Commissioners Deny Louella Court Development Appeal

The Radnor Township Board of Commissioners voted to uphold a prior ruling by the Historic and Architectural Review Board and deny an appeal that would allow a developer to build garages at 40 Louella Court at its meeting on Monday.

The board voted 4-2 in favor of denying an appeal made by Cas Holloway, that, if allowed, would have given the developer permission to demolish an existing garage at the mansion and build 12 two-car garages on the premises, as well as attaching a trash room to the existing structure and restoring the mansion.

HARB voted to deny the proposed addition at its meeting earlier in April on the ground that the “scope and scale” of the design” would alter the “character-defining development patterns” of the area.

Commissioner Elaine Schafer said that she found “nothing inappropriate about [HARB’s] finding.”

“Our HARB carefully examined this and applied the code we asked them to apply,” she said. “This is private property in a historic district, the mother load of our historical district, and it is a part of the very fabric of our community. The sensitivity of what we’re trying to protect is well-placed.”

HARB board member George Nagel said that the 12 garages would create a “massing issue” on the Louella Court property.

“The scope and scale of these additions would have a detrimental effect on the historical distinct,” he said.

Commissioner Donald Curley voted in favor of the appeal, saying that he thought denying the development would be a “double-edged sword.”

“In order to maintain these properties, we have to include these contemporary uses,” he said. “I have some trouble about the generalities of our ordinance and using these generalities to restrict private property rights."

Board President john Fisher said that, after reviewing the ordinance governing HARB’s decisions, he agreed with denying the appeal, but that he hoped it wouldn’t be the end of development for the Louella Court area.

“I believe the currant applicants designs violate the spirit of district’s character,” he said. “I hope there can be a dialogue between applicant and residents to come up with compromise that is both economically viable and pleasing ethically.”

Halloway said he felt that HARB and the commission didn’t look at all the consequences of voting against the development.

[HARB] didn’t look at the board picture,” he said. “The looked at one element: ‘All the neighbors here don’t want it so let’s stop it.’ You say you want people to build here and follow the law, that’s what I did.”

Area resident George Strimel said that he was “very pleased” with the board’s decision to deny the appeal.

“HARB made the call and I’m glad it was upheld,” he said. “This situation just calls for a more sensitive solution.”