We are watching this case closely in Haverford:

Debate continues over 254 Righters Mill Road
By:CHERYL ALLISON 04/18/2007

The would-be developer of a property in historic Gladwyne Village returned to Lower Merion's zoning board last week with an answer to one question, but left with at least two more to research.

After another three-hour session, the board closed the hearing for testimony in the long-running case of the 1880 Victorian farmhouse at 254 Righters Mill Road.

But it left the record open for about another three weeks, asking owner Gary Gevurtz to submit case law on some specific points, and invited neighbors who are opposed to his redevelopment plans to do the same.

Leading up to this meeting, the critical issue was to determine exactly how much of the existing structures on the one-acre lot is covered by the property's Class 1 historic designation. In Lower Merion, Class 1 buildings can only be demolished by permission of the board of commissioners......Neighbors, like members of HARB, say the density of development and massing of the new attached units is out of character with Gladwyne's historic district. If there is to be new development, they favor subdivision of a rear lot and construction of no more than one additional single-family home.

Speaking for HARB, Chairman Phil Franks said its opinion is that two units "is a fair balance."

"Beyond that," he said, "is excessive for the historic district, excessive for the neighborhood, and excessive for this piece of ground."

Gevurtz has said that's not economically feasible.

Zoning board President Kenneth Aaron and member Robert Fox, however, had some new questions about Gevurtz's reasoning to support the expansion.

To come up with a figure for the amount of square footage permitted, Gevurtz's architect, John Marshall, said he had calculated the area of all the existing structures on the land.....Fox wanted to know, does the zoning code "allow you to take the footprint, ... do a calculation of what the use was, and place it anywhere on the property?"

"Tell me where in the code does it say you can tear down a portion of a non-conforming use and build it in another location," he asked Fromhold.

"You're going to have to give us cases of [the definition of] 'expand' and 'extend' that somehow allow you to do that," agreed Aaron.

Fox also seized on a question posed by neighbor Karen Scarborough. Should the cottage, which has always been separate from the "apartment house," count toward the non-conforming use? she wanted to know.

Neighbors Peter Liacourus and Brad Moser also questioned whether the construction of the attached units will qualify the structure as "one building." The issue they raised is whether they will have party or fire walls, more properly classifying them as townhouses, a use which would not be permitted.

....Aside from the legal definitions, Gladwyne resident Christine Jones, a former longtime HARB member, asked the zoning board to consider the impact of a decision in this case for historic districts in the township.

"Your decision on 254 Righters Mill Road, in an existing historic district, will be particularly meaningful" as residents consider new historic districts in Haverford or Bala Cynwyd, she suggested. A decision to permit changes such as Gevurtz has proposed "would undermine [the township's] historic preservation ordinance,"