Tredyffrin Township

A “Community Not Divided” – The Fate of the Digital Billboard Rests With Zoning Hearing Board – Final Decision October 24

Thank you to the many residents who filled the seats of the township building or stood in the back of Keene Hall last night for the Zoning Hearing Board meeting. Thank you to the many residents who last night (and at the two previous Zoning Hearing Board meetings) eloquently delivered their message of “Just Say No” to a digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Avenue in Paoli.

As the last resident to speak in opposition to the digital billboard last night my words were simple, “we are not a community divided”!  For eleven months, since Catalyst Outdoor Advertising first came to the township with their proposal to demolish the Clockworks building and install two large digital billboards and a reflecting pool, the community has stood in complete solidarity in its opposition. We do not want the digital billboard. Period.

As I said last night, I have lived here for many years and am engaged in community issues. There are always at least two sides to any of these issues, with the ultimate outcome producing winners and losers. Not so on the digital billboard, we are not divided; there is only one side.  Since August 2018, I have spoken to many people on this topic and have yet to find a resident who supports the idea of digital billboard in the middle of Paoli or who thinks it’s a good idea.

As Catalyst Outdoor Advertising attorney John Snyder and the township attorney Tony Verwey had both rested their cases at the July 25 meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board, the special 6 PM meeting last night was dedicated to residents’ comments on the proposed digital billboard. And speak they did, a steady stream of residents speaking out against the proposed billboard, just as other residents had done at the two previous Zoning Hearing Board meetings.  Many residents spoke at these three meetings and not one voice of support for the proposed billboard.  An important community issue, it was however sad to note that not a single township supervisor attended the meeting last night.

So where do we go from here?  After much discussion between the Zoning Hearing Board members, its solicitor and attorneys from the township and Catalyst Outdoor Advertising, a timeline for legal responses from both sides was established. Much of this discussion was difficult to follow but at the end, I asked two questions for clarification; (1) when would the residents who sought ‘party status’ know if it was granted and (2) when would the Zoning Hearing Board make their final determination.

There will be a special meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board on Thursday, October 24 (presumably at 7 PM but not announced). At that meeting, the public will learn which residents receive party status and we will know the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board.

As I said last night to the members of the Zoning Hearing Board, the final decision rests with them– the township heard the public and denied the application for the digital billboard and it’s now up to them to uphold and support.  The public has spoken … this is not a community divided!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

BAN the Digital Billboard – Last Opportunity to Voice Your Opposition on Thursday, July 25, 6 PM: Public Comment at Zoning Hearing Board Meeting!

To members of our community – On Thursday, July 25 at 6 PM at the Tredyffrin Township municipal building, we have one last opportunity to make our voices heard regarding the proposed digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Avenue in Paoli.

Catalyst Outdoor Advertising first appeared at a Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting in August 2018 with their proposal to demolish the Clockworks Building and install two large 20 ft. digital billboards with a reflecting pool as a “welcome” to our 300-year old township. For many reasons during the last eleven months, the public has remained committed in their opposition.

The starting point for the digital billboard project was Catalyst’s submission of two applications to the township in December 2018 – (1) a demolition permit application for the Clockworks building and (2) an application to digitize the existing small stationary sign.  To the credit of our elected officials and township staff, the public’s opposition was heard and both applications were denied

Undeterred by the denial of their applications, in early 2019, Catalyst appealed the township’s decision on the digital billboard application to the township Zoning Hearing Board. The ZHB heard three hours of testimony on May 30, primarily from the Catalyst attorney. The legal proceeding was continued to July 9 for another lengthy evening of argument from the township attorney in front of the ZHB.

With Catalyst and the township attorneys resting their cases – it’s now up to us, the public! The last Zoning Hearing Board meeting is dedicated to public comment on the digital billboard application. This is it folks, our voices will be the last words heard by the Zoning Hearing Board

Far from dividing, the digital billboard issue has united the community in its opposition.  I am proud of our residents — they have put lawn signs up, shared information, done their own digital billboard research, attended and spoken out at meetings.  We have one more opportunity to deliver our message of opposition on Thursday, July 25, 6 PM and we need standing-room only!

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST with Friends, neighbors, family – the end is in sight and we need to deliver our FINAL voice of Opposition!!

          Your Voice Counts and the Community Matters!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Apply Now — Vacancy on Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, District 1 (East) and Region 3 Vacancy Filled on T/E School Board

A vacancy on Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors was announced at its meeting this week. The vacated position of Township Supervisor in District 1 (East) was held by long-serving supervisor Paul Olson, who recently sold his home and moved from the township.

A Republican, Olson was first elected as a Tredyffrin supervisor in 1976 and has served 43 years, losing only one election.  Committed to serving the community, Paul was involved with many organizations, including the Red Cross, Tredyffrin Library, Surrey Services and the Carr School in Mt. Pleasant, to name a few.  On a personal note, the ongoing support of Paul (and his wife Andrea) to historic preservation was much appreciated by myself and the other members of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust Board of Directors. As an elected official, he truly understood the importance of our local history and its preservation!

The Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors will make an interim appointment to fill the District 1 (East) seat. Persons interested in being considered for the appointment must be residents of District 1 (East) and voters of the E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 or M2 voting precincts. The Board of Supervisors will accept letters of interest (with resumes) through Friday, July 26 addressed to Tredyffrin Township, c/o Murph Wysocki, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors at Tredyffrin@tredyffrin.org.

The Personnel Committee of the Board of Supervisors (3 supervisors) will interview the candidates in a public meeting on Monday, August 5 at 7 PM at the township building. The Personnel Committee will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Board will vote on the appointment at its next meeting, on Monday, August 19.

It will be curious to see what happens with this supervisor appointment – will the Board of Supervisors, which currently holds a Democrat majority (4-2) honor the long-held Republican seat and appoint a Republican candidate? Or would the Board stick to the party line and appoint a ‘D’ to fill the vacancy?

The District 1 (East) seat is on the November ballot, making the vacancy an interim appointment. Although Julie Gosse (D) and Raffi Terzian (R) are the endorsed candidates for the seat in the November election, all residents of District (1) and registered voters (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 or M2 precincts) are eligible to apply for the interim appointment.

Perhaps not wanting to appear partisan, the Board of Supervisors could appoint an ‘Independent’ registered candidate and make history – the township has never had an ‘I’ as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Of course, that assumes a registered Independent in District 1 (East) applies for the position.  Over the last few years there have been many new people moving in to the township — applying for the interim supervisor position would be a great way to get involved in the community!

On the same night as the Board of Supervisors officially announced its vacancy on the Board, the T/E School District Board interviewed and appointed to fill its Region 3 vacancy – if you recall, last month Heather Ward (D) from Easttown resigned from the school board after serving 18 months of the 4 year term, stating that she would be taking a new job and moving out of state.

Ray Clarke attended the July 15 school board meeting and offers his comments on the interview and selection process and notes from the regular meeting.  Although the school board agreed at its June meeting to correct the $1.2 million accounting error, it is noted that a month later the issue remains open.  As has been stated repeatedly, there is a process with the PA Department of Education to make the necessary correction so the question from the public, remains WHY hasn’t it been done? The District’s Business Manager Art McDonnell was missing from the meeting – certainly not working on fixing the District’s accounting problem, guess it summer vacation for him. Remember folks, McDonnell received a new 5-year contract (with a raise!) starting July 1.

School Board Meeting Comments from Ray Clarke –

 The TESD Board of Directors held special meetings on Monday; first to interview candidates to replace Heather Ward and second an official Board meeting to select one of them.  Six Easttown residents applied and all presented themselves well, having relevant (but different) experiences and skills, with a good general understanding of the issues confronting TE and the role of the Board.  In the formal Board meeting, three of the candidates were nominated and in the first round of voting Mary Garrett Itin was selected in a party line 5-2 vote (Tina Whitlow was out of the country). She has a social work and child mental health background and spoke of favoring a fact-based, objective and transparent approach. Kate Murphy and Ed Sweeney nominated applicants with legal and financial backgrounds who I thought might have been very well equipped to hold the Administration to account, but they were the sole supporters of their nominees.

The need for that oversight was starkly demonstrated in response to public comment during the remainder of the board meeting.  Many different tacks were taken in an attempt to ascertain any information about actions taken in response to the Board vote to correct the Annual Financial Report filings with the state.  All approaches elicited the same response: we’re working on it (in some unspecified manner) and you’ll find out more in the next scheduled Board meeting on August 26th.

Both aspects of the meeting then led to a round-about discussion of the ways to include qualified and motivated community members (such as the Board applicants) more directly in Committee deliberations.  As a specific example, involved parents continued to advocate for their participation in the direction of the reading curriculum and spoke of insights from a recent academic conference. Ed Sweeney moved to include the general question of Committee make up as part of the strategic planning process, but in the end it was agreed (Kyle Boyer excepting) to consider the issue in the first Policy Committee meeting of the new academic year (perhaps a quicker forum).  There are different approaches (eg voting/non-voting) and pros and cons to this, and it is a question well worthy of discussion.

Notably, at the end, the Solicitor reported that an Executive Session was held last week to discuss collective bargaining.  The teacher contract is up for renewal at the end of the coming school year.  In the new normal of budget deficits and cost pressures the usual issues of process transparency and compensation/program trade-offs may be more contentious than usual.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Mt. Pleasant’s 13th Annual Community Barbecue – Saturday, July 20, 12 PM – 5 PM — All Welcome to Attend!

What a great way to spend a hot summer Saturday — the village of Mt. Pleasant in Tredyffrin Township is having its 13th Annual Community Barbecue tomorrow, July 20, 12 PM – 5 PM at Mazie B. Hall Park.  All are welcome to attend — proceeds will support the ‘free’ after school tutoring program, held at the historic Carr School in Mt. Pleasant during the school year. Plan to stop by and show your support for this wonderful community event!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Battle to Stop Catalyst and BAN the Digital Billboard Continues — Community Has One More Opportunity to Voice Objection, Thursday, July 25, 6 PM

Eleven months in and the digital billboard saga continues …

At the May 30 special meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board, the audience learned after three hours of testimony that the legal proceeding would be continued to July 9.

Unfortunately, as soon as the July 9 date was announced, I knew that I would be on a plane that night – and with nonrefundable tickets there was nothing I could do. For those that have followed along with the BAN the Digital Billboard campaign for the past eleven months, you will appreciate how difficult it was for me not to be in attendance on Tuesday night.

However, the good news is that many people that I know were able to attend and I have received many text messages, emails, phone calls, etc post-meeting making it easier to write this post. And some more good news … the residents will have one more opportunity to make their voices heard at the final Zoning Hearing Board meeting on this matter, Thursday, July 25, 6 PM.  The regular ZHB starts at 7 PM, so that gives us an hour to continue to drive home the point why our community does NOT want a digital billboard!

One of those in attendance at the meeting on Tuesday was my good friend Ray Clark and he kindly provided few written comments from the 3-1/2 hour meeting. (In addition, Ray texted continuous updates throughout the ZHB meeting – so grateful to him!). Here are Ray’s thoughts from the meeting – to others who attended, I welcome your comments:

A few observations from a non-lawyer on Tuesday’s ZHB proceedings hearing the appeal of the denial of a permit for a digital billboard.  The applicant worked hard to focus the discussion on the legal intricacies of their challenge to the validity of the township’s zoning ordinance, while the audience was concerned about the safety and visual impact of placing a distracting, flashing device at a busy and iconic intersection.

A couple of process points.  Dan McLaughlin did a good job of managing the contentious meeting to be fair to all perspectives.  He allowed more residents to apply for standing, since many were prevented from attending round one due to the tornado warning. However, the applicant objected objectionably (!) and arbitrarily to most – at one point saying that he did not believe – with no basis! – one resident who gave a precise distance from his house to the intersection!  I imagine that the ZHB will rule on the standing of all the residents from both meetings at the wrap up meeting on July 25th (6pm).

The witnesses were two: continued testimony from the applicant and Matt Baumann for the township.  I don’t pretend to have followed this closely enough to give an opinion on the legal issues, but there was a lot of discussion about the meaning and applicability of “lighting”, “changeable copy”, “flashing”, “alteration”, “conditional use”, “vinyl wraps”, “backing blocks”, and so on.  Throughout the applicant tried to force the discussion to a word-by-word parsing of the Township denial letter – with some success since Matt acknowledged that the letter had an internal inconsistency.  I don’t recall much discussion of why the ordinance is illegal, maybe that was last time.

The audience seemed to come more prepared than the township Baumann/Verwey team.  Excellent points were made about the lack of applicant studies of intersection safety issues (they relied entirely on PennDoT regulations), the inaccuracy and limitations of the safety studies they did present, the lack of information given to the township to assess the features of the sign, the availability of studies indicating a definite safety issue, and of course the fundamental fact that the sign is DESIGNED to distract attention.

It seems a great pity that commercial interests have the potential to weasel loopholes in township ordinances written at a different time to attempt to foist upon us something that seems to be universally despised and a very real safety risk.

Far from dividing, the digital billboard issue has united the community in its opposition.  I am proud of our residents — they have put lawn signs up, shared information, done their own digital billboard research, attended and spoken out at meetings.  Folks, we have one more opportunity to drive home our message of opposition on Thursday, July 25, 6 PM!  

Always the optimist, I’m going to believe that our Zoning Hearing Board is going to come down on the side of the community on the digital billboard issue.

Your Voice Counts and the Community Matters!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Say NO to Proposed Digital Billboard in Paoli on Tuesday, July 9, 7 PM, Zoning Hearing Board Meeting: Your Voice Counts & Our Community Matters!

The “To be continued … “  digital billboard saga returns to Township Township Zoning Hearing Board meeting on Tuesday, July 9 at 7 PM at the municipal building, 1100 Duportail Road, Berwyn. (Click here for agenda).

This process has been nearly a year in the making, and the legal proceeding was last at the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) meeting on May 30. With tornado warnings and loss of power for many homeowners in the township, it was a challenge just to attend the meeting!

On May 30, we only heard from the Catalyst attorney John Snyder from Saul Ewing and his two witnesses. On Tuesday, July 9, the ZHB meeting continues with attorney Tony Verwey from Gawthrop Greenwood presents the case opposing the digital billboard on behalf of the township.

To remind you about the ZHB meeting on May 30, a number of residents (including myself) asked to be a party in the case — with Snyder objecting to all but one resident. In my opinion, the entire Tredyffrin Township community (and beyond) should have standing in the case, as we all will be impacted by a digital billboard at the busy intersection in Paoli.

To the credit of the ZHB chair Dan McLaughlin (and much to the chagrin of Snyder) the public was told that “standing” would be determined at the July 9 meeting.  And the good news is that ALL residents who wish to comment at the upcoming ZHB meeting may do so, with or without legal standing. It will be curious to see where the legal issue resolves itself for those that previously sought standing and also whether residents who were unable to attend the ZHB meeting in May will be granted standing.

Much of the widespread opposition to the proposed digital sign is focused on safety yet we learned on May 30 that no safety expert would be called by the Catalyst attorney because he didn’t think “it relevant”.   One of the two expert witnesses called by Catalyst was Jesse White, an employee of Watchfire Signs, a Danville, Illinois digital billboard company who sells billboards to Catalyst. In his testimony, White admitted his company would probably have the contract for the proposed digital billboard.  He certainly is not an unbiased witness and the township attorney Tony Verwey needs to object.

Other crazy remarks came from the second Catalyst witness, employee Tim Earle who claimed digital billboards are “almost like a TV” and compared the proposed digital billboard, with its constantly changing face, to the 7-Eleven gas price sign across the street and to the Conestoga High School sign. The so-called expert testimony of Earle should be thoroughly cross-examined by the township attorney. Here’s hoping that Tony Verwey is fully prepared for this legal proceeding against Catalyst – the residents are counting on him to bring his ‘A’ game!

On Tuesday, please show up at the township building for the Zoning Hearing Board Meeting and speak out against the proposed digital billboard – Our Voice Counts and our Community Matters!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Say NO to Digital Billboards in Tredyffrin Township – Your VOICE Matters! Zoning Hearing Board Meeting, Wednesday, May 29 at 7 PM!

Zoning Hearing Board Meeting TONIGHT!

It’s time to focus on the important Zoning Hearing Board meeting coming up tomorrow,  Wednesday, May 29, 7 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building. Catalyst Outdoor appealed the denial of their application for the digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 & Lancaster Ave in Paoli and now the case will be heard.

If you OPPOSE a digital billboard in Paoli, NOW is the time to stand up and be counted! Please plan to attend and share with neighbors and friends.

This is it folks — this meeting will determine the future of digital signs in Tredyffrin Township, your VOICE MATTERS and your attendance is critical!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

UPDATE: Digital Billboard Battle Not Over – Zoning Hearing Board Mtg on April 25, 7 PM! Your Voice Matters!

Some residents may think that the digital billboard problem has gone away —  The BAN the Digital Billboard campaign may have lost over 100 yard signs to theft but the battle is far from over!  Now is the time for your voice to be heard — the future of Paoli depends on it!

You may recall that Catalyst Outdoor Advertising filed two applications in December with Tredyffrin Township – (1) a demolition permit application for the Clockworks building and (2) an application to switch the face of the small billboard (located next to the Clockworks building) to a digital one. Tredyffrin Township denied both of these applications. The demolition permit was denied citing an “incomplete application” – the application was missing the signature of Dale Nelson, the property owner.

The other application submitted by Catalyst was for an “electric lamp changeable copy face” for the existing small free standing advertising sign next to the Clockworks building. There is an existing 30-year lease on the small sign between Catalyst and Dale Nelson.

In January, Matt Baumann, Tredyffrin’s Zoning Officer sent Thaddeus Bartkowski a letter denying Catalyst’s application to digitize the current sign on the Clockworks site. On February 22, Bartkowski filed an appeal to appear in front of the Tredyffrin Township Zoning Hearing Board. Catalyst paid $2,000 to appeal the decision of the Zoning Officer and $10,000 to challenge the validity of the township’s zoning ordinance.

On Thursday, April 25, 7 PM at the Tredyffrin Township building, Catalyst will appear in front of the township’s Zoning Hearing Board. 

For months, residents have asked me what they can do about the proposed digital billboard – now is the time to help! Keene Hall at the township building must be standing room only on April 25. Folks, if Catalyst wins this appeal, it will forever change the intersection of Lancaster Ave and Rt. 252.

Important:  Digitizing the current sign on the Clockworks property is a precursor to Catalyst’s next step, which is to demolish the Clockworks building and erect two large 20-ft. digital billboards with a reflecting pool in the middle of Paoli.

Important:  If Catalyst wins their appeal on April 25, the other two billboards in Tredyffrin Township (Rt. 252/Bear Hill Road and Lancaster Ave across from the BMW dealership) are at imminent risk for digitizing.

Please put Thursday, April 25, 7 PM on your calendar and plan to attend this critical meeting! Tell Your Friends, Tell Your Neighbors!

Your Voice Matters Now — the Future of Paoli Depends on it!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Off-Leash Dogs in Public Places — Tredyffrin Township parks, Chester Valley Trail

First, please know that I am not a dog hater – in fact, a couple of years ago we lost Mei-Li, our much-loved 13-year old Shih Tzu. However, I may be in the minority among Tredyffrin residents, who do not support the idea of off-leash dogs in public places – unless they are in a fenced pet area.

As background, when I was around two or three years old, my mother was taking me for a walk in the neighborhood. There were sidewalks and she was holding my hand when all of a sudden, an excited dog (probably just a large puppy that seemed enormous to a toddler) raced across the yard, knocking me to the ground and then standing over me like a prized trophy. The neighbor probably thought the incident amusing and just the actions of a playful puppy but I can still recall my terrified, helpless feeling all these many years later.  Although not physically hurt by this childhood event; I remain easily frightened by large dogs.

I enjoy walking on the Chester Valley Trail in Tredyffrin Township nearly every day year-round but in the last couple of weeks, I have had two encounters that have me writing this post – off leash dogs. In both instances, the owners had large dogs on the trail without leashes. We were walking in opposing directions and as I got closer, the dogs left their owners’ side and came running towards me. I was petrified and visibly afraid as the dogs jumped at me. In neither case did the owners apologize or even bother to leash their dogs – in fact, one owner commented, “Guess you don’t like dogs”.

Too many dog owners seem to be operating under the false assumption that there is nothing wrong with allowing their dogs to run off leash in on-leash areas such as Chester Valley Trail, because their dogs are “friendly” and won’t harm anyone.  Chester Valley Trail posts “rules and regulations” throughout the trail — regarding dogs, the policy states the following, “#21. Pets are permitted, except in picnic areas. They must be restrained on a leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length …”

The fact that dog owners are on the Chester Valley Trail with their dogs off leash had my thinking about Tredyffrin Township’s “off-leash ordinance” for dogs at Teegarden Park passed last fall. So this week, I drove to Teegarden Park around 2 PM and remained at all times on the large asphalt parking lot. I noticed that the park ordinance sign was missing – perhaps, it is being updated with the new ordinance regulations.  There was a separate small sign posted by the ‘Friends of Teegarden Park’ in the park message board which addressed the off-lease policy for dogs.

For about 30 minutes, I watched the off-leash dogs and their owners. Up on the slight incline there were six or seven men standing together with eight or nine dogs running all around, most often in groups of two or three. Three different large dogs at various times left the field and raced down to me in the parking lot, barking and jumping. Although many supporters of off-leash at Teegarden tout, “Off Leash and Under Control”, that was not my experience as I stood in the parking lot. 

At no time, did any of the dog owners come to the parking lot to get their dogs or call them. Having an unleashed dog rush unwanted and uninvited is a stressful event. I yelled to one dog owner that I was afraid of large dogs (as the animal circled and jumped on me from behind) and his response was “Don’t worry, my dog is very friendly – and will only lick you to death”. Please know that off-leash dogs can be intimidating.

But It was the third time that a dog came running down to the parking lot that was the scariest. An older woman had driven in to Teegarden Park and had an infant in a carriage and a 3 year old little boy. Turns out she was the babysitter and had no dogs. As we stood in the parking lot, discussing whether it was safe for her to take the children to the park playground because of the off-leash dogs, down the incline comes running a very large black dog (without a collar). The dog jumps at the baby carriage, frightening the children. I (who am terrified of big dogs) start yelling trying to distract the dog from the children and to alert the dog owner. Again, the dog owner never comes down to the parking lot and here is the babysitter, myself and two children with a dog barking and running loops around us. Eventually the dog bored of the activity in the parking lot and returned to the other dogs up on the hill.  Although I am sure that the owner would say that the dog was just friendly, it was scary nonetheless.

The parks in Tredyffrin Township are to be enjoyed by all of its residents, including Teegarden Park. In my opinion, the newly approved off-leash ordinance at Teegarden Park is difficult, if not impossible to manage and enforce.

Dog owners are required to file an off-leash application with fee (Residents $25/dog; Non-Residents $50/dog).  Who is responsible for making sure the dog owners have an application on file (which requires veterinary information, dogs license and vaccination records at registration) and paid annual fee. Off-leash dogs are required to wear registration tags – yet I saw at least one dog at Teegarden Park without a collar.  As an aside, is there no concern that registered off-leash dogs at Teegarden may be in contact with unlicensed or un-vaccinated dogs?

Where does the annual revenue for Teegarden Park off-leash registration go?

Although Mill Park (in the western section of Tredyffrin Township) does not have an off-leash ordinance, dog owners routinely let their dogs run at this township park without leashes. In fact, rather than pay the $25 annual fee to legally have their dogs off-leash at Teegarden Park, some residents who oppose the fee have said they will now use Mill Park.

Tredyffrin Township leash lawrequires that you pick up after your dog. Allowing your dog to defecate and not removing the waste carries a fine of up to $1,000.”  And although the Friends of Teegarden post that dog owners are to “pick up and remove dog waste”; I observed during my short visit that three dog owners did not pick up/remove the dog waste. Who will enforce? With baseball season soon to begin at Teegarden, who will be responsible for maintaining the fields?

According to the Friends of Teegarden sign, dog owners are to keep their animals “out of fenced areas” yet I watched two dogs running around inside the fenced tennis courts at Teegarden Park. In addition, the sign states that dogs “must be under voice control”. For this to work, dog owners need to actually watch their off-leash dogs. Remember on my short visit, three different dogs left the fields, parking and jumping at myself and other visitors in the parking lot. Also, it should be added that a car narrowly missed hitting one of the dogs in the parking lot. At no time, did the dog owners call or retrieve their animals from the parking lot.

In my opinion, the off-leash situation at Teegarden Park is serious and an accident waiting to happen. If you review the township off-leash application form, dog owners must agree to hold Tredyffrin Township harmless from any claim of loss or injury, etc. but where does that leave the residents (without an off-leash dog) who venture to Teegarden Park?

In my opinion, you visit Teegarden Park (and apparently also Mill Park) at your own risk.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Tredyffrin Township Denies Two Applications by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising Related to Digital Billboard Project in Paoli!

The end of 2018 left many of us in the community with more questions than answers about Tredyffrin Township’s direction regarding the future of the Clockworks building and the proposed digital billboard project at the intersection of Rts 252 and 30 in Paoli.  However, the New Year brings exciting news from the township on a couple of fronts.

If you recall, Tredyffrin Township received two applications from Catalyst Outdoor Advertising (dba “Tredyffrin Outdoor, LLC”) on December 18 related to their proposed digital billboard project – (1) a demolition permit application for the Clockworks building and (2) an application to switch the face of the small billboard (located next to the Clockworks building) to a digital one.

This week the public learned at the Board of Supervisors meeting that the Clockworks building demolition permit application was denied, with the township citing an ‘incomplete application’.  The Catalyst representatives had submitted the demolition application in December without including the signature of the owner of the property, Dale Nelson.

Thaddeus Bartkowski, the CEO of Catalyst has a signed 30 year lease on the small billboard located on the Clockworks site but does not actually own the property. The lease between Catalyst and Dale E. Nelson, the owner of the property, is only for the small sign located next to the Clockworks building. (The lease is included in the demolition documents).  So, then the question becomes how is it possible that Mr. Bartkowski thinks he can demolish a building on property that he doesn’t actually own? Did he think that the township staff review of the demolition application would perhaps not catch the glaring omission?

It is my understanding that a property sale agreement exists between Catalyst and Nelson (the owner of the property) for some future closing date. I have not seen a copy of the sale agreement — however there is no doubt that the agreement and expected closing date is based on certain terms – perhaps a contingency based on township approval for the digital billboard.

And important point to remember is that there is nothing to keep Catalyst from resubmitting the demolition permit application with Dale Nelson’s signature. The township demolition process does not require approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Clockworks building is not protected. I need to restate that Tredyffrin Township does not have a historic preservation ordinance — Clockworks building aside, no historic property is protected from demolition.

But you would have to wonder why Nelson would sign the demolition application on the Clockworks building prior to Catalyst actually purchasing the property. How about this scenario, Dale Nelson signs the demolition permit application, the Clockworks building comes down and Catalyst does not gain approval for the digital billboard. Were Tredyffrin Township to decide not to approve the proposed digital billboard monument, Catalyst may decide not to move forward on the property sale – thus leaving Dale Nelson with an empty lot, no revenue source from the Clockworks building and a community of unhappy residents! To date, Catalyst has not submitted the plans for the digital monument so there’s no action required on the part of the township.

The other application submitted by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising last month was for an “electric lamp changeable copy face” at 1819 Lancaster Ave, Paoli. Catalyst was proposing the digitizing of the existing small free standing advertising sign next to the Clockworks building.  Remember, this is the sign with the 30-year lease between Catalyst and Dale Nelson.

We learned yesterday that Matt Baumann, the Zoning Officer for Tredyffrin Township sent Thaddeus Bartkowski a letter denying the application by Catalyst to digitize the current sign on the Clockworks site.  The letter states that the proposed sign does not comply with the requirements of an advertising sign and is not permitted on the property. In its application, Catalyst suggests that the sign is an “electric lamp changeable copy face” and the township has determined that the sign is not a changeable copy sign. Catalyst does have the right to appeal the notice through the Zoning Hearing Board within 30 days.

With the denial of the application to digitize the existing sign and a denial on the demolition application of the Clockworks building (albeit they can resubmit with required signature) is it possible that Catalyst Outdoor Advertising will see the handwriting on the wall and take their plans for a digital billboard somewhere else?  Will Dale Nelson do some soul-searching and not sign the demolition application?

Although I’m excited that the township leadership has denied the two applications from Catalyst regarding the proposed digital billboard, it needs to be stated that the battle is not over.

And just when I thought that the “Ban the Digital Billboard” signs were safe, I have learned that two were stolen from a resident’s lawn over the weekend – this was the third set of signs stolen from this specific property, just steps from her front door on Old Eagle School Road.

I have additional “Ban” signs ready to go up in the next couple of weeks and I ask that you ask you friends, neighbors and co-workers to sign the “Ban the Digital Billboard” petition on Change.org. (Click here for the link to share).

Paoli, Pennsylvania is not New York City, Chicago or Philadelphia … It’s our community, we love it and don’t want a digital billboard!

 Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Community Matters © 2019 Frontier Theme