HPC Shoots Down Brandywine Nursing Home Expansion Again
The Haddonfield Historic Preservation Commission decides against nursing home in split vote.
Photos
The borough Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday denied a request for a certificate of historical appropriateness for a proposed nursing home expansion for the second time in four months.
The 3-2 vote mirrored a HPC decision in May against a proposal by Brandywine Senior Living to expand the size of its facility at 132 Warwick Road.
HPC members William Bisirri, Toni Bonnette and Chairwoman Lee Albright all voted against the project. Susan Reintzel and Cynthia Byers voted in favor of granting a certificate of appropriateness to Brandywine. They all voted the same way in May.
The HPC is an advisory board to the borough planning board, which has the final say on the project. Brandywine is scheduled to appear there on Oct. 2.
Brandywine wants to expand the size of its two-story facility from 23,378 square feet to 35,569, about a 65 percent increase. The footprint of the building will grow from 9,880 square feet to 15,151, a nearly 63 percent increase. These dimensions were reduced by several hundred feet from the proposal presented to the planning board last month on this 2.46-acre property.
The planning board decided to send the application back to the HPC in July because Brandywine officials scaled back designs for rebuilding its facility between the time it was denied by the HPC in May and when they appeared before the planning board. In August, the HPC tabled a vote on the proposal because some members wanted to visit the site.
Albright praised Brandywine Wednesday for finally presenting a "thorough, complete" application, but still decided against it.
"At the end of the day, we felt a commercial building is not compatible with the neighborhood and would adversely affect the neighborhood," she said.
A nursing home has been on the site since 1952, but Albright said the proposed expansion will be increasing the size of a commercial building in a residential neighborhood in the borough historic district.
Brandywine is prepared to spend up to $16 million to renovate the Warwick Road site. It has other facilities in New Jersey, including Moorestown, and five other states. The for-profit company expects to pay $320,000 a year in taxes to Haddonfield yearly if the project is approved. The previous owner of the facility, formerly known as the Haddonfield Home, was a nonprofit company and paid no municipal taxes.
Brandywine CEO Brenda Bacon did not attend the hearing Wednesday. Last month when the HPC tabled the proposal, she told them she would be out of town for a previously scheduled business trip on Sept. 19. She vowed then to continue on after the HPC vote.
"Any delay delays the ability of our residents who were living in that building to return home," Bacon said. "Any delay prevents us from providing those services. We have to build, we have the winter coming on and the delay is unfortunate. But we remain committed to doing everything that the borough asks of us."
A small contingent of about a dozen neighbors near the site attended the meeting Wednesday, including David Gottardi, a former HPC chairman who led the fight against the facility. He praised the HPC decision on Wednesday as he had after its first ruling in May.
"They protected streetscapes and neighborhoods and green space," Gottardi said in May. "They protected a historic property from being gobbled up by a giant, oversized addition."
Brian Kelly
8:52 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Many thanks to the HPC for their vote and protecting the residents of the neighborhood. Brandywine has had a lot of opportunities at rectifying this situation and to still be so vague in many important areas of construction doesn't do much in the way of trust.
If Brandywine CEO Brenda Bacon is truly concerned about returning the residents to the home and providing the services she deems so essential for their well being then Brandywine should stop screwing around and come up with a plan that shows transparency and takes the concerns of their neighbors into account.
Bill Tourtellotte
8:51 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Very well put Brian.
Jeff H
9:09 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Any attorneys out there that can tell us if this is legally binding? On what legal grounds can the PB reject this application? I know there are a lot of opinions, but it would be nice to hear from an attorney if we have any legal ground to stand on, or are we just itching for a legal battle due to NIMBY mentality from a minority of residents. Please Bill with all due respect, let's not fill the board with opinions on this one, just factual, legal information please. I'd really like to know if this is just an exercise in futility..
Mr. B.
9:31 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
The HPC decision is not legally binding. They are an advisory board to the planning board. The planning board has the final say. They can take a narrow view and reject the application based purely on the HPC advice, however, historic preservation is just a small portion of Haddonfield's land development ordinance. The Planning Board has several other issues to consider in making their decision. While the advice of the HPC should play a role in making that decision, other portions of the land development ordinance may take precedence for the Planning Board. Those other issues can certainly end up in a rejection of the application, but they can also present situations that will trump the HPC decision and lead to an approval as well.
Bill Tourtellotte
7:57 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
This is not complicated. Brandywine does not possess the right to further compound their non-conforming use in this historic residential zone. They are being greedy in their attempts to overbuild the site despite the objections of the neighbors and the community. They need to stop playing around with minor changes and the negotiating game and simply bring a realistic scenario to the table.
If we are willing to chase ratable dollars at the expense of this neighborhood, how about we start talking about installing an intensive use next to you and your neighbors next? The insensitivity being displayed by some folks toward the reasonable and legitimate objections by that neighborhood is appalling to me. Folks should hope and pray that they never end up on the receiving end of such a lack of support and understanding from those so ready to sell them out.
Maryann Campling
5:09 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
I understand that in past situations, the Planning Board has sided with the decision of the HPC about 80% of the time, however, I am painfully aware of a situation where they didn't. I know that there are some "legal beagles" in the Moore Avenue/Warwick Road group, so I am assuming that they have done their homework and are dealing with factual information in presenting their complaints. I applaud them and wish them success in their endeavor. My only regret is that our group didn't seek legal representation early on.
Dave Gottardi
6:07 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Bravo to the HPC again!!!! Particularly Lee Albright, Bill Bissiri, & Toni Bonnette, they had the guts to stand up for our Historic District and save our neighborhood from inappropriate development on a huge scale. Brandywine can build here, just not to the size and mass they would like to....The HPC quoted the exact language needed to not approve this application directly from our Historic District ordinances! They did their homework!! Well done!
Bill Tourtellotte
8:50 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Well put Dave. It is just that simple.
Bill Reynolds
8:27 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
I have been involved professionally in in the expansion of several area senior living facilities. One of the things planners often do not account for well is parking. In the past, the Haddonfield Home served mostly frail elderly women who no longer drove. The planned upgrade of the facility is admirable, and it is a use that will serve the town. It seems to me that the modernization of the facility -- irrespective of size -- will attract a different and more active kind of resident who will want to keep her/his car. The impact on the neighborhood, especially the number of resident and staff vehicles, and where they will park needs to be considered very carefully. I recognize that Brandywine has modified its plan to include 23 parking spaces. But the estimates I have seen do not appear to square with what I know to be the actual parking requirements for staff and residents in other similar facilities. This may not be sufficient reason to deny the application, but the impact on the neighborhood in terms of on-street parking may well be substantially greater than current projections indicate.
Dave Gottardi
10:23 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Hey Bill- Thats a great point and I am sure when (and if) this plan gets to Zoning, I am sure they will deliberate over the parking issue greatly. According to the Borough's current ordinances, Brandywine's requirement for parking may be around 75 spaces at a minimum. They only have 25 accounted for on the current plan. Should make for some good discussion, maybe better than T.V. :)
Jeff H
9:03 pm on Sunday, September 23, 2012
Parking? WAS TARDITI COMMONS SCUTINIZED TO THIS EXTENT? NO WAY THEY HAVE 75 SPACES, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE MORE RESIDENTS. THEIR FOLKS PARK ON THE STREET.
Brian Kelly
9:14 pm on Sunday, September 23, 2012
Mary, You can have a beautiful, updated facility with all the amenities and provide the best in health care to senior citizens while respecting the quality of life of your neighbors too.
Healthcare is a lucrative business and corporations like Brandywine are interested in making maximum profit for their investment. It's not in Brandywine's financial interest to take the concerns of the residents into account. That's what the fighting is all about.
There are many companies that could take over the senior assisted living center and run it quite nicely. It will never turn into a halfway house. We have a duty to look out for the interests of our fellow neighbors above all. If Brandywine takes that into account they could make a fair compromise... so far they haven't