Planning Board Approves Amended LumberYard Redevelopment Plan

Amid public concerns about the potential impact of overflow parking from adding new apartments—not permanent residences—to the borough, the Collingswood Planning Board amended plans for the next phase of the LumberYard redevelopment project at Monday's special meeting.

As compared with the original plan for the space, changes in the new resolution include:

• establishing the maximum allowable height of the building at 70 feet, or five stories
• changing the makeup of the property to add 51 additional apartment units
• reducing the number of assigned parking spaces per apartment from 1.5 to one
• requiring that the new building be similar in design to the existing LumberYard buildings, including its architectural setbacks

“We really have no objection to the plan since it appears to be consistent and appears to meet the intent of previous redevelopment plans,” said Board Engineer Tim Staszewski.

, the board was eager to pass on a finalized draft of the new construction project to borough commissioners for approval at (which was called in response).

“All this change does is reflect the buildings that were already built,” said Mayor James Maley.

Maley said the amendment changes the density of the building, adding 51 new units by dedicating two-thirds of the space to one-bedroom apartments.

But the biggest concern for borough residents was where those extra renters will park.

Smart growth principles

“When you have rentals, you have roommates, and people sharing the space that you don’t have with a condo,” said resident Chris Murray.

“In the change of use of these condos to apartments, it changes who lives there and how they act,” he said. “The original intent for this whole thing is not what it’s turning into.”

Staszewski described the reduced number of parking spaces as “consistent with smart growth planning principles,” saying “smaller units…attract people with lesser vehicle demands.”

He added that parking would follow a cyclical pattern, as those who work in the borough would leave by dinner, freeing up their parking spots for restaurant patrons.

Yet Staszewski conceded that no impact study has yet been conducted that would determine how five stories of renters would affect the flow of traffic on Powell Lane, Haddon Avenue and the busy intersection at Haddon and Collings avenues.

Other residents expressed concerns that limiting the number of spaces for apartment renters would affect on-site parking at the existing public-use garages on the block.

said that one space per unit was “not a very realistic measure.

“Collingswood is unlike Philadelphia where people can walk out their door and find thousands of jobs two blocks from their house,” he said. “You’re not going to have something new and magical because you have something three blocks by the train station.

“If you’ve miscalculated, you’re going to lose the public building to permit parking," he said. "You’re going to lose the opportunity to develop the commercial real estate along Haddon Avenue.”

'The world's just changed'

Maley defended the amended project as part of a “transit village concept” that he said “adds a mix we don’t have” to the borough for future residents.

He pointed out that the banks that currently own the property believe in the concept; they wanted the plan for the property to be transferable to another developer .

“The world’s just changed over the last five years,” Maley said. “What’s also changed is buying patterns and living patterns. Apartments are going to be much more a component of living."

Resident Virginia Curry said that the establishment of apartments “seems totally opposite of what the goal has been over the last 20-something years.

“I have qualms about having those apartment owners right around the corner from my house,” she said. “Especially because I have heard some rumors .”

Maley insisted, however, that the apartment complex would allow the LumberYard to develop “in a way that is a great complement to the business district.

“That’s 100 more households on Haddon Avenue,” he said. “There’s none of our money in it, and the banks and the people who are building it think it’s going to work.”

, , also voiced his objections to the entire enterprise, as he has often done.

“What is the benefit for all of us who do not live at the LumberYard?” Dinella asked.

“There are not enough definite answers to these questions,” he said. “It is incumbent that you people seriously consider taking no action on this. Because this Board’s duty is to us, everyone who lives in this town, you really need to consider tabling this matter.”

Recommendations, not policy

Board chair James Verzella reminded Dinella that scrapping plans for the project is not an issue for the Planning Board.

“This board does not make policy, it makes recommendations,” Verzella said. “[The borough commissioners] could choose not to accept our recommendation.”

Maley added that the recommendations of the Planning Board were immaterial to the decisions of the commissioners. He said the purpose of bringing the issue before the public is to invite feedback on the process.

“If the planning board does not act on this in 45 days, then the governing body can just move,” he said. “By saying nothing, it just means we adopt the plan without the benefit of their advice. Those comments are absolutely helpful.

“You’re dealing with a redevelopment plan that doesn’t require us to open this up to the public,” Verzella told Patch after the meeting. “We’re trying to keep [this discussion] directed to land use.

"When it comes down to tactical issues, we’re not elected officials,” he said.