Pattye Benson

Community Matters

T/E Fact Finders Report — TESD and TEEA at Odds on Salary and Health Care/Insurance

August 10, 2012
52 Comments

The Fact Finder’s report has now been released (click here to read). In a quick review of the report, salary and health care/insurance appear to be the issues of major conflict between the school district and the teacher’s union. I offer the following summary and my personal remarks, but encourage you to review the report and weigh in with your own opinion. The public has 10 days to review the Fact Finder’s report and then the School Board votes again on Monday, August 20.

Salary

District (1) proposes that as of July 1, 2012 freezing teacher’s salaries at the 2011-12 contract year level; (2) proposes that as of July 1, 2013, freezing teacher’s salaries at the level at which they were at the conclusion of the 2011-12 contact year; and (3) proposes no column and step movement during the term of the Agreement.

Union proposes (1) that for the 2012-13 freezing salary at the 2011-12 contract year and (2) for the second year, 2013-14 year, there will be column and step movement throughout the salary schedule and that those bargaining unit members at the top of their respective columns will receive a payment of $1,000 off-scale bonus.

Recommendation: (1) 2012-13 freeze salary at the 2011-12 contract level and (2) for 2013-14 year, freeze salary for the first one-half of the school year at the 2011-12 contract level and for the second half of the year, there will be column and step movement. Those bargaining unit members at the top of their respective columns will receive a payment of $300 off-scale bonus.

Health Care/Insurance

District proposes to make available health benefit plan to full-time employees (including full-time Health Room nurses). I do not see a coverage option for employee’s spouses and/or dependents (even if the employee pays the difference).

Union proposes a shift to Personal Choice C2 health plan, which would include an increase in copays for doctor’s office visits. Union also agrees to increase its premium share from the current 5% to 7% of premium costs in year one of the Agreement and 8% of premium share in year two.

Recommendation: The Fact Finder report took real issue with the District in regards to health care, stating, “… considering the realities of its financial condition, and its educational and financial goals, there is absolutely no good reason why this School District would not offer more than single medical insurance coverage for its teachers. … There is no defensible reason for this School District – this School District that is one of the richest and best performing school districts in the state – to champion any proposal that would pressure and weaken the families of the teachers who serve the District’s families; removing medical insurance coverage from the children and families of teachers would do just that and I cannot recommend such.” The Fact Finder believes that the District should offer health plan options for teacher’s spouse plus children and family options, suggesting that the District will pay 90 -95% of the premiums and employees 5 – 10% of the premium based on Year One or Year Two of contract.

I’m not certain that I correctly understand the recommendation about ‘who’ is paying for the spouses and/or children of employees. To be clear, I totally disagree with the District on the subject of health care insurance – employees need to be able to have an option of insurance coverage for their spouses and/or families. It does not appear that the District offers that option. Although I am of the opinion that employees should have their individual insurance covered, perhaps the employees should be responsible for the additional costs of insuring their spouses and/or children. If I read the recommendation correctly, that does not appear to be an option.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Teachers Union Accepts Fact Finder Report, T/E School Board Rejects

August 10, 2012
15 Comments

The results from last night’s special meeting of the T/E School Board were anticlimactic and expected. Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association, the teachers union, voted to accept the fact finder’s report from the PA Labor Relations Board. With a vote of 7-2, the School Board voted to reject the report. Kris Graham and Anne Crowley provided the two dissenting votes in support of the fact finder’s report. The recommendations in the fact finder’s report must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.

According to Jeffrey Sultanik, TESD contract negotiator, no public discussion of the fact finder’s report is permitted until the report is published. It is expected that the PA Labor Relations Board will release the report today. During the next 10 days, the public can weigh in on the report and on then at a second special meeting on Monday, August 20, the school board will take another vote on the report. If the school board votes again to reject the report, traditional negotiations will resume between TEEA and TESD.

Share or Like:
        
 

Updated Draft C-1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment … Looks Like ‘Spot Zoning’!

August 9, 2012
2 Comments

Per the July Planning Commission meeting, attorney Denise Yarnoff returned to the drawing board to add her style of regulations to the proposed C-1 zoning text amendment change. If you recall, her client Ed Morris, presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission for an assisted living facility on the old Jimmy Duffy catering site on Rt 30 in Daylesford.

Ms. Yarnoff’s first draft of the C-1 zoning ordinance change was met with great displeasure from many in the community; vague and without associated restrictions or requirements for assisted living facilities. More or less, an ‘anything goes’ kind of approach to the zoning ordinance change … no restrictions in the way of height, buffer, lot size, bed density, nada. In other words, the proposed zoning change suggested a carte blanche approach for developers; i.e. build any size assisted living facility on any lot size in C-1 commercial zoning districts in Tredyffrin Township. No surprise that Daylesford neighbors, and many other community members, balked at Ms. Yarnoff’s initial draft ordinance.

To be clear; Denise Yarnoff wrote the draft zoning text amendment change for Tredyffrin Township but on behalf of her client, developer Ed Morris. Although I still do not understand this process of having a developer’s attorney write township ordinances, apparently, it is legal and that other municipalities handle this type of situation similarly. As I said in an earlier post, ‘if’ (and that is a big ‘if’) I buy into the reasons (financial, etc.) that a developer’s attorney can write a draft township ordinance amendment, I think that any revisions to the document need to come from the township (either staff or Planning Commissioners). At least in the case of the proposed C-1 zoning ordinance amendment change, this was not how it was handled … Ms. Yarnoff did the rewrite on the text amendment and has resubmitted it to the township for next week’s Planning Commission meeting.

To review Ms. Yarnoff’s revised and updated proposed C-1 zoning text amendment change, click here. Here are the six items that Ms. Yarnoff added as restrictions for an assisted living facility in C-1 Commercial District:

  1. The property shall have direct access to an arterial street;
  2. The property shall be located within ¼ mile of a regional train station;
  3. The maximum number of beds per assisted living facility building shall be 500 square feet of the Tract per bed;
  4. The maximum number of beds per assisted living facility building shall not exceed 120 beds;
  5. The development shall comply within the buffer requirement to a residential use set forth in Section 208-66H; and
  6. The assisted living facility shall be licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Looking at this list, I would expect nothing less from a good real estate attorney – the client is paying her hourly rate and she needs to get the best deal for him that is possible; I get it. However, seriously, I am embarrassed for Ms. Yarnoff … I’m no attorney, but is this the best that she could come up with? Does she think that these are acceptable restrictions?

Bed density was one of the major problems that many neighbors and township residents had with the Morris sketch plan of the proposed assisted living facility. His plan suggests 93 beds/79 units on the 1 acre C-1 Jimmy Duffy site — a higher bed density than anywhere in the county, including the downtown West Chester. Because so many residents took issue with bed density, it made sense that Ms. Yarnoff would probably lower that number, make it less dense in the re-write of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Not so … in restriction #4, Yarnoff increased the permitted bed density to 120 beds! So much for listening to township residents.

Looking at #2 of Ms. Yarnoff’s restrictions which requires that assisted living facilities in the township be built within ¼ mi. of a regional train station. Doesn’t that restriction make it convenient for the ‘Jimmy Duffy Assisted Living’ project? How in the world can this restriction in the proposed zoning ordinance change not be viewed as ‘spot zoning’. How many C-1 properties, other than the Jimmy Duffy location, could meet this restriction?

How about #6 on Ms. Yarnoff’s list of restrictions — licensing. Isn’t licensing already a state requirement for assisted living facilities. How does this add to the proposed zoning amendment change?

Lot size … where exactly is the lot size requirement in this proposed zoning change? Without offering any lot size restrictions, is Ms. Yarnoff suggesting that ‘anything goes’? In Tredyffrin, build an assisted living facility on a postage stamp lot and it can have 120 beds! Don’t we need a minimum number of acres for assisted living facilities in Tredyffrin Township? Remember, currently assisted living facilities is included in the township’s Institutional Overlay (IO) district — with a 10-acre requirement. Some argue that the 10-acre restriction is antiquated and needs updating. However, I cannot believe that the township needs to go from 10 acres down to no acreage requirement for assisted living facilities.

And folks, remember that the township recently signed a $100K contract for consultants to review and make recommendations on commercial zoning in the township. What about waiting for those results before we make a change that will affect commercial zoning in the entire township? The next opportunity for public input is on Thursday, August 16, 7 PM at the Planning Commission meeting.

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School District Teacher Contract Update … Special Meetings to Consider Fact Finder’s Report

August 6, 2012
21 Comments

Back on June 19, the contract negotiations between the T/E School District and the teachers union, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) reached an impasse and both sides requested that the PA Labor Relations Board (PLRB) assign it to a ‘Fact Finder’. The neutral third-party was to review the proposals of TESD and TEEA and then make a recommendation.

On June 30, the contract deadline for the T/E teachers came and went with no new contract signed. As of July 1, the school district and the teachers union, TEEA entered the ‘status quo period. Status quo freezes the teacher’s salary at the 2011/12 salary until a new contract is signed. The teachers continue to receive their salary at the current rate until either (1) a strike or lockout within the terms the 1992 Act 88 or (2) they enter into a new contract. The teachers health care benefit plan remains intact (based on the expired contract term) during the status quo period.

The Fact Finder’s report was issued on July 30 and TESD and TEEA has 10 days to notify PLRB as to whether they accept or reject the report. The School Board and Administration are expressly prohibited from making any statements about the Fact Finder report until after PLRB releases it for publication. But PLRB will only release it for publication after either or both sides formally inform the PLRB that they are rejecting the report.

Here’s what I don’t understand – the School Board is holding two special meetings (August 9 and August 23) to consider the Fact Finder’s report. If the School Board is prohibited from making statements until the report is released and they only release it if one or both sides reject the report, how is it then possible that the School Board can now have special meetings to consider the report? Jeez, I must be missing something here on this process. Another question … is TEEA likewise prohibited from discussing the Fact Finder’s report. Keith Knauss, if you are reading Community Matters, can you help me understand how this process works.

I am curious, so I will attend this week’s special meeting on Thursday at 8 PM in the Tredyffrin Easttown Administration Office, 940 W. Valley Road, Wayne, PA.

Share or Like:
        
 

Chester County Planning Commission Comments Reflect the Views of Many Tredyffrin Residents … Will the Board of Supervisors Listen

August 4, 2012
5 Comments

As follow-up to my Community Matters post of July 20, ‘Tredyffrin’s Proposed C1 Zoning Amendment Change … Where do we go from here’, here’s the latest installment in the continuing saga of the proposed C-1 zoning ordinance change to permit assisted living facilities. Although the proposed C-1 zoning ordinance change would permit assisted living as a ‘by-right’ use for all C-1 township properties, the focus is on the 1-acre Jimmy Duffy property on Lancaster Ave in Daylesford.

Tredyffrin Township’s proposed C-1 zoning ordinance amendment (below),

“A residential care facility for older persons providing permanent residential accommodations and/or assisted living facilities/services (and supplemental services) as defined in the applicable Pennsylvania state statutes, rules and regulations along with support services, which may include, but not limited to: personal care and health care services, medical services, skilled nursing, community facilities, and congregate dining facilities; provided that the property shall have direct access to an arterial street.”

was sent to the Chester County Planning Commission for review on July 5 and this past week Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission received their comments/remarks. (Click here to read the CCPC response).

Although we were told that is procedurally OK that the township sent the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Chester County Planning Commission, it struck some of the residents (myself included) rather pre-emptive to ask for comments from the county in advance of our own Planning Commission giving their ‘thumbs-up or thumbs-down’ on the amendment. As many Daylesford neighbors and other township residents have repeatedly commented, the proposed zoning ordinance amendment needs restrictions/requirements attached to it.

Reading the comments on Tredyffrin’s proposed C-1 zoning amendment change, it is apparent that the Chester County Planning Commission echos concerns of many township residents. The official response from the county, offered the following comments in regards to the proposed C-1 zoning amendment change:

  1. The proposed zoning amendment does not appear to be consistent with the Township’s land use policies as currently written.
  2. The proposed zoning amendment does not appear to be consistent with the goals and objectives specified on page 67 of Tredyffrin’s Comprehensive plan.
  3. The proposed zoning amendment does not appear to be consistent with the purpose statement of the C-1 Commercial District, which, according to Section 208-64, is “designed to encourage and provide for attractive, company, retail convenience-type commercial development in locations close to the residents served”.
  4. Residential care facilities are currently permitted by conditional use in the IO Institutional Overlay District with specified bulk, height and buffer regulations.
  5. Other Chester County municipalities address assisted living facilities utilizing conditional use in medium to high-density residential or institutional zoning areas.
  6. Assisted living facilities are not found in any other Chester County Commercial zoning districts.

If I did not know better, it would seem as if the Chester County Planning Commission were audience members at Tredyffrin’s supervisor and Planning Commission meetings. Every one of the points that the Chester County Planning Commission presented in their review of the township’s proposed C-1 ordinance amendment have been made repeatedly during the last several months by township residents.

The Chester County Planning Commission summarizes their remarks by stating, “Tredyffrin Township should consider the comments contained in this review before taking action on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.” Well, … by their comments, it appears to me that Chester County Planning Commission is suggesting that assisted living facilities should not be in Tredyffrin’s C-1 zoning districts. My understanding of their comments appears to suggest that clarity is needed from the township with respect to restrictions and regulations.

Here’s an interesting point to consider – although the Chester County Planning Commission looks to be in complete agreement with many of the township residents opposing the proposed C-1 zoning ordinance amendment change, their opinion will not decide the matter. Members of Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, will have the final say on whether assisted living facilities become a ‘by-right use’ in all C-1 zoning districts. Should the supervisors approve this proposed zoning ordinance amendment change, they will also decide whether to add any restrictions to the ordinance, such as bed density, height, buffer requirements, etc.

Although not a legal requirement for our Planning Commissioners or supervisors to give any credence to Chester County’s recommendations on the proposed C-1 zoning amendment change, I would hope that they seriously consider these comments in advance of the next Planning Commission meeting on August 16.

Ed Morris, the developer eyeing the Jimmy Duffy site for an assisted living facility, will need the C-1 zoning amendment change to move forward. It was Denise Yarnoff, Morris’ attorney, who wrote the township’s proposed amendment change. We learned at the last Planning Commission meeting that the applicant’s attorney agreed to add restrictions to the proposed amendment and re-submit for the August Planning Commission meeting. We have been told that there is nothing wrong with the applicant’s attorney writing the proposed amendment but where does it end? After Yarnoff created the draft amendment, I think it needs to be the responsibility of our Planning Commissioners and/or township staff to add any additional requirements or restrictions. I am troubled that the re-write of Tredyffrin Township’s proposed zoning ordinance amendment is in the hands of the applicant’s attorney … just doesn’t feel right to me.

Share or Like:
        
 

Community Matters … Not on Vacation!

July 31, 2012
7 Comments

I have received emails and calls asking about ‘where’ is Community Matters; was I on vacation? I would love to say that I had traveled to some wonderful vacation place in the world — unfortunately, nothing nearly as exotic or fun. I spent most of last week at Penn with health issues and surgery but am safely back home and on the road to recovery. A few more days and I should be back to normal (?) and re-focused, including an update on the continuing saga of Daylesford and the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project. If you have questions, concerns, updates, etc. related to community issues, I can be reached via email at tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com.

However, in the interim, if you are around this Friday and looking for some summer fun — please consider attending Summer Breezin’, our summer fundraiser for Paoli Blues Fest, at Royer-Greaves School in Paoli. We’ve got some great live music, fantastic silent auction items, food, drinks … even a margarita machine! Here’s the recent press release with details or visit our website, www.paolibluesfest.com :

Summer Breezin’ Fundraiser on August 3 to Support the 4th Annual Paoli Blues Fest

PAOLI, Pa – In four short years, the Paoli Blues Fest has grown to become the largest annual blues festival in the Philadelphia region. The date for the fourth annual blues festival is Saturday, October 6 and Blues Fest co-chairs Pattye Benson and Marie Thibault are expecting attendance to exceed the 2011 visitor estimate of 15,000. The Blues Fest Committee works year-round to make sure that each year the Blues Fest is bigger and better than the year before; and this year will be no exception.

The free annual community event requires many hardworking volunteers plus lots of money. Each year, the nonprofit organization needs to raise approximately $50K to fund the one-day Paoli Blues Fest. Without the support and generosity of corporate and business sponsors, such as Paoli Hospital, Malvern Federal Bank, Paoli Village Shoppes and WXPN, and grants from PA Council of the Arts, Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance and Brandywine Conference & Visitors Bureau, the annual event would not be possible.

To guarantee the continued success of the Paoli Blues Fest also requires the help of individuals in the community. The second of 2 summer fundraisers, Summer Breezin’ is Friday, August 3, 5 – 8 PM at Royer-Greaves School, 118 S. Valley Road, Paoli. Royer-Greaves School provides the perfect outdoor venue for the sounds of the Rob Dickenson Trio as you sip cold drinks and munch on appetizers. Enjoy the timeless music of Jimmy Buffet, sway to the reggae sounds of Bob Marley and sing along to classic ‘oldies’ that are sure to have you on your feet.

The fundraiser will feature a silent auction with many exciting items including gift certificates for many local business and restaurants, Phillies tickets, signed baseball memorabilia and personal tours of the Senate Chamber with Sen Andy Dinniman and the State House with Rep Warren Kampf.

Dress is summer casual; the fundraiser tickets are $35 or 4 for $100 and may be purchased online at www.paolibluesfest.com. For questions, contact Pattye Benson, Summer Breezin’ Co-Chair, 610.644.6759.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin’s Proposed C1 Zoning Amendment Change … Where do we go from here?

July 20, 2012
19 Comments

Residents from the Daylesford neighborhood made their opinions known at last night’s Planning Commission meeting. With the exception of one person, all others in the Daylesford community spoke against the proposed C1 zoning ordinance change and the assisted living facility plan for the old Jimmy Duffy catering site.

The president of Daylesford Neighborhood Association, Trisha Larkin, presented a powerful 20-min. power point presentation, which explained the timeline to date for the C1 zoning ordinance change and the rationale behind the resident’s objections to the proposed assisted living project. It was obvious from their reaction, that some audience members and Planning Commissioners were not fully aware of the timeline and ‘how in the dark’ the most-effected neighbors were in regards to this proposed project. (Click here to review the timeline.)

A couple of things were striking about the comments from Larkin and other Daylesford community members … R.E.S.P.E.C.T. I have attended many Planning Commission meetings and often neighbors become very vocal in their opinions, and at times disrespectful to the planning commissioners, staff and/or applicants. Not so last night. A steady stream of residents offered their positions on the proposed C1 zoning change; their comments delivered with the utmost respect. Although the vast majority of residents were either opposed to changing the C1 zoning to permit an assisted living use and/or asked for additional restrictions to be added to the zoning change, those choosing to comment did so with respect for the developer, his attorney, township staff and Planning Commissioners.

The other striking theme to the discussion on the proposed assisted living project was the process itself. The planning commissioners acknowledged that they have been working on this project with the developer Ed Morris of Berwyn Real Estate and Gerald Farrell of Capital Health Service, for over 2 years. Yet the residents most-effected by the proposed assisted living facility only found out about in January of this year. By the time the Daylesford Neighborhood Association were aware of the proposed C1 zoning change, Morris and Farrell along with their attorney Denise Yarnoff, had attended several Planning Commission meetings. Morris openly declared at these public meetings that there was no opposition to the project from the neighbors. Resident after resident pointed out, they could not support (or oppose as is the case) a project that they knew nothing about. Unfortunately for Mr. Morris, he misspoke when he portrayed the neighbors supported this project … as evidenced last night, nothing could be further from the truth.

In addition to Daylesford neighbors, the proposed C1 zoning ordinance change brought questions and concerns from other township residents in attendance. Berwyn resident Andrea Felkins asked about the definition of ‘assisted living’ versus ‘personal care facilities’ … how was it defined in the municipal zoning code, what was the difference? Her questions hit a cord with Planning Commissioner Ed Sweeney who in his remarks, referenced Felkins question, and asked for clarification from township staff and/or solicitor for the August Planning Commission meeting. Andrea offers further explanation as follow-up to her comments given last night:

The C1 Ordinance Amendment draft describes the additional use as “A residential care facility for older persons providing permanent residential accommodations and/or assisted living facilities/services (and supplemental services) as defined in the applicable Pennsylvania state statutes, rules and regulations along with support services, which may include, but not limited to: personal care and health care services, medical services, skilled nursing, community facilities, and congregate dining facilities; provided that the property shall have direct access to an arterial street.”

In contrast, a very preliminary search of regulations for PA provides this language:

“What is the difference between an Assisted Living Residence (ALR) and a Personal Care Home (PCH)?

ALRs are different from PCHs in 3 ways: concept, construction and level of care. ALRs embody the concept of allowing a resident to “age in place” without having to move to a licensed long-term care facility when their needs increase.

The construction of an ALR is different from a PCH. PCH residents live in bedrooms that may be shared by up to 4 people. ALR residents will have living units with kitchen capacity. No one will be forced to share a living unit. Living units will have a door with a lock and a private bathroom. This housing-service model will allow for privacy and maximum independence. It is similar to a studio apartment where the resident can make meals if desired and have a private bathroom.

The level of care provided in an ALR is distinguishable from a PCH, offering another choice of long-term living options in the commonwealth. A person who needs the level of care of a nursing facility is not permitted to reside in a PCH and must transfer when their needs become too great. That same person, however, will be able to live in an ALR where they’ll be provided with the services they need to age in place. “

Even on its face, the ordinance amendment makes no distinction about which purpose the property intends – stating only that it will follow the applicable state statutes. No statute is identified … I’m not a real estate lawyer, but with this lack of specifics, this amendment seems to broadly define a use. Likewise, unless “arterial street” is a defined term in our zoning codes, then any C1 property would be free to build any quality or size of facility. I’m not suggesting that is what is intended, but when we write laws/rules/ordinances/amendments, I think a bit more clarity would be prudent.

Tredyffrin Township solicitor Vince Donahue provided an opinion letter in regards to the grandfathering usage of parking on the 1-acre R1 parcel of the Duffy property. Although the Jimmy Duffy property has remained abandoned for several years, Donahue is of the opinion that the nonconforming use of parking remains available to the owner. Paoli resident and attorney John Petersen disagrees with Donahue’s opinion, believing the nonconforming use of the R1 parcel for parking has lapsed and offered his comments to the Planning Commissioners last night. For the assisted living project to ‘work’ on the Jimmy Duffy site, it requires the 1-acre C1 parcel plus the continued use of the R1 parcel as parking. In an effort to better understand Petersen’s position on the Jimmy Duffy development project, I asked him for clarification. Here are his comments …

In my opinion, Ed Morris’ contemplated development of the old Duffy’s Catering site is dead in the water for several reasons. 1 – And this is a preliminary point that focuses on the general lack of process and procedure around this particular plan. 2 – Which builds on point 1 above, this is effectively become a spot zoning/contract zoning issue. 3 – The pre-existing non-conforming use of the R1 parcel for parking to support the C1 use has lapsed – which itself is a fatal blow to the project.

On one hand, the PC wants to see the site is used. On the other hand, the PC wants to be comfortable with the use. In last night’s proceedings, it was far from clear how the PC and the BOS could let things get this far. Trish Larkin’s presentation (which by the way I was happy and honored to have input on) made crystal clear how problematic the situation is. What was clear from last night’s meeting was that the PC was giving great weight to the developer, their time, money spent, and almost no consideration to impacts of the zoning change or the needs and concerns of the citizens. To suggest that a “Super Wawa” could go there is a false choice. First, that is a use of right. Second, it is an entirely inappropriate comment to make by Ed Sweeney. The absurdity here is that a legal use is being subordinated to a non-permitted use. Again, it is entirely inappropriate for the PC to consider the money spent by a developer – unless of course – this is really a contract.

The stated reasons in previous paragraph outline a process that is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is unreasonable to the extent the way the needs of the developer appear to be the only areas of concern. There is little to no consideration of the broader zoning impacts. The only consideration appears to be for this developer, this project and this parcel of land. The arbitrariness goes to the general lack of process. The extent of un-reasonableness and arbitrariness are direct factors that go to determine if spot zoning is in fact, present. One can argue that in reality, there is a contract here – which gives rise to a contract-zoning case.

Perhaps the bigger issue is the R1 parking and whether it is grandfathered. There are four reasons why Vince Donahue’s analysis in his opinion letter is flawed:

  1. There has been a change in ownership
  2. The catering business ceased at least 3-5 years ago
  3. Mr. Donahue’s analysis leaves it to a reasonableness standard
  4. Donahue cites fact in support of his conclusion as opposed to case law

The conclusion in Mr. Donahue’s opinion is that the zoning officer “Could not reasonably conclude that the use has lapsed.” In fact, I just gave a number of reasons why Matt Baumann, our zoning officer, could reasonably conclude that the use did lapse. In fact – I’d say that based on these facts – Baumann couldn’t reasonably conclude the use didn’t lapse. If the township tries to grandfather this use, that itself could be a prima facie case of contract zoning – which is always construed to be spot zoning. Ironically, where the PC and at least some on the BOS thought they were helping this project along, they actually did more to harm it by not following sound process and procedure.

By the end of the evening, it became apparent to the Planning Commissioners that there were too many unanswered questions surrounding the C-1 zoning ordinance change for them to feel comfortable taking a vote to move the proposal forward to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant’s attorney agreed to add restrictions to the proposed text amendment and re-submit at the August Planning Commission. In the meantime, the township staff will work on finding answers to the questions asked by the Planning Commissioners and residents, including a review of other municipal zoning ordinances that govern assisted living facilities.

I caught up with Trisha Larkin today — curious to know what the DNA president and her neighbors thought of the Planning Commission meeting. She offers her thoughts below …

Thank you to the Members of the PC, along with the many Tredyffrin residents, and DNA members that participated in a respectful and thoughtful dialogue about the proposed C1 Ordinance Amendment.

DNA members articulated their concerns that the Township could set major negative precedence for changing ALL of the Township’s C1 zoning for this ONE developer, for this ONE project, on this ONE space. We fully agree with Mr. Lukens that as our population ages, we shouldn’t have to leave Tredyffrin in order to find a suitable Assisted Living Facility. However, we respectfully request that the PC give a comprehensive analysis as to why Assisted Living use in C1 is a good idea. The goal should be to have consistent and compatible uses that meet the needs of ALL residents. If the PC recommends that Assisted Living use should be added somewhere OTHER than in the Institutional Overlay districts – ONE THING CLEAR – Tredyffrin has ONE shot to “get it right“.

The DNA was thrilled and grateful to the Planning Commission for delaying the vote last night and opposing the Ordinance Amendment with no restrictions. We appreciated that the Applicant was asked to “go back to the drawing board” and place conditional uses/special exceptions/regulations. Rushing this decision comes with a high cost, and careful deliberation is required. As it stands, the Supervisors delayed the Public Hearing until the September 17 meeting. The PC has a daunting task to exhaust all possible options by that deadline.

So … what’s next in this process? Where do we go from here? Further discussion of the proposed C1 zoning ordinance change is scheduled for the August 16 Planning Commission meeting. It is anticipated that the developer and his attorney will present an updated version of the zoning ordinance change; hopefully it will include additional regulations and requirements. We learned this week that the supervisors moved the public hearing on the proposed C1 zoning ordinance change from their August BOS meeting to their September 17 meeting.

Share or Like:
        
 

“A Job is Not a Life” … Mimi Gleason Resigns as Tredyffrin’s Township Manager

July 17, 2012
12 Comments

For those of us who attended last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, it went very late, until 11:30 PM. Now I have to wonder if the 4-hour marathon meeting had any bearing on this morning’s decision by our township manager.

Mimi Gleason has been Tredyffrin’s Township Manager for the last 7 years. Prior to becoming township manager in 2005, Mimi served under Joe Janasik as assistant Township Manager for 3 years. There was no indication at last night’s meeting of Mimi’s impending announcement this morning; and the news has taken many of us by surprise.

Rather than speculating on the reason behind Mimi’s decision to resign, I spoke at length with her this afternoon. She assured me that the decision to leave was completely her own rather than anyone pushing her in that direction. Mimi told the township supervisors and her staff this morning of her decision to resign; her last day will be September 17.

I asked Mimi why she was resigning – was it another job? No, she is not leaving Tredyffrin for another job. In fact, her explanation for the resignation was actually quite simple … “A job is not a life”. She went on to explain that she is uncertain about what she wants to do, but knows that she wants to do something different and to work less. Her plans after September 17 include taking a few months off from work, visiting friends around the country during the fall and her annual trip to Hawaii in January. Although Mimi does not view the decision to resign as some type of mid-life crisis, our conversation did turn philosophical as we discussed the importance of really ‘living’ life.

What has she enjoyed most about serving as our township manager? An easy question, she responded “… the people … the staff … the volunteers … the groups she works with”. I then asked what she liked least about the job and that proved another easy question. Her quick response, “night meetings!” Based on last night’s supervisors meeting that ran until 11:30 PM, I could not help but think that may have made her decision this morning a little bit easier.

Wondering if Mimi could be cajoled into extending that September 17 deadline, I asked her that question. No, her mind is made up. Remembering her words, “a job is not a life”, Ms. Gleason has some living she wants to do!

I know that you join me in wishing Mimi well; wherever this life’s journey takes her. We thank her for her ten years of service to the residents of this community and can take some solace in knowing that this was ultimately her decision, and no one else’s.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Township: What Price Economic Growth?

July 16, 2012
25 Comments

What price economic growth …

  • What is the price tag for economic development in Tredyffrin Township?
  • Is it OK to green light a land development project even when it doesn’t meet current zoning regulations?
  • Is it right for a developer and his attorney to create a zoning ordinance amendment to Tredyffrin Zoning Code to suit their needs for a particular project?
  • As a community, do we want zoning amendment changes in Tredyffrin Township without restrictions, requirements or conditional uses?
  • If you are a developer considering a project in Tredyffrin but cannot find suitable zoning, that may not be an obstacle to your plans. All you need to do is write a new ordinance, call it economic development and then watch as the plan moves forward.

This post is an update on the old Duffy catering site on Lancaster Ave. and the proposed assisted living facility. The vacant Duffy property contains approximately 2 acres, with a 1 acre parcel zoned C-1 and a 1 acre parcel zoned R-1. Current zoning does not permit an assisted living facility in C-1 or R-1 in Tredyffrin Township.

With an idea to build a 93-bed/79-unit multi-story assisted living facility on the C-1 parcel, the developer Ed Morris through his attorney Denise Yarnoff of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco, submitted a zoning ordinance amendment change to the township to permit assisted living as a C-1 usage.

Tredyffrin Zoning Code currently addresses assisted living facilities in IO (Institutional Overlay) zoning and includes four pages of restrictions and regulations, including residential density, bed density, buffers, setbacks, etc. in addition to a 10-acre minimum acreage requirement. Yarnoff skillfully, and in the best interests of her client, reduced the four pages of regulations to a one sentence zoning ordinance amendment change. She offers no restrictions, regulations or conditional uses … just a C-1 amendment that would allow assisted living in C-1 zoning. I give Yarnoff credit – as the attorney for Ed Morris, she is certainly maximizing the land development needs of her client. Assuming Yarnoff gets this C-1 zoning amendment change, then it should be full-steam ahead for Morris to build his assisted living facility — 93 beds/79 units on 1 acre.

Members of the public do not dare call this proposed action ‘spot zoning’. Supervisors, Planning Commissioners and township staff cringe when residents refer to this proposed change as spot zoning – telling us that it can’t be spot zoning if the change affects all C-1 zoning in the township. On the flip-side, some of these same people tell us there are no plans for assisted living facilities in any other township C-1 locations. As I see it, they cannot have it both ways.

A quick real estate Google search indicates a Tornetta Realty Corp. listing of 6.1 acres of ‘Prime Development’ C-1 land available for $3.5 million at 1057 Howellville Road, Berwyn. Now here’s a thought — if Yarnoff’s proposed zoning amendment change can permit 93 beds/79 units on 1 acre in Daylesford, then by my calculations, there would be room for 560 beds on Tornetta’s 6.1 acres in Berwyn. (Click here to see Tornetta’s Howellville Rd. listing)

I don’t know why certain supervisors and planning commissioners would have us believe that assisted living facilities are not planned for any other C-1 locations. Seems to me that the C-1 land on Howellville Road for sale would present an excellent opportunity for Morris, Yarnoff et al to build a sister location to their Daylesford assisted living facility! And remember folks, no official land development plan has been submitted to the township for this project; this is about changing zoning in anticipation of a plan! Yarnoff’s proposed amendment change for C-1 zoning is being considered without the submission of a land development plan. What’s the saying about the “cart before the horse”?

But aside from any concerns about putting 93 beds/79 units on a 1-acre site, I take an exception to the township’s handling of this land development plan and making changes to zoning to suit a particular developer. Where is the voice of the residents? When elected or appointed officials characterize citizen activism as politics, they’re attempting to marginalize the citizens’ concerns. The most-affected neighbors to this proposed project, the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) with Trisha Larkin as president, have banded together hoping to have their collective voice heard. Their green and white ‘No C-1 Zoning Change’ signs are populating township lawns and the support is building beyond the immediate neighborhood. Much like George Lucas’ storm troopers in Star Wars, the DNA and their supporters are organizing and preparing for battle but … will it be enough to turn the tides?

Although no land development plan has been officially filed with the township, some seemingly already have the facility built. Let’s disregard the required process in favor of what some officials believe should be the desired outcome. The proposed C-1 zoning ordinance change is on the agenda for Thursday, July 19 Planning Commission meeting — concerned township citizens plan to attend. Right now, I am not certain that their voices will make a difference. According to tonight’s Board of Supervisors agenda, the supervisors will “Schedule Public Hearing to be held on August 20, 2012, to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance, Article XVII §208-65, C-1 Commercial District, Use Regulations to permit a new use: “residential care facility for older persons providing permanent residential accommodations and/or assisted living facilities/services (and supplemental services)”.

Additionally, I have learned that on July 5 the township sent a letter, formally requesting that the Chester County Planning Commission (CCPC) review and provide a formal recommendation on Ed Morris’ proposal to change C-1 zoning. The C-1 zoning amendment change as sent to CCPC is the version written by Morris and Yarnoff, with no restrictions, requirements or conditional use. The deadline for CCPC comment is by August 5 … no accident that the deadline is prior to the proposed August 20 public hearing date.

From my vantage point, the scheduling of the public hearing on the proposed C-1 zoning change and the review request by Chester County Planning Commission in advance of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting is preemptive of the process and citizen input. To move this process along before hearing the concerns of the community is to marginalize the voices of the citizens. Balancing public concerns requires public input and is crucial in determining the pros and cons of development and possible zoning ordinance changes. Residents deserve respect and an opportunity to receive answers from those elected to represent us.

Why the rush to push this zoning ordinance change through? Why no bed density restrictions or regulations? Why no conditional use?

And let’s not forget that Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors hired a consulting team in April to conduct an 18-month, $100,000 analysis of the township’s commercial zoning ordinances. This proposal to change the township’s C-1 zoning ordinance is preemptive of the consultant’s analysis which begs a question — why is this township spending $100K for a consultant to analyze the township zoning and make recommendations?

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Township’s Constitutional Conversations: The Battle for Ratification

July 10, 2012
2 Comments

Segment 2, ‘The Battle for Ratification’ of the Constitutional Conversations cable series is now available for viewing. According to the description provided by co-hosts Rich Brake and Dennis Gallagher, this segment discusses “… the process and the political intrigue surrounding the ratification of America’s new Constitution. They also introduce how the two founding father groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, debated and resolved their philosophical differences to arrive at a compromise resulting in America’s new system of government.”

I watched Segment 2 of the series, and with no disrespect intended, it took me 3 failed attempts before I could get past the first 10 min. of the 29-min. show. Although both Brake and Gallagher are identified as ‘Constitution Scholars’, from my vantage point it seemed that Gallagher’s role was that of an interviewer asking questions, with responses left to Brake. Not that there is anything wrong with that approach, I just think it is a bit of a misnomer that they refer to themselves as co-hosts. In my opinion, this segment was a bit disjointed in the delivery of information with some technical, editing and sound issues, making it difficult to follow at times.

When discussing the ratification of the Constitution, many nuances exist between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist point of views and they should be thoroughly considered — each group waged a verbal war in hopes of winning public support for their side. The supporters of the Constitution, the Federalists, argued that the nation needed a stronger national government to create order and stability whereas the anti-Federalists supported the states’ rights approach to government. Arguing that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, the Bill of Rights became a weapon of defense and the most effective tool for the anti-Federalists. They demanded a more balanced Constitution, one that would be careful to protect the rights of the people and to set limitations on the power of the government. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights and they did not want an intimidating national government taking those rights away again. Although the anti-Federalists lost the ratification battle, the Bill of Rights stands as a lasting testament to the importance of individual rights.

I found Brake’s discussion of citizen representation interesting. He compares the increased size of voting districts today versus the size they were at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and ponders the question, “Can representation actually take place well, in a setting that is large and distant from the public?” Due to the size of voting districts, Brake talks about the increased resources and finances required by politicians seeking office today. Due to the financial demands of political campaigns, Brake laments that is likely that only the financially elite can afford to seek office. As a result, there is a risk that elected ‘elite’ may not necessarily represent those that they seek to serve. As a proponent of campaign finance reform, I agree with Brake on this point.

In the discussion of the original 10 amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, Brake identifies several, including freedom of speech, religion, petition, right to bear arms, freedom from search and seizure, right to counsel, etc. He points specifically to the importance of the 10th amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Based on Brake’s emphasis on the rights of the States under the Constitution, I was surprised that he did not use the opportunity to discuss the 10th amendment as related to the Supreme Court decision on the health care bill. There are some, including Mitt Romney who believe that the 10th Amendment places the responsibility and care of health care to the people with the individual states.

I lay no claim as a ‘Constitution Scholar’ and offer these remarks on Constitutional Conversations solely as my opinion. I suggest taking 29 minutes, watch Segment 2: Battle for Ratification, and offer your own thoughts. Click here to watch the second installment of Constitutional Conversations.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme