StMichael's
Chronology
As of 6-13 thru 9-13 ..... In an astounding turn of
events, residents seeking to get the latest updates were denied
due process by Township personnel, including the manager and the
Code Dept. and apparently others . Having not had any
regular updates (although they were requested, and even oft
promised ) and upon seeing the Manager denying any known
deadlines etc, a
Right to Know form was filed requesting whatever
had transpired in 2013 -- any activity
on the application at all .
Although records are to be provided in 5 days, not a single
relevant document was turned over - and every effort was made to
try to indicate that none existed. Nothing could have been
further from the truth.
In fact, there was no
small amount of activity on the application to develop St
Michael's in 2013 .
The extensive activity included an extension of the deadline
Manager LeFevre claimed to know nothing about & a 40 to 50
page agreement that he personally signed off on. In this, the
under-sized septic system was approved by the township, despite
conditions that residents, had they known and had a chance to
comment, would have been aghast at.
It even proposed to increase the number of users without
any specific limitation or any need to increase the system
commensurately. There
was also an entire sewer timeline, numerous meetings, and
a plea by St Michael's to be allowed to build and work the
sewer specifics out later.
Manager LeFevre, Zoning Directors Mark Penecale and Larry
Matteo were copied on scores of documents
and at one point our Township solicitor ( the one paid by
you and I ) even rewrote the agreement for St Michael's to make
it more likely to pass DEP inspection.
The Wastewater Treatment Director and Engineer were also
part of the
proceedings.
All of this is quite unbelievable in light of the June
and July conversations via email with Manager LeFevre where he
professed no documents except the irrelevant ones he offered.
I did not see
the entire extent of the activity until August 15th ,
but the pursuit of it took an enormous amount of effort – and I
persisted only because I had learned about bits and pieces of it
from other sources and knew I was not being told the
truth . How many others in the township have been denied
documents in this manner. I know it has happened to me before -
but this is on a scale one can scare believe . There is
not a resident in Abington who should not be outraged that the
Board of Commissioners would allow such a flagrant violation and
they would further choose neither to investigate it thoroughly
nor to act upon this immediately to rectify whatever might
warrant it. In fact,
Board President Peggy Myers has spent not one second seeking
the details of the case from me but a great deal of time
trying to limit my description of it and of
other similar activity oat the podium, so that other
residents would not know.
That the St Michael's neighbors and so many others have
been impacted so heavily by the serious breaches of public trust
and even of legal & fiduciary responsibility by those charged
with the very safeguarding of their rights is more than clear.
The question is, how long it will continue and whether those
charged with stopping it will act .
In truth, can any Right To Know request - even those officially
filed - be trusted to be properly fulfilled as long as this is
the manner in which "business" is conducted in this Township?
9-3-12
Pending final DEP approval --- the application had been sent to
the Township and forms for Historical & Cultural
details have been resubmitted .
If you click on the
link on this page and scroll to the end you can see
the last documents . Residents are encouraged
to continue to weigh in with the DEP and others to continue to voice their concerns in
writing to the Township officials. We have had no response
whatsoever from officials regarding our charts where all
of our calculations showed likely failures of the septic.
Residents who would like to know more about this and the ongoing
fall-out over the manner in which this was done, should
contact me .
8-12
The module went to DEP after
the May approval and
as of late July 2012 it had been sent back to Abington to complete some
information. If you click on the
link on this page and scroll to the end you can see
the last documents
5-10-12
Board of Commissioners
Meeting - the Board approved
the plan for septic with a list of conditions . Unbelieable - but
true. If you saw what had been advertised to obtain the
initial waivers, permits and approvals and you saw what they
finally approved you would be aghast that such a thing could
happen. Of note, as well, is the fact that conditions
never met from the 1990 Zoning relief, were added as conditions
of this zoning. Who is minding the farm here? No one, to
my knowledge has been disciplined for the lack of enforcement of
these provisions for so many years.
4-30-12 Code Enforcement Meeting
Passed the approval and will recommend the plan to the Board .
Conditions were NOT crafted to address the resident's issues, the
questions for the Engineer were "skipped" and the meeting ran
4 hours with half of the interested parties gone. By
dragging out the presentation - interrupting or
re-directing residents comments, it was again a night like so many
others I have seen in. The specific concerns of residents were
never listed and addressed .
4-25-12 The Planning Commission listened, made comments
like "these numbers are fuzzy" I'm just not comfortable with
this . And then said "All in Favor -Aye " . What more can I
say ..... If we accept it, they'll keep doing it . The
3-28-12 Plans were posted --- not the most recent 4-17 plans
- and the consultant's report was not obtained until the last
few minutes . The septic designer he is asked whether he
could provide an analysis of increasing the size by 35%. The
response that an increased cost of increasing 35% capacity
would probably be about 25% increase in cost. He said it was
told today that it had to be 35% larger he would have to go back to
the drawing will board to test and apply for new permits based on
the increased size from the county health department. He would
have to prove that the site could support the larger size.
4-22-12 Septic Module is
found on Township website -- . In these plans the EDU's are 5 ( they have
been 9 and 2.97 and 4 and 5 and....numbers ) and the
plan viability is listed as Marginal. The figures for the Banquet hall
were grossly understated ( 209 capacity versus 448)
Back on the public sewer--- we have just learned
that new plans are out where the Parish Hall and the Garage apt will now be
again going through the Cheltenham Sewer ( they were originally taken off to
swap out for the new rectory along with the masonry building . The Masonry Dwelling
now alone will will be
swapped out for the new rectory. That means the Masonry
Dwelling comes off the Cheltenham sewer to make way for the new rectory
and the garage spt and parish hall stay on the Cheltenham sewer .
So a septic system listed as marginal - without
the Dwelling added and with figures 1/2 of what they should be would
now likely be in the "not suitable " range (See section H in the link below )
http://www.abingtonpa.gov/resident/downloads%20for%20plans%20&%20maps/mar2012plan%20stmichplan.pdf
4-17-12 ANOTHER
New set of plans are drawn . I am not made aware.
They are shown to a few in small groups (who
learned of it 4-22-12 )
by Commissioner
Gaglianese but he prefers to keep information from those of us who
would share it to inform a larger number. Keeping people
factually in the dark is a long standing method of limiting their
role in their government.
4-12-12 A new set of plans has been
submitted. Commissioner Gaglianese's note says only that there is a
difference in the driveway - No other changes are pointed out, and it is not
known if there are or are not other changes . He sends it to his limited list. I
am excluded from that list . We can not find them posted on the website
4-2-12 A new sewer/ septic module has been submitted that
includes the septic system now built for 209
only in the dining hall If they have the 448 capacity crowd
that they are allowed - they are not allowed to eat ---( imagine it
if you can.) And the entire 6,000 sq foot downstairs would
have to be empty along with an empty deck and patio. The rating seen
earlier on the system was "marginal " - what happens if more than
the 209 use it ? And initially the same system designer thought that
500 gallon rather than 2000 gal tanks were ok .
3-28-12 A new set of plans
3-27-12 --- Planning
Commission Meeting at the Township building. was
cancelled
3-20-12 - 7:30 at St Marks - Commissioner Gaglianese and
Police Chief Kelly - The date of this meeting changed at
the last minute and no attempt was made to notify myself, even
though the Commissioner Gaglianese knew that I was announcing
this information to many other residents and had been working
on this issue since 2009. In addition, I was prevented from
attending the meeting at all, despite use of MY Township funds
in this project and even in the meeting itself (where four,
count 'em, four, Township police were in attendance)
The exclusion of the public in public affairs, and further, in a
manner this egregious, is something that should concern us all .
The lines of communication in this township need to be opened,
not closed and citizens need to be given all the information that
they need for a host of reasons --- to protect their own rights, to
bring oversight to the use of their tax dollars and to understand
the job their Commissioners are doing so that they know who should
get their vote . All of these are important .
I have been in discussions with Chief Kelly and Township Manager
Michael LeFevre over these issues . I will bring more information
when we come to some understanding.
3-18-12
Cheltenham responds to the Right to Know request - St
Michael's has not appeared, apparently, on any list submitted by
Abington to Cheltenham to request EDU's .
3-13-12 The Township is not
posting the newest Plan that has been proposed on the
Township website - The
Commissioner is only handing out paper Copies to a few
residents. With these methods, the fewest people gain access to the information - so we have scanned them and posted them on this
site .
We have made certain
the official documents that St Michael's
Preliminary Plan
was approved conditional to getting the EDU's needed to connect
to the Cheltenham system. They have no Preliminary Plan
approval for a design with on-site septic.
3-12
We have just had a look at the plans for the septic & parking.
Click here to see the
placement of the septic
Click here to see the
parsonage
(rectory ) and parking lot side with the 40 new spaces
These plans are dated 2-6-12
We have also obtained a "Sewage Flow Calculations" feet submitted by
St. Michael's. Although they testified in 2008 that the dining
Hall would be used one time a year- they are now giving the
assumption that there would be two dining events per week and one
church breakfast ( even though they have two church services
each Sunday) They mention a 209 person capacity and failed to
mention that for events without tables the capacity is 448. (
and no mention is made of the seating on the deck & patio that may
be used ) We believe this plan was either given to the
Department of Health or to the DEP.
It is currently in the hands of the Montgomery County Health
Dep - who has approved the soils but is now working on approving the
whole module . In addition, we understand the Township has
hired a consultant (Tom Applebach Sewage Planner at DelVal
Soil & Environmental Consultants Inc.)
Montgomery County Health Dept & DEP should be
hearing from you about the way this is impacting you. Also
your your full Board of Commissioners all have voted and will
continue to vote on this - your County Commissioners
and your representatives in Congress should also be
hearing about this process, which from the beginning has been
more that a little flawed.
We have ascertained that St Michael's
Preliminary Plan
was approved conditional to getting the EDU's needed to connect
to the Cheltenham system. They have no Preliminary Plan
approval for a design with on-site septic. I, for one, am not
understanding why my Township staff time, a consultant's time, my
county Health Dept's time or DEP time should be used - at my tax
dollar expense, for a property owner with no approval for a septic
plan .
Cheltenham just responded to a Right To Know request
that was filed nearly a month ago to learn if any recent requests have been made by
Abington for the EDU's needed by St Michael's. ( The resident
that reviewed these documents did not see any request for EDU's
through to March of 2012 . While residents were NOT notified that
these EDU's were
unavailable at the approval meetings, the Township and St
Michael's both knew this information per documents cited in the
chronology below.
Cheltenham has still not responded to a Right To Know request
( note they did finally respond by Mar 18th )
that was filed to learn whether any recent requests have been made by
Abington for the EDU's for St Michael's. Cheltenham cited that they needed more time
to respond.
What could possibly require so much time - they either did
request EDU's or they didn't. While residents were NOT notified that
these EDU's were
unavailable at the approval meetings, the Township and St
Michael's both knew this information per documents cited in the
chronology below. Couple that with the fact that no application for
EDU's was made either.
3-8-12
Resident writes to Montco Planning Commission; DEP and Montco Dept of Health to express disappointment with the
septic plan that he has seen at the Township building. the new
plan apparently calls for the abandonment of the current sewer
connection to several of the buildings such as the garage
apartment, the old parish Hall etc. The resident contends that
this plan is not in accordance with the intent of Abington Code
132-6 Connection to available sewers and further that St.
Michael's inability to maintain a fence and trees on the
property per previous requirements make it doubtful that they
will maintain septic standards necessary to protect the
environment. The resident also cites the proximity of leaching
fields to Ha soils and a Spring House that are both of concern,
as well as underground streams and flooded basements on
Kipling Road which are testament to t surrounding soil
conditions near the leaching field.
3-1-12 Resident asks at Public Safety
Meeting for better Police response to the actual questions
rather than endless meetings and discussion with no resolution
of or real reply to the problems . Residents deserve an
answer- in writing - from their police about why the
enforcement problems have persisted ( as recently as Sept 12 the
noise went late into the night) They deserve a written response
as to how that will be changed. They should NOT have to
schlepp to yet another meeting to get an answer.
3-1-12
We know St Michael's has a plan to propose with on site
septic system. We have not been forwarded the plan or any details.
The first presentation would be at the 3-21-12 meeting Commissioner Gaglianese is proposing,
unless each resident took it upon themseves individually to take
their time and township staff time to go to the Township
building.
We are asking to have details of the plan posted on the website and
emailed around. The Commissioner has offered to meet with people
individually - historically, we all know, that very few
have the time to do that with children, work and activities.
The Montgomery County Health Department did
approve the soils for a septic system.
2-27-12 A
resident requests
,via Right to Know Documents sent to Montgomery County Health
Dept “all
documents and
correspondence between Montgomery County and the PA Department
of Environmental Protection, regarding St. Michael Archangel
Ukrainian Catholic Church, 1013 Fox Chase Road, Abington
Township, for the years 2008 through the current date.”
They provided the documents
2-27-12 Commissioner Gaglianese said he
will meet with residents on the 21st March at 8pm
and that he has spoken with with Zoning and Code Enforcement,
Police Department, St. Michaels Church, and the DEP . The
Montgomery County health Department has determined the site to
be suitable for long term sewage disposal. DEP is currently
reviewing the module. The Police Chief and Deputy Chief Webb
will again discuss residents concerns about noise and parking. (But
the question is what will they do about it ) he spoke
with the church about lighting and needs to gather additional
information. It has not yet addressed the entrance (width of
the driveway) - he believes the property line issue is resolved
with the neighbors. A plan has been submitted for the location
of the septic system- he would gladly sit down with any
neighbors to go over the plan ( but
we would prefer to have the plan sent to us so all of us can see
it - ) the septic plan will be presented to the Planning
Commission on Tuesday, March 27 at a public hearing. From there
it goes to Code Enforcement Committee Meeting then to the full
Board of Commissioners. Another way to have your voices heard
is to contact DEP directly and have them take your comments into
consideration.
2-22-12
Sewer Facilities Planning Module is prepared by Highpoint and
submitted to DEP (or Montco )
St Michael's says attendance in the hall is 209 rather than 448
---- they averaged the EDU's instead of providing
peak use EDU numbers. They did although they
say in their narrative they would build based on 2190gpd (
gallons per day ) for the banquet hall Friday dinner
would be Peak Flow -- and 400 EDU's for the Masonry
Dwelling - which was supposed to be an office - per testimony
June 2008 to obtain zoning --- later we will learn they intend
it more "hotel" style for visiting clergy. On p18 St
Michael says
2-21-12
Cheltenham says they cannot reply to the request within the
limit and will take the extension of time allowed ( up to 30
days )
2-14-12 Right
To Know request filed with Cheltenham who will not openly allow
a resident to see the list and know if St Michael's ever applied
for EDU's . resident request Connection management plans
issed to DEP from June 09 to present and Abington
Correspondence regarding list of properties waiting for EDU's .
2-12-12
approximately - Proposed Sewage Flow Calculation Sheet for
St Michaels prepared by Highpoint lists
assumptions of 2 dining events per week in a 209 seat facility (
they seem to have forgotten the 448 capacity if used
"auditorium style" I church breakfast per week
with (200 parishoners ) 5 office meetings per week with 10
people in them 1 Sunday school class per week 80 students
and 2 religious classes per week with 20 students .
They then averaged the numbers ( DEP however, told us that
they want the peak numbers - not the average - and so far we
2-5-12 Commissioner Gaglianese writes
residents that he will meet with Chief and get information ....despite having heard residents concerns since 2008, and
having just heard them again Jan 23rd, rather than
getting answers & requiring firm and specific replies about
the response to the concerns ( such as noise way past reason )
he has met with Chief Kelly & will set up a meeting
( yet another ) meeting with the Chief of Police & Officer
Webb. He say he recognizes residents are
frustrated that the ordinances do not seem to be enforced and
says he will work to change that. His is arranging a meeting
with the church administration and reviewing DEP info
about the soil.
1-27(?)-12 A residents requests answers from the Township Manager
Summary points from resident letter to
Manager LeFevre outlining problems in this case:
"errors in testimony" either not recognized or not
challenged by personal working for residents
required public notice did not hint at any such endeavor as a
400 + capacity banquet facility or 11,640sf
hardships were being granted where no hardships seemed to exist
residents are not provided with a basic primer when their
property rights are challenged
persistent code enforcement issues of noise, lights, parking,
trespass, motorcycles, debris, etc
flagrant violations of the zoning contingencies placed on St
Michael’s in 1990- fences, trees, etc… .
Abington Township and St Michael’s both knew no EDU's had been
reserved in Cheltenham during proceedings
critical information was withheld from residents - both about
sewage plans and building plans ( deck etc)
approval is to be contingent upon the receipt of adequate EDU’s
from Cheltenham- no valid plan therefore exists
it would seem that this application should be null and void
until EDU’s are obtained..
Also residents need Communication tools
single calendar
page of links for each project
website menu
airing of planning and zoning meetings so the public can see the
decisions that are changing their
primer on zoning procedures
system where things residents repeatedly bump up against are
fixed
1-23-12 Neighbors Meeting Jan
23rd 7 pm at Township Building called by Commissioner Gaglianese
Residents again listed the same complaints that they had
listed previously. (summary coming)
Mark Penecale said re: the widening of the driveway that it
is already 24 ft wide at the entrance - but a little further
in it is 17 but they did not want to take down the wall that is
there ( go looking – another
document I believe, makes the plan contingent on the widened 2
way driveway )
1-20-12 A Sewer Facilities Planning Module was
prepared by HighPoint facilities - It was revised
Feb 22, 2012 . See that date for more info .
11 -8-11 No formal septic proposal - As of this date St Michael's had not
yet formally made application to place a septic system on the
property - but has obtained the application
11-5-11
Residents are being
granted individual meetings with the head of the Zoning dept. -
but no group meeting is being offered where residents can
benefit from the knowledge and questions of one another .
10-6-11 Extension
granted by the wrong party? A letter from St Michael's
Attorney Todd Savage grants the Township an indefinite extension
to approve this plan . It says that in light of the moratorium
, they were compelled to revise their original plans . (Though
via a call to Cheltenham Twp, the moratorium was in place since
2005 - so they had no reason to "change their plans" -
conditions were the same as when they applied and
the Township was supposed to act within a certain amount of time
- which would have given them the ability to deny the
application since no proper application exists. So who is
allowing whom an extension? )
Initially, St Michaels' says, they then proposed an on -site
pumping station that would bypass Cheltenham, but they were
unable to acquire the easements, So they are now designing an
on-site septic system and will then revise their final land
development plans. ( The Preliminary
Plan was approved conditional to sewers access - not septic
)
Normally the Township would have 90 days to approve their
plan --and they are with this letter granting an extension of
that time. But, in fact, they do not even have an actual plan
to approve at this point and so I'm not sure why the township
does not --in the interests of its residents -- rule within the
allotted time. It would seem to some of us that the plan that
had been submitted originally could / should be put on the
schedule and either approved only with the sewer connecting to
Abington through Cheltenham or denied because at this point no
other viable plan has been presented - and no plan similar to
the one that was used to obtain the waiver is on the table at
all. The initial waiver given in 2008 which allowed them to
build their social hall on an R1 piece of ground only had the
Abington sewer option ( and 6000 sq ft - and a dining hall for
breakfasts etc etc) . Since Abington flows into Cheltenham, and
since Cheltenham has no capacity ( and does not even have St
Mike's on the list ) they may have foreseen that they would
not get the project completed in the 5 years they would be
given. But can we see where the
law – or our officials – seems to be allowing them to alter the
plans so much from what was used to obtain the waiver that it is
barely recognizable. Obviously still some things to find
out............
9-22 -11 Larry Matteo from the
Township met with St Michael's - they will consider a septic
system and make new plans
9-21-11 There was a letter from St Michaels dated Sept
21st that gave Abington Township an extension until November 11,
2011 .
9-15-11 A letter from Montgomery
Co Planning Commission--re Proposal: construct a one-story
11,640-square foot dining hall with and a 2,933-square foot,
two-story parsonage on a property currently occupied by a
church, residence, shed, spring house, and four other buildings.
An existing basketball court will be removed during land
development. The property lies in the CS-Community Service
District and the R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning Districts,
and is served by public water and sewer. The plan is dated June
30, 2011; the applicant has submitted a final plan. .–July 29,
2009. Review Comments. Comments from our previous letter which
remain outstanding include 1. Masters Facilities Plan – is
required [§500.4.H.]. 2. The tax parcel number of the site is
required [§146-11.A.5] Shall be provided unless not considered
necessary for safety and convenience [§146-27.1.]. A sidewalk
(and crosswalk) in this area could improve access to Alverthorpe
Park. Crosswalks may be required to provide access to parks
[§146-29.4.A.].4. Off-Street Parking Areas – Two-way interior
circulation drives and aisle ways shall be aminimum of 24 feet
wide (the driveway near the entrance is 17 ft.wide)
[§146-28.1].B. We offer the following additional comment:1.
Dumpster – shall have a low-intensity screen (shrubs, hedge, or
berm) [§801.U.2.a.].RecommendationWe recommend approval of this
land development provided the proposed plan complies with
yourmunicipal land use regulations and all other appropriate
regulations.Please note that the review comments and
recommendations contained in this report are advisory
9-13-11
Meeting for Sept 27th will
be fully cancelled. Residents are assured they will not
proceed until residents have had a chance to review the
proper plans.
9-11 Per Code Enforcement office - St Michaels
plan now is to install a "force main" which means that
there will be a pumping station- or actually two- that
will pump the water far enough to get it into the system
to bypass Cheltenham and go directly to Philadelphia .
There will be two pumps on the St. Michael's property. I
was assured the cost of them would be borne entirely by St.
Michael's as well as the cost of maintenance and the cost of
connecting them in to the system. At issue for nearby
residents, besides the noise factor from the hall itself , the
traffic and parking, is the location ( & smell? ) of the pumping
stations , easements needed across somebody's property in order
to connect- and as I mentioned in the last mailing, the driveway
issue is still not settled-and residents should have info on
this before arriving at the meeting Sept 27 .
8-23-11 - Postponed application to September 27, 2011
" The plan is the same as what was presented to the Zoning
Hearing Board in 2008 and the Planning Commission, Code
Enforcement Committee and the Board of Commissioners in 2010.
The applicant has addressed the conditions of the preliminary
plan approval. The issue of sanitary sewer service has been
addressed by way of the installation of a force main,( they are
planning to go out the back to Crosswicks and up from there to
the Abington Sewer lines ) the drive
lane in front of the dining hall has been increased to 14 feet in
width, the overflow parking area has been plotted on the plan,
the existing fire hydrant has been plotted as required and the
landscaping has relocated to allow for better screening as
requested. The applicant has not increased to size of the
driveway out to Fox Chase Road. Please be aware that this was
not a requirement of preliminary plan approval. It was
discussed, but never added as a condition. I have reviewed my
notes and the applicant stated the due to the retaining walls
and entry piers along the entry wall they did not want to remove
all of those structures to widen the driveway. There were
questions about the need to add a second driveway to service the
property located across from Pond View Drive. My notes state
that the applicant would review that request and address it at
the time of final approval.
6-30-11 Proposal Submitted (Per Plan) : construct a one-story
11,640-square foot dining hall with and a 2,933-square foot,
two-story parsonage on a property currently occupied by a
church, residence, shed, spring house, and four other buildings.
An existing basketball court will be removed during land
development. The property lies in the CS-Community Service
District and the R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning Districts,
and is served by public water and sewer. The plan
is dated June 30, 2011. ( At his point they knew that no
EDU's were available through the Cheltenham system in their
2009-2013 plan and that either pumping stations or septic would
have to be used )
6-17-11 DEP reviewed the Sewer Module filed 4-25-11 . This
is the plan to use a force main ( one or two ) to go through
Crosswicks
5-17-11 Montco Health Dept Approves
plan that was submitted by Highpoint on 4-25-11.
Letter to Burton Conway. As explained by them later (in their
4-2-12 application ) they thought that
their point of land on Crosswicks gave them the right to access
the sewer there - and they were planning to pump out (force
main) but they learned that they needed to get
easements from one or both Crosswicks neighbors because
that was to narrow a piece . They are
still not getting on the waiting list for Cheltenham ...?
4-25-11 Highpoint Services applies
plan with DEP for a sewer "module" -
This was reviewed in June and was the forcemain ( pump )
to go out through Crosswicks Rd .
3-17 10 Cheltenham Township
puts out its revised management plan from the amended
January 28, 2010 plan
the list includes changes of the 11 properties for 2010-2011.
EDUs for Abington are on attachment A which is missing but on
the list it includes includes 7000 GPD and 26.7
EDU's 15.6 of them were allocatedin 2009 and 11.1 of them were
allocated in 2010 there is also a sheet for
Jenkintown Borough called attachment B-- and and an
attachment C for Philadelphia. After that
comes Exhibit F : Tabulation of Potential PDUs to Be Connected for Years
2011 2012 and 2013 and the EDU Balance And On exhibit F1
Abington Township has 525 gallons per day GDP and to EDU's and
those were connected in year 2010
St Michael's is not on the list
__________________
1-28-10 Cheltenham Township
puts out a connection management plan that is amended through
January 28, 2010
( this will later be revised
through March 17, 2010)
12-10-09 Minutes of: Township of Abington Board of
Commissioners Meeting of December 10, 2009.Item CE2. Motion to approve St Michaels Development
Plan LD-09-01 The motion is subject to the following conditions:
9 in total. #2 The applicant must obtain approval of the 9
required EDU's from DEP and Cheltenham Township
(But, again both the Township and St Michael's knew
that Cheltenham had not EDU's for them through to 2013 -
and they are not on the waiting list for EDUs and they do
not get on lists that are presented in January 2010 or
March 2010 --- all of those people were connected )
12-8-09 - Residents write their
Commissioner citing the history of noise & parking
violations that have not been enforced and asking that the
Township make sure very specific written note of the plan to
enforce noise ordinances is in the plan. (& asking that all
current Township noise statutes be followed and enforced) They
noted their opposition to parking that might be shifted to
Kipling Rd from Pond View, if signage was placed on Pond View
and the blocking of mailboxes, fire hydrants and driveways. And
the residents complained that the advertisement did NOT include
the fact that a banquet hall was planned - they were told it was
a place to give parishioners breakfast after mass. Then they
were not notified of the July meeting where the approval was
given. Since they did not know, they could not even appeal it.
12-4-09 Resident learns that St Michaels
was not even on the waiting list for EDU’s - despite their
presentation of a plan to supposedly use those sewers
......Letter from Cheltenham to resident
12-3-09 Preliminary Approval given by Township of the plan
. A good 20+ neighbors came and protested the manner in which
this was done, the waivers given, the fact that their questions
were not being answered etc
Although both the Township and Cheltenham know that they have no
sewer capacity in Cheltenham and that they are not on the list
through to 2013, no mention....Minutes
of: Township of Abington Board of Commissioners Meeting of
December 10, 2009.Item CE2. Motion to approve St Michaels
Development Plan LD-09-01 The motion is subject to the following
conditions: 9 in total. #2 The applicant
must obtain approval of the 9 required EDU's from DEP and
Cheltenham Township.
(But, again both the Township and St Michael's knew that
Cheltenham had not EDU's for them through to 2013 - and
they are not making application to be on the waiting list for
EDUs)
11-30-09 Code Enforcement and land development committee
meeting 7:30 PM motion is on the agenda to approve the
preliminary land development application of St. Michael to
construct the parsonage and an 11,640 ft.² dining Hall with the
basement and rear patio. ( was this meeting held or was it
postponed to 12-3-09? ) This motion is subject to the following
conditions:
1 application is a preliminary land development plan not a
final one
2. Applicant must obtain approval for the nine required EDU's
from DEP and Cheltenham
3 plan to include correct setback coverages and zoning
information
4 proposed additional landscaping along Kipling road property
line
5 fire Department connection to be determined by fire marshal
6 one-way drive Lane will be increased from 12 feet in width to
14 feet
7 escrow required to ensure inspections of on-site storm water
management systems
8 reserved parking area will include 40 additional parking
spaces to be added to the final plan
9 the use of dining Hall will be limited to the definition found
in section 706. E, use U-10 "place of worship" of the
zoning ordinance of Abington
This motion is subject to the following waivers :
1 waiver from 146-11. A. 4 location of parcel
numbers and owners within 400 feet and
2 waiver from section 146-11. B.-Existing Features Plan
(But, again both the Township and St
Michael's knew that Cheltenham had not EDU's for them through to
2013 - and they are not making application to be on
the waiting list for EDUs)
11-4-09 Code Enforcement Meeting- Commissioner J O'Connor
says if the application fits our code we have to grant- 40
additional parking spaces- 209 seeded or 400 standing -
all outdoor activities ended by 9 PM except for two festivals a
year. Twp Engineer Michael Power said there is a cost for
the EDU's that the applicant will bear it.
Chief Kelly tells residents they give permits to go past 9 PM
they allowed to go till 11. On a week day officers would
tell them to turn it down sooner if it's a one time event they
usually allow it . A resident said on November 2 they
asked for documents to be the right to know act and they won't
have them for five days so they would like the topic to be
postponed from next week's agenda. There was discussion
about the deadline and if the applicant didn't get an answer
there would be a problem. The board had to take action
within 90 days of the application brass the applicant for an
extension. They now have till December 5 for a final
decision. One resident noted the Parsonage did not include
occupancy number. He was told that's established at a
later time. Other residents testified to excessive
noise/traffic/debris/parking overrun Pond View road they are
double parked in the cul-de-sac/the widening of the road/traffic
signals for so many people coming out/the growth of the
parish/how to have an informed dialogue with residents/ staff
/police and the entire community/ loudspeakers past 10 PM
are used now. How could use of this Hall by only members
of the church be enforced they stated it wouldn't be rented out
- but church related functions alone could be numerous.
St. Michael's member said they only had two weddings last year
said that on Sunday they had 180. Morning mass and 228
people in the afternoon mass. There were questions about
the parking-they require required to have 148 with the addition
10-27-09 On the agenda At the Planning Commission
Meeting-- the application of St. Michael's requesting
approval on the plans for single family dwelling for the pastor
and a multi use single-story building listed as the "Dining
Hall" the proposed building is plotted as having a footprint of
11,640 ft.² (that was incorrect – the footprint was for 6000
ft.² and the 11,640 ft.² happened with a second floor addition--
the deck on the second floor is not mentioned) with an
additional rear patio
10-20-09 Meetings Scheduled Abington Township
Land Development Notice LD-09-01 released ~ October 20, 2009.
Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, Code Enforcement Meeting
and Board of Commissioners Meeting on St Michael's.
10-21-09 Abington cannot approve the application of
St Michael's until they get the 9 EDU's Abington Township as
per letter of October 21, 2009 to Highpoint Services Inc.
9- 23-09 Cheltenham Township tells Highpoint
they have no capacity
- They’re not on the plan (Amended Cheltenham Township
Connection Management Plan) that covers years
2009 thru 2013
Cheltenham has no excess Sanitary Sewer capacity to
allocate to this project.
9-15-09 Montgomery County Planning Commission
comments in letter to Mark Penecale. Second review,
addressing previous comments of 29 July still outstanding. The
driveway is to be addressed per advice of Montgomery Co
Planning Commission – but their recommendation is advisory only
; Off-Street Parking Areas – Two-way interior circulation
drives and aisle ways shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide
(the driveway near the entrance is 17 ft. wide) [§146-28.1].(
Mark Penecale said in 1-23-12 meeting that is not correct - at
the entrance it is already 24 - but a little further in it is 17
but they did not want to take down the wall. )
9- 9-09
St Michael’s says Abington applied & reserved EDU’s
Letter from Highpoint Services, Inc
(St Michael’s Engineers) to Cheltenham Township asserting that
Ab Twp Zoning officer Mark Penecale said Abington
Township had capacity reserved for the project & requesting
they fill out and forward to DEP a Facilities Planning
Application Mailer listing the 9 EDU's they require.
8-20-09 No Edu’s available DEP letter to David M
Lynch Director of Engineering, Cheltenham Township of 20 August
2009 Approving the 2009 Connections of the May 2009 plan.
(including 26.7 EDU's to Abington but none for St Michael’s )
8-10-09 EDU’s are needed - Letter from Abington
Township to Mr. Ihor Jaryi,President St Michael's Dated August
10, 2009. Staff Review. Of note is the statement under
Engineering 1. : the Applicant will have to gain approval for
9 EDU from Cheltenham and DEP.
7-29-09 Montgomery County Planning Commission
comments in letter of 29 July 2009 to Mark A Penecale, Zoning
Officer, Abington Township, review comments to development
plan. Comments from our previous letter which remain
outstanding include 1. Masters Facilities Plan – is required
[§500.4.H.]. 2. The tax parcel number of the site is required
[§146-11.A.5] Shall be provided unless not considered necessary
for safety and convenience [§146-27.1.]. A sidewalk (and
crosswalk) in this area could improve access to Alvethorpe Park.
Crosswalks may be required to provide access to parks
[§146-29.4.A.].4. Off-Street Parking Areas – Two-way interior
circulation drives and aisle ways shall be minimum of 24 feet
wide (the driveway near the entrance is 17 ft. wide)
[§146-28.1].B.
. (Note Interior and circulation drives shall be 24
feet wide – they are however a “recommending” body – this is
what they recommend MCPC Number for Abington is 09-0145-001)
5-8 -09 No Application made for Cheltenham EDU’s-
Cheltenham Township Connection Management Plan Amended thru May
8, 2009, rev. May10, 2009 Listed 26.7 EDU for 2009. None for
2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 by Abington Township.ie :
St Michael's is NOT on the list requesting EDU’s from
Cheltenham
5-7-09 Abington submits list to Cheltenham for EDU request
with no St Michael’s ------Abington Engineering dept
e-mail to David Lynch, Subject Abington Township EDU's St .
Michael's not listed – No request is being made
7-15-08 Zoning Relief was granted. 3 people voted Aye
and that is all it took to grant the relief despite
no testimony in favor of the application and a dozen
reasons to deny it. Barbara Wertheimer, Ed Mebus and
Linda Cates all voted in favor . 3 people voting to give
one property owner more rights than he bought even though those
rights will severely impact the rights of th other property
owners.
Although residents had been notified of
the earlier meeting, neighbors said later that they did not
even know this particular meeting was being held. In addition,
they largely did not know or understand, still at this time, the
real details of what was being planned, how it would affect
them, how the facility might be used, what other uses might be
possible and what they should do in order to act in their
own interests. These waivers were granted before they could inform themselves
properly - as they later testified . A letter was sent to their
Commissioner asserting that, although St. Michael's was
proposing originally a "Church Hall" where they would serve
breakfast to parishioners, what was approved at this meeting was
a full banquet facility - with the possible ability of renting it out for weddings and events.
Residents did not appeal in the allotted time because they did
not even know about it, nor about their rights to appeal until
that deadline had passed.
The original half of the property that is planned for the
dining hall was Zoned R-1 (residential 1 acre). The land where
the new Church was built was Zoned CS (Community Service
District). In July 2008 Abington Planning Commissioners gave
them a variance to extend the building in the R-1 zone to add
the dining facility. No mention was made that this was a Flood
Plain Conservation District .
June 17, 2008 Zoning Hearing St Michael’s testified
that renovating the pastor’s house would be too expensive –and
that maintenance is too expensive – but they seem to have enough
funds for a new house and enough to maintain the old one ( for
other uses ) and the new one too – so that doesn’t seem to be
true . They testified at first when asked who lived there that
the priest & his family did – then later another woman – then
later still another woman. And they used part of the house for
an office and the kitchen was used for church breakfasts. They
testified that the banquet hall would be used 1x per year – then
later that there would also be weddings . They testified that
there was vegetation that separated the residents from the
property – the residents testified otherwise. Residents
testified about the noise , the lack of anything that separated
them from the church parking lot and facilities , and the poorly
kept trees and the electric that went out for many, many hours
when a tree fell , to the dangerous, rusted and dilapidated
fencing, to the fact that no one had been responsive to their
complaints to the fact that they had been promised earlier by
the church that expansion was not in the plans and that some
bought their houses based on this written assertion, and to the
fact that their peace and quiet had been frequently disrupted
not just by the three or four festivals a year that always went
past the permitted time, but also by car races and loudspeakers
and other activities.
7-6-94 Conversion to apartment – sanitary drainage plumbing
fixtures for the sewer connection for the Chapel and
apartment 1600 feet there is also a second page that indicates
the addition of a bathtub a sink to wash basin washing machine
and water closet. It is written at first for the garage which
is crossed out and then written Chapel and apartment
( So isn’t there some sort of
zoning hearing required to convert a garage to a dwelling ??? )
1-24-94 Township sewer connection was made for the Chapel
and apartment for the property
8-15-90 Approvals were given for the log Church to be built
-like the decision in 2008, it was made by only three people in
a Township of 56,000. Mr. Bigelow Mr. Holtzer and Mr. Weiss
there was a zoning change enacted. Residents are assured in
writing that no large scale expansion is intended. St
Michaels plans to function much
as it always has..... .They are made to feel assured
that if they do not oppose this, they are not opening the door
to more development. Some residents even bought their houses
here after the Church was built, assured by this letter that
there would not be further expansion (see zoning hearing
testimony 6-17-08 ) . That clearly did not turn out to be the
case.
Application: “the applicant Edward J Kolsun / Associates
and owner of St. Michael's the Archangel Ukrainian Catholic
Church seeks a variance and special exception as they propose to
construct a church within the B and P residential district and
to exceed the height limitation of 35 feet within the
districts. The applicant was represented by Brian Rose Esquire
on April 17 and Mike Thomas J Garrity Esquire on July 17, 1990.
Site plan prepared by Harold Warren Gans engineer. The
applicant received approvals from Montgomery County planning
commission, Montgomery County conservation district, the
Department of environmental resources, and the department of the
Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant testified when the new
church is constructed the existing church building will be
razed. The applicant testified the
new church building will not adversely affect the public
welfare". Only the spire was above the height
limitations.
Conclusions of Law included the statement that the
special exception to permit a church has not been adverse to the
public health safety or welfare.
Opinion of the Board - included that the fence must be
repaired and maintained, the spire may not be illuminated,
that the parking lot lighting must be shielded per the code,
that the existing building presently used for storage will be
demolished and completely removed including the slab, that all
existing trees will be maintained, that storm water will be
controlled and maintained on these premises as per the storm
water plans submitted
7-17-90 4-17-90 – Public Hearing for the construction of the
church
art Bigelow, Mitchell Holzer, John Weiss, Bruce Eckel, Diane
Titer, Larry Matteo
4-17-90 – Public Hearing for the construction of the church
art Bigelow, Mitchell Holzer, John Weiss, Bruce Eckel, Diane
Titer, Larry Matteo
4-11-90 St. Michaels writes a letter to assure residents of
their intent -- letter from Brian Rose Stradley Ronan
Stevens and Young to a resident on Kipling road and says the old
church building would not be demolished but rather would be used
for occasional meetings and otherwise along the lines of the
parish Hall (but in the application they said they would
demolish the old church) the original existing church was
constructed his family mansion and is not suited to the creation
of a proper atmosphere of religious worship. The new church
building is not meant to be the start of any large-scale
expansion of the parish. Rather it is anticipated St. Michael's
will continue to function much as it always has, but with the
benefit of a more appropriate place of religious worship .
11-16-76 special exception was received for church use at
this premises.
__________________________
Please feel free to
contact us
with your own
information on these topics and please be sure
to
contact us
about any information you believe to be
incorrect -
|
