Council directs revisions after heated public hearing on proposed small-parcel TOD at 1180 Church Road

A majority of Lansdale Borough Council voted March 18 to direct solicitor staff to revise a proposed text amendment to the borough’s transit-oriented development (TOD) overlay after a lengthy public hearing in which residents urged that mixed-use protections be retained.

The public hearing concerned a draft ordinance advertised to allow redevelopment of parcels smaller than the current 20-acre minimum inside the borough’s TOD overlay. Solicitor Hitchens explained that the advertised version is the legal document before the council and that suggested red-line edits circulated afterward could be incorporated only if council directed staff to prepare a revision and re-advertise.

Developer Christopher Canavan, president of WB Homes, told the council his group controls a 6.6-acre parking-lot parcel adjacent to the Penbrook Train Station and proposed 74 townhomes. Canavan said the intent of the amendment is to permit redevelopment of a smaller parcel so it can be brought back into productive use and to align technical definitions for townhomes, widths and heights with other code sections. He said a conditional-use hearing and land-development review would be required later to address specifics such as mixes of uses and site design.

Residents and neighborhood advocates pushed back at the hearing, repeatedly urging that the borough keep explicit mixed-use requirements in the TOD. Dominic Vesteria of Strong Towns said removing mixed-use would undermine long-term economic activity and walkability; Gary Kocherberger and other speakers cited Lansdale’s 2040 comprehensive plan and urged including restaurants, coffee shops and other neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the small-parcel standard. Several speakers asked that pedestrian amenities—benches, bike racks, trash receptacles and clear pedestrian connections—be required in the small-parcel language.

Council members asked whether elements such as an HOA or covenant could ensure future commercial conversion if market conditions change, and whether density incentives or parking reductions could be paired with affordability requirements. The developer said some of those measures would be better addressed at the conditional-use and land-development stage. Solicitor Hitchens advised council not to add new substantive language on the floor but to direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance incorporating the hearing feedback.

Following the public comment period, the council made and seconded a motion to direct the solicitor to prepare a revised ordinance that addresses the concerns raised (including mixed-use, pedestrian and parking/density tradeoffs) and to return the item to the planning commission and the code committee for review and possible re-advertisement. The motion passed with the ayes recorded by the presiding officer.

Next steps: the solicitor will draft a revised ordinance reflecting the hearing comments; the planning commission and code committee will review the revision and council will consider re-advertising and holding a new public hearing before any final vote.

Quotes from the hearing capture the divide: “This is a transit-oriented development, not a place to go park your car,” resident Dominic Vesteria said, urging mixed-use. Developer Christopher Canavan said the proposal creates a context for redevelopment and that design and use specifics would be vetted in later land-development reviews.

The council’s directive does not adopt the ordinance tonight; it sends the draft back for revision and additional review.