Oppose Ordinance Amendment adding Assisted Living Facility use in Commercial (C-1) Zoning in Tredyffrin Township

Trisha Larkin
Trisha Larkin 0 Comments
46 Signatures Goal: 250

Show support and help oppose File #5739-02 from Berwyn Real Estate and Developer Ed Morris. He is requesting that Tredyffrin Township approve an Ordinance Amendment to add Assisted Living Facilities (ALFs) to C-1 zoning. This is inconsistent with the Purpose of C-1 Zoning (208.64). C-1 districts are designed to encourage compact, retail convenience-type commercial development in locations close to the residents served. (Examples: Retail store, gift shop, office, bank, etc.). An ALF is NOT compact, nor does it provide goods, services or amenities to surrounding residents. This Ordinance Amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Overall Objectives. The Plan was just revised in March, 2009. It calls for non-residential development that maintains and enhances the existing character of the neighborhoods. A 4-story ALF doesn’t blend in with the single family homes in these bordering neighborhoods. The proposed residential density and total bed density (93 beds/on 1-acre of C-1) is NOT found in any other Chester County municipality or bordering Radnor (Delaware County). Bordering Townships have ALF zoning in either Institutional Overlay or Business Park Zoning. Their minimum acreage required is between 4 – 10 acres. This proposal would allow an ALF on 1 acre of C-1 zoning. This is unprecedented and unfavorable to our Township and local residents. NO Restrictions are attached to this Ordinance Amendment! The developer seeks to amend C-1 zoning first, and “plug” in specifics later. Four pages of Institutional Overlay restrictions exist today. This amendment contains exactly one (1) sentence! This is short-sighted and dangerous to the Township. IO regulations exist as the standard of care to protect and care for the vulnerable residents living in an ALF, adjacent property owners, and the Township as a whole. C-1 was created to regulate offices, stores and commercial places of business. People are not commodities and don’t belong in C-1. This proposal is developer driven and NOT in the best interests of the Township Residents. The developer is requesting a Township Wide zoning change as he doesn’t meet the requirements to obtain a variance or special exception. Changing C-1 zoning is his only option. Precedent would be set and it’s still unclear if the developer is entitled to be “grandfathered” into the R-1 parking for this project. To change zoning without even knowing if he’s able to actually build the facility is a risk not worth taking. It’s entirely possible that potential liability from other I/O uses (hospitals, schools, etc.) could demand equal treatment and protection if this proposal is approved. We respectfully ask you to oppose against the Ordinance Amendment allowing ALF usage in C-1 Zoning!

Comment

46

Signatures

  • 6 years ago
    Ed Maier United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Louis Miller United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Ilene Miller United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Daphne MacMillan United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Francis Reardon United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Kenn Litzenberger United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Stephen Dzury United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Michele Dzury United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Stephen Kuch United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Theresa Beale United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Ken Lynch United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Susan Crackel United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Glenn Crump United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Jamie Lynch United States
    6 years ago
  • 6 years ago
    Monica Mateer United States
    6 years ago
See More