8 Houses is a few too many ! Blatant violations of PA Code
   After years of trying to ignore the cows, pigs, chickens, firewood, mulch, noise, debris, bamboo, etc., neighbors do not want the Township to ignore required hardships for waivers, or ignore proper stormwater management, as they propose seepage tanks under streets they'd like to dedicate to YOUR care, fire access issues due to road width dimished so they can squeeze in more homes, parking deleted because of requested road width, rain gardens needed because of extra run-off from extra homes, etc.
  
Some neighbors have already had a bull (literally) on their doorstep, as the codes here were ignored but .....
they've had enough of the bull now.  
And who could blame them.

This lot is directly across from McKinley Elementary School. It is #1 on the numbered lots below .

  Next Meeting with related information  - Sept 9, 2022   7 pm  
Board of Commissioners regular meeting . They have on the agenda 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 put this in perspective. 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 their 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 requests for proper notification guidelines & we will  at last finally get a law --- and we can applaud them for doing something good. (yay)

  Next Meeting  with this on the agenda - none known as of Sept 2022  since this letter was sent :

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. Not the Engineer or the Planning Commission or Montco Planning or any others that took part in this addressed the 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

  LAST MEETING   ... MAY 2022 WAS POSTPONED
 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.  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.   

  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) 
 

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.

    THE LAST MEETING :  2-22-22 Planning CommissionHere is the original presentation - the documents and Plans presented at the 2-22-22 Planning Commission Meeting -This was the only proper meeting that has ever been held.. and it was not proper because no one was notified - so they could not even attend. 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  

  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 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