![]() |
Photos by Evan Brandt Will all those who oppose allowing increased housing density in exchange for expensive sewer improvements in the Goshenhoppen Creek Zoning Overlay District please raise their hands. |
To say that the majority of the more than 100 people who packed into the Lower Frederick Township Building Tuesday night opposed a proposed zoning overlay district that would affect only five parcels in town would be an exercise in understatement.
When all was said and done, only one resident stood up and asked the three-member board of supervisors not to support the idea, but at least to "consider all options."
Even before the standing-room-only meeting, the supervisors had taken one step back from the idea -- cancelling the official public hearing scheduled for the same time, and instead turning it into an "informational meeting."
By cancelling the public hearing, the supervisors indicated they have no current plans to move forward with the proposal, and if they do, will have to announce and hold another official public hearing before they do, said Chairman Robert Yoder.
"We may never hear about this again," but if the board does decide to move forward with the idea, an official a public hearing will have to be held before a vote can occur, he said,
If you like legalese, you can
click on this link and read the draft ordinance as it was proposed.![]() |
Lower Frederick Township Engineer Carol Shuehler with the original plans for Melbourne Hill. |
If not, a brief history lesson is required.
Back in 2008, a traditional 48-lot housing development on 41.5 acres called Melbourne Hill was granted preliminary approval by the township. It's entrance would be located at the intersection of Gravel Pike and Salford Station Road.
At the time, the developers had proposed an increased density allowance (more homes than allowed under zoning) in exchange for donating some open space to the township.
But the developers, T.H.P. Properties, went belly up as the housing crash began and that was the last time anyone mentioned "open space."
In the meantime, the township was dealing with an
aging sewer plant that served the hamlets of Zieglersville and Spring Mount, ultimately embarking on what is now a $10 million effort to replace it.
When it's complete, the capacity will have more than doubled, allowing the township to take care of some problem areas in town where on-site septic systems are failing and a public sewer system would solve the problem and avoid sanction and forced solutions from state environmental authorities.
![]() |
Montgomery County Plannner Donna Fabry shows that the proposed overlay district is, within the square on the right, in the region identified as a "growth area" in the comprehensive plan. |
Flash forward a few years, the economy is coming back and the owner of the property where Melbourne Hill was proposed comes to the township to revive the proposal.
But now, instead of open space, the township is looking at existing and potential on-site septic system problems on Little Road, which borders the proposed Melbourne Hill development.
The sewer planning that occurred during the housing market lull calls for an additional sewer line along Goshenhoppen Creek to deal with some of those problems in an area of town the Central Perkiomen Valley Regional Planning Commission has identified as a "growth area" in its comprehensive plan.
As Montgomery County Planner Donna Fabry described it, "it's the place you want growth to go."
Although the sewer plan, called an Act 537 plan after the law that enacted it, calls for the sewer line, the township has yet to figure out how to pay for it. In 2013, it was estimated to cost $2.3 million.
The $10 million the township borrowed to upgrade the sewer plant and expand the collection system into problem areas of Spring Mount hamlet, will not cover the costs of the Goshenhoppen Creek line.
So rather than trade open space in exchange for increased density, the overlay district would allow specific density increases for specific public improvements, mostly sewers.
The idea, said Supervisor Terry Sacks, is that it would allow the sewer planning to go forward more cheaply, since unlike the township, a developer does not have to pay "prevailing wage" and other costs a public project must bear.
And, of course, the developer would be paying for it, not the township.
The fact that the draft ordinance was written by John Kennedy, a planner for the potential developers and former developers,
as shown in the March 9 planning commission minutes, did not sit well with the already ornery crowd when it was confirmed by Township Engineer Carol Schuehler, who had the unenviable task of explaining all this to a room full of people not terribly inclined to hear it.
![]() |
Township Engineer Carol Shuehler shows how her calculation of additional housing density in the overlay district was made. |
In essence, the township supervisors were exploring an idea about how to get sewer service to those who now, or will eventually need it, in an area already designated in township, regional and county plans as a "growth area."
So let's crunch some numbers.
According to an analysis Scheuhler undertook for the meeting, a property in the overlay district needs to be at least 10 acres for the regulations to apply and there are five such properties including Melbourne Hill.
On the four properties other than Melbourne Hill, the overlay would allow 91 homes instead of the 35 allowed under existing R-2 zoning; an increase of 56 homes.
![]() |
The red properties with stripes show those eligible for the increased densities in the proposed overlay district, which is outlined in red. |
For Melbourne Hill, the overlay would allow the 48 approved lots to increase to 85, said Schueler -- an increase of 37. When added to the potential increase at the other properties, the total additional housing units in the overlay district is 93.
How dense is that? A ratio as high as 2.5 homes per acre in two-acre zoning.
There was a bit of dispute about whether that represents "high density" zoning, with Fabry pointing out that official "high-density" zoning is as high as 10 units per acre, not 2.5.
But, the disputes about numbers, zoning and definitions may be moot.
It was pretty evident what the sentiment of the crowd at last night's meeting was -- opposed.
And given that the supervisors later in the evening said they have no plans to visit the subject again, one might conclude the matter is a dead letter.
But only time will tell.
If nothing else, township residents face an additional 48 units if Melbourne Hill is developed as already approved before the approval expires -- an expiration on which Township Solicitor Thomas Keenan threw some doubt.
Here are the Tweets from the meeting.
