Swarthmore neighbors cry foul over parking at HEADstrong house
SWARTHMORE >> Borough council’s agenda included consideration of a parking plan for 200 S. Chester Road, the site of the HEADstrong respite facility for cancer patients and their families. The board previously approved needed “accommodation” under the Fair Housing Act to enable the non-profit to operate. That council decision has been appealed in court by nearby residents.
The latest application for parking, a condition of the approval, once again raised concerns by neighbors. The dialogue began at the meeting’s start during the public comment period. Attorney Christine Reuther, representing HEADstrong, was prepared to review the process which led to the parking plan application.
Council President David Grove politely truncated her preliminary comments, saying, “We know the process,” referring to numerous hearings and some legal wrangling.
Reuther did, however, make clear the parameters did not rise to the level of land development, but resulted from the prior conditions of approval. She explained the layout as providing seven new parking spaces as well as easement agreement with Swarthmore Presbyterian Church for use of five spaces. The property also has a garage.
“The goal of the plan was to have enough spots for everyone at the house which will be not more than seven individuals and families,” said Reuther, estimating the total at 10 spaces.
Lisa Feehery is a Harvard Avenue resident and adjacent neighbor who has consistently opposed the facility, essentially on the grounds it was not line with zoning concepts. She said she had “a lot of concerns” about the plan. She felt the 10-space plan was “inconsistent” with the specifications of the accommodation agreement, and suggested 16 spaces would be needed to satisfy the use.
Feehery said the borough’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force cited the Harvard Avenue and Chester Road intersection as “the most dangerous” in the borough. She also had objections to the plans’ aesthetics, noting there was no appropriate area of refuse containers not in the line of sight.
Harvard Avenue residents Jessica Harrington and Lisa O’Brien had similar concerns about the plan, mentioning the street parking was generally unavailable. O’Brien said shared driveways would present difficulties. Moreover, she said, 10 cars parked were not common in a residential neighborhood.
The plan showing 10 spaces was later approved as submitted by a vote of 7-0-1 with Councilman David Creagan absent and colleague Ross Schmucki abstaining, due to personal matters related to the nature of HEADstrong’s mission. The board noted it had been reviewed by the borough engineer. Council concluded it satisfied the conditions of the accommodations.
Regarding the status of the pending appeal, borough Solicitor Bob Scott said parties have submitted briefs with no other current action to report.
In two other matters, council heard continuing concerns about speed calming plans for Yale Avenue. Residents believed the placement of speed cushion were not in requested locations. Grove said council had made decisions and would continue to monitor the situation.
Several residents from Riverview Road said National Realty Corporation, the firm owning the adjacent Springfield Square South, was in violation of an agreement spelling out landscape plans which would buffer the view shed. Council said that was to be discussed in executive session as a litigation matter.