Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

League of Women Voters to hold candidate debate for TESD & Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors — Saturday, October 19!

October 14, 2013
8 Comments

Washington always has hogged much of the nation’s political oxygen, and in recent weeks, it has grabbed all of it, and probably some of the other basic building blocks of life, as well. But there is an election scheduled for Tuesday, November 5 and as voters, we have choices to make.

The federal government shutdown has invaded this community directly – look no further than the closure of Valley Forge National Historic Park! But our local government and school district affects us more directly than any other public entity – the local roads we drive on, how long it takes someone to come when we dial 911, the school our children attend, etc. etc.

Voters will have an opportunity to learn more about the candidates for the TE School Board and the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors this Saturday, October 19. Yes, it looks like that in addition to the supverisor debate, there will be a TESD School Board Candidate Debate!

The Chester County League of Women Voters will conduct a debate for the TESD school board candidates this upcoming Saturday, October 19, 1 – 2 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building, 1100 Duportail Road, Berwyn.

The following are TESD School Board candidates:

  • Tredyffrin, East – Region 1: Kevin Buraks (D) **
  • Tredyffrin, East – Region 1: Pete Connors (R)
  • Tredyffrin West – Region 2: Rich Brake (R) **
  • Tredyffrin, West – Region 2: Scott Dorsey (D)
  • Easttown, Region III: Doug Carlson (R)
  • Easttown, Region III: Virginia Lastner (R)
  • Easttown, Region III: Maryann Piccioni (D)
  • Easttown, Region III: Jean Kim (D)

It is my understanding that six of the eight school board candidates will participate in Saturday’s debate. Unfortunately, Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim have personal scheduling issues and are unable to attend. There are four Easttown school board candidates on the ballot because current Board directors Betsy Fadem and Anne Crowley have chosen not to seek re-election. As chosen by Easttown voters, the two candidates receiving the highest vote count will be elected to the TESD school board. Incumbents Kevin Buraks (D) and Rich Brake (R) will be challenged on Election Day by Pete Connors (R) and Scott Dorsey (D) respectively.

Immediately following the TESD School Board Candidate Debate, the Chester County League of Women Voters will conduct the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Debate, 2 – 4 PM, same location.

The following are Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors candidates:

  • Supervisor at Large: Michelle Kichline (R) **
  • Supervisor at Large: Trip Lukens (R)
  • Supervisor at Large: Murph Wysocki (D)
  • Supervisor at Large: Mark Freed (D)
  • District 2 Middle:: EJ Richter (R) ** (a)
  • District 2 Middle: Laurie Elliott (D

The Supervisor at Large seats go to the two candidates receiving the highest vote count on November 5. In the Middle District, the candidate receiving the highest vote count wins the seat.

Off-year elections are historically very-low voter turnout. Here’s hoping that the upcoming school board and supervisor debates lead to more informed voting and increased voter turnout!

———————————————————————————-

** Incumbent

(a) Currently serving as a Tredyffrin Township At-Large supervisor, Evelyn Richter is seeking re-election; not as an At-Large candidate but as a candidate in the Middle, District 2 race.

Four weeks and counting until Election Day

October 7, 2013
Comments

Election Day 2013 is 4 weeks from tomorrow, Tuesday, November 5. If you are not registered, today is the last day to register to vote in the Municipal Election. Applications from Pennsylvanians registering for the first time, those changing their address or changing their party affiliation must be postmarked or delivered to Chester County’s board of elections by the close of business today, October 7. Chester County’s board of elections is located at Government Services Center, 601 Westtown Rd., Suite 150, West Chester, PA 19380. Their phone number: 610-344-6410. Office hours: 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM.

Do you know the candidates for the Board of Supervisor or the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board? What issues facing the township and school district are important to you – do the candidates share your concerns, your opinions? How likely are you to vote on November 5?

If you are a voter in Tredyffrin Township, you will have an opportunity to learn more about the Board of Supervisors candidates. The League of Women Voters is holding a supervisor debate on Saturday, October 19, 2-4 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building. There are three contested seats on the Board – two for supervisor-at-large and a district supervisor for the middle district. Seeking one of the two at-large supervisor seats is incumbent Michelle Kichline (R), Trip Lukens (R), Murph Wysocki (D) and Mark Freed (D). Current at-large supervisor E.J. Richter (R) is opposing Laurie Elliott (D) for the middle district seat.

In recent years, the League of Women Voters also has held a debate for the TE School Board candidates. Unfortunately, the volunteer organization will not hold a similar debate this year for the school board candidates. This is an important time to know your candidates – what are their backgrounds and experience, where do they stand on issues, etc. etc. So … why no debate for the school board candidates? Do you know who the school board candidates are?

On the Tredyffrin side of the school district, we have Democrat incumbent Kevin Buraks being challenged by Republican Pete Connors in Region I. In Region II, Scott Dorsey (D) opposes incumbent Rich Brake (R).

On the Easttown side of the school district, there are two seats available in Region III. For personal reasons, neither Betsy Fadem (R) nor Anne Crowley (D) is seeking re-election. I attend almost every school board meeting and I have not met any of the four candidates vying for the two open Region III seats. The candidates are Republicans Doug Carlson and Virginia Lastner and Democrats Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim.

School board candidates Pete Connors and Scott Dorsey have each stated that they want the opportunity to discuss school district issues and are interested in pursuing a debate forum with the other school board candidates — Neither knows why a debate was not scheduled as in prior years. Because of my discussion with Connors and Dorsey (and the interest from the public in learning about the school board candidates), several options are being explored. However, with only 4 weeks remaining until Election Day 2013, it does not leave much time to organize a ‘meet your school board candidate’ forum.

If the past is any indication, the political war for control will rear its ugly head over the next 30 days with school board and supervisor candidates door knocking, campaign mail pieces hitting our houses and the robo-calls that invariably come at dinnertime. Voters need a reason to go the polls on November 5 – they need to know the issues and which candidates support their views. Everyone should be interested in the election because the future of the township, the school district and the community are dependent upon strong, issue-focused leadership. The issues are complex and the School Board (and the Board of Supervisors) must work as a team united (with the community) to find effective solutions.

Parking lot underway at Valley Forge Elementary School and so are tennis court usage fees!

July 17, 2013
28 Comments

VFES Parking lot

I was surprised how many heavy equipment vehicles are required to add a few parking spaces at Valley Forge Elementary School. Passing by the school on Walker Road, you couldn’t miss the mountain of dirt, storm water drainage system and assortment of backhoes and bulldozers. Increasing the size of the VFES parking lot is one of the school district’s summer facilities projects.

While I stopped to take a photo of the parking lot construction, I walked over to the infamous tennis courts. It was nice to see the tennis court door unlocked and available to use. It’s been years since I played tennis, but I couldn’t help but notice how pristine the courts looked – the playing surface well maintained, the lines recently painted and the net in great shape. VFES neighbor Don Detwiler has maintained the tennis courts for years – free of charge.

Tennis courts signageThe VFES tennis courts are available through the summer for residents to use free of charge but the start of school in six weeks will also mark the start of user fees for local tennis players. At the District’s June 14 facilities meeting, discussion of usage fees ranged from a suggested $28K annual association charge to hourly fees of $15/hr. weekdays to $25/hr. weekends.

The rental of the courts for private lessons and tennis camps was established at the June facilities meeting at rate of $30/hr. for one court and $60/hr. for two courts with fees to start immediately. Signage is now on the tennis court fences reflecting those fees. To schedule the use of the courts for lesson or camp, there is a notice to call the District’s business office 8 AM – 4 PM, Monday – Friday. It is completely unclear to me how the District ‘polices’ the use of the courts by instructors — there’s no lock box and the door was ajar. Shouldn’t the details of how the process works be known to the public?

The usage fee for individuals to use the tennis courts will be determined at the August facilities comittee meeting and those fees will presumably begin with the start of school year in September. If the fee schedule for the use of the tennis courts for instruction is determined in the facilities committee meeting, I guess the facilities committee will also determine the usage fee for residents. It’s impossible for many people to go to the monthly facilities meetings as they are held on Friday at 2 PM. I would have expected the usage fees to be discussed at a regular school board meeting. In fact, because the usage fee was not previously discussed at the monthly school board meeting, I thought there was still an option not to charge residents a fee. But based on the signage on the fence, there’s no question that there will be a fee — only question remains as to how much it will cost the residents. Doesn’t it seem odd to anyone else that policy is determined in a committee meeting and then is sanctioned though the use of signage. Shouldn’t the tennis court usage and the fee schedule be available for public disucussion at a regular school board meeting?

VFES Tennis Courts

I have several questions in regards to the VFES tennis courts — (1) what is the cost basis for determining the District fee schedule (remember, Mr. Detwiler has maintained the courts for free, for years); (2) what is the District’s process for collecting the user fees; (3) how much will the District’s collection process cost; (4) how will the tennis courts be policed; and (5) what is the estimated cost to police the courts.

If the TE School District is going to charge residents for the use of the tennis courts, why not charge them for the use of the school playground equipment on the weekends or for the use of the high school track?

Without a final Vanguard settlement agreement, Tredyffrin supervisors postpone vote … How could School Board vote to approve?

July 16, 2013
1 Comment

Tredyffrin’s largest employer, Vanguard, challenged the tax assessments for its main corporate campus and several of the buildings that surround the main campus for tax year 2012-13.

On July 8, the School Board held a Special Meeting to approve the Vanguard appeal settlement. The School District had challenged Vanguard’s appeal and rather than the potential loss of $800K in revenue annually, the settlement cost the District $150K in annual revenue – saving the District $650K in annual losses.

All of this sounded like good news for the District – improving financials is always good news, isn’t it? The Board detailed the ongoing efforts of the District staff and solicitor in regards to the Vanguard settlement and enthusiastically approved the proposed settlement. Although the other taxing authorities (township and county) had to approve the settlement, the solicitor stated that he expected the additional approvals by the end of the month. In other words, fait accompli for the approval of the Vanguard appeal settlement. Following the meeting, the Board released a statement on their website, which in part said …

School Board Approves Vanguard Appeal Settlement

At a Special Meeting on July 8, 2013, the Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board approved a settlement agreement concerning the Vanguard assessment appeals. While the Board approved the settlement, the agreement is not final until Tredyffrin Township and Chester County, which are also taxing authorities for the Vanguard properties, also approve the agreement. All parties have been involved with the negotiations process which began in the fall of 2011.

I attended Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting last night and discussion of the Vanguard appeal settlement was on the agenda. Based on the school board’s July 8 approval of the settlement agreement, I assumed that the supervisors would rubber-stamp that decision. However, as we learned from the township solicitor, Vince Donohue, the Vanguard agreement was not final and that the attorneys for the District and Vanguard were still going back and forth over the details as late as 5 PM last night. Donohue explained that the legal discussion would not change the assessment values but rather the ‘terms’ of the agreement, concluding that the “devil is in the details”. Based on the uncertainty of the final Vanguard agreement, Donohue advised the supervisors to postpone their vote.

For several of us who attended both the school board meeting and the supervisors meeting, you are left shaking your head and wondering why is there such a disconnect between the school district and the township. Two weeks ago the school board holds a special meeting to tell the public their ‘good news’ – that after much effort, the District has reached a settlement with Vanguard and that there is a net savings of $650K. Plus the added bonus included in the settlement is that Vanguard will not seek assessment appeals for 3 years. We have no idea what ‘terms’ of the agreement are still in debate, maybe Vanguard is no longer interested in a moratorium on assessment appeals.

What we saw with the VFES tennis courts, we now see with the Vanguard agreement … a complete disconnect between the school district and the township on public issues. Why the seemingly disregard of the township supervisors by the school board? Rather than collaborating on shared matters, such as the tennis courts and the assessment appeal, the school board makes their decisions and then leaves it to the supervisors to find out after the fact.

I’m struggling to understand how it is possible that, without a final Vanguard appeal agreement to review, the township supervisors appropriately decides to postpone their vote whereas the school board votes to approve that same agreement and then works on the terms afterwards?

Great Economic News — Shire changes its mind, not moving from Tredyffrin Township!

May 30, 2013
1 Comment

Last fall, we learned that Shire was planning to move its headquarters from its current Chesterbrook location to Atwater Business Park in neighboring East Whiteland Township when their lease expired. Located in Chesterbrook since 2004, Shire planned to build a new large office complex on Trammel Crow property at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Yellow Springs Road, moving their 1,500 employees out of Tredyffrin. Shire’s decision to relocate meant the vacancy of four large corporate buildings in Chesterbrook.

Today’s Philadelphia Business Journal reports that Shire has reversed their decision to move their headquarters from Chesterbrook. After analyzing its ‘global footprint and its real estate presence, Shire’s new CEO Dr. Flemming Ornskov, concluded, “We feel fine where we are.”

Shire had a signed development agreement and plans were well underway for the company’s move to East Whiteland. According to the article, the real estate project was to construct 10 buildings totally 1.15 million square feet of office space on 110 acres. Phase one was to be four buildings at an estimated cost of $175 million. Although certainly good economic news for Tredyffrin, East Whiteland not only loses this major development project but also the financial rewards of 1,500 new employees paying earned income tax. Does make me wonder what cancelling the agreement cost Shire … but certainly a lot less than $175 million!

Beyond the obvious economic impact, Shire is a great community contributor and supporter — the summer concert series, annual fireworks, Shire Pavilion in Wilson Farm Park, Tredyffrin 300 sponsorship and the list goes on and on. Shire has been there for the Tredyffrin Township community whenever needed and it’s exciting that they are staying here!

Responding to Shire’s decision not to leave the township, Tredyffrin Towsnship Board of Supervisors Chair Michelle Kichline offered the following comment —

The Board of Supervisors is pleased that Shire has decided to remain in Tredyffrin Township. Not only is Shire a world class pharmaceutical company; it is an outstanding community partner. Shire is a long time major sponsor of our Fourth of July fireworks and our summer concert series.

The Township will continue its efforts to attract and maintain businesses, like Shire, that help improve the quality of life in our community and provide jobs to our residents.

Michelle Kichline
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors

Zoning Amendment Could be Solution to Saving the Tennis Courts

May 1, 2013
13 Comments

May 1 was the deadline for the School District to submit their variance application to the Township in order to be listed on the Zoning Hearing Board’s May 23 meeting agenda. According to Township Manager Bill Martin, the application was received today. Some of the neighbors of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts may think there is nothing to stop the ZHB from awarding the variance, but that may not be the case.

The combined impervious coverage of the tennis courts and the additional parking spaces exceeds the township stormwater requirement. Based on the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) there appears to be no legal basis for Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board to grant a variance to the School District.

Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) a zoning hearing board “may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

  1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
  2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
  3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
  4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
  5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.”

According to the MPC, the School District needs to show an economic hardship for ZHB to grant a variance in this matter. However, the additional parking spaces at VFES are optional (not a requirement) for the School District and therefore do not constitute an economic hardship. I have been forced to accept that using the logic that the impervious coverage (of the tennis courts plus the additional parking) is only a ‘little over’ will not satisfy the MPC requirement. There is also the matter of a strict stormwater policy in Tredyffrin, and an important issue that is unlikely sidestepped.

A solution that would save the tennis courts, allow the additional parking spaces and not require a ZHB variance was presented to the School District and Township by John Petersen, a former ZHB member. I was copied on the following email sent to Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin Buraks, President of the School Board and the Township and School District solicitors, Vince Donohue and Ken Roos, respectfully.

Here’s a suggestion…

The BoS offers up a zoning amendment that creates an exception for what is counted as impervious coverage: tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. that are available for public use (defined as owned by either the township or school district) that exists on or before the date, the zoning amendment is ratified. A possible permutation is that the first 1K square feet is exempted.

I normally don’t endorse amending the ZO based on specific facts. Like everything, there are always exceptions. For an exception, there must be some solid criteria to support such:

1. The items covered by the exception can never increase

2. Its not de-facto spot zoning because there are any number of places where this applies

3. Not likely to have an adverse impact on storm water (TESD will still have storm water issues to deal with in the parking long construction)

4. There is a strong public policy argument in retaining recreational facilities

I don’t think you will get much, if any push back on this. Is it legal? That’s up to you guys to figure out. In my opinion, this is not objectionable, unlike the recent C-1 amendment. The school district is not just any ordinary landowner.

Baring this, there is no way to keep the courts and build the additional parking. There are no legal grounds to grant a variance.

There’s an old saying that bad facts make bad law. In this case, bad facts sometimes require us to re-visit the law. In 1,000 cases, there may be one time when we should do that. I think this is one of those times. The change is very limited and is in keeping with public policy and finally, no material adverse impacts to storm water. The school district should hot have to choose between courts that have been there for 40+ years and the need to add much needed parking.

John

Although there were follow-up emails sent, to date no one has responded to Mr. Petersen’s suggestion. The four people receiving Petersen’s email (Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos) are all attorneys and therefore presumably understand the standard required by the Municipalities Planning Code for the Zoning Hearing Board to issue a variance. In fact, if memory serves me, Michelle Kichline served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors. Considering the legalities of the MPC, why should the School District bother to submit a variance application? If not economic hardship, on what grounds is the School District seeking a variance?

Even if the Township reduces the fees to the School District, there are professional costs (legal, architectural) involved with the ZHB variance application. Why not consider a zoning amendment – the tennis courts are saved and the parking lot is expanded. Looks like a win-win for the Township, the School District and the residents who use the tennis courts!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note: I am sending this article to Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos asking them to comment directly to me on (1) the grounds for the ZHB to issue a variance to the School District and (2) the consideration of a zoning amendment. Their responses will be posted on Community Matters.

The Saga of the Tennis Courts Continues …

April 11, 2013
1 Comment

The saga of the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School continues. On April 2, representatives from the School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, staff and the District’s architect held a public meeting to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

Although there was support to save the tennis courts from those residents in attendance, no decision was made at the meeting. The tennis courts are on the Facilities Committee agenda for tomorrow (Friday), 2 PM at the TESD Administration Building. Also included in the agenda packet is the site map for the parking lot expansion and aerial view of the courts.

I remain confused as to why the District wants to demolish the tennis courts. From a logical standpoint, some of the arguments simply do not make sense to me.

  • The tennis courts are not located adjacent to the parking lot and their location does not affect the parking lot expansion plans. To add the 24 parking spaces does not require the demolition of the 2 tennis courts.
  • There has been much back and forth between the School District business manager Art McDonnell and the Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo in regards to “trading” impervious surface requirement of the parking lot expansion by demolishing the courts. McDonnell claims that there was a prior agreement with former Township Manager Mimi Gleason in regards to this arrangement; Martin and Burgo claim otherwise.
  • In an email to Bill Martin and Art McDonnell (cc Phil Donohue) dated March 20, Burgo states the following:

Township staff including the previous Manager (Ms. Gleason), Engineer (Mr. Burgo), and (Mrs. McPherson), attended meetings with Art McDonnell and TESD consultant staff on these Tennis Courts more than a year ago. In those meetings, the TESD discussed their plans to add a new parking lot at the VFES in the future. I want to be clear that the TESD and their consultants originally asked if they could swap the impervious, but were told by the Township that they couldn’t. Stormwater Management controls are required by the Township Stormwater Ordinance, for all new impervious being constructed onsite. There is no credit or swap if the courts are removed from a stormwater management standpoint, only from a zoning standpoint.

  • On behalf of the District, Art McDonnell has publicly maintained that there was a ‘deal’ in regards to the impervious surface requirement. Yet as evidenced by Burgo’s email, the township has denied any such deal existed. Further, to the point, such a deal would be illegal as the stormwater ordinance makes no provision for such a credit. Therefore, we can only conclude that the School District represented by the business manager Art McDonnell has been less than truthful as to their rationale for demolishing the tennis courts.
  • The construction of the additional parking spaces will require a zoning variance. According to VFES neighbor Matt Morgan, township officials indicated at the April 2 Facilities Committee meeting that they would expedite the process and probably waive the associated fees (if asked).

Besides the impervious surface debate, another rationale for the removal of the tennis courts from the District was their cost to maintain. I have had a number of residents tell me that courts are in excellent condition – although I don’t claim any expertise on tennis courts, the 2 courts at VFES looked in good shape to me.

Another neighbor to the tennis courts, Don Detweiler, has been providing routine maintenance for a number of years. Neither the School District nor the township has expended any dollars on the courts. In an April 1 TE Patch article , local resident Jeff Sacks, a tennis coach, is quoted as offering to pay the maintenance cost. According to Matt Morgan, a local Davis Cup tennis player who lives in the neighborhood and uses the courts, has offered to hold tennis clinics for children and donate the proceeds to maintain the courts.

Beyond the ‘he said, she said’ aspects of this story, that has me shaking my head is the notion that the tennis courts are going to cost money unless they are demolished. According to the District, the cost to seek a variance from the township’s Zoning Hearing Board will be $12K – $14K; $2K in fees and the remainder in architectural fees. However, the supervisors stated at the April 2 public meeting that they would probably waive the fees if asked. And there would not be need for additional architectural services or drawings — the District could apply for a variance based on the current drawings.

Why is there such a rush to take down the tennis courts? Why is the building of the 24 parking spaces contingent on the removal of the courts? It has been verified that there was no such ‘deal’ exists to swap the tennis courts for impervious coverage requirement. There should be a better reason to remove the tennis courts other than the courts are on District property and they School Board has the right to do what they want. It’s true the courts are on District property but the District property is owned by the residents.

Tomorrow is the Facilities Committee meeting. Representing the School Board on Facilities is Pete Motel, Jim Bruce and Liz Mercogliano. According to a April 2 article in the Main Line Media News, Mercogliano is siding with the residents and supports keeping the tennis courts. From the article —

“There is no legitimate reason based on impervious surface, stormwater management, safety (or) sink holes to remove the court,” Mercogliano said in an e-mail. “The parking can be built in same area with no issue as there is more land space.

“The community deserves their right to be heard and look into other means of raising funds for maintenance and possible takeover of the court through the Parks and Recreation board or a similar foundation to raise funds. I am supporting a delay to allow the opportunity for the taxpayer to seek an alternative method to save the courts for the kids.

There will be a recommendation from the Facilities Committee tomorrow. If you are unable to attend the 2 PM meeting, you could send an email to the Board at: schoolboard@tesd.net or to individual Board members. However, I emailed the School Board president Kevin Buraks 8 days ago (in regards to the tennis courts) and to date, have received no response or acknowledgement to my inquiry.

The fate of Valley Forge Elementary School Tennis Courts remains an open issue

April 4, 2013
15 Comments

Tuesday night members of the TE School Board and TESD staff, Tredyffrin Township supervisors and staff met with residents to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

The courts are on District property and by a 1974 agreement were built and maintained by Tredyffrin Township and Parks and Recreation Board (click here for agreement). The agreement allowed for termination, “if at any time the school district determines that the grounds selected for the construction and maintenance of the tennis courts are required for school building purposes.” By a letter dated May 31, 2012 from TESD business manager Art McDonnell to the township, the agreement was terminated because the “District has now determined that the grounds are required for school building purposes. Specifically, the grounds will be used to add a parking area to the Valley Forge Elementary School.” (click here for McDonnell letter).

This is confusing because the tennis courts are behind the school and the parking area and the construction of the additional 24 parking spaces is in the front of the building. Leading up to Tuesday’s meeting, there has been much debate centering around whether the removal of the tennis courts would alleviate stormwater and impervious surface requirements of the parking lot expansion.

Although the current township manager Bill Martin and township engineer Steve Burgo state that there was no ‘deal’ that the school district could trade stormwater requirements for the parking lot by removal of the tennis courts, the District has a different viewpoint. According to their presentation at the meeting, former township manager Mimi Gleason met with Tom Daley, the District architect and Art McDonnell, on May 3, 2012 to review the concept of trading the paving in parking lot for the tennis courts and that the concept was approved. McDonnell presents the meeting information and verbal approval from Gleason to the District Facilities Committee on May 11. At that meeting Daley presented layout options and the preliminary budget was set at $230K. It was at this point that McDonnell sent the letter to the township on May 31 (referenced above).

After testimony from many neighbors in support of the tennis courts, where does the project stand? According to the District, JMC Contractors was awarded the contract for the project – their bid $224,743. The cost to remove the tennis courts is $24K.

According to the District architect, Tom Daley, the costs for additional stormwater mitigation could be $1 Million without a variance if the tennis courts remain. I have a hard time believing that the cost could be so high.

It was suggested that if the District could go to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance, but it is unclear to me on what grounds the approval could be granted. For Zoning Hearing Board, it is my understanding that the District could bring the current drawings/plans without needing the expense of legal or architectural representation at the meeting – a savings of $10-12K. It is also suggested that application fee of $2K could be waived by the Board of Supervisors. If the District wants to seek a variance, they will need to notify the township by Monday. (There’s a legal requirement to notify publicly advertise two weeks in advance of ZHB meeting) Board member and District Facilities Committee member Betsy Fadem has stated that she wants this matter resolved by May 1. The next Facilities Committee meeting is April 12 at 2 PM where the tennis court discussion will continue.

I’m not sure what is magical about May 1, except that the District has a time schedule for getting the parking lot construction done during the summer months when school is closed.

The District has a signed agreement with a contractor, so I am not sure how this is going to play out. Will public pressure cause the District to backtrack and reverse course and save the tennis courts? What are the implications if the District seeks a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board? Although the suggestion is that getting a variance would not be challenging to the District, I was under the impression that there are specific guidelines under which variances are granted, such as economic hardship.

Sidewalk Construction Underway at St. Davids Golf Club!

March 16, 2013
6 Comments

I received a voice mail from Steve Burgo, Tredyffrin Twp Engineer on Thursday to let me know that the sidewalk construction was underway at St. Davids Golf Club. Not that I didn’t believe him, but I had to drive over to see for myself. Sure enough,the construction project is underway on Upper Gulph Road, on either side of Fletcher Road, next to the St. Davids Golf Club. My impression was that the sidewalk was to be more like a path but based on what I saw, this is much more involved than I expected. Besides the digging for the sidewalk, looks like there is also a retention wall.

The construction of the sidewalks will satisfy the signed land development contract between the township and the golf club. Thanks Steve for the heads-up!

Construction of sidewalk at S. Davids

Construction of sidewalk at S. Davids Golf Club

 

No Oscars but Locals Receive Awards for their ‘Antithesis of Outstanding Performances’

March 2, 2013
10 Comments

Last weekend, Los Angeles played host to the glitterati of the film world for Oscar night, the world’s greatest wrap party. The evening was filled with the glamorous fashions, long-winded acceptance speeches and first-time host Seth MacFarlane, his controversial humor making for an interesting choice for Hollywood’s most prestigious awards show.

From the moment that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences announces its annual award nominations, the campaign season for a little golden man kicks into high gear, with movie studios spending large amounts of money in an attempt to influence Academy voters. For moviegoers, armed with personal award predictions of who will take home Hollywood’s biggest prize, the red-carpet evening always entertains.

Ray Hoffman noted the glitz and glamour of Hollywood’s big night in Main Line Suburban Life today by presenting a few local “performance awards” of his own. In lieu of a golden statuette, Hoffman presented ‘Razzy’ trophies to deserving locals for their “antithesis of outstanding performance”.

Banter’s Razzy winners include –

  1. The Tredyffrin Township BOS for ‘Worst Performance by a Community Board’ for its long-standing stonewalling of the sidewalk issue at St. Davids Golf Club;
  2. The T/E Board of School Directors for ‘Worst Case of Communicating with the Public’ in the matter of hiring of former Tredyffrin Police Chief Andy Chambers as special school safety consultant;
  3. Former Easttown Township Manager Mike Brown for ‘Worst Performance in a Short Subject’, his term of office lasted only 13 months;
  4. Easttown Township BOS for ‘Worst Use of a Worn Excuse for Termination of a Manager’ in the matter of Brown’s firing so that he could “pursue other opportunities”; and
  5. Regency Center for ‘Worst Application of Pedestrian Walkways in a Shopping Center Parking Lot’ at Gateway Shopping Center.

Looking back over the last 12 months, I think Hoffman may have missed some deserving Razzy winners. Here are some personal additions:

  1. Former Tredyffrin Township Manager, Planning Commission and BOS for ‘Worst Zoning Amendment Change for a Specific Developer’ in the matter of a C-1 zoning amendment change so developer Ed Morris can build an assisted living facility on the old Jimmy Duffy’s catering site in Daylesford;
  2. T/E Board of School Directors for ‘Worst Board Participation in Teacher Contract Negotiations’ for not having a seat at the contract negotiation table;
  3. Tredyffrin Township Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro for ‘Worst Attack of a Private Citizen by an Elected Official using Township Resources’ for the matter of using official township letterhead and the township website for a personal tirade against a resident;
  4. Tredyffrin Township BOS for ‘Worst Communication Website Policy’ which permits individual township supervisors to use the public’s township website for personal reasons; and
  5. Tredyffrin Township BOS for ‘Worst Police Department Study Not Used’ in the matter of spending $49K for a boilerplate consulting study and then not following the consultant’s advice and hiring additional police officers.
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme