WAWA MAIN POINTS & SIDE
BY SIDE COMPARISONS WHAT
THEY BOUGHT - VS- WHAT THEY WANT TO HAVE
If there are mistakes here
please let us know
so we can correct anything that needs correcting.
This is in no way complete. We have asked for an official
PROFESSIONAL comparison but have received none to date so this is the best we
could come up with to help summarize the issues.
This is as one resident understands it and sees it. Nothing more.
The property was bought
with PB (Planned Business ) Zoning . Service Stations are
conditional uses by special exception - so they can be had
without rewriting the text of our Zoning Ordinance.
_________________________________________________________
FIRST
& FOREMOST:
### Current PB Ordinance 801B 6 allows that when 2
ordinances seems to conflict, the more restrictive
condition shall rule
Proposed ORD
-
SECTION IV .
REPEALER
“Any and all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict with the terms of this ordinance are
repealed, replaced, and rescinded, by the adoption of this
ordinance”.
This
ordinance proposes that everyone else's rights come second.
Period . The clauses and provisions of our
various ordinances are there to protect the rights of many
property owners. No
one property owner should be given a trump card over everyone
else's rights. No one ever. )
_______________________________________
SPOT ZONING This
zoning "use" proposed is vastly different in every way from
every other use. It is
designed exclusively for the applicant's own use down to
minute details, excluding himself from nearly every regulation
that other uses are bound by. Instead of just
applying it to his own property ( for which it clearly was
sritten) they are trying to amend the ordinance, meaning it will
apply to other properties, the consequences of which are not
even fathomable. At the same time he seeks to eliminate
fair competition with his language requiring the use to be
within 800 ft of a train station , and no other such use may be
within 2000 feet. His efforts to evade spot zoning and
eliminate competition have effects for many other Abington
property owners and may be quite detrimental to some .
In fact, he knew what the zoning was
before he bought the property
and knew that we have a
way to obtain waivers and variances that are in the interests of
the residents. This method of gaining advantages does not keep
the welfare of Abington residents at it's core, serving one at
the expense of many. ______________________
NOT A TRANSIT ORIENTED
USE On the one hand, the Commissioners are purporting to
build a Transit Oriented District - pedestrian friendly (your
reward for this by the way, is increased density and traffic and
many new residential AND Commercial neighbors
in this already 98 %
developed township) .
This applicant, however, is now trying to place
a non-transit oriented
use IN a transit oriented
development - REQUIRING that this "Fueling Center"
be within 800 feet of a train.
People using public transit don't need fuel if our real
goal is pedestrian oriented communities.
It even encourages much
more traffic across a very busy highway, posing safety issues or
slowing traffic to a crawl to accommodate. Montco Plan Comm
- recommended revisiting this thought ______________________
SERVICE STATIONS ARE
ALREADY ALLOWED BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION So there is no need
to give such an outrageous, comprehensive use "by right"
- which when passed
will take away much of the Community's right to have a
say ----a bad thing
to do ____________________________ NUISANCE
NOXIOUS OR
HAZARDOUS USES &
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
###
Current PB 801.p no use with noxious or
hazardous gas, vibration, illumination, noise, hazard by
explosion, fire or otherwise , or shall create any congestion or
hazardous traffic condition…nor generate a nuisance to the
surrounding property by reason of truck or delivery traffic.
The municipality may require expert advice… costs borne
by applicant 402.4.I
Outdoor uses shall not create a nuisance 801 T
Community Character may not be negatively
impacted by hours of operation, traffic safety .
At the 10-23-12
Planning Commission meeting testimony as to the hazards of bring
in large trucks was given. And re: traffic it was
stated that 125 customers per hour were expected at rush hours -
25% of that traffic would be ones not already on the road - but
coming just for Wawa use.
Proposed ORD
24 hour retail use, illumination , traffic, noise not
controlled to level of residential --- even though they abutt residential _________________________
HOURS OF USE
### Current PB -
801T Commercial
areas abutting residential properties shall not operate between
12midnight and 6 am
.
At
the 10-23-12 Planning Commission meeting testimony was given
that only 1 large truck per week plus perhaps 1 large fuel truck
would make deliveries - but there would be numerous smaller
trucks.
Proposed ORD-:
24 hr operation
- deliveries and trash
not allowed 12-7 ___________________________
NOISE
### Current PB The ordinances controlling this are voluminous - Unsure what he has
exempted himself from & what will apply or be enforceable. On 10-23-12 his rep said that he was withdrawing all noise exemptions
and would comply with the noise ordinances. However, with S
Michael's as a shining example, Abington has a history of
being unable to resolve resident complaints about noise &
decibel level violations. This is unlikely to be an exception.
http://www.ecode360.com/9007246 has the decibel levels
& regulations .
801P1a2 says noise shall not exceed average intensity of
noise from other causes
and in other parts of the code noise of generators,
machinery etc is
covered .
Proposed ORD-:
he had originally
exempted himself from some of these
standards - now says he will comply. Montco Plan Comm
- recommended
he not restrict himself from
the standards and added restricting
site-operated radios from bing broadcast 10pm - 6am .
____________________________
MULTIPLE USES -
### Current PB - no more
than 1 principal use per parcel
Proposed ORD
- Multiple uses
Fueling, retail, atm, financial services, food prep , vending
machines, etc ______________________________
MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE
### Current PB -50%
Proposed ORD -
60% ____________________________
HEIGHT
### Current PB - 50 feet
Proposed
ORD - Not
specified - no limitation given Creating confusion in
an ordinance that
says it "trumps" all others…...
____________________________
MAX IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
### Current PB 70%
Proposed ORD
- 80%
( but if he goes to 70%
then he gets other "benefits" in
not having buffering…. ) ____________________
FRONT YD DIMENSION /
SETBACK / BUFFER
### Current PB 60 foot
dimension // 20 foot
landscape buffer
Proposed ORD
- 20 foot setback
and buffer would not
apply if
he has 70% impervious & nearest
dwelling is over 50ft from the line line (using the
other's property as his buffer) Mont Co Plan Comm -
recommended buildings built to street
( if that is the case than NO traffic accommodations can
be made using this property)
____________________
SIDE YARD DIMENSION SETBACK & BUFFER
### Current PB 40 ft
dimension // 6ft landscape buffer if next to Commercial but 25
feet landscape buffer
if next to residential
//
Proposed ORD
- 15 feet and buffer
would not apply if
he has 70% impervious & nearest
dwelling is over 50ft from the line line (using the
other's property as his buffer) ____________________
REAR YARD DIMENSION
SETBACK
### Current PB 50 foot
dimension// 20 ft setback
// 25 ft setback if
it adjoins residential
Proposed ORD
- 15 feet and buffer
would not apply if
he has 70% impervious & nearest
dwelling is over 50ft from the line (using the other's
property as his buffer) __________________________
BUFFERS
### Current PB 402.4.L
Proposed ORD
- if less than 30% of the lot is maintained as green space
and then the regular PB buffer area
rules would apply
----
but if he chooses more than 30% preserved as green space and
then he can have
no
buffers if the nearest residential unit
is 50 feet away.
In other words, he is not buffering the neighbor’s
property - he is using the neighbors property to buffer his own.
The residential neighbor whose house was located
50 feet away or more, would lose the right to have
buffering for the enjoyment of that 50 feet
of his property - or to perhaps build closer to his fence
line and still have the right to have buffering on
the commercial property.
All neighbors should be entitled to suitable use of their
own personal property and have adjacent commercial provide
proper buffering. ___________________
SIGNEAGE ALLOWED
### Current PB :
1008.2.b2
allows 2 signs
selected from :
freestanding 50 sf 20 ft high
or wall signs 200 sf
25 ft hi or
canopy signs 30 sf at canopy ht or monument signs 75 sf
10 ft high
Proposed ORD
- 5 feet setback
-
He allows himself a total of
23 signs ( said 10-23-12 that this included
signs for the Toni Roni/ Bank property ) 2
Freestanding
65 sf max area of
signeage 25 ft high 8 Wall signs
500 sf max area per building
30 ft high 5 Canopy signs
40 sf max area
at canopy height ( undetermined) 8 max Directional
signs with or w/o ads - 50 sf
in the aggregate
less than 4 ft high _________________________
NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS
### Current PB - 2
Proposed ORD
- 3 ( 4 shown in
plan ) ___________________________
MOTOR
FUELING CENTER
### Current PB - Service stations are allowed
by special exception
already - so the
intent is that the hearing would be held
and residents and commissioners would
decide if the motor vehicle fueling Center was
appropriate
Proposed ORD
- The use as a fueling Center would be given by right if
two of these three uses were present ( one present in the last
five years) service station/auto sales/auto service/////300 foot
frontage///2000 feet from other feeling Center// 800 feet from
rail station// ___________________________
PARKING SPACES
Current PB- 10 ft
wide
Proposed ORD
- 9 feet wide
This is a "tax" on everyone who gets body dings in their
vehicles - and large
vehicles often cannot even get into these spots
_________________________
GRADE LIMITATIONS
Current PB -801.I.11
grade changes ### Current PB
he needs permit and plan
and soil erosion plans
Proposed ORD
-REGULAR PB STANDARD SHALL NOT APPLY Montco Plan Comm
- recommended keeping requirements to get special permit for
grading ________________________________
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
### Current PB 402 4 L
801.U
Proposed ORD
- REGULAR PB
STANDARD SHALL NOT APPLY
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
Current PB
801.J
Proposed ORD
- regular mechanical
equipment standard shall not apply Montco Plan Comm - recomm
keeping requirements
of PB
___________________ ILLUMINATION /LIGHTING STANDARDS
### Current PB 801.M.1
not taller than 20 ft height
Proposed ORD - carryover illumination
standards shall apply only to adjoining residential properties.
All on lot public parking areas, aisles and accessways
shall be provided with an average minimum of one half
(.5) footcandles of light calculated over the online public
parking areas, aisles and accessways . Montco Plan Comm-
- recomm keeping requirements
of PB
//requiring set back 20 ft from residential lines //
any side or rear standards closer than the setback
distance be no more than 10 ft hi and directed away from prop
line ____________________________
FINANCIAL LOSS OR GAIN Local gas stations,
coffee houses and others will be affected by this business.
whoever buys gas or food at this Wawa, will not be buying these
items at another Abington location. We have had
conversations with other local station owners who have said that
WAWA's arrival in this slow economy will put them out of
business. Do we support
our local businesses - or support those that would change all of
our laws and rules to undermine them?
While we are quick to count $ that will be added - is
anyone calculating the losses? Including the traffic and the
location at the supposed "gateway" to our community
that we had been touting.
______________________________ MONTCO
PLANNING COMMISSION 9-12-12 did not recommend
approval as it was written . _____________________________
THE PLANNING COMMISSION 10-23-12 did
not recommend approval as it was written .
Chairman Rosen recommended a traffic study. Residents and
others expressed many problems. a traffic study will certainly
not resolve all the problems inherent in this
____________________________
I RECOMMEND WE NOT OPEN
THE DOOR TO DEVELOPERS WRITING OUR CODES FOR US -In my
opinion not a use that is safe, or friendly to this busy
intersection, to this gateway to our community, or to the
residential properties that it abutts. It simply should
not be allowed. And no developer should feel that Abington
would bend all of its laws in such a comprehensive manner to
accommodate such a plan without the full and complete compliance
of all of the residents affected. ___________________
We
welcome your comments
to share either anonymously or with your name attached with
your fellow Abington residents. Send any
updated
information, comments or questions to:
lel@abingtoncitizens.com
|
|
THE
NEWSLOOP
Sign up here to receive our periodic Newsloop updates on issues that matter to us all.
Knowledge is power. Stay informed to help shape your community and make a difference.
Abington Township, with John Spiegelman in charge, revamped the entire Township website at the end of 2015
and broke all the links to the information we had archived on this site for you.
In 2017, Manager Richard Manfredi arrived and assigned someone not qualified to redo the entire website again.
They not only broke all archived links we had reinstated, but made everything as impossible to find as they could.
Nearly all of our comments and recommedations to fix the Township website have been wholly ignored.
So we do need volunteers to work together helping the Township create a site that is functional and accessible.
We will be reinstating links as we find them....if the data is still available.
So... please let us know if you find a broken link. Send us the URL of the link
and the name of the page it is on, and if we can, we'll reinstate it.
Thanks for the help.
DISCLAIMER:
The information on this page or in this site may have unintentional inaccuracies, and also has opinions.
It should not be relied upon as fact until investigated personally by the reader.
Please read our full
Disclaimer
and read our Policies page before using
this site.
All who find inaccuracies are asked to please
contact us so we may correct them.
|
|