Public Provides Condo Development Feedback at Planning Commission Meeting
At last week’s meeting of Swarthmore Borough’s Planning Commission, many residents voiced public comments about the 110 Park Avenue Project. The Swarthmorean has archived videos of each public comment. Excerpted comments from the meeting appear below, and we’ve also published a post-meeting statement from the project’s developers, Bill Cumby, Jr. and Donald Delson. The Swarthmorean invites readers to weigh in with their comments about the project and its potential impacts on the Borough. As the project evolves we intend to provide ongoing coverage, including letters from our readers and others offering various perspectives on the project, and information on the zoning and land use entitlement processes.
Michael McCloskey from architecture firm Bernardon presenting updated renderings of the proposed condominium project at a recent Swarthmore Planning Commission meeting. Photo: Greg Hoy
As The Swarthmorean reported online on October 22 in a special recap of the October 20 Swarthmore Planning Commission meeting at Borough Hall, 26 community members stepped up to the microphone to voice their opinions about the proposed condominium project that would span 102-104 and 110-112 Park Avenue in Swarthmore. The comments coalesced around several themes.
Environmental
Before the community comment portion of the meeting, Bill Cumby, Jr., a principal member of the project’s development team, stated that there would be an electric charging station for every parking space in the building’s garage, as well as a green roof and a “courtyard that will be almost entirely green.” Dave Damon, the president and CEO of Damon Engineering, a civil engineering and land surveying firm, added that the plan would follow so-called “BMPs” (Best Management Practices) by capturing and reusing some water runoff to the green roof and large landscaped areas. He noted that there would also be a cistern area under the garage floor that would hold stormwater to reduce both volume and peak rates.
Robin Schaufler
Robin Schaufler of Oberlin Avenue, a member of Swarthmore’s Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), who was there representing Swarthmore’s Energy Transition Task Force, said she was appreciative upon learning that electric charging stations would be provided for every parking space. She also suggested other ways in which the proposed project could minimize its environmental impact, including reusing building materials from the demolished buildings and combining several sources of clean, renewable energy — such as static solar heating, geothermal heat pumps, and solar photovoltaic panels.
Affordability and Housing Density
Rob Oaks of Vassar Avenue read from a statement which he explained he did not author but was in full agreement with: “The proposed plan … removes eight affordable housing units from the community that will not be replaced, and cuts into our total capacity left for other projects.” He added, “I urge the borough council to establish a land-use-plan task force very soon to address these essential questions and others.” [Publishers’ note: While Mr. Oaks stated in his comments that eight affordable housing units are affected by the planned development, the developers say six are.]
Rachel Pastan of Rutgers Avenue also spoke on the topic of affordability. “As we consider these plans for new high‑end condos in Swarthmore, I’d like to see us also find ways appropriate to our town and its history and values to encourage more reasonably priced housing — for senior citizens, for young families, for single people, and others,” she said.
Helen Nadel
Helen Nadel of Woodbrook Lane spoke on the topic of affordability as well, and also the topic of housing density. “Here is my vision for housing density and development downtown,” she said. “I do see a multi‑story building (or set of buildings) with potentially both high and moderately priced units. Seniors who have the means to stay in Swarthmore can do so, and single parent families, or families whose adults work in a range of professions, could live there too,” she added. “This is not the development that is coming to Swarthmore. But it could be.”
Pastan, Nadel, and others have promoted a petition asking the borough to organize a task force on development and affordability.
Historical Significance of Existing Structures
Melanie Rodbart of Westminster Avenue stated that the buildings under consideration for demolition have historic value, and that demolishing them would be in violation of the Swarthmore zoning code, which, she noted, “defines ‘historic value’ in four ways. One of [those definitions] is ‘any structure that is a historic resource identified in the Historic Resources Survey from 2001” (prepared by John Pickett of the Delaware County Planning Department). “These buildings [102-104 and 110-112 Park Avenue] are identified as historic resources in that survey—which means they have historic value” as defined by the zoning code. She added, “I care about these existing buildings. I care about the existing businesses that rent the properties. I care about the future of Swarthmore and the historic value of town center. Authorizing demolition of these buildings would be in violation of the zoning code.”
Olin Otteson of Park Avenue was emphatic about, at the very least, preserving the facade of 102-104 Park Avenue. “Keep 102-104 intact. Work around it,” he stated.
Community Engagement and Transparency
Samina Iqbal
Some commenters felt that meaningful community engagement had been missing from this process, including Samina Iqbal of Riverview Road, who was one of several architects present at the meeting.
“It seems to me that community engagement was lacking in this process. If key stakeholders, including pillars of our community (namely Shannon Elliott of H.O.M. and Martha Perkins of Gallery on Park—who, as professionals, have brought their wealth of knowledge, energy, [and] connections across our town and our broader local area) were blindsided by this development, then it seems to me that there was not enough effort put into building community understanding.”
Iqbal also shared concerns over the limited scope of the plans that have been shared with the community at large, and sought more detail — in particular with respect to stormwater management and the proposed building’s green roof.
Shannon Elliott of Cedar Lane — the owner of Harvey Oak Mercantile (H.O.M.), which is one of the retail stores that would be displaced as result of the planned development — added, “There are very limited alternatives in town right now, which is a good thing for our town. But for someone like Martha and myself who were blindsided (thank you for acknowledging that, Samina), there are no alternatives for relocation at this time within Swarthmore.”
Jayatri Das of Whittier Place called for more community engagement as well. “Much of the conversation in our community over the last few weeks has been tinged with the shock of learning that such a drastic change to our iconic town center was even possible. The shared reaction speaks to a critical need for meaningful public engagement, not only about the current proposal, but about a vision for the future of Swarthmore.”
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety
Keith Peltzman
Keith Peltzman of Cornell Avenue started his comments about traffic safety with a question:
“If you’ve ever parked here in front of Borough Hall in this slanted parking on Park [Avenue], just put your hand up.” Many in the room raised their hands. “And, as you backed up, have you just prayed and hoped that no one hit you on Park? Keep your hand up.” Many members of the community kept their hands raised. “So I can only imagine how much that situation would be exacerbated if we had 35 families living across the street, with a constant flow of Amazon delivery vehicles, GrubHub deliveries, grandparents visiting, folks putting on their flashers and just running up because they didn’t want to go inside the parking lot.” He advocated doing a traffic safety study and considering the possibility of making Park Avenue one-way in certain areas.
Mark Hoffman of Ogden Avenue echoed Peltzman’s concerns, lamenting the idea of “putting an 80-car garage across the street from a harrowing parking situation.”
Peltzman also shared a concern about pedestrian safety and convenience, noting that, under the plan, the width of the existing sidewalk in the area of the proposed development would be narrowed “from about 10 feet wide to about five feet wide.” He recommended that the developers alter the plan to provide for a wider sidewalk or to offer a more generous setback to match the width of the sidewalks in other parts of the town center.
Aesthetics and Scale
There were those who felt that the proposed building would be significantly “out of scale” in relation to the area in which it would be built, and that it wouldn’t be harmonious with the overall aesthetic of Swarthmore.
Erin Ewell of Dickinson Avenue drew a few chuckles from the audience when she stated, “We were a little bit surprised to learn that the developers were actually from here after seeing the renderings. It just doesn’t really seem to fit the culture that we have gotten to know.”
James Peyton Jones of Rutgers Avenue felt that the proposed project was “simply out of scale for our community.” Quoting from zoning code section 1256.01(c), Peyton Jones stated, “the intent of the town center zoning district is ‘to promote the reuse of existing structures and construction of new structures in a manner that maintains the visual character and architectural scale of the Town Center.’ This proposal is quantifiably at odds with that policy. Replacing two-story buildings with a five-story block that towers over its neighbors—and nearly quadruples the existing floor area—just does not conform to it.”
Chris Kenney
Chris Kenney of Park Avenue, another architect present at the meeting, shared his concerns about the scale of the building. “We should pause, because this is a building that will profoundly alter the quality of life and scale of the village.” He added, “It is going to likely be the tallest building in our community. It is going to likely be the most massive building in our community. It is going to violate that two-to-three-story cornice line that gives scale to our downtown and makes it the welcoming collection of buildings that give a certain character to the street and gives back to the community. It does feel as though it was not designed by someone who lives here.”
Supporters
In addition to those who offered critical feedback to the developers, there were supporters of the project who offered their comments to the Planning Commission.
Kim O’Halloran of Yale Avenue, speaking in her role as president of Swarthmore Town Center (STC), said “We believe this type of mixed-use project is consistent with the vision of a vibrant town center and with the STC mission. We’ve shared our feedback with the developers, and they have responded positively, resulting in adjustments to their plan.”
Sharon Mester
Sharon Mester of College Avenue, a former president of STC, registered her support for the project and referenced a study performed two years ago. “A consulting firm, U3 Advisors, did an analysis of Swarthmore and found that we have a shortage of housing options for people looking to downsize. Specifically, we have a demographic bubble in Swarthmore of people 55 to 75 years old. They don’t want to leave. Many of these empty‑nesters are looking to sell the houses they raised their kids in, and they want to stay in Swarthmore and stay engaged in the community they love, but there are very few attractive options for them. These condos fill an important gap in our housing market,” she shared.
Steve Murray of Thayer Road agreed with Mester. “There are a lot of people in the 55-to-75-year-old range who are in homes, who raised their families in those homes, and who would love to stay in this town for the rest of their lives, but they don’t find the options for that. This could offer an option for some of those families.”
