Zoning Board Denies Variances for Proposed Senior Living Complex at Dickey Elementary: Neighborhood Residents Express Concerns
By Emily Wright LOCK HAVEN— The City of Lock Haven’s Zoning Hearing Board, along with its solicitor, Frank Miceli, convened on Tuesday, December 17, 2024, to discuss a proposal for a multi-million-dollar senior living complex on the property of the former Dickey Elementary School at 102 South Fairview Street in Lock Haven. The meeting, lasting just over three hours, was attended by representatives from the project developers, Quandel Design Group and Livic Civil, as well as Clinton County Commissioners Angela Harding and Jeff Snyder and several Lock Haven City Council members. Numerous neighborhood residents who live near the property filled the council chambers to express their views on the proposed housing project.
Cyndi Walker, Building Code Official and Director of Permits and Licensing, opened the meeting by introducing the project applicant, Noble Community Partners, and outlining the project details. She explained that the applicant is seeking a variance for the section of the city code concerning usage in the residential zone district to allow for the senior living development, which is not currently permitted in this zoning area. Additionally, the applicant requested a variance from the city code regarding parking spaces, proposing to offer one parking space per unit instead of the required three.
Noble Community Partners proposed demolishing Dickey Elementary School to build a senior housing complex on the site. The proposed complex would feature 40 units and a parking lot with 46 spaces.
Residents living nearby voiced concerns about the potential impact on neighborhood parking, noting existing parking issues. They also worried that the development could alter the neighborhood’s character. In contrast, supporters pointed out the need for senior housing in Lock Haven, emphasizing the potential community benefits such as increased tax revenue and alleviated pressure on the local housing market.
Chris Doherty, Senior Business Development Manager at Quandel Construction, presented the project, emphasizing the company’s extensive experience with senior housing developments. He noted the project’s estimated $15 million cost and the use of local subcontractors, adding economic value to the community. The building would incorporate advanced safety features, including a camera surveillance system and lighting, representing a substantial community investment. Doherty assured attendees that strict monitoring would ensure residency is limited to those aged 62 and older who meet certain income criteria.
Andrew Keister, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor with Livic Civil outlined the plans for the property. He detailed how the existing school building would be demolished to make way for a three-story apartment building designed specifically for senior housing needs. The project proposes 46 parking spaces, allocating 40 for residents and six for visitors. Keister compared this parking ratio to standards in other municipalities, indicating that it aligns with typical senior housing projects.
Madeline Frew, representing Noble Community Partners, explained the management aspect of the project. She highlighted that only individuals aged 62 or older who meet specific income criteria would be eligible to reside in the building. Frew reassured attendees that the project would be closely monitored to comply with state tax credit requirements. She also noted that the proposed parking ratio is reasonable based on past projects and the actual parking usage patterns of residents aged 62 and older.
During the meeting, members of the zoning hearing board raised questions about the project’s feasibility and focused on the number of parking spaces and its potential impact on the neighborhood. Community members echoed these concerns, pointing out existing parking issues and expressing concerns that the project might worsen them.
Bill Spedding, a resident of South Fairview Street, attended the meeting and was represented by his attorney, Jeff Stover of Bellefonte. Attorney Stover questioned representatives from Quandel Group and Noble Community Partners about whether they’d done any studies on the number of cars owned by residents in other similar projects. He questioned Noble Community Partners about why they requested almost three times less parking than the zoning ordinance requires and also asked if they’d visited completed projects at other senior living facilities to analyze the actual utilization of parking spaces there.
An engineer from Noble Community Partners explained that they believed 46 parking spaces was reasonable for the number of units in the complex, stating, “We feel that the three spaces for a dwelling unit is excessive and more than we would typically see in almost any other area.”
Madeline Frew of Noble Community Partners also provided an explanation for the number of parking spaces. “Not all applicants have to have a car to live there,” she said. “Part of the application process is that you have to be within walking distance of a bus route and things you can walk to, so you do not need to have a vehicle to live in this building,” Frew clarified, suggesting that not every tenant will need a parking space given the proximity to a grocery store, pharmacy, medical facility, bank, and other necessities.
Spedding voiced his opposition to the project, raising concerns about parking and the neighborhood’s character. Having lived in the area since 2004, he has closely observed the parking situation and noted that it already poses challenges, particularly when the elementary school was operational. He fears that the proposed 40-unit development would worsen these issues. Spedding argued that the project is not in harmony with the low-density residential nature of the neighborhood and objected to its scale and density.
“We moved into a neighborhood that has single-family, two-family homes, and we moved there for a reason,” Spedding said. “We wanted that kind of atmosphere.” He reiterated that the project clashes with the low-density setting that he and his family sought when they purchased their home, and he emphasized that the low-density zoning aims to preserve the neighborhood’s character, which he believes the project fails to match.
Mike Stoneberg, another resident of South Fairview Street, also highlighted ongoing parking issues and zoning concerns. He mentioned that he was previously denied permission to convert part of his property into an apartment because he couldn’t provide the three additional parking spaces the zoning board requires. Stoneberg shared recent experiences of people parking on Fairview Street and blocking his driveway, recounting two incidents within the past six weeks where he had to call city police to tow vehicles so he could leave for work. He believes that the 40-unit development would further aggravate the current parking problems in the neighborhood.
“If you have 40 units, there might only be one bedroom, but if there’s a husband and wife that live in there, that’s 80 people. We don’t have parking to start with,” Stoneberg stressed. “It is not zoned for that. I could not get permission to rent an apartment out above my garage. We also have rental units beside us, and they have to abide by the rules and regulations,” he pointed out before later adding, “If they were building something with 15 units and they had 30 parking spots, I would not have an issue with it, but if I have to go down and park as the Weis store and walk up my alley when it’s 10 below zero because somebody’s parked in front of my house, and I am a taxpayer paying $5,000 a year on my property, why should I have to do that?”
Virginia Jones, another resident of South Fairview Street, shared concerns about parking issues in the neighborhood. She pointed out that most homes on the upper side of the street lack off-street parking, and some homes that have been converted into apartments also have insufficient parking. Jones noted that the existing apartment building across the street, Carter Towers, contributes to parking overflow onto the street. She stressed that the proposed 40-unit senior housing development would worsen these parking problems.
Jones claimed that Carter Towers initially housed only elderly residents but now accommodates a variety of tenants. “We already have elderly buildings here that you’re putting other people in. We don’t need more units for that,” she said. “At 62, a lot of us still work, so we need cars to drive to work because you don’t walk to work unless you live right there… 62 is not that old, so let’s straighten that out first.”
Commissioner Angela Harding expressed her support for the proposed housing project, recognizing that while residents might experience some inconveniences, she believes the project is vital for the community. “Not only do we have an aging population, but we’re losing residents in Clinton County, and so our tax base is not growing because we have a housing crisis,” Harding said. She encouraged neighbors to be flexible and consider solutions to the issues raised. “No one in here wants their taxes to increase, and the county, to this point, is being able to hold the line. If we have an opportunity for some of the elders in our community to go to a facility that is a beautiful place to live, they have no maintenance, their costs are fixed, then that’s going to open up residences not only in the city of Lock Haven but across Clinton County.”
Harding highlighted that the $15 million investment in the senior housing complex could help create more housing opportunities for younger families and boost the county’s population. She urged nearby residents to consider the wider needs of the community and be open to the growth and development this project might bring despite any inconveniences.
Another resident of South Fairview Street questioned where staff members for residents in the housing complex will park if in-home nurses are needed, asking, “If these people need nursing care and so forth, where are they going to put them?”
Commissioner Jeff Snyder spoke in support of the project at the meeting, noting that 67% of Clinton County is owned by the state, DCNR, and the Game Commission, which limits the county’s tax base revenue. He stated that a few years ago, the county’s STEP Inc. office conducted a survey that showed there are over 1,000 people in the county who need this type of senior housing.
Snyder acknowledged the parking concerns raised by the neighbors but pointed to the county’s experience with the Susquehannock Heights Senior housing in Flemington, where parking has not been a major issue. He also suggested that public transportation offered through the STEP Inc. office might be a solution to parking issues. “I also sit on the STEP board, and that will be a designated stop for STEP for transportation,” he said.
Snyder expressed hope that the city would be open to considering this project, as it would help address the significant need for senior housing in the county and contribute to the tax base. “The Susquehanna project pays taxes. Flemington Borough accepted it with open arms, and I would hope that you realize that when you have other entities contributing to the tax base, it lessens your burden.”
Several of the Lock Haven City Council members spoke in support of the senior housing complex or otherwise attended the meeting. Heather Alexander, who lives on West Park Street, stated that she had experienced the traffic and parking in the area when her son attended Dickey Elementary. She said that even at the busiest times, she was always able to find parking. “I travel all of those roads every single day to go to work and I see open parking spaces,” she said.
City Council member Tami Brannan of South Fairview Street expressed her support, stating that the housing complex will bring funding and new residents to the community. She said that she does not see the same parking issues that other neighbors have described and that she is usually able to find parking within half a block of her home, even on street sweeper nights.
City Council member Steve Stevenson also expressed his support for the project, stating that he sees it as a “win-win” for the community. He acknowledged that the city may have missed opportunities for housing developments in the past but believes this project is a positive step forward.
Throughout the meeting, the zoning hearing board asked questions about the housing complexes’ accessibility for its residents, the floor plans for the three-story facility, how the age and income of potential residents would be verified, and how visitors would access the building and where they would park.
Andrew Keister, the engineer for the project, explained that the main entrance would be on the Bald Eagle Street side, where the parking and handicap-accessible spaces are located. He said this would be the accessible route into the building. When asked about accessibility from Fairview Street, Keister stated that the entrance on the corner of Fairview and Bald Eagle Street would be at a higher floor level, with some kind of accessible sidewalk leading up to it rather than steps.
The zoning board members raised concerns about site grading, particularly the banks or slopes around the property’s perimeter, and questioned how accessible this would be for older residents. Keister acknowledged these concerns and mentioned that these details would be further examined during the land development stage in collaboration with the city’s engineering firm.
During the meeting, the board reviewed the facility’s floor plans and noted that there were plans for 35 one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units, totaling 41 units instead of the proposed 40. When asked about this discrepancy, representatives from Noble Community Partners and Quandel Group were unable to provide detailed information about the unit layouts, explaining that this aspect would be handled by the project architect, who was not present to provide those details.
Frank Miceli, the solicitor for the zoning hearing board, sought clarification regarding the size of the complex. “It says ‘lot area proposed 61,008’. Is that the square footage for this lot, which would be roughly one and a half acres, or is that just the building footprint?” For clarification, Keister explained, “61,000 is the proposed lot based on tax parcel data that hasn’t been surveyed yet.”
Abbey Roberts, City Planner and Development Coordinator, discussed the goals of the Destination Lock Haven Community Comprehensive Plan, which highlights the need for affordable starter homes and improved housing options for seniors. She emphasized the community’s vision for housing, which involves creating low-maintenance living options for both younger professionals and seniors, while also providing seniors with age-in-place appropriate housing. Roberts underscored the importance of enabling residents to stay within the city, stating that the housing complex would provide them the opportunity to do that.
Roberts also referenced findings from the STEP Inc. Community Needs Assessment conducted last fall, which identified affordable senior housing as a medium to high priority in the county. Additionally, she noted that the Opera House Development, located in the central business district and reserved for residents aged 62 and older, does not require any parking.
City Council member Dr. Jeff Brinker proposed that the developers consider creating diagonal parking spaces to increase the number of available spots for the proposed development, potentially adding 20 to 30 more spaces. He suggested that switching from parallel to diagonal parking and moving the sidewalks closer to the building could create more space and prevent further parking issues in the area.
Neighbors of the property voiced concerns about the “changing the character of the neighborhood” with the proposed three-story building. They questioned the fairness of rezoning the area and raised concerns about the potential for other developments should the zoning rules change for this project. Some residents argued that there are other suitable locations for senior housing within the county.
Keister contended that the proposed multi-family senior housing complex is appropriate for the property, considering its proximity to amenities needed by tenants aged 62 and older. Regarding the neighborhood’s character, he highlighted the existing residential development nearby, Carter Towers, to support his view that the new development would maintain the area’s character.
In conclusion, Attorney Jeff Stover summarized his client’s opposition to the project. He stated that for a use variance, the applicant bears a serious and compelling burden of proof to meet all five criteria outlined in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. Attorney Stover argued that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the use variance for the proposed 41-unit senior housing development. “They didn’t even know how many units this was when they started tonight. It’s 41 units, not 40, so they just haven’t done their homework,” he said. “We can’t rely on what they’re saying as to whether there’s a hardship here. They certainly haven’t proven it.”
Attorney Stover argued that the applicant had not conducted a feasibility study or explored alternative options, such as single-family housing or smaller multi-unit developments. He insisted that the proposed 41-unit development does not align with the character of the surrounding single-family, low-density neighborhood and concluded that the applicant had not satisfied any of the five criteria necessary to grant a use variance.
Just over two hours into the meeting, zoning board solicitor Frank Miceli suggested the board hold a brief executive session outside of the council chambers. The purpose was to discuss the five criteria the board must evaluate for granting both the use variance request and the parking variance. He explained that the board must consider these five criteria for each variance to determine if they have been met.
When the board returned, Miceli outlined each of the five use variance criteria one by one, asking the board to evaluate the findings on whether the applicant has met their burden of proof for that element.
The board members reviewed the five criteria needed to grant a use variance and concluded that the applicant, Noble Community Partners, failed to meet the burden of proof. Specifically, they determined that there were no unique physical circumstances or conditions on the property that would create an unnecessary hardship. With this decision, they agreed it was unnecessary to evaluate the remaining criteria. A motion to deny the use variance request was made, seconded, and passed unanimously with a 4-0 vote.
Regarding the parking variance criteria, the board found that the applicant had also not demonstrated unique physical conditions that would justify an unnecessary hardship for parking requirements. A motion to deny the parking variance request was subsequently made, seconded, and unanimously approved, also with a 4-0 vote.
