Development pipelineWhitemarsh TownshipSketch plan
A Bethlehem Pike sketch plan in Whitemarsh shows 162 units under a proposed overlay that allows 32 units an acre
A developer's sketch for 431-461 Bethlehem Pike, near Fort Washington Station, shows 162 homes in two buildings of 56 and 65 feet, with 6,000 square feet of ground-floor retail. It depends on a zoning overlay that still needs a vote of the Board of Supervisors.
- Project
- 431-461 Bethlehem Pike, Whitemarsh Township
- Dwelling units in the sketch
- 162in two buildings, with 6,000 sq ft of retail
- Draft TDO-3 density
- 32units per gross acre
- Permit high since 1980
- 158units, in 2005
- Units permitted in 2024
- 74all single-family
- Stage
- Tentative sketch plan, on the Planning Commission agenda of October 13, 2026
The sketch's two buildings rise 56 and 65 feet, the two height limits in the draft overlay
A developer's sketch plan for 431-461 Bethlehem Pike in Whitemarsh Township, near Fort Washington Station, shows 162 dwelling units in two buildings and 6,000 square feet of ground-floor retail. The plan depends on a zoning text amendment the developer, the Hankin Group, submitted with it. The amendment would create a Transit-Friendly Design Overlay 3, or TDO-3, that allows up to 32 units per gross acre in the township's VC-1 Village Commercial District.
Both items were on the agenda of the Whitemarsh Planning Commission's October 13, 2026 meeting, and the meeting packet holds the draft ordinance, the plan's design manual, a review by the Montgomery County Planning Commission dated September 24 and a review by the township engineer dated October 5.
Two buildings would hold 162 units, with 212 parking spaces
The county review describes the program. A 56-foot mixed-use building along Bethlehem Pike would hold 62 units over the retail space. A 65-foot multifamily building inside the site would hold 100 units and 43 internal parking spaces, and surface lots would add 169 more. Several existing buildings would be demolished. The design manual says Wissahickon Hall, an office building from around 1890, and a two-story stone house stay.
The plan's 212 parking spaces are mostly in surface lots, 169 of them
| Element | Height | Dwelling units | Retail (sq ft) | Parking spaces |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed-use building on Bethlehem Pike | 56 ft | 62 | 6,000 | |
| Multifamily building inside the site | 65 ft | 100 | 0 | 43 |
| Surface parking lots | 169 | |||
| Total | 162 | 6,000 | 212 |
The 162 units would top 2005, the township's high since 1980, at 158
Whitemarsh authorized 74 new housing units in 2024, all single-family, according to the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission's tables of Census building permit data. The township's highest year in the series, which starts in 1980, was 2005, with 158 units.
Whitemarsh has authorized no more than 158 housing units in a year
Permits for units in buildings of five or more came to 72 across 2015 through 2024, and none were issued from 2021 through 2024. The 162 units in the sketch would exceed any single year since 1980, though a project this size could draw its permits over more than one year.
The draft overlay allows 32 units an acre, where the Village Commercial districts allow 8
The draft ordinance makes the overlay available by conditional use, an approval the township grants case by case against standards the ordinance lists. A property needs at least 3 acres, public water and sewer, and some land within 1,000 feet of a SEPTA train station or bus stop. The project has to restore an environmentally distressed area at the applicant's cost, at least 0.5 acre or 10% of the lot, whichever is larger, and every building has to be designed to LEED Silver, a level in the U.S. Green Building Council's rating system for green buildings, with an application for certification.
The overlay's 32 units an acre compares with 8 in the Village Commercial districts today
Buildings could rise to five stories and 65 feet, or four stories and 56 feet within 100 feet of the ultimate right-of-way, the line set aside for future road widening. Parking starts at one space per unit and three per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area, and a lot may hold no more than 110% of that minimum without a parking demand analysis. For comparison, residential density in the Village Commercial districts is 8 units per acre, according to the minutes of the commission's September 8 meeting, where members backed a separate change that would allow 10 for properties that share driveway access.
The county backs the amendment, and the township engineer lists 122 comments
The county planning commission's letter finds the amendment and sketch generally consistent with the township's comprehensive plan and with the county's, which maps the site as a village center inside a rail station walkshed, the area within half a mile of a station. The commission says it generally supports the proposed amendments and lists concerns for the township and the applicant to weigh before adoption.
They include definitions of environmental restoration that it calls vague, and the LEED clause, which, the commission says, does not appear to require that a building end up certified, only that it be designed to Silver and that the applicant apply. It suggests precertification or early documentation from the Green Building Council.
On the sketch, it asks how the trail along the property line would reach the station, which may need coordination with SEPTA, and recommends a trail at least 10 feet wide, curb ramps that meet federal right-of-way accessibility guidelines, and moving parking spaces that sit at the site entrances.
The township engineer's letter runs to 122 numbered comments, many of them preliminary plan requirements given as guidance. It points out that the draft overlay sets no open space minimum of its own, so the plan must show it meets the VC-1 standard. It also lists the permits and fees that follow the plan.
The engineer's letter names a PennDOT permit, a DEP stormwater permit and four studies for the preliminary plan
| Item | What the township engineer's letter says |
|---|---|
| Traffic impact fee | $2,825 per anticipated peak-hour trip in the North Transportation Service Area |
| Bethlehem Pike work | A PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit for work in the right-of-way of Bethlehem Pike (SR 2018) |
| Stormwater | A DEP NPDES permit because the limit of disturbance appears to exceed one acre |
| Fill near water | No fill in watercourses or floodways or on wetlands unless the Army Corps of Engineers and DEP permit it and the township approves |
| Steep slopes | Disturbance limited to 30% of slopes between 15% and 25% and 15% of slopes of 25% or more |
| Park land | 10% of the site area for park or recreation use or a fee in lieu or a mix of both |
| Preliminary plan studies | Sewer and water feasibility; groundwater protection and replenishment; erosion and sedimentation control; traffic impact |
The traffic impact fee depends on a count the plan does not yet contain, since the traffic study comes with the preliminary plan. The table below shows how the fee scales, with trip counts chosen only as an example.
At $2,825 a trip, an example of 100 peak-hour trips gives a $282,500 fee
| Peak-hour trips (example) | Fee per trip | Traffic impact fee | Fee drawn to scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | $2,825 | $141,250 | |
| 100 | $2,825 | $282,500 | |
| 150 | $2,825 | $423,750 |
What this means for contractors
The plan describes work across several trades: demolition, floodplain and wetland restoration along Sandy Run, woodland and meadow planting over much of the southern part of the site, a trail tied to the Cross County Trail, road and curb work in Bethlehem Pike under a PennDOT permit, and two buildings of 56 and 65 feet. Site and civil firms would work under the erosion and sedimentation plan and the DEP stormwater permit the engineer names.
Trade contractors bidding the buildings should ask the general contractor which LEED credits the project is pursuing and what documentation each scope must supply, since the draft ties the zoning approval to a Silver design.
The sketch is at its first stage of review, and the ordinance still needs a vote
The project is at its first stage of review. A sketch plan is not binding, the ordinance needs a vote of the Board of Supervisors, and the conditional use and the preliminary and final land development plans come after that.
- NowSketch planPlanning Commission agenda, October 13, 2026. Not binding.
- NextOrdinance voteThe Board of Supervisors decides on the overlay.
- ThenConditional useApproval against the ordinance's standards.
- ThenPreliminary planThe traffic study comes with it.
- LastFinal planFinal land development plan.
Agendas and packets for the Planning Commission and the supervisors are posted in the township's Agenda Center. The tentative agenda for the commission's November 10 meeting lists a sketch plan for 50 homes, 40 singles and 10 twins, at Karamoor Farm on East Skippack Pike. For how the county's permit figures are compiled, see the guide to local construction market data.
Caveats
The unit counts, heights and parking come from a tentative sketch and can change at every step. The Planning Commission's action on October 13 could not be verified, because its minutes were not yet posted when this was checked on October 24. Its votes are recommendations; the Board of Supervisors decides on the ordinance, and the county's review is advisory. The DVRPC permit table ends with 2024 and counts units authorized by permit.
Housing units authorized in Whitemarsh by type of building, 2000 to 2024
| Year | Single-family | 2 to 4 units | 5 or more units | Total units | Total drawn to scale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 22 | |
| 2001 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 2002 | 91 | 0 | 0 | 91 | |
| 2003 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 72 | |
| 2004 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 73 | |
| 2005 | 28 | 0 | 130 | 158 | |
| 2006 | 27 | 0 | 99 | 126 | |
| 2007 | 19 | 0 | 104 | 123 | |
| 2008 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | |
| 2009 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 16 | |
| 2010 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 | |
| 2011 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| 2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2013 | 7 | 0 | 62 | 69 | |
| 2014 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 11 | |
| 2015 | 50 | 0 | 10 | 60 | |
| 2016 | 66 | 0 | 0 | 66 | |
| 2017 | 103 | 0 | 0 | 103 | |
| 2018 | 81 | 0 | 40 | 121 | |
| 2019 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 105 | |
| 2020 | 59 | 0 | 22 | 81 | |
| 2021 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| 2022 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | |
| 2023 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 38 | |
| 2024 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 74 |