walsh said. “This got to the point where the wall was never going to happen.”

While it was argued by residents of Trotter Lane and Gwynmont Drive that the development is within 166 feet of their property lines, the distance falls within township ordinance parameters.

The developer is constructing an eight-foot-high board-on-board fence, measuring 1,300 feet in length, along the berm that exists between the property lines at the rear of the parcel.

Garrity said that fence would go across where the cut-through of the road would have occurred.

The developer is also planting two rows of 12-foot-high evergreens to aid in the buffering of the site.

Furthermore, all low areas in the existing berm will be filled in to make it a uniform height across the rear of the property.

Residents still expressed their dissatisfaction with the project Monday night.

Rachel Yoka brought up the township’s comprehensive plan update.

“It talks about a lot of things: desirable public attractions, mixed-use space, walkable communities, dedication of open space, attractive streetscapes. This project has none of that,” she said. “You have a wonderful plan here. Unfortunately, our pocket of the neighborhood didn’t get that attention in part of the plan at the time zoning was looked at.”

She asked supervisors to look more closely at the document and update it.

“This strategy works as long as it’s a day care in the front. Your parking minimums will not be reached if that’s no longer a day care. So this plan doesn’t work anymore,” she said. “You may have part of it developed, the rest of the plan falls apart from a parking perspective. You have a shortage, according to your minimum parking requirements.”

Yoka said there wasn’t a day care client contracted for the property in June.

“You may have an empty lot in front of this Hampton Inn for a very, very long time,” she said.

Laura Selverian told supervisors that their decision had been discussed and made before they walked in the door. She said it was an injustice for them to allow such a plan, and have two drastically different zoned properties next to one another with incompatible land uses.

“For us, the building of Hawthorne Court will adversely impact Gwynmont Farms in a multitude of ways. First with our safety, then our desirability and then property values,” she said. “I’m asking you to hear our voices and give us our safety and security. Please vote to turn down this Hawthorne Court development. It’s the right thing to do for Gwynmont Farms and Montgomery Township.”

Chairman Robert Birch responded to Selverian, stating there were two comments that were truly not fair to the people on the board.

“We did take the time to listen to you. This plan has been in effect since 2003. There have been various proposals for this site. I’m failing to see how a hotel is much different or worse than a supermarket that was at one point going to be put in there,” he said. “The point is this board did take the time to listen to you. No one came in here with preconceived notions that we were going to blow through this plan and approve it.”

Birch said at the end of the day, the plan and hotel falls within township codes and ordinances.

“If this board would have voted down, we would spend an inordinate amount of legal fees on the challenge and appeal to the courts, which would ultimately get reversed,” he said.

He said because of businesses in the township, supervisors have been able to keep taxes steady for four years.

“It’s unfair to look at our businesses and say, ‘We don’t want you here.’ If we didn’t have you here, we’d all have higher taxes,” he said. “We all care about you. We all live in this township. But at the end of the day, there’s only so much we can do.”

Resident Dela Payne ended public comment on the project with a message for Garrity and his client.

“I do thank the board for all you have done in terms of trying to accommodate us as much as you can within the constraints that you are under,” she said. “I do want to make sure that Mr. Garrity knows, of course, that the neighborhood still is completely opposed to any hotel, regardless of whether the board can vote on it or not vote on it.”

She said his clients, as well as Hilton, will continue to hear from the neighborhood.

“We will picket, we will send letters, we will call. We don’t want this use. It’s not appropriate. It’s bad corporate planning. It’s not good for anybody,” she said. “We won’t stay at Hilton hotels, we won’t stay at Hampton Inns, and we will be sure anybody we know will know that message.”