Jimmy Duffy Redevelopment Project … Does the End Justify the Means?

This is a follow-up to an earlier post, Jimmy Duffy’s Redevelopment Plan Requires Zoning Change … Is There Community Support?  

Last week’s town hall meeting included an update on the redevelopment project from developer Ed Morris, who was accompanied by Capital Health Group, LLC representative Gerard Farrell and their attorney Denise Yarnoff of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco. In addition to members of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) was Mimi Gleason, township manager and Matt Bauman, township zoning officer, 3 supervisors (JD DiBuonaventuro, Michelle Kichline and Kristen Mayock) and 3 Planning Commissioners (Bob O’Leary, Tory Synder and Trip Lukens).

Perhaps the intentions of the meeting were good but overall, I found the meeting less than satisfactory as an audience member.  Having attended the 2 planning commission meetings (September, October 2011), 2012 January Board of Supervisors meeting and developer-DNA public meeting this past February (where this project was discussed), I expected that this latest meeting would give local residents an opportunity to really be ‘heard’ by those representing our government, in addition to an update from the developer.  I did not leave the meeting feel that mission was accomplished.

The discussion surrounding the Jimmy Duffy project is confusing … on one hand, there has been no formal land development plan presented to the township by Capital Health.  (Currently, the C-1 and R-1 zoning of the Duffy property does not allow for an assisted living facility.)  Yet, on the other hand, based on the number of meetings and input from planning commissioners, supervisors and township staff, suggests that this project has advanced beyond a vague, casual stage.

Eagle Bank owns the Jimmy Duffy property and with the current economic climate, I’m guessing may be willing to sell it for a significantly reduced price.  However, a developer probably would not want to purchase the property unless there was  a degree of assurance that the deal would go through so … he/she would be looking for ‘buy-in’ to the project from the community and the local government; hence the visits to and discussions with, the planning commissioners.

However, here’s the ‘dicey’ part for me and what I do not understand.  Although Ed Morris has made concessions in his latest draft drawings of his project (one less floor, more trees, etc) he still has the problem that the current zoning does not permit this usage of the property.  Current zoning only permits assisted living in the Industrial Overlay district and that has a 10 acre minimum requirement.  As I understand township zoning, an applicant would need to take his land development plan to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance to build the project on the 2-acre Duffy site.  But rather than taking the variance route, the discussion has evolved to Ed Morris writing an amendment to the current C-1 zoning ordinance to include assisted living as an acceptable use.  Although I have been told that it is a normal, and acceptable practice, for a developer to draft zoning ordinance language, it certainly appears odd and rather self-serving to me. But I certainly do not claim to be a zoning or planning expert!

Former township supervisor and  Zoning Hearing Board member John Petersen weighs in with his opinion on the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project.  He has submitted the following op-ed article, ‘Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy Catering site is a bad idea’ to Main Line Media News for publication:

Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy’s Catering site is a bad idea

This critique has nothing to do with the project’s underlying merits. It may very well be that an assisted living use may be a good idea on the 2 acre site in spite of the fact that such a use is currently only permitted on a 10+ acre parcels. Rather, this critique has to do with the process and procedure surrounding the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Planning Commission’s (PC) apparently affinity to abandon established process and procedures in favor of fast-tracking said project on said site. To fast track the development, the BOS and PC are considering the drastic step of adding assisted living as an approved use in the C1 zoning district. There are 3 basic and simple reasons why the BOS and PC are yet again, showing an astonishing lack of judgment.

1. The project developer, already has a remedy that has not been exhausted
The developer has not applied for a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). A zoning variance allows for a use or condition that exists outside the current zoning regulations. If the ZHB were to grant a variance, a wholesale change to zoning would not be required. The benefit is that the change applies only the specific parcel and can be tailored to only apply to current owner. When asked about a variance, developer’s counsel replied “That would take too long.” I used to sit on the BOS and the ZHB and I don’t recall “Taking too long” as being a bona-fide reason to abandon procedure. It’s also been reported that the township’s zoning officer kept “deferring” to applicant’s counsel. That is highly irregular. In effect, applicant’s counsel is dictating and driving procedure, and in this case, changing it for the benefit of the developer. It is certainly to the developer’s benefit to have the zoning changed since that would obviate the need to seek a variance. As one supervisor pointed out at the town hall meeting “It’s not the BOS’s job to seek out projects.” Yet, that is exactly what is happening here. At the very least, this project sought out this BOS and PC. Regardless of how they found each other, the BOS and PC seem ready, willing and able to give this specific developer, this specific project and this specific parcel of land special treatment. This sets a dangerous precedent.

2. The BOS just committed to spend $100K on a review of its ZO
Some would point out that grant money makes the net cost only $30K. However, those grants are not guaranteed. The only thing that is guaranteed is the $100K consulting appropriation. Only when and if the revised zoning, based on the consultant’s recommendations are approved, do the grants have the potential to be realized. Once the BOS committed to having the ZO reviewed, a moratorium on zoning changes should have been established. What if this contemplated new use in C1 is deemed to be a less than optimal use? It appears foolish to tweak something that is about to undergo a comprehensive and expensive review.

3. The process and procedure (or lack thereof) sets a precedent for future developers and projects
The BOS and PC might as well put a large for sale sign on the township. Consider the next developer who seeks to develop a C1 parcel or perhaps a residential or industrial parcel with a use that is not contemplated under the ZO. What are the BOS and PC going to say then? No? That developer may have a very good case to take to court. Zoning must be non-prejudicial. It must be a-political. Zoning represents 50-100 year decisions. These are long term in nature. The costs of making wrong decisions are high. We are already dealing with storm water problems in the township that are due, in part, to bad planning. Good planning begins with a vision that is independent of any specific project. The goal is to have consistent and compatible uses that meet the divergent needs of residents and businesses (retail, commercial and sometimes industrial). You don’t begin with specific projects and let the model shake out from there. We have a zoning map that will now undergo review based on the results of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Process. At the same time, a new use will be added to C1. And very likely, there will be another parcel in the township that this developer or another developer will seek to develop for another non-permitted use? Based on this precedent, the BOS will be obliged to say yes because the BOS cannot and has not offered a single articulable rational basis for this decision. And let’s not forget that there are no plans in front of the PC. How can this possibly be contemplated now? How is this not favoritism – the problem encountered with spot-zoning?

Conclusion
The 3 aforementioned reasons make it clear that the contemplated actions of the BOS and PC are not in the best interest of this community because the actions represent a departure from established procedures. The actions do not represent what could be considered best-practices insofar as zoning and land use procedure is concerned. Any developer should first submit plans to the PC and where necessary, seek a variance. As a record proceeding, citizens have an opportunity to be present and heard. If that variance is granted, the citizens at least have legal recourse to have such a decision reviewed by the Court. If the variance is denied, then the developer can then seek to have the use added. In that event, the BOS and PC have the benefit of the ZHB proceedings to make a better, more informed decision.

In a civilized society, the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means – especially in the case when there are the means to do things the right way – within the framework of existing policies and procedures.

John V. Petersen
Paoli, PA

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The Author

17 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Where to begin as I reflect on last week’s Town Hall Meeting?

    I tried to procure not once but twice (via email) a meeting agenda from John DiBuonaventuro prior to our May 9th meeting. Not an unreasonable request – however, NOW I know WHY one was never sent! Most BOS/PC members had their OWN agenda long before the Daylesford Neighborhood Assn (DNA) walked into the room. It was clear that the DNA’s concerns WERE NOT INCLUDED on the priority items!

    It seemed like a few Twp. members were “gag ordered” to embrace Mr. Morris’ proposal. It was astonishing to see how poorly some of the Daylesford residents were treated when they took to the microphone to voice concerns and opposition to the project. Would we have been treated this way if the meeting was televised? One wonders…

    WHY on earth was Denise Yarnoff, Esq. answering questions that were specifically asked of Matt Baumann (Zoning Officer)? Seriously, from a simple process point of view – one doesn’t need a law degree to see the transparency here!!

    Several DNA members tried to argue bed density requirements and Assisted Living usage found in IO zoning when expressing opposition to the project. It was alarming how the Township Manager simply SHUT DOWN the discussion! Ms. Gleason, we understood WHAT you were saying….we just couldn’t BELIEVE you were saying it!! Forgive us if our mouths hung open as you asked us to put aside IO zoning of 30 beds/acre while you asked us to embrace jamming 93 beds on 1 acre of C-1 suburbia land?? Since no bed density requirements EXIST on C-1 for an UNAPPROVED use of Assisted Living, what shall we use as a point of reference?? Oh right, we should just use whatever Ed Morris (developer) thinks is “economic development”.

    What’s the takeaway message? Total abandonment of process and procedure!

    Does this “economic development” allow a free pass to circumvent your entire process for ONE developer/project? Several BOS/PC members scoffed when I asked if this sets a dangerous precedent – Is this spot zoning? I’m still asking….

    Will Ed Morris change course and decide to applying for a variance instead of asking the BOS to change zoning? We’ll find out shortly. Worth considering – when Denise Yarnoff responded that applying for variance would “take too long” Is that her hardship? Ed Morris’ hardship? Just wondering??

    Is Tredyffrin Township “for sale” to developers? After the Town Hall Meeting – it sure seems like the slope’s getting slippery. Only time will tell if established policies and procedures will prevail.

    Thanks to all the DNA members for their continued support! It was an impressive turnout at the meeting. To date, we’ve collected 115 household petitions opposing this proposal. Please keep them coming!! If things keep going in the direction that was presented to us last week, perhaps I should ask ALL Tredyffrin Twp residents to consider signing the petition? Clearly, Assisted Living use would then be “open” to ALL C-1 spaces on 1 acre?

    So if you fellow Paoli/Berwyn/Tredyffrin neighbors think it’s ridiculous to scrap process for one developer/project – let me know! I’ll always listen. I just don’t know if our Township Officials will.

    Trisha Larkin
    Daylesford Neighborhood Assn (DNA) President

    [Reply]

    Brian Holton Reply:

    With your characterization of hidden agendas and a gag order in effect at the meeting last week, you are now attacking the integrity of the panel, apparently because the meeting didn’t go your way.

    With regard to your question about spot zoning, you got an answer at the meeting, just not the one you were hoping to receive. At the meeting, you asked zoning officer Matt Bauman if he thought that the project was spot zoning, and he said very clearly, “no.”

    [Reply]

    TrishaLarkin Reply:

    Brian: It’s not just me asking if this is considered favoritism/spot zoning. Please read # 3 in Mr. Petersen’s comments above. Since the Town Hall meeting, I’ve consulted a few attorneys and THEY are asking the same question. I’ve asked them for professional opinions as I’m hardly an authority on zoning. The flagrant lack of process is what’s puzzling to them. Just trying to systematically see if there’s more to this than meets the eye.

    As far as “hidden agendas” – Mr. Morris hid his agenda from the DNA by misleading the BOS/PC back in Sept/Oct 2011. He and Ms. Yarnoff said that the DNA was not opposed to the proposal. How can we be supportive (or opposed) of a project when neighbors weren’t even aware his project existed? We didn’t even meet with Mr. Morris (in my living room) until late January 2012! By the way, we told him we were opposed then. However, Mr. Morris continued to sell “no opposition” to the BOS in January 2012 and their meeting minutes reflect DNA support. Just. Not. True. I’m questioning hidden agendas since the BOS/PC didn’t ask anyone OTHER than the developer (and his attorney) if opposition existed.

    The Town Hall meeting made it clear that you are in support of the project, one neighbor is neutral, and 60+ people were very much opposed. The petitions keep coming in (close to 125 households now), and the DNA’s mission stays the same…protect our neighborhood and oppose any zoning changes. I appreciate that we have a difference in opinion. The DNA continues to welcome all points of view.

    [Reply]

    Brian Holton Reply:

    Sorry, no sale. Your original insinuation was that the panel members had a hidden agenda, to the extent that there was some sort of conspiracy of silence.

    Also, don’t assume that I am the only neighbor who supports the project. I detected much unease in the audience after you expressed preference for a gas station or a Wawa over the current proposal.

    Grant Reply:

    This process needs no help in finding issues with integrity. Ed has shown his colors already, and if he’s willing to be dishonest directly to me, as well as directly to the entire group present in February, I frankly don’t have the patience to listen to any more proposals.

    [Reply]

    Neighboring Friend Reply:

    When is the next, if any, public meeting on this important topic scheduled for? As a Paoli resident I’d be interested in attending. Thanks. And kudos to you, Trisha, for speaking up so eloquently and doggedly for citizens’ rights.

    [Reply]

    TrishaLarkin Reply:

    Neighboring Friend: I’m not sure when (or if) there will be another public meeting…but we’ll keep you in the loop. The DNA appreciates your support! We’re grateful you feel it’s an important topic! The DNA is quickly realizing that our “one-off” Daylesford situation could easily become a much larger Township-Wide issue unless more people become engaged/educated. Stay tuned….

    Brian: Exxon and Wawa have had YEARS to bid on this Duffy C-1 space. It’s bank owned and cheap as dirt. If they want it, it’s ripe for the picking. It’s just too awkward of a space and offers little in parking/opportunity. Mr. Morris knows this and Capital Health’s entire business model is capitalizing on undervalued properties. Just because Mr. Morris and Capital Health want to build the assisted living facility, doesn’t mean that the Twp. should change zoning to fit their proposal’s needs. As Grant said, it’s too short-sighted – “mass punishment” for those in Daylesford, and possibly ALL who live in Tredyffrin.

    [Reply]

    Brian Holton Reply:

    Your logic about a gas station or a Wawa is flawed. Just because they haven’t located there yet doesn’t mean that they won’t do so at some future date when conditions are favorable. You can’t predict the future.

  2. Above discussion made me wonder, what kind of criteria or guidance was used by the township supervisors to make decisions on such applications?

    [Reply]

    Township Reader Reply:

    Brian
    Real Estate analysis typically doesn’t put any kind of gas station or convenience store on this small a site, and the right turn access from this site comes from the Wawa/7-11 direction.

    There’s an old story about how Hardees didn’t have a real estate division — they just watched for McDonalds to buy a site, and they bought on the opposite corner.

    There is some reason this site is so appealing to this developer — and it ain’t location…..so it has to be price or a limited option to buy/finance that he wants to exercise while the price reflects the past 2 years of depression.

    Yes — you don’t get to pick just what you want, but when the proposed development requires either a variance or a change in zoning (for the whole township C-1), then it’s not about THIS SITE. It’s about this property — and this deal.

    No reason to scrutinize, but FOLLOW THE MONEY. And count on it — there will be an application for non-profit status before the decade is over.

    [Reply]

  3. Based on above that zoning is a 50-100 year long term planning, I did not hear anyone in the meeting explained to us why is this project meeting the zoning goals other than telling us there is a market for assisted living business today.

    [Reply]

  4. I would be interested ias a local Realtor and resident of Paoli in hearing the details from our county/township managers and economic development committee on any other potential buyers who have expressed an interest in this property. Are they only considering these seemingly extreme offers b/c no others have come in. If so, why is that? I believe it is the job of our managers to promote and “sell” Paoli to potential businesses and we have many empty store fronts and vacant lots such as this which are unsitely and certainly hurting our tax base and real estate values. If they can’t get this job done, then we all need to consider this at the next election.

    [Reply]

  5. More people would fired up about this if they understood what we know now. The fact is the BOS is considering a very extreme route to help the Developer accomplish his goal. The BOS is not listening to the neighborhood and others in Tredyffrin, and if they want to risk their future ability to be elected on one project, that’s their call.

    It is downright obscene that our township manager would interject so much opinion and speak down so clearly to the concerned residents.

    These simple “two words” as a change to the C-1 zoning changes the whole township, allows for a completely new and different level of density never permitted before, and all for one project.

    No, I guess it’s not spot zoning – it’s more like mass punishment. For what? Some tax revenue? One less empty storefront? Pretty short sighted.

    [Reply]

  6. As someone who is only getting my information on this from this blog, please forgive my questions.
    Zoning is traditionallly used to establish barriers between incompatible uses. One could challenge that a C-1 should not be adjacent to a residential community, but somewhere one zone ends and another begins.

    If this developer wants to build something that is not approved under the zoning ordinance, I do not understand why a variance is not being sought. The whole purpose of the system is to allow laws and judgment to apply — not just laws — but also not just judgment.

    I feel for the parties who do not trust this developer, and wonder why (because I think there has to be an underlying agenda) the BOS would even entertain the notion of re-writing the permitted uses under C-1 for a simply 2 acre site. Doesn’t this projected change open the doors to this new use on EVERY C-1 property in the townshsip? That’s why a variance on THIS SITE is logical if they want to promote the development.

    Now having said that, if the logistics to assisted living have changed and 30 beds per acres is not dense enough for economy prosperity, then the issues associated with the business model should be evaluated — but not for a single property.

    And here’s my bottom line: How likely is this new use to end up having this property declared non-profit? Taking it OFF the tax roles. And is there any investor relationship with the property and the law firm that sits on the corner? What concessions are being made to get their apparent support of the change?

    I posted earlier the approved uses for a C-1 — and I’m sure the neighbors would prefer this option to a gas station and convenience store — permitted uses. But as a township resident, I take offense that we would consider a change to the C-1 district permitted uses for the entire township to accomodate (for what purpose) one site that could apply for the zoning variance. If the ZHB, who are continuously tasked with evaluating these kinds of issues could not come to agreement in favor or support, why inject the political components of “what’s behind this support” much less “what’s prompting this approach?”

    [Reply]

    TrishaLarkin Reply:

    Township Reader: Thanks for your input. I’ll try my best to answer your questions. If I’m wrong, I’m sure somebody else can weigh in.

    1. Directly from the Planning Commission’s 9/15/11 meeting minutes: (13-2011) Capital Health Service – 1456 Lancaster Ave; Sketch Plan for redevelopment of former banquet hall site in the C-1 and R-1 zoning districts as a residential care – assisted living facility (Parcels 43-10J-127 and 43-10J-128.1). Ms. Denise Yarnoff, Esq., representing the applicant, stated that they were seeking the Commission’s opinion on the proposed use of this site as a residential care- assisted living facility. Gerard Farrell, partner and general counsel of the applicant (Ed Morris), Capital Health Group, LLC, gave an overview of the company, which has already met with neighbors of the site regarding its intentions.

    FACT: Perhaps Mr. Morris met with a few neighbors in Sept or Oct 2011? Can’t seem to find ONE that recalls an in-depth conversation with him until a subset of the DNA met with Mr. Morris in January 2012 in my dining room. Most neighbors weren’t even aware of a proposal existed until a neighborhood meeting occurred at the YMCA on 2/23/12.

    2. Directly from the Planning Commission’s 10/205/11 meeting minutes: Petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article XVII §208-65, C-1 Commercial District, Use Regulations by Berwyn Real Estate, L.P. to permit a new use: “residential care facility for older persons providing permanent residential accommodations and/or assisted living facilities / services (and supplemental services) as defined in the applicable Pennsylvania state statutes, rules and regulations along with support services, including, but not limited to: personal care and health care services, medical services, skilled nursing, community facilities, and congregate dining facilities; provided that: (1) The maximum height of any building shall not exceed 58 feet in lieu of the otherwise permitted maximum building height in § 208-166 G, and (2) the maximum density calculation shall not exceed 800 square feet.”
    Mr. Scott explained that the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on September 15th, 2011 with a sketch plan proposal for redevelopment of a former banquet hall site in the C-1 and R-1 zoning districts as a residential care and assisted living facility for parcels 43-10J-127 and 43-10J-128.1. The applicant was now introducing an accompanying zoning amendment draft. The intention, he added, was for this petition to go before the Board of Supervisors in December of this year.
    Denise Yarnoff, Esq., representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had met with neighbors of the proposed facilities and the project type and proposed building heights have been well-received. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is a necessary component to moving forward with the land development project.
    Ms. Snyder asked Ms. Yarnoff why the applicant was not considering following the regulations in the Institutional Overlay (IO) district instead of amending the underlying C1 zoning district. Ms. Yarnoff answered that the proposed use was suitable to the regulations in the IO district, but the lot size was not met. She added that the applicant to use same language in IO district ordinance in proposed C1 district ordinance change.
    A conversation began regarding how proposed density and height allowances would affect development on other parcels in C1 districts across the Township as well as how consistent these allowances would be with overall Township code.
    The Commissioners then asked Ms. Yarnoff why the applicant was not approaching this through the process of conditional use. Ms. Yarnoff responded that the process would delay the project, cause a financial burden, and not address all the project-related issues. She added that the applicant did not need a recommendation from the Planning Commission immediately for the proposed C1 district ordinance draft amendment, but was interested in setting a date for a public hearing.
    7236
    Township Manager, Mimi Gleason, stated that the applicant could revisit the Planning Commission with a revised proposal at the meeting on November 17th, 2011, and the Township would still be able to meet the legal requirements for advertising a public hearing at a Board of Supervisors meeting in December of 2011.
    There were no questions or comments from the audience.
    Ms. Yarnoff stated the applicant intends to revise the draft ordinance proposal and appear before the Planning Commission on November 17th, 2011.

    FACT: Of course there were no questions or comments from the audience! We weren’t remotely aware Ed Morris and Denise Yarnoff were looking to CHANGE C-1 ZONING to allow 93 beds on ONE ACRE of C-1 space until the Town Hall Meeting on 5/9!

    Why doesn’t Ed Morris seek a variance you ask? Not sure, could it be because there’s NO hardship?? Let’s take a deeper dive into his lawyer’s answer: It would delay the process and be too costly. To WHOM????

    So, Morris/Yarnoff request that the BOS scrap the entire variance process so they can fast-track the development? Are we reading this correctly? Please – weigh in.

    We’re asking the same question – Township Reader – does this set a risky precedent for ALL C-1 properties in Tredyffrin? Attorneys in the real estate/zoning field that I’ve spoken with certainly seem to think so.

    Perhaps SEVERAL TOPICS should be evaluated before making a hasty zoning change. Doesn’t it just make sense to have the Independent Consultant that’s costing $100K weigh in here? He/she can provide a thorough review of existing zoning, case studies, appropriate bed density and economic prosperity for C-1 if we just give him/her a chance. But, my guess is that Mr. Morris doesn’t want to wait. Ms. Yarnoff asked the BOS to move forward and circumvent proven process.

    Your question about having this property declared non-profit? Ms. Yarnoff said at the Town Hall meeting that this is NOT a non-profit. Back at the YMCA meeting (2/23/12) Mr. Morris said that he’d be asking between $3K – $9K month per unit. I just don’t know how he’s going to GET that kind of $$ when the building is going to be jammed in between Paoli Vet Care’s incinerator and the law firm on the corner. We saw his plans, there’s VERY little green space. When I look at the “comps” (all built on 10 acres/Institutional Overlay, not C-1), I would never consider putting a parent there….but that’s just me. Perhaps his project would bode well in the CITY. But we live in the BURBS! Sorry, off point – back to PROCESS being circumvented.

    The DNA isn’t aware of any investor relationship with Paoli Vet Care or the law firm on the corner. I’m sure Ed Morris, Denise Yarnoff or Gerry Farrell could further clarify.
    You’d need to ask them about support from the other businesses. Those businesses haven’t publically supported or opposed the proposal (that I’m aware of anyway).

    As far as what the neighbors want on this space? We will cross that bridge if/when we get to it. Sure, we have our pie-in-the-sky wish lists. The economy is what it is – and the Duffy space is truly a strange plot of land. It has mixed R-1 and C-1 zoning, limited parking and easement issues. We want to stay focused that just because Mr. Morris offers to build SOMETHING, doesn’t mean we scrap process, change zoning to meet HIS needs, and jam an unapproved use in a space that’s just too small for the project.

    Not sure what’s “prompting this approach”…got my hand slapped for suggesting “hidden agendas”. All I can say is the DNA has no hidden agenda. Ask us anything – we will answer as truthfully as possible. I don’t proclaim to know it all, but this much I DO know… should my PERSONAL integrity or qualifications ever come into question – transparency will prevail. You’ll get a straight answer from me EVERY time. Stay tuned, looks like we’ve got a long road ahead.

    [Reply]

  7. I suggest that people locally talk to their supervisors then — to get a sense of why this is going this route. Has the Planning Commission in any way signed off on the idea? Planning Commissions exist to have a comprehensive sense of the land use — not just the law.

    Pattye — thanks for this information. Please let us know if DNA has a website and keep us up to date on the status. If anyone wants any help doing a website, I’m not a professional, but I can do an ad hoc one for you and we can get it all out there –….

    As for now, have any of you all had any feedback FROM members of the BOS besides Mimi Gleason, who has a job to do.

    And as for the price per month — Wellington in Hershey’s Mill is $8000 a month without nursing. With the collapse of the intended facility on the Church Farm property, many elderly who want to stay “on the main line” are scrambling…right now Devon Manor and the Sunrise facilities are it….and Sunrise is targetted to diminished capacity residents.

    [Reply]

  8. Township Reader: I requested a meeting with Michelle Kichline and John DiBuonaventuro this afternoon. Waiting on a reply…I included a list of topics we’d like to discuss in the email. Stay tuned – will let you know if/when that meeting happens.

    No clue if the PC signed off on this, I’ll be at the PC meeting tomorrow night to get more info. The DNA doesn’t have a website yet…totally appreciate your offer on helping us put one together. Trying to take things one step at a time to see what’s needed. Right now, thank GOD for Pattye’s website, since that’s our Go-To communications spot. And email, of course. Will absolutely reach out re: website development if/when needed.

    The only communications/feedback that I’ve had with the Supervisors was when I called Michelle last Friday and requested a f/up meeting after the Town Hall Meeting. Still in process of scheduling – stay tuned.

    Thanks again for weighing in!

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2020 Frontier Theme