Haverford Twp Deals Death Blow To Rugby Road.

MainLineThoughts's picture

So, Haverford Township Commissioners are you proud of yourselves right now? Ah yes, The News Of Delaware County is reporting on the death of Rugby Road in Bryn Mawr, PA.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This is a treasure of a street that I will mourn when it is destroyed by a developer, and can't you agree taking down these homes and replacing them with stucco cr*p carriage style McGarish McMonstrosities with Garage Mahals is criminal? (Uhhh, look out North Wayne, because in twin McMonster form, this is the cr*p style they wish for 236 North Aberdeen and isn't it ironic someone sent me this link: http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/teardowns/ today ?)
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Rugby Road will be remembered for the gracious homes that once lined it's curving tree-lined street. Rugby Road will be remembered for the community that once existed there until it was no more. I walk Rugby Road often, and it already has a deserted,desolate, and alien feel.

I am amazed all things considered with the economy being what it is that this developer has the coin to do this right now. These homes don't have to come down, they shouldn't come down --- but with a 6-2 vote, we all know that government is at work once again. Once again there are no laws, no codes, no nothing to stand between a small neighborhood and a bulldozer.

Look at these photos of Rugby Road homes. They could be the ones targeted for demolition (who knows which ones the developer is choosing to kill first).
Image and video hosting by TinyPicThis developer is murdering a neighborhood and a sense of place and lovely homes and landscape all so he can flip a buck or two, and isn't that sickening?
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
If I had one wish, it would be for the new development market to crash and burn and take this and other ill begotten plans with it. No one gives a crap about what the residents of communities want along the Main Line or anyplace else. The only ones with the right to say boo are the developers. Money talks, the rest of us walks.

Congratulations Haverford Township. You are now in fine company with the rest of the pro-developer Main Line municipalities. You can't fix a friggin' pothole or get rid of a pawn shop on Lancaster Avenue, but you can pass the buck and vote 6-2 yes on a plan that will destroy one of the most bucolic little streets in your township.

Posted on Tue, Aug 19, 2008
Rugby Road plan clears hurdle
By Rosalie Pressman; Staff Writer

HAVERFORD TWP. - Commissioners voted 6-2 Aug. 11 to approve a preliminary subdivision plan by Rugby Partners, L.P., for properties at 729, 737, 749 and 763 Rugby Road.The plan, recommended by the township's planning commission, calls for construction of six homes.

Three older homes are being torn down for the construction.

Neighbors are worried that the storm water basin for the proposed Farley Homes development was insufficient, that the seepage bed was incompatible with the township's open space requirements and that the landscaping plan had not come before the township's shade tree commission.Image and video hosting by TinyPic

"Because this plan has not fully satisfied township requirements, and the potential for serious damage, especially to the contiguous downstream neighboring properties, is severe the township should deny the plan," Doreen Saar, a Rugby Road resident, stated in a written statement to commissioners.

The township engineer, David Pennoni, assured the commissioners that the preliminary plan met all necessary township requirements.

Several neighbors also spoke against the plan on the basis that it was not aesthetically suitable for the surrounding community.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
"Farley Homes is destroying our sense of community by squeezing in six vanilla stucco boxes whose face to our street is a garage door, Saar wrote.

I am going to say this is cr*p once again because this street, like so many others isn't broken. It's delightful. Now it will all be but a memory.

Proposed development worries area neighbors
By Amy Brisson, STAFF WRITER
04/12/2007

HAVERFORD TWP. - On the east side of the beautiful, tree-lined 700 block of Rugby Road, four old homes face the quiet street.

But neighbors fear this may be the last year those houses are left standing.

Purchased last fall by Villanova-based developers Farley Homes LLC, the four adjacent properties, totaling 2.147 acres, may soon become Haverford's newest development, called "Sherwood Mews," with as many as nine million-dollar homes.

"The neighbors are furious," said Diane Drentlaw, who lives on the other side of the street from the proposed development. "We're disturbed about the density."

The homes, previously owned by Bryn Mawr Terrace were sold without the community's knowledge, according to neighbors.

They found out that the properties were due to be developed only when Drentlaw, who is a realtor, saw them on a realty listing, advertising "The Main Line's newest community, Sherwood Mews, an enclave of nine elegant English style carriage homes." The ad promises the homes will be available in the fall of 2007.

In another listing (current as of March 22) Farley Homes offers all four properties, "with the potential for nine lots," for sale for $2,950,000.

"He intends to put more than two houses on each lot and they will be big," said Drentlaw. "It will be sort of a wall of houses along here."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
lmwatcher's picture

I'm not very familar with this situation, but as a firm believer in property rights I believe someone should be able to sell their home to whomever they want, not that a homeowner does not have a personal moral responsibilty to do what is right by his/her neighborhood.

No doubt these developments benefit township governments (and taxpayers) with the cost of building permits and the increased taxes from more expensive homes.

I guess the owners of these homes that are being torn down decided to sell out to the developer? That is their right, not that it is the right thing to do.

For those who are against large, high-end residential developments like this (and I look at it as a case-by-case basis as to whether they make sense and I don't know this one well enough to approve or disapprove) the recourse is for citizens to petition their local government so that zoning is not approved.

How did this situation get this far? Did the Haverford commissioners vote for this over the disapproval of Haverford residents? Was a vote needed for new zoing and were the residents made aware by the government? That to me is the key with an issue like this. Homeowners have a right to sell to anyone they want, but a developer does not have a right to build against existing zoning regulations without the approval of the people.

This goes to who the township boards are serving - the dollars of the developers or the people they were elected to serve.

Now, if this developer is building within the existing zoning requirements, I don't see how there is much that can be done as the developer does have rights if he bought the properties with the expectation he could do what he wants with his properties as long as it is within exisitng zoning and sub-division laws in the township.

If this is the case, Haveford needs stricter zoning regulations - and especially for tearing down existing homes just to put up castles, and if the people want zoning laws that will prevent this, then the Haverford commissioners should do what the people want.

MainLineThoughts's picture

I suggest you search for Rugby Road on this site. These homes were purchased more than 20 years ago by the then owners of Bryn Mawr Terrace, who had wanted then to tear down all the homes. The neighborhood fought it, and the family who owned Bryn Mawr Terrace kept it the homes as a rental a money maker. The homes were long term rentals, not the rentals of trnasients - people came and stayed for years. One house was actually inhabited by a Bryn Mawr Terrace owner's daughter or neice if I recall. Then when Bryn Mawr Terrace was up for sale they did a slick willy and sold the properties to a developer. The neighbors only found out when one who was a realtor came across a blurb somewhere about a new development for her neighborhood. The residents did petition and fight and the upshot is that I think there is a significantly less number of houses allowed for this development than before.

This neighborhood does not need to be tarted up by stucco and tyvec and hardy board. And Haverford Township has more issues that Lower Merion and Radnor combined - they have no historic districts either.

And as a firm believer in property rights remember this: these people who own homes on this street and will have to deal with these unwelcome developments also have private property rights. And their rights, their rights are being ignored.

And yes, this was voted in over the displeasure of HT residents. Here is an e-mail excerpt that references it:

...Jeff Heilmann and Jim McGarrity voting against, and all the others for. The only one who point blank stated that the commissioners shouldn't vote according to their hearts, but rather with the township ordinances, as there are none for architectural integrity or neighborhood ambience, was Larry Holmes. The other 5 voting for, all prefaced their votes with some comment relating to a reluctance to grant a preliminary approval, but there was nothing in the township zoning or engineering or law that prevented them from a yes vote.

So Haverford Township residents need to remember this when it comes time for elections. Here from www.haverfordblog.com is the list of HT Commissioners:

Ward Commissioner Phone
1 Steve D’Emilio (610) 449-5685
2 Mario Oliva (610) 446-2896
3 Rob Trumbull (610) 649-6708
4 Jan Rushforth (610) 520-1968
5 Jeff Heilmann (610) 945-7064
6 Larry Holmes (610) 642-0334
7 Jim McGarrity (610) 446-8088
8 Tom Broido (610) 348-0540
9 Bill Wechsler (610) 789-2299

lmwatcher's picture

Here's my question - could the Haverford commissioners have lawfully denied this development or where their hands tied?

If the people did not want this development (and that goes to their property rights as members of the community and especially for those who live across the street, as you said) then it should have been voted down and the Haverford commissioners who voted for it should be voted out of office if the poeple care enough about this issue.

It seems to me, though (and correct me if I am wrong) that the Haverford commissioners did have their hand stied and those who voted for this voiced their disapproval but did what what they were supposed to do, which is follow the rule of law.

Don't get me wrong. From what I have read this development appears to be a monstrous eye soar that the citizens did not want, but it was caught up in a 20 year old time warp from a previously approved large development that allowed for this new development to happen today.

Does not make it right, but from a property rights standpoint of the previous and new owners of the development, as well as with how the zoning was structured 20 years ago and not changed, it does seem the hands of the commissioners were tied.

While this development may be a terrible thing to have happened, I also believe you have to respect property rights and the rule of law or nothing will work.

Question is - was there any legal remedy that slipped through the cracks with the commissioners to prevent this? If not, this appears to be a shame but out of respect for what is law, I find it hard to blame Haverford Township in this specific siutation.

What this should motivate the commissioners and citizens of Haverford to do is to make sure this never happens again and to come up better historical and preservation planning.

MainLineThoughts's picture

When the property rights of the existing residents are respected, then we'll talk.

lmwatcher's picture

And when someone can explain to me how their property rights have been violated from a legal standpoint, I'll be all over the Haverford commissioners Eye-wink

I think you know by now I don't cut he government ANY breaks when it comes to the rights of citizens.

I do understand where you are coming from in that the government all too often uses "our" laws against the people for its own benefit due to greed and/or incompetence.

politeia's picture

Haverford township does not even have a Historic Commission?

Not only should every township have a historic commission, but non-profits such as in the below link provide added benefit - not the least of which is not being affiliated with the government.

http://www.nantucketpreservation.org/about/who_we_are.html

lmwatcher's picture

It does seem Haverford Township does have a Historical Society, not that the township government takes this too seriously if they do not have a historical commission.

The Haverford Historical Society has been around since 1939, but the township has no historical commission?

I can actually live without the township not having a historical commission as it costs tax dollars IF they were to defer strongly to the Haverford Historical Society, but then that would involve the government working for the people.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.