What is the price tag for economic development in Tredyffrin Township? Is it economic development at any cost; or is the answer to the question … whatever it takes.
Is it OK to ‘green light’ a land development project in Tredyffrin Township even if it doesn’t meet current zoning regulations? Is it OK to change zoning usage to suit a particular developer (and his plan) simply for the sake of economic development? Is it OK to change zoning to accommodate a specific project and developer … and by so doing, change zoning for the entire township? Is it OK to have developers and their attorneys create zoning ordinance amendment changes to Tredyffrin Zoning Code … to suit their particular needs?
I’m talking about the old Duffy Catering site on Lancaster Ave. and the proposed assisted living facility. No land development plan has been ‘officially’ filed with the township, yet there are some appointed and elected officials who seemingly already have the facility built! Facts and the required process seemed to have been discarded in favor of what ‘some’ officials believe should be the desired outcome. In this case, that means change zoning to allow a developer to construct a multi-story assisted living facility on barely 1 acre of commercial property when current zoning only permits such use on 10 acres as an institutional overlay.
At first blush, a resident might think that building an assisted living facility on the old Duffy property on Route 30 is a good idea. Before knowing all the facts, I probably would have agreed that this sounds like a good use for the property. I’m not opposed to an assisted living facility in Tredyffrin Township and …, as long as an open and transparent process is followed, all questions are answered and no rules are changed or broken, such a project could have my complete support.
But unfortunately, that is not looking like the path that is being taken for this project. The Duffy property is a 2-acre site, with approximately 1-acre C-1 zoning and 1-acre R-1 zoning. (The R-1 parcel of the property was used by Duffy’s for parking). Current zoning does not permit an assisted living facility in C-1 or R-1 in Tredyffrin Township. Rather than taking the traditional path seeking either a variance or conditional use, the developer Ed Morris, through his attorney Denise Yarnoff have submitted a C-1 zoning ordinance amendment change, to allow assisted living as usage. (As I have previously stated on Community Matters, Planning Commission meeting minutes indicate that Yarnoff thought that seeking a variance would be too costly and too time-consuming for her client.)
The Tredyffrin Zoning Code addresses assisted living facilities in Institutional Overlay (IO) Zoning and includes 4 pages of restrictions and regulations, including residential density, bed density, acre requirements, buffers, setbacks, etc. Ms. Yarnoff reduces the pages of assisted living facility regulations in Tredyffrin Zoning Code to 1 sentence in her requested zoning ordinance amendment as follows:
“A 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 statues, rules and regulations along with support services, which may include, but not limited to: personal health care and health care services, medical services, skilled nursing, community facilities, and congregate dining facilities”
I need to be very clear … this requested zoning ordinance amendment change is for all C-1 zoned property in Tredyffrin Township. The developer and some of our local officials would like to have it both ways. On one side, they refuse to admit that this requested zoning amendment change permitting assisted living facilities as a usage in C-1 zoning is ‘spot zoning’. But on the other hand, they would have us believe that there would be no plans for assisted living facilities in any other C-1 locations. Sorry, but I don’t think they can have it both ways.
For the record, ‘spot zoning’ as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
: the illegal singling out of a small parcel of land within the limits of an area zoned for particular uses and permitting other uses for that parcel for the special benefit of its owners and to the detriment of the other owners in the area and not as a part of a scheme to benefit the entire area.
I would love for someone to explain to me how changing zoning to suit a specific developer and his plan is not ‘spot zoning’ … looks to me like the Duffy assisted living project fits Webster’s definition!
The draft plan for this assisted living facility indicates a bed density of 93 beds on 1 acre. It is my understanding that this level of proposed 1-acre residential density for the Duffy property does not exist anywhere else in all of Chester County! It is also interesting to note, that changing C-1 to permit an assisted living facility usage also has not occurred in Chester County. Commercial zoning is for the regulations of goods and services not people; which is why assisted living facilities would typically be found in residential zoning code not in commercial zoning code.
Here’s something else — when Duffy’s was an operational catering business, the R-1 parking (non-conforming use of land for parking) was utilized. The developer’s plan for an assisted living facility on this site assumes the continued use of R-1 parking; a belief that this non-conforming parking use would be grandfathered in and therefore available for use in the proposed assisted living facility. A review of the Tredyffrin Zoning Code would indicate otherwise – see below:
§208-99. Nonconforming buildings or uses.
Zoning, Chapter 208, page 108
D. Restoration. Building reconstruction to restore a building containing a nonconforming use shall commence within one year of the date the building was destroyed or condemned and shall be carried on without interruption.
[Amended 9-10-2007 by Ord. No. HR-360]
E. Discontinuance. If a nonconforming use of land or of a building ceases or is discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more, subsequent use of such building or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
The Duffy property has sat vacant (and for sale) for at least 4 years, which means (according to Tredyffrin Zoning Code above) that the developer for this proposed assisted living facility cannot use the R-1 parcel for parking in his plan. Clearly exceeding the discontinued use of 1 year per the Tredyffrin Zoning Code, no grandfathering on the R-1 parking is permitted. We can add this to the list that makes this proposed assisted living facility at this particular location problematic. Or, is it possible that our elected officials may just ignore the township’s Zoning Code to accommodate the project?
We should not forget that two months ago, our supervisors voted to spend $100,000 for consultants to review the township’s existing commercial zoning and make recommendations. If the township is spending $100K for professional zoning advice, it would seem that there should be a moratorium on any zoning changes until the zoning expert has an opportunity review and weigh in. My guess is that setting precedent by changing C-1 zoning to include assisted living facilities without any regulations or restrictions would not be something that most zoning experts would think is a good idea. If an assisted living facility as a usage in C-1 zoning is so important, why wasn’t it included in the update of the township’s comprehensive plan completed just 3 years ago, in 2009?
Why is there such a sense of fait accompli among some of the appointed and elected officials in this township in regards to this project? The proposed assisted living project may have started out as a ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) zoning battle between a Daylesford homeowner and a developer but now has many of us in the community asking questions. Perhaps originally only concerned for her backyard, Trisha Larkin, the Daylesford Neighborhood Association president is now taking a stand for her neighborhood and for the township.
Voicing strong opposition for the requested C-1 zoning change and the proposed assisted living facility, Trish states, “The DNA favors economic development where solid process is followed, and when it serves for the greater good of its residents. This proposal favors the developer and NOT our community or Tredyffrin Twp.!”
An online ipetition has been created to “Oppose Ordinance Amendment adding Assisted Living Facility use in Commercial (C-1) Zoning in Tredyffrin Township”. Changing C-1 zoning to include assisted living is not just a Daylesford neighborhood issue; it is a township wide change. If you would like to add your name to the petition, click here.
For some of the appointed and elected officials in this township, the requested C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living facilities may be a fait accompli, but for some residents, that decision may be far from over.
Again, I ask … what is the price tag for economic development in Tredyffrin Township?
25 CommentsAdd a Comment
I find the debate over and elder care facility at Duffy’s former location to be amusing.
I remember the major fights over the development of Chesterbrook in the 70’s. Many of the people who launched the major battles ended up living in Chesterbrook!
The same could happen here!
Pattye: Thanks for continuing to shed light on this topic. Only with transparency will we find the answer to your “price tag” question. You hit the nail on the head – what started out as “NIMBY” has completely transformed into an extensive quest for answers from the Twp.
I’ve reached out to all 7 supervisors to ask their opinion on the matter. Not one will meet with me or the DNA. We only want some insight as to WHY they’re considering a zoning change that NO other municipallity in Chester County adopts? All other ALFs live in IO districs, heavy residential areas, or industrial parks. One municipality does allow ALF use in C-2, but it STILL requires a special exception and MUST be on 5 acres.
Dare I echo your sentiments on spot zoning? When the DNA asked that question at the Town Hall meeting on 5/9, we were swatted down with a vengeance. When we questioned why Institutional Overlay was not relevant to the discussion, we were treated like we had no clue what we were talking about. We’ve spent months researching the specifics, we just want answers.
However (sadly) not one of these elected officials has agreed to meet with us. They’ve asked us to wait until the July 19th Planning Commission Meeting. It’s come to my attention that Ed Morris/Denise Yarnoff have access to the Planning Commissioners/Supervisors, but we (Tredyffrin Township residents) do not.
If you live in Tredyffrin, PLEASE consider signing the i-petition. We appreciate your support!!
President, Daylesford Neighborhood Assn (DNA)
Quick request for those signing the i-petition, please don’t sign in as “Anonymous”. We appreciate your support, but when we roll this up to the Supervisors, they’ll need to see actual Tredyffrin Township Resident names. THX!!
It is my opinion that this is not spot zoning as I do feel that this will serve the greater good of its residents. Given our aging population Asssited Living facilities are needed. I do not feel that this project would be to the detriment of other owners in the area, in fact I think it would benefit the entire area.
It is my understanding that an apartment building with the same footprint along with a retail business would be allowed to be built on the Duffy property. Perhaps less units would be allowed in an apartment building but that scenario would most likely create more traffic and noise, thus a less desirable neighbor within our community. An assisted Living facility would have less cars and less activity than an apartment building.
An Assisted Living facility is far more appealing to me than a gas station or a WaWa. I live in close proximity to this project and I think an assisted living facility could make for the perfect neighbor and a much needed entity.
If rules or zoning never changed my house would never have been built as this neighborhood was a Golf course some years ago. I suspect the zoning changed back then to accommodate the growing need for housing in the suburbs just as the need for more assisted living facilities could be a cause to change zoning now.
Pattye – As a regular reader of CM, I’ve yet to actually post something myself. That changes today. I don’t pretend to know what’s going on in the mind of the elected officials. However, this developer-driven proposal does smell of spot zoning. I just signed the petition and I plan to get involved, where normally I would just observe from afar. Keep up the good work!
So this zoning change will affect the entire township? AND no other township allows this type of use on such a small parcel of land? What are the elected officials thinking? What’s driving them to make such an irrational, short-sighted decision? Economic development? Hardly. This is all developer-driven! What back-door deal has he made with our elected officials? Who’s up for re-election? This is politics – at its WORST. Sign me up for the petition.
Help me understand the status please. Right now the developer’s attorney has spoken. No township meeting held in the Sunshine has been convened for the purpose of addressing this, right? Where are we concerned that this is a back room deal? If someone wanted to meet with Supervisors on this site, what would be available to formally address? Has anything come before them on this to our “official” knowledge or are we just worried this is happening? I think I missed something? Thanks.
I live east of Daylesford and like many of those folks,in close proximity to C1 zoning. Although currently developed and occupied, I guess if this ordinance passes, the owners of the retail space may decide to sell out to a health care/assisted living provider. Heck, if its this easy to beat the local zoning system, maybe I should make my home (zoned R1) in to a nursing home. Any idea who is driving this project – sounds crazy.
As a Deepdale resident, I’m guessing that there’s plenty of commercial zoning near neighboring Lancaster Avenue. I grew up here and stay here specifically for the schools, neighborhood, and access to great stores/restaurants. It’s disturbing to think that this zoning change could alter what we all love about the Main Line! If we wanted to live in a high-density (city-like) area – we’d live there!
I pass by the Duffy property every time we go to visit my mother-in-law at Sunrise (Paoli/Malvern). If you’re telling me that an assisted living home will fit on that small Duffy lot – you’ve got to be out of your mind! I just don’t see how it will fit! Who’d want to live there? It has nothing nearby! I don’t know much about the Daylesford area (I’m sure it’s a nice neighborhood), but it offers nothing for an assisted living resident. Why can’t this be built somewhere else (Paoli maybe)?? Why must the developer change the zoning? Is there no other space available? I find that hard to believe given the “Sale” signs posted all over the township.
Why would Tredyffrin put their neck on the line to be the first to adopt assisted living in commercial zoning areas? Makes no sense. Keep Tredyffrin as is! If we want to move to the city – we will.
That type of residential density belongs in the city, not Tredyffrin Twp. I’m all for “economic development”, but this usage (assisted living) does not fit in commercial zoning. It’s disappointing to hear that so many concessions may be awarded to this developer. The nearby residents are left living with the aftermath. Sounds like they have a real grass-roots effort on their hands. Typical politics.
Pattye, you’ve done a great job bringing the issues together here. It’s been very disheartening to learn about the process our Supervisors are allowing this Developer to take, and what little attention our own Supervisors are giving the residents.
I agree with Sue above, that assisted living is needed. I don’t think anyone’s debating that point. However, the issue here is whether Ed Morris should drive a zoning change across the entire township. No real review, no stipulations about the use, same usage buffers as all other C-1, even thought the use is clearly institutional. That’s absurd. Additionally, why would we consider a zoning change based on this specific property request, when the usage of parking isn’t even permitted on this property?
Yes, an apartment building could be built there under C-1 zoning. However, as opposed to stuffing 93 people in, the market would drive the units to at least 2-4 times the size, limiting to probably 25 units tops. As for traffic, I believe a small apartment building would create considerably less of it. Consider the number of units in Oak Knoll, and number of cars parked in their roads, yet when I walk or drive by, I only pass a vehicle going in or out maybe once in every ten times I go by.
As for noise, the kind of people interested in buying or renting apartments across the street from the train station, far from a “town center”, are probably a quiet bunch. Not my first choice, but like I said to Ed Morris during our last phone conversation – If you can build it under existing zoning without requiring any changes or variances, I may not support it, but I wouldn’t stand against it. He committed to me that this was the case. And he lied. Then Ed lied again in front of many of us at the meeting that one of our neighbors had to pay to sponsor, just so we could learn about his plans.
With all the easements the township granted on the property when the Dufy’s owned it, I would be surprised to see a gas station or Wawa ever want to be there, but frankly the idea of driving my lawn mower over to fill ‘er up appeals to me!
At this point it’s not about just the fact that Ed Morris has not been honest throughout the process, or whether an ALF is or is not good use on this space. The issues are whether C-1 zoning across our whole township should change – for this Developer’s request. Not because the township has done a study and learned there would be a good reason. For this project. That makes it spot zoning. Add to that the parking issue, and the fact that the Supervisors have turned a deaf ear to the residents, and the whole thing stinks.
While I very much appreciate your staying on top of this issue Pattye, I wonder if you would share with us who are the people you reference here? Are you concluding this from public meetings or just your sense of what they are promoting? ” For some of the appointed and elected officials in this township, the requested C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living facilities may be a fait accompli, but for some residents, that decision may be far from over.”
In my exchange with elected officials, I have yet to hear any of them suggest that they think this will go forward as proposed, as it has not even been filed with the planning commission. One person suggested that zoning around here has gotten so lax they wondered why they wouldn’t have just gone for a zoning variance (reference to the new outdoor patio at Landmark — where music won’t be outside, but will be piped out there).
If you are aware of some folks on Planning or are supervisors who think it’s a done deal, then perhaps you are a step ahead of what my contacts know. Has anyone officially acted in this regard?
TR – I am not comfortable mentioning names, which is why I used ‘some’ in the post, rather than specific names. I am hopeful that with some sunshine on the situation (and more engagement from the residents), we can look forward to increased transparency in this process.
No problem, but unless this project has a specific public champion, there really is nothing to protest or to protest to until it goes to the Planning commission or is in a hearing for the Township. Right now, without a public face on the people you are concerned consider this a done deal, I don’t believe there is anything to openly be concerned with. If someone steps forward as a champion or is greasing the skids, THEN the public has a person/fact to address. Good luck and please keep us posted if/when this becomes an agenda item for us to comment on. Thanks!
It is truly regrettable that the Township apparently is, and will be, spending an inordinate amount of time trying to shoehorn a legally questionable, large institutional use and building into one C-1 acre adjacent to the Daylesford residential neighborhood. Rather, the Township should be actively, openly, and with vigor focusing its political will and energy on tangible results for the long delayed revitalization of Paoli, where plans for a walkable, business friendly town center, attractive, structured parking, and a modern transportation center are well along and would bring quality of life and economic benefits to Tredyffrin and its residents. Now, that would be time well spent.
First I think we have to be honest with ourselves here – how many of you were/are for the Paoli Transportation Center? Seems to me there is a raging hypocrisy here – where were you in 2007 when Tredyffrin rezoned a large swath of Paoli from C-1 to the super high density, Town Center District? You think traffic is bad on Route 252 and East Central Avenue now? Just wait.
When people believe a change may benefit them, they are less likely to care who’s negatively affected by the development. Nobody envisions themselves in a assisted living facility, so they can’t support it’s development. However, if Paoli can redevelop their train station with the inclusion of high-density apartments, spiffy retail attractions, and other perceived “benefits” to the greater good, no one really cares about the effects the development may have on the surrounding neighborhoods. Sorry for going off topic here, I’d just like to point out that we’re all for and against NIMBYism depending on the perceived “benefit.” Full disclosure, I’m a Valley Hills resident.
Maybe I am missing something here, but you seem to be in a place diametrically opposed to where you were on St. Davids sidewalks.
In that case, you argued strongly that the BOS had no real right to do what they did, it was the PC. Now, when the process is just beginning — and the proper process is to go to the PC — you are arguing the Supervisors aren’t doing anything, etc. Basically, for following the process you argued so vehemently for before, you are now hanging them.
To me, it looks like you want it both ways. Or, you can simply not be made happy.
As for Ms. Larkin, she seems to be wanting the wrong people to talk to her right now — it should be the PC, not the BOS.
A question: is there anything actually in front of the PC yet, or is that what the 19th is about? If it isn’t even formally before the PC yet, how can you get angry at the BOS?
Finally, as for the ordinance changes, they do ultimately go through the BOS but I get no real feel whether that is a month or a year or more away.
Regardless of how the BOS decided on the enforcement of the St. Davids sidewalks, for the record — there still are NO sidewalks at St. Davids. I drove by that club this week and nothing has changed. Period. Nada. I was asking for ‘enforcement’ of a contract that was signed years ago between the township and the golf club but as of this past weekend when I drove by has yet to be enforced. And to be certain, I stopped my car and got out and walked the stretch of road next to St. Davids across from Mt. Pleasant — no sidewalks, gravel path, walkway, nor any evidence that the project has started. Sadly for me, about a month ago a twp supervisor called me and told me the good news that the sidewalk project had started. I will not name this person, but unfortunately he/she gave me incorrect information. Even though I live in the Great Valley, I can on occasion drive to St. Davids and I made a special trip to see for myself, only to be disappointed.
It is actually because of St. Davids and that land development ‘project’ ??? that was the reason for my initial interest in the Daylesford project. To be clear, St. Davids land development project required NO zoning change — just a process to enforce a contract. If a contract is signed, it needs to be enforced. I said over and over again, I didn’t have a strong opinion of whether sidewalks should go at St. Davids or not. However, the legal agreement signed by St. Davids and the township as part of the land development agreement required sidewalks and I wanted the process to be completed, which included sidewalks. How many years has it been?? And no one probably cares whether the sidewalks are enforced per the agreement other than me and the residents of Mt. Pleasant. At some point, I have to ask myself why I care so much about any of this, except I am one of those people who believes that if you start a project or a process, you see it through to completion. It’s really that simple.
People seem to be pending over backwards for the Daylesford project and that is without any land development plan. And yes, there have been private meetings with the the developer and their attorney — just not in public ‘officially’. This is firsthand information but no, again I’m not going to name ‘names’. I believe in ‘opening the windows and the doors’ on transparency. So although the PC may not meet until July 19, let’s just say that the project is moving along behind the scenes. By the time July 19th rolls around, the 1 sentence zoning amendment request submitted by Denise Yarnoff will probably have been expanded. Remember there were 4 pages of requirements/restrictions for assisted living in the Zoning Code but gosh, you can’t fault a good lawyer for starting out with 1 sentence. She was looking to get the best deal for her client, I get that — but there have been meetings and the wording is being expanded. Maybe some reading Community Matters think that because nothing is in the public eye it cannot be possible that it is moving along, it is. When you are talking about changing C-1 zoning for the entire township, I think it is important. If writing about this zoning change, increases awareness from a few more residents than I am satisfied.
As to whether I can be made ‘happy’ … I’d be happy if projects like St. Davids sidewalks got completed without a resident having to threaten a lawsuit or continuously ask for an update. I’d be happy if light bulbs got replaced when they were needed — it should not take 27 years and a request from me to get the 20+ light bulbs working on Chesterbrook Blvd. To her credit, EJ Richter did take on the light bulb project and I publicly thanked her for her efforts and do so again here. I’d be happy if we had greater accountability, transparency and communication.
For the record, 4 or 5 trees along Upper Gulph Road on the Golf Club’s property, where the sidewalk will be constructed, were removed and stumps ground about a month ago. So the project has started…but there’s clearly much more work to be done.
Thank you. I went back to Upper Gulph today and I did find some trees down on the south side beyond the church — I had looked on the golf club property on the other side, opposite Mt. Pleasant. The trees are gone and the stumps ground down even with the ground.
Thanks Carla. I though they were working on it — and I had seen chips or gravel down (I was driving) so I assumed it was underway. As someone who has been detoured off Upper Gulph for weeks and weeks now with whatever is happening along the stretch between Conestoga and Old Eagle, I’m pretty glad they stopped working on that stretch as it’s quite a challenge to get some places without going to Route 30 with just Upper Gulph under construction. I’ve come to see Pugh Road and King of Prussia Road way more often than I would like.
Based on Supv DiBuenaventuro attitude towards the neighbors at the town hall meeting it was obvious the project has his support. How do I know, I attended the meeting. Supervisors are elected to serve us, the residents, and I think meeting with residents over zoning issues should be part of the job description. Changing C1 zoning effects the entire township.
Thank you DR. So at least if we want more information, we can ask DiB for his take on it. If he is championing it, then he’s a good target for questions.
Daylesford Resident: Many DNA members called/emailed me post-Town Hall meeting to echo your sentiments. They felt unsupported and (quite frankly) poorly treated by 1 of the elected officials, and 1 PC member in particular.
I (like Pattye) choose to not attach a name. I have a feeling they know who they are.
On 5/11, (2 days after the Town Hall Meeting), I called one of the Supervisors and requested we meet to recap what Morris/Yarnoff presented re: C-1 zoning change. I mentioned that several DNA members felt dismissed. We agreed to meet on 5/17, but I received a cancellation email the night before.
A few days later, I emailed a request to reschedule. I provided an agenda so we could have transparency and make the best use of our time. This supervisor said that Mr. DiBuonaventuro should join us since it pertains to the 3rd district. Seems reasonable, no problem! Agenda items (from my email):
1. Why was Institutional Overlay found to be irrelevant by Mimi Gleason at the Town Hall mtg?
2. Why was it continuously reported in PC/BOS minutes that there was no opposition to this proposal?
3. Who did the BOS/PC ask besides Ed Morris/Denise Yarnoff if there was opposition? We didn’t even know there WAS a proposed ordinance amendment in the works.
4. Why has no revision been made to the PC/BOS minutes since following the Town Hall Meeting it’s now public knowledge (although not videotaped) that opposition exists?
5. Why is there not a moratorium on commercial zoning until the independent consultant comes back with some solid recommendations?
6. If/when Mr. Morris submits his proposal requesting that the usage of Assisted Living be added to C-1 zoning, what process/requirements will be used for acres/lot size/bed density – all the items that are in IO?
7. If/when C-1 zoning is changed by including Assisted Living to its usage – is this open to the ENTIRE TWP?
8. Who should be my primary Twp. point of contact moving forward? Sounds like JD, just wanted to make sure.
9. The DNA requests to be added to any future discussions/agendas that the BOS/PC/ZHB entertain surrounding this project.
On 5/24 (in lieu of meeting with me), JD emailed me answers to those questions. I was told that my point of contact was to be Matt Baumann moving forward. However, I still wanted to meet to discuss how the DNA members felt poorly treated and I wasn’t crystal clear on some of the answers in the email Some answers were pretty vague. I was instructed that we needed to wait until the July 19th PC meeting to have a voice.
On a brighter note, the DNA”s request to be notified on anything “official” from Yarnoff/Morris was granted on 5/24 when Matt Baumann emailed me their C-1 ordinance amendment.
6/1 – Now that Morris/Yarnoff were scheduled for the 7/19 PC meeting, I wanted to try one last time to meet with each supervisor just to get a “gut” reaction on their C-1 change. Since it contains NO restrictions, come on – they MUST have an initial reaction, no? I emailed each supervisor and requested a meeting.
By coincidence, while meeting with Matt Baumann at the Township Building on 6/1, one of the Supervisors just happened to be outside the door. We introduced ourselves and he told me to my face he’d meet with me. Emailed him…Never heard back.
A 2nd supervisor responded to my email and agreed to meet on 6/8. The night before, I received a call that they had to cancel. WHY? That supervisor was told by another supervisor that I’m at risk of bringing a lawsuit against the township. Pardon me? News to me.
A 3rd supervisor responded to my email and agreed to a meeting…but then I never heard back.
From the West – On 2/23 a meeting was held at the UMLY. A PC member in attendance said (in not so many words) that he supported the project. Now, that was several months ago, but it was pretty clear where he stood. Not sure if anything’s changed. On 5/9 after the Town Hall meeting, another PC member told my husband and I that he was supporting the project. Period.
I appreciate all the support from the Tredyffrin residents that have signed the petition so far. Please keep them coming!
Wow, what poor treatment of the constituents by the supervisors.They are elected to serve the residents of the township. It looks like they forgot that. How can they not be willing to have a simple meeting with the residents?