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“Any and all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the terms of this ordinance are repealed, replaced, and rescinded, by the adoption of this ordinance”.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 

      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 revamped the entire Township website at the end of 2015 and broke all the links to the information. In 2017, under Richard Manfredi, someone inexperienced was assigned to redo the entire website again. The public was not asked what problems they would like to see fixed. Their new plan was not well thought out, so everything was very hard to find and there were giant paragraphs you had to slog through in order to find the pertinent one or two lines that you needed. Or if you were lucky enough to even find the meetings and agenda page, there was (and still is) a whole page of nonsense on top, so you think you're on the wrong page. Zoom limks are burrid in a giant paragraph, so people can't find them to attend the meeting. They know about these  problems - but have just decided to ignore us.... for the whole of Richard Manfredi's time here (with Tom Hecker's consent).

 Now, in 2025, we are due to get a new Manager, and there are funds put aside to, once again, upgrade the Township website. We can only hope for a fresh chance at fixing some of these things, as our Township website is the best tool we have for communication and should be an easy, user friendly site for all.

We need volunteers willing to work together to help improve the Township site that everyone has to use,  to make it functional and accessible. 

 We will be repairing our broken links in this Abington Citizens site, too, and fixing some of our many, many typo's as much as is possible. (Yes, it's quite evident that, unlike the Township, WE don't have a paid staff of 275+ or a $93 million budget).

 So...please let us know if you find broken links or typos. Send us the URL and/or and the name of the page it is on, so we can correct it.
Thanks for the help.

DISCLAIMER:
The information in this site, like any site, may have unintentional inaccuracies. These pages also have opinions.
Nothing should not be relied upon as fact until it is confirmed personally by the reader. 
Please read our full Disclaimer and read our Policies page before using this site.
Again..... if you find inaccuracies or even grammatical errors,  please contact us so we may correct them.