Planning Commission

Random Files: short news updates

Tredyffrin’s Special Election Results . . . Chester County Voter Services completed the hand count of the Duffy/Heaberg Special Election ballots from the May 17 primary a couple of weeks ago.  Originally, the count indicated Heaberg ahead by 3 votes but a provisional ballot for Duffy was found; 2 votes currently separate the candidates.  Due to many malfunctioning voting machines countywide, it is my understanding that voter services has been working overtime to certify the election results by the 30-day deadline on June 17.  Look for the results to be certified early this week; word has it that alignment issues with Republican ballots heads the list of possible reasons for the problem.  Does make you wonder about prior close elections . . .  here’s hoping that whatever the problem, it is thoroughly researched (and corrected) prior to November’s general election.

Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook Shopping Center . . . Empty for a year, we had heard that the Bottom Dollar Grocery chain was going to take the vacant space but that offer fell through. The next development in March of this year, Centro Properties sold 588 shopping centers (including Chesterbrook) to private equity giant, Blackstone Group for $9.4 billion. Although the lease sign remains on Genuardi’s, there has been recent movement in the last few days.  Paul Prestia, a local attorney with Ratner Prestia in Westlakes is floating an idea to the community to create a food co-op in the former Genuardi’s space.  Using a model similar to Swarthmore Co-op, www.swarthmore.coop/ it would specialize in locally sourced and organic food. This is an interesting redevelopment idea for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center and I will be curious to see if it develops further.

Brian O’Neill . . . the King of Prussia developer behind the Uptown Worthington project in Malvern is back in the news.  The O’Neill Properties vs. Citizens Bank trial is slated to begin in December and O’Neill has dramatically reduced his original $billion+ demands down to $297 million. Once the parties reach a settlement, construction is expected to get underway again at  Worthington.  O’Neill’s vision remains for Uptown Worthington – the ‘Center City of Great Valley’.  His vision will require more than the current two stores, Wegnman’s and Target, on the 100+ acres.

T/E School Budget . . . The TESD school board makes the final 2011-12 budget vote on Monday night, June 13, 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School.  Property tax increase is projected at 3.8%.  Click here for the agenda.

EIT Tax Study Group . . . Applications are still being accepted from Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for the TESD EIT Tax Study Group – deadline for applications is Wednesday, June 15.  The TESD Public Information meeting is Tuesday, June 14 and the selection process will be discussed. There are to be 9 committee members chosen and my understanding is that 100 applications have been received to date.  Click here for the application. The success of the tax study group depends on a non-political selection process and committee membership.

HARB no more . . . As of the May Board of Supervisors Meeting, the Tredyffrin’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) was replaced by a Historic Commission.  With an expanding mission to protect historic properties in the township, I was pleased that supervisors showed their support of preserving the township’s historic resources with a unanimous vote.  I am expecting great things from our new commission, and am excited to be part of it.

Planning Commission – Where’s the Sidewalk Ordinance amendment on your agenda . . . I was very surprised to see that the sidewalk ordinance discussion is off this week’s Planning Commission agenda.  The proposed ordinance amendment establishes the criteria for the requirement to construct sidewalks and establish a fee in lieu of construction procedure and is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday, June 20.  Having attended the last Planning Commission meeting, it appeared commissioners had not reached a consensus on the ordinance, so why is it off the agenda for their meeting?

For those that may have forgotten, the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue remains outstanding since December 2009. The land development agreement between the township and St. Davids requiring sidewalks is now 4 or 5 (?) years old and yet the clock continues to tick (and tick, and tick).  Whose responsibility is to enforce the sidewalks at St. Davids?  It is now eighteen months since the St. Davids sidewalk issue was ‘set aside’ by Tredyffrin’s supervisors and, to date there remains no resolution in the matter. 

Is the sidewalk issue going to be the 2011 supervisor campaign issue, as the 422 issue was to the  2010 State House race?  Adding a new twist to the continuing sidewalk saga, supervisor Paul Olson (R) is up for re-election from the eastern district. Having served as supervisor for 30 years, he is on record as opposing the St. Davids sidewalk; proclaiming it the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’.  Olson’s opponent in the supervisor race, Tory Snyder (D) is a Planning Commissioner and served as chair of the sidewalks subcommittee.  She supports the green routes network and the sidewalks component of the township’s comprehensive plan.  Olson and Snyder are scheduled to square off against each other in November’s general election.

Valley View Shopping Center . . . If you haven’t driven down this section of 252 lately, you might be surprised at the level of activity.  The redevelopment of the old Bargain Bookstore is well underway; it appears that they are gutting both floors of the building for a new branch of Mealey’s Furniture. In the same shopping center, the old Charlie Brown Restaurant is undergoing much change for its transformation in to a new McKenzie Brew House.  Originally slated for completion in September, signs point that the microbrewery is on schedule.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Sidewalks on Tredyffrin’s Supervisors Meeting Agenda: Translation . . . Does St. Davids Golf Club Build its Sidewalks?

The agenda for tonight’s supervisors meeting in Tredyffrin will include a presentation by PennDOT and the PA Turnpike regarding the start of 202 construction and the Rt. 29 slip ramp construction. The slip ramp construction got underway last week so I look forward to a review of the time for that project and for 202.

The agenda lists the scheduling of two public hearings, (1) an ordinance to create new regulations for historic preservation and (2) to consider amendments to sidewalk requirements in subdivision and land development plans.

Members of the township HARB and Planning Commission have worked on creating an ordinance to protect historic properties in the township for two years.  In reviewing my HARB minutes, there was discussion as early as March 2009 recognizing the need.  Much discussion and many joint meetings has taken place between HARB, Planning Commission and township staff.  I am thrilled to see the work of many community volunteers now move forward.

Scheduling of the other public hearing – amendments to sidewalk ordinance.  It’s fascinating that 16 months post-BAWG report and St. Davids Golf Club, the mention of sidewalks in Tredyffrin reminds us of the open St. Davids sidewalk issue.  Recalling the history, the land development agreement between St. Davids Golf Club and the township requires the building of sidewalks.  Rather than enforce the land development requirement, the supervisors decided last year to create a sidewalk subcommittee to examine the needs and interest in sidewalks in Tredyffrin. 

Fast forward to April 2011 and where does the township stand on sidewalks and the open issues surrounding the land development agreement with St. Davids Golf Club to build sidewalks?  Last month, the sidewalk subcommittee presented their results, which included an overwhelming resident interest in sidewalks, trails and bike paths in the township.  The sidewalks subcommittee confirmed the Green Routes Network plan included sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club.  The results of last month’s public hearing to consider changing final land development authority from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors included a supervisors vote for the Planning Commission to retain this authority.  So where does the township stand on St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk requirement?  What really has changed in the last 16 months?  

This morning, I was copied on a public email from John Petersen to township solicitor Tom Hogan (which also copied the Board of Supervisors and Mimi Gleason) inquiring on the “status of St. Davids”.  Petersen’s email included the following:

“ . . . St. David’s has always had the obligation to build the sidewalks. At best, over the past year, there has been a forbearance on that obligation. It would appear that the status quo is firmly in place. By that, I mean that the sidewalk plan as promulgated in the master plan is still in effect. Second, the PC [Planning Commission] has retained full land development authority. That said, the St. David’s obligation was always in place. i.e., it was pre-existing contract. Therefore, no matter what was done on a prospective basis, it would have no effect on the St. David’s obligation. The same conclusion would have applied a year ago. . . St. David’s has two choices. 1 – build the sidewalks per their land development obligation. 2 – pay the township the full cost to build the sidewalks as per the land development obligation . . . So again I ask, what is the BOS going to do?”

I am curious to see if the elephant in the room (St. Davids land development agreement) is discussed at the supervisors meeting tonight.  As much as some people would like the sidewalk issue at St. Davids Golf to just ‘go away’, unless there is a decision, the issue remains open.  Will our elected officials enforce the land development agreement with St. Davids and require the sidewalks to be built . . . ?   As Petersen says, “. . . What is the BOS going to do?” 

The community needs closure on the St. Davids sidewalk issue; will that happen at tonight’s supervisors meeting? Stay tuned.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

What’s the Future of the Rt. 252 LED Electronic Billboard . . . Summary of Planning Commission Meeting

I was unable to attend last week’s Planning Commission meeting where the discussion centered around a zoning request to change Radbill Park  from residential to commercial zoning.  The request was driven by Clear Channel who would like to have the traditional Rt. 252 billboard changed to an LED electronic billboard. 

Many people have asked what happened at the Planning Commission meeting and I am to provide the following meeting summary, authored by Finbar McEvoy, president of Daylesford Lake Condominium Association.  Here’s a link to the summary. The Pennsylvania Resource Council completed a study,  Signs, Billboards & Your Community which provides interesting research on this subject. To read the study, click here.

Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission Meeting – Thursday October 21, 2010 at 7 PM

 Summary of Meeting to Consider Rezoning Radbill Park from Residential to Commercial 

Approximately forty Tredyffrin residents including a large number from Daylesford Lake attended the regular meeting of the Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission. 

The meeting started with a presentation by Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. on the benefits to the community of installing a digital LED billboard on the site of the billboard that currently sits on Rte. 252 across from the entrance to Daylesford Lake.  Barbara Bridge, Vice President for Public Relations at Clear Channel, made the presentation.  She said the new sign would have the capability to provide instant “Amber Alerts”, information about the FBI’s most wanted fugitives as well as news from the Township.  She put the number of time slots that would be available for Township advertising at one hundred per day. 

There was a great deal of discussion by the Commission members concerning the brightness of the new billboard and how much light would extend from it to nearby homes.   Clear Channel claimed there would be minimal impact.  However, they were unable to provide quantitative data, including light output levels and changing brightness over time, to support their arguments.  Clear Channel acknowledged that the images on the display would change as frequently as every eight seconds.  In addition they stated that the Billboard would be lit twenty four hours per day, although that schedule could be modified. 

In response to a point made by a Commission member, that the Federal government prohibits moving images on billboards in order to reduce distractions to drivers and nearby residents, Clear Channel contended that studies which they have reviewed support the conclusion that LED billboards do not increase the number of accidents.  That finding was echoed by Township Manager Mimi Gleeson who reported that she had asked the Police Department about the impact of the sign on traffic safety.  

In responses to questions from Commission members about power failures, Clear Channel stated that auxiliary power (a back-up generator) could be added to the billboard in the future and it would be possible to install a two-sided display if the Township asked to modify the lease.  Clear Channel also said it was unaware of a similar type of billboard in a residential area within ten miles of the proposed site although they thought there is an LED billboard in Easttown Township. 

Members of the Planning Commission asked more questions after Clear Channel’s presentation.  These focused mainly on the precedent that would be set by the Commission’s decision since this would be the first billboard of this type located in the township.  Some Commission members expressed the opinion that an LED billboard would be a good way to get Township messages to residents.  They stated that the Township had difficulty doing that in the past.  Other Commission members expressed concern about the placement of the sign in a residential area and the impact it would have on the residents who live nearby.  One member asked if the sign could be switched off at night when traffic volumes were low.  Clear Channel answered, “anything is possible”. 

After Commission members completed their questioning, the floor was opened for public input.  Scott MacNair from the law firm of Clemons, Richter and Reiss (www.clemmonslaw.com) spoke first.  Scott was representing Daylesford Lake Condominium Association.  He expressed concern about the size of the proposed billboard and its close proximity to the busy intersection at Bear Hill Road (Rte 252) and Howellville Road.  He noted that the intersection has been the site of accidents and the proposal to have the sign face southbound traffic would make it an increased distraction to drivers.  He presented the Commission with several studies done in other states that support the conclusion that billboards do increase the level of distraction for drivers.  Scott also reinforced another speaker’s point that a brighter and frequently changing sign should not be located in a residential area.  He said it is much more appropriate on a major highway like Interstate 95 or Route 422.   Finally, Scott expressed doubts about the small amount of “light spillage” that Clear Channel claimed would impact local residents.  

John DiBuonaventuro, the Township supervisor who represents Daylesford Lake and Daylesford Estates, then reinforced the importance and seriousness of the issue by urging the Planning Commission to refer it to the Township Traffic Committee. 

Then four residents from Daylesford Lake including two who are directly impacted by the existing billboard behind their units spoke to the Commission.  Julia Barns who lives at Unit #4 stated that the existing billboard shines into her deck and living room and that during the nearly twenty years she has lived in Daylesford Lake the brightness of the sign has increased.  She questioned whether any of the Clear Channel executives have an LED billboard in their backyards.   Bill Goulding whose unit is directly across from the billboard (within 50 yards) expressed his concern about being able to sleep with a picture that would change every five minutes or less.  He made an analogy to trying to sleep with the television on.  “You can see the picture changing even if the lights are off and your eyes are closed.”  Finbar McEvoy, President of the Daylesford Lake Condominium Association, stated that the existing billboard can be seen from several locations in the development and the proposed LED billboard would fundamentally alter the character of the community.  He also stated that over one hundred and twenty residents of Daylesford Lake have signed a petition expressing their opposition to the proposed change. 

Following the public input, members of the Commission discussed how they should vote on the issue.  One member wanted to deny the application on the basis that the sign does not belong in a residential area.  Others wanted to take a neutral position.  Another point of view was that the information provided was not sufficient to render any decision.  Several members wanted to refer the matter to the Traffic Committee.  One member expressed concern about the contents and transparency of the Township’s lease agreement with Clear Channel. He strongly advocated including language that would prevent any administrative change to the lease without a public hearing and public input.

The Commission decided to ask Clear Channel to provide additional information about the Billboard and to answer the questions raised in this meeting. Then they referred the matter to the Traffic Committee for review and additional input.  The Commission will make its final recommendation after the Traffic Committee makes its report.  The Traffic Committee (http://www.tredyffrin.org/boards/tc/) will meet on Wednesday November 17.  The Planning Commission’s (http://www.tredyffrin.org/boards/pc/) next meeting will be on Thursday November 18.  Because the Planning Commission is an advisory body, the Board of Supervisors will make the final decision. The Board of Supervisors could take up the issue as early as Monday, December 6th, the date of its next meeting.

While the Planning Commission members seemed uncertain about their role in the decision making process for rezoning Radbill Park and which course of action they should take, they did seem to understand the importance of the precedent that their decision would have for the Township.  There appeared to be a lot of uncertainty about the impact of the LED Billboard on residential areas.  The Township’s need for new sources of revenue and improved communications with its residents were recurring themes.  It was also revealed that rezoning is required for this situation because PennDOT regulations do not allow for LED signs on state roads in residential-zoned areas.  Bear Hill Rd. (Rte. 252) is a state road.  The Commission must also consider how the proposed change fits into the Township’s development plan.  The Commission acknowledged the importance of the public’s strong reaction to the proposal.  

Local residents will be meeting to assess the situation and to plan for subsequent activities.  Further updates will be provided as those plans becomes available.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Update . . . Tonight's Supervisors Meeting

My primary reason for attending the Board of Supervisors meeting tonight was for the announcement of the Sidewalks Subcommittee members. Three members were chosen from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths (STAP) Committee.  Supervisors Kichline, Donohue and Richter; Planning Commissioners Bob Whalen, Trip Lukens and Vicki Snyder; and STAP members Sean Moir, Jim Donegan and Molly Duffy are the 9 members of the Sidewalks Subcommittee.  Township Manager Mimi Gleason will serve as the facilitator of the committee.

After the announcement of the Sidewalks Subcommittee, I expected an outline of the committee with a stated process; but none was offered.  What was the meeting schedule – how often would the committee meet? Would the meetings be open to the public?  What was the timeline for the committee? Will the community be given regular updates at future supervisors meetings?  In other words, I was looking for specifics on the subcommittee and the process. 

In a review of the February 22 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes, I found the following:

” . . . He [Lamina] said the plan is to have the new subcommittee begin work in March with the goal to conclude the process by the end of this year. . . “

So during the next 9 months, I guess the Sidewalks Subcommittee will begin a process to re-examine where the community wants and needs sidewalks.  I believe that the end-goal is for the Board to adopt formal policies and procedures to provide guidelines for the development and construction of sidewalks in the township.  Although not mentioned tonight, I am assuming that the subcommittee will set a goal to include the residents through area focus groups.  Transparency and openness of the Sidewalks Committee is going to be important if the community is to trust this process. 

I have publically stated, and remained concerned, that during this re-examining process by the Sidewalks Subcommittee there are liability issues to the township from developers/contractors doing work in Tredyffrin.  As long as the formal policy on sidewalks remains a ‘open issue’, this liability will exist.  Here’s hoping that the Sidewalks Committee is able to get underway quickly, remain focused and meet their goals and objectives by the end of the year.

Another item of personal interest to me tonight was the Mt. Pleasant town hall meeting.  Scheduled twice before and cancelled each time due to snow, I am pleased that the meeting is re-scheduled for next Monday, March 22 at the First Baptist Church on Upper Gulph in Mt. Pleasant.  Today I had received an invitation to attend the meeting from Officer Larry Meoli and was glad to hear the town hall meeting mentioned tonight.  Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Richter will be the liaisons from the Board of Supervisors at this Mt. Pleasant community meeting. Also in attendance will be representatives from the township staff, police and zoning. 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday, March 15 to Include Announcement of Sidewalk Subcommittee Members

The February 22 Board of Supervisors motion to reverse the St. Davids Golf Club decision included the creation of a  joint sidewalk subcommittee; members to come from the Board, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths (STAP) Committee.  This subcommittee is to re-examine where the residents want sidewalks in the township and then create a formal process and procedure to design, develop and construct sidewalks and paths in Tredyffrin.  The agenda for the Monday, March 15 Board of Supervisors meeting includes an announcement of the sidewalk subcommittee members.  I am curious which members of the 3 organizations will be on the sidewalk subcommittee.  Personally, I would have liked the sidewalk subcommittee to include a couple of  residents (non-Tredyffrin board/committee members) to bring a different perspective.  Just a thought.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Attorney Offers Legal Opinion on February 22 Board of Supervisors Vote

A follower of Community Matters, a local attorney (most likely a municipal attorney) has offered his legal opinion on various township topics, including St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue.  Overnight I received his legal opinion on the February 22 vote by the Board of Supervisors to reverse their earlier vote and decision to set up a sidewalk and trails review subcommittee (Board of Supervisors 2/22/10 Meeting . . . St. Davids Golf Club Motion.)  As indicated in the post of St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making? the supervisors vote of February 22 created much dialogue from the community.  Understanding the supervisors decision from a legal perspective is important; I ask you to reflect on the following:

JudgeNJury, March 3, 2010 at 12:36 AM Said:

Other matters kept me from focusing on the February 22 vote before, but now that I have looked at it (and at the risk of beating a dead horse), I wanted to add my two cents. In short, it seems to me that the BOS once again failed to follow appropriate procedures when it passed the second part of the February 22 motion.

Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) authorizes townships to establish planning commissions. Tredyffrin Township did so, and Section 43-6 of the Township Code specifically states that the Planning Commission “shall have all other powers and duties provided by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.” (http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=TR1485).

Section 303(a) of the MPC states that:

“Whenever the governing body, pursuant to the procedures provided in section 302, has adopted a comprehensive plan or any part thereof, any subsequent proposed action of the governing body, its departments, agencies and appointed authorities shall be submitted to the planning agency for its recommendations when the proposed action relates to . . . the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlargement of any street, public ground, pierhead or watercourse.” (http://mpc.landuselawinpa.com/MPCode.pdf).

Section 107(a) of the MPC contains the following definitions:

1) “Governing body” includes “the board of supervisors in townships of the second class.” Tredyffrin Township is a township of the second class, and it has adopted a comprehensive plan (http://www.tredyffrin.org/departments/community/comprehensive.aspx).

2) “Planning agency” includes planning commissions.

3) “Public ground” includes “parks, playgrounds, trails, paths and other recreational areas and other public areas.” Under this definition, it seems clear that sidewalks qualify as a “public ground.”

The second half of the February 22 motion did two things: it (1) “form[ed] a Subcommittee . . . to begin a process to reexamine where the community wants and needs sidewalks;” and (2) relieved St. David’s from its obligation “to build the path, until the new policies are adopted or the Township has put in place designs and funding for sidewalks or paths that would connect to the proposed St. David’s pathway.” It seems to me, then, that the motion was a “proposed action of the governing body [the BOS]” that “relates to . . . the location [and] opening . . . of any . . . public ground.”

Therefore, the BOS was required to submit the motion “to the Planning Commission for its recommendations” before it could vote on the motion. The Planning Commission then would have had 45 days to make a recommendation. See MPC Section 303(b). As far as I know, the BOS did not submit its proposal to the Planning Commission before it voted on it.

As a practical matter, compliance with these procedures probably would not have made much difference. The BOS could have submitted the proposal to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then, regardless of what the Planning Commission recommended, voted to approve the motion. That reality does not, however, change the fact that the BOS appears to have ignored procedures once again.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Are Fair Housing Rules being Broken in the Mt. Pleasant Community of Tredyffrin? How Can we Help these Residents?

If you have been following the St. Davids Golf Club and the ongoing sidewalk saga, you have probably seen Christine Johnson, who has attended and spoke out at recent Board of Supervisors meetings.  A passionate Mt. Pleasant resident, Christine has been very vocal in her support of sidewalks and of her Panhandle community.  I have written several posts concerning the struggles of Christine and her neighbors re college housing and associated planning and zoning issues; and police enforcement (primarily noise and speeding concerns in the community). 

Back in the fall at a Board of Supervisors meeting there was agreement to conduct meetings between Mt. Pleasant neighbood members and township representatives including the police, zoning officer, township engineer and supervisors.  Informal discussions were held and a town hall meeting was planned with the residents in mid-December.  Unfortunately, that meeting was cancelled due to snow.  Another town hall meeting date was chosen for early 2010 but again that meeting needed to be cancelled due to snow. 

As far as I know, a third date has not been chosen for the town hall meeting. This ongoing situation is frustrating for Christine and her Mt. Pleasant neighbors . . . as the problems with college rentals and zoning issues remains unsolved. I am committed to providing updates and to continue to shine light on Mt. Pleasant’s challenges until we can reach a resolution on their problems.

Christine in her quest to research and better understand her rights as a resident of Mt. Pleasant community has reached out to the Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia.  Based on the information that Christine is providing below, there has been some stretching of the fair housing laws by some of the landlords in the advertising of college housing in Mt. Pleasant. 

I know that Tredyffrin Township does not have specific zoning regulations that deal with college rentals as do some of the neighboring municipalities.  As a first step, I think we need to get the town hall meeting back on the schedule and then start working on helping the Mt. Pleasant folks.  I think Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline are onboard to represent the Board of Supervisors; can I appeal to help find a new date for the town hall meeting?

     Violating Fair Housing Laws

According the the Fair Housing Act,  you cannot discriminate against families.  Shouldn’t famillies have the chance to  live in Mt. Pleasant?  I’m sick of seeing our houses advertised as “Rental – Student Approved”  “Student Approved House” “Villanova Student Rental” “College Rental” “Great for College Students” etc, etc, etc.

When describing your rental, please be aware the misuse of a phrase can, however innocently used, be in violation of federal fair housing laws. The list below is fromHousing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) www.homeny.org:

The following list of words and phrases are considered to be in violation of the federal fair housing laws when used in advertising of the sale or rental of housing because they may indicate a preference, limitation or discrimination to the ordinary reader. This list is not all-inclusive but should be used as a guide and example of unacceptable language.

  1. Max 2 people, 3rd extra charge
  2. Great for one
  3. 1 Person pref.
  4. ideal for couple
  5. ideal for working couple
  6. ideal for adults
  7. Suitable for couple
  8. In quiet adult community
  9. perfect for working single
  10. adults pref.
  11. ideal for 2 adults
  12. professional & students only
  13. looking for professional
  14. mature adults
  15. professional couple pref.
  16. 1 person pref.
  17. employed couple or single
  18. ideal for a single
  19. employed male/student
  20. ideal for students
  21. ideal for single person /couple
  22. perfect for students
  23. suits 1-2 employed adult/student
  24. Ideal for male/female
  25. great for students
  26. no pets or children
  27. max 2 people
  28. ideal for single female
  29. working single
  30. male/female suitable for one
  31. 2 bedroom maximum/2 person occupancy
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Township Lawsuit . . . Where Does it Stand?

I received the following from John Petersen this morning in regards to the township lawsuit.  There has been much discussion and debate concerning the lawsuit; I think it is important that the facts be presented in John’s own words.

Just so everyone is clear about the [law]suit – I did speak with Tom Hogan at length on Tuesday. I have decided, for the time being, to stand down on the suit so that the subcommittee can go forward.

However….

I have made it clear that the new subcommittee cannot suffer the same fate as the BAWG. I, along with many of the people here, will pay close attention to happens with that process. I note with interest, the stimulus funds that have been received on behalf of sidewalks. I do wonder what this new process means for those funds….

I want to leave you with Bruce Parkinson’s comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8aILCXIcLQ

When he looked to his left, he was looking at me: re his comments about this matter being a “political football”. If there is a political football, it is because Kampf, Lamina, and especially Olson, have made it so. My issue is about following the rules. Parkinson on the the other hand, apparently believes that as a member of the club and the club itself, is subject to a different set of rules. And to that end, the government can break its own rules for the benefit of the club and its members. At least, I think that is what he was saying. When it comes to political footballs, I take Parkinson’s comments to be nothing short of a political threat.

in other words, they were instrumental in getting people like Olson back on the board…they could be instrumental in getting people removed. In other words, Parkinson was telling the BOS to “play ball.” There is simply no other way to take his comments.

For the record, Parkinson is a local committee for the GOP and is also a member of the county GOP executive committee. Further, he was chairman of the building committee in 2005 when the development was approved.

Parkinson was the one, along with the club president, to agree to the sidewalks. You didn’t hear him talk about that on Monday….did you????

I simply do not have any more time to waste on folks that are so intellectually weak that they could be placed in a position to break the rules (Kampf, Lamina, Olson and Richter). And for sure, I don’t have any more time and patience to deal with the country club set and that faction of the GOP that believes it is OK to corrupt the government so long as it suits their needs.

I believe that if I went to court, I would prevail. However, that victory would not result in a thorough review of the sidewalks, trails and paths. That is what the subcommittee is supposed to do.

If it turns out to be a ruse, there will a stiff price to pay for that.

Political committee seats folks..that is where the path to taking our government and community back begins. That is what I’ll be concentrating on now.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

United in their Resolve, Tredyffrin Residents Speak Out Against Actions of Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf & Richter

Last night’s Board of Supervisor meeting represented a victory for the people. 

‘New Matters from Board members’ of the meeting kicked off with Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter making apologies to the community in regards to the St. Davids Golf Club motion and vote to return escrow which occurred at the last Board of Supervisors meeting. They took responsibility for their actions, admitted that procedure had not been followed and stated that they would try to ‘do better’ in the future. Mention was made that everyone makes mistakes and that they had learned from theirs.

As I listened to the apologies, I thought to myself . . . OK, they made a mistake, admitted their mistake and now they will just ‘fix it’.  But no, there was no offer of correction, no suggestion to ‘reverse the decision’, nothing.  Were they thinking that the community would just accept their apology, move on and act like the ‘mistake’ never happened?  I don’t think that they were prepared for what was to come next . . . it was the residents turn to speak.

I cannot remember the last time I was so proud of this community.  Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic life.  And one after another, residents took to the floor.  People came from all over the township . . . Chesterbrook, Malvern, Berwyn, Strafford, Mt. Pleasant, Wayne.  It did not matter if the speakers were Democrats, Republicans or Independents, there was no political party agenda.  They were firefighters, lawyers, retired citizens, members of township boards, one after another, each passionately saying the same thing over and over.  Separately, the residents spoke, but united their message. Each person in his or her own way sought justice from the Board of Supervisors, appealing for the ‘wrong’ to be made ‘right’.

The ‘sidewalk’ became a symbol for something much larger . . . it represented how four individuals (Lamina, Olson, Kampf, Richter) thought they could be allowed to just make the rules and break the rules, without consequence or intervention for their actions.  What I heard loud and clear  was the powerful voice in this community of intolerance to their actions; residents are standing together.  Were the supervisors listening?

In the words of Martin Luther King, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”  Speaking out, many in the audience eloquently spoke of their distrust in our elected officials.  We elect these people because we believe that they will serve our best interests.  We entrust them to govern according to the rules . . . to follow the policies and procedures as set forth by the Home Rule Charter.  We rely on them to make the best decisions in our interests.

In the end, there was no resolution to ‘righting the wrong’ of the vote to return the escrow to St. Davids.  Not last night, but I believe that this matter is far from over.  I believe that between now and the next Board of Supervisors meeting, a way must be found to resolve this matter.

Trust in our elected officials must be restored.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Tredyffrin Township's St. Davids Golf Club Decision Now on YouTube

To make sure that more people are able to see the January 25 Board of Supervisors meeting, my husband Jeff has uploaded the relevant part of the meeting to YouTube.  Due to time restrictions on YouTube, the St. Davids Golf Club portion of the meeting is provided in 3 sections – Supervisor Kichline’s remarks, Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s remarks, and the final board comments and vote of the supervisors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Ngs60RjuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV1K9nuxMmw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydOzfvGFuMQ

We all make choices in life, some are better than others.  This line in my article, ‘ . . . A moment of choice is a moment of trust and it is a testing point of character and competence . . .’  sums up how I feel about the recent St. Davids Golf Club decision of our Board of Supervisors. 

I absolutely encourage everyone who reads this post, to forward it to your friends, neighbors and co-workers.  Watch each of these video links . . . this is important for all residents of Tredyffrin Township. Our local government is  based on policy and procedure.  What happens when a few people are allowed to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit.  You be the judge. 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Community Matters © 2019 Frontier Theme