Upper Prov council continues deliberation of proposed group home
UPPER PROVIDENCE » Council is continuing the conditional use hearing on Clark’s Manor at the monthly legislative meeting, desirous of moving it at a steady pace. The second session focused on traffic issues around the property at 2978 N. Providence Road, as well as the programs serving a maximum of eight adult residents.
The first session had concluded testimony of applicant Charles Widger, who is creating the group residence in the model of Wild Acre in Belmont, Mass. Widger had testified his son, Clark, has resided with success at the facility, but the family would like to have Clark closer to home in the area.
The June 11 meeting continued with the applicant’s witnesses which included traffic engineer Frank Tavani; Wild Acre owner John Sciretta, who will be a consultant; project engineer Gus Houtmann; and landscape architect Bernard Panzak.
Each witness was questioned by applicant’s counsel Dennis McAndrews or co-counsel Nick Caniglia, followed by attorney Abby Sacunas, a Pineview Drive resident representing herself and about two dozen others living nearby who are a party to the hearing.
Tavani explained the category would be “congregate care facility” according to ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers).
ITE, founded in 1930, is the transportation industry leader in collecting data and setting standards. Tavani estimated trips of 16 per day, about the same as a family home use based on the number of vehicles of staff and residents, although prior testimony stated that residents would not have cars, and some transit was expected by outside services.
Tavani said the driveway would be repositioned to be opposite Springton Lake Road, the preferred road engineering rather than offset access points in the same area. This also improves left and right sight distances. He conducted a field investigation and did not see any “potentially correctible” road conditions, and had not changed his opinion when subsequently seeing an accident report provided by township police and submitted by those contesting the application.
Arguably, traffic appears to be a main concern of homeowners, and Sacunas continued questioning Tavani . She suggested substantial increasing to the numbers by citing additional staff; other workers; van and outside transportation services; visitors; and other routine deliveries. Using these examples, Sacunas said present conditions of traffic at the property could “hypothetically” be much worse.
Wild Acre founder and owner Sciretta described the “milieu” model on which Clark’s Manor is expected to operate under the direction of Elwyn. The admissions process is thorough for candidate and family. Residents are described as having “chronic but not acute mental illness,” but have no history of violence or court involvement. They have daily activities— in, out, or around the home; individual types of therapy; and live in a staff and peer supportive environment, Sciretta said.
“The relationship with neighbors is always a concern,” he continued. “When we come in, people know who we are, and that we are vetted. The house tends to enhance a neighborhood.”
While Sciretta stressed the nature of the growth and goal-oriented program, Sacunas returned to staffing and the amount of traffic being generated since the walking to amenities was unlikely.
Sacunas asked if residents would have family
“The relationship with neighbors is always a concern. When we come in, people know who we are, and that we are vetted. The house tends to enhance a neighborhood.” — Wild Acre founder and owner John Sciretta
visitors. Attorney McAndrews objected, citing the Fair Housing Act. “You wouldn’t ask that of any other family,” he said.
Houtmann described existing conditions of the house and 3.6 acre property. Although this is a conditional use hearing, his information was complete and veered into what is generally required for land development. In touching on tree replacement and fencing, Sacunas later asked if the entrance would be gated. While it wasn’t indicated, Houtmann said he would have to research codes for a gate.
Similar issues were discussed with Panzak who described the overall property as “highly vegetated.” He detailed trees and other vegetation which might be removed, as well as desirable species for replacement. Also reviewed in Panzak’s report was the solid screen fencing, requested by neighbors, and estate fencing elsewhere on the perimeter.
Council President Beth Glassman had set 9:30 to 10 p.m. to end, having started at 6:30. With participants checking their schedules, the hearing will continue at the same time July 9, again in virtual form. Glassman said council will deal with regular township business first and then open the hearing. However, the board clearly wants to move the hearing along to complete with one or likely more sessions.