THE WILLOW GROVE MALL
FAR MORE THAN THE 365 APARTMENTS THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE
IT IS
ON THE SAME DAY THAT
THE MALL'S OWNER , PREIT ( PENNA REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT TRUST) FILED FOR CHAPTER 11
BANKRUPTCY FOR THE MALL, IT ALSO
ANNOUNCED A PLAN FOR 365 APARTMENTS
See
BELOW, THE GIANT STRUCTURE IS NOT
PLANNED TO BE IN THE MALL, BUT
OUTSIDE, PULLED RIGHT UP TO EASTON RD, NEXT TO THE
POND, NEAR THE CORNER OF EASTON &
MORELAND RDS.
BUT PREIT'S REQUEST IS
FOR A TEXT AND MAP
AMENDMENT, MEANS THAT THEY WANT TO "REWRITE " OUR
ZONING CODE TO SUIT THEMSELVES , NOT GO THROUGH THE STANDARD VARIANCE
/ WAIVER PROCESS WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH TO
SUCCEED.
COMMISSIONERS DO NOT HAVE TO ENTERTAIN
THEIR REQUEST AT ALL, AND THEY
SHOULD BE PROTECTING
THE RIGHTS RESIDENTS HAVE AND SETTING UP MEANINGFUL
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT WE ALL MIGHT AGREE TO THAT MIGHT HELP THE MALL SO THAT
IT CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE US AND STAY VIABLE.
BUT THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT. INSTEAD THEY SEEM
INTENT ON BULLYING THROUGH A PLAN TO GIVE AWAY OUR
RIGHTS TO BENEFIT THE MALL OWNER FINANCIALLY -
NOT TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD
SERVE US.
AND THERE IS A
FRIGHTENING COMPNENT OF THIS - WE WERE NOT
GIVEN ANY OF THE REAL FACTS --- OUR COMMISSIONERS,
MANAGER AND PLANNER ALL BEING COMPLICIT IN ALLOWING
THIS. THE REAL FACT S INCLUDED ZONING
THAT WOULD
BENEFIT FAR MORE PROPERTIES THAN WE WERE TOLD ABOUT
- see this link to see the areas included
IN
THE END, IT TAKES ONLY 8 COMMISSIONERS TO OVERRULE
THE VOICES OF 56,000 RESIDENTS. PREIT HAS
ALREADY ( AS OF 1-18-21 ) HELD 3 BOGUS MEETINGS
WHERE THEY WASTED EVERYONE'S TIME AND/OR DID
NOT COME CLEAN ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY
SUBMITTING...... SO NO DIDSCUSSION OF SOME
VERY ONEROUS PROVISIONS HAS YET BEEN HAD.
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO KNOW YOU ARE WATCHING.....
AND THAT YOU WILL ONLY RETAIN THEM IF THEY ARE TRULY
ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF. IT IS EASY TO LOSE ONE'S WAY
WHEN A $100 m PROJECT IS ON THE TABLE.
ON
JANUARY 14TH- WITH SOME ZOOM SHENANIGANS OF THEIR
OWN, cutting out speakers
who had their hands up - not recognizing other
speakers who tried to access the zoom, THEY AGREED TO SEND PREIT TO THE JANUARY
26TH PLANNING COMMISSION , WHERE RESIDENTS
SHOULD STRONGLY TELL THEM THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS
BEING THERE UNTIL THE RESIDENT MEETING IS HELD
AGAIN.... THIS TIME ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PRESENTED
.
Scroll down this page for
details on this matter
NEXT MEETING
1-26-21 PLANNING COMMISION ZOOM 7:30
PM
Agenda and documents found
here
https://abingtonpa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1
-
https://zoom.us/j/91211205403
-
Join by telephone: 1-929-436-2866 and entering
the meeting ID number 912-1120-5403 when
prompted.
-
Or use Meeting ID: 912-1120-5403
Click here to receive
periodic "Newsloop" updates to this issue
and more news like this
the bogus proposal
On the left - the new
building is shown just above the pond and pulled right up to
Easton Road. That would be bad enough. But what
actually was submitted did not reflect either what
was presented on 11-9-20 nor on 12-10-20.
The presentation did not alert residents to the
dramatic changes, like the removal of the
non-combustible ordinance, the addition of required
commercial/ residential mixed use percentages ,
the proximity to the curb allowed, the intent
to build ajacent to residential, the actual
circumference of a transit Oriented District, and
the various other places where this ordinance, being
written by the fox for the henhouse, could apply.
They told residents
it was an all residential 365 unit complex. And
focused just on that.
But that was complete HaagenDaaz. What was submitted will
apply to many more projects --perhaps just in the red BC
zone- perhaps throughout the Township eventually, would compete with the mall, and potentially offer a
precedent for ALL the BC (red) District
properties to
build in the same intense way- the mall included.
(see
this page ) If this precendent is
set, a few small legal skirmishes and the same
laxity seen here by the Commissioners could leave us
with thousands and thousands of units after the dust settles.
That discussion needs to be had. Residents need not
to sit back, as ALL of us will be impacted by this
much development.
A BOGUS MEETING WITH RESIDENTS
In earlier text amendment issues, where
Commissioners have no obligation to hear the
issue at all, residents demanded that Commissioners
require the developers to first meet with residents
so they could have all their questions answered
outside of the public process (where the developer
traditionally can present for hours while residents
have to attend meeting after meeting to speak just 1
x at each one for just 3 minutes... and rarely even
get answers) . Residents demanded a meeting where
their questions would be answered and they could
pose more than 1 or 2, where they really were able
to learn what the impacts might be , and what was
intended. If the time ran out in the first
meeting, another would be
held until they could say to their Commissioners, yes - this is a good
project . Let's move it forward.
That never happened.
This developer
did just the opposite of what
residents wanted - a ridiculously lengthy
presentation on none of the relevant points. No one
came to hear the history of shopping malls . The
appartment complex proposed had nothing to do with
the mall history, other than tht it was intended to to provide it
more customers. How
THAT would work was not presented. No one needed all
the stats on why a
developer might want to develop there.
But, even then, the
things they proposed in the meeting on 11-9-20 were vastly
different from the ordinance they submitted at the
next meeting on 12-10-20 . At the November meeting just 3 Abington
residents got vague answers to their couple of
questions -so virtually NONE
of residents questions were answered, even
things submitted in advance per attorney
Kaplin's instructions were never answered.
Clearly they were confident the Commissioners would
waive them through to a vote anyway. At
the second meeting they never told us that, oops, sorry----- we
decided to submit something completely different
than what we presented. If you thought you
didn't like those 365 apartments - well, I'm afraid
you're going to like this even less!!!!
Nah...they just clean forgot to tell us that.
BEWARE - BECAUSE OTHERS - EVEN THE MALL ITSELF, WILL
LIKELY BE USING THIS NEW ZONING... YOU KNOW, THE
PARTS THAT WEREN'T PRESENTED
On the right, in red
image above, is
the
"Business Center Willow
Grove Mall District". How many of those plots will
be able to use this same precedent and
develop the same way?
(see this page
) Besides the new building
that is in the picture on the left
above( which will also retain the right --- or even
be required- to add rooftop,penthouse and
first floor retail /commercial among
other such things) , there is the mall itself, there
is Dick's strip mall, the At Home building
formerly K-Mart, and the Visionworks block
.... Nearly all of these appear that they will get
the same rights. At least
partially, if not in full. If
this property owner is allowed these rights it would not only add the
residential factor and the height to this business
district, but these
actions would also make the next ones no longer SPOT
ZONING, because such zoning would already exist. And
what about spot zoning.....
This is spot
zoning at its finest. A
definition of spot zoning is found at the very end
of this page. But the uses of the BC District
currently are all commercial. Opening the
residential to one owner would enable all the others
to appeal for the same rights. If you are going to
use, as your example of residential, the residential
that is OUTSIDE the BC District, then the entire BC
District could appeal to have the same rights. And
by the way, then the whole residential district
could appeal to have commercial, since they are next
door to it. And there goes ALL your zoning
protections.
The arbitrary and nonsensical requirement that it
has to be 2500 feet from a train, would be a
ridiculous variant. That number could easily
have been 3000 or 3500 feet. Or more .... a
TOD ( Transit Oriented District) actually
extends for 1/2 mile radius around the
transportation hub. Look for the red in yellow
highlights at the very bottom
:
SPOT ZONING MEMORANDUM
This is a big deal folks !
Imagine the amount of development that could follow.
RESIDENTS DESERVE A PROPER MEETING
BEFORE THIS PROJECT IS ALLOWED TO GO TO ANY PART OF
THE FORMAL PROCESS. IT WAS COMPLETELY
IMPROPER TO SEND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
NO SERIOUS
DISCUSSION OF THE FATE OF THE MALL WAS EVEN
HELD - NOR OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS ...
The formal process is not where
anything is properly geared for residents to get
answers. as mentioned, it is 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.
At the 12-10 -20
Committee of the Whole,
(a bizarre forcing of
2 months meetings into one month just so
Commissioners could skip over the Committeee
Meetings and remove residents’ speaking rights)
folks who had been on since 6 pm left because this
didn't come on til after 9.
That's what happens when you jam 2 month's
together. The developer,
starting after 9 pm started the SAME presentation as
the residents had already seen - causing more to go
home. The Commissioners never brought up a single
question about how this was going to revive the
mall.... and never brought up all of the egregious
aspects of the proposal - which included:
FRAME
CONSTRUCTION --- the removal of our non-combustible
materials in construction – allowing for fire prone
frame construction was something the Township and
firefighters fought against years ago – they want to
violate this in a measure that they are clearly
writing for uses other than the “365 apartment
myth that they presented “
TALL BUILDINGS
BUILT NEARLY UP TO THE CURB --- buildings
pulled right up to the road, removing sky and
greenspace as you travel through Abington, creates
an urban feel and removes the sense of being in a
suburban area.
If all the suburbanites that live here really
WANT an urban look, then this is in our interests –
otherwise it is NOT.
NON-CONFORMITIES
WOULD REMAIN ---- the lack of a requirement to fix
non-conformities ( as near all others are required
to do)
RETAIL ON BOTTOM AND TOP
NOT DEPICTED ---- retail that is
allowed / required
both on the first floor , penthouse and the
roof top – but no discussion about that was in any
of the 3 presentations
11-9-20//12-10-20 //1-14-21.
REQUIRED MIXED USE
---
a
minimum mix
requirement
of 20 % retail /// or 10 % apartment. IE:
required mixed use
“BUILD TO” LINES
MAX AND MINIMUMS – you can apparently build as close
as 20 ft from the curb … with a max of
75 ft away. Really? If an owner want to grace
Abington with more greenspace, he won't be allowed?
HEIGHTS FALSELY
DEPICTED --- the 85 ft height- which had been
falsely and deceptively
portrayed in
the drawings to be 25 to 30 feet lower than the
ordinance would allow
HEIGHTS NEXT TO
RESIDENTIAL ---- a phrase that requires
35 ft heights
on buildings within 100 feet of residential zoning
---
does that
sound like it's for THIS building????
Imagine where on THIS
BC (Business
Center ) parcel these
measures might apply…..
next to
Preston Ave? Columbia? W. Moreland?
And Township wide,
is it being
written
this
way
so that
other Business Centers could ultimately (quietly and
without much
oversight)
add the "H-12"
use as well to give them
these enormous
rights? There has
been a push to turn
ALL areas of the Township into mixed use .
Quite “unsuburbs-like”. Clearly this is being
prepared for other development
and not just
this Transit oriented apartment -condo building -
2500 FT FROM A TRAIN --- anything in 2500 ft of
the train would have the same rights,
we were not
shown where that would be
TOD’S ----
no discussion was held of TOD’s
(Transit
Oriented Districts) --- where the area around a
station that qualifies for special consideration
doesn’t run 2500 feet
from a train – it is ½ mile radius around a
train.
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?
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.
CODE IS BEING WRITTEN
TO CHANGE MULTIPLE PARTS OF ABINGTON
- The original 365 apts would not even meet
this code. No retail mix was in it, for instance.
After the zoning is passed, it would be against the
H-12 code to build like that.
THEIR CODE TAKES
PRECEDENCE OVER OURS – wherever their code and our
code might disagree, they want theirs to take
precedence – so ours would be violated so that
the developer could have his way - rather than his
code having to be in compliance with ours.
Stunning, isn't it.
AND WHAT
ABOUT JOB CREATION - They said they are
creating 155 jobs with just the 365 apartments
--- (forget all the other developments that appear
they will be enabled by this rezoning...... But 365
apartments could conceiveably have 600 or more
job seekers that would be competing for the jobs we
already have .... that could mean a deficit of 400
or more local jobs. It appears they were
offering some self serving "creative" math and
hoping you wouldn't notice.
what about all the taxes ?
Please see
the page on
TODS and TRIDS and imagine how quickly this
could be declared a TRID
Imagine where on this BC parcel these measures
might apply.. and other business districts could
ultimately add the "H-12" use as well
AND
BE CONCERNED THAT ALMOST NONE OF THIS WAS
PRESENTED TO YOU ....... THE COMMISSIONERS
DECIDED 12-10-20 TO MOVE THIS ON FOR A VOTE AT
THE
1-14-21 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING ---
THEN, AT THAT MEETING THEY LET PREIT and MR KAPLIN START
THE FORMAL PROCESS.
THAT IS THE PROCESS WHERE DEVELOPERS HOLD ALL THE
CARDS - AND RESIDENTS ARE THE LOSERS. THEY SIT
THROUGH LONG MEETINGS CONTROLLED BY THOSE WHO
THINK RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE 3 MINUTES AND DEVELOPERS
SHOULD HAVE HOWEVER MUCH TIME THEY WANT TO TAKE. TELL THE
COMMISSIONERS NO. FIRST THEY MUST BE UPFRONT
WITH THE RESIDENTS AND HOLD A PROPER "ALL QUESTIONS
ANSWERED MEETING" .....OR TWO, IF NEEDED.
IN ADDITION,
ATTORNEY FOR PREIT, MARC KAPLIN TOLD US WE SHOULD BE
PLEASED TO HAVE SUCH A NOTABLE FIGURE AS TOM LEONARD
FROM BEL CANTO INVOLVED. TOM'S OTHER FIRM,
OBERMAYER (et al ) IS THE ONE TRYING TO GET OUR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UNDERWAY. YOU
KNOW, THE ONE WHERE THEY CHARGE US $345 AND HOUR
TO SET UP SOMETHING THAT IS LARGELY TEMPLATED,
WANT TO USE OUR STAFF FOR $1.00 A
YEAR, USE OUR MANAGER FOR FREE AS THE CEO OF THE
(separate but not really separate)
NON-PROFIT,
OFFER NO BID CONTRACTS AND OTHER FEATURES TO
"DISTANCE" THE COMMISSIONERS FROM THE OPINIONS OF THE
( PESKY ) RESIDENTS". AND
HERE'S ANOTHER
LITTLE RELATED TIDBIT TO EXPLAIN WHY MR KAPLIN AND I
DISAGREE ON MR LEONARD'S TOP NOTCH
QUALIFICATIONS TO DEVELOP ... OR DO
ANYTHING.... IN ABINGTON
FROM
6-07
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20070625_Details_emerge_on_Fumo_deal_with_Verizon.html
MOST RECENT
PAST MEETING 1-14-21
-
HERE IS THE
AGENDA PACKET - THE WILLOW GROVE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE IS ON P
88
WE ASKED MANAGER RICHARD MANFREDI TO PUT IT ON A SEPARATE
PAGE OF ITS OWN WITH A SEPARATE LINK
.THAT WE COULD FIND EASILY AND SHARE--- WE WERE AGAIN REFUSED,
WHILE OUR MANAGER SIMULTANEOUSLY FREELY OFFERED
OUR STAFF TO HELP WRITE THE DEVELOPER'S
ORDINANCE FOR HIM ......
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/abingtonpa/2245b672-3e1c-11eb-bc32-0050569183fa-ca2b9c28-b9cf-4f17-b573-dd2752d4679e-1610557754.pdf
HERE IWAS THE AGENDA
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgranicus_production_attachments.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fabingtonpa%2F07d2b06d5307b62bae4975ce9968b0c50.pdf&embedded=true
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
meeting 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 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 Mall 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
Mall 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 --- AND BEFORE VIA EMAIL -
NOT to allow them to begin the formal process.
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.
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)
You can send your questions to Jessica Welsh
jwelch@kaplaw.com–
but they are not going to get into any long email
discussions…..
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 thiose districts are going for more
rights while residents seem to have NO rights.
See more info in the "nutshell below
.
WHAT YOU SHOULD 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
On Nov 1st 2020
residents
received a letter from the law firm
of
Kaplin Stewart, representing PREIT
(Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust), the
owner of the Willow Grove Mall, saying that PREIT
wishes to build 365 apartments just south of the pond along
Easton Road, near the corner of Moredon Road on the
mall property. It was, apparently the same day ( or
close) to when they filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING AT ALL.
The consequences of the adjustment to accommodate
theirs will accommodate many other parcels -
including quite possibly the mall itself - depending
on how far they are from the transportation
requirement .
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
a legislative 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