Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Search Results for – "richter"

Community Matters: Your Voice Matters … Except when it comes to C-1 Zoning Change!

September 18, 2012
13 Comments

At the Board of Supervisors meeting last night, Keene Hall was standing room only.  Although many residents attended for the public hearing for the proposed C-1 ordinance change, I was surprised at how many stayed until midnight when I had the opportunity to present my personal statement under ‘citizen new matters’.  (My statement will appear on a separate Community Matters post)

I thank all the citizens who took 4-1/2 hours of their time on  Monday night to show support and to have their voices heard on the C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living usage. Tredyffrin residents spoke out from across the township, Paoli, Berwyn, Strafford, Wayne, etc. not just the Daylesford neighbors.  Hours of public testimony and not a single resident voiced support for the proposed C-1 zoning change. Citizens stated opposition for a host of reasons … flawed process, spot zoning, preferential treatment to a developer, should be a conditional use not a by-right use, bed density, safety concerns for patients, increased demand on township’s emergency services, etc. — the list went on and on.

Township supervisors asked many questions of the developer Ed Morris and his attorney Denise Yarnoff, suggesting to the audience that they were not entirely supportive of the zoning change.  However, in the end, the questions from the supervisors did not really matter; the motion to change C-1 zoning to allow assisted living facilities passed 6-1.  The only supervisor who heard the residents’ concerns and voted accordingly, was Phil Donohue.  As the middle district supervisor, it will be interesting to see which side receives his support at the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay public hearing on October 1, when the issue surrounds his constituent’s backyards.

Unfortunately, for many residents in this township, the overwhelming Tredyffrin voices in opposition to changing the C-1 zoning was not heard by our local government,

Trisha Larkin, president of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association sent the following statement:

Dear DNA Members and Tredyffrin Residents,

A heartfelt thanks to each and every one of you for taking time out of your busy lives to contribute to the cause.

Clearly, last night’s vote was shocking.  It’s a painful loss.  As a taxpayer and Tredyffrin resident, it’s shaken many of us to our cores.  The insight gleaned from the BOS’s final vote leaves me defeated, frustrated and more importantly, frightened regarding Tredyffrin’s future.  Joe and I have only lived here 4 years.  I can’t imagine how some of our decades-long Tredyffrin neighbors must feel this morning.  Heartsick is the word that springs to mind.

To the Daylesford neighbors and Non-DNA members (you know who you are) that attended countless meetings and contributed tirelessly, you’ll never know how much we appreciate you!

I’ve taken calls from 4 lawyers in the last 13 hours saying we have a great case for an appeal stating “spot zoning” pure and simple.  That may be true

In closing, perhaps we should ALL keep in mind the six supervisors that flagrantly disregarded our opposition when they run for re-election!

  • Michelle H. Kichline, Chair
  • John DiBuonaventuro, Vice Chair and OUR Daylesford/Western/3rd District Supervisor
  • Paul Olson – 1st District
  • Mike Heaberg – At Large
  • Kristen Mayock – At Large
  • Evelyn (EJ) Richter – At Large

We should note that Supervisor Phil Donahue (2nd District) was the sole supporter of the DNA.  He’s got some friends in Daylesford.

I am blessed to have met many of you for the first time via the DNA.  I certainly hope to keep in touch and please join our FACEBOOK page to keep abreast of what’s going on in the neighborhood.  We love building our network.  If you’re out walking by our home, please knock.  Join us for a cup of coffee … or better yet, a beer or a nice glass of wine!  Our treat!  :-)

You’re the best group of people!  Thanks for everything!

Kind regards,

Trisha Larkin

Discussion Continues on Tredyffrin’s Proposed Stormwater Overlay District Ordinance

June 21, 2012
2 Comments

A continuation of the Public Hearing on the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District ordinance followed this week’s Board of Supervisors Meeting.  Click here for the June 2012 revised ordinance.

A group of 35 resident volunteers, have been working with the township staff and the potential developer of the Richter tract, Joe Duckworth, on revisions to the proposed new zoning ordinance.  (For earlier discussions and specifics of Duckworth’s proposed plans for the property, enter Richter in the search tool on the home page of Community Matters.)

As part of the proposed overlay district, large storm water basins would be included on the Walker Road side of the property – access to the property would be from Old Eagle School and Swedesford Road.  Although Duckworth has not submitted official plans, his proposal contains twin carriage houses and townhouses on the property for this property.

The resident volunteers, the Working Group, in conjunction with Duckworth and township staff, has significantly updated the original ordinance.  Tom Colman presented comments from the Working Group, and Jeff Kosterich offered specific comments from the storm water sub-group.   Based on their remarks, Colman and Kosterich suggest that although the updated draft ordinance is more satisfactory, residents feel that further modifications required before it should pass.

The Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District ordinance would be applicable to all areas in the township located in the Trout Creek Watershed.   The Working Group was composed primarily of Glenhardie residents.  The Richter tract is located in the Glenhardie neighborhood and because Duckworth’s development would most affect this section of the township, they are the ones with the louder voices on this issue.  Although different zoning changes required, in some respects, the proposed storm water overlay district ordinance is no different from how the proposed C-1 zoning change which would allow an assisted living facility in the Daylesford section of the township.  Although both the proposed Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District and the C-1 assisted living zoning change are tied to specific projects (Richter tract and Ed Morris’ assisted living project) should these zoning changes be approved, they are applicable to all the township.  My point … all residents owe it to themselves to be ‘up to speed’ on these two important proposed zoning changes, regardless if you live in the Glenhardie or Daylesford areas of the township.

As the designated representative for the Working Group, Colman asked that three specific issues be considered in conjunction with the proposed Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District ordinance.

  1. Accountability Measures:  The residents would like assurances that once the storm water basins are designed and implemented that there is accountability for ongoing maintenance and continued functionality.  They suggest that the township adopt an official policy for accountability to prevent the risk to residents of failed storm water basins after installation. It was reported that Duckworth has agreed to an accountability policy that would be applicable to all developers in the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District.  I agree that there should be a township policy (and enforcement); otherwise why bother to require storm water basins in any future land development plans.
  1. Communication/Notification Policies, Practices and Procedures on Zoning-impact Matters:  The conclusion from the Working Group members was that the Township is too lax on communicating information to those residents most impacted by zoning issues.  If you recall, many of the Glenhardie neighbors were not notified of the proposed Richter plan development project which caused much unnecessary angst in the community.  Similarly, we have seen the same lack of communication in the proposed assisted living project and C-1 zoning change in the Daylesford neighborhood of the township.  When there is a neighborhood directly impacted by a zoning change there should be specific guidelines for notification and an explanation of the process for the residents.  Many township residents are not aware of the processes required for land development plans and zoning changes that may be required for projects in the township.  Communicating the Township process and the relationship of the Planning Commission, Zoning Hearing Board, supervisors and township staff could be helpful to residents.
  1. Storm Water Action Team: The Working Group suggests that the township develop a plan to address the township’s storm water problems.  As Colman explained, “Too many areas of Tredyffrin are enduring repeated damage, hardship and risk to life and property when we get even modest rainfall.  It’s time to identify specific, measurable objectives, timelines, resources, and responsibilities to address this problem in a proactive way … This is not an issue like shade trees or pothole repairs; lives are at risk.  We need a real plan, and we need it now.”

Traditionally there has been a real reluctance in this township to increase taxes, so it was interesting to note that the Working Group offered their own suggestion for funding storm water solutions.  On a personal note, I don’t know how much longer the ‘no tax increase’ mantra can continue around here … due to increasing expenses and decreasing revenues, supervisors have been forced in recent budgets cycles to cut township staff  (among other expense reductions) in an attempt to avoid a tax increase.  As residents, we have watched as township services have continued to decline.  I use Wilson Farm Park as an example … once the jewel of the township and an award-winning municipal park design, it is very sad to see how overgrown it now looks. Wilson Farm Park’s current condition is no doubt a direct result of the personnel and funding cuts to the Public Works department in recent Township budget cycles.

In the case of the proposed Richter development, the developer (Duckworth) indicates a willingness to pay for the cost of necessary storm water improvement.  However, the storm water problem and costly solutions is more significant in the Township than could be resolved through the development of the Richter tract. The Working Group suggests that the approximate $250K yearly tax revenue from the proposed Richter tract development go towards the funding of a substantial bond issue.

Personally, I would like to see the supervisors create a resident volunteer group to review the idea for a township storm water utility.  Operating much like an electric or water utility, the storm water utility would collect fees related to the control and treatment of storm water that could be used to fund a municipal storm water management program in the township.  Based on Jeff Kosterich’s remarks that a number of engineers and storm water professionals living in the Glenhardie community volunteered their expertise on the storm water sub-committee, why not continue to tap into these valuable volunteer resources?  Our township is rich in its wealth of accomplished, educated residents; why not utilize volunteers  to help solve the storm water funding  problem.

The next step for the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay ordinance process is a review of the ordinance update by the Planning Commission.  My understanding is that the ordinance then moves to the Chester County Planning Commission for review and comments.  Following the county review, the ordinance returns to the township supervisors, presumably in time for the July Board of Supervisors meeting for further discussion and possible vote.

Stormwater Issues – No Easy Solutions

March 20, 2012
6 Comments

Last night marked the Township’s third public hearing for the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District ordinance in as many months. The Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District ordinance would permit additional redevelopment usages on large properties in the Trout Creek Watershed in exchange for much-needed stormwater facilities help.  In addition to the public hearings on this topic, there have been multiple other meetings both public and in small groups with township staff, supervisors, planning commissioners, Richter property developer and residents.

Township manager Mimi Gleason gave an overview slide presentation detailing the proposed ordinance, its history and the process.  The idea for the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District Ordinance originated with the 2010 ‘Trout Creek Watershed Study and Stormwater Best Management Practice Analysis’.  The Richter property was one of the 10 locations named in the study for stormwater best management practice in the township and suggested a 6-8 acre stormwater basin for that location.

Although the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District Ordinance would apply to all applicable properties within the Trout Creek Watershed area, it is the 36 acre parcel located at Swedesford and Old Eagle School Roads – the Richter property – that is the focus and concern for the Glenhardie neighbors.  It should be noted that the Richter tract is the largest undeveloped property in the Trout Creek Watershed but as the economy improves, the proposed zoning ordinance amendment change could be used elsewhere in the district as an incentive for developers.

Prior to public comment, the supervisor chair Michelle Kichline made a motion to remove retail with accessory gas and multi-family/apartments from the proposed Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District Ordinance. Although the Planning Commissioners included these usages in the proposed ordinance, the motion passed unanimously. As explained by Kichline, there would be no vote on the ordinance at last night’s meeting.  Due to the level of prior public input on the subject, Kichline asked that all resident remarks focus specifically on the ordinance itself.

As we know, Joe Duckworth of Arcadia Land Company is the possible developer for the Richter tract. Duckworth continues to reach out to the neighbors and offered his email and cell phone number ‘on the record’ during the public hearing.  As part of his proposed carriage houses/townhouse development project for this site, would be the inclusion of a 6-8 acre stormwater basin.

Several residents asked about the possibility for the township to acquire property through eminent domain. As explained by township solicitor Vince Donohue, although legal this process would be long and expensive, both in acquisition and in legal fees. In other words, what I heard – not a very practical solution.

To further study the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District situation, Kichline announced a ‘working group’ with supervisor Phil Donohue and resident Tom Coleman.  The group would include members of the planning commission and local Glenhardie residents.  Their mission would be to meet for 6-8 weeks and offer recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Generally, I am a proponent of citizen task forces and hope that this working group will be inclusive and representative of the views of all residents affected; the mission and direction of this group should be defined clearly.

The stormwater challenges in Tredyffrin Township have been 300 years in the making and certainly are not going to be solved quickly.  Whether you live in the Glenhardie area or the Great Valley area of the township, stormwater issues exist. Historically, stormwater systems were designed to collect and quickly move runoff as a way to prevent localized flooding or erosion.  Over time, it has become evident that the traditional curb-and-gutter approach was not sufficient.

I am of the opinion that the stormwater challenge facing Tredyffrin is going to require a shift in the fundamental philosophy of our local government and its residents.  One of the hallmarks of recent township supervisor elections has been the promise of no tax increases or no new taxes.  But given the dramatic infrastructure problems facing this community, how much longer can that viewpoint work?  What we are now seeing is that the monetary cost of managing stormwater is high but the potential cost of inaction is even higher.

Beyond understanding that stormwater is a problem, needs to be the acceptance that the management of stormwater is a very costly responsibility.  Perhaps now is the time for our elected officials to seriously consider a stormwater utility.  This option could provide a vehicle for consolidating or coordinating responsibilities and provide an effective alternative to financing the cost of stormwater management.

Understanding the Trout Creek Overlay Ordinance … More Complex than a Wawa or an Apartment Building

March 1, 2012
19 Comments

I attended Monday night’s marathon 3+ hour public hearing and Board of Supervisors meeting.  The main event of the night was the public hearing and resident comments in regards to a zoning ordinance amendment that would develop a Trout Creek Overlay district. (Here is a link to the meeting video).

There was much to take in from the meeting and I have struggled to ‘wrap my head around’ the details of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, affects the development project and storm water improvements may have on the community, misinformation and a degree of confusion among some residents.  Part of the confusion about the project is in the labeling – although the township information refers to it as the ‘Trout Creek Overlay’ proposal, the problem is that unless you attend Planning Commission meetings, local residents may not have initially recognized it was the ‘Richter’ tract and its possible development was discussion.

The Richter tract is 36 acres located at Swedesford, Old Eagle School and Walker Roads in the Glenhardie/Wayne area of the township.   Currently, twenty-six acres of the property is zoned R-1 residential district and the remaining ten acres is zoned ‘professional’ district.  R-1 zoning permits single-family homes and with special exception house conversion to multi-family dwelling.  The Professional zoning district permits office or professional buildings.

The proposed zoning ordinance amendment to develop an overlay district in the Trout Creek Watershed is more than just about the development of the Richter tract; although the Richter tract is the largest undeveloped property in the Trout Creek Watershed.  As the economy improves, there may be opportunities for future redevelopment projects in the township.  Therefore, this proposed zoning ordinance amendment change could be used elsewhere in the Trout Creek Overlay district as an incentive for developers.

As an example, we recently learned that the US Postal Service will consolidate postal services and the Southeastern PO distribution center will close in May.  The Southeastern PO location could become a future redevelopment area that might benefit from the proposed zoning amendment.  Click here to see the Trout Creek Watershed map and what areas would be potentially affected by the proposed zoning ordinance.

The reasoning behind the creation of a Trout Creek Overlay district is to provide for public stormwater improvements on development projects in the Trout Creek Watershed district.  (Area as identified on the Trout Creek Watershed map).

Back to the Richter property — this appears to be the guiding force behind the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.  The way I see it, there are four major groups of players in this specific development project – the developer Joe Duckworth and Arcadia Land Company, the Glenhardie area residents, township Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Anyone living in Tredyffrin, knows that there are major stormwater issues all around the township and those problems are long-standing.  In addition, the township has been working on solutions to the flooding problems in the Glenhardie area for years.  The challenge for the township is that a number of large properties are needed for stormwater management facilities that would hold back runoff during heavy rain, thereby reducing the volume of water downstream into Trout Creek. However, the real problem is how to come up with long-term solutions, particularly in an economy where money is not easily available.

If the township does not have the necessary resources for stormwater management, and if the residents are not interested in paying increased taxes … what is the solution for stormwater problems?  One idea is to offer incentives to developers in exchange for increased stormwater management components in their land development projects.  I believe it was that specific objective, which drove the Planning Commissioners to create the proposed Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment.  To be clear, I do not think that the proposed zoning amendment was some kind of quixotic effort on the part of the Planning Commissioners to encourage a specific development project. But rather the Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment was a time-consuming, thoroughly discussed plan to encourage development but to also aid in stormwater management.

As an aside to the Planning Commission process to develop the Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment, is the Richter property developer – Joe Duckworth and Arcadia Land Company.  Attending various Planning Commission meetings, I have found Duckworth to be very community-minded and responsive to all questions and concerns related to the development of the Richter tract.  However, those discussions were about carriage homes and/or townhouses on the residential parcel of the Richter property.

In reviewing their website, Arcadia Land Company has developed some beautiful residential properties – places that would be very well suited for Tredyffrin Township and our residents. Arcadia Land describes their company as “Town Builders and Land Stewards”, and further states, “Arcadia’s approach to town building has been influenced by the New Urbanism and the conservation development movement.  New Urbanism is a movement that promotes compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods as a positive alternative to low-density, automobile-oriented, single-use development. New Urbanism supports both the revitalization and expansion of existing centers as well as the creation of new neighborhoods.” 

Obviously, this wonderfully progressive planning language also needs to be tempered by local community and the resident’s needs (or desires).  My sense is that many of the local Richter property residents could accept (maybe even embrace) a beautiful carriage house/townhouse community.  What a great option for residents who want to downsize from large homes but continue to live in Tredyffrin!  Moreover, according to Duckworth, this project would include a costly and involved stormwater plan that would contain a 6-8 acre stormwater basin.  It should be noted that the stormwater issues in Tredyffrin are dramatic and it would be an overstatement to suggest that the Richter tract development would completely ‘fix’ the Trout Creek stormwater issues. But an improvement, nonetheless.

However, enter the proposed Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment change, and the beautiful carriage house/townhouse community concept planned for the Richter tract takes a back seat to the possible commercial use of the ten acres currently zoned ‘professional’.  The proposed zoning change would extend the usage of this parcel to include retail stores with accessory gas (Wawa) and apartment buildings, among others.

Herein lies the problem  – many of us have a vision of a huge Wawa facility, like is found on Rt. 29 in Malvern.  However, the Wawa site was built in a field next to Route 202 versus a residential location. As was pointed out at Monday’s meeting, these multi-function gas stations are the real estate model for Wawa.  Rationalizing that perhaps Wawa would consider some small residential-friendly gas station instead of a commercial giant, I was willing to wait for the project design.  But when I heard there was discussion of possibly building a 250-unit apartment complex on the 10-acre site, there was no way that I could support that concept. For one reason, our school district simply cannot bear the number of additional students such a project could represent.  In a letter presented to the Board of Supervisors on Monday night from the T/E school district, they said just that – they could not afford to have the additional students in the district from a large apartment complex.

The stretch of Old Eagle School Road between Swedesford and Walker Rds is short but significant — home to Valley Friends Meeting and their cemetery. Lewis Walker, one of the earliest settlers in Tredyffrin, and one of the founding members of this Meeting, left to Friends in the Valley the 18th century property on which his family burial ground was located, now the burial grounds of Valley Meeting.  Several members of Valley Friends Meeting attended the public hearing and presented a poignant history of the building and the cemetery.  The Valley Friends Meeting presents another reason for us to pause as we consider appropriate development for that area.

Whether the proposed development for the 10-acre corner site is a Wawa or an apartment building, the concern from the Glenhardie neighbors goes beyond a NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude.  Their concerns about additional traffic  in the area are real. Then there is the issue about stormwater management – is the neighborhood helped more from an 8-acre stormwater basin or hurt more from the development of the property?  Some local residents suggest that as the Swedesford Road corridor between Gateway and the new Wegmans has developed, so has the stormwater problems.

I would ask for some kind of middle ground on this project – understanding that the Richter tract is a premier building site and that the owners of the property have rights, should we not also show consideration for the Glenhardie neighbors, Valley Friends Meeting and what is best for the entire community, including the school district.

In closing, I want to address the Board of Supervisors and how I view their participation in this process.  I understand how upset many in the Glenhardie area are over this proposed zoning change for the Richter property. I live in the Great Valley but my husband and I have owned an investment condo in Glenhardie for almost twenty years, so I have more than a passing interest in this project. As a Glenhardie condo owner, I know first hand the Trout Creek stormwater issues and the ongoing attempts to resolve the water problems.

But upon reflection of Monday’s public hearing, I feel compelled to defend the supervisors. It was apparent by some of the resident’s comments, that there are those that think the supervisors have made some kind of ‘backroom deal’ with Duckworth with regards to the development of the Richter property. If you believe that has happened, I would suggest that you are incorrect.

It was the Planning Commissioners who wrote the proposed Trout Creek Overlay zoning ordinance and submitted it to the Board of Supervisors for review.  I am not suggesting that the supervisors did not talk to Duckworth – some probably have, as well as Mimi Gleason and Steve Burgo.  In fact, supervisor Mike Heaberg often attends Planning Commission meetings where Duckworth attended.  But folks, there is a difference between supervisors having individual discussions with a developer versus the suggestion that some kind of backroom deal has been made.  Chair Michelle Kichline’s response to some of the resident’s accusations was measured but absolute; no deal has been made between the Board of Supervisors and Duckworth.  And I believe her.

However, maybe Phil Donohue, the middle district supervisor could, have lessened some of the confusion of Monday night, with a better resident outreach program. At-large supervisors (Michelle Kichline, Kristen Mayock, EJ Richter, and Mike Heaberg) have a township wide responsibility versus the district supervisors (John DiBuonaventuro, Paul Olson and Phil Donohue) who are elected and represent residents in a specific area of the township.  Not that the district supervisors should not be involved in township wide issues; but they should have specific focus on the western, middle or eastern districts, which they represent.  Perhaps some of the circus-like atmosphere of Monday night could have been avoided (or at least lessened) with an ongoing dialogue between residents and the middle district supervisor Phil Donohue.  I look forward to better communication in the future.

Before any decisions or votes can be taken, there is obviously going to be much more public discussion about the Trout Creek Overlay zoning ordinance and the Richter tract and its development.  As suggested, there will be a community meeting on Thursday, March 8, 7 pm in the Tredyffrin Township Building to discuss stormwater and flooding problems along Trout Creek. Stephen Burgo, Township Engineer, will present results of a 2010 study of the watershed and recommendations for improvements.

Perceived or Real Conflict of Interest?

February 17, 2012
14 Comments

I have been open in my concerns related to political committee people who continue to serve in that capacity once elected to the Board of Supervisors.  Currently Tredyffrin Township has three of the seven supervisors (Michelle Kichline, Evelyn Richter and Kristen Mayock) also serving as committeewoman for the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee (TTRC).

Once elected, township supervisors are elected to serve all the residents, regardless of their political affiliations.  But by remaining in a political party committee position and serving as an elected official there could exist a conflict of interest — if only in perception.  This is certainly not intended as an indictment on the performance of Kichline, Mayock and Richter as supervisors; I have spoken personally to Michelle and Kristen, voicing my concern over this issue.

Michele has served as a supervisor and now as chair of the Board of Supervisors, without any obvious bias towards the political party for which she is a committeewoman.  However, as previously stated on Community Matters, our neighbor Radnor Township takes away the possibility of conflict (perceived or real) — their Home Rule Charter prohibits public elected officials from serving as political party committee people.

The following editorial in the Main Line Suburban by Jerry Kinkead, a former Tredyffrin Township Republican Committeewoman, supports my position and offers personal insight into what could (and has happened) when the lines of separation between a political committee person and elected official blur.  Kinkead not only believes that the current arrangement in Tredyffrin Township is a conflict of interest but is calling for a change in Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter.

Conflict of interest

To the Editor:

Thanks to a local Tredyffrin township blog called Community Matters, I have recently learned that three members of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (Kichline, Richter and Mayock) are also elected members of the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee. I believe this to be a fundamental conflict of interest, which could lead to the blurring of allegiance. I propose that Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter be amended to disallow this practice.

Community Matters pointed out that Tredyffrin Township’s Home Rule Charter does not address this issue, but that in the Radnor Township Home Rule Charter there is a prohibition against being an elected political official while, at the same time, holding an elected governmental position, as well as a provision for dismissal or termination of appointment should this prohibition be violated.

In Chester County, during the decade of the 1970s, we had a situation whereby the chairman of the countywide Republican Party was also chairman of the Chester County commissioners, which was seen as a conflict of interest by some. As a result, a group known as the Independent Republicans set out to make changes in the local Republican Party, with one of their most pressing goals being the separation of those two jobs. There was a protracted political struggle over this issue, though the County Republican Committee eventually saw the wisdom of the goal, after the indictment of the county chairman. Subsequently, the local Republican Party bylaws were changed to disallow the holding of those two influential offices by the same person.

In the 1970s case in Chester County, the county commissioner was found to be giving out contracts to people who supported the party financially. He did not follow the rules for bidding contracts and was eventually indicted and sentenced for breaking the law.

In my view, the problem with holding a political position and a governmental position at the same time is that the lines can become blurred, and measures may be supported by a government official that are meant to advance the interests of the political party. At a local level, there are decisions to be made about appointments, issuance of building permits, support of local institutions and the like, which should be made by people whose guiding interest is the government they are a part of, and not the party that they also serve.

I suggest that the three Tredyffrin supervisors who now hold joint offices should resign their positions in the local Republican committee, and I urge the Board of Supervisors to take a look at how to change the Tredyffrin Home Rule Charter to eliminate this clear conflict of interest.

With respect,

JERRY KINKEAD
Tredyffrin resident
Former Tredyffrin Republican Committeewoman
Wayne, PA

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors; I do solemnly swear . . .

January 3, 2012
2 Comments

I do solemnly swear . . .

Tonight at 7 PM, Tredyffrin Township will swear in four supervisors to the Board of Supervisors.  Incumbent Paul Olson (R), who narrowly beat his Democratic opponent  Tory Snyder in the general election, begins his new term as the most senior and longest-serving member of the Board of Supervisors.  John DiBuonaventuro (R) will be sworn in tonight for his second term as supervisor.  JD has the distinction of second longest-serving supervisor and ran as an uncontested candidate in the last election.  Mike Heaberg (R) will be sworn in for his first full term as a supervisor, having served on the Board in 2011 as an interim supervisor.  If you recall, Heaberg was appointed to fill the vacated seat of Warren Kampf, who resigned after winning his State House 157 election.  Heaberg won the special election in May; continuing to serve on the Board of Supervisors.

Newly elected to the Board of Supervisors in November’s general election, Kristen Mayock (R) will take her place on the dais among her fellow Republicans.  Kristen’s election to the Board leaves a vacancy on the township’s Zoning Hearing Board.  Supervisor Michele Kichline, also an attorney, served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors.  It has been several years since there were three women serving together on the Board – it will be interesting to watch that dynamic at play.

Something else that the women on Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors share in common … Mayock, Kichline and EJ Richter are all TTGOP committeewomen.  Two years ago, (January 12, 2010) I wrote an article for Community Matters, “Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors – Some are Political Party Committee Members – is this OK?  Radnor Township  Says No for their Commissioners”.  

I have been open in my concerns related to political committee people who continue to serve in that capacity once elected to the Board of Supervisors.  As I stated in 2010, “… supervisors are elected to serve all the residents, and by remaining a committee person for a particular party, I would think that there is an appearance that a political committee person would ‘lean’ in the direction of their party.”

As was the case in 2010, of the seven members of Tredyffrin’s 2012 Board of Supervisors, we once again have three supervisors who are also TTGOP committee members (Kichline, Richter and Mayock).

Although Tredyffrin Township’s Home Rule Charter does not address this subject, neighboring Radnor Township, which also uses Home Rule Charter for their local government, is very clear on the topic and what they perceive is a conflict of interest:

From Radnor Township’s Home Rule Charter:

§ 21.9-904. Prohibitions.

 A. The activities which follow shall be prohibited in the operation of the Township government.

     3. Political Party Office. No Township official elected under this Charter, no appointed official, and no full-time Township employee shall hold any elected or appointed political party office.

Under the penalty section, Radnor’s Home Rule Charter further states:

  B. Violation of any provision of this Section shall constitute grounds for forfeiture of office, termination of appointment, or dismissal.

So . . .  do I expect supervisors Kichline, Richter and Mayock to step down from their TTGOP committee member positions?  No.  However, as we look ahead to tonight’s Board of Supervisors swearing-in ceremony, I do point to this information as cautionary.  Whether political committee members or not, I hope that all our supervisors appreciate that once elected, they are to represent and serve all of the residents of Tredyffrin Township, regardless of political party affiliations.

As the Board of Supervisors starts a new year of service to the community, I offer my best wishes for a successful 2012.

Community Matters … A Year in Review (Part 2)

December 31, 2011
7 Comments

It was interesting to read through my Community Matters posts of 2011 and the hundreds of comments but choosing which ones to include in my ‘Year in Review’ was difficult.

Certain topics, including the school district and the primary and general election, were much discussed.  For a second year in a row, the sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club saw much attention on Community Matters. Land development and the struggles between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for ‘control’ over future projects will be interesting to watch in 2012.

Absent a crystal ball, my guess is that the T/E School District’s upcoming teacher contract negotiations and the State House 157 race will lead discussions in 2012.  I am hopeful that our local economy will move forward in a positive way — maybe the new year will see a tenant for Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook.  I have heard that a high-end gym may be in the offering.  And Nudy’s will soon be filling the empty Jake’s space in Paoli Village Shoppes.

Below are my picks for the most interesting Community Matters posts of 2011, in chronological order. Here’s wishing you a wonderful 2012 … may we all enjoy good health and happiness in the new year!

1. Should Teachers Be Consulted in School Budget Discussion?  January 14, 2011

Do School Board, administration, parents and taxpayers give adequate attention to the opinions of the teachers during budget discussions. As TESD teacher negotiations are to begin shortly, this Community Matters post and its comments are timely to read again.

2. Another Store Closing in Tredyffrin . . . A Suggestion for a Business Task Force February 3, 2011

Eleven months ago, I proposed a “township business task force … a volunteer group of local retired executives, small business owners, and corporate representatives.  The group would meet monthly with a mission to spearhead ways to improve existing relationships and provide assistance and a resource for township businesses.  This important support group for the business community could provide regular updates and suggestions to the Board of Supervisors.”  We know that my suggestion was approved by the BOS, an advisory group set up but . . . nearly a year later, where does it stand?  There have been a few stores and restaurants open (Big Lots, Mealey’s, McKenzie’s) but closings and empty stores are everywhere … Genuardi’s, Syms, Jake’s).

3. Looking at Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, is the ‘Handwriting on the Wall’ for T/E? February 22, 2011

A comparative analysis between Unionville-Chadds Ford and T/E School Districts  encouraged 62 comments. Both of these school districts are top performing and enjoy similar academic performances.   The teacher contract negotiation process in UCF was lengthy and time-consuming – teachers worked for over a year without a contract as both sides battled over the benefit package (specifically health care).  Even an independent arbitrator was challenged over the UCF teacher contract process.  Is this the handwriting on the wall for T/E?

4. Labor Dispute Between TEEA Teacher Union & T/E School District . . . Claiming Unfair Labor Practices re Online Course Programming  March 11, 2011

Another very heated school district debate on Community Matters was the dispute over online E-learning in T/E.  The teacher’s union took the stance that the school district was offering courses online to students that could be taught by teachers.  They claimed that the work of instruction and assessing students taking online courses is no different from work performed by teachers in the classroom.  The school district argued that the E-learning courses fall outside the scope of teacher bargaining.

5. Berwyn Banter . . . Ray Hoffman’s Remarks on Homosexuality Evoke Strong Response from Local Residents  April 2, 2011

Ray Hoffman’s Banter column in the Main Line Media news of March 24, 2011 evoked strong response from many residents.  In his column, he had referenced his moral outrage over the Catholic Church and priests involved in the child sex scandal. In my opinion, Hoffman stepped ‘over the line’ when he suggested in his column that pedophilia and homosexuality are synonymous; and “the work of evil incarnate and therefore unforgivable”.  Although one can describe pedophiles that prey on innocent children as evil and their behavior unforgivable, how could Hoffman impose that same standard in his description of homosexuals?  To grow up gay in America, faced with intolerance and persecution can prove an enormous challenge for today’s youth, which made Hoffman’s words all the more painful to read.

6. The Use of Community Matters on Campaign Ad without Permission . . . Illegal or just Disrespectful?  May 11, 2011

The use of anonymous comments from Community Matters on political campaign literature without my permission was a very difficult time for me – and in hindsight, I came very close to closing down Community Matters as a result.  I had discussions with several attorneys over the matter and quickly arrived at the conclusion that the use of Community Matters by the TTDEMS (without my permission) was not illegal.  However, were their actions unethical and disrespectful?   These same people had supported me the year before as “one of their own” supervisor candidates – I just could not understand how  some of them could disrespect and hurt me in this way.  What’s the saying … all’s fair in politics?

7. Unofficial Results from Chester County Indicate Duffy Won by 40 Votes in Tredyffrin’s Special Election . . . Reports of Malfunctioning Voting Machines Add a Twist May 18, 2011

This was one for the history books.  Molly Duffy was declared the winner in the special election by 40 votes.  Reports of malfunctioning voting machines turned out to be correct.  A hand-count of the election ballots a week later found 61 uncounted ballots; as a result Mike Heaberg was named supervisor to fill the vacancy left by Warren Kampf.

8. What’s the meaning of ‘Good Government’? Does it Mean Something Different in Tredyffrin?  June 21, 2011

The Board of Supervisors continues delay tactics over the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk land development project. The supervisors decided that rather than honoring their vote of a few months earlier to leave the land development authority in the hands of the Planning Commission, they presented a new township land development process giving the supervisors more oversight.  The issue should not be about sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club but rather a 6-year old signed land development contract between the club and the township and why it is not enforced.

9. America’s Best High Schools But Where is Conestoga High School?  July 23, 2011

It was very surprising to learn that Conestoga High School was missing from Newsweek’s list of best high schools in America.  Regardless of whether you give any credence to school rankings, what did it say that every other public high school in the area was on the list but not Conestoga.  We learned subsequently that someone in the TESD administration had ‘dropped the ball’ and somehow the paperwork was not returned by the deadline.  Although I am still not clear exactly what happened, I am fairly confident that this same mistake will not occur again.

10. Tea Party Agenda by State Rep Warren Kampf; so claims Former State Rep Paul Drucker August 27, 2011

In an op-ed article in Main Line Media News, former State Rep Paul Drucker had some harsh words for some of the choices made by current State Rep Warren Kampf.  Drucker accused Kampf of following a ‘tea party agenda’ and pointed out the state’s education cuts, the lack of taxing on Marcellus Shale drilling and the state’s decreased funding of social services.  I questioned the timing of the editorial and  asked Drucker if he was considering a  re-match against Kampf for the 157 district in 2012.  At the time I did not receive a definitive answer … wonder if the idea remains a possibility?

11. Light Bulbs . . . Who’s Responsible? Township staff or PECO? October 12, 2011

This was became the starting point for light bulbs in Tredyffrin.  I discovered the problem with light bulbs in Chesterbrook has existed for 27 years since the light poles were installed.  I did a more ‘scientific’ count and found that there were 37 lights out between Duportail Rd.and Chesterbrook Blvd.  I know that the township staff, supervisors and PECO have now held meetings over the matter.  I regularly receive emails from residents who report that they are seeing ‘cherry-picker’ trucks with light bulbs being replaced.  I am hopeful that supervisor Richter will give a light bulb update at the next BOS meeting – plus here’s hoping for an update on the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalks too.

12. Why Must the Campaign Season be ‘Politics as Usual’ . . . Please, Can it be the Truth? October 26, 2011

One of the most highly commented posts (100+ comments) this was a discussion about the negative ads of election season.  Republican and Democratic parties both lowered their bars to slinging mud against each other.  The line became so blurred; it was hard to tell the truths from the lies.  False and misleading information about school board and supervisor candidates was delivered regularly and had many of us questioning the disappearance of honesty and decency in politics.

13. Election Day 2011 is over . . . Looks like much will remain the same!  November 9, 2011

The General Election results showed that all incumbents in the supervisor and school board races won.  It should be noted that in the east, it was a very close race between incumbent Paul Olson (R) and Tory Snyder (D).  In a nail-biter, Tory lost the race by only 13 votes, returning Olson to the Board of Supervisors for another term.  I am not sure but he may have the distinction of having being the longest-serving supervisor.  Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors will continue as an all-Republican board. Kristen Mayock’s election to the Board adds a third woman and it has been a while since we had that dynamic.  In an upset. Jeremy Blackburn (R) was unseated by Analisa Sondergaard (D) as District Judge.  Unlike Judge Blackburn, Sondergaard is an attorney who will now fill the seat as District Judge.

14. Police Chief Andy Chambers Tenders Resignation While on Suspension  December 20, 2011

The township has a cloak of mystery and drama as the year ends.  We learned of an anonymous letter sent to the township supervisors which contained two allegations against Police Chief Andy Chambers.  The first allegation, which the Chief admitted was true, involved him allowing his 16-year old son to drive a township police car.  While driving the car, the kid was involved in an accident but Chambers took full responsibility for costs of its repair.  The supervisors suspended Chambers for (1) allowing his son to drive the police cruiser and (2) his failure to tell the supervisors.  While on suspension, the Chief decided to retire on December 30 after 30 years of service.  The second allegation contained in the anonymous letter suggested that Chambers had used township time to work on personal business.  There was no mention of this allegation by the supervisors so it is not clear whether or not it was investigated or whether or not the allegation is true.  The public was not told the reasons for Police Chief Harkness’ departure from the Police Department, so my guess is there will be no further information on Police Chief Chambers.

Police Chief Andy Chambers Tenders Resignation While on Suspension

December 20, 2011
18 Comments

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, we learned that Police Chief Andy Chambers would resign from the Tredyffrin Twp Police Department, effective December 20, 2011.

Chairman Bob Lamina read a prepared statement that indicated that Chambers made this personal decision to resign while serving a four-day suspension.  Last week, the supervisors had suspended Chambers for allowing his 16-year old son to drive a township police car, and his failure to report the incident to the Board of Supervisors.  The son was involved in an accident with the township vehicle but Chambers had taken responsibility for all associated costs (towing, repair, etc.) and the car is back in service.

As I have previously stated, and do so again – Andy Chambers is a good guy.  Did he have a momentary lapse in judgment?  Yes.  But now, unfortunately he feels that the price for his mistake is resignation. I do not think that Chambers was under any pressure from the supervisors to resign.  As far as the supervisors were concerned, the four-day suspension had settled the matter for supervisors.

I cannot imagine how difficult the last couple of weeks have been for Andy Chambers and his family. We all make mistakes in our lives but most live with the consequences privately.  Chief Chambers’ mistake became public and the public scrutiny of his actions, no doubt painful for him and his family.  As Lamina read in his statement, Chambers decided that his retirement was the right thing to do for the Tredyffrin police department and for the community.   I am guessing that Chief Chambers’ suspension served as an opportunity for personal reflection on he concluded the decision to leave the police department was the right answer for him and his family.

I thank Chief Chambers for his 30 years of service to the community; and offer him best wishes for the future. And, for the record . . .  in my book, you still are a ‘good guy’.

In other news from the supervisors meeting, the township budget was approved for 2012.   Originally, the budget contained a 6.9% millage tax increase for 2012 but in the final budget, the supervisors lessened the increase to 3.5% millage tax increase.  The final budget increase was shaved by reducing professional services and by reducing police hours.  The 2012 township budget passed with a 6-1 vote.  EJ Richter was the only supervisor to vote against the budget, stating that she was opposed to any tax increase.

The Board of Supervisors meeting marked the final supervisors meeting for Chairman Bob Lamina.  After serving 13 years on the Board, Lamina did not seek re-election in the last election and will complete his term at the end of December.  Several former supervisors attended last night’s meeting including John Shimrak, Judy DiFilippo, Paul Drucker and John Bravacos. Former and current supervisors joined members of the public and township staff at a reception following the meeting to thank Lamina for his years of service to the community.

St. Davids Golf Club, Burned-out Light Bulbs & TE School District Finances!

October 18, 2011
34 Comments

I attended last night’ Board of Supervisors meeting and my friend, Ray Clarke attended the T/E School District’s Finance Meeting.  Following my update on the supervisors meeting, please read Ray’s comments.

The agenda for last night’s supervisors meeting went quickly and there was no ‘new matters’ from board members.  I was prepared for ‘new matters’ from citizens with two topics.  Based on the supervisors meeting of October 3, I asked Supervisor Olson (Bob Lamina and EJ Richter were absent) if St. Davids Golf Club had been contacted.  Olson deferred to Mimi Gleason who said yes, the club was contacted and said it was a positive conversation.  I asked about the timeline for response from the club re the sidewalks and her response was that there was no time limit.  In other words, I said the issue remains ‘open ended’ to which she responded yes.  Bottom line, it may have taken us 21 months to get to this point in time with St. Davids Golf Club, but apparently nothing is going to move forward anytime soon, in the way of enforcement, etc..  Was the only way to receive an update (status) on the sidewalks at St. Davids was to ask the same question at every Board of Supervisors meeting? I guess that is correct.

Second citizen matter from me last night was the burned out light bulb situation in the township.  Although I have focused on Chesterbrook and Duportail on Community Matters, I have noticed other area lights out (Old Eagle School Rd. as an example).  My questions produced some interesting facts:

  1. The township (residents) pays PECO per light post, regardless if there are electrical issues or if the lights are working or not.
  2. The township has a yearly maintenance contract with Lenni Electrical to change light bulbs.  Some have suggested that perhaps the township was trying to save money and maybe wasn’t calling the company for maintenance as a way to avoid service call expenses.  Well, I discovered that the township (residents) pays a flat fee regardless of how many (or how few) times they come out to change the light bulbs!
  3. The pink ribbons are placed by township staff to indicate to Lenni Electrical where light bulbs need replacement.  I noticed driving to the township building that there are pink ribbons on street lights that have working light bulbs and questioned why weren’t the ribbons removed when the light bulbs were changed?  Obvious, I would think.  According to Steve Burgo, township engineer, they know that this is a problem and are working with the contractor to get them to remove the pink ribbons.

Mimi cited ongoing electrical problems on Chesterbrook Boulevard as the cause for the non-working light bulbs. I suggested that the electrical problem with some of the Chesterbrook lights has existed for 27+ years.  The response from Mimi Gleason, was that they were working with PECO and that State Rep Warren Kampf had been called for assistance.

After leaving the township building, I decided to do a more scientific study of counting the burned-out light bulbs on Chesterbrook and Duportail Rds.  I drove down one side of Chesterbrook Blvd. to Valley Forge Road, turned around and drove back, counting as many of the burned-out light bulbs as I could find.  This 2-mile (or less) stretch of roads doesn’t have 19 burned-out light bulbs, there are 37 non-working street lights.

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? We are all taxpayers and our money is paying PECO for these lights and our money is paying Lenni Electrical change the light bulbs.  Where’s the accountability on this issue? I remain hopeful that at least one of our supervisors will take up the cause of township light bulbs.

Moving on to last night’s TE School District Finance Committee meeting.  While I was busy sorting through the burned-out light bulb situation, Ray Clarke was at the Finance Committee meeting.  He offers the following comments with his own editorial remarks.  As always, I am appreciative that Ray not only attends the school board meetings, but takes the time to detail his thoughts for Community Matters.  Thanks Ray!

The TESD Finance Committee meeting turned up a few points of interest on Monday night.

  1. The district’s 2010/11 financials got a nice boost from the decision to self-insure healthcare benefits coupled with better than projected claims experience. That turned out to be a $1.3 million favorable variance, which in turn generated a $0.9 million surplus for the year. So our Fund Balance, combined with an additional $0.5 million which under previous accounting rules was separate (I think), is (6/30/2011) now up to a munificent $31 million. (Note, I came in slightly late to this discussion, and there was no handout on this, so my numbers may not be precise)
  2. Also on the plus side, the Committee discussed what to do with the restoration of Corbett’s proposed cut to the state reimbursement of 50% of social security taxes, worth $1.3 million this year, which came in after TE’s 2011/12 budget was passed. The administration proposed ~$200K for postponed text-book buys and ~$300K mostly for technology spending. This generated a lot of debate, essentially asking the question: what is going to be the impact of, say, $60,000 for piloting applications for iPads, versus the current technology environment. To my mind this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg: how will we use technology spending to improve the analytic or creative skills of our students? If we need a pilot to answer that question, fine, but should we spend $60,000 for a pilot? It was agreed that this would be subject for future Board discussion.
  3. Important upcoming dates: November 3rd for the Tax Study Group’s presentation of the pros and cons of and EIT, and November 14thfor a special School Board meeting to consider notification of the intent to request a referendum on the April 24th ballot. Some important things (from my perspective) to bear in mind here:The official financial projection model is being modified to remove the assumption of a Act 1 index 1.7% property tax increase for 2012/13, so the base case is not both a property and an income tax. The base case gap for 2012/13 is currently $5.5 million. (It’s not clear that the model has been updated yet for the actual healthcare cost and fund balance outcomes.)
    1. The TSG’s approach is to present the features of an EIT independent of the alternatives; the Board (and potentially voters) will have to decide the merits of those pros and cons relative to its own assessment of the pros and cons of alternatives like cutting educational programs, raising property taxes or – for a few years – using some of that Fund Balance.
    2. Unknown actions of the townships, which would be entitled to claim up to 50% of the revenues from a voter-approved residential EIT, loom large. How highly would the BOS weigh education versus the township’s own needs?
    3. Of course, totally moot unless the School Board votes to ask the question, and the voters approve it, since there is no sign that the townships are mulling and EIT of their own.
    4. Of course, the Republican candidates for the School Board have already decided the EIT question for themselves without waiting for the TSG analysis. Presumably they are part of the minority in TE that a) does not pay the tax already, and b) has an income greater than 40% of the assessed value of their house, so would rather see any gap (after using some of that fund balance) made up from cuts in the education program or property tax increases.

On the TEEA contract: the district is required by the state to begin negotiations for the next contract in January. The way this all gets going is for the union to send a letter to the district at that time.

How creative can the parties be? Is there a way to trade-off much lower healthcare premiums/benefits (that encourage personal accountability) for maybe allowing step increases, keeping the total compensation cost within at the very least the increase modeled in the district’s current projection?

No Need for Written Request to St. Davids Golf Club to Build Sidewalks . . . Just a phone call! What happens if you get the answering machine!

October 4, 2011
40 Comments

I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting last night; primarily to see if the chapter on sidewalks (St. Davids) would finally be closed.  Each time I think that we have turned that corner; there is a new twist that slows the process.

Whether in the audience or watching from home, the ‘Resolution to adopt the Green Routes Pedestrian Network map’ was not without debate. Chairman Bob Lamina stated that they would divide the township into 3 parts for discussion – essentially the east, middle and the western areas.  A torturous process, discussion began with a ‘street by street’ review of the map, starting with the middle section and moving next to the western areas of the township.

The idea behind this resolution was to add a map to the new sidewalk ordinance passed at last month’s BOS meeting.  However, the difficulty and confusion among the supervisors was whether the map was to ‘only’ include roads that would be affected by the newly passed sidewalk ordinance, which in essence were areas of the township where possible commercial development could occur.  Or was the map to contain all suggested sidewalks, trails, etc. that were part of the green routes network as recommended by the special sidewalk subcommittee.

The debate on which sidewalks to include on the map heightened as the discussion moved to the eastern part of the township, specifically Conestoga and Upper Gulph Roads. Supervisor (Supervisor Olson suggested that sidewalks on Conestoga and Upper Gulph Roads be totally removed from the map.)  By the time the supervisors were at the point of voting on the resolution, I am certain many of us were confused as to what exactly was to be included on this ‘Green Routes Pedestrian Network’ map.  I believe that in the end, the supervisors voted 4-3 in favor of the map as presented by the sidewalk subcommittee.  (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong). With much fanfare, Supervisors Richter, Olson and Lamina voted against the resolution.  Richter used ‘storm water issues’ and ‘empty storefronts’ to explain her vote of opposition.

At this point in the meeting, with the map issue resolved, I expected that we would finally move past the sidewalk topic.  However, no, much to the surprise of  audience members (and some of the supervisors) Lamina made a new motion — for broader notification to the public when sidewalks were contained in future land development plans.  There was concern from some audience members that this discussion was not on the agenda and needed further discussion.  Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro questioned Lamina about the timing of the motion, suggesting that because the motion was formally written, that Lamina had sought legal counsel from the township solicitor in advance of the BOS meeting.  Lamina explained that the idea had come to him at lunch, while “eating his bologna sandwich”! Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Donahue voted against this motion, both believing further discussion was required.  However, the motion did pass 5-2.

Surely, there could be nothing further to say on the topic of sidewalks in Tredyffrin Township.  Not so fast.   Stating that there was some ‘housecleaning’ needed, DiBuonaventuro offered a motion to remove the moratorium on the building of sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club.  The ‘hold’ dated back to the February 22, 2010 supervisors meeting.  Now at this point, I was completely confused.

If you have been following Community Matters, you will note that after last month’s supervisors meeting, I sent a couple of emails to Mimi Gleason, our township manager (copied the BOS and Tom Hogan, township solicitor).  I wanted to understand the next step in the St. Davids sidewalk saga and assumed that since the sidewalk ordinance had passed, the township staff now had the green light to move on enforcement of the sidewalks contained in any open land development agreements (including St. Davids).  I had received the following response from Gleason, which I posted last week on Community Matters,

Before sending letters, the Township now will contact any of the property owners with approved plans that inquired about the need to install sidewalks. They will be informed that they no changes were made to the ordinance that changes anything for their plans. Enforcement proceedings will commence only if they refuse to install the sidewalks.

Based on Gleason’s email response to me, I was completely confused as to why DiBuonaventuro’s motion was necessary but OK; let’s tie up any loose ends.

However, the vote to move St. Davids Gold Club sidewalks along in the process did not come easily.  Again, much discussion, primarily from Olson, who claimed that the township should take the $50,000 that St. Davids Golf Club, had offered not to build the sidewalks . . . further suggesting that St. Davids would instead give the $50K to the fire companies.

There was no way that I was going to let his remarks stand as anywhere close to accurate.  For the public record last night, I stated that (1) St. Davids Golf Club had not offered to give $50K to the fire company and (2) there was never any written offer from St. Davids. The $50K ‘offer’ from St. Davids Golf Club not to build the sidewalks was contained in the 2009 BAWG report but was never substantiated!  To perpetuate misinformation is simply wrong – bringing up the $50K offer from St. Davids was as if the township clock was turned back 20 months! Eventually DiBuonaventuro’s motion passed 6-1 (Olson the sole dissenting vote).

I then asked Gleason about the staff notification process to St. Davids re the sidewalks.  Based on her earlier email to me, I was concerned and was of the opinion, that such a request to St. Davids Golf Club should be ‘in writing’.  No, she explained, the staff would call St. Davids Golf Club and ask them to build the sidewalks.  I said should not there be a paper trail of the notification – how does one track a phone call?  Although she insisted that this was township procedure, I asked how was the public to know if the call was made.  I suggested that no one could ever make a ‘right to know’ request over a telephone call.  Bottom line . . . short of asking the question, “Did you phone St. Davids?” at every supervisors meeting, the public will not know.  I asked what the timeline was for the phone call – I believe her response was, in the next 30 days.

It strikes me odd that after 20 months of St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk debate, the request for St. Davids to complete their 6-year-old land development agreement is not done in writing but with a phone call.

Wonder what happens if the township person calling St. Davids gets their answering machine . . . leave a message and assume that the right person gets it?  Wow . . . is this really how local government works?

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme