Pattye Benson

Community Matters

State House Candidate Discusses State Budget . . . Can We Count on His Support to Discuss Township Budget?

August 14, 2010
39 Comments
During the liaison reports at the July Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Donahue presented his finance committee update. In advance of the 2011 budget discussions, Donahue suggested that the township schedule two public budget meetings prior to the traditional November budget talks. His suggestion supports transparency in the township budget process and encourages the residents input.

As a result of Chairman Lamina’s absence at the July BOS meeting, I am guessing the decision to move forward with the suggestion was placed on hold until the August BOS meeting. The August supervisors meeting is this Monday so I assume there will be a formal motion to schedule these public budget meetings. Scheduling the budget meetings in September and October will allow necessary time for the residents to weigh in before the traditional November budget discussions. It is important for community members to be part of the budget process — thank you Supervisor Donahue for your suggestion of public meetings and I look forward to their scheduling!

I actually was reminded of the township public budget discussions by Supervisor Kampf. Yesterday, Kampf posted the following article on his campaign website in regards to the state budget. Kampf takes to task the government’s handling of the state budget and the passage of a “fiscally irresponsible budget”. Understanding the need for responsible economic forecasting at the state level certainly underscores the need as Kampf says, to “bring the hens home to roost” for our township’s 2011 budget process.
Based on Kampf’s discussion of the Commonwealth’s 2010-11 budget process, I am certain that he will support a thorough and open discussion of our township’s 2011 budget.
Below is Kampf’s article in its entirety:
The 2010-11 Budget: Taxpayers Are Already in the Hole
August 13th, 2010

During this year’s budget negotiations — during which the Governor and his allies in the House Democrat caucus tried to raise spending billions of dollars — one thing was made clear to all legislators: the federal government was NOT going to come through with $850 million in funding that they were considering in their revenue projections.

Despite this warning, and the fact that the proposed budget included tens of millions of dollars in borrowing to “balance,” Paul Drucker and his political bosses forced through a fiscally irresponsible budget.

This week, the “hens came home to roost” as they say, and the federal government — as warned and expected — provided Pennsylvania with $250 million less funding than Mr. Drucker’s budget counted on. The fiscal year has already begun, and taxpayers are already a quarter-billion dollars in deficit.

As a result of the state not receiving this funding, the State Senate is now leading the effort to consider cuts to the irresponsible budget that Paul Drucker voted “yes” to passing. And what are Paul Drucker and his House Democrat bosses doing? Attacking others for wanting to cut spending on government programs that they passed knowing the state couldn’t pay for them.

I will bring a different way to state government — just as I did here at home. I will make sure budgets are based on REAL economic forecasts and that the state doesn’t spend what it can’t pay for. That’s called fiscal responsibility, and it’s what we need now more than ever in Harrisburg.

Share or Like:
        
 

Proposed College Student Housing Ordinances – Public Meeting on Monday, August 16

August 12, 2010
2 Comments
On July 15, I attended the very long Planning Commission meeting regarding the two proposed township student housing ordinances. The proposed ordinances were reviewed by the Planning Commission at their public meeting and will be the subject of a hearing at the Board of Supervisors public meeting on Monday, August 16. If the proposed ordinances are passed, they will be instituted township-wide.

However, the focus of the attention has been on the Mt. Pleasant community and their ongoing struggles with student housing. Many Mt. Pleasant residents attended the Planning Commission and expressed their concerns in regards to student housing and the need for ordinances that can be enforced. The Planning Commissioners listened and came up with very strict guidelines for the proposed ordinances.

To review the draft zoning ordinance amendment, click here.

To review the draft registration ordinance, click here.

In advance of the public meeting on Monday, I received the following email from Donna Shipman, a resident of Mt. Pleasant encouraging her neighbors to attend. As Donna reminds us, the student housing rentals is not just a Mt. Pleasant issue but rather it is a township-wide issue. I support Donna and the Mt. Pleasant community as they face the challenges of student rentals in their neighborhood.

Hello,
I just wanted to remind everyone that on Monday Aug 16, 2010 at BOS Public meeting the College ordinance along with the Registration ordinance will be debated and voting on. I am asking that you please send out a reminder to your neighbors and friends encouraging them to attend the 7:30 PM meeting.
We still have issues with the 2 pending ordinances and we need for the BOS to see that this is NOT A MT PLEASANT ONLY ISSUE but a Tredyffrin Township issue. You did such a wonderful job at the Planning Commission hearing I am hoping for a repeat.
Please pass the word about the meeting and let me know if you require further information on the matter. Please note that the pending amendment ordinances are out on the Township’s website.
Thank you in advance for your continued support!
Sincerely,
Donna B. Shipman
Block Captain – Mt Pleasant Ave.
Share or Like:
        
 

HHGregg Grand Opening Today at 3 PM

August 12, 2010
Comments

Today marks the grand opening for HHGregg (www.hhgregg.com , the appliance and electronics store in our area. Today at 3 PM they officially open their doors to the public. They took the vacant Circuit City store. Good to see one of these empty box stores rented – positive economic development for the community! HHGregg is a family owned and operated business since 1955 so presumably they did their homework and Tredyffrin is viewed as a viable consumer base.

Always interested in the glass full approach, here’s hoping that this a sign of more good things to come in the area! Best wishes to HHGregg and welcome to the neighborhood!

Share or Like:
        
 

Request that Political Posturing by Candidates re Rt. 422 Wait Until the Facts are In!

August 11, 2010
20 Comments

The following letter to the editor appears in this week’s Main Line Suburban newspaper. The letter is written by the Tom Caramanico, President and CEO of McCormick Taylor and Co-Chair, Infrastructure Working Group, CEO, Council for Growth. Mr. Caramanico takes to task those political candidates that are jumping ahead and using Rt. 422 in their election strategy before knowing all the facts.

Mr. Caramanico is in the trenches when it comes to the slow process of reconstructing Philadelphia area’s infrastructure. Like many cities in America, Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs need to have serious attention paid to its roadways and bridges. Unfortunately, infrastructure improvements (and paying for it) is something that few elected officials or political candidates wish to discuss. Many candidates feel compelled to assure their constituents of ‘no new taxes’ mantra at all costs.

Is it possible that applying that type of attitude to Rt. 422 may be short-sighted; both for future economic development in the region, as well as safety concerns? Remember that 8-lane bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 which killed 13 people and injured 145. Immediately following that incident there was nationwide discussion on our country’s aging infrastructure and need for improvements, . . . but what has actually happened?

Fast forward to 2010, we have the CEO Council for Growth and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, among other organizations, trying to improve the safety and efficiency of the area’s transportation system. Yet as Mr. Caramanico points out, politics and political posturing by candidates may be slowing the process of discovery. I agree with Mr. Caramanico, we should keep the options open and explore all alternatives . . . not just take the knee-jerk approach and say ‘no’ before knowing the facts.

Although Mr. Caramanico’s letter was not written specifically for the political race between Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf, it should cause those campaigns a degree of pause . . . are these candidates keeping an open mind on the 422 corridor master plan? As an aside, I would suggest that the website http://notolls422.com/ is not helpful for those working to improve 422.

Review the letter to the editor – I’d be interested in your comments.

Calmly look at U.S. 422 issues

To the Editor:

More than two years ago, the effort to restore passenger rail service on the R6 line to Reading was on life support because of the lack of federal and state funding, and the most recent version of PennDOT’s 12-year plan does nothing to address the daily 15-mile backup on U.S. 422.

Yet congestion on the corridor is an enormous drag on the region’s economic prosperity. Whether it’s time spent in traffic commuting to work, lost time with family or trucks stalled from delivering their cargo, congestion is costing individuals time and businesses millions of dollars each year.

Although the needs along U.S. 422 are great and the benefits of rail service and highway-capacity improvements are very understandable, it is also apparent that government alone cannot accomplish these goals.

That’s why a group of businesspeople in our region got together to seek a solution now. The CEO Council for Growth along with Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties and other stakeholders along the U.S. 422 corridor commissioned a study to look at the feasibility of financing infrastructure improvements there. The study is in progress and preliminary results are expected this fall. The study will examine a variety of financing options, including an assessment of collecting a toll on U.S. 422 to pay for transportation improvements in the U.S. 422 corridor.

As businessmen and women, we are not committed to any financing option until we have all the necessary information available. Information such as: what improvements could be provided, how would rail service and highway improvements work together, how would we guarantee the money is spent on our improvements and not in other areas of the state, how much would a toll be, and where would it be collected? Only when these and many more questions are answered should anyone take a position for or against the idea.

Unfortunately some candidates running for office have taken a position before all the facts are known. This is a mistake. As statements containing half-truths, pseudo-facts and misinformation come from both political parties, the public is not well served. Sadly for purely political purposes, issues that require mature and reasonable discussion are reduced to a sound bite or simplistic headline.

Worst of all, this kind of political posturing will effectively chase away the private sector. Entrepreneurs and business leaders won’t want to invest in a public/private partnership if they believe the “public” piece of the partnership to be impetuous or, worse, misguided.

This is a call for restraint on the part of our candidates and elected officials. Let all concerns and issues be raised and considered, but please refrain from taking a position for or against any ideas until the facts are known. If the numbers don’t work or the impacts are too great we will all be opposed to it.

However, if there is a way to improve our transportation system in the corridor, we can work on the issues together. When the study is done, let the proposal be discussed and let it rise or fall on its own merits, based on the facts. Let the process work – the success of our region requires it, the public deserves it and these difficult times demand it.

Thomas A. Caramanico, P.E., President and CEO, McCormick Taylor Inc., Co-Chair, Infrastructure Working Group, CEO, Council for Growth

Share or Like:
        
 

Notice: Expect Traffic Interruptions in Paoli, August 22 – 26

August 11, 2010
1 Comment

Expect traffic interruptions on Lancaster Avenue in Paoli for line painting on the road. The work is scheduled to be done starting Sunday night, August 22, though Thursday night, August 26, between the hours of 10 PM – 6 AM. The project is weather dependent — so if it rains prior to, or during the hours, the work may be halted. Last year the work was done during the day but due to the congestion, evening hours were proposed for this year.

You learn something everyday — I had no idea that line painting was done yearly. I’m guessing that it is only specific, well-used roads. Although I received this notice from the township, I am assuming that PennDOT is doing the work . . . since Route 30 is a state road. In other words, no ‘overtime’ hours out of the township budget.

Share or Like:
        
 

Stormwater ‘Bump-outs’ on Old Lancaster Road . . . a Burden for the Residents

August 8, 2010
20 Comments

I am confident that the people who designed the sidewalks and stormwater management systems on Old Lancaster Road did so with the best of intentions. However, either the design of the bump-outs is flawed and/or the required maintenance by the homeowners is flawed.

I think most residents living along Conestoga and Old Lancaster Roads have been favorable about their new sidewalks. There have been some rumblings about loss of trees, shrubs, etc. but with the understanding that the township will replace their landscaping losses in the fall, I think most have been positive about the sidewalks. Old Lancaster Road has been closed lately, except to local traffic so until yesterday I had not been down this road.

Following the public Sidewalk Committee meeting last Thursday, a couple who live on Old Lancaster Road, in Berwyn between the cemetary and Daylesford Train station spoke about their new sidewalks. They were very positive about the sidewalks and commented that more and more people were using the sidewalks. They had not come to the meeting to complain but rather to inform about a specific aspect of the sidewalk project that most people would probably not be aware. (I certainly was not).

To give a bit of background . . . Old Lancaster Road did not have curbing or appropriate stormwater management system in place. As part of the sidewalk project and stormwater management design on Old Lancaster, 2 foot wide concrete bump outs were installed next to the sidewalks in the road. According to information I found on the township website, the design of the curbed underground seepage/infiltration beds was to control runoff from impervious sidewalks, as well as a portion of the existing roadway runoff on Old Lancaster Rd. which had been uncontrolled. The bump outs were thought to have an additional benefit of traffic-calming.

All of this sounds like a good idea, right? Well, here is some of the problems with the concrete bump outs. First off, the residents on Old Lancaster Road knew that they were responsible for keeping their section of the sidewalks maintained, shoveled in the winter, etc. but were not informed that they would be responsible for the maintenance of the bump outs. (I have now been told that homeowners were informed that the bump outs would be their responsibility.}

There was some concern from some of the elderly homeowners that live along Old Lancaster Rd in regards to sidewalk maintenance; but somehow these residents would get the necessary help to keep the sidewalks cleared and maintained. Clearing sidewalks is one thing but these long concrete curbed areas are in the road are an entirely different matter. How does one manage the maintenance on the bump outs? Here’s a problem . . . there’s curbing on all sides so you would have to pick up your lawnmower and put it in the bump out. But even if you tried that, you would discover the area is too narrow for a lawn mower! So you either have to use hand clippers or a string hedge trimmer on the bump outs.

It is my understanding that township staff planted grass seed in the bump outs but the heat killed the grass seed and apparently there has been mention of wildflowers to be planted in the fall. No grass . . . no wildflowers . . . but even in this summer heat, what does grow — weeds, and lots of them! The weeds in some of the bump outs are 3 ft. high and still growing. As was explained by the couple who attended the Sidewalk Committee meeting, they have elderly neighbors on either side who have to have their grown sons come from Downington and Phoenixville to maintain their bump outs.

Another difficulty – the bump outs are in the road and therefore do not align to property lines so . . . if you and your neighbors are not particularly good friends, you may maintain your section of the bump out but your neighbors decide to leave his/her section of the bump out overgrown!

One of the overgrown bump outs is next to a side road and could create a visibility issue for drivers entering or exiting Old Lancaster. Interestingly, visibility was one of PennDot’s concerns about the bump out design concept. The Old Lancaster Rd. couple stated that they have attempted to have PennDot help with the bump out problems but were referred to the township staff. The township staff says that Old Lancaster is a state road and therefore the problem has to be taken up with PennDot. Homeowners on Old Lancaster are just going around and around in circles over these bump outs. And how must the residents on the other side of Old Lancaster feel who must look at the overgrown bump outs from their front yards?

Solution? In my opinion it’s simple . . . no way should the ‘care and feeding’ of these bump outs be the responsibility of the residents. Period. My suggestion is that public works staff remove the weeds from the bump outs and then fill these long concrete areas with layers of small river rock. River rocks are very inexpensive, will still permit appropriate stormwater runoff and there is no further maintenance required by homeowners, township staff or PennDot!

One other suggestion – if these bump outs are part of any future sidewalk/stormwater design plan, they should not be the responsibility of township residents.

Below is a photo which shows a bump out that is maintained so that you can see the concrete curbing design and the narrowness of the area. Interestingly, this particular bump out is not a shared bump out but is located directly in front of a resident’s home.

The following 2 photos show overgrown bump outs on Old Lancaster Road – one of the bump outs is now affecting visibility from the side road. It appears that this bump out may be a ‘shared bump out’ – where it crosses the property line of two homeowners.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin’s Sidewalk Committee – Update from Public Meeting

August 7, 2010
Comments

Update on the Sidewalks subcommittee . . .

I attended Thursday night’s Public Meeting of the Sidewalks Committee. Based on the February 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, it was my understanding that the Sidewalk Committee would update the public on the prioritizing of sidewalks in the township. If you recall, there was much debate about the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk requirement in their land development plan. First, the supervisors voted to return the $25K sidewalk escrow to St. Davids and then, based on public opinion, opted to reverse the decision in February. The township continues to hold St. Davids sidewalk escrow pending the outcome of the Sidewalk Committee recommendation and then ultimate vote of the Board of Supervisors relative to sidewalk requirements in the township. (I remain of the opinion that the township’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan should provide the basis and guidance for land development plans).

Although it was my understanding that the supervisors had charged the Sidewalk Committee with focusing specifically on sidewalks in Tredyffrin, it appears their interpretation is much broader – to include bicycle paths and trails in addition to sidewalks as part of their recommendation. I am not sure that this was the intended mission of the supervisors for the committee. For me, the larger picture is for current and future land development projects; and the liability issues to the township which currently exist. Land development projects requiring sidewalks and the direction of the Planning Commission on these projects remains open, pending the outcome of the committee’s recommendation and ultimate supervisors vote. A decision is required by the end of the year and I am concerned about the ability of the Sidewalk Committee to meet that timeline given that it’s August.

The Sidewalk Committee has worked on a resident survey and discussed its mode of distribution — whether to email or mail to residents, use the township’s Facebook or the township website and associated costs, etc. How to write the questions so as not to create bias in the response? Following the workshop meeting, an audience member suggested a marketing company needed to review the questionnaire and that a ‘test’ group should receive the survey before a public release.

Another discussion point was in regards to neighborhood community meetings and whether to solicit survey results before (or after) the community meetings were held – do not know if there was a definite answer. The location of the three community meetings was discussed — Panhandle and eastern area of the township; the Chesterbrook area; and Berwyn/Paoli area. I commented that the Great Valley residents should not be excluded in the sidewalk discussion – sidewalks should be a township wide discussion. As a result, I think all residents will be included and encouraged to attend the community meetings.

The Sidewalk Committee will continue to hold monthly public meetings however, I suggested that future public meetings be advertised as ‘workshop meetings’. Similar to the Planning Commission’s workshop sessions, there are no questions or comments permitted from the audience until the end of the meeting; and only if there is time. Discussion from 7-8:30 PM was among members of the committee – the audience could only observe, not comment.

For me, the most interesting part of the Sidewalk Committee meeting actually occurred during audience participation following the workshop meeting. After various questions and comments, a couple who lives on Old Lancaster Ave. spoke about their personal experience with their ‘new sidewalks’ and their stormwater management rain guards. Many of us in the audience and on the Sidewalk Committee were surprised and concerned by the rain guard discussion. I was curious, took my camera to Old Lancaster Avenue, and am now more concerned for those residents. I will share my photos and write about that issue separately.

Share or Like:
        
 

Interested in the Future of Sidewalks, Trails & Paths in Tredyffrin . . . Attend Tonight’s Sidewalk Policy Committee Public Meeting

August 5, 2010
1 Comment

Do you remember Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting back on February 22? At that meeting the supervisors reversed an earlier decision to return the sidewalk escrow money ($25,000) to St. Davids Golf Club. In addition to a reversal of the earlier decision, the motion by Chairman Lamina also established a township subcommittee to study the future of sidewalks, paths and trails in Tredyffrin.

Although I was glad for the creation of a Sidewalk Policy Committee to review the sidewalk issues and involve the public in the discussion, I voiced concern about the open land development liability issues that remained to the township. What was the timeline for establishing a formal sidewalk policy? I recall asking where this situation leaves current land development projects that contain sidewalk requirements. Setting aside sidewalk requirements in current and future township land development projects, pending the recommendations of the Sidewalk Policy Committee, clearly places the township in a precarious position. Lamina stated that the subcommittee would begin working in March and would be expected to present their recommendations by the end of 2010. In the interim, the township’s liability on land development projects involving sidewalks would remain an open issue.

There is a public meeting of the Sidewalk Policy Committee tonight – 7 PM at the township building. I am curious to see the progress of the committee. Charged with coming up with a formal policy on sidewalks in the township, the committee members are about halfway through the established timeline as set by the Board of Supervisors. With a goal to complete the study and make a recommendation by the end of 2010, they have been working on the project for about five months.

Understanding the township’s open liability issues on land development projects, I am confident that the Sidewalk Policy Committee will update us tonight on their progress. The 9 members of the committee include Supervisors Donahue, Kichline and Richter; Planning Commissioners Whalen, Lukens and Snyder; and STAP members Moir, Donegan and Brake. As Planning Commissioners Whalen and Snyder fully understand the land development liability issues and should be able to address those concerns. Presumably, the next step in this process will be to set up regional public meetings and to distribute a township-wide sidewalk questionnaire. I look forward to updating you on the progress of the committee tomorrow.

Share or Like:
        
 

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Releases Press Release to Design Roundtable Members

August 5, 2010
Comments

As a member of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Design Roundtable, I received the following official press release concerning approval to construct the Turnpike’s Rt. 29 slip ramp. I know I posted Paul Drucker’s press release yesterday, however there is additional information contained in the PTC release that I found of interest, including the timeline for construction.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Approves Construction of Route 29 All-Electronic Interchange

Construction of the E-ZPass-only facility to start in March 2011 with opening expected in late 2012.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission announced today that it is moving ahead with the construction of an all-electronic interchange linking Route 29 with I-76 in Chester County. Located midway between the Downingtown exit (#312) and the Valley Forge exit (#326), the new facility will provide convenient access to and from such business parks as the Great Valley Corporate Center, the Commons at Great Valley, Atwater and business districts in Malvern and Paoli.

“The decision to move ahead to construction is a significant step that will enhance safety and convenience for thousands of Turnpike customers in the region traveling to and from work each day,” said Turnpike Chief Executive Officer Joe Brimmeier. “In addition, the interchange will cut travel times for thousands of other regional commuters and help relieve overcrowding on local roads.”

Each day about 45,000 to 50,000 vehicles travel the 14-mile stretch of Turnpike between Downingtown and Valley Forge.

The announcement was made at an event held this morning hosted by Senator Andrew Dinniman (D-19). He was joined by Pennsylvania Turnpike officials and other business and elected officials.

“The Route 29 interchange is crucial to the continued economic vitality of our region,” Senator Dinniman said. “We are pleased that the Turnpike Commission has agreed to advance the project to construction and appreciate their commitment to move expeditiously to achieve the 2012 completion date.”

State Representative Duane Milne (R-167) also stated his support for the project. “I am delighted that a positive resolution has been reached and that this vital infrastructure enhancement will be completed in the near future. This transportation upgrade will prove a positive step for the quality of life in our area.”

State Representative Paul Drucker (D-157) added, “I am pleased the Route 29 interchange project is finally moving forward. It will ease congestion on local roads, reduce travel time for thousands of commuters and create jobs.”

Brimmeier said the interchange will reduce backups at the Valley Forge Interchange (#326), at the I-76/Route 202 interchange and on Route 202 itself, and will contribute to an overall decrease in traffic on Route 29 in the vicinity of Swedesford Road and Matthews Road, and on Route 401 and Phoenixville Pike, west of Route 29.

Turnpike officials expect construction of the E-ZPass-only interchange will start in March 2011 with a late fall 2012 opening. The estimated $60 million project calls for bridges to be built over the Turnpike, over Yellow Springs Road, over Atwater Drive as well as construction of a culvert and several retaining walls. The construction area will cover one-half mile along the Turnpike in three separate Chester County municipalities: Charlestown Township, East Whiteland Township and Tredyffrin Township.

In March 2009, the Turnpike shelved plans to build the interchange while it worked to resolve design issues with the widening and reconstruction of the adjoining six-mile Turnpike section to the east of Route 29, between Mileposts 320 and 326. Over the past 16 months, the Commission has worked closely with township officials, residents, interest groups and elected officials to address concerns they raised about the widening project – most notably storm-water management and noise walls.

“We believe sufficient progress has been made to enable us to proceed with the design of the Milepost 320 to 326 reconstruction and widening project and the construction of the Route 29 interchange,” said Brimmeier.

Share or Like:
        
 

PA Turnpike Commission Approves Construction of Rt 29 Slip Ramp!

August 4, 2010
8 Comments
The PA Turnpike Commission approved construction of the Route 29 slip ramp. I received the following press release from State House Rep Paul Drucker’s Office today:
Construction of Route 29 all electronic interchange approved

Today, I joined officials from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission at Atwater Business Park to announce approval of the construction of the all electronic interchange linking Route 29 with I-76 in Chester County.

This project will not only ease congestion on local roads and reduce travel time for thousands of commuters, but will create local jobs.

Located midway between the Downingtown exit (No. 312) and the Valley Forge exit (No. 326), the new facility will provide motorists with convenient access to and from such business parks as the Great Valley Corporate Center, the Commons at Great Valley, Atwater Business Park and business districts in Malvern and Paoli.

Turnpike officials said they anticipate the project to be bid in time to begin construction in March 2011, and plan to open the interchange to traffic in late fall of 2012. The project will include the building of bridges over the turnpike, over Yellow Springs Road, over Atwater Drive and the construction of a culvert and several retaining walls. The construction area will cover approximately one-half mile along the turnpike in three separate Chester County municipalities: Charlestown Township, East Whiteland Township and Tredyffrin Township.

The interchange is expected to reduce traffic congestion at the Valley Forge Interchange (No. 326), at the I-76/Route 202 interchange and on Route 202 itself, and contribute to an overall decrease in traffic on Route 29 in the vicinity of Swedesford Road and Matthews Road, and on Route 401 and Phoenixville Pike, west of Route 29.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme