Click here to receive the Newsloop with more news
like this
THE WILLOW GROVE MALL
WAY MORE THAN 365
APARTMENTS
NEXT MEETING
-- NONE !!!
However, although the Commissioners did not agree
to hold a hearing on this application, that was
because we had a whole series of shenanigans that
might have de-railed it.
I would ventrue a fairly
educated guess that they decided to wait until the Comprehensive Plan passed and made it the
"vision" of the Commissioners to
put residential on
the Willow Grove Mall Business District ( and
the Huntingdon Valley Shopping Center and
pretty much everywhere they think they can
squeeze some in.) The Comprehensive Plan does
not, in and of itself, change the zoning - but we
have been promised the "vision" in that Plan will be
used to approve text and map amendment requests.
Therefore, once the Comp Plan passes, PREIT will no
longer have a fight to put apartments there. They'll
just write their proposal.
And here is PREIT
announcing that they will do just that - and on the
land surrounding the Mall as well.
WILLOW GROVE MALL AND ADJACENT LAND HAS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT IN ITS
FUTURE, OWNER PREIT SAYS
https://glensidelocal.com/willow-grove-mall-and-adjacent-land-has-apartment-development-in-its-future-owner-preit-says
To learn more about the Comp Plan here
see : RESIDENTIAL
EXPLOSION
And learn
about the deceptive way they presented the "
need" to build more
see
forecasts used to deceive-
POPULATION CONFUSION
There is no need
to build ..... our "population" will be
as huge as they decide it will be - based on what
building projects they decide to approve -- no
larger, no smaller. Those that already have
rights to build, may or may not build int eh coming
years and would reflect a genuine increase in
population, if they did. But no units are "needed to
be built" to "accommodate" that, obviously.
Please
consider PUTTING
A SIGN ON YOUR LAWN --- so
few of your neighbors know this is happening !
______________________________
From the Township Website - historical
postings
https://www.abingtonpa.gov/government/office-of-the-township-manager/subdivision-and-land-development-archive
-
CANCELLED: December 1, 2021, Land Use Committee
Meeting
-
Notice: The Township of Abington's, Board of
Commissioners Committee meetings, including
the Land Use Committee meeting scheduled for
Wednesday, December 1, 2021, are
canceled. The PREIT map and zoning text
amendment requests for the Willow Grove Mall
Park site that was to be on the December
1st, Land Use Committee agenda will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners on
a date to be determined. In advance of the
Board formally voting on the PREIT
request, a Public meeting will be held to
ensure the public is informed and has an
additional opportunity to provide public
comment prior to the Board of Commissioners
voting on considering the PREIT request.
More information will be posted
at www.abingtonpa.gov/landuse and on the
Township’s Calendar as it becomes
available.
-
CANCELLED: November 3, 2021, Land Use Committee
Meeting
-
October 14, 2021, Board of Commissioners
Committee of the Whole Meeting
-
October 12, 2021, Economic Development Committee
- Special Meeting
-
September 28, 2021, Economic Development
Committee
-
June 10, 2021, Board of Commissioners Committee
of the Whole
-
May 25, 2021, Planning Commission
-
April 27, 2021, Planning Commission
-
March 23, 2021, Planning Commission
-
February 23,2021, Planning Commission
-
December 10, 2020, Board of Commissioners
Committee of the Whole
-
The request was referred to the Planning
Commission
Additional Information
The applicant, PREIT, has created a website with
information regarding the request for a zoning
amendment, which can be found at https:/www.livingatwillowgrovepark.com/.
--------------------------------------------------
On May
12, 2022 Board President Tom Hecker announced Board of Commissioners
would NOT be giving PREIT a hearing. After 11 long
tedious meetings over the course of a year, I
think residents deserved more information .
How does such a DECISION get
made out of public view? He and a few
Commissioners got together and made the decision. It
is illegal to do Board business without a quorum and
our of public view. So how did that happen?
All of the
Commissioners were not even apprised that some were
meeting and making such a decision . They had no say in it. A
disrespect to their residents - and to them.
In fact, the Public doesn't even know WHICH
Commissioners made the decision - or know anything
about the details.
Does Comr Hecker think he is at the head of a
Monarchy and does not need to conduct public
business in public..... ? Or with ALL of
the Board .
So the joke was on us. 11 LONG AND TEDIOUS
MEETINGS including 4 trips to the
Planning Commission ( what we won't do to try to get
a "yes"..... ) all to no avail.
We were told it was coming to the Land Use Committee in
2022 but there IS no Land Use Committee
anymore. They abolished it in Dec 2021 .
Then they told us it would come to the
brand new
Comprehensive Plan Contingency Committee in May 2022 -
but on May 4th, 2022, that Committee
was "rescheduled " .......to a Special Meeting May
24th. When asked if that had been on the
agenda, one requester was told there was
NOTHING on the agenda for May 4th. Why would a
meeting with NOTHING on the agenda be " rescheduled"?
It would just be cancelled .
Someone is not playing fair and square here. ( Ok -
since Nov 2020, when it was first introduced,
they haven't been straight about this project - and
they almost NEVER are playing "fair and square" with
the residents in any issue .... this case is just the posterchild
for it. )
On May
11th we found out that St Basil's/Toll Brothers was
what was scheduled for May 24th . As a
"Special Meeting" they don't NEED to post
documents til 24 hours before-hand. Great for
the developers, because residents can't call out the
troops in that short amount of time . Was
this a Special favor for St Basil's, who, they
said was NOT on the agenda May 4th.
Why
wouldn't they simply tell us when PREIT would next
appear
Oh
my - what a tangled web we weave ......
------------------------------------------------------
4-6-22 online and 4-10-22
Sunday INQUIRER :
PREIT ARTICLE
It’s been out for
days online - but sadly after CONFIRMING with me
what he was going to say – the reporter wrote
the opposite
of what we agreed on. My PRIME concern, which we
reviewed together, was not the fact that PREIT /
BelCanto’s building was up against the road – ( that
was just ONE concern I mentioned in passing). And
it’s not
just the aesthetics of that factor -
but also the fact that such a location
doesn’t allow for necessary road modifications at
those already full intersections . But I assured Mr
Fernandez ( multiple times ) that my prime concern
was that
they were not being honest about what they had
submitted – and kept insisting it was ONE building…
while the ordinance said something completely
different.
And for 11 meetings we could not get a
straight answer
as to exactly HOW MUCH could be built if
their ordinance passed. If it were just one building
it would be illegal spot zoning. Even Manfredi
acknowledged there would be more – but “forgot” to
specify where and how much )
I also assured him that my concern included things like a very bogus financial analysis and
other smoke and mirror games which allowed that the public was simply not
being told the truth. They/we
have a right
to know the truth and to decide what they want or
don’t want based on honest and reliable statistics
and facts. 11 meetings is certainly plenty of time
to have had correct answers and all the facts….
unless our fearless leaders allow them NOT to answer
and accept
“facts”
they know not
to be true, as well as knowing that
crucially
important information has been omitted.
Mall operator PREIT sells dying mall Exton Square
and says it will sell land for apartments on some
mall sites (inquirer.com)
THIS IS the "details page"
WITH AS MUCH INFO AS WE COULD ARCHIVE
VERY POORLY ORGANIZED DUE TO TIME
CONSTRAINTS
OK IT'S A MESS!
|
BUT BETTER TO HAVE IT ALL SOMEWHERE FOR
YOU, THAN
TO NOT HAVE IT AT ALL
SOME THINGS
BELOW ON THIS PAGE MAY BE OUT OF DATE - AS
THE PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH 11 MEETINGS
- THE FIRST 6 SHOWED VIRTUALLY NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER
- BUT THEN A VERY FEW CHANGES WERE MADE. AFTER 11
MEETINGS THEY STILL COULD NOT MAKE THEMSELVES TELL
THE TRUTH
The artist's eye might note
that Bloomies 3 story
building appears larger than their new 5 story building.
BOGUS
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND MOST RECENT ORDINANCE
The ordinance is up to page 101. The very
problematic financial analysis is on the last pages.
2021-10-14 PREIT Ordinance
and financial analysis
Find the questions for the developer here
This will be the 12th meeting because
the Commissioners refused to ask the necessary questions and the
developer kept dodging any that residents asked in the first 11.
Stunningly, Comr Bill Bole wrote his residents that
he still has a lot of questions about the project.
Really - cause we didn't hear you asking ANY - nor
requiring that ours get answers . So if you do, it's
because you have not done your job. The 12th
meeting follows on the heels of
2 totally bogus financial presentations - that even contradicted
one another - -so much so that it is
almost laughable. But it's really not funny anymore, is it? 12
meetings later.....
In November Mall owner,
PREIT, tried to make it look like they were
asking for
one 365
apartment building on the Bloomies parking lot
- first
announced in Nov 2020. But they
submitted documents that allow for far, far more and
even discuss conditions that need to be met for
other structures that will be built. While mocking our attempts to
estimate how many units they ACTUALLY would be able to
build if this passes, they refused to say - and
Commissioners refused to ask themselves - or insist
that our questions were answered . That would be
illegal spot zoning.
They finally conceded
OK a second could be builtcould be built
on the Macy's parking lot. But many other
properties are within the 2500 linear feet from a
train that would also obtain the rights. For
a full year, we have had lies or been denied answers
to our questions, and never been shown a
single analysis that shows a benefit to the Township
or to the taxpayers. The financial "analysis"
claimed only 14 students would result from 365
apartments - and they would only cost $13,000 to
educate - not the $21 to $22K they really cost.
The continued refusal to acknowledge what
Bruce Goodman's properties, Parkside
(Dick's strip)
and Park
Place (Visionworks strip) could become if they were sold and
what might be done at the former K-Mart (now called
At Home) as well as the refusal to provide any
realistic numbers on how many children could
be sent to our schools, at $22, 000 per child,
is a disgrace . It is just one of many reasons
that Comr John Spiegelman and Comr Tom Hecker should be asked
to step down from their positions as President and
Vice President of the Board - or voted out by their
residents for doing this. We can't have people
who withhold information and don't know how to
(or won't) provide a proper financial analysis to see if something is
in our interests or not. We can't have people who
drag residents to 12 meetings because they
themselves are refusing to ask the questions that
need to be asked -- or to even let residents ask
them.
Comrs Spiegelman
and Hecker will have not just drug residents
through 12 fruitless meetings up to Dec,
2021 on this matter - but they also have
worked sucessfully to simultaneously remove
our speaking rights (while calling it an
expansion rather than a removal -- that's a
form or fraud) They removed your rights to help them
get this and other onerous measures passed. The two
have taken control of ALL the
Committee meetings ( run by Hecker ) and
of the Full Board meeting (run by Spiegelman
)- wresting control out of the
hands of the other Committee Chairs simply by
skipping OVER the Committee meetings whenever they
wanted. Hecker lamented that although they
could attend those meetings, they couldn't vote. No
- they aren't supposed to . Other
Commissioners are supposed to chair the various
meetings and then Hecker & Spiegelman vote after
recommendations have been made . But these two
want to be in control of everything. They are
wresting control away from the Commissioners elected
by Wards all over the Township so the voice of
the public is being removed as well in this manner. Hecker did
not like that others were in charge at any level , and so has interfered with any
proposals to change it, which had been made at one
point. . Spiegelman and Hecker
have failed to answer questions for residents and
taken away the meetings where our questions are to
be given the most time and consideration and our
speaking rights are the most robust.
When PREIT showed a 2nd possible building in
the Macy's lot, increasing the number of units
from 365 to 700 and still failing to account
for others -- Bruce Goodman's, for instance, no financial considerations
or conversation changed to reflect the impact of even that 2nd building
(let alone more that could be built ) at the
subsequent EDC meeting. A dupe on the public .
A Planning Commission member estimated there were 78
acres within the 2500 linear feet that will
get these rights. PREIT had recently conceded to 16
units per acre so that would mean there were
1248 units that could be expected with the
passing ofthis ordinance . Not all at once , of
course, but over time - and without the right of
anyone to protest it in the future. No matter how
much it caost the Schools. A School District member
sitting on the Economic Development Committee said
it could cost $40 million to build a new school.
It would be a "use by right" for the other
properties - so after this passes it won't matter
how much it costs the schools .
While they
refuse to provide a proper picture of the overall
impact of ALL the properties being rezoned, or any proper financial analysis, the residents are
unclear exactly what would make the
Commissioners entertain this massive prospective
loss . This ordinance this simply provides
more money for the property owners & new developers involved at the
expense of the congestion of our streets, need fuller schools,
fuller parks and an unhappy urbanization of our township for
the rest of us.
Some people thing that
this is a done deal - and that kind of thinking will
make it a "self-fullfilling prophecy".
Instead , please
understand that if you do NOTHING - then things will
be done for you - or to you. Instead - if you
do not want this - make sure every one of the
Commissioners hears you loud and clear .
Here's where they can be found :
https://abingtoncitizens.com/TwpGovt/Commissioners.htm
Demand answers and
actions that are in YOUR interest.
12th meeting - May 12, 2022 . It was announced
that a hearing would not be held for PREIT
12th MEETING
- originally was
was supposed to be held Nov 3rd, 2021
That
was postponed to Dec 1 which would have been just 9 days before they
hoped to hold a hearing on it (Dec 10) right in the middle of the
holidays and ALSO hold a hearing at the same
meeting on an 856 page budget where the
documents had been withheld and also pass a 23
page outrageous revision of Speaking Rights and
completely revamped Meeting structure and Meeting
rules. Thankfully the Dec
meeting & hearing for PREIT got cancelled.
Ultimately in another improper move in May of 2022 we
were told PREIT would not be getting a hearing.
Somehow htis was decided behind the scenes - all the
Commissioners did not get told about it --- yet a
decision seems to have been made.
11th MEETING -
October 14, 2021
Committee of the Whole
-
After a Completely useless pair of EDC meetings, and
no finalcial review that had proper statistics
in it, the issue came back to the Committee of the
Whole where Dan Herman of PREIT once again
openly deceived the Commissioners and the audience
-- ( except I think the Commissioners knew what he
was doing ) Through 12 meetings now he and his
attorney Mark Kaplin have failed to honestly address
how many units will be enabled "by right "
when the ordinance is passed . Comrs Bole,
Rothman and Vahey all asked about this issue
and I am pretty darn 100 % sure all three of them
knew that Dan Herman's answer was an attempt to
deceive the residents of the Township who are NOT as
knowledgeable or saavy about that is going on here .
Spiegelman and other Commissioners also tried to
tell residents it was just one building . Mr Herman
knew exactly what they were asking when the
questioned if there was any "cap " on the number -
yet once again he said that
THEY were only
requesting ONE
365 unit building. That is completely and
totally untrue. The exact request that
THEY themselves
wrote and submitted is a request
to rezone everything withing 2500 linear feet of a
train, which he 100 % knows allows for other
buildings --- and the language of the ordinance even
specificically talks about multiple buildings and
master plans. Mr Herman is not allowed, due to
spot zoning, to build just his own building
without allowing others who have similar conditions
to have the same rights -- and he also already
showed a second building that could conceivably go
on the Macy's lot. Perhaps there's not enough
greenspace - but there's not enough greenapce for
his first one either. A retention pond is NOT
greenspace nor is it even Bel Cantos . It is a
required feature of the mall property overall - and
it appears that all 15 commissioners are allowing
the rules to be bent til they are broken. Mr
Bole brought up the retention pond - but DID
NOT DEMAND an answer - so no wonder there have
been 11 meetings --- The Commissioners let the
developer go meeting after meeting after meeting
without answering the questions . They clearly
did not like the answers. And PREIT clearly does not
want to put on record the mumber of units thAT Mr
Goodman or other property owners will be able to
build if this passes . The Commissioners KNOW
how to ask questions to get the answers that are
needed - but they are being complicit here in duping
their own residents and making a mockery
out of what should be a serious process , designed
to protect both our financial and quality of
life issues. Herman just doesn't think he has
to honestly tell anyone about it - that they will
"sham" this meeting after meeting
straight through to the holidays and then pass it .
Shame on the Commissioners and manager that are
allowing this.
Commissioner Spiegelman
twisted himself into a pretzel to try and be sure
that the hearing for this could be set for ... wait
for it .... right before Christmas and in the
middle of EVERYONE's holidays. The developer wants
it done by the end of the year and I'm sure Mr
Spiegelman doesn't want him to be unhappy..... He
appears to have fully forgotten all the
distress that holiday hearing dates caused his own constituents at the
YMCA --- or do you think maybe he didn't forget ....
but remembered what a bonus that was for the
developer........ ?
10th
MEETING -
October 12, 2021 7:30
am
-
again it is not appropriate to put public meetings
at 7:30 am
A 97 page document dump
1.5 working days before the meeting . The disrespect
is astounding . And a very, very flawed
consultant's analysis that suggested just 14
students would result from 365 apartments - and
ignored the rest of the buildable area.
thE 9th MEETING
September
28th 2021
Held at 7:30 am to be sure very few attend The
June 22nd meeting of the Economic Development
Committee was cancelled - and finally rescheduled
for Sept 28 . What a joke. First of all,
Bruce Goodman attended it - he did not recuse
himself, even though his properties will benefit
with enormously increased rights if this ordinance
passes. PREIT did literally launch again into
the "history " of the Mall - including not a stitch
of actual financial information as to how this would
help the Mall one single bit. Bloomies will be
selling their parking lot area to Bel Canto --
causing a crisis at holiday shopping time when every
space is filled ( except during a pandemic ).
Bel Canto will
benefit handsomely -- but apparently very much at
the expense of the Township taxpayers who will be
eating 100's of thousands of dollars of the expense
up to perhaps millions - because the
chart they produced was rife with absolute
inaccuracies.
Their chart
included financing for just TEN students - less than
1/2 of even their OWN estimate.
But the National Homebuilders estimates 61, v
according to statistics shared at that meeting,
- and the actual School District numbers start at 80
and climb to 105 possible students in just the FIRST
365 unit building! Remember their request
allows for 3 or 4 times that if this ordinance
passes.
It also ,
included only a fraction of the expenses the Mall
will cost the Township besides being WAY, WAY
off on the most important part - the calculation of
the number of students at $22,000 per student. This
is INEXCUSEABLE.
The real
numbers show that there is a great likelihood the
Township will suffer a great loss of between several
hundred thousand and several million if htis
ordinance passes --- and that is without any
calculation of expanded streets, improvements to
clogged intersections, traffic signaling,
curbs and sidewalks, the cost of the loss of
greenspace, of your time sitting in traffic , of the
more polluted air from cars idling at lights ( the
traffic all the way into Roslyn is clogged up every
rushhour of every workday - with 1248 units
and a possible 2400 additional cars - what
will the impact be ? They want you to believe
ZERO)
Stormwater
facilities may need expansion - our police force
also may .... and Township administrators are
already spread so thin and so focused on new
developers that they are ignoring basic Township
services like code enforcement and property
maintenance, among other things. The parks,
librairies will be fuller and may need to
expand ... NONE of those expenses are in the
developers chart. The whole meeting was just a
whole bogus dog and pony show. Thank you Mr
Callantine. If you are unsure what a financial
analysis looks like, please solicit professional
help.
The Chart that PREIT used for the school side
and the Township side assumed completely
different "property assessments "
If there was some reason for that, no explanation
was given. I think we are just dealing with "I
don't care -I only need 8 votes and I already know
whose they are. So why should I bother with
all this?
It is stunning to see what John Spiegelman and Tom
Hecker are allowing developers to do. They are
aiding and abetting people who are not playing
straight with the taxpayers of this Township.
The Econ Dev Committee, by the way, is the very
Committee who already declared they they
didn't have much expertise in development ... so we
needed an
Economic Development Corporation to
help them out. It is also the Committee that Bruce Goodman
sits on ... Bruce is the owner of a significant portion of the
very real estate that will gain millions and
millions of dollars worth of new zoning rights
should this ordinance pass. He is not even an
Abington resident. Why is he sitting on our
Committee in the first place? Of course he'd recuse
himself if the matter came for a vote by the
Board ..... what .... he didn't.... even when the
Committe Chair was notified - he still participated
in the discussion etc? Oh my. Are
we fully a Banana Republic...? Rules and laws
and codes and policies don't seem to mean much
in Abington.
8th meeting
On June 10th, 2021 at the Committee of
the Whole , the 8th meeting that residents had
to endure, not a single question was asked of
the applicant - residents who attended had no
opportunity to question the applicant or to hear
Commissioners ask the questions that we have wanted
answers to......most notably: how many units could
ANY developer possibly build on that property, once
the ordinance passed. The
Planning Commission report was not in the
documents of the meeting - though that Committee's
opinion was referred to . The particular
opinions that the Commisioners seemed to have was
NOT available to the public.
Residents speaking time was over before they had any
idea whatsoever what the Board was considering doing
(forwarding the matter to the Econ Development
Committee) - so their 5 minutes was just plain wasted. That's
how Mr Hecker and Mr Spiegelman prefer it.
The Board chose to do something that was nowhere on
their "Zoning Process Nonsense Chart "
.... the one that "clarifies the zoning process"
by saying : ( you can't make this up ) that Commissioners can do whatever they
heck they want at any meeting. In other words : there IS no process.
Yup. That clears it all up!
So John Spiegelman,
out of the blue, and not advertised with the item, suggested it go to the
Economic Development Committee (EDC). Right
after this meeting, they
promptly
cancelled the next EDC meeting and the next and the
next. They have not put up proper news system in so
anybody would even know where to look to know why or
when to next expect it. It's all
astounding .
Please don't think that this is normal.
There is nothing normal about this. In the worst of
times in earlier administrations, they did better
than this. I want to also mention that I attended an
earlier Economic Development Committee meeting where
Bruce Goodman, who owns a huge portion of the property
that is going to be rezoned, and Mr. Manfredi were
both in attendance and the discussion with one of
the other EDC members was about how to convince the
public that this was good for them. And there was a
suggestion that they should put together a financial
analysis ( you know, at your expense) to show how
important the mall is. Again that would play into
the full scenario that without the residential the
mall would go away..... And I think we've presented
enough information to show that it's very likely
that that would never happen because it is one of
the most successful malls in the area 2nd only to
King of Prussia in this area. So sending it to the
EDC, instead of requiring the developer to come up
with figures that prove that what they are proposing
is a benefit to our residents is a very backwards
approach.
7th meeting On May 25, 2021,
the Planning Commission
turned it down in a meeting that was
the 4th time at the planning commission and the 7th
meeting overall. However, the
Planning Commission report was not amongst the scant
documents that were provided for the June 10
Committee of the Whole meeting,
as it should have been - because they were sent
there to be advised before deciding further .
Once again we are not
being given, under Mr. Manfredi's watch, the proper
documentation and accessibility to information. This
is a chronic and very serious problem. He knows that
we cannot properly access our government when he
withholds information - and it is a regular
occurrence.
You might want to view the Planning Commission "turn down"
more as a “delay” and an opportunity to regroup ……
They are not going away. You will have to be loud
and call out all the improper and even illegal
things that have been done to try to pass this. One
dupe after another ….. And this May 25th meeting was no
different . The Chair allowing the blatant
misconduct of the applicant as he interrupted the
actual voting to lobby for votes on his behalf ….
yes, literally right in the middle of the vote
itself. Stunning to watch. Eventually Chairwoman
Strackhouse stopped him --- thanks to Cathy
Gauthier for trying to get that done sooner. How
does a meeting like that not bring sanctions on the
applicant. I think that should disqualify his
application. If anyone knows the law on that please
call me and let me know.
Planner Nick Brown,
apparently was unable to hear properly- or perhaps
care about what he heard. After listening to four meetings of residents telling
him nearly unanimously they did not want this,
he put forth a motion saying
that the planning commission was in favor of the
concept.... Whaaaaaat? With friends like those who
needs enemies? Fortunately his motion failed.
Ultimately Planner Ron Rosen first read a
document from Planner Glenn Cooper who asserted that
he was not ready to vote for this - and then Mr.
Rosen put a motion
forward that the Planners would not recommend this
proposal . That passed.
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/6a30b616-4497-11eb-920e-0050569183fa-ca2b9c28-b9cf-4f17-b573-dd2752d4679e-1626891749.pdf
" Mr. Brown
made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Russell to recommend
approval in concept of the proposed text amendment
subject to further precise definition of density,
dwelling units per acre, increased minimum green
area, and that a revised summary of the Planning
Commission’s comments/questions to be forward to the
Board of Commissioners for their consideration. " "MOTION
FAILED 4-4 "
"Mr. Rosen
made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Gauthier to REJECT
the proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance
as offered by PREIT and to have the matter come back
before the Planning Commission to discuss in further
detail. "
"MOTION was ADOPTED 5-3."
See more below and if you
haven’t signed the petition please do
https://abingtoncitizens.com/petition/wgmall.htm
Still Mr.
Kaplin would not come clean about the actual number
of units that would be possible at the mall business
district if this ordinance passed. He complained
that our estimates did not include limitations that
would lower them substantially, but he did not offer
any numbers of his own, so the only opportunity we
could take is to"guesstimate" . Given that he has
shown 700 units possible on the right-hand side, it
seems more than possible that another 700 or more
would be available on Parkside, park place, and the
TMJ at Home Store. No financial analysis. No
description of the ownership so we know who is
profiting. We have none of the things that we need
to make any proper assessment of the costs of this
project. It is quite possible that taxpayers will be
stuck with a very heavy load. .....
6th
Meeting
The April 27 Planning Commission........
Their 3rd trip to the Planning Commission and the 6th meeting overall..........
where they did not vote or solidify the changes and
garner consent on what changes were being
recommended. Instead, Chair Lucy Strackhouse seemed
to indicate she would pass along every single
comment made from all the meetings. That kind of
defeats the whole role of the Planning Commission
who is to review all the information and make
recommendations. Also, I didn't see any of the
Planners vote to agree to have their vote taken away
and to have Lucy do that unilaterally with no
consensus on such a process. Or is business being
conducted out of the purview of the public again.
A great number of
significant changes were made and when a document is
substantially changed it is, by law, supposed to
return to the Planning Commission.
The "law" doesn't seem to
matter to anyone involved with this - as the first 5
meetings were deceitfully focused on one single
building - and finally at this 6th meeting another
building was shown..... but that was only by
ignoring about half of the property they intend to
rezone, and all the units that can go on those
parcels.
"Petition to Amend our Ordinance (submitted
12-10-20) " (that's
the submitted request the
ordinance they propose )
Yes they recorded this -
and all 3 of the Planning meetings - but
refuse to play it on the channel or make it
available on the web. Making it harder for residents
to review or catch what they missed -----
again, all decisions in favor of the developer.
CITIZEN INFORMATION SESSIONS
I will be holding regular zoom meetings for
anyone - small group- large group - even individuals
who want to know more about this issue. Email me :
lel@abingtoncitizens.com
if you are
interested
|
Here is
A PAGE WITH A
BRIEF
OVERVIEW
It condenses the voluminous main points and
explores what COULD BE BUILT https://abingtoncitizens.com/aaISSUES/Development-Zoning-CodeEnf/WillowGroveMall/2021-03-21-MO.htm
The
PRIOR MEETING :
3-23-21 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING . Again almost no questions answered
Attorney was supposed to go over the ordinance line
by line. He didn't. He just jumped to a few
favorite places Planning Chair Lucy Strackhouse,
and Planners Cathy Gauthier, Ron Rosen and the others let
him do that. They also didn't require him to answer
residents questions. One speaker gave up her time to
have the prior speaker's questions answered -
Kaplin was asked again how many residential units
could be built there ..... the 300 lb Gorilla in the
room ..........he refused to answer it again, he denigrating
the questioner and mocking efforts to
calculate the number . Again , Chair Lucy
Strackhoues and the Planners allowed hom to do that
- when they could, and shoud, be asking that
question themselves . Clearly the Planners ,
like the Commissioners do NOT want the answer to
that question given to the public. A simple
request from any one of them to answer that question
would have solved the problem -but that should make
you extra angry at a process that so cuts you out.
We learned very little more at this lengthy meeting
than we had at the others.
It was remanded to yet another Planning meeting.
in keeping with the "Death by Meeting" way of
operating. Keep in mind the 2-23-21 Planning meeting was
witten on the
agenda as a motion to approve the project. In the middle of the
meeting the agenda was tawmpered with and
changed to read: a motion to "consider" rather than a
motion to "approve". It was NOT approved.
So technically that should have been a "No" vote - but like the BET
proposal they are getting around any rules that may
indicate waiting before submitting the same
proposal by holding endless ( and
useless) Planning Meetings where the
developer isn't even required to answer questions or
change any of the things he is asking for.
GO HERE TO CATCH UP ON WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO
THE LAST MEETING
ENJOY A BIT OF WILLOW GROVE
PARK HISTORY -
There is a wonderful video at this link that will
help you appreciate the 8 decades of the Willow
Grove Amusement Park
https://montco.today/2021/08/willow-grove-mall-amusement-park-delighted-locals/
or here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIYtP-J-4ws
the
ACTUAL documents submitted :
"Petition
to Amend our Ordinance (submitted
12-10-20) "
Quite different from what they told us when they
first presented, as your
Commissioners, Manager, paid County Planner and
Solicitor stayed quiet as church mice while you were
misled.
They all knew that you
were not getting a proper presentation.
PAGE
53 OF OUR
ZONING CODE
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
RESIDENTIAL IS NOT INTENDED FOR WILLOW
GROVE PARK
MALL BC DISTRICT
"A. Accommodate a
mix of sustainable, complimentary uses, to include
retail, office, and community service (and
with the exception of
Willow Grove Park Mall,
residential)."
To find
the Use Matrix and Maps are at he very end
of the zoning code- scroll down to find them - mauve
color charts .
WHAT THEY SHOWED on 11-9-20 :
The giant new building (as pictured
at the top of this page) ...pulled right up tight to
Easton Road with 365 rental apartments (no
condos) and a garage
in the middle of them . They shared
NO documents whatsoever with those attending
so we could review them in advance - and
refused our request to post a copy of the
meeting so we could review what they said
during their presentation. Who allowed them to
act in this manner. Ward 5 Commissioner Julia
Vaughn knew you hadn't had a proper meeting but
allowed htem to get away with it on 12-10-20
when she voted them to the full Board Meeting.
WHAT THEY SUBMITTED on 12-10-20 .....SOMETHING
QUITE DIFFERENT
The building pictured at the top of this page is but a
fraction of what they would be able to build if
their ordinance passed. So you should be quite
taken aback at the level of deceit - and the waste
of your time at the first meeting. In fact,
the ordinance submitted will rezone substantial parts of the Mall
lot ---- which appears to include the Mall and
Dick's and the At Home Store , and the Visionworks
Complex and Macy's and Bloomingdates. This would explain why not a single question was asked
about the Mall by any of the Commissioners - all
were complicit in allowing hte deceit to the public
who still did not understand what was being done.
A FEW OF THE NEW CONDITIONAL USE
"RIGHTS" ALL THESE ENTITIES WILL HAVE
Can build
over 85 feet high – ( that changed
in april21 to 65 ')
Commercial can be on the roof,
penthouse floor and first floor
3 floors of residential in between those commercial
floors
10 % apartment and 20% commercial mix is
required
They can go right up close to residential ( just
have to build a bit lower if within 100 or 200 feet
)
No outside access to stores – must come inside
BELOW IS THE BUSINESS CENTER WILLOW GROVE PARK
DISTRICT (
in red and a satellite view
)
FOR WHAT PROPERTIES WILL THE NEW
ZONING APPLY ?
It appears that portions
of nearly all of the properties in the BC District ( the red part
in the image above ) are within the 2500
linear feet. Only a small part of the building
apparently has to be within the 2500 ft for the
whole building to qualify so you can see how That would include Goodman
Properties Parkside Shopping Center ( Dick's to
Planet Fitness ) and Goodman Properties Park Place
including Visionworks /Floyd's Barbershop /Ideal
Image, Chipotle, etc and also the At Home Store (former
Kmart now owned by a Texas company?)
as well as Macy's, Bloomies and the Mall itself .
You can see here below all the parts of buildings
that qualify - the black lines indicate the
2500 linear feet from a train
FIRE SAFETY Marc Kaplin,
PREIT's attorney actually just got approval in March
2021 on the 8
acres behind the Baederwood Shopping Center for 244
apartments - again, rentals. But the building did
not even meet
the fire codes properly when approved and there is some concern
as to how it GOT approved in that manner. There is little that I can think
of that should override the important codes
that regulate tenant safety - even when
a 3rd party has been called in to "beef up" other
systems by way of compensation for the missing
things and who can shoulder or share any blame.
There, Kaplin is demanding approval without proper
safety regulations and here at the Mall on behalf of PREIT
he is working to
overturn our more stringent fire guidelines that
require non combustibles like metal framing instead
of wood so that
he can save his client $ - bottom line
first . Saftey of residents.... later.... maybe...
or not at all.
SPOT ZONING ISSUES ..... AGAIN A HISTORY
WITH MR
KAPLIN - Kaplin, on behalf of his client Brandolini ,
on the property
over behind the Baederwood Shopping Center, originally
claimed their 8 acres behind the Center were " reverse spot
zoned " . In other words, others were allowed more intense uses all
around him, so he should have it, too. But as
with the Mall, your attention was kept on that
single 8 acre property while Steve Kline, Ernie Peacock, et
al said they would "fix it all" by creating the
Fairway Transit District that supposedly was zoned
in your interest. No it wasn't. It simply rezoned far more
property and gave others expanded rights that
you would not have allowed .
Most residents never realized all the things they
were zoning in, supposedly just to fix this one 8 acre plot.
It was a planned escapade.
KEEP YOUR
EYE ON THIS WHILE I REZONE THAT..... Now,
we see a similar thing here -- by the same attorney
---- and many of the same characters.
Everyone's focus is on a
simgle building
that PREIT that may or may not ever build -
but which is being used to rezone so much more. And
they are refusing - after 5 months and 6 meetings in
mid April to tell us the truth about any of it -
even when we ask directly.
How many units in
total are being authorized here. Not even a few
realistic guesses are being offered. My
guess has been close to 2000
CAN EVEN MORE PROPERTIES OVER THERE OBTAIN
THIS SUPER DENSE ZONING?
One could even question whether any of the BC
properties NOT given the 2500 ft zoning
rights might be able to claim they were spot zoned
or reverse spot zoned "out" ....... After all,
PREIT is arbitrarily choosing how many feet from a
train qualifies for all this extra building that
improves the value of the properties within that
2500 ft area. It purposely and arbitrarily
leaves some properties "out". If others in the BC
district get special new rights,
why shouldn't they all? A judge would have a hard time with that
argument, I would think. Spot
zoning occurs when a property has the same
conditions as others but gets treated
differently..... They are "concocting" a condition that
makes their property , and certain chosen others,
now worth much more money . REMINDER
: A traditional transit oriented
district is (?traditionally or officially? ) defined
as 2640 feet from a train - (1/2 mile).... not
the arbitrary 2500 feet they have chosen.
ON THE MAP BELOW ( WITH TOD CIRCLES SHOWING 2500
FEET FROM THE TRAIN STATIONS) YOU CAN SEE WHERE IN
THE TOWNSHIP THAT
BUSINESS CENTER
DISTRICT IS LOCATED
THE ACTUAL SUBMIssion by
PREIT WASN'T AT ALL ABOUT A SINGLE
APARTMENT BUILDING
-- INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MANY UNITS MIGHT BE
POSSIBLE WAS NOT GIVEN IN WHAT HAS NOW BEEN
5 LONG MONTHS AND 5 LONG
PRESENTATIONS - Even when asked direct questions about
it, they always avoided them. When we made our
own calculations they said NONSENSE - but
still would not give us even a range.
HERE
IS THE ACTUAL : "
Petition to Amend our Ordinance (submitted
12-10-20) "
It is also on P368
of the Agenda Packet for the 2-11-21 Planning
Commission Meeting - good luck finding that thanks
to Mr Manfredi's seemingly purposeful rearrangement
of our website that has everything in a mess. He has
been asked repeatedly to fix it and simply refues to
even respond. That should concern you... especially
while he assigns no end of manpower and resources to
developers and and other endeavors that the
residents are opposed to.
THE NEWEST ABINGTON ZONING Code was passed on
4-27-17 . It is the document they want to amend. By adding
their own text they will increase the density even
farther than Steve Kline already increased it with
his 2017 revision that was little more than a giant
GIFT to developers. The Zoning Code is here: https://www.abingtonpa.gov/home/showdocument?id=6053
WHAT IF WE HAD TO
TAKE A WILD GUESS HOW MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS COULD
BE BUILT THERE?
To
repeat - my guess is around 2000 --- before any
lawsuits from others wanting the same
treatment ..... See the
Brief
Overview and explore how much can be built
( but be mad that the developer is not being
required to tell you the answer )
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
OUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT BEING
ANSWERED.......
WE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS ORDINANCE & ITS IMPACT
UNLESS WE UNDERSTAND .......
***
The lot breakdowns - what does PREIT own?
What is
owned by other entities?
***
Which of those lots are inside the
" 2500 linear feet " - no
graphic was provided to show either land or
buildings in that zone
***
Since zoning runs with the land
- not buildings - can an additional building be
built in Dick's parking lot, for instance, or
Macy's?
***
If the tip of a LOT qualifies in the 2500 ft - does
the whole, entire lot qualify?
***
If the tip of a building qualifies - does the entire
building ( the Montco Planner. has said yes , he
believes so...)
***
Where could they ultimately build
85 feet high ?
*** Show an example of what could be built
next to Preston & Columbia Ave at just 50 ft
away from the fence ( or at the build to line)
***
Show an example of what could be built next to
Preston & Columbia Ave at 101 ft
from the fence
*** Show an example
of what could be built next to Preston &
Columbia Ave at 201 ft from the fence
***
Show an example of what could be built across
the street from High Ave in Macy's lot - or Macy's
itself
***
How many properties
in the BC Willow Grove Park District could potentially be
built that are of similar size to the 1st?
*** How many properties were "spot zoned" out
of H-13 because PREIT chose 2500 ft instead of
2640ft or 2800ft
of 2640 or some other arbitrarily chosen number. I
want him and him...not him.
***
Why is the
developer not required to post video /power point &
fact sheet to show the above information
so we are informed ?
***
Why was there no acknowledgment that the
presentation 11-9-20 did not reflect what was
submitted 12-10-20 ?
*** Why does the ordinance
not limit the 1st building as shown in the diagram
to 365 units? What keeps them from building
more
***
Why was another residents meeting not held once the material
released proved to be different than what was
presented ?
***
Why did Commissioners not ask a single question
about the Mall, how it would be helped & what the
plan for it was?
*** Why has PREIT
not been required to show exactly what the plan IS
to preserve the mall
*** Why has PREIT not
been required to to show a worst case scenario of
how many units might be built in the long term ?
*** Why was Attorney Kaplin allowed to
denigrate the idea that possibly over 2,000 units
might result, without his "actual" number?
***
How many individual tenants do you anticipate ( a
range is fine - obviously the low end is 365
for just the ONE building -
*** Isn;t
PREIT just
doubling, or tripling
the value of their real estate without
promising how much
shopping might be left ?
*** Mightn't PREIT
just sell it once it is zoned, and only 20 % of the
total BC District in the 2500 ft would
have to be commercial?
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
WHO WILL PROFIT ....IS THIS JUST A SUBDIVISION AND A SALE TO PROP
UP THE MALL'S BOTTOM LINE?
Since Bel Canto is actually investing the $100
M in this and said that they keep their properties,
it appears so. But in order to accomplish this, and
avoid Spot Zoning, they have to allow other
properties with the same conditions the same
rights. That would be the better part of the other
entities that make up the
Business Center Willow Grove Mall (BCWGMall )
district . So far, it seems the Primark /Sears
anchor corner and Nordstrom Rack's corner and
the Sears Auto Center appear to be the only ones
excluded. Since the developer to now ( the end
of May) has not been required to disclose any of
this, nor to disclose how MANY apartments the
changed zoning could ultimately render, we just
don't know . Somewhere between 1800 and 2500 is our
best guess but since none of our
officials is being honest with us we have to
guess. That includes not just the Commissioners,
Manager Manfredi, County Planner Michael Narcowicz ,
our Solicitor Michael Clarke and the Planning
Commissioners led by Lucy Strackhouse. They all had
the ability and the obligation to put the cards on
the table and have not done that. The level of
deceit after 6 meetings is stunning.
Are
abington residents going to take a loss every year ?
PREIT ( the mall owners) claimed that we might
anticipate 22 to 31 students from their FIRST 365
unit apartment building -- (remember this ordinance
is enabling far more than 365 units – possibly 3 or
4 or
more times that amount or more) -- but I spoke
to the School District and our local apartment
complexes produce a rate that is more like 22% to
29% --- which would effectively mean we could be
looking at 80 to 105 students - 3 times what they
are suggesting.
PREIT is not promising 365 one bedroom
studios -- in fact, they are not promising anything.
At $22,000 approximate cost per student, that would
be $1.7 million for the 22%....
or $2.3
million for the 29%.
They claimed that we should be thrilled with
the $1 M they will be paying in taxes.
Effectively, it appears we all could be
paying them to build here. As everyone knows,
Abington Schools are one of the biggest reasons
people move here. So it would make the best sense to
get statistics from Abington, wouldn’t it
------ not
take them from some national chart ? I was
told that when buildings are brand new, sometimes
that percentage can be lower, but then changes
upwards. The 22 – 29% reflects
the
statistics of current apartment complexes. Those
should be relevant numbers.
RENTAL APARTMENTS OR CONDOS? By the
12-10-20
submission, it was no longer rental apartments, it was an
"Apartment/Condo
Transit Oriented Building"
but , to repeat, they still told nothing of all the details
. Transit Oriented is a loaded term as
funds are available for Transit Oriented
construction - which is within walking
distance of a train. They again wasted our time with exactly the
same irrelevant "history of shopping "
presentation and a demographics diatribe that
was designed to assure us that no-one with kids
would ever rent there.
They presented
it as 365 rental apartments
first. Then, on 2-3-21 at the Land Use
hearing for the Baederwood 244 appartments, Marc
Kaplin said Baederwood would be rentals because
there is not a great market for Condos. Of course, he
had just changed the Mall to an "apartment
-CONDO " building =- whatever that is ..... So
when asked about that prior comment he said the Mall
would be rentals. Of course, residents had concerns
about so many units in Abington not owned by the
homeowner . So it appears they just threw the word Condo in
there to allay fears of rentals/ corporate ownership........ even
though they will still be rentals.
WHERE IS THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ?
There has been none - for 8 full meetings now and 7
months - as of the end of June . And not even
ONE Commissioner has asked them to produce one . Who
does that look like your Commissioners are working
on behalf of ?
WHAT ABOUT THE SCHOOLS ?
PREIT ( the mall owners) claimed that we might
anticipate 22 to 31 students from their FIRST 365
unit apartment building -- (remember this ordinance
is enabling far more) -- but I spoke to the School
District and our local apartment complexes produce a
rate that is more like 22% to 29% --- which would
effectively mean we could be looking at 80 to 105
students - 3 times what they are suggesting. PREIT
is not promising 365 one bedroom studios -- in fact
they are not promising anything. At $22,000
approximate cost per student, that would be $1.7
million for the 22% or $2.3 million for the 29%. So
effectively, we all could be paying them to build
here. As everyone knows, Abington Schools are one of
the biggest reasons people move here. So wouldn't it
make sense to get statistics from Abington ?
"TOD" - TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT" ? WHY WAS THAT ADDED
TO THEIR DESCRIPTION WHICH BECAME A "TRANSIT
ORIENTED BUILDING" ?
A Transit Oriented
District is normally an area 2640 ft (1/2 mi)
from a train. This designation makes more
State and Federal Funds more available to
those willing to build densely around train stations
and transportation hubs. But PREIT's was 140 feet shorter
than the standard 1/2 mile from a train. Why ?
We don't yet know. Perhaps because it would
have flowed over into areas they didn't want to
include? But the Transit Oriented term means some of
your hard-earned tax dollars will be rewarding
developers who build in a way most
suburbanites DO NOT WANT --- densely.
SEE
MORE ON TODS AND TRIDS BELOW
"TRIDS - TRANSIT REVITALIZATION INVESTMENT DISTRICTS
While TODs are 1/2 mi from a train - anything
in a 1/4 mile radius can become a TRID -
A Transit Revitalization Investment District --
where the density (residential units per acre)
is increased and any extra income above what
currently comes from that project can be
plowed right back into the district to make it
denser faster. And to give developers more of
our hard earned tax $, too.
See more on
Transit Oriented
zoning on this page SEE MORE
ON TODS AND TRIDS BELOW
HOW CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL WILL THEY BUILD
THESE MULTIPLE PROJECTS? Within 100 feet of residential
it can only go 35 feet hight ...from 101 feet it can
be 55 ft high and at 201 feet it can be 85 feet
high. So,
quite obviously they have beaqueathed
themselves the right to build very, very close to
residential ( while deceptively showing you a
building that is quite far away. Preston Ave,
Columbia, High Ave --- are you taking note ?
"DEATH
BY MEETING'"
--
WHY THEY ARE
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION
The many insanely long
meetings where you are not even allowed to speak if
you waited hours -and which sometimes lasted til after 10 pm because
this issue was purposely put near to the end
of a long, long agenda have a purpose. It is
called "death by meeting" and is a time worn
tradition for developers that only can be done with
the help and complicity of the Commissioners - who,
meeting after meeting, asked nearly no questions,
got no further along and just let it get to another
meeting. By June we were up to our 8th meeting, at
which, once again, no questions were asked, no
report of the Planning Commission was given ( and
the report was missing from the public package)
They know at each endless meeting, some are likely to
have already gone home before speaking even starts,
some will vow never to waste their time at
another meeting where they couldn't even speak.
The developer can purposely drag their presentation
out ( and they did in every meeting ) There is only one
reason that these tactics are being used and the
ACTUAL facts are being withheld.... and it is
because they know you would not like them. They want
to get as close to the finish line as they can
before you find out what
they are really up to.
SHOULDN'T MY COMMISSIONER HAVE ALERTED ME?
Most newsletter have not even mentioned the mall.
I have seen responses from
Commissioners to residents who asked questions that are fully and
completely false. others simply answered
"something else - not even addressing he question
asked.
It is stunning what some Commissioners have been
willing to say. Share back with me what yours did
- and I likely be able to send you documents that show
something completely different.
WHAT ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE ?
The property owners
that end up benefitting from these changes would obtain a
conditional "Use By Right"
to develop in this dense manner. A conditional use
is one that the Commissioners would be able to put
some " conditions " on their proposal --
but could not deny it altogether. So it
would be a done deal after Mr Kaplin's, and PREIT's
deception.
NON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINANCE THROWN OUT
Commissioner Peggy Myers did a quick
"oops" at the 1-14-21 meeting. She
said she voted without reading it - ( roll
eyes everyone - really . An ordinance that she knows
will change Willow Grove and our Township forever
and she forgeot to read it. She was credited
with helping Kaplin get this before us - how
did she not know what it was....? ) She then insisted we don't want
our non-combustible ordinance thrown out
....that would make residents less safe. And she
, outwardly at least, really seemed to make an effort to get that issue fixed
then and there before it moved on. But..... then our Solicitor talked her out of it. That was a huge disservice to the citizens. Isn't
that what multiple meetings are supposed to be for -
so multiple changes can be made and they don't all
have to be dealt with at the same time? And we
don't have to waste our speaking time on what we
have already decided shouldn't be in the
proposal....
Our
Solicitor, Michael Clarke, rarely makes decisions
that are beneficial to the residents. In the
Colonade case, according to signed court testimony,
he could have been charged
by the PA Attorney General's office for his
dangerous and deceptive activities. Instead
the Grand Jury report has been quashed
or withheld and here he is further favoring
developers and wealthy property owners over the
citizens. And allowing a suit to press forward with
a measure that I think he thinks will go to
court. He told the Commissioners at one point not to
say any more about the non-combustibles. But
court would be costly to the residents and there
would be a risk that they Judge might not choose to
rule for the extra safety of the residents. If
the Commissioners had not been talked out of it by
Solicitor Michael Clarke, the Commissioners could
have simply said: "we are not guaranteeding
you will get this text amendment in the end,
anyway --- but if you wnat to move forward at all,
you will need to drop that clause, adhere to our
non-combustible ordinance and vow never to sue on
that issue & and all that would be in writing
. In otherwords, you have to put the safety of
Abington residents first .
RENTALS, CONDOS--
or whatever they feel like......
?
Kaplin, when asked on 2-3-21 why
the Baederwood was all rentals, said that there wasn't
a great demand for "apartment-condos". We
asked at the Planning Commission why he said that,
yet was planning apartment condos at the mall.
He said, they would be rentals there ...........
so perhaps he just added in the Condos
part to placate the many who expressed that "homeowner owned units"
should not be out-numbered by corporate owned units.
(Who knows?)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
MORE POINTS
COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR ALL OUR LAWS AND CODES:
THEIR ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN
IS NOT EVEN VAGUELY LEGALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR LAW -
How in the world did our own Manager, Richard
Manfredi pay and/or direct or oversee our County Planner
in the writing of an ordinance that violates our
zoning ordinance so completely in the service
of a particular property owner and a few of his
chosen friends wishing to expand his/their own
uses and further enrich themselves? Not to mention,
how would our Manager or the Commissioners
allow the creation of a document with
so
many contradictions that it is a lawyers dream?
It is simply one giant document full of
violations and complications - just as the Fairway
Transit Ordinance and the Baederwood ordinance were
- and the utterly senseless number of costly
lawsuits that took place there should be a staunch
warning to all. We have the same solicitors at work
here - on both sides.
------- Section 1800 found on page 117 of
our
zoning code says that no land shall be used or
occupied and no building nor sturcture erected,
altered, used or occupied
except in conformity with the regulations
established in this ordinance. So it simply
is inviolation of our ordinance. Period. To get
around the violation, they simply state repeatedly
that THEIR ordinance takes precedence wherever the
two disagree.
Our ordinance does not allow that.
It already has provisions for what happens hwen they
disagree.
---------- Their ordinance states
multiple times it does or must meet the requirements
of section 1806 of our zoning code but it is
actually in complete violation of section 1806
on page 120 of our
zoning code
SECTION 1806. CONDITIONAL USES: The Board of
Commissioners shall have the power to approve or
disapprove conditional uses when this Ordinance
specifically requires the obtaining of such
approval, in accordance with the following
provisions:
A. In granting a conditional use, the Board of
Commissioners shall make findings of fact consistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance.
The Board shall
not approve a conditional use except in conformance
with the conditions and standards outlined in this
Ordinance.
B. The Board of Commissioners shall grant a
conditional use only if it finds adequate evidence
that any proposed development submitted
will meet all of
the following general requirements as well as any
specific requirements and standards listed
herein for the proposed use. The Board shall
require that any proposed use, and its location
among other things, shall be:
2.
Consistent with the
spirit, purposes, and intent of the
applicable zoning district.
( It is NOT - the zning district provides the
Township with Commercial uses - not residential ones
)
3. An improvement which is not a detriment
to the properties in the immediate vicinity,
( the homeowners say it is one)
4. In conformance with all applicable
requirements of this Ordinance.... ( it clearly is
not as this paragraph proves )
-------- Section 1806c of our
zoning code says that they must meet ALL
requirements and objectives of the zoning ordinance,
including those specifically set forth in Article I.
They do not:
Article 1 Section 102
B on page 1 of our ordinance says they must :
Promote a landuse pattern which recognizes cultural,
historical, and natural features unique to each
community and which
provides for the separation of significantly
different use intensities, with transition
zones where feasible, to preserve community
character; This BC District
currently meets that directive. The new
ordinance would violate that, simply to enrich
one property owner.
Article 1 Section 102
H Says it should: Strengthen the viability
of commercial areas and adjacent residential
districts while mitigating the impact of the former
upon the latter. This does just the opposite
Article 1 Section 102
K says it should: Use landscaping to
enhance aesthetics and the visual character of the
Township’s roads, neighborhoods, and commercial
districts; separate incompatible uses; and mitigate
the impact of more intense or dense uses upon less
intense or dense uses. This violates that
directly . Our roads would have a 5 story WALL
- and our open spaces, already too sparse, would be
reduced - all for the enrichment of one property
owner
It appears as if PREITS way of handling all the
violations of our ordinance is to simply say, we are
special and do not need to follow any of your rules
and laws - only hte other properties that are not
2500 linear feet from a train have to follow them
--- oh yes - and all the otehr properties in
Abington..................... except us.
ALSO
in
violation of our laws, our NON-COMBUSTIBLE
ORDINANCE WAS THROWN OUT THE WINDOW : the
right to build with Frame Construction, despite
Abington's ordinance and fight to maintain the safer
non-combustible (ie brick or block) construction.Safety over profit
please. This will set a precedent Township wide -
but because we don't HAVE to entertain ANY text
amendments, we can say : won't move you ahead unless
you use non combustibles
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE
CURRENT PROPERTIES IS ANTICIPATED: There
is a requirement to have a "Master Plan" when
subdividing and building on other parts later. Make
PREIT show some examples of the kinds of different
subdivisions that could occur.
CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NEXT
TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS ANTICIPATED:
the only residential that
adjoins the BCWGMall district is Preston,
Columbia and Moreland - is there clearly a plan to
build all over the property? Or do they mean
only next to THEIR residential building? Why would
one building be all residential when the ordinance
requires all the others to be mixed?
RIDICULOUS AND PERENNIALLY UNDESIRABLE
HEIGHTS - The have given themselves the right
to build 85 ft high ( not the under 60 feet high as
shown in the drawings) with architectural features
going even higher
NO
SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF THE FATE OF THE MALL WAS
EVER HELD - It was said that the goal of the added
residential was to "save the Mall " but no
serious discussion of this and how these 365 units
would accomplish that was held. No math
presented. And wouldn't
you think it odd that the ordinance REQUIRES mixed
use with at least 20 % commercial , so it is
requiring competition for the Mall - ok unless that
IS how the whole Mall is allowed to be "reborn" ---
which seems like the plan - but is NOT what
residents were told.
HAS ANYONE EVEN ASKED THEM HOW MANY UNITS IN
THE
FINAL ANALYSIS THIS COULD CREATE?
After all, it
appears as if at least the whole mall is going to be
developed residentially - AND with Commercial
that number would be huge. And when you look
at the TOD page you can see that possibly the entire BCWGMall district
could use the same zoning codes that they will have
"by right" So has
anyone asked how many units all that could yield?
I have not yet found anything that would prevent the
whole Mall and BCWGMall district from being built
upon with this ordinance.
NOWHERE IN 3 FULL
MEETINGS WAS RETAIL ON BOTTOM AND TOP
DEPICTED ---- nor was there any
presentation that elaborated on the requirement for
every project to be mixed use or showed what 85 ft
high structures looked lile. It appears that the 1st building they are
proposing would
not meet their own standards as submitted.
It was not mixed use - which is required it appears
for every other property.
A
minimum mix
requirement exists
of 20 % retail /// or 10 % apartment.
WHY WOULD THERE BE NO ACCESS FROM THE OUTSIDE
TO THE RETAIL? Many of us will have to drive, as we
always do, to the shops here. Forcing us to go
inside and not park near our destination has always
been a complaint. Having the shops each with an
outdoor access AND indoor accessibility is a far
better layout for regular patronage. I have
often bought something at Macy's because I could get
to it quickly and it was a much longer walk to a
boutique store that had the same type of goods. Do
others have the same experience?
THEY WERE CATAPULTED
AHEAD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT A PROPER
RESIDENTS' MEETING Manager Manfredi (on
12-10-20) made
reference tot he fact that it is well known that the
residents want and should be granted open meetings BEFORE any
decisions are made as to whether the Commissioners
should undertake consideration of a TEXT Amendment (
in this case, 4 or 5 of them ). He referenced it as
though that is what was done . But it was clearly
not . It was not even held on the
same concept as what was submitted,
residents questions went almost totally
unanswered and their time was so
seriously wasted they each should be PAID for their
time, having been falsely duped into attending a
useless meeting. Even in the 2nd, the
truth about what had been submitted whas not
divulged.
RESIDENTS NOW FIND
THEMSELVES PREMATURELY ZIPPING ALONG THROUGH
THE PROCESS TO APPROVAL The formaL
meetings ( Planning Commission, Land Use, etc ) are
not where
anything is properly geared for residents to get
answers and have appropriate input. It normally is
just meeting after
meeting after meeting where residents are required
to sit through presentations as long and as tedious
as the developer would like to make them and
perhaps when 1/2 the room has left for home,
residents questions will be entertained. If
they DON'T go they risk it being approved because
there was no one there to contest it.
At the 12-10 -20
meeting
folks who had been on since 6 pm left because this
issue
didn't come on til after 9. (
That's what happens when you jam 2 month's meetings
into one night ) The developer, starting
after 9 pm on 12-10-20 started the SAME presentation as the
residents had already seen - causing more to go
home.
At the 2-23-21 Planning Commission meeting - it was
put last on the agenda. Most likely the hope is that
no one will stay that long. A proper residents' meeting is still due and
should come before any other action.
“BUILD TO” LINES MAX
AND MINIMUMS
ARE CONDUCIVE TO DEVELOPERS PROFITIZING EVERY
INCH - Most suburbanites do not want the kind of
urban development that is being forced upon us .
With ridiculous "Build to " lines requiring
construction pulled right up to the road, removing
sky and greenspace as you travel through Abington,
an urban feel is created .
I believe the Commissioners are very aware that
"urban" is not what their constituents want - but
that they have regularly breached the trust of
their constituents in this matter.
They have allowed for the developer to apparently build as close
as 20 ft from the curb … with a max of
75 ft away. So even if an owner wants to grace
Abington with more greenspace and sky, he won't be allowed?
PREIT INSISTS THEIR NON-CONFORMITIES
SHOULD REMAIN ---- while everyone else is
required by code to fix them when redeveloping.
TODS AND TRIDS
PREIT
PUT IN THE LITTLE TRANSIT REQUIREMENT OF
NO MORE THAN 2500 FT FROM A TRAIN ---
we were not
shown where that would be . We are stymied as to why
PREIT would take the standard tod 2650 ft from a train
rule and change it to 2500 ft . Who did they
intend to leave out? wouldn't it STILL be spot zoning
......?
See the sparate page of the TOD discussions
TOD’S ----
no discussion was held of TOD’s
(Transit
Oriented Districts) --- where the area around a
station that qualifies for special consideration
(it normall doesn’t run 2500 feet
from a train – it is ½ mile radius around a
train- 2640ft) .
So given that perameter, why wouldn’t another
building be allowed the same rights if they were
close to
a
train if the precedent had already been set by this
building? Would a judge think
that 150 made all the difference in the world?
-
see the sparate page of the TOD discussions
HERE IS A BIGGER APPROXIMATE
VIEW OF THE 2 STATIONS, CRESTMONT AND WILLOW GROVE
AND HOW A 2500 ft TOD IMPACTS THE SITE
The Co-author of the document, our
County Planner said that if the
2500 feet touches a "part" of a
parcel, that whole parcel retains the right to
develop in that manner. Marc Kaplin and PREIT
have not presented ANY of the info needed to resolve such
questions, nor will they show us where, and how much. building
might occur. That the Commissioners and Planners have all been
complicit in this, staying silent or accepting
"non-answers" to such questions, to me
speaks volumes.
TO SEE MORE TRAIN TO MALL
DISTANCE
RENDERINGS ( done to the best of our abilities )
click the page on TODS
and TRIDS
This all should have provided this
information to us in the very first
presetation....or maybe the second.... or the 3rd
..... or the 4th ...... or a 5th time at the
Economic Development Committee - are we headed
for a 6th.
SPOT ZONING --- no
discussion
was
held on Spot Zoning Rules
which dictate that you cannot grant one
property special rights and considerations when
other property owners
that have the same conditions are not
permitted those
same
special privileges.
See the spot zoning memo on this page ( and
this issue is addressed above in more depth) .
It appears quite clear that they have DECIDED
exactly who will be "in " and who will be "out" of
their zoning priviledges. I'll include this friend
and this friend with me. But wait - if it were the
standard TOD 2640 feet ( 1/2 mile ) it might include
someone else I don't want ot include, so I'll
decide it to be 2500 ft . How is that not
"spot zoning"........
THE CODE THIS WOULD CHANGE WOULD AFFECT MULTIPLE PARTS OF ABINGTON'S ZONING
ORDINANCE
-
As noted, the original 365 apts would not even meet
their own new code - it is not mixed use ---- but the question is - how many other
things might they have decided they don't have to
follow because for some reason they are "special" . We have been given no clear
assessment of what is being changed and what
properties or even other Business Center Districts
this might affect. Just blanket statements
that their ordinance takes precedence - and any that
differ are repealed --- so which would those be????? It is a travesty the way
this is being done. Massive non-transparent
changes .
THEIR CODE TAKES
PRECEDENCE OVER OURS – wherever their code and our
code might disagree, they want theirs to take
precedence – so ours could be violated by
the developer ( and other developers) again and
again. This is even contrary to their own
requirement to recognize per section 1806 that
our Zoning Code is the defining code whenever there
is a disagreement . It is one of the first
articles of the Zoning Code . They want to
"king" themselves and build however they like.
Stunning, isn't it, that they would have the
chutzpah to put that in there?
WHAT ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS? The went on endlessly about
the many demographic groups that might rent here
that had NO KIDS . But no kids was nowhere in
writing . 3 bedrooms.? In a good school district?
And if you have an empty apartment, my guess is
you'll rent it to anyone with the cash. So how
many kids at over $20K per child might we get ?
Kaplin said a particular study or
guideline allows them to claim that just 20-31
students would result from 365 apartments in just
the FIRST building ( He's still not as of
3-23-21 saying how many units totally
are possible ...
CALCULATING
APARTMENT UNITS BY SQUARE FOOTAGE
---
residential is usually calculated as units per acre
not by square foot --- so how many square feet are
there????
Bloomingdales is 237,537 sf -
Opened in 1982 ( $79,000 sf per floor so 5
floors would be
Macy's is 225,000 ft.² opened in
2001 (perhaps 75000 sf per floor so 5
floors would be 375,000 sf )
A parking
garage with 800 parking places that is 212,000 ft.²
built in 2001
The carousel at the third floor
entrance was also added in 2001 as part of the $25
million renovation of the mall
Sears is 96,000
ft.² now - a larger Sears opened in in 1987
and now rents the 2nd floor to Primark
Primark
leases 77,500 ft.² mainly on the
second floor above Sears - starting in July 2016
The Cheesecake factory is 10,310 ft.² and came in
2007
The Yard House uses 7500 ft.² and opened in
Dec 2019
Forever 21 - 17,000 sf
on 2 stories Opened in December 2011
The former
JCPenney closed in 2017 and was to become
Sudio Movie Grill in early 2020
Nordstrom rack at
41,000 ft.² arrived in 2012 as the smallest anchor
store
The Willow Grove Park Mall also
contains :
many smaller
stores 100-130
a food
court with 11 spaces
a third
sit down restaurant - TGI Friday's ( besides
the Cheesecake Factory and Yard House )
The combined square footage of all these is
unknown - But - PREIT certainly has the
figures and these are integral to figuring out how
much residential could possibly be built in all of
these spaces. They are refusing to discuss it.
ARE
562 STUDIO'S POSSIBLE AT MACY'S ???
Macy's is 225,000 ft.² opened in 2001
(perhaps 75000 sf per floor so 5 floors would be
375,000 sf )
So, even if it is
NOT on the chopping block now, what if this
Macy's closed a few years down the road ...?
( Macy's
also operates Bloomingdale's .....)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/macys-m-is-closing-dozens-of-stores-this-year-heres-the-full-list.html
A studio
apartment might be as small as 400 sf , so 3 floors,
each 75,000 sf of studio apartments could yield 562
units -
a
mix of studio and 1,2 or 3 bedroom apartments might
be similar to the proposed building in Bloomies lot
- 365 units or so
But remember they are building internal garages - so
Macy's Parking lot might be at least partially
incorporated
When the mall was approved in 1979 it included
downsizing to three anchor stores from four, due to
concerns from residents about the size of the future
mall. The mall has already been blessed
with the ability to expand. However, it did not
account properly for a market where online retail
would so severely impact the shopping habits of mall
goers...... even after the handwriting was on the
wall, it added more Mall space. It seems to have
failed to adjust to that threat. The pandemic
just put the nail in the coffin.
But many, many
businesses ( and individual homeowners and
renters were hurt in the pandemic ) Our
community would be ruined if we simply let
everyone expand exponentially because they weren't
making the profits they wanted to make.
PREIT assumed full
ownership of the mall in 2003 acquiring this share
that belonged to the Pennsylvania State employees
retirement system which was 70% share $122.3 million
Today it is asseessed at just over $100
million and with a common level ratio of 2.13
that renders an approximate market value of $213
million.... although Commercial real estate actual
value is affected by many factors and is not
that straightforward .
Keep in mind,
besides the Mall , it appears , PER our best
calculation, that others will BE ABLE to
get this same DENSE zoning :
Goodman Properties Parkside Shopping Center
with Dicks Sporting Goods, Old Navy, Rally House,
AAA, Planet Fitness and Mattress Wareouse and
possibly their parking lot separately would get this
zoning
https://goodmanproperties.org/goodman-properties/parkside-shopping-center/
Goodman Properties Park Place with
Visionworks, Floyds Barbershop, Chipotle and Ideal
Image
https://goodmanproperties.org/goodman-properties/park-place
/
The At Home Store ( former K-Mart) a Texas
company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Home_(store)
Marc Kaplin touts their 25 year lease as
"protection' against their conversion to apartments
- but in a continuing pandemic, many more
stores may fall victim to a lack of shoppers. Or the
Owners may try to arrange modifying part of the
store while the business remains active in another
part.
Bloomingdales - operated by Macy's
___________________________________________
AND WHAT
ABOUT JOB CREATION - They said they are
creating 155 jobs with just the 365 apartments
. They must think we are really, really bad at math.
If the 365
apartments had just ONE job seeker per apartment we
could be as much as 210 jobs in arrears after their
"creation". People that live here are
likely to seek to work near their home..... unless they like
long commutes. In fact, our current jobs could
have as many as 700 or 800 or more people now vying
with you for a spot in the best local
companies . The real advantages and
consequences of inviting so many people here should
have been a long and well managed discussion with
real take-aways. But that was never
facilitated . How DO we get what WE want in
our communities ? Not by letting those who
profit do whatever the heck they want to do.
WHAT ABOUT THE BANKRUPTCY ?
PREIT
filed for Chapter Bankruptcy the same day they
announced their plan for 365 Apartments on the
Willow Grove Park property.https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/investing/mall-bankruptcies-cbl-properties-preit/index.html
They will continue operating
- they reorganized under Chapter 11 .The prepackaged financial plan
ensures
$150
million in funding to "recapitalize the business and
extend the company's debt maturity schedule," it
said in a statement.
Shareholders were not wiped out but PREIT also
didn't eliminate any debt during the bankruptcy
process......PREIT is now paying higher interest
rates for some of its debt than it did before the
bankruptcy filing.COVID caused many of its tenants
to close stores, fall behind on rent, or file for
bankruptcy & occupancy for its core malls fell to
90.3% at the end of 2020, down from 95.5% a year
earlier ....and funds from operations turned
negative in 2020. But that happened to LOTS of
businesses after a year of Covid. So the fact that
they were hit so hard has more to do with the
business they are in and the pandemic than it has to
do with the Mall not being able to thrive with just
shopping. We need to concern ourselves with
whether this was a convenient way to more than
"double their assets" rather than letting go
of more of their assets to accommodate the
hard times - the same hard times
businesses all across America were
experiencing.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/this-reit-survived-bankruptcy%3A-these-are-the-2-keys-to-a-recovery-2021-03-14
. Let me ask you - if I had 18 to 20 vacation houses - and hard times hit
so I had trouble affording them all - would you let
me double my sq ft to earn more in each one - or
make me sell some to pay my debts.
This is
nothing more than a gift to an exceedingly wealthy
entity .
WHAT ABOUT PREIT'S OTHER MALLS ?
They have 18 NMalls that they own . They are fully
in a business that was already struggling with
the Amazon/ on line shopping factor that was
devastating to brick and mortar stores ....
In 2011, Amazon had 30,000 full-time
employees in the US, and by the end of 2016, it had
180,000 employees.-
and yet the most I saw of the Mall
trying to do something other than retail uses was an
effort to add Studio Movie Grill circa 2019
and 2020. (Studio Movie Grill also went into
Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Oct 27, 2020. Perhaps there
were other attempts to diversify - just none
I'm aware of. In fact, while brick and Mortar
was declining it seems they were adding more
mall retail space ...As mentioned by 2011
Amazon was a force to reckon with. But in
2012, with online retail competition in full swing,
they added Nordstrom Rack.
The mall brochUre they offered at
Plymouth Meeting has far more diverse uses
than they are offering in Willow Grove :
https://morethanthecurve.com/preit-partners-with-cbre-to-seek-new-uses-to-further-redevelop-the-plymouth-meeting-mall/ Putting
residences there was turned DOWN by the Board then
they went to the zoning hearing board to ask anyway, because
unlike Willow Grove there are some allowed
residential uses ( I think a senior care facility or
something similar ) . They though that would enable
their own version of residential.
By Nov 2020 they were trying to get their way
by filing in court ... at some point their request
was for an 11 story 503 unit building -
showing a complete lack of respect for honoring what
the residents via their elected officials want in
their community Just what we need -
developers suing our Townships to develop the way
THEY want.
Their
brochure seems to show a whole spectrum of what can be done
at Plymouth Meeting - far
more diverse than just retail and residential
that they are offering at Willow Grove .....It shows offices, space for research & development,
medical innovation, education, light
industrial, life sciences etc
If you scroll to the
bottom (almost) of their brochure – you get an idea
of the possibilities. This is job creation
without the addition of the job seekers. Wouldn't
that make a lot more sense?
https://www.preit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PlymouthMeeting_Brochure.pdf
IF I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY
MORTGAGE PAYMENTS, CAN I JUST TURN MY PROPERTY INTO
A MULTI-FAMILY ZONE ? I mean, my
finances could be restored if I'm allowed to make my
home a triplex and maybe add a little multi-townhouse unit
in the back and a McDonald's in the side
yard . Then I could meet my debts and
sell it for a lot more, too. I would be sure
to be grateful if you'd just allow me to do the same
thing the mall wants to do. I'd pay more taxes, too
- wouldn't that be a great benefit to my Township?
WHAT IS THE BUSINESS DISTRICT'S RESPONSIBILTY
TO GREENSPACE Almost all of the residential zoning
districts in the Township require they maintain
somewhere close to 50% of greenspace - which cleans
the air, helps manage stormwater ( way better than
any rainbarrel. How does a corporate or
business entity get the priviledge of not doing
his/her share just so they can make more money. And
money is taken from me and you for the solutions to
the problems they are creating . We ALL
need to carry the burden. If I were allowed to build
on all but 15 or 25 % of my property, my bigger
house would fetch me more money... oh and the
Township would benefit with higher taxes. Too bad
for all my neighbors who have to clean the air
themselves and provide greenery and manage my
stormwater. Why are they allowed to do
that and I am not? It is not only unsound policy -
but it is unfair.
what about all those
wonderful taxes they will pay
?
They are going to try to
convince you you NEED to allow this or you will lose
the taxes from it. So first of all - taxes
are charged for a reason . Before you calculate what
they are going to be "gifting" you. please calculate
WHY those taxes were charged and remove all the services
from the equation. Also, besides normal services
remove Traffic measures including signaling , crime, code
enforcement, tax abatements, infrastructure, TOD
grant money or funds that benefit developers, meetings with
landlords and developers, etc., etc.,etc.,.
Taxes are not a "gift" to the Township.
And these types of giant influxes cost our Township
plenty of expenses you never know were caused by
this prect.
Did you know
the Township did major traffic signal and intersection work
at the mall lnowing this was on its way? Did
you know that they had never properly finished their
right of way work and your former HUD director
sought to use HUD funds for that. There was a great deal of outlay "in advance": of this
"surprise" annmouncement.... because
it was only a surprize to us, not to all of "them".
They've been on top of it for a long, long time.
And our wealthiest landlords have learned the very
best pathways to receiving "goodies"
or "gifts" from us to them. For instance... nice of
our well paid Planner to help write their ordinance,
wasn't it? Saved them a bundle - and cost you one.
See the next item, too.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Yes, yes - they say the developer escrowed funds
that paid for our Planner from the County to
Co-Write the Developer's Ordinance ...
but those escrow funds collected weren't supposed to be for doing their work for them.
It was to review their work. Our Planner said
the earlier they get involved the better they can
massage it to meet our needs. Well, if
that were the case, how did violations of our Non-Combustible
ordinance and violations other municipal codes and stipulations
get right in there? It is a completely illegal
ordinance - saying that wherever it is illegal, it
repeals the laws htat make it so ( really! see
section 4) And who's keeping track of the hours
our Planner or the others in the Township who
worked with him spend anyway? I
dare you to try to get an accurate accounting.
( wanna guess who I think did most the work?) So, don't let them pretend they are gifting you a
million dollars --- believe you me, they are not.
Remember that whole row of $800 lamp psts that went
in front of the dying Baederwood Shopping Center ?
Enhanced that property at your expense. Can I
get a couple of those at my house?
The list of "corporate goodies" goes on and on and
on. A great deal of $$ changes hands
over ridiculous lawsuits that the corporate players
love to engage in - to the tune of some very big $$$
amounts.
TODS AND TRIDS - MORE OUT OF YOUR
POCKET AND INTO THEIRS
Please
click here to see
the
bottom of this SEPARATE page
on TODS and TRIDS
and understand a Transit
Oriented
District is to get things from you - not to see how
much they can give TO you. They want to double
or triple the value of every inch of
"underutilized space" and helpful
government funds will do that faster. But the "walkable communities"
have to bring in
the "pedestrians" from elsewhere. We won't be any
closer than we now are to all the " supposed pedestrian
friendly" things. We'll still have to drive....it
will just be harder to park. That's an urban thing -
a city thing. We largely do not want to be urbanized
.
CORPORATE LANDLORDS VS RESIDENT
OWNED HOMES. Imagine you are a corporate landlord
with thousands of units . Do you think you want the
same things for the community as the residents who
own homes here? Whose voice do you think will be
stronger when policy is made if the influx of
corporate units continues? It makes a
difference. They can PAY people to attend the
meetings. You have
to take off from work. Be aware of how much
homeownership matters if you don't want "the
bottom line" to rule all our policies. That's
why we have a lack of bowling alleys, roller
rinks, ice rinks, clean community pools, low
cost movie theaters that feature family films and
are a wholesome place to go where alcohol ( a bottom
line enhancement ) is not served. Abington has lost
most of these things in recent in the recent
"bottom line" years. Bottom lines are not what
makes a good community.
SO HOW DO WE SAVE THE PARTS OF THE
MALL THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE? That is a
"discussion" that would need to be had .......one
your Manager and Commissioners didn't see fit to
include you in --- or create at all. If you don't
insist that they turn this down and HAVE that
discussion..... then you become a part of the
reason that we have all the things we DON'T want and
very little of what we want .
WHAT HAPPENS TO A GIANT STRUCTURE
WHEN IT IS OLD ENOUGH TO BECOME " UNSTABLE?" .
Wouldn't it be a good idea for a "cash cow to be
putting funds aside for that day so a "white
elehant" is not left on a property where the
owner has declared bankruptcy, but just the cost of
removing the old structure becomes too costly for
any new buyer? Do we have any such requirement?
Seems like we should.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. So what
do you think about YOUR appointed Land Planner, with
a stipend or consulting fee or whatever they
would like to dub it, paid by us to the county ,
being directed by your Commissioners & Manager
to "work with others in the Township" to write
an ordinance 100% in the developer's favor - and
even in direct violation of our ordinances
& codes in places.
Does the phrase "Conflict
of Interest " mean absolutely nothing here? Our
zoning code says, for instance, where there is
a conflict, the Zoning Code prevails. Theirs tries
to remove that right and our Planner and others in
the Township helped to write that. Shouldn't our Planner
.... and our Township Manager and personnel be safeguarding
OUR interests?
CONFLICTS : IS OUR PAID
COUNTY PLANNER THE VERY PERSON WHO REVIEWS THIS PLAN
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY? Steve Kline was just at a
Cheltenham meeting with residents and when
challenged that as Chair of the County
Planning Commission he would be reviewing his own
project. He insisted that the County Board did NONE
of the reviews - only the appointed County
Planner did that for each municipality. So according
to him, Mike Narcowicz who co-wrote this text amendment for PREIT would review his own work. Mr Narcowicz
was asked about that - and on 1-26-21
said that was not the case - the County
Planning Commission members review it and have input, too
". But in the end I think we have
to get to the bottom of how a "County Review" is
done when a county team member is "co-author"
and how that Conflict of Interest impacts such
a project, especially when so much language was
added that our own ordinances, there to protect us,
will just be repealed if theeirs differs. An
independent review would be something quite
different than what we have here. Prompts one to
return to childhood where we would've said "whose
side are you on , anyway?"
OUR
"speaking"
RIGHTS ....WHY CAN DEVELOPERS USE
THE AUDIO
VISUAL TOOLS AND WE CAN'T ?
Residents are regularly refused the right to use the
overhead that turns a document into a slide viewed
by all, refused the right to present a video.
Why is that?
MEETING TRANSPARENCY DENIED :
When we attend a meeting we can see who
else is in attendance and we can see what
Commissioners and other officials are there. Why is
that denied during zoom . We also can see whose hand
is reaised and in what order they were taken. Why is
all that denied? The CHAT feature could be used to
resolve problems that arose during the meeting .
When the videos are played the pictures if
Commissioners speaking are removed... why .
Audio and video together enhance understanding Whyare
developers given such rights and we are refused?
HOW DOES ALL THIS TURN AROUND?
WHAT CAN RESIDENTS DO ....?
HOLD YOUR
COMMISSIONERS ACCOUNTABLE.
WRITE
your commissioners . DEMAND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO
THE QUESTIONS ABOVE AND SHARE THE ANSWERS BACK WITH US
SO OTHERS CAN TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE DOING
THIS. EXPECT TO GET AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS
YOU ASK .
DEMAND OUR SPEAKING RIGHTS BE RESTORED -
MAKE SURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE RESTORED AND THIS
IS FULLY VETTED (
SEE MORE ON THAT HERE)
REQUEST TO
HAVE
ALL MEETINGS
VIDEO TAPED AND AIRED
and stored on a single page
for this issue ( that has an individual linkthat
yopu can share )
This helps those who can't make it to meetings, or
those who learned about it late or those who need to review
something .... and it was PROMISED WHEN WE GOT THE VIDEOS UP
AND RUNNING THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE
THIS AFFECTS
ALL OF US. WE HAVE TO JOIN TOGETHER TO GET OUR
GOVERNMENT
to act in our interests AS
IS INTENDED. NO GOVERNMENT "OF THE PEOPLE"
ALLOWS A DEVELOPER TO DECEIVE THE CITIZENS AND HIDE
PERTINENT FACTS.
A note about who is driving
the deception
When Manager
Manfredi and Board President John Spiegelman and
Vice President Tom Hecker took your speaking
rights away by adding the "Copmmittee of the
Whole" , they falsely touted as
"expanding speaking rights". It was the 2nd
or 3rd time since Richard Manfredi's arrival as
Manager in May of 2017 that your rights were
further removed. And it seems clear now that
they had some clear purposes in mind that
explain the desire to have as little input as
possible / Since his arrival in 2017,
your Manager has
regularly missed posting deadlines- even for
important things like 400 + page budgets,
where speaking rights were improperly curtailed to
just a few minutes while
he has simultaneously been responsible for raising your taxes
higher than anyone in the over 40 years
I have lived in
Abington.- making scrutiny of his
budget all the more important. The only benefit of the pandemic was that
it interrupted his last planned hike. He did
NOT cut taxes in the face of $5 million in pandemic
revenue losses - instead he
took $5 million out of your Fund Balance.
Our representatives must
must be held accountable for the unconscionable
handling of this and other issues, accountable to
properly inform their residents and do what their
constituents want them to do.
to actually represent us
.
See
this page for the list of speaking modifications that we need - and for a
history of the speaking rule changes.
Click here to receive the Newsloop with more news
like this
A
BRAINSTORMING for IDEAS
Our Commissioners do not have
to ( and should not ) grant PREITany extra rights
unless we are clear they are granting something that
the residents
that elected them and that they are supposed to be
serving
will benefit from .
Putting hundreds and hundreds ( perhaps
thousands ) of hi-rise apartment units here will
benefit only PREIT
while we just sit in traffic.
2800 rental units are already either just
completed or in the works already within just a few
miles of this location
So : hundreds or thousands of apartments that
offer the rest of us no benefit at all... or
Aquarium
or similar attraction
Arcade -Dave and Buster’s
Concert Venue or
Performing Arts & Cultural Center :
shows, concerts, musicals, operas,
symphony, exhibit and more
Family games / activities /
entertainment –
escape rooms,
laser tag, dance club, group dance lessons, family
interaction nights ( Club Med style), karaoke
Roller rink , ice rink, bowling alley, etc.
Out Door and Indoor Activity
Center Exercise Park with
yoga classes, strength training sessions, trapeze,
trampoline,
etc
Movie Theater for kids and families (affordable
)
Movie Theater for adults with
food ( which tends to be expensive)
More
restaurants – ( smaller, independent ones or popular chains
like
Hard
Rock Café)
QVC or similar
Expanded Medical for
Hospital needs –( docs offices, MRI, PT
etc) keeping hospital growth out of
neighborhoods
Research Facilities….Med or
dental labs ,
electronics, robotics, genetics, digital think tanks
Training center
job
training, tutoring
,
Hotel and Conference Center
Entertainment for adults and /or seniors axe
throwing,
Developers giving back ( for any
bonuses they DO get )
Child care
facilities
Small space
gathering rooms for meetings,
music circles, lectures,pet training, political education,
financial
education, seminars on all subjects, tutoring,
discussion groups,
community improvement meetings, etc
Real estate offices
- for the
people fleeing Abington as it becomes over-crowded
APARTMENTS EARN A BIGGER BUCK
- BUT A COMMUNITY IS NOT
A COMMUNITY WHEN YOU REMOVE ALL THE THINGS THAT
ENRICH THE LIVES OF THE RESIDENTS
CREATE AN ONGOING,
OPEN TO ALL, CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO WORK ON IVITING
USES TO THE MALL PROPERTY THAT WILL BRING
TRAFFIC TO KEEP THE MALL VIBRANT.
MORE RESIDENTS HERE WILL NOT BENEFIT US. PREIT
HAS NO MORE RIGHT THAN ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER IN
ABINGTON TO ASK TO DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE VALUE OF
THEIR REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS BY ADDING USES THAT
THEY DO NOT HAVE BY RIGHT.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
THERE IS A
FRIGHTENING COMPONENT OF THIS
we were not given any of the real facts --- our
Commissioners, Manager Manfredi and Planner
Narcowicz all being complicit in not just
allowing this, but by enabling now ( by
the end of March ) 6 totally bogus presentations,
where none of the salient points were addressed.
Planner Narcowicz even chimed in at the end to say
what a great thing the 365 apartments were ....
knowing that the truth had not been laid out .
And...
IN
THE END, IT TAKES ONLY 8 COMMISSIONERS TO OVERRULE
THE VOICES OF 56,000 RESIDENTS.
HERE IS SOME BACKGROUND ON TOM LEONARD
AND THE OBERMAYER LAWFIRM HE FOUNDED - HE ALSO
FOUNDED BEL CANTO , THE DEVELOPER
FROM
6-07
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20070625_Details_emerge_on_Fumo_deal_with_Verizon.html
Click here to receive the Newsloop with more news
like this
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
JUST FOR FUN -
REMEmBER when WILLOW GROVE PARK was
an amusement park
https://www.amazon.com/Willow-Grove-Park-Images-America/dp/0738539139
here what has gone
on in the past
ok - apologies -
this is still a big mess I have to sort out -
but I'll leave it here in case there is something
you need and get to the sorting as soon as I can
PRIOR ACTIONS
11-9-20 - Fake neighbor's neeting --- what
they discussed little ressembled what they actually
later submitted
11-12-20 - They were
ushered on to the January Board meeting ---skipping
OVER the right to have residents question them
sustantively at the Land Use Committee Meeting , and
also- they submitted something completely different
from hwat was presented at both meetings .
1-14-20 Several of us were kept out of the
meetings because of supposed difficulties with the
mechanical process and even once in, there were
problems raising hands and being recognized. The
Commissioners have been asked since April
to institute plans so that wouldn't happen.
They spend a great deal of time getting their own
issues corrected and then do nothing to help the
residents who are affected
They refused . Precious time was wasted
reiterating those complaints and suggestings
to improve -- and if you want to know if it was on
purpose, just consider the fact that they had tome
to restore those minutes .
THE COMMISSIONERS -
HAVING ASKED NOTHING BY WAY OF DETAILS- WERE READY
TO PASS THIS THROUGH TO THE FORMAL PROCESS
Again a
brief, sham meeting held for the residents on
11-9-20 . Only 4 questions were "sort of answered"
and the heart of the details was completely
NOT presented. They urged us to submit questions
in advance -- they were also not answered but
did not answer them. On Dec
10th, 2020 at the Committee of the Whole, the
full Board hear mostly the same old, same old "history of
shopping" and then with very few cogent questions
asked at all, were ready to send it to the Planning
Commission to begin the formal process. A
devastating blow for the residents - and completely
NOT in their interests.
Because it was presented at a Committee of the
Whole, which is only a "preview" committee
- they couldn't do that ultimately - but
their intent was certainly evident . It had to
be forwarded, instead, to the full Board
meeting on January 14th.
Absolutely NO DISCUSSION was held on all the many
projects that could be begun the minute that
this request is granted. The H-12 use that they
created and want to add to that entire
red section in the image above ( the BC Willow
Grove Park District ) could allow for
thousands of residential units, as well as more
commercial. Every property in that
District will now have that use as a right if this
passes .
WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CONFIRM
:
We were trying
to confirm whether all the other
properties in the red district above , ( including
the former K-Marts (now"At Home" " lot and the
Dick's
strip mall and the
Visionworks plot and the mall itself ) could also
have access to this zoning use - this intense
density, these heights - this ability to build right
up to the road. We have yet to learn how much
of the Business Center Willow Grove Park District is
within 2500 linear feet of the train station or
other transportation line that qualifies .
Please help on that if you can. There
is a mapping tool that does that - but I ran out of
time looking for it. . If you can help, please do.
We do need to know how much more real estate might
acquire the new H-12 designation and might be able
to develop in the same fashion.
In addition, the
Commissioner never declared a "Transit Oriented
District". So barring that, the issue of spot
zoning should come into play. The other
properties in that "red" district above may have
recourse to demand the same treatment - spot
zoning is about treating properties differently
to benefit one.
SCROLL TO PAGE 61 HERE TO FIND THEIR
PROPOSAL - the actual ordinance
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/7d0e526a-01a4-11eb-80dd-0050569183fa-89f7711d-756c-4bd0-b21c-a2fc67157d29-1607377910.pdf
Tell the Board
ON JAN 14 -- -
NOT to allow them to begin ANY FURTHER STEPS IN THE process
UNTIL A PROPER RESIDENT MEETING IS HELD .
Require that first they hold MEANINGFUL public
meetings where ALL questions are answered and people
don't have to sit through the "history of
shopping" only to have the discussion closed down
after a very questions were asked and no real
answers provided. They also were not at ALL up-front
about the plan for "Transit Oriented Development".
There was no place provided for residents'
suggestions. The Board has no obligation to
move them forward - they are requesting a text
amendment. The Commissioners can even refuse to hear
it tonight if they want to. Once they move it to the
formal process it will barrel ahead with nearly NO
rights for residents. How dare the the Commissioners not
discuss this - after removing all the rights we had
to speak at a substantive time in the meeting the meeting
AND YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS : THE
TOWNSHIP'S PLANNING CONSULTANT, THAT YOU AND I PAY
FOR , HELPED THEM TO DRAFT THIS PROPOSAL.
The Township is
helping to orchestrate this, and our paid
Planner Michael
Narcowicz commented with praise after the
presentataion as though he were just another
interested citizen. No hint whatsoever that he would
be, on the salary we pay him, co-designing the
project. Laterthey down-played his role - but
that was after they were called out for the conflict
of interest
The Committee of the
Whole and your speaking rights:
This
is where this was first formally presented . The Committee is
very newly formed purposefully to take MORE of your rights away.
It requires that you use your entire 5 minutes of
comment before the matter is presented -- and
before you even hear what your Commissioners have to
say, or hear the
questions /answers that are asked when it is presented. So
your comments are uninformed and meaningless. They
might go off in a totally different direction than
you imagined they would.
Then after that affront- the Committee
of the Whole allows them to SKIP OVER a proper
Committee Meeting with the topic - and move
right to a hearing or a formal vote at a full
Board meeting. Skipping the Committee meetings
is simply a full removal of your rights. There
you would have 3 minutes on this item when
presented, plus 3 minutes of OPEN
COMMENT ( the most valuable) to address each
Committee Chair . That means 3 to comment
to the Land Use Chair about how they voted,
and another 3 to address the Chair of Public Safety on the
safety matters involved , plus 3 minutes
with the Chair of Public Affairs to address,
for instance,
the removal of speaking rights and the fact that
developers encroaching on your rights are allowed
often HOURS of free, undirected speech, while
residents trying to protect their rights are allowed
just 3 minutes after patiently sitting sometimes for
hours.
THERE IS A REASON FOR
THE LANGUAGE USED: "TRANSIT ORIENTED
APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM
building "
A transit-oriented district is
one where withing a half mile
radius, the development is made very dense and
very intense. It is centered around
transportation hubs, like train stations. And
Federal or state funds are available for these
dense developments. So this
would be just the beginning of very intense development
--- as we have begusn to see with the Davisville Rd
276 unit apartment that upper Moreland allowed - and
there is more in Upper Moreland that is underway.
The Federal money is not available if you do
not agree to work towards the density standards. This
information was revealed years ago as the rezoning
efforts got underway. Our Township was 98%
built up at that point. The rezoning added
greater height, shared parking, frontage pulled up
to the curb and a dozen things that would open us up
for business again.
SO
HOW MUCH OF THE LAND IN THE RED DISTRICT AT THE TOP
OF THE PAGE CAN BE BUILT LIKE THIS?
MAYBE ALL - WE DON'T KNOW YET . PLEASE PITCH IN TO
HELP WITH THIS TASK.
YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ARE
NOT REPRESENTING YOU:
This is, in effect, our
Township selling out everything that the
Commissioners have heard the residents asking
for year in and year out about over-development, too
much traffic, too many rental units to dimish our
home values and quality of life And ...... using the residents' money to do it.
You should be concerned that the people that you
elected to act in your interests completely shut off
your open speaking rights ffrom March to December -
a full 9 months as of this writing by
simply refusing to hold proper Committee meetings.
A FEW FACTS
FROM THE NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PRESENTATION
365 apartments plus an internal garage, pool and
amenities
Rents expected to range from $1,552 to
$3,295
A lot of studio apartments,
5% will be three bedroom
5 stories high
(11 ft floors / 9 ft ceilings – ultimately under
60 ft high)
$1 million in property taxes will be
paid to the Township
$100 million will be the overall
project cost
Job creation: 440 during construction
Long-term jobs : 155
“Hip, cool and convenient”
Parking will be available on each floor
Cars per
household are on the decline, they insisted
Average age of 1st time homebuyer went from
(29 To 34)
The 27 to 34 age group is increasing in the numbers of
them that opt to be “renters by choice”
They expect
: empty nesters , dinks (double income no kids), nurses
just out of college
….(and he named just about every group he could
think of that wouldn’t have kids….so you wouldn’t get
scared about building new schools)
We were to send our questions to Jessica Welsh
jwelch@kaplaw.com–
they warned there wouldn't be any long email
discussions….. apparently there weren't to be any
....or any answers provided to the questions we did
submit .
Method of Request: a zoning " text
amendment" . They are zoned BC (
Business/Commercial) and want to change the uses and
specs of BC to accommodate this appartment use. It
would normally be "spot zoning' - or have to apply to
all the other BC districts- but when Steve Kline and
cohorts rezoned in 2017, they allowed each of the
Business Districts to be an independent, separately
named district. Now those districts are going for still
MORE
rights..... while residents seem to have NO ONE
protecting THEIR rights.
AN IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW
: the
commissioners have no requirement to even hear this
proposal
The
Commissioners have
no obligation to move them forward
with this proposal -- and THEY SHOULD
NOT IF IT IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS
THEY SERVE. AND THEY SHOULD TRUST US TO KNOW BEST
WHAT IS IN OUR INTERESTS. You may see this differently - but to
me, I see this only as a benefit for the Mall
owner. The extra monies that will be coming in will be
to service the needs of the new inhabitants. They
already have enough to take care of my trash, roads and
other services. And if there are more people to now
share in the paving of the streets, there are also more
cars on the road and more people at my parks and pools,
etc. My town is more urban - and we all know where that
goes next.... Only the residents/voters who
elected the Commissioners should be deciding how
their representatives are to represent them. Whether
they want more density -- or less!
Attorney Marc Kaplin acting for PREIT, the PREIT
reps themselves and Developer Bel Canto have
not properly allowed
the public to ask the questions that they said they
would answer - They need those answers to decide if
this is in their individual interest or in the
interest of the Township as a whole.
Residents have a right to have full and clear
discussions and to understand how the plethora of
new buildings will impact their former community
that was filled with homeowners and far fewer rentals.
They have
a right to get FULL, TRANSPARENT information and
then then to tell their representative, their
Commissioner whether they want them to move
forward into the formal process or not. In the
formal process, the developers will get hours to speak, you will get
3 minutes. So without full transparency, I would
recommend you tell your Commissioner to ask ALL of the
Commissioners to vote NO on allowing them to proceed to
the formal process.
In the past, residents have falsely been told that the
formal process is the proper way to learn about the
project and gather the information they need to make
their decision --- and they say residents will have
"pleanty of time" to comment.
Neither of those is
true. Again and again they are false and
leave residents disadvantaged by the very
people they elected to work on their behalf. Once this is in the formal process,
residents have lost all their leverage, and will have
little to no control. If you think it is fair for you to
have
3 minutes to protect YOUR property rights, while
someone who wants to expand his and encroach on yours
has unlimited
time to speak and to present, then you have a different
concept of "fair" than I do. If residents are not able to
follow up on something they
heard later in the meeting - or get something
clarified fully- "well, too
bad" say the developers and the Commissioners who allow
this, even though it is not in your interest.
The formal process,
very simply, most often leaves residents
frustrated at a disadvantage...and the constant losers.
SO ..VIA EMAIL TO YOUR COMMISSIONER, AND AT THE
NEXT (ZOOM ) MEETING TELL YOUR COMMISSIONER
NO FORMAL PROCESS
TIL RESIDENTS DIRECT THEIR
COMMISSIONERS TO DO SO... whether you are for
this or against this project, a fair and open process
benefits everyone.
THE NUTSHELL
on the proposal
_
SOME OF WHAT'S IN IT
They are proposing to
add a use ( h-12) that does more than a few onerous
things . It allows wood construction in high -rises
- rather than the non-combustible materials, it
allows non-conformities not to be fixed as our
ordinance requires - and amazingly even allows a
path for expanded non-comforming uses , It allows
actuall for 8 ft wide parking spots - our doors
started getting dinged when we ent from 10 ft to 9
ft. It allows for 85 ft heights and
allows for things to get pulled right up to the curb
--- losing our skies and our green-space. Green
space itself can be as little as 15% . Are any
of these in our interest yet ? Shouldn't we just
move to the city if we like all that ? With an
arrogance above all others - it suggests that
anywhere their ordinance and our ordinance disagree,
theirs takes precedence. Wow. I mean
really....... Wow. Name me the Commissioner who has
decided this is good for you ?
The property is zoned BC (business
commercial) and they propose to amend the text of the BC
District to suit their new development plan. BUT
IT WILL ALSO IMPACT MANY OTHER PARCELS IN THAT
DISTRICT - how many we don't yet know.
A request to
make a text amendment to the zoning is something that
the Commissioners
do not need to act upon.
They can choose to deny it or take no action at all. They should not allow them to move forward unless
residents clearly want them to. (When they did that at
Abington Terrace, residents spent over a YEAR fighting it in
meeting after meeting after meeting ..with just 3
minutes to speak versus hours for the developer - and
ultimately were forced into a less that wonderful compromise. There was no need
for that to have happened. They should never have been
allowed to more forward unless a majority of residents
wanted it and/or it could be shown to be such a wonderful
benefit for the community that everyone was ecstatic
with it. Not feeling defeat by the very people they
elect to serve them.
The matter of the text amendment is a legislative change.
The Board has the right to zone property within the Township
at its discretion. This is a new concept that developers
have caught on to, and they no longer apply for variances and
exceptions, that require hardships or other conditions that
would cause their excessive demands to fail. They
now just reach right out to the Commissioners
to ask them to rezone the property the way they would like it.
It takes only 8 of the 15 to waive it through. So eight
people to overcome the voices of 56,000.
This of
course is a great disservice to residents, who deserve to
have the land around them zoned securely to protect the
value of their house. Imagine that you bought your house
without a giant 5 story structure next to it - and all of a
sudden a giant structure is there. Your property
value might tank. Because it is
alegislative process, it goes before the Board of
Commissioners, not the Zoning Hearing Board... This way they do not
need a hardship,
as one normally would for a variance.
THE PLAYERS