Lower Gwynedd supervisors approve MF‑3 zoning text amendment after developer’s urgent plea; map change continued

The Lower Gwynedd Township Board of Supervisors voted on June 23 to adopt a text amendment revising MF‑3 zoning regulations to allow certain mixed‑use development by conditional use, but deferred a companion map (rezoning) amendment for the Norristown Road site to a July 14, 2026 continuation.

The measure approved by the board updates zoning rules tied to a proposed redevelopment of the office park at 301/321 Norristown Road. Applicant counsel Krista Pianzio said the ordinance now limits height and includes detailed master‑plan requirements — increased setbacks (75 feet from Gwynedd Estates), architectural standards, landscaping and lighting plans, a traffic impact study, and a post‑development traffic study requirement. “We reduced the number of units,” Pianzio said, summarizing revisions that cut density from earlier proposals to a maximum of 264 units in the current submission.

Why it matters: the developer said the tenant currently negotiating to occupy the site may walk if the township does not provide zoning certainty soon; residents countered that the changes would increase traffic and alter neighborhood character. The board split over whether to grant the developer's request without the amended conditional‑use and land‑development plans in hand.

Developer Michael Markman, president of BT Investments, pressed the urgency. “They’ve been waiting for a year and a half,” Markman said, adding that if the board did not act a potential tenant would likely take another offer. He told the board his client had a 24‑hour window with the seller and said he believed there was an “80% chance” the tenant would select another site if rezoning did not move forward.

Several supervisors said they were sympathetic but wanted more documentation before surrendering negotiating leverage. One supervisor asked for concrete evidence of the claimed timeline: “If you don’t get the zoning today, Birkadia is going tomorrow … That’s your opinion,” the supervisor said, pressing the developer for supporting proof and for a written assurance from the seller or tenant. Solicitor Neil Stein cautioned the board about legal limits: “There’s no such thing as a conditional rezoning,” he said, explaining that the board cannot make rezoning contingent on terms that properly belong in a conditional‑use or land‑development approval.

Public commenters living near the site repeatedly raised traffic and safety concerns and questioned whether the township should change the character of the area. “Add 500 some cars to that, and I would certainly like to see the police patrol these noisy cars,” resident Carolyn Pearson said, citing quality of life and safety worries. Traffic consultant Matt Hammond told the board the revised traffic study (reflecting the reduced unit count) showed lower peak‑hour generation than an earlier study; he said improvements proposed with the plan were unchanged and a post‑development study would be required within months of occupancy to confirm impacts.

Outcome and next steps: the board approved the text amendment by voice vote (motion carried) and closed the public hearing on both ordinances, but continued the map‑change hearing to a date‑certain of July 14, 2026. The applicant agreed to submit a revised traffic study to the township’s traffic reviewer the next day and said it would submit amended conditional‑use exhibits. The board and staff said they would consider a special meeting if the seller provided written confirmation about the contract deadline or an extension.

The action leaves the text (zoning rules) in place; the actual rezoning (map amendment) and any conditional‑use approvals remain subject to further public hearings.

Provenance: topic introduced at SEG 601 and discussion concluded at SEG 2973.