Baederwood Shopping Center
( The Fairway Transit District
Ordinances 2000 & 2006 )
Please check all details
for accuracy with the Township or your own Commissioner.
Please ask the Township to post a page like this with history/
document links / the next meeting etc
so citizens don't have to
If there
are errors,
please let us know
so we can correct anything that needs correcting.
_______________________________________________________
The Nutshell :
The
Baederwood Shopping Center consisted of 3 parcels.
2
parcels made up 10.56 acres along the Fairway and one 8.32
acre parcel was in the rear,undeveloped and on a steep
slope
circa 2005 when Brandolini
bought all 3.
Brandolini presenteed
a plan in 2006 to redevelop it with 500 apartments, expanded office/ retail space and an underground garage.
After meeting great resistance from the residents, and
submitting repeated variations of the plan, Brandolini
decided instead to challenge the validity of the ordinance on
the rear 8 acres, saying that they had become the victims of
reverse spot zoning - all the parcels around the 8 acres
had been allowed to deveop with greater rights. They took us to
court. This prompted our Commissioners to propose to
rezone the entire Fairway. They created the Fairway Transit
District and gave Brandolini a great deal of what he was seeking
. On the rear 8 acres he won the right to build 244 units -
under the condition that he made certain improvements to the 10
acre area before beginning to develop the rear acreage.
But in 2013 Brandolini changed the ownership entities on the
parcels, and despite having provided for some
easements between the parcels, he claimed in 2016 that he
should have the right to build on the rear 8 acres, but no
longer had the ability to control the development of the 10
acres in order to meet the conditions, alternately saying in
part he had already met them and, alternately still yet, saying
the conditions being requested were not what was agreed to.
In September 2016 he filed a formal appeal of the Determination
by Mark requiring the conditions be met. His appeal was
denied in May 2017, but he appealed that decision in Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas, and then also subsequently filed
an Amended Variance Request . In February 2018, the Zoning
Hearing Board granted the 2nd Variance request - but the
Township may appeal that . OK fast forward to November
2018. After many legal filings and appeals ......Brandolini has
been given the green light to develop the back 8 acres into 244
apartment units . 11-19-18 was part 1 of their hearing .
Dec 11th they hope to go to the Planning Commission and then 2
days later to finish the hearing at the Board of Commissioners
meeting Dec 13th . If there are glitches, it may get pushed into
January.
 Timeline
: Part
One of the Baederwood Saga
Circa 2005,
a company named Brandolini bought the 18 acres that was known as the
Baederwood Shopping Center . It was divided into three parcels.
2 of the parcels making 10.56 acres along the
Fairway have stores and offices and were zoned PB. The
rear 8.32 acres was sloped and wooded land-- the only real
green space left in this tri-parcel bundle. It was zoned
R1 for 8 homes - although the steep slope might have dictated
fewer. Of the 10.56 acres - 2.63 was the Whole Foods
parcel and 7.3 was the strip mall with the cinema and offices.
Brandolini first came in with a
plan for 500 apartment units and greatly expanded office
and retail . In early meetings they presented the most
absurd traffic studies, suggesting little or no impact and
they made absurd comments about the number of children
certain apartments might draw - giving us no reason to respect
any of their findings ( or to want "corporate citizens" like
that in our township.) They often showed little or no
respect for residents directly, and seem to be uninterested in
residents wishes in any fashion. Overt rudeness has been
exhibited by their lawyer in these proceedings.
When their plan was rebuffed again and again by large crowds of
residents they changed their tune and decided to claim
that they lacked access to the 8 acres that was landlocked in
the middle (hello they own the access property.... this surely
makes no sense) and they said that properties all around them
were allowed to build commercial so they should be, too. (
But they weren't all - Rydal Waters is residential) They
said they had been the victims of "reverse spot zoning "
They wanted us to rezone the 8 acres to PB - on which you
could build significantly more than you could on the current R1
zoning. They were going to challenge the validity of
our ordinance.
Abington Township
Commissioners, despite listening to residents again and
again say that they did not want the over-development that
Brandolini offered, hired experts to review and write a new
ordinance, a curative amendment, purportedly to put something in
that would be more desirable, and something that would avert a
lawsuit. Residents were not openly invited to participate in
these meetings crafting the new ordinance, nor were they kept
abreast in a manner that was easy for them to understand what
was being suggested.
What the Commissioners, with their
"experts" crafted was not just for the Baederwood shopping
center, but a Fairway Transit District for
the whole Fairway - and was rife with objectionable "gifts" to
the developer. Gifts that many of us feel are unwarranted and
not in our interest. Building on the green space, far too many
units, no accommodation for traffic or water that is adequate,
no plan for the Rydal bridge. Residents remain uninformed
of all of the details of Transit Oriented Districts (TOD's)
which the adjacent Noble area has been slated to become. Density
is a prime feature of that. The most egregious part of this is
that they had the ability to inform us so residents could
understand - but despite all our requests, and the use of
our monies for all of these shenanigans, adequate communication
was refused.
The FTD Ordinance passed Jan 6, 2011 and the
District was created that enabled the 244 units on the rear
acreage - much to the disappointment of the residents that
had been though so much. By 2013 the developer "adjusted" the
ownership on all the parcels and by 2016 he filed suit to be
able to build on the rear parcels without fullfilling the
obligations he had agreed to on the front parcels. Their
first request to be excused from these obligations was
denied --- they appealed that in Common Pleas court. They aldso
filed another request - an amended request - for a variance.
That was granted 2-18 by the Zoning Hearing Board - but the
Township may appeal that .
If you need any of the
details of the proceedings in between all these things -
just ask.
Timeline : Part Two of the Baederwood Saga:
After the rezoning
Jan 6th,
2011
1-6-11
The Fairway Transit District was
approved, paving the way for the redevelopment of the Baederwood
Shopping Center under this Ordinance, and allowing for 244 units
to be built on the rear 8.32 acres ( where 8 previously
would have been allowed
)
They
said that then we would have control over the whole project and
would fix the non-conformities on the Lower 2 parcels
.
But it didn't end up working that way at all.
A sad day for Abington, in the opinion of some
of us. The Ordinance was passed by the Board of Commissioners at the Public
Hearing tonight where many, many residents showed up & many spoke - all against
it.
Only 2 Commissioners , Zappone and Carlin, (thank you,
gentlemen) seem to hear those that testified tonight (and over the last four
years) . We gave them something very close to - perhaps in many ways better than
- they would have won in court - had they even prevailed . If Brandolini won
the PB (
Planned Business) designation for the rear 8 acres they would
still have 60 foot setbacks - (instead of the 20-25 Kline & Peacock
offered in this ordinance) . If they won the PB,
they would have 50 foot building heights -( instead of the 75
feet they were given in this ordinance)
Brandolini would have been limited in the amount
of developing they could do by the height and the amount of parking
if they won the PB
- while Kline & Peacock tried to portray that these would not create
any significant limitation. Land Planner Kennedy could have given directly
comparable figures based on the most dense configuration that he could have
contrived using either commercial or residential or both -- but he did not. The public, on
this matter , was missing information necessary for comparison. And when we
tried to correct a definitive misstatement from the dais, we were denied the opportunity to
speak . (Business as usual)
Residents said again and again in the
past they did not like or want parking garages -
Kline and Peacock gave INCENTIVES for them to build parking garages.
Residents did want a movie theater - Kline and Peacock gave NO incentives for
that . Residents were told by Kline that there was 30% green
space. But there is not . There is only a guarantee of 20% pervious surface
--- pervious surface does not have to be green (* gravel & some hardscapes are
pervious ) Residents by and large want their properties set back
from the curb, closer to the curb are being given to build up close
to the street. 75 foot heights can be the reward for building some other
feature we also don't want. There are many, many more and problems with this ordinance.
One can only hope that someone will file an appeal. Knowing that ordinances with
these types of is in the planning commercial districts all over the Township
makes this distressing.
Commissioners Kline & Peacock said they heard residents
. Maybe. But then they must have ignored of what they
heard .
(((((
The zoning
rewrites township wide were passed in April 2017 & had many of these measures in them and
the challenges even to these new liberal measures began immediately. That made many of these
measures standard Township wide . You will find your whole Township challenged in this fashion and
residents, as proven here, will be given very little time to learn about it and
to have any say.))))))
Return to top of page
Feb 2, 2011
The Fairway Transit District (FTD) ordinance was passed on January
6, 2011. There were more than a few irregularitites uncovered but left
unaddressed before its passing and it seems likely that within the next few
days there may be an appeal filed . For one thing the ordinance was never
declared invalid - and had it been, it seems that we would have had six full
months to bring it into compliance. There is also a question of whenher all the
correct procedures have been followed …. Your commissioners continue to
report that under the PB ordinance ( had Brandolinie won…) the builder would
have had virtually no limits on density. That is simply untrue . They were very
definitely limited by height, setbacks and parking. We just never got to see
any real samples of what that would have looked like, complete with both
commercial & residential. If they wanted to add parking, they would have had to
forego other things. The new ordinance actually allows greater heights and
smaller setbacks, encourages parking garages and shamefully does not guarantee
green space, among just a few of its faults. In this writer's opinion it was a
very sad day for Abington to see the kind of ordinance that your Commissioners
found acceptable. In addition, the way inaccurate & misleading information
was put forth in order to get it passed was just as shameful. Residents were
told that the Montgomery County planning commission had approved it - apparently
they had not approved it without conditions. Nearly everything that residents
stood at the podium and asked for was ignored. If anyone does not believe these
serious irregularities exist, I urge them to contact me and get the actual
facts. Some of us have put hours into getting the details so that we could
understand it more fully. And we are more than dismayed… It has been shared
that Brandolini has no immediate plans to re-develop the
property as per the new rights granted in this ordinance. we
expect instead that they will be looking for tenants . But
once the building starts , I think you will be shocked at what
is to come in 75 foot heights. This is a heads up for the
manner in which the township wide rezoning of the exact same
kind is about to be processed………
Return to top of page
July 12, 2011
One resident resident ( without attorney - representing himself "pro
se" ) - filed a challenge to the passing of the ordinance. For a
variety of reasons he has challenged that the ordinance be declared
invalid and reversed and he argued sufficiently well in Common Pleas Court
for the judge to require that the Zoning Hearing Board hear his
complaints. Tonite the resident preented the first details ,
but there were many objections and the process did not get far. The
case will
resume Aug 24th 7 in township building – but double check on the
township website (http://www.abington.org/resident/events.htm
) to make sure it hasn’t been removed, changed or cancelled .
Here
is a site that addresses some of the issues via an email
from Commissioner Peacock responded to by the
resident making the complaint …..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60145642/Media-Patch-7-16-11-Letter
This is an important issue for Abington residents. False
and/or misleading testimony and other very serious issues are
all quite evident here and we should be grateful one
resident had the temerity to challenge these.
Perhaps an even greater concern is the complete disregard by the
Commissioners for the wishes of the residents who came
time and again to the podium to decry garages, smaller
setbacks, higher buildings, increased density, safety &
emergency vehicle access, disregard for the steep slope
and flooding etc etc ------only to have the
Commissioners in some cases even provide INCENTIVES for the
builder to build what the residents did not want - while NOT
providing incentives for the top requests of residents .
Return to top of page
2013
Brandolini
reshuffled ownership of the various parcels- though it appears
the entities are largely still "Brandolini entities".
These changes in ownership were a
complicated series of actions that they later used to claim made
it impossible to meet their obligations on the lower
parcels that were supposed to be modified before
developing the rear 8 acres because they no longer owned
them
. Was the purpose to obfuscate?
Perhaps that would not be an ssumption that should not be
considered. It led to the next round of absurdities where
they decided that the conditions that were supposed to apply, no
longer did.
Return to top of page
2016
Brandolini asked to develop the
back 8 acres - but was met with a list of conditions they had
not met . They appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board that
these conditions did not, or should not apply and since they had
sold off the Shopping Center parcels they said they were unable
to make them comply, so the rearranged
ownership was part of the problem.
6-15-16
Letter To Township - they have registered
the : Legally Non-Conforming
Uses Structures and Sites
in the Fairway Transit District
6-25-16
Declaration of Easements
Easements were given for access where needed
7-18-16 The Penecale Determination – Zoning Officer Mark
Penecale produced a letter that
outlined what needed to be done
to meet conditions in order to be able to begin to
develop
the 244 units on the rear
8 acres
9-16 The
Developers submit an appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board of the
decision rendered 7-18-16
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B48SOIQ31gKDczB4WE9ETGp5Qms/view
10-10 -16
Notice of Oct 18th ZHB meeting :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDd2pNb1FWaXpJNkU
10-18 -16 First hearing . Transcript: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDZUZtRmluakljSkU
11-29-16
Second
hearing . Transcript:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B48SOIQ31gKDT2tWRW1PWTFjTG8
Return to top of page
2017 After
their appeal was denied in May by the Zoning Hearing Board Brandolini decided not just to file in
Common Pleas Court to appeal that decision, but also to file another Amended Variance
Application. So the Township was defending on 2 fronts.
At what cost one might ask?
1-10-17 Third
hearing . Transcript: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDTTZ3RmdNZGp6Qk0
2-15-17
Fourth
hearing . Transcript:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDNFdVZkpFZ3R6dDQ
3-15-17 Fifth
and final
hearing . Transcript:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDQmxzVlNYbTh1UkhsZXQ3bEN4RWFtYkpDUHdF
5-17-17
The Zoning Hearing Board denied the
application --- the Developer appealed
this in
the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
9-14-17 Not content to wait for the court decision, the
Developer submitted an Amended Variance application
Here is the Cover letter ( that defines ownership of the
parcels )
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDVjhiNnp3RGxUTFY2YVhZdHNQRm1zZElKSXd3
Here is the
over letter plot plan
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDTEdiOW42MXEtYk9DcFZiRm1MaEhwMWgzOXRR
Here is the
Amended Variance Application
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDQjljOGdsakNZV0dtZ3hnRm00RF9YN0JydjYw
Per one Commissioner : “ it
appears to be another avenue by which the Developer
seeks the
same end result as the last round, but
by a slightly different maneuver intended
to circumvent the
previously agreed upon zoning criteria. Accordingly, the
Township
will continue to be there to oppose the application”
Here
is
Exhibit E – the Whole Foods Lease
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B48SOIQ31gKDOHc5SEtIY2VnYV9UTmYxaUFtTEoycmhFeTlN
10-17- 17- The first hearing night for the
Amended Variance
Application
( please send transcript if you have it and please ask
your Commissioner to post a page to explain )
12-19-17 - the
2nd
hearing nite
( please send transcript if you have it
and please ask your Commissioner to post a page to explain )
Return to top of page
2018
By
February, the Zoning Hearing Board has granted the Amended
Variance Application - but the Township was planning to appeal
--- and because the Township still will not publish a single
page per issue, ( please ask your Commissioner for that )
we have not been able to keep up with all the appeals and
decisions....
Nov 19,2018 they held part one
of the Conditional Use hearing for the rear 244 units
Here is
the notice of the hearing that , I believe, should have been
received by all those in 500 feet of the project. Many
even right next to this project, were not aware this
happened .
http://www.abington.org/home/showdocument?id=13235
Here
is the plan - that was filed for that hearing -http://www.abington.org/home/showdocument?id=13237
Here is video of the 11-19-18
Conditional Use hearing
part
1 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ih-Nk133Yk
That hearing was not cloncluded .
They are possibly
going to appear at the Dec 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting
if they can get permission for a parking issue first - if not
that may get pushed off - perhaps to January (Planning
Commission visits are supposed to come BEFORE hearings )
Dec 13th, 2018 could be part 2 of the hearing, If
they do go to the Planning Commission on the 11th . Two days
later. Astounding how this is being rushed through .
So will it be decided Dec 13th or be pushed to January
2019 - stay tuned
Return to top of page
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
We will bring more details as they are known and
welcome your comments
to share either anonymously or with your name attached with
your fellow Abington residents. See
What Abington
residents are saying to view these .
____________________________
If you have any updated information, or something you
would like to share, please
Send your the
information to:
lel@abingtoncitizens.com
|
