Are Tredyffrin Supervisors Politically-Motivated over Land Development Authority . . . Is it all about St. Davids Golf Club?

I attended Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission meeting last night. The last agenda item was “Draft Amendment to the Subdivision & Land Development Ordinance”.

As one who understands the importance of community volunteers, it saddened me to listen to the discussion on changing final land development authority from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors.  The Planning Commissioners are experienced, skilled and committed residents who spend countless hours in this volunteer position. They are dedicated to working together, collaborating with developers, architects, builders, etc. and making nonpartisan decisions.  These volunteers are now discouraged and confused by the motive of the Board of Supervisors to take away their final land development authority. Regrettably, many believe that the desire by some supervisors to take back land development authority is politically motivated and personal.

One commissioner reported that there has only been one unhappy applicant in his many years of service on the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the one unhappy applicant is St. Davids Golf Club.  Three times this applicant came to the Planning Commission and each time the commissioners voted in favor of the land development plan, including the sidewalk. 

The Planning Commissioners are not necessarily opposed to the Board of Supervisors taking final land development authority; but all seemingly question the ‘timing’ and the political motives behind the need to change the ordinance now.  Although there is a liaison assigned to the Planning Commission, it was reported they have rarely seen their supervisor-assigned liaison attend a meeting.  Which begs the question, if there is no interest in attending the Planning Commission meetings, why do they want to take on the entire job of land development review?

Do the supervisors have any idea the length of time that land development reviews will consume?  Although Mimi Gleason pointed out that the township is about built out, as the economy improves there will be an increase in commercial redevelopment plus the significant Paoli Transportation Center land development project on the horizon.  The Planning Commission has experienced professionals volunteering their time – planners, real estate developers, attorneys, etc.  Our Planning Commissioners are volunteers with the specific skill set and willingness to commit the necessary time to the process . . . do we have supervisors with similar profiles?

Planning Commissioner Bob O’Leary has concern that changing the land development authority to the Board of Supervisors is going to increase staff time and the staff is already understaffed.  If the ordinance is changed, an applicant will first go to the Planning Commission for review and then the applicant will have a second review by the Board of Supervisors.  This double review procedure would be for both preliminary and final land development approval; doubling the work and expense of township staff.  In addition, doubling the efforts of all land development applicants.

Tory Snyder, Planning Commissioner and a member of the Sidewalk Subcommittee will be making the Sidewalk Subcommittee’s presentation on Monday to the Board of Supervisors.  The supervisors know that the sidewalk at St. Davids Golf Club is on the subcommittee’s map as a recommended site — part of the Green Routes Network.  Three supervisors, Phil Donahue, Michele Kichline and EJ Richter were members of the Sidewalks Subcommittee.  All three supervisors attended the last meeting of the subcommittee and voted in favor of the committee’s recommendations, including St. Davids Golf Club sidewalks.

Planning Commissioners believe that the Board of Supervisor’s desire to change the land development authority is directly related to their St. Davids Golf Club decision.  As Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission said, ‘We voted on the issue three times unanimously; we didn’t vote on what was political, but voted on what was right”.  Whalen said that he does not intend to waste any more time on the ordinance.  He views the proposed ordinance change as a “Slap in the face to the Planning Commission.  I know the difference between right and wrong.”

I hate the thought that the Sidewalks Committee and the time and efforts of the volunteers was nothing more than a charade . . . all leading up to the St. Davids Golf Club decision and Board of Supervisors change to the land development authority.  No doubt, some supervisors expected the Sidewalks Committee recommendations would echo their desires; making it easier for these supervisors to deliver good news to the country club. These supervisors probably thought that by handpicking the members of the Sidewalks Committee would somehow guarantee the appropriate outcome.

I salute the members of the Sidewalks Committee who engaged community members through public meetings, accepted input from interested citizens, created maps and conducted a township-wide survey to get a consensus on sidewalks, bike trails and paths needs throughout the township.  However, their thorough, thoughtful and independent analysis did not deliver the outcome desired by some supervisors.

 Another group of volunteers ‘on hold’ is the Sidewalks, Trail, and Path (STAP) committee.  If there is sufficient support from some members of the Board of Supervisors, the time and talents of these volunteers may also no longer be needed.

There is a curious element to the land development authority discussion that cannot yet be calculated.  I was told by several sources that the current vote is 3-3 among the supervisors on the question of land development authority.  Three supervisors want the authority to remain with the Planning Commission and three supervisors want the final authority to shift to the Board of Supervisors.

However, here’s the interesting twist . . . The Board of Supervisors will appoint a supervisor to fill the supervisor vacancy prior to the March public hearing on the land development authority.  With the current supervisor vote count at 3-3, that new supervisor could be the tiebreaker! Wonder what supervisor candidates John Bravacos, Kristen Mayock, Eamon Brazunas and Mike Heaberg have to say about the land development authority?  I think that would make for a very interesting question at next week’s candidate interviews.

In summary, the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, January 24, 7:30 PM is important.  Please plan to either attend or watch from home.

11 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. An interesting point about the upcoming supervisor appointment. I look forward to hearing about the interviews. I wonder if questions about sidewalks (St. Davids) is discussed during the interviews.
    Re discussion of Paul Olson, I too heard that he is planning to run in this year’s race. Do you think that there should be term limits or what about age limits in serving?

    [Reply]

    Pattye Benson Reply:

    Susan –
    I am assuming that although the public is invited to the Personnel Committee interviews that we will not be permitted to ask our own questions. I doubt that the supervisors who will do the interviewing (Donahue, Lamina, Kichline) will mention sidewalks and/or St. Davids. I certainly hope that the candidates followed the St. Davids mess last year and are up to speed — it’s looking like the yet unnamed supervisor is going to be the swing vote on land development authority (the veil over the St. Davids sidewalk debate).

    [Reply]

    Neighboring Friend Reply:

    The BOS have instituted term limits on volunteer township boards. A term limit for supervisors is an even better idea.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Benson Reply:

    Not that I’m aware. I sit on the township’s HARB and there has never been any discussion re term limits.

    [Reply]

    Neighboring Friend Reply:

    I checked with the township and it seems I misspoke–for which I apologize very sincerely.

    [Reply]

  2. I believe any open meeting has to have a period available for public comment. Not necessarily questions to the candidates, but definitely public comment.

    [Reply]

  3. It all seems so obvious. Certain members of the BOS want do a favor for the St. David’s Golf Club and are willing to set aside process and ethics to make that happen. They have gone to the extent that they have set up this thinly-veiled one year long effort to return the Planning Commission power to the BOS. The timing suggests the goal being to absolve the St. David’s Golf Club of the very small commitment they made to Tredyffrin Township and its citizens to build a sidewalk. This seems to be a huge blatant abuse of power and waste of the time of all including the time of the dedicated volunteer resources involved.

    [Reply]

  4. The selection has already been made. The back-room politics is as bad now as it ever has been. I have no faith that it will turn around any time soon.

    Paul needs to let it go. Retire on his own rather then losing an election like last time. If the republican committee can’t come up with someone morally and ethically better then him, it is a sad state of affairs.

    The real options will surface for November, the appointment and special election is nothing more then political posturing.

    [Reply]

  5. Oh CJ — whatever do you base your speculation on? You may prove to be right, but really — tell us any kind of source besides gut and it will matter. Otherwise, blogs become dangerous citizen journalist sources of rumor and innuendo. The decisiion for the appointment is for 3 months — it has no bearing on the Primary or the November election unless the voters want it to. They could select someone fabulous who becomes the victim of the St. Davids decision unintentionally…and ends their political career. If I wanted to run in the primary, I would have zero to do with this appointment, largely because of comments like Cjs here. If you KNOW something, say it. Otherwise please identify your comments as purely conjecture.

    [Reply]

  6. I know nothing. I protest because the rumors that come from this site almost as damaging as back room dealings….I know one of the candidates and they are in the dark as to the status or the approach. So for CJ to say it’s already decided is simply conjecture that can only damage faith in the process unless it IS already decided, in which case, CJ should say so and not color the proceedings.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Community Matters © 2015 Frontier Theme