Senior Housing Ordinance Causes Stir at Phoenixville Council

A proposed ordinance amendment that would allow senior housing in the multi-use residential (MR) district stirred up emotions on both sides of the issue at Tuesday’s Phoenixville Borough Council meeting.

Church Housing Corporation (CHC), which has two other locations in the borough, hopes to build senior subsidized housing on a 2.95-acre property at 501 Franklin Ave. owned by the borough and Friendship Fire Company. The property has footers and utility hookups in place and was set to be a firehouse in an already approved plan.

The firehouse plan fell through, however, and CHC offered to buy the land in a tri-party agreement of sale with the borough and the fire company. The proposed facility, which would be named St. James' Place, would be four stories with 68 units and one resident manager unit along with activity rooms, dining facilities and other social spaces for senior residents. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposed as a sponsor to the project, which would offer low-income housing for seniors.

Tuesday’s public hearing was on an amendment to allow senior housing in the MR district, but the discussion often swayed to the specific project, which would still have to go through conditional use and land development proceedings in the borough. Here’s a breakdown of the issues involved.

Planning Commission’s Objection

At its July 21 meeting, the planning commission voted unanimously—with Vice Chairman Ron Knabb recusing himself due to his role as architect in the project—to send a letter in opposition of the proposed amendment.

In the course of a few hours of discussion on the proposed amendment, the commission made several changes to it. Instead of allowing senior housing on 1-acre lots in the MR district, the commission changed it to a 2.5-acre lot requirement, thereby limiting the number of parcels in the MR district that could be home to senior housing. The commission additionally made changes to parking and made sure to require landscaping on senior housing projects in the district.

However, in the end, despite the changes made, no one on the planning commission voted to recommend approval of the zoning amendment proposed by CHC.

This concerned council Vice President Ken Buckwalter (R-West). He said he found it “troubling” that no one on planning commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment.

Council President Richard Kirkner (D-North), during an endorsement of the project, said the planning commission is advisory and has no real say in what happens. The county planning commission also said the project was not right for the area due to the proposed density, but Kirkner said he didn’t agree, calling Phoenixville an “urban area.”

“I don’t know what the county planning commission was thinking,” Kirkner said.

Borough Manager Jean Krack said he thought the borough planning commission’s concerns would be ultimately addressed, because the changes the commissioners made were included in the proposed ordinance. Krack said that additionally, some commissioners expressed a desire to change the zoning for the parcel from MR to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (NCR-1) instead, which he said the commissioners thought would be a better fit for senior housing without opening up undeveloped parcels in the MR district to senior housing.

Timeline for the Project

Back in June, council gave an endorsement to the project that was sent to HUD. The endorsement said that the borough would not oppose the project, and it was necessary to move along HUD funding, according to James Evans of CHC. Evans also serves on council for the north ward, and he has recused himself throughout the process.

At past meetings, Evans said zoning would need to be in place by “September or October” for the HUD application for federal funding. Without the funding, the project would fall through.

At Tuesday’s public hearing, Evans gave another reason for what some called a “rush job” on the project. He explained that CHC entered into an agreement of sale with the borough and the fire company and that agreement was dependent on having the public zoning hearing within 30 days of when the agreement was signed. That didn’t happen, and an extension was granted.

“The planning commission simply refused to act within the borough’s own ordinance,” Evans said.

Kirkner said the project had to be hurried up in order to ensure it happens. He called the current state of the site an “eyesore,” and said senior housing on the site would be a “positive for the community.”

While he admitted there was a rush, he deemed it necessary to get improvements on the site, including storm water improvements, moving along. Kirkner lives near the proposed development and said some nearby residents have had issues with water due to the lack of improvements on the firehouse site.

“Any other time people say government moves too damn slow,” Kirkner said.

Zoning Change

Near the end of the planning commission’s discussion July 21, Engineer Ray Ott pointed out that the parcel used to be, until recently, in the NCR-1 district. The main concern expressed by many commissioners was that the MR district would be open to senior housing, by conditional use, if the proposed ordinance passed.

If the parcel was moved back into the NCR-1 district, however, that issue would be resolved. The NCR-1 district is more developed than the MR district, and several commissioners said they would be more at ease having the zoning exposure in that district.

When Councilman Marc Reber (R-Middle) brought up concerns about possible spot zoning if the parcel was moved back into NCR-1, Kirkner said it wasn’t an issue.

“I don’t think it’s relevant at this point,” Kirkner said. “I could explain why offline.”

Following the vote on the amendment, council voted unanimously—with Evans abstaining—to move forward with moving the parcel back into the NCR-1 district and out of the MR district.

Public Sentiment

At the beginning of the meeting, several people came forward in favor of senior housing in the borough and in that spot.

Pastor Cynthia Krommes of St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church said the current senior housing developments have “helped move housing stock out of the hands of those who could no longer afford” it in the borough, and into the hands of a younger generation.

“I think it continues our work of revitalization,” Krommes told council.

She encouraged council to move forward on the amendment.

“We don’t want to dilly dally because indeed if we do, this money might not be there next year at this time,” Krommes said.

Dr. David Saneck, a member of the planning commission in the borough, spoke several times throughout the public hearing in opposition to the proposed amendment and specifically to senior housing on that site. He called the design a “cookie cutter type of building,” and stated that it would be “inappropriate” in that neighborhood.

“Frankly, the ordinance as written, I cannot support it, and [I] ask you to vote against it,” Saneck said.

Irene Hilly, who lives near the proposed project, said she was also in opposition. She said it doesn’t fit in the neighborhood and that it would be a more intense use than a firehouse.

“It’s an extremely large building … It’s an ugly building,” Hilly told council members.

Knabb, speaking as the project’s architect, said the use would be less intense than a firehouse and noted that the building was designed to fit the existing foundation on the site.

“It’s a well-designed building,” Knabb said.

The Vote

Following more than an hour and a half of discussion on the proposed ordinance amendment, a vote was called for. It ended up 5-2, with Councilwoman Jennifer Mayo (D-Middle) and Councilman David Gautreau (R-East) voting against the change. Evans recused himself from the vote due to his involvement with CHC. Both Mayo and Gautreau said earlier in the hearing that they were not opposed to senior housing but had some issues with the amendment. 

Mayo said she was "deeply conflicted" because the vacant lot in the spot now is not good for the borough, but she pointed out the county planning commission's issue with the site. 

"The Chester County Planning Commission says it doesn't fit what we just passed, the comprehensive plan," Mayo said. 

Gautreau said he would take into account that every member of the borough planning commission voted against recommending the zoning change. He stressed that he wasn't against senior housing. 

"I'm not against it but I'm against making the MR change," Gautreau said.

The next step for the senior housing development is conditional use, followed by land development.

The change of the parcel to the NCR-1 district from the MR district will move forward, thanks to a unanimous vote, with Evans abstaining.