Down from 8 Houses to 7 - but still far too many.
 Blatant violations of PA Code
      The Commissioners are not allowed to grant waivers without a hardship. The hardship cannot be created by the applicant, because, for instance, he wants more houses than properly fit on the space in order to make a bigger profit.  Yet, that is exactly what seems to be happening here.   And the hardships can't, by law, be detrimental to the public interest. Making emergency vehicles  navigate a smaller turning radius than they are used to, and than has been determined to be a proper radius no matter the size of the vehicle, is certainly not going to improve the chances of their safe arrival at the scene. Again - this waiver was given purely for the interest of profit . The profit motive is another legal no no.  Most of the waivers would not have been needed if they had planned just 5 or 6 houses.  But to get the higher profit, it seems that ignoring the law was OK with our Commissioners, who for years have been giving special dispensation to this particular property owner.       

After years of trying to ignore the cows, pigs, chickens, firewood activites, mulch, noise, debris, bamboo, etc., neighbors did not want the Township to ignore required hardships for waivers, or ignore proper stormwater management, as they proposed such things as seepage tanks under streets that they wanted to dedicate to YOUR  (very expensive)care, as well as ignore steep slope requirements reduced fire & emergency access  so they could  squeeze in more homes, and more parking area  . Everything about this was wrong . And while SOME of these things were ultimately not allowed - some that shouldn't have bee, were.
  
Some of the neighbors had already had a bull (literally) on their doorstep, as the codes here were ignored over the years  for this "special resident" but .....they've had enough of the bull now.   

.
       The Planning Commission also should have known that there were no real "hardships" here that complied with law. They ultimately recommended that they remove only ONE house - leaving them with 7.  But they still needed waivers  for important safety items like the  smaller turning radius for emergency vehicles, etc.    And as for their approval:  they were strictly due to the need for more profit - and the desire to fit one more house onto this land to make more $$ for the landowner.

They needed a hardship that was NOT created by the landowner himself. These clearly were.
 
In addition, throughout the process the owner Victor Yanessa has been used interchangeably with his brother- including where important signatures for compliance are missing. One document was required to be signed within 7 days  but has Paul's name under the empty line - not Victor's. If Paul Yanessa truly IS an equitable owner, a document to that effect should have been provided. 

So - as usual - lots of funny business.

 
This property is directly across from McKinley Elementary School.
If you scroll down to find the image with all the lots numbered, it is lot  #1.

  SHENANIGANS AS USUAL  May 5, 2024  PennDot has returned the Right to Know Documents requested by a resident. They seem to have ignored the turning radius problem at the entrance Plus there is a really concerning diagram showing the smaller turning radius in their submissions to PennDot. To grant a waiver for the turning radius there was a requirement that they show, in sketches that the turn would suffice for emergency vehicles. But only a car and a single panel truck are shown. NO FIRE TRUCK  IS SHOWN..... begging the question "What the heck is going on here!!!!??????"  How dangerous would that be. This needs an answer .

    I believe that it impacts the safety of all to make a turning radius more narrow so that emergency vehicles, at a stressful time  in an emergency, with a driver expecting a standard turn, might be surprized at this new  tight turning radius. Add to that, that the location is directly opposite and elementary school, where very young children are likely to be walking.  This approval would be highly irresponsible. Especially in that it is unnecessary, and the applicant can build with a normal turning radious.  The unsafe condition is being created for his profit. 

     Further, it appears that the proposal is in violation of the laws & codes regarding waiver or variance approval period. That turning radius would be no problem whatsoever if the owner had proposed fewer houses. The problem was created by the owner when he decided to have more houses than would fit and still allow for the code to be followed.  It is REQUIRED that the hardship for a waiver approval NOT be made or caused  by the owner, among other things I list here: 
 
       So the condition requiring a waiver is 
1) 100 % created by the applicant, which is not allowed
2) unnecessary in order to use the property to build homes - no peculiarity of the land prevents them from building
3) strictly for profit
4) 100% not the minimum relief that would allow him to build
5) could be detrimental to public safety and welfare
6) and no hardship was provided in writing stating in full the grounds and facts of unreasonableness of the ordinance

 All of the above are violations of the laws regarding modifications / waivers. So this, of course, appears to me not to be a properly granted "waiver"

. 
     Also, the applicant has been listed as Victor Yanessa, then Paul Yanessa, then Victor, then Paul  We are told Paul has equitable interest, but see no document to that effect.    A 2-3-23  document where Victor is listed as the applicant, has a place for Paul's signature. But Paul did not sign in the required 7 days.  Or perhaps Penn Dot  was not given that signed document....

     In the first week of May 2024 it appears that they have already demolished the house. When exactly was the Land Development?

   For some reason this property owner has been getting special treatment for as long as he has been at this site. All of us wonder why....

BOC MEETING - Aug 10, 2023  Sewage Module approved

PLANNING COMMISSION 7-25-23  It went back to the Planning Commission  to approve the  Sewage Facilities Planning Module. On page 27 in number 10 & 11 they defer to the addendum as to  whether the proposal meets the zoning requirements of the ordinance- because it does not.  And the waivers, were, I believe,  improperly granted. But I cannot find that addendum in the documents.
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/cc1b20e0-9802-11ed-96ab-0050569183fa-ca2b9c28-b9cf-4f17-b573-dd2752d4679e-1689882089.pdf

  PennDot RECEIVED THEIR  APPLICATION - but on this application they state that they had the use by right. They did not. The project required approval of multiple waiver, including one relaxing the steep slope rules, despite the properties next to this one having flooding concerns that appear, in some cases, to be caused by improper runoff from this property 

  Letter dated  2-3-23  from Greg Heleniak at Rudolph Clarke to Paul Yanessa
The Board approved  conditional preliminary approval   to Subdivide to 7 lots   per the 9-19-22 plans . Paul Yanessa is described as an equitable owner ( though no such document is provided, unless I somehow missed it.)    They are required to abide by all terms - but the most concerning is in #11  c - the turning radius for emergency vehicles is to be reduced - and they only need to provide "turning templates" that show that a smaller radius is OK - It does not limit how small in any way, If emergency vehicles can amnoeuver smaller truning radii , I am sure every one putting in a street or driveway will want that benefit , too. The slope change also has been granted --- while neighboring properties already have runoff problems from this property. That list of conditions was supposed to be signed within 7 days - so by 2-10-23 . No signed copy was received witht eh Right To Know  documents. And it is Paul Yanessa's signature - not Victor's.

  BOC  Meeting  Jan 12, 2023  Starts on p 21 here : https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/a377f69e-70c2-11ed-9024-0050569183fa-ca2b9c28-b9cf-4f17-b573-dd2752d4679e-1673465670.pdf  The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the conditions that the applicant provide a traffic study; that the applicant develop one less lot to eliminate the water mitigation in the roadway and maintain the 30-ft. cartway; also, that the Township meet with the surrounding neighbors.

REVIEW LETTER FROM ENGR PENNONI IS RECEIVED 10-10-22

  REVISED PLANS WERE SUBMITTED  SEPT 23, 2022
The revised plans included hte Planning Commission recommendation for one less house , that the road was not allowed to be narrower - it was increased from 24 feet to 30 feet  and the Stormwater that was being collected under the street was moved out of the right of way. 

APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO PENDOT  MAY 8, 2023

  BOC  Meeting    - Sept 8 or Sept 9, 2022   7 pm   NOTIFICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS - This ordinance was inspired byt his property - that went to the Planning Commission without any notification to neighbors . One, count 'em- ONE got the word just a very short while before the  start of the Plan Comm meeting and showed up - unable to even know what it was all about. So at this Board of Commissioners regular meeting they brought a measure that would require notification of residents for Land Development  matters that come before the Planning Commission.  You don't often hear me say this ......  but YAY- this is a GOOD thing.  That being said - I still feel the need to clarify: The law has always required the public to be able to attend and have speaking rights at Planning Commission meetings. This administration under President Tom Hecker and Manager Richard Manfredi knew that - yet by CHOOSING not to notify  the impacted residents, as happened here, they effectively took those rights away.  They did not need a LAW to do the right thing. Just a moral conscience, as previous administrations had.  That conscience  apparently lacking, they at least finally succumbed to our repeated requests for proper notification guidelines & we will  at last finally get a law --- So ...we can applaud them for doing something good..... (yay) .... that they SHOULD have done without being asked  (boo)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  May 12, 2022 - this letter sent to all involved enumerate the problems /violations :

From: LEL
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Richard Manfredi <rmanfredi@AbingtonPA.gov>; thecker@abingtonpa.gov; mvahey@abingtonpa.gov
Cc: Ken Brodsky <kbrodsky@abington.org>; Drew Rothman <drothman@abington.org>; Jimmy DiPlacido <jdiplacido@abington.org>; Julia Vaughn <jvaughn@AbingtonPA.gov>; Mike Thompson <mthompson@abington.org>; Stuart Winegrad <swinegrad@abington.org>; lorihenryforward8@gmail.com; Dennis Zappone VERIZON <dczapp1@verizon.net>; Jessica Carswell <jcarswell@abington.org>; John Spiegelman <spiegs@AbingtonPA.gov>; Bill Bole <bbole@AbingtonPA.gov>; Lori Schreiber HOTMAIL <loriforroslyn@hotmail.com>; Thomas Bowman AOL <tbowman1999@aol.com>; Allison A. Lee <aalee@Pennoni.com>; Khaled R. Hassan <KHassan@Pennoni.com>; Thomas Hecker <thecker@AbingtonPA.gov>; Matt Vahey <matt@mattvahey.com>; Terry Castorina <tcastorina@AbingtonPA.gov>; Ashley McIlvaine <amcilvaine@AbingtonPA.gov>; lms1050@gmail.com; rrosen@tabasrosen.com
Subject: RE: Please remove 365 Cedar Rd from the agenda until it is in compliance with all laws and codes

To all :

The questions for you, Mr Manfredi are :

1) How ever did an application not properly filled out according to PA law even get to the next step ? I think that is an important question that we need an answer to.   Who is in charge of seeing that this didn’t move to any next step until it was properly done and ready? You may recall my concern over your appointment of someone with ZERO code and zoning experience as head of code and zoning – and ditto on the code enforcement specialist who multiple times didn’t seem to know the law on something as simple as property maintenance and absolutely had not applied the law to swiftly handle the vacant properties – which led to buildings that for 10 or more years remained a blight in our town . He then  found himself elevated to the challenging position of Zoning Officer – in a world where some verry forceful, knowledgeable  and powerful people prefer to have their way.   It matters if we have people with experience in such positions.

2) No hardships at all . You can’t waiver things unless the hardship has created  effectively an “impossibility to zone according to the law”  Why did the Engineer not address those lapses. Why did he/they not  refuse to grant waivers at all – especially since nearly all the waiver requests are a result of what is of the applicant’s own making. Neither the Engineer, nor the Planning Commission nor Montco Planning Commission, nor any others that took part in this actually addressed the violations of law? Did the solicitor review it ?  There are many questions here that need answers. 

3) Ultimately it is the public who puts the people in charge of hiring those that protect our own health, safety and welfare. So the fact that we have been unable to get virtually any responses to important questions asked during your term in Abington is a serious matter. You know I already addressed this very specific lapse – long before it showed up on tonight’s agenda for “approval”.   NO other administration has been like this in the nearly half century I have been in Abington.. This administration has put people back in charge – even on our Zoning Hearing Board -  who could have been charged by the Commonwealth for their actions – ones  that displayed an utter disregard for our laws and for our health safety and welfare in development and code matters.  So it matters that we oversee – and it matters that we get answers and that we are not blocked from access to the tools we provide you to give that access. They give us the power to oversee.

   Please direct your staff to answer questions for the public – your constituents.  I have yet to hear of a developer with the same complaint when he asks one.  Please allow our tools to be used so we CAN have oversight . Tape the meetings – such as the very important Comprehensive Plan meetings --- and all others. Use all the tools you can to notify people.  Provide  summary information or minutes as immediately as you can where no minutes are available for 3 months. Have someone always there to answer the phone. Fix the website problems that have people calling ME to help them figure out how to attend meetings . Tell the Solicitor to respond, as immediately as he is able, to Right to Know requests and with ALL the information. Stop trying to cut off every sentence a resident says that you think you might not like the ending to.  Give residents the courtesy of making their comments AFTER they have been informed about the issue. Allow residents to share their 3 minutes open comment when they arrive because the disrespect of requiring them to wait through a three hour meeting in order to address you for 3 minutes is tantamount to removal of their rights. You have not responded to the meetings that took place  out of the public where decisions to remove Zoning Hearing Board Candidates were made, leaving only one candidate who had a history of problems with zoning code matters.  In many of these things you are blatantly violating the law  and thereby removing our rights . Those things fall under Abuse of Office – Official  Oppression under the criminal code.  Just as the law is not being followed here --- the law is being violated again and again --- as are basic courtesies. These things show you not to be working in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of us – the residents who elected you or pay for your services.   
Please plan a new way forward and start by adhering to the laws that you took an oath to obey.  

Please get back to me so we can discuss these problems .

Lora Lehmann

1431 Bryant La. Meadowbrook, PA 19046
215-885-0504

lel@abingtoncitizens.com

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  BOC MEETING   ... MAY 12, 2022 WAS POSTPONED  Still at 8 new homes being requested  "The Board of Commissioners made a motion to defer the agenda item to a future Board of Commissioners meeting".   No changes were yet made to reflect the Planning Commission's comments
 There was a great deal of confusion . They had this on the agenda  for  5-12-22 Thursday at the Board of Commissioners for 7 pm  supposedly for  "approval" - but according to Comr DiPlacido he was going to make a motion to postpone that to June. found starting page 41 here  :
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/bd3b30da-5798-11ec-85e3-0050569183fa-ca2b9c28-b9cf-4f17-b573-dd2752d4679e-1652107932.pdf   I am assuming he has to make a motion to advertize it first.  To correct an earlier error of mine : I previously believed the matter would have to come before the Zoning Hearing Board  (because of  a  definition I had relied on differentiating waivers from variances. which I susequently learned  was not valid  in PA). So it seems the Board DOES have the right to directly approve the waivers, but not without fully explained hardships, not without good cause, not when they are of the applicant's making, or are not in the public interest.  The reasons for the hardships must be specifically detailed in writing with the application. I have not found any reasonable hardship explanations for the waivers the applicant seeks. Perhaps that is what's causing it to be postponed.  They do have the right to build - but not EIGHT homes. So, I'm sure they'll be back soon.

We asked residents to please attend and demand that this application and all aplications be required to follow PA Law on hardships etc - especially ones like this, that would negatively impact nearby residents even if they DID follow the law. Ask that all emails or questions about  this zoning matter be answered  as soon as possible especially about the  lack of adherance  to laws such as the requirement to explain hardships and that meetings be video-taped and aired  - and that notification be given to all nearby residents -- even though the law apparently doesn't require that.  

  NEIGHBORS MEETING ON SITE  April 28-2022  Paul Yanessa - his lawyer Larry Byrne, and Comr DiPlacido met at the site .

  IN ADDITION YOU SHOULD KNOW that only ONE, count 'em ONE, of the neighbors learned of the Planning Commission meeting in February in time to attend ( unprepared and at the last minute), they nonetheless allowed  this application, that requests too many houses for the lot,and  no adherance to laws and codes to move forward, hoping, apparently for a quick and dirty approval -- with no one notified , there would be little resistance.  Only one, count 'em one, meeting was held before putting this forth for approval on the Board of Commissioner's agenda May 12, 2022. (Fast forwarding to Sept 2022 on the 9-8-22 Board of Commissioner's agenda they are passing a requirement ot NOTIFY neighbors o the same street within 500 feet and on other streets if they are within 250 feet of a project coming before the Planning commission)
    A number of the hardships are  of the property owner's making  because they want to put too many houses on the 4+ acres.  It  is not legal to approve such waivers. It would be a direct violation of both Abington Code and PA Code (see below) 
 

Here is the plan for 8 houses - with sewage under the circle and a narrow roadway.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT: The Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing residential dwelling, covered porch, garage, shed and boulder wall; and subdivide the existing 177,620 square foot parcel into eight (8) individual lots ranging from 15, 022 SF to 21,14 SF. Along with the subdivision, the Applicant is proposing to construct a singlefamily detached dwelling on each lot, as well as associated, sidewalk, curbing, driveway, streetlights and stormwater management facilities. Access to/from the site will be by way of one new cul-de-sac roadway named Independence Circle that will intersect with Cedar Road as a new T-intersection. Each new dwelling is proposed to be served by public water and sewer service.

Please note there is a great deal more open land right next to this property -- and they already, some years back, had put forth an interest in developing. The driveway for this current development may be being considered to enable development of the second property.   There once was a Springhouse on the 365 Cedar Property . Mushy back yards on Glenmore that abut the property may be related ....... Over the years reports of truckloads of dirt and mulch and other events  are a concern.

  VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW /CODE  
Municipalities Planning Code § 512.1(a). https://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/growingsmarter/MPCode[1].pdf
Section 512.1. Modifications. (a) The governing body or the planning agency, if authorized to approve applications within the subdivision and land development ordinance, may grant a modification of the requirements of one or more provisions if the literal enforcement will exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question, provided that such modification will not be contrary to the public interest and that the purpose and intent of the ordinance is observed. 34 (b) All requests for a modification shall be in writing and shall accompany and be a part of the application for development. The request shall state in full the grounds and facts of unreasonableness or hardship on which the request is based, the provision or provisions of the ordinance involved and the minimum modification necessary. (c) If approval power is reserved by the governing body, the request for modification may be referred to the planning agency for advisory comments. (d) The governing body or the planning agency, as the case may be, shall keep a written record of all action on all requests for modifications.
 NO WRITTEN HARDSHIPS HAVE BEEN GIVEN - AND MOST CONDITIONS CAN BE ALLEVIATED BY PUTTING FEWER PROPERTIES ON THE ACREAGE - SO THE PROBLEMS ARE OF THE OWNER'S MAKING.  OTHER REQUESTS ARE  CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MULTIPLE WAYS .

VIOLATION OF ABINGTON CODE
https://ecode360.com/9009808?highlight=hardship&searchId=12103127089638450#9009808

Code/Ch 146: Subdivision and Land Development/Ch 146 Art VIII: Modification and Validity
§ 146-50Modification for hardship.
A. Granting of hardship; proof.
(1) The Board of Commissioners may grant a modification of the requirements of one or more provisions of this chapter if the literal enforcement will exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question, provided that such modification will not be contrary to the public interest and that the purpose and intent of this chapter is observed.
(2) Proof of undue hardship must be presented to the township by the subdivider/land developer. It shall not be considered sufficient proof of hardship to show that greater profit would result if the variance were granted. Furthermore, the hardship complained of cannot be self-created and must be suffered directly by the property in question.

B. Procedure for modification.
(1) All requests for a modification shall be submitted to the Zoning Official in writing and shall accompany and be a part of the application for development. The request shall state in full the grounds and facts of unreasonableness or hardship on which the request is based, the provision(s) of this chapter involved and the minimum modification necessary to abate the hardship.
(2) The Township Planning Commission shall review the applicant's request and submit a report to the Board of Commissioners.
(3) The Board of Commissioners shall review and approve or disapprove the request and keep a written record of all action on the matter.
(4) A written summary of any exception shall be appended to the record plan.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   Planning Commission   MEETING :  2-22-22 

 Planning Commission—the 1^st public presentation of this project that presented documents as early as 6-19 and submitted formal plans  3 months earlier . The Public is finally seeing the documents and plans  at the 2-22-22 Planning Commission Meeting – where it could get recommended to the next meeting for a vote. This was not proper either …..because no one was notified - so they could not even attend. What is the likihood that those impacted would just decide to check the Planning Commission agenda – when they a) didn’t even know where that was or b) had no idea something near them was on it.  Our Township has lost its moral conscience and its soul under Tom Hecker and Richard Manfredi.  The docs start at p76 at this link  :
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/ea78d60b-8f71-11ec-972b-0050569183fa-ca2b9c28-b9cf-4f17-b573-dd2752d4679e-1645106804.pdf  
The plan .....never having come to the Board of Commissioners at all .......... was somehow  sent, behind the scenes, without ANY public Board review or approval ,  to the Planning Commission  where neighbors were unaware of it totally. Neither the Township, nor their Commissioner  told them. ONE resident found out in time to attend - but was unable to get up to speed on the details, even though they had been underway for 2 1/2 years and the Plans had been submitted 3 months prior. The did not go to a single Committee meeting to be recommended to the Board of Comrs  who would then approve the forwarding to the Planning Commission.  The FIRST agenda they appeared on was the 2-22-22 Planning Commission agenda. It is frightening to see our leaders scoff laws, and try to rush things through while no one is looking.

   11-21 PLANS SUBMITTED  Preliminary Major Subdivision Plan and Land Development Plans were submitted , reviewed by Township Staff and Montgomery County Planning Commission  and consultant and review letters were provided.  ( But residents were never informed)

6-19 A Plan was submitted as a sketch plan  and a meeting with Township staff was held . Residents were not told .

2019 and prior  As described in the first paragraph on this page, this property owned was in  constant violation of laws and codes that residents could get no relief from. Then the owner, in concert, it appears, with the Township tried to shuffle through far too many houses  to increase the profit they could make.  They tried rather secretly to have this quickly appear and be passed -  but despite all the time that has lapsed, the proposal is, in 2024 still in violation of the laws regarding waiver or variance approval.
The applicant consistently has listed his brother as the owner or applicant and waivers need hardships htat are not of the property owner's making. For some reason this property owner has been getting special treatment for as long as he has been at this site.

CHRONOLOGY- READ  UP FROM HERE    

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

THE ISSUES + , photos etc

  Improper process ?  The very first we saw or heard of this application was 2-22-22  at the Planning Commission meeting.  What's wrong with that? Pretty much everything.  Unless it was presented somewhere else that I  can't find .  The way it is supposed to work is the way it did forever, and ever in Abington, is that a new zoning request would come before the Code Enforcement and Land Development Committee. The neighbors within 500 feet would be notified of ALL the expected meetings ...the first being  the Code and Land Development Committee.  They reviewed it and with their input and any input from residents that happened to learn  about it,  it went to the Planning Commission next. But  in the meantime, residents had a chance to research it, alert their neighbors who might not know, consult a lawyer, and formulate their questions for the Planning Commission, etc.   They also learned more about the zoning process in the meantime, because many are encountering the process for the first time - but the effects of what happens right next dorr can last a lifetime.  

     In a proper process, next it would go back to the Planning Commission for a deeper, fuller review - where residents were not limited to 3 minutes or 1 question and then done. They were, in the past, actually able to go back-and-forth with the developer until they understood one another.  Developers were expected to actually answer  the questions asked by planners or residents. Then, the project came back to the original Code and Land Development  Committee with the Comments from the Planning Commission and the residents who attended  - and  those comments were incorporated into the revised request that the Committee looked at again .  The Committee then decided if they wanted to add anything or it was ready to be forwarded on to the Board to request their approval advertising for Hearing .  It was a reasonable process. But it has been turned on its head.
 And this new wrinkle, if indeed, it went FIRST to the Planning Commission is more than disturbing. 
      
     New Manager Richard  Manfredi has up-ended nearly every tried and true process we  had in the Township, renaming Committees ( sometimes the same one again and again), restructuring staff positions and departments,  putting people in charge of major department operations  that have absolutely no experience, while people with certifications and years of experience sit in a different office doing nothing they’re qualified for; changing our speaking rights 4 times within the first 4 years of being here, eliminating informed public comment  more and more each time.......        This is a perversion of the zoning and development process, and other processes in our Township that is past any reasonable limit.

      Only one neighbor even learned of the Planning Commission meeting for 365 Cedar in time to attend.  He was given a  limited time to speak even though he was speaking for all the neighbors who couldn’t be there because they didn’t know about it, and the Planning Chair would not allow him to accept my minutes that I offered to donate to him.  It is unclear to us at the time that I am writing this where it is going next -- but my fear is that they will try to send it to the full Board next to advertise for a hearing  - when literally none of the neighbors has had a chance to even examine this properly.   Was Planning really the first meeting it went to?

     This is just one in a series of many, many detrimental things that Mr. Manfredi has brought to this Township. I hope all of you reading this have also read the page called  Residential Explosion where he seeks to make changes that will affect our Township literally forever and that will not likely be able to be undone once they are passed. His aim is to accomplish this by May 2022.

The property at 365 Cedar is labelled #1 here:

. Please send us pictures or documents or whatever you have that may be helpful to work together as a group -- the more informed everyone is - the more cogently they can speak .  Send to  lel@abingtoncitizens.com


  The 8 houses do not fit and to squeeze them in they want waivers such as   :
--- have narrower road with no hardship - they say they want to provide more greenspace - but the only reason there is LESS greespace is because they are asking for  too many houses
--- remove parking on one side -  narrower than 30 ft cartway - no hardship & dangerous for emergency vehicle needs - not in the public interest
--- put the stormwater seepage basin under the street ( that they want to dedicate to the Township) no hardship Not in the public interest - could be very, very costly
--- have a rain garden at the low point on the Glenmore side no hardship and raingardens are not reliable  are not reliable
--- be excused for providing names & addresses & other information on properties  within 400 feet  - except those contiguous - no hardship listed
--- have special accommodations for turning radius width on driveway - no hardship - can be dangerous - impacts the property of others 
     etc., etc., etc.

 :  Other concerns           

Owner did not properly list address 
        -Person  listed as co-applicant, has provided no power of attorney we have seen  

 Property maintenance issues  
       - Fencing on the property is in  violation of  Section 303.7 of Property Maintenance code
 
Bamboo
           - in violation of bamboo ordinance -https://abingtoncitizens.com/aaISSUES/Bamboo/Bamboo.htm

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

CREEK AND STORMWATER ISSUES
Is there or isn't there a creek there??

No Creeks show up on the google mapNo Creeks show up on the google map

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
No floodplains show on the 2016 or 2018 FEMA map

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Map - Historic circa 1937 showing Springhous
There was a pond there  for many years as well 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
2022  taken from Valley Glenn



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

   This site is a forum for information sharing and idea sharing. 
Please feel free to send your  view  and please be sure to  tell us about any information you believe to be incorrect - write  lel@abingtoncitizens.com