A ‘win-win’? Developer withdraws proposal in State College’s ‘park vs. affordable housing’ issue
Weeks after a heated public meeting, a local developer that asked the State College Borough to donate part of its parkland so it could build affordable housing has formally withdrawn its request.
In a letter addressed Wednesday to Council President Jesse Barlow, Progress Development Group said it would no longer pursue the roughly 5,500 square feet inside Nittany Village Park, where its proposed 26-unit apartment building was expected to spill over. Instead, “if possible” the letter stated, the group will redevelop the property at 1306 S. Atherton St. with fewer housing units.
“Although we are disappointed that the Borough will benefit from significantly less affordable housing units, we look forward to working with the council to see the modified development come to fruition,” said the letter, signed by executive vice president Ara Kervandjian.
It is not yet known how many units the new building might have or what its timetable might look like. The Progress Development Group (PDG) will have to consult with the borough’s planning staff and go through a routine land-development process that could take months.
The PDG’s decision comes three weeks after a public meeting, where the local Tusseyview neighborhood — and others — came out in droves to voice their opposition. Many neighbors characterized the decision to build affordable housing by taking up between 16% and 33% of the park as the right idea at the wrong location.
PDG itself acknowledged in Wednesday’s letter that it received “considerable opposition.” Tusseyview resident Dan Brown, who prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the public meeting, was among those who didn’t want to lose any slice of the park.
He was pleased with Wednesday’s result.
“Obviously, this was a positive outcome for the neighborhood,” Brown said. “This is kind of what we were hoping for. I really see this as a win-win for the borough; it still gets the affordable housing it needs and desires, and the neighborhood gets to keep its green space.”
Neighbors first heard whispers of the proposed development, Parkland Apartments, sometime last fall. They organized an online petition, wrote letters and contacted the borough — all before the council first publicly discussed the issue on May 10.
On June 7, dozens of neighbors showed up to a virtual council meeting to largely rail against the plan. Brown brought up potential complications with the Pennsylvania Donated or Dedicated Property Act, a state law says a local government has to manage a donated or dedicated park for the original purpose it was donated or dedicated for. (A legal expert later told the CDT there would be “substantial barriers” to a borough win in court.) That led to the most recent outcome.
Wednesday’s news may come as a relief to many neighbors — but not all. PDG offered to replace playground equipment and maintain the park in exchange for part of the parkland, but obviously is no longer obligated to do so.
Still, Brown noted, the new (tentative) affordable housing building is sure to bring in new families — and now those children will have a larger park to play tag, ride bikes and throw ball.
