Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 99 of 130

Tredyffrin Township

I am very supportive of our local firefighters and all that they do for the community. In addition to keeping the residents safe, our volunteer fire companies (Radnor, Berwyn and Paoli) also engage in year-round fundraising efforts. I’m happy to publicize an upcoming fundraiser for Paoli Fire Company – the community is invited to attend and show their support.

On Tuesday, June 8, 6-10 PM, at TJ’s Restaurant & Drinkery in Paoli, the community is invited to show their support of our Paoli firefighters with a firkin. TJ’s is participating in Philly Beer Week 2010, June 4 – 13 and on Tuesday night will be showing their support with proceeds going to the Paoli Fire Company. Firkins will be coming from Flying Fish, Sly Fox, Dock Street, Stoudts, Troegs, and Yards. Firkins will be tapped at 4 PM; brewers, reps and the Paoli firefighters will arrive at 6 PM.

Not understanding the world of beer-making, I admit that I did not have a clue about firkins. Firkin? What is Firkin? I did a bit of research and found that a firkin is a type of keg that contains “real ale,” also known as “cask-conditioned ale.” So what’s that? Cask-conditioned ale is beer that is naturally carbonated, because the beer is put in the sealed cask, or firkin, before fermentation is complete. The gas produced by the fermentation is then absorbed in the beer. That produces a gentle, natural carbonation. Carbonation in standard kegged and bottled beer is produced by adding carbon dioxide (Co2), or sometimes nitrogen, after fermentation. That’s what gives most beer its fizz.

I may not completely understand the process of a firkin, but I do understand the importance of supporting our firefighters . . . hope to see you Tuesday night at TJ’s!

There are hundreds of events scheduled throughout the city and suburbs for Philly Beer Week 2010. For a full list of participating venues, click here.

Does Tredyffrin Township Need an Ethics Board?

June 4, 2010

13 Comments

Does Tredyffrin Township need an Ethics Board? Our neighbor, Radnor Township has an Ethics Board which meets on a ‘as needed’ basis. According to Radnor’s website, their Ethics Board . . .hears and investigates any complaints of alleged ethics violations and may render confidential advisory opinions. Their Ethics Board consists of four members, serving five-year terms plus the President of the Board of Commissioners. If we use Radnor’s model, Bob Lamina as chair of the Board of Supervisors would serve on the Board.

Although an Ethics Board presents an interesting tool for local government and the community, is it really necessary or would it help guide the leadership? Interesting question but does our local government need an ethics code? I just don’t know if a ‘ethics code’ would actually make a difference. What is needed are leaders who know conflict of interest when they see one and who avoid it scrupulously. Appearances and public perception play an enormously important role in the effectiveness of our elected officials and the well-being of the community. The point of ethical behaviour from our local leaders is to improve both the perception and the reality of integrity in our local government and to encourage, not discourage, citizens from participating in the government.

Ethics is all about making choices. Here is an interesting statement from the Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors, ” . . . As one political expert likes to put it, we’ve entered a “moment in ethical time.” Ever since Watergate, the public has been increasingly insistent that public officials, from senators to township supervisors, walk the straight and narrow. It’s a demand that fueled the passage of ethics laws in many states, including Pennsylvania, where one thing is clear: If you are going to play in the political arena, you better behave. And it’s a mandate that begs the question: How ethical are you?”

Brandywine Conservancy Easement on Hawkins Property Cannot be ‘Undone’

June 3, 2010

16 Comments

I continue to receive interesting information on the Agnes Irwin’s proposed land development plan in of playing fields on the Hawkins property in Berwyn. As I have previously explained, Berwyn neighbors to the Hawkins property have received anonymous emails and letters from supporters of Irwin’s proposed playing fields. Some of the communication makes claims of other possible buyers, including the Tredyffrin Easttown School District. Much discussion has circled around the Brandywine Conservancy easement and the suggestion by some that the conservancy easement could be broken to allow for other usage of the land.

This may help to set the record straight. I have received a copy of a letter dated March 22, 2010 from Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director of Brandywine Conservancy to the Board of Supervisors, Easttown Township. In reading the letter, there should be no misunderstanding on the issue of the easement protection of the Hawkins property – see excerpt below:

A conservation easement is a restrictive covenant voluntarily placed on land which allows a legally qualified conservation organization (in this case, the Brandywine Conservancy) to enforce it. Conservation easements usually run with the land in perpetuity, as does the Hawkins easement. For many years, conservation easements have been recognized and enforced by the Pennsylvania courts as valid property restrictions, and the Pennsylvania legislature codified these legal principles in 2001 in the Pennsylvania Conservation and Preservation Easements Act (Act 29 of 2001).

The Brandywine Conservancy has over forty years of experience upholding and defending the conservation easements it holds and will continue to do so. It is simply not true (as we have been hearing) that the easement can simply be ignored or “undone” and a housing development, large or small, built on the property.

On the subject of Tredyffrin Easttown School District’s interest in the Hawkins property, I received some new information. I was told that this information is widely known; however it was news to me. Apparently the T/E School Board passed on buying the Hawkins property because they did not want to challenge the open space easements. (In order to build a school would have required the School Board to challenge the conservancy easement). I had previously suggested that the current school budget situation would not have been financially possible at this time. Apparently I stand corrected. I have been told that the School Board could afford to purchase the Hawkins property as the District has a AAA bond rating, but it was determined that the land was not suitable for a school (due to the restrictions associated with the property).

If the T/E School District did not think that T/E could change the easements on the Hawkins property, . . . how is that Agnes Irwin School thinks it has any better chance? Also, remember that our School Board has the ability to condemn property for government need whereas Agnes Irwin’s does not enjoy that same ability.

Supporters of Agnes Irwin School Using Scare Tactics in Berwyn Neighborhood Over Land Development Plans

June 2, 2010

8 Comments

I recently posted an article Agnes Irwin School’s continued quest to purchase Berwyn property for playing fields. This is an important topic and one that should not be buried by more recent posts. In today’s Main Line Suburban Life there is a Letter to the Editor from one of the neighbors of this proposed property purchase. Jan Semmer’s letter speaks directly to the issues of tactics being used by supporters of the playing field purchase. Below is Ms. Semmer’s Letter to the Editor followed by my article, ‘Agnes Irwin School Purchase of Berwyn Property for Playing Fields Remains an Open Issue!’.

Here is Ms. Semmer’s Letter to the Editor:

Agnes Irwin School and supporters play dirty

To the Editor:

Agnes Irwin School (AIS) is attempting to change zoning in Easttown Township to install athletic fields and associated infrastructure at the former Hawkins estate at 1035 Sugartown Road, Berwyn. Based on the facts and a thorough review of their application, the proposed zoning change was unanimously voted down at the Easttown Township Board of Supervisors meeting on April 5, 2010. Instead of accepting their defeat, AIS (who claims to be very community-oriented) and supporters are stooping to new lows and are determined to break ground in the very community that doesn’t want them.

I’m dismayed at the scare tactics that AIS and their supporters are using. Supporters of this project hide behind unsigned letters to township residents and have created anonymous e-mail addresses to scare the residents into thinking that the AIS proposal is the best possible use of the current space. I won’t dignify the misinformation being broadcast by repeating it here, and some of it is borderline racist, but if these letters and e-mails were indeed factual, why are they not signed? Why use anonymous spam email addresses unless the senders know their points will not stand up to public debate?

I’m disappointed that a school that is educating young girls would allow for such tactics. If they will stoop this low to get the zoning changed, why should we believe their ultimate motives are only athletic fields?

A disappointed resident,

Jill Semmer, Berwyn

Thank you to Ms. Semmer for her Letter to the Editor. My earlier article on the same topic may offer some background information on the proposed land purchase by Agnes Irwin. Ms. Semmer mentions the use of anonymous email addresses and unsigned correspondence that is circulating in the Berwyn community. I have copies of several of these letters/emails and provide quotes from the correspondence. The following article may help you better understand the proposed land purchase agreement by Agnes Irwin:

____________________________________________________________

Purchase of Berwyn Property for Playing Fields Remains an Open Issue!

In addition to Delaware Valley Friends School’s playing field and the impact their turf field has had on its neighbors, another recent story re playing fields is coming back to light. In early March, I wrote about the Alexandra Hawkins estate in Easttown; this large property (106 acres) in Berwyn had been vacant for a couple of years since Mrs. Hawkins passing. Mrs. Hawkins had no children and no heirs; the majority of her estate was left to Bryn Mawr College (her alma mater). Earlier this year, the Agnes Irwin School in Rosemont entered the local Berwyn real estate market picture with a proposal to purchase the Hawkins property on Sugartown Road and convert it to athletic fields for its students. The agreement included an attached purchase price in excess of $6 million.

The agreement between Irwins and the Hawkins estate caused an immediate concern among neighbors of the proposed playing fields. Easttown zoning in R-1 does not permit education use or athletic fields and 26 of the 106 acres of land are protected by the Brandywine Conservancy easement. A special Easttown Township supervisors hearing was held in late March 2010 to discuss the project and proposed change of usage. The Planning Commissioners had not been in favor of the project but sent it on to the supervisors for a special hearing.

Representatives from Irwins explained the project included adding 2 turf fields, 2 grass fields, 2 softball fields, a track, a 5,000 sq. ft. facility, 100 space parking lot and drop off area for buses. The Berwyn neighbors attended the meeting and presented strong opposition to the project. A variety of issues and concerns related to Irwins project were presented including increased traffic and congestion, additional noise, related stormwater problems, etc.

There was also an underlying thought that the purchase of the Hawkins property as playing fields was a smokescreen by Irwins; that the ultimate future plan was that the school itself would eventually relocate to this Berwyn site. (Much like Episcopal Academy’s new home in Newtown Square). Agnes Irwin is located in Rosemont on 16 acres, so it is not a stretch for Easttown residents to wonder whether Irwins real objective is to relocate the school to the Hawkins property with its 106 acres. Also, why would the school require the Irwins students to commute the 20 min from their school, for practice and games at the Berwyn location? Why would the school spend in excess of $6 million for playing fields when the Hawkins property is reportedly worth $4-5 million? These questions and others swirled around this proposed land development project.

When the supervisors vote was taken on the Irwins proposed plan, there was an unanimous defeat (4-0, Marc Heppe recused himself). I assumed (and I’m guessing so did many of the Berwyn neighbors) that with the proposed plan defeated, the proposed land development project in Easttown ended, and that Irwins would look elsewhere for their playing fields. Apparently I assumed incorrectly; I have discovered that the girls school and their representatives are not giving up so easily.

Since the defeat of Irwins proposed land development project, a number of anonymous letters and emails have circulated in the Berwyn community concerning the schools continued interest in the purchase of the Hawkins property. In reading the annonymous communications, I have been surprised by the tone and approach of some of the supporters of this project. A very official-looking email address is used in some of the correspondence – indicating ‘Hawkins Farm’ as the originator.

Neighbors of the Hawkins property have received correspondence encouraging the support for Irwins playing fields by suggesting what other prospective buyers may have in mind for the property. In other words, suggesting that the playing fields may be the ‘lesser of the evils’ depending on your vantage point. I have no knowledge as to whether some of these other prospective buyers exist or not. However, I am fairly confident that Tredyffrin Easttown School District (TESD) is not in a financial position to be making multi-million dollar real estate deals!

Here is an excerpt from the anonymous ‘Hawkins Farm’ email address received by neighbors. To protect the individual recipients, I will not indicate my sources of this or other Irwins – Hawkins correspondence.

Alternative uses for the Hawkins Estate

The property will be sold, her will (public record) specifies that the property be sold, and the recipients are noted area non-profit organizations. Typically the longer there is a delay in a sale; the lower the price will go, thus expanding the buyer pool.

Facts:
Easttown Township regulates the Zoning rules/regulations of the township, not the Brandywine Conservancy. Conservation Easements can be re-evaluated and adjusted to meet party’s needs.

Examples:
Easttown Township – the Castle Hill development off Waterloo Road. This land was transfered from John C. Haas to the Brandywine Conservancy to Castle Hill Realty (Bentley Homes) – to build houses on preserved ground.

Newtown Township – The Harrison Estate St. Davids Road, this land was transfered from the Harry W. Harrison Trust to the Brandywine Conservancy to Ghadwell Associates (Bentley Homes) – to build houses on preserved ground.

The Hawkins Estate has both AA and R-1 Zoning in place; the following uses are permitted. Permitted Uses By Right AA and R-1:
– Accessory Use
– Accessory Dwelling Unit
– Single Family Dwellings
– Farm
– Forestry
– Lot Averaging Development
– Sale of Agricultural Produce

Permitted Uses By Conditional Use AA and R-1:
– Bed and Breakfast
– Educational Use
– Place of Worship
– Riding Stable

Eminent Domain – the property presents a number of attractive attributes for local, state and federal government agencies and requirements.

It is known in the market tha the following parties have expressed interest in the property:
– T/E School District utilizing eminent domain
– A wealthy philanthropic family to purchase the property for their foundation to utilize the property for a camp for underprivileged children and teens
– A Faith – Based group utilizing Federal Fair Housing Laws for place of worship

Here is an excerpt from an anonymous letter sent to Leopard Lakes residents:

Dear Lakers,

As we must all be aware something is going to happen to the Hawkins Estate, hopefully it will be something that satisfies all us. I have heard that the Agnes Irwin School, which was turned down by the Township last month is trying to regroup and come back with a new proposal.

A close personal friend is an active real estate agent in Lower Merion, and we were discussing how the Agnes Irwin School was turned down by the Township. He informed of other potential buyers who are currently in the market, one in particular was of great concern. The potential buyer is The Foundation for Islamic Education, at 1860 Montgomery Avenue, Villanova. They are currently located on 20 acres and are in the market for a larger piece of ground. It is my understanding the Hawkins Estate fits much of their criteria. . . “

There is misinformation floating around the Berwyn neighborhood, and it appears that some of the fiction is an orchestrated attempt by Irwin supporters to change the minds of some of the local residents. The March special meeting of the Easttown supervisors indicated a unified opposition to Irwins land development plans and now it appears that the matter is far from over. The following fact sheet was put together prior to the special supervisors hearing in March and I find the myth vs. fact element valuable:

The Agnes Irwin School (AIS) has a proposal to develop playing fields and related facilities at the Hawkins Property (1035 Sugartown Road). The property is located in the AA and R-1 Residential Zoning Districts. The Agnes Irwin presentation will explain a proposal for zoning amendments to allow athletic fields on properties with a minimum gross lot area of 50 acres, and to amend the provisions for education uses (source: Easttown Township website).

Myth: The Agnes Irwin School (AIS) proposal is better than 250 homes. (R. Weiss, attorney for AIS, AIS meeting, 3/15/10)

Fact: Only 5 houses can be built on the Hawkins property without a zoning change. (source: p. 11 Brandywine Conservation Easement).

Myth: More playing fields would be great for our township for residents to use! (public comment, AIS meeting, 3/15/10)

Fact: AIS will use them daily from 4-6 PM, many Saturday, and for summer camp. When not in use by AIS, the tennis courts will be locked and a new entrance gate will be closed. AIS has not yet determined when the fields would specifically be available to Township residents (source: AIS meeting, 3/15/10)

Myth: This is a tax savings! Had the Township purchased this property, there would have been a bond or a tax increase for Easttown residents. (R. Weiss, attorney for AIS, AIS meeting, 3/15/10).

Fact: Easttown Township never looked at purchasing this property from Mrs. Hawkins’ Estate. The AIS proposal will decrease tax revenues to the Township since AIS will NOT pay property taxes (source: Easttown Twp, AIS).

Myth: Conservation easements get broken all the time. A developer will come in and break this one and do what they want (public comment, AIS meeting, 3/15/10)

Fact: Brandywine Conservancy has not had a conservation easement broken — their sole existence is to uphold conservation easements. This is a deed restriction in perpetuity for anyone purchasing the property. (source: Brandywine Conservancy).

The next meeting of Easttown’s Board of Supervisors is Monday, June 7. A very real sense from some in the Berwyn community exists that Irwins and their representatives have re-grouped from their defeat of March and are preparing to come back strong.

Will Irwins supporters be successful in their attempt to sway public opinion through the use of anonymous letters and email tactics?

State Representative Paul Drucker Supports Legislative Reform in Harrisburg

May 31, 2010

4 Comments

Over the holiday weekend, Pennsylvania State Representative Paul Drucker made a foray in to the world of local journalism. Coming on the heels of a statewide grand jury report which detailed reform proposals in the Commonwealth, was an article by Rep. Drucker discussing legislative reform policy which appeared in the May 30th edition of the Daily Local newspaper. (see complete article below).

I completely support Rep. Drucker’s appeal to terminate or at least drastically reduce taxpayer-funded political caucuses. As a start, I would appreciate the imposing of tougher ethics practices and the halt of all payments and benefits to staffers on leave to campaigns and ban compensatory time. If lasting reform is to be recognized in the Commonwealth, the polarization of party politics in Harrisburg needs to end.

Several months ago in Community Matters, I wrote about our state representatives usage of per diem (Pennsylvania legislators can use tax-free per diems for home purchase . . . what about taxability issues for fraud issues?)amounting to $155+/day and its ‘use’ considered a ‘legal perk’ of the job. Some Pennsylvania state legislators are using tax-free per diems as a means of financing real estate purchases. Annually, Pennsylvania taxpayers finance approximately $2.7 million in reimbursed per diems for our elected officials. Previously, I have voiced my concern to Rep Drucker in regards to what I view as misuse of per diems by some of our legislators (although seemingly legal); I am pleased to read that Rep. Drucker supports reform in this area. I would like to see the per diem payments to lawmakers stopped, or at least tied to actual expenses. Why should the taxpayers finance tax-free per diems for home purchases by our legislators?

The inherent problem is that any changes in Harrisburg require legislative approval and I’m betting that the legislature is in no rush to address these reforms. It is good to know that our own state representative supports change; and is willing to take a stand on behalf of Pennsylvania taxpayers.

Everybody Knows Reforms Are Needed

By PAUL DRUCKER, Guest Columnist

It is a sad day when it takes a grand jury to point out what the rest of us already know — that the state Legislature is in serious need of reform. In case you missed it, the grand jury that has been looking at the Bonusgate scandal for the past two years issued a report this week suggesting some badly needed changes to the way business is done in Harrisburg.

There are many of us who have been saying this for years. In fact, the need to make state government more responsive — and more deserving of the public’s trust — was one of the main reasons I decided to run for the state Legislature. I hope the grand jury recommendations are a wake-up call for those in the Legislature who want to keep things as they are. I personally think that when an impartial group of Pennsylvania citizens speaks about an issue this important, we should listen.

As outlined in a story printed in the Daily Local News this week, there are a number of recommendations made by the grand jury that I believe should be implemented, in order to restore public faith in state government and ensure its efficient functioning. Among these suggestions are:

Reducing the number of state employees. The average number of employees per state legislator is nine employees. I agree that this number is too high. I currently employ three full-time staff members for two offices, and one staff member who only works one day per week. Despite this, in 2009 my office was in the top 15 of constituents served out of all Democratic state representatives.

Fixing the budget process. The state budget process, as we all know, is broken. The lack of line-item control by the rank and file is frustrating and non-productive. The lack of communication between the two caucuses during budget negotiations sets the stage for budget battles and gridlock. As the grand jury recommends, I believe taxpayer-funded political caucuses should either be terminated, or modified drastically to help reduce paralyzing partisan politics.

Reforming discretionary accounts. The problem with these accounts is not the projects that are funded as much as the secretive process. I believe discretionary grant-making should be publicly disclosed, as Congress has done with appropriations earmarks.

The fact that there are separate, taxpayer-funded human resources, information technology and print shops for the Democratic and Republican caucuses is a waste of taxpayer dollars. State legislators’ staff should be employed by the state — not a political caucus. Salaries and job descriptions and all personnel matters should be handled by one state non-partisan office, as should IT support and print and copy needs.

The outdated practice of blanket per-diem payments needs to be modified. It is certainly fair to reimburse legislators when they are required to be in Harrisburg, away from home. I do accept per diem payments when I am required to be in Harrisburg, but I believe I have been prudent and have not abused the system. In addition, I do not use a state car, I do not accept reimbursement for mileage to attend district events (which would amount to a large sum of taxpayer dollars), my staff salary total is in the lower end of all representatives, and my staff has not received any raise in salary since my term began.

In July 2009, I stood with a bipartisan group of legislators and introduced a package of reforms. It included legislation that would require state representatives to pay a percentage of their salary toward their health care costs, redistricting legislation, and a ban on bonuses for all state employees. It also included legislation to create a searchable Web site to track all state legislative expenses over $1,000, and restrict the awarding of contracts that may result in public officials’ financial gain, including the financial gain of family members. These bills are now awaiting action by committees. They are all good ideas, and they need to be enacted into law, but it is unlikely that they will move unless all the members of the General Assembly feel more pressure for reform.

This is why the grand jury report this week is so important, and why we should be thanking them for their work — not dismissing them. Legislative reform must be one of the top priorities in Harrisburg, because important duties, like passing a responsible budget our constituents deserve — cannot be done efficiently until the house has been reformed.

For my part, I will continue to work toward change. I will press my colleagues to act on the package of reforms we introduced last year, and I will support legislation that improves the way Harrisburg works.

(Paul Drucker, of Wayne, represents the 157th Legislative District in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.)

Radnor’s Interim Finance Director Discovers a New Way to Lose $600K . . . Whoops, the shading was too dark to read!

May 29, 2010

31 Comments

Here’s a new excuse for an accounting mistake. It was announced this week at Radnor’s Board of Commissioner’s Meeting that the township lost $600K . . . rather they never actually had it. Apparently, some of the columns on the Excel accounting sheets are shaded too darkly to accurately read so the wrong numbers may have been picked up. When the township’s commissioners asked Alison Rudolf, Radnor’s interim finance director to explain why the actual and working budget numbers are different, her explanation begins with maybe there was an ‘absence of some zeros’! I couldn’t make this up — and to explain sloppy accounting with the excuse that the Excel spreadsheet’s shading was too dark!

Apparently, Commissioner John Fisher, who sits on the township’s finance and audit committee, complained in the past that the shading on the Excel spreadsheet was too dark . . . he told the residents at the commissioner’s meeting that he would lighten his own copy before printing so that it was readable. Even after Commissioner Fisher alerted the finance department of the situation, the shading problem was ignored. Lightening up the use of shading in a document does not take an advanced degree in computer science . . . and now this is the finance director’s excuse for the $600K accounting error!

The inability of the finance department to reconcile the books would have been a stunning revelation by itself; but for Radnor’s Township Manager and Finance Director to offer this kind of excuse is truly remarkable! Ms. Rudolf explained that the township uses two different kinds of accounting systems, one for budgeting and the other for everything else. The budget system uses Excel. The Excel spreadsheets were so darkly shaded that they were not readable, so Ms. Rudolf states it was difficult to read some of the entries! Are the residents to believe that the finance department then just guessed what the numbers were? Does this explain Ms. Rudolf’s assertion that perhaps some zeros just went missing?

Another problem with Radnor’s 2010 budget — the budget was based on a significant transfer of revenues from the Sewer Fund. (do you remember Tredyffrin’s Sewer Fund discussion from December?) It now looks as if the Radnor’s Board of Commissioners spent money from the Sewer Fund that was not there. A reduction in usage due to conservation efforts and the economic downturn meant another large shortfall in anticipated revenues.

One bright spot for Radnor’s residents is that this recent budget problem is forcing the commissioners and the township’s finance department to focus on the revenues and expenditures of their 2010 budget. I would also guess this situation will encourage 2011 budget discussions in Radnor Township earlier rather than later. And just remember, Radnor Township has an Interim Finance Director and this $600K error occurred . . . what does that say for Tredyffrin Township? We have not had a Finance Director since March. Maybe a status report on where the township stands with getting this position filled would be a good idea!

Will Delaware Valley Friends School and TEYSA listen to the neighbors concerns about field lighting and other issues?

May 27, 2010

Comments

Last night a diverse group of people came together at Delaware Valley Friends School to discuss Tredyffrin Easttown Youth Soccer Association’s (TEYSA) artificial turf field and the associated open resident issues related to its construction and current usage. Representatives from DVFS and TEYSA met with local residents from Valley Hills, Paoli Pointe and Paoli Apartments. Also in attendance was township solicitor Tom Hogan, Zoning Officer Emmy Balderserre and township supervisor Kampf.

I am currently in Seattle and therefore unable to attend the meeting. I did receive notes from several Valley Hills residents and I will offer a meeting summary. (For any of you who attended the meeting, please feel free to offer your comments). Residents left the meeting with a sense that progress was made with the airing and discussion of issues. Two particular issues surfaced in the discussion; the lighting of the turf field and landscaping replacement.

The general consensus among the East Central Avenue area residents was they would prefer there be no lighting of DVFS field. However, it is understood that the preferred ‘no lighting’ option is probably not realistic. With that said, the residents believe that the current ‘temporary lighting’ is less desirable than a permanent lighting solution which would include usage covenants. One of the problems with the temporary lighting is the requirement for a generator whereas permanent lighting would not require a generator. The running of the generator is very noisy and additionally the temporary lighting is deemed to be more invasive to the neighbors. Although TEYSA representatives presented a rough lighting plan at the meeting, there is concern among the neighbors that TEYSA will drag its feet on the permanent light issue, due to the cost. It is hoped that a permanent lighting solution can be in place by fall which would have a calming effect on the neighbors most affected.

The open landscaping issue faired better with the neighbors although the planting season is a fall activity and therefore must be placed on hold until that time. The mature trees that were lost cannot be easily replaced; and the replacement landscaping will take time to grow.

The community members left the meeting feeling that real progress was made and that their concerns were heard by DVFS and TEYSA; it is hoped that the momentum can continue. It is my understanding that any changes to the turf field will require zoning board approval. Involving the neighbors in the discussion regarding the field’s usage, times of operation, lighting, etc. and any proposed zoning changes should allow for a more successful outcome. The community members were encouraged by Tom Hogan’s involvement in the process and it is hoped that he will continue to stay involved.

Obviously the meeting did not completely solve all the problems but the residents left the meeting feeling hopeful. I will look forward to hearing updates from the East Central Avenue neighbors.

Devon Resident Bill Bellew’s Remarks at Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting Appear as Letter to the Editor

May 26, 2010

9 Comments

In a post yesterday, I provided a YouTube link for Bill Bellew’s comments at Monday night’s Board of Supervisor meeting. Several people have asked me if I had a ‘hard copy’ of his remarks so I was delighted to see that Bill submitted his comments in a Letter to the Editor in this week’s edition of the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper. Bill’s words provide a powerful statement. (see below).

I agree with Bill that we (supervisors and residents) need to be looking ahead to the 2011 budget. Mid-year provides an excellent opportunity to review the actual vs budgeted expenses and revenues of the 2010 budget to date. (the next supervisors meeting in June marks the halfway point). In addition to a mid year 2010 budget review, work needs to begin on the 2011 budget. The 2010 township budget required major cuts across the board, including personnel, fire and library funding, etc. If you recall, by this time last year the BAWG was in place and well underway in 2010 budget discussions.

The 2011 budget cannot wait until November or December; delaying the discussion does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

Tredyffrin drama must end

To the Editor:

Day after day, Tredyffrin seems to be bombarded with political drama without an end in sight. Now in May of 2010, the budget “play” leading up to the 2010 year is still out there. A personal opinion might be that the Board of Supervisors might have told the firefighters serving the township ahead of time that a cut in funding had to be made. Added to that might have been a suggestion that together, the BOS and the firefighters could join forces to fill the void.

The reality is that filling the void was not on the BOS’ minds beforehand. Only when the “people of all walks of life” rose in a concerted chorus to point out what impact the “modest 5-percent” cut would have on the three fire companies (our leading volunteers) did the BOS see the dilemma they created for themselves.

For some unknown reason, the BOS has been unwilling to share where the $24,000-plus in contributions to fill the void came from. Let’s end the political drama three of the BOS members created. Here is what I know to be fact:

1) The Republican Party spearheaded the effort to acquire the funding.

2) They did it ahead of schedule and raised more than they thought they would.

3) The party did not write a check – their members wrote individual checks in excess of $5,000 – or approximately 20 percent of the total raised.

4) Six large donations from companies, trusts, and law firms totaled $5,500 – or approximately 23 percent of the total raised.

5) Eight present or former members of the BOS contributed $2,800.

6) One present board member contributed $5,000, which is not part of other contributions listed here. Yes – five thousand dollars.

7) The remainder came from other sources solicited by the Republican Party.

8) Now that is political purpose!!! Hats off to the party for this work. Thank you from all of us.

What many citizens do not understand is why the BOS has taken courses of action that have stirred controversy and raised the hair on the back of our collective necks for no intelligent reason. The two examples to be mentioned are the cutting of the fire-company budget without sharing that with the firefighters beforehand, and the totally unbelievable vote on the sidewalks near Mt. Pleasant.

Transparency in this township is starting to disappear. Some of the present board appear to be turning what happens in Tredyffrin into a back-room game to be run by political hacks.

A few weeks ago, the chair of the BOS wrote his second major article since Dec. 9 of last year explaining himself and his actions. Why? Why is it necessary that so much effort be put into all of this when – if the BOS had been up-front and open – we could be talking about the future and not the past?

What were you thinking? We are not stupid people. My personal feeling is that the BOS has brought the dysfunctional politics of Washington to our community. Ladies and gentlemen of the board – respectfully – knock it off.

We are looking for leadership – not a “bully pulpit” approach to township business. We are looking for progress – not a drama. If the chair thinks “we’re doing what we believe is the people’s business” by the present-day actions of this board, then he is sadly mistaken. The political game is exactly that – a game. The BOS was elected to govern. do it !!!

We have too many important issues in front of us – the largest of which is how we will fund 2011 and beyond. How do we partner with each other to raise funds both privately and collectively? How do we encourage the volunteer spirit to continue across the entire township playing field? How do we make the necessary changes in the budget process?

Keep your eye on the ball, members of the board. Serve the constituents who elected you – all of them. No more surprises. The people of Tredyffrin are watching.

This is indeed a great place to live, and the BOS has helped make it that. Don’t go backwards.

Bill Bellew , Devon

Woodcrest Estate Mansion on Cabrini College Campus . . . is it haunted? Come to the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust Lecture and find out!

May 25, 2010

1 Comment

The Woodcrest Estate Mansion on the campus of Cabrini College routinely makes the top ten list for the most haunted colleges in America. It makes sense for some to be able to disregard these stories completely. For many, it isn’t until they find themselves alone at night walking behind the Woodcrest mansion or in their room that they begin to question the possibility of ghosts on campus. From the first night of orientation students are told the tales of happenings of long ago in the very buildings where they live, learn and visit every day. Some people choose not to believe the legends, passing it off as only that, a legend. Others know from experience that unexplainable things are known to take place every so often right here on campus. Are there footsteps from beyond at Cabrini’s Woodcrest Mansion?

Wayne resident Martha Dale will be at the historic Duportail House in Chesterbrook on Wednesday, May 26 as guest speaker of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust’s Spring Lecture Series. Speaking on the history of the Woodcrest Estate, Mrs. Dale’s background includes serving as alumni director at Cabrini College for over 25 years and as coordinator of historical projects during the College’s 50th Anniversary celebration, 2007-08. Mrs. Dale spearheaded an alumni effort to learn more about the history of the former Woodcrest Estate Mansion, the centerpiece of the Cabrini College campus and a landmark on the Philadelphia Main Line. Mrs. Dale was instrumental in having the Mansion listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009. A reception will begin at 7 PM followed by lecture at 7:30 PM. Lecture admission is $15 and all proceeds go toward Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust’s rebuilding effort of the Jones Log Barn at the DuPortail House location.

Mrs. Dale will lecture on the history of the Woodcrest Estate, which was built in 1901 by James W. Paul, a son-in-law of financier and philanthropist Anthony J. Drexel, and designed by architect Horace Trumbauer. Mr. Paul’s heirs owned Woodcrest until 1925. In 1925, members of the Paul family sold the Mansion and 120 acres of the Woodcrest Estate to Dr. John T. Dorrance, of the Campbell’s Soup Company. Designed by Philadelphia architect Horace Trumbauer and constructed more than 100 years ago, much of the 51-room mansion remains virtually unchanged. Much of the interior was restored to its original elegance for the College’s 50th anniversary. The architecture includes elements of 15th, 16th and 17th century English design and is primarily modeled after the Elizabethan (Tudor) style.

For more information or to make a reservation the lecture, contact Polly Hagan, 610. 647.1051 or info@tredyffrinhistory.org

Community Issues Regarding Artificial Turf Field at Delaware Valley Friends School . . . Will meeting on Wednesday help to resolve?

May 25, 2010

11 Comments

Since I began Community Matters, I have had several Valley Hills neighborhood members write to me about the new artificial turf field at Delaware Valley Friends School, and associated community issues as a result of the field’s construction. This Paoli neighborhood is located in the East Central Avenue area in close proximity to the Friends School and some of the residents have had specific issues since the installation of the turf field, including lighting, generator noise, increased traffic, buffer intrusion, etc.

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, under the ‘new matters from citizens’ section, the issue of the turf field resurfaced along with specific questions. There was also an announcement of an upcoming meeting at Delaware Valley Friends School (DVS) this Wednesday at 7 PM between DVS representatives and the neighbors.

I have tried to piece together some of the background on the turf field project and the open issues and ongoing concerns of the neighbors. At the supervisors meeting, Steve Ross, a Valley Hills resident, asked the board why an $800,000 turf field did not require a building permit. Mimi Gleason explained that because the school was changing an existing field in to turf field (rather than creating a new field) the project was not a land development project, regardless of the cost. However, the project did require a grading permit; Mr. Ross has asked to see a copy of that permit.

Here is some of the history of the project as I understand it. The early discussion on the turf field began in the late summer of 2008. I should mention that up until this point, the local neighbors had enjoyed an open and friendly relationship with DVS and the residents and their children were welcome to use the existing school playing fields if they were not being used. (Now there are large, rather unwelcoming signs indicating the field is for use by DVS and Tredyffrin Easttown Youth Soccer Association (TEYSA) only). In late summer, TEYSA in a partnership agreement with DVS developed the project. Although it appears that DVS still owns the field, TEYSA has a ‘sports easement’ to use it (I am not entirely clear about the meaning of this term). It is my understanding that TEYSA paid for the turf field through fundraising efforts. I am unclear whether TEYSA fully funded the project or if there was financial contribution from DVS.

Many of the Valley Hills neighbors feel that the problems began at DVS (with the turf field) as a result of not being included in the process and discussion. Having previously shared a good relationship with the school and its administrators, I think that the neighbors feel they were a bit blind-sighted and not kept in the loop. It is interesting to note that the township has maintained because the usage of the field was not changed, a building permit was not required. Without a building permit, there would not be a legal requirement to notify the neighbors. However, neighbors claim that the blueprints are very clear about building in water containment tanks since water does not perk the same into turf as it does into soil But without a building permit, there were not inspections – therefore leaving the local residents to accept the word of DVS that the turf field was indeed constructed as planned. The turf field was built into the buffer and no variance was filed with the township. Was a variance required and if so, was it the responsibility of DVS or TEYSA?

The strained relationship with DVS and its neighbors started when the buffer of mature trees were taken down. Although DVS apparently claims that there were not aware that the contractor would remove so many trees, the blueprints actually tell a different story. The neighbors witnessed the aftermath of the tree removal vs. being advised and included in the process prior to the removal of the trees. I maintain that you can never give the community ‘too much information’; rather it’s when they are left questioning that the problems occur.

Fast forward to May 2010 and how does Delaware Valley Friends School’s artificial turf field continue to impact the neighbors in and around East Central Ave? The once passive recreational area, that the school and neighbors enjoyed, has dramatically changed. The character of the neighborhood and the open space has transformed in to a very commercial, noisy setting with the construction of the turf field, its lighting, increased traffic and noise issues. Specifically, the lights and the artificial turf have increased the use of the field from very occasional evening and Saturday use to every evening and all day Saturday and Sunday use. The neighbors have no relief from the increased traffic on East Central Avenue. Cars start coming in at 5 PM weekdays, 8 AM on Saturday and Sunday mornings and stay until well after dark. With or without the lights on the field, people stay until after dark using car headlights to extend their time on the field. This is certainly a problem and one that needs further discussion between DFS, TEYSA and the residents.

Although one can not go back and plant mature trees that were removed for the project, can the neighbors negotiate the re-planting of some trees and vegetation to help create a new buffer zone around the field? This might improve the open sound and lighting issues. The new turf field was built in to the buffer zone so it will require some creative landscaping ideas. Working together with the community, perhaps a solution could be found.

Is TEYSA required to conform to the township’s standard at this site as in other township fields? Or, because the field is privately owned by DVS, are they exempt from any restrictions? I would encourage neighbors to attend Wednesday night’s meeting at DVS. The turf field is now a reality, but there needs to be a way for the field and its users to peacefully exist in the community. It is hoped that this meeting may bring thoughtful discussion and compromise from both sides. The field lighting and usage, in addition to the impact of the field on the Valley Hills community, needs to be fully understood. This situation begs for resolution for the affected local residents.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters