Public Hearing - 1-6-11

8/4/2019 Public Hearing - 1-6-11

1/125

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OFABINGTON TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

- - -

Public Hearing re: Amending the Abington Township ZoningOrdinance and Zoning Map, Creating a Fairway TransitDistrict(FTD) - Ordinance No. 2000 and Ordinance 2006

- - -

Thursday, January 6, 2011

- - -

Abington Township Building1176 Old York RoadAbington, PA 19001

7:00 p.m.

- - -

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:

CAROL T. DiJOSEPH, PRESIDENTROBERT A. WACHTERERNIE PEACOCKJAMES H. RING

LORI A. SCHREIBERDENNIS ZAPPONEWAYNE C. LUKERWILLIAM J. LYNOTTMICHAEL W. GILLESPIELES BENZAKJOHN J. OCONNORSTEVEN KLINEPEGGY MYERSMICHAEL OCONNORJOHN CARLIN

Jon R. PichelmanCourt Reporter

10 Presidential DriveLimerick, Pennsylvania 19468

610-547-4581


2/125

PRESENT:

R. REX HERDER, ESQ., Township Solicitor

MARC D. JONAS, ESQ., Special Counsel for Abington Twp

MICHAEL NARCOWICH, Senior Planner, Montgomery CountyPlanning Commission

JOHN KENNEDY, Special Township Plannerfrom Kennedy and Associates

LAWRENCE MATTEO, Director of Code Enforcement

MARK PENECALE, Code Enforcement

BURTON T. CONWAY, Township Manager


3/125

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Good evening. Were

here tonight to amend the Abington Township Zoning Ordinance and

Zoning Map creating a Fairway Transit District, FTD, Ordinance

No. 2000 and Ordinance No. 2006. At

this time I would like to have a roll call, please?

MR. MATTEO: Wachter?

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Schreiber?

COMMISSIONER SCHREIBER: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Ring? Gillespie?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Kline?

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Luker?

COMMISSIONER LUKER: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Lynott?

COMMISSIONER LYNOTT: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Zappone?

COMMISSIONER ZAPPONE: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Peacock? Carlin?

COMMISSIONER CARLIN: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Benzak? Jay OConnor?

COMMISSIONER JAY OCONNOR: Here.


4/125

MR. MATTEO: Michael OConnor?

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL OCONNOR: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Myers?

COMMISSIONER MYERS: Here.

MR. MATTEO: Madam President?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Here.

Stand for the Pledge of Allegiance,

please?

(Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: The purpose of the

hearing is to afford an opportunity to all concerned citizens to

comment on an ordinance of the Township of Abington amending the

Abington Township Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map pursuant to

Article VI of the Township Municipalities Planning Code by

adding a new Section 504 creating a Fairway Transit District,

here to be known as the FTD, and to establish specific standards

and requirements applicable to such district; create a new use

C-34, Transit Oriented Development, TOD; use C-35, Car Share

Facility, and use J-4, Transit Station, and amending Article X,

sign regulations.

At this time I would like to call on our

attorney, Rex Herder.

MR. HERDER: Thank you, Commissioner.


5/125

I just wanted to say a few words to

explain where we are tonight and how we got here, and I think

everybody is aware of the fact that this whole process was

initiated when the owner of the Baederwood Shopping Center filed

a substantive challenge to our Zoning Ordinance and Map and

proposed a cure to the defect that they allege, and that defect

was the fact that there is a relatively small -- it is eight

acres, but its a relatively small parcel that has no road

frontage thats zoned R-1. Its surrounded by other ground that

is not zoned R-1.

When that challenge was filed, the

Township had essentially three choices. No. 1 was to defend the

R-1 zoning, No. 2 was to accept the landowners proposed cure,

which was to zone that R-1 parcel to PB such that the entire

Baederwood Shopping Center owners property would be PB; or,

third, to adopt our own cure.

And after due consideration it was the

Commissioners determination to try and not be reactive to this

situation, but to be proactive, to adopt our own cure, and one

which would be in keeping and compatible with the Townships

long-range planning goals for that area of the Township as those

goals are set forth in the Old York Road Corridor Study.

So, what you have before you tonight is

the FTD Ordinance and that is the culmination of that process.


6/125

The Ordinance was prepared at the staff level by the Township,

which is customary, thats the way these things are done

routinely. It was prepared chiefly by the townships land use

consultant, Mr. John Kennedy, who is here this evening.

I would point out that there are two

ordinances before you, they go hand in glove or in tandem, if

you will. One is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance itself,

to the text of the Ordinance. The other overlays this zoning

district on the Baederwood Shopping Center property.

And because they go hand in glove, or

are in tandem, one will not work without the other, it is

appropriate that they be considered together this evening and

voted on in one motion.

And that is all that I have to say at

this point, and I know that Mr. Kennedy does have a presentation

for the Board of Commissioners and for the public concerning

this ordinance.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Thank you, Mr.

Herder.

And I will turn to Mr. Kennedy and you

can give us your presentation.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very

much. Good evening. Can everybody hear

me? Hopefully? Ill try to speak up.


7/125

My name is John Kennedy. I am principal

of Kennedy and Associates, Planners and Land Use Consultants.

Were located in Harleysville, Pennsylvania.

We were hired to look at the eight-acre

parcel behind the Baederwood Shopping Center to examine the

existing zoning with respect to the challenge that had been

filed by the landowner.

And you see that area right here on this

side, and Ill try to go back and forth as best I can.

The eight acres and the shopping center

together comprised 18 acres, which is split zoned. Approximately

10 acres is zoned PB, Planned Business, that is the area you are

familiar with along The Fairway here, and the eight acres

behind, which is a wooded property, is zoned R-1 Residential Low

Density.

You see the site outlined here in blue,

and, as I mentioned, this is the existing Baederwood Shopping

Center. For your reference, The Fairway is along the bottom.

When we start to look at any site, we go

back to planning fundamentals. And we examine all sites in this

fashion. And we look at several factors.

We look at the current zoning on the

tract, the surrounding zoning on other parcels around the tract,


8/125

we look at current uses on the parcel, and surrounding uses

around the parcel.

We also look at physical constraints

such as shapes, or topography, and examine environmentally

sensitive areas which would include items such as flood plains

or wetlands or steep slopes.

We also review relevant planning

documents such as zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances,

comprehensive plans, and in this case we also examined one

additional document which is the Old York Road Corridor Study

that was recently adopted by the Township.

We also take into account trends

in -- current trends in planning.

The ten acres that is zoning PB, located

right here, is similar to zoning around it.

The R-1 parcel, which you see here in

yellow, is isolated. Its surrounded by other districts, other

zoning districts. And that, in essence, is the basis of this

challenge.

The zoning on the R-1 piece, from a

planning perspective, really is not justifiable, and from a

planning sense I can really find no planning justification for

it to be zoned R-1.


9/125

The R-1 portion, this eight acres, is a

remnant that is left over from previous zoning changes that have

taken place in the past and, in my opinion, it is no longer an

appropriate location for the least dense district in the

township.

Looking at the surrounding zoning we see

two possibilities for potential replacement zoning. One

possibility would be to the north and to the west, we have a

district called SNRD, which is Senior Neighborhood Residential.

In my opinion, after reviewing the

standards for this district, it is not an appropriate or logical

choice for replacement zoning for several reasons.

To begin with, the SNRD District has a

25-acre minimum site area requirement.

In addition, the eight acres does not

have any connectivity to the existing SNR District. In other

words, there are no right-of-ways or vehicular access points

that would connect this to the balance of the district.

And then, furthermore, the eight acres

also lacks direct access to an arterial highway. And that is

one of the stated purposes in Section 305.1, which is the SNR

purpose statement.

Now, of course, we do have direct

access, roadway access, down to The Fairway, through land


10/125

ownership patterns; however, The Fairway is a primer street and

it is not an arterial highway.

Looking then to PB, to the south, as a

possibility for replacement zoning, we do find that it does make

some logical sense. The landowners other holdings are zoned PB,

previously the landowner had requested a zoning change to PB,

and therefore we thought it was worthwhile to examine in greater

detail the impact of PB zoning on the entire tract.

We did this by first taking a look at

the PB standards. And here you see pages from the Zoning Code

of the PD District.

In my 30-year experience I can easily

say that PB is one of the most liberal districts that I have

ever seen. It has a wide range of uses that are allowed.

Anything from commercial to industrial to community service to

residential.

Down this side right here we see uses

which are permitted by right. This continued up here. These

then -- these other uses are by conditional use or a special

exception.

Just looking at some of the uses allowed

by right we find the typical uses such as drycleaners, hotel,

laundry, but when we come down to, for instance, item 19, D-13,

thats an industrial use, Recycling Drop-Off Center.


11/125

We also have items such as an Amusement

Arcade.

And then when we come down to item 29,

use 29, we have H-1, Apartment/Multiplex Building.

So, there is a wide array of uses that

can happen in a PB District besides just a shopping center.

In addition, its a fairly

intensive district, from a dimensional standpoint. We look over

here we have -- I apologize that its a little bit hard to see,

but we have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with a

minimum lot area of 100.

Now, there is some break for standards

below 30,000 feet, and standards above 30,000 square feet, but

we still have a maximum height of 50 feet, impervious coverage

of 80 percent, when its below 30,000, 70 percent when it is

above 30,000 square feet.

What we see here is a combination of H-1

residential standards, PB standards, and then the parking

standards.

And again we see the minimum lot area of

15,000 square feet. The yards as noted. The building height,

50 feet for lots greater than 30,000 square feet, which this

certainly is. We have building coverage of 50 percent for


12/125

greater than 30,000 square feet and impervious of 70 percent on

lots greater than 30,000 square feet.

These then are the H-1 or the apartment

standards, multiplex standards, which apply to the PB. You see

the minimum lot area for an apartment building is 10,000 square

feet, and then this amount of land has to be allocated for each

unit, and it varies depending on the type of unit.

We then, from the parking standards,

also see that parking is based on the type of unit as

well.

And one thing I would call to your

attention that is lacking here, which in my opinion is one of

the major shortfalls of the PD District, is you see that there

is no density or what in the business we typically call DU per

acre, dwelling units per acre. That would be used to typically

define what the maximum number of units on a given parcel would

be.

You do utilize that in some districts

for some uses. In this particular district, in this particular

use, there are no density caps or density regulations

whatsoever.

Therefore what we did, as to the next

step, was to prepare a series of studies. And Ill just very


13/125

briefly go through those so that you can see the impact of PB

zoning on this site.

The first study that we did, you see the

site outlined here in black, the first study is a depiction of

existing conditions today. The lower portion of the property is

zoning PB, the upper -- the back portion here, which is wooded,

in this scenario is basically ignored.

As it exists today, with the present

standards, you could put 276 units, which works out to be 26 DU

per acre, or dwelling units per acre, and thats based on the

10.5 acres of PB. On the property right now.

Now, that would be using a standard

bedroom mix, what I call market rate bedroom mix. So, it is a

realistic depiction of what could happen on the property.

I would also point out that there are no

limitations or regulations on mixtures. So, for instance, these

buildings could be clustered, and a parking deck could be placed

here, and additional commercial could actually be developed on

the property.

The next study we did was, assuming that

the entire property is zoned PB, however the existing shopping

center would stay in place.


14/125

So, what we see here is the shopping

center as is in front, and then we were asked to maximize the

amount of dwelling units that could be obtained in back.

We were able to get 300 units on the

back portion, which works out to be 15.9 between dwelling units

per acre on the entire 18.9 site. Once again, that is with a

bedroom mix.

We then in addition have the existing

130,000 gross square feet of commercial. And I suppose if

somebody wanted to build a parking deck down here they could

actually add more in this area.

The final study we did again assumes

that the entire district, the entire site, is zoned PB. And we

were asked to come up with a realistic depiction of what could

be obtained on the property, if the entire site had been

rezoned, in terms of residential.

We came up with a total of 422 units on

the entire site, which works out to be 22 units per acre. And

that again is with a market rate bedroom mix of one, two and

three-bedroom homes.

So, immediately we were asked, so this

is the maximum number of units you can get on the site? And my

answer is, no.


15/125

If you remember back a couple of slides

I stated that there was no density, absolute density, in a PD

District. It is based solely on the land area per unit of a

given unit type, and how much parking you can satisfy. The only

thing you have to really meet are the building coverage

standards and the impervious standards.

So, for instance, if somebody wanted to

build all efficiency units with this same sketch, nothing would

change. The parking would stay the same, the buildings would

stay the same, you could get in excess of 700 units on the site

with the zoning of the entire site PB.

Now, that in itself to me, as I stated

before, is one of the major down sides of PB zoning.

In my opinion it would be an unwise planning choice for the

Township to allow, primarily because there is no real control

over the quantity or quality of development at all, there is no

development cap; there is no requirement for any kind of

streetscape or design standards for any of these buildings.

PB zoning is not really capable of

implementing the Townships planning goals as outlined in the

Comprehensive Plan or the Old York Road Corridor Study. And, in

fact, it implements no long-range vision of what is appropriate

for this important corridor in the township.


16/125

After this exercise it was our

recommendation to create a new district and rezoning the entire

property to this district.

This would allow the implementation of

the key elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Old York Road

Corridor Study.

In essence we would be taking a

reactionary moment and turning it into a visionary opportunity.

So, the result is the Fairway Transit

District, or FTD, which is before you this evening.

As written, the FTD will create

pedestrian oriented development. It will mandate a mixture of

uses. It provides defined minimum design standards. It creates

absolute limits on development. It would leverage the

Townships transportation facilities and encourage

redevelopment; and, most importantly, it would address the

present challenge to the Township Zoning Ordinance.

What I would like to do is very briefly

go through the highlights of the FTD Ordinance.

The FTD Ordinance, above all, puts the

control back in the hands of the Township. As written, any site

larger than one acre, which this property obviously is, requires

a conditional use hearing.


17/125

And what that means is that its an

additional layer in the planning process. Its an additional

forum for input from the public, the Planning Commission and the

Board of Commissioners.

What the process would be, to develop

this property under FTD; an applicant would have to come in,

file a conditional use application, a conditional use plan, and

all the other documents that are required; renderings, the

reports and studies, et cetera. That would then first go to

your Township Planning Commission and the County Planning

Commission.

Both of those bodies would have a chance

to review the plans and the documents. They would then make a

recommendation.

After that there would then be a public

hearing scheduled. The public hearing would be in front of the

Board of Commissioners. At that point the public could see plans

for the second time. They would be seeing them at the Planning

Commission first.

You could then have -- you would then

have the Applicant present his vision of the community and the

development that he has planned. You would then have the

opportunity to basically discuss the development with the

Applicant.


18/125

Under the MPC, if youre inclined to

approve the conditional use, you would also have the ability to

attach conditions. As long as they are reasonable conditions.

An example might be, say somebody came

in and wanted to do, along the Fairway, a six-story hotel with a

little conference center, and you see the layout; you say,

thats a great use, we really like it there, we think it would

be a great addition to the township; its a little bit close to

The Fairway; could you put a plaza in front of it to push it

back? That would be an example of a reasonable condition.

After that process is concluded, the

Applicant would then engineer his plans and come back and go

through the subdivision and land development process that you

all are familiar with.

So, they would have to go back to the

Planning Commission again for my guess would be several meetings

and then come back in front of the Board of Commissioners. So,

there is that extra layer where you have control over what

actually gets put there.

There is also a requirement for a mix of

uses. So, somebody cant come in and just do an apartment

complex. They cant come in and just do straight commercial.

They have to do a mixture of uses. The mixture is a 20/80

split. There can be no more than 80 percent of one use and no


19/125

less than 20 percent of another. That is

based on the gross floor area of the total of all the buildings,

regardless of what their uses are.

There are absolute limits on

development. Which is something that is absolutely lacking in

the PB zoning.

There is a maximum density of 10

dwelling units per acre, which on the site would yield 189

units. We do have bonus provisions that would allow a slight

increase in density to 13 units per acre, which is 246

units. Still substantially less than the 276 you can do today,

right now, if somebody were to file a plan.

In addition, there are absolute caps on

the amount of commercial space that can be placed on the site.

There is a maximum FAR, or Floor Area

Ratio, of .20. And what that is really is -- thats planning

jargon, I admit. It basically simply means that an area

equivalent to 20 percent of the land area of the site can be

built as space. And that works out to be approximately 165,000

square feet.

Again, we do have the bonus provision,

if somebody wants to apply greater amenities to the site, and

the FAR then goes up to .25. And that actually means that 25

percent -- an area of 25 percent of the site area can be built


20/125

as space. So, there are absolute limitations on what can be

built.

We have included bonuses because we

would like to encourage people to do even better projects and

provide greater amenities to the community. That is one of the

ways that you can help spur redevelopment.

The bonuses, as you see, are fairly

modest. Its simply a three unit increase in density and a .05

increase in FAR. However, these bonuses require real commitment

and real improvement to the property and/or the community. There

is a variety of them. Theyre on a menu. You acquire a certain

number of points. Some are less expensive than others, but all

of them contribute greatly to improving the quality of the

community and the site and the development.

There are also minimum design standards.

The design standards are required, regardless of whether the

bonuses are used or not. It doesnt

matter. The design standards provide

absolute minimums for streetscape, building design and form,

parking, public open space, landscaping and other items.

And then finally one of the major

purposes of this ordinance is to spur redevelopment. However, we

are also sensitive to the fact that this is an existing site,

there are buildings on it today, there are tenants in there


21/125

today; so, we do need to have a mechanism where it could act as

a transition over to this type of community.

You may be fortunate enough to have what

happened to the car dealership down the block where somebody

comes in and completely clears it. Thats one

possibility. But, if not, we do have a mechanism in here to

provide for an orderly transition.

That is a concept of nonconforming

development. It is very similar to -- you are probably familiar

with nonconforming site or nonconforming use. Basically the only

difference is that an applicant, a nonconforming development,

has to conform with all of the development standards

collectively.

And the way this is done is that there

would be a permitted expansion of what exists on the site, up to

15 percent of the gross floor area of all the buildings

together.

Once you have 15 percent, then

requirement -- conformance with all FTD standards is absolutely

required. So at this point, if there was, say, ten or 12,000

square feet added to one building right now, that wouldnt

trigger it. But then at a certain point, and I believe its

somewhere in the range of about 17,000 square feet or so, beyond

that there would need to be a conditional use plan filed. It


22/125

would be a master plan. It would show you what the intentions

are on the entire property and you would then go through that

process that Ive just described a few minutes ago.

Id just like to very briefly compare PB

zoning with FTD. Side by side.

As we see here, under PB zoning a

conservative estimate would be 422 units.

On the FTD we would have an maximum of

189, or 246 even if all the bonuses are applied. And we would

have an undetermined amount of commercial could be added here

(indicating). There would then be caps placed on commercial of

no more than a little bit over 206,000 square feet.

Another comment I would like to make in

terms of -- just generally in terms of transit ordinances. This

actually has been carefully tailored to your community. In terms

of overall density, 10 units per acre, 13 units per acre and the

overall FAR; as transit ordinances go, its actually quite

low.

So, what that means is were actually

not pressing the site tremendously. There is no reason to use

every square foot of the site.

And during the Planning Commission

there was a great deal of discussion about the use of this

property up here


23/125

(indicating).

Now, I have 30 years of experience of working for

developers. And developers dont like to spend money, if they

dont have to. As many of you are aware, there is a band in here

which is quite steep. However, you could make a road up there.

You could build a road up there and in the business its what we

would call an unloaded road. Because there is nothing on either

side of it. Its just a road going up to get to a point to

build something.

Developers hate building unloaded

roads. Especially if they dont have to. Because youre talking

about building something, hundreds and hundreds of linear feet

of road, at $350 to $400 a linear foot, just to get up here to

build a few units.

They are not going to do that if the

standards would allow them to build everything down

here(indicating). And thats one of the reasons why you see this

blue line here, which is roughly the lower part of the site.

With the standards that are in place, it

actually is very easy to obtain the maximum build-out within

this area. Right here (indicating). So, its something we have

thought about very carefully.

I would also point out, I havent gone

through the bonuses in great detail, but one of the bonuses,


24/125

which actually doesnt cost a developer a dime, but it will get

them a point, is to simply save 50 percent of the existing trees

on a site.

Now, that doesnt cost him a dime, but

the price to you, the Township, cant even be calculated. So,

those are the types of things that we have tried to build into

the Ordinance.

In summary, the FTD will provide great

control over the size, the type and the quality of development;

it will place absolute limitations on development; it will

mandate a mixture of uses, and it will help create a pedestrian

environment and streetscape along The Fairway we which we hope

will spur redevelopment in the Township.

Planning really should be visionary.

Unfortunately, thats not always the case.

But, this is a rare opportunity to eliminate a defect in your

Ordinance and replace it with genuinely better standards so that

you can actually implement your stated planning goals in your

Comprehensive Plan and in the Old York Road Corridor Plan.

We have received positive

recommendations from the Township Planning Commission and the

County Planning Commission. In my professional opinion, I would

recommend that you adopt the FTD Ordinance and map change as

presented.


25/125

That concludes my presentation and Im

more than happy to answer any questions.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Okay. Thank you

very much, Mr. Kennedy.

Before we go on, one point is I think --

the gentleman in the back, there are a couple of seats up

front. If you wanted to find a seat, I believe there is one

over here. Okay? Good.

And a little bit about procedure. What

were going to do now, Im going to ask the Commissioners for

any comments or questions for Mr. Kennedy, and following that I

am going to then turn it over to allowing anyone from the public

here to make their comments.

And were going to try to adhere to a

five-minute cap or we will be here all night. As you can see

there are several people here in the room, and were going to

try to also avoid redundancy.

So, having said that, let me turn it

over now to the Commissioners, and who would like to speak?

Yes, Commissioner Peacock, and

welcome.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Thank you very

much, Madam President, and thank you all for your indulgence. I


26/125

was a late a few minutes. I do apologize to everyone in

attendance for being late.

Do I have to attend detention

afterwards?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: I would

definitely like to take this opportunity and indulge my

colleagues on the Board, and those of you who are here in

attendance, to speak for a few minutes as the Commissioner of

the ward in which this project resides and to state up front

that unequivocally I support this ordinance and I am going to

ask that my colleagues support it as well.

I think that its important that

everyone who is here in attendance, and anyone who may be

watching on television after the proceedings are televised on

Channel 43 next week, or whatever channel youre watching on,

that this is not a process -- we have not come to this

conclusion lightly, we have not come to this conclusion without

an incredible amount of effort and thought and work on the part

of many people in the township staff, on this Board, and the

experts who we hired to assist us in this process, and I want to

assure you that during this entire process that I always kept,

foremost in my mind, the concerns and the questions and the


27/125

comments that residents, who live in Ward 7, the ward that I

represent, have presented to me.

This, however, does not mean that every

issue that residents have presented to me has been successfully

addressed, I grant that. That would be an impossibility. There

were so many disparate opinions and disparate ideas and wishes

and desires expressed on the part of so many people that it

would be entirely impossible to satisfy everyone in this regard.

But, I do hope that everyone understands

that this is not something that the Township is doing as a

surrender to the developer, its not something the Township is

doing to throw up its hand and say -- you know what? Lets be

done with it.

This is something we are doing with our

eyes wide open and we are doing it, I firmly believe, and will

aver to everyone here, we are doing this knowingly because we

took the bull by the horns as a township.

We were presented with a legal challenge

by the developer to the existing zoning on that property, and

under the law we had to respond to that challenge.

And one of the responses that we

certainly could have entertained was simply to give the

developer what they requested. And what the developer requested

was to rezoning the entire property PB or Planned Business.


28/125

And I think weve all seen here tonight

that under that scenario we would be faced with a significant

amount of commercial and residential density on that property.

Its an amount of commercial and residential density that I

certainly could not tolerate, as a resident of that area.

I live on Autumn Road, which is a few

blocks away, and those of who you live in that area know its a

cut-through street.

There are other cut-through streets in

Ward 7, and so I know that everyone was concerned about issues

like traffic. I am as well. I live in the ward, too. So, we want

you to know that.

Yes, there will be development on this

property, but with this ordinance we have taken the opportunity

to make sure that what does occur on this property will be

within reasonably manageable limits and that it will contain

elements of design, landscaping, lighting, and so forth, that

will allow the Township to exercise much greater control over

the quality of what is built there, let alone the quantity of

what is built there.

So, I feel very strongly about this and

I hope that, as we proceed through the commentary tonight, and

as people from the audience ask their questions and make their

comments, I want to remind everyone as well that we have


29/125

utilized expert counsel, an attorney with over 30 years of

experience in zoning law, a land planner with over 30 years of

experience in land development, and so we are utilizing the best

tools at our disposal to come up with the best possible solution

to this situation.

And I hope that once we have concluded

the proceedings tonight that, even though you may still have

some misgivings, even though you may still feel that there are

issues that are unresolved, like perhaps traffic, that we will,

with this foundation going forward, be able to successfully

address the major concerns and issues and result I think in an

outcome that we will all feel is the correct outcome in the

final analysis.

Thank you for your indulgence and I

yield the floor.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Well said,

Commissioner.

Commissioner Wachter?

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: This goes back

several years, in fact I thought it was five or six years when

the issue of reverse spot zoning was first raised.

And I remember, it was I think

Commissioner Agostine at the time who had reported to the Board,

and this was before Commissioner Peacock or several


30/125

commissioners were on the Board then, and at that time I asked

presently, with the present zoning, by right -- by right, which

means what would a developer have a right to use, and I had to

go back and dig out some old notes,

and it was between 400 and 700 units which was brought

out. So, if we dont do anything at all

tonight, and we just leave the lawsuit thats pending go as it

is, that were looking at a possible 400 to 700

units. Now, you could say, well,

this type of unit wouldnt go in there, or wouldnt be

successful. Thats not before us. Nothing is before us now

about using this land use. Mr. Matteo, Mr. Penecale,

correct? I mean, were not looking at any of that.

The lawsuit that were involved in, and

its public record, is something called reverse spot zoning.

Now, what the Supreme Court has said is

the singling out of one lot or a small area for different

treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land

indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit

of the owner, or to his economic detriment, is invalid spot

zoning.

Now, what has happened with this spot,

as was explained very well by Mr. Kennedy, its that over the

years things have changed.


31/125

So, years and years ago, this is what it

looked like, okay? It was all the same.

Now all around it; Rydal Waters, Rydal

this, Rydal Brook, Rydal Rydal; so, now we have this one area

thats all by itself. And nobody on the Board here was involved

in that. This is 30 -- who knows how many years. This is my

19th, but I had nothing to do with any of that. So, thats

what -- this is what were left with.

Now, spot zoning, the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania has said it is an arbitrary exercise of police

powers that is prohibited by our constitution.

Now, the term reverse spot zoning,

thats what were in here now for, is used to describe the

circumstances where the unjustified difference in treatment

arises from the rezoning of land thats been rezoning all around

it and were left with this thing in the middle.

So, thats as far as my legal research has taken it.

And Ill amend something Commissioner

Peacock said, because I know Marc Jonas, and I -- Im going to

say 35-plus. Thats as far as Im going, Mr. Jonas. Thats how

long weve been -- I could not find any cases that would change

that Supreme Court decision, and the reason I couldnt find any

because, frankly, I didnt look.


32/125

This is not my area of expertise. I

rely on experts. If I want to rely on an expert legal opinion,

I think Mr. Jonas is not only a principal with a law firm in

Eastburn and Gray, I believe you clerked for a president of the

Commonwealth Court, was it? And has been selected by his peers

as a superior lawyer for the past five or six years? -- I dont

want to embarrass him; however, he has not been elected five

times as a commissioner on this Board, as I have, so I dont

know how you weigh those things.

Now, if we dont do anything tonight,

the lawsuit proceeds, I dont know how its going to work out

but it could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to battle

this up to the Supreme Court, and the chances of winning, I

dont know. Im not making a comment on it. We want to do whats

best for the entire township.

Now, maybe you would want to consider

this. No one is going to be happy with everything. Maybe get a

hundred or 200 people -- suppose, even if we put this zoning in,

isnt that little plot of land still there? That could be sold

separately, couldnt it? I think it could be.

So, the developer owns it. Get a hundred

people together and they each said, all right, well each put up

$10,000. Now you get a home equity line of credit at 2.7 percent

or whatever; you get a million dollars and you get a developer


33/125

and say well buy it; well form a 501.C.3, is it? -- or, you

know, a nonprofit, and you could -- and I dont know, ask your

accountant, ask your lawyer, maybe you could even give it to the

township, after you buy it from the developer, and get a tax

refund

-- a tax write-off or something. So, there are things that could

be done.

Also, now -- and dont say, well, its

our tax dollars. Its my tax dollars, too, all of this. I dont

want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defend

something that doesnt look like its defendable.

Is this the best solution that has been

presented tonight? Ive watched the Planning Commission

meetings. I guess you have, too, on television. I mean, you

cant say this has been rushed through. The lawsuit has been

going on for two years. So, this has been going back some

time.

Were trying to get the best possible

solution. Is everybody going to be happy? No. When you have

time to comment, if you want to ventilate, fine. What is not

before us is traffic, what is not before us is these other

things that will be involved, because that really doesnt have

anything to do with what we have to do here tonight. There is no

land use plan that is before us to consider.


34/125

The developer has not presented what

they want to put. So, were trying to get the best solution for

the Township.

Is it going to be satisfactory to

everybody? No. Its impossible. But, how do we get out of this

the best way we can? We hired an excellent land planner, we

have an excellent attorney; and, you know, Ill listen to

everything that you say but I have to weigh it with what the

experts think on this and what I have seen happen in other

cases.

So, I thank you for your indulgence,

thanks for coming out tonight, and lets hope that were able to

come to some kind of solution that would be the best for the

entire township.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioner? Are

you finished?

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Thank you all.

PRESIDENT

DiJOSEPH: Commissioner Kline?

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: I hope I was less

than five minutes. I tried to keep it --

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Well, I think it

was about 15 but thats all right.


35/125

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Thats good for

me.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioner Kline?

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Thank you, Madam

President.

I had a few questions to go through,

some specifics of the ordinance, but I did want to first start

with some of the more global issues.

Can we go back to the map of the --

first map that you showed which shows the R-1 and the PB? With

the other zoning districts in and around that area?

Can you take a moment to explain, like,

where The Fairway is, where Old York Road is, and then also the

relationship of other PB zoning districts in and around The

Fairway District, now that everybody has a better understanding

as to the regulations of PB?

MR. KENNEDY: Sure. For your reference,

right here is The Fairway. This is Old York Road. So, the Noble

Train Station is right here.

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Could you use the

microphone?

MR. KENNEDY: Im sorry. And Im going

to go back and forth here. The Noble Train Station is right


36/125

here on this side. This is The Fairway. This is where I

believe its Barnes and Nobles is. The shopping center.

A VOICE: No, no, no.

MR. KENNEDY: Im sorry.

A VOICE: Thats Bed, Bath and Beyond.

MR. KENNEDY: Bed, Bath and

Beyond. Thats what Im thinking of.

A VOICE: The train station is down

toward the bottom.

MR. KENNEDY: Thats right, the train

station is right in here. The Rydal station is right up

here. There are existing apartment buildings basically right

across the street. The old car dealerships which are vacant,

right here. We have --

A VOICE: Not anymore. Not

anymore.

MR. KENNEDY: Well, actually they were

vacant, when I started this job. Somebody leased it out and

theyve got a lease there, but I dont believe they bought it

and I dont believe theyre spending any real money on it.

A VOICE: If youre in the market for a

Chevy head over there; right?

MR. KENNEDY: Thats exactly right. So,

basically this entire area around it is zoned PB.


37/125

And then we have AO zoning up here, and

then we have the SNRD District that I describe up here, which I

believe Rydal Park had taken over after Elliott Building Group

went bankrupt. So, that is the surrounding zoning.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: So were talking

about a fair amount of that area on both sides of Old York Road,

from roughly the train tracks all the way up to I guess its the

library, and then the entire length of The Fairway to the end of

Baederwood Shopping Center property, and also including Rydal

East and West --

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: -- are all zoned

PB.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. The PB actually does

extent right to here, thats correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: One comment that

Ive picked up, from people looking at this presentation both

from the Planning Commission and in emails that Ive sent out,

and Commissioner Peacock has sent out, is that some of the

density numbers that we talk about, that youve talked about in

the PB District, are more of an academic exercise because nobody

would tear down the shopping center, or necessarily tear down

the shopping center, to create that density.


38/125

Thats one of the assumptions in those

slides, except for the one where you show the development

extending towards the back.

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct. But, as I

mentioned earlier, we do see there was a demolition that took

place right here, just on Old York Road. So, it is possible, it

is conceivable, somebody could demolish it.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: In relationship to

the FTD Ordinances, with the setbacks, being that theyre meant

to dictate development closer to The Fairway would almost do the

same exact thing as the PB District?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, what it would do is,

because the FTD standards are more compact, in essence, it

allows a more compact development pattern. So, in other words,

we dont get a pattern of sprawl which is; if you really think

about it, much of this development up and down here is one story

pavement on surface, which is extremely inefficient, consumes a

lot of property.

But, you can only do -- you have to do

whatever the zoning tells you to do.

The reason why we have created more

compact development standards is to, number one, mandate that

development take place on The Fairway, because that is part of

the FTD, because you do have to create a streetscape, but then


39/125

that would also encourage people to simply develop in the

immediate area roughly where the shopping center is today.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: So in both

scenarios youre almost dealing a similar effect to the existing

shopping center and your scenarios have described the PB

District being developed out as residential and commercial anew

and if somebody was to develop under the FTD Ordinance there

would be similar effects to the shopping center.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thats correct. That

is correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: There is a

provision in there for one acre minimum for the lot size.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Can you -- I mean,

were dealing with a much larger property here.

MR. KENNEDY: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And can you go into

that a little bit?

MR. KENNEDY: Sure. The primary reason

-- it actually has a couple different functions. No. 1, that is

the one use that is allowed by right, and then anything larger

than that is a conditional use. Which is deliberate. In my

opinion I feel very strongly that any major development here

should be a conditional use.


40/125

But, the other reason for it, which

really does require it, is that there may be, in the future, the

need where somebody, some user may come along and absolutely

require that a fee simple lot be created.

One example might be say a -- somebody

like Starbucks came in and said we like this location, we want

to build a full-blown store here but our corporate entity

requires that we buy fee simple lots so you must give us a

lot.

You have to have some minimum increment

of lotting. And so thats actually the primary function of the

one acre.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And that relates to

the financial subdivision aspect? Or not?

MR. KENNEDY: No, it actually has

nothing to do with the financial subdivision. That would be a

one acre fee simple lot that could be conveyed.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: So what it does is it

establishes a minimum lot that somebody can cut it up into.

Whereas, in the PD District, somebody can take that land and cut

it up into 15,000 square foot cookies.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. The

impervious coverage it talks about -- I think its compatible


41/125

with most of the other ordinances in the Township, but the

impervious coverage calls for 70 percent in the base

ordinance.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it is. Which is

actually the same as PB.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Right. But it

doesnt call for what the other 30 percent is to be.

MR. KENNEDY: The other 30 percent would

be the opposite of impervious, it would be green

space. However, that is just green space.

In other words, thats simply area that

is not paved over or built on with buildings.

Aside from that, in addition to that,

there is a requirement for improved public open space. That is a

completely different part of the ordinance. Some of that might

be green, some of that might be paved, because it could be in

the form of a plaza.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: So the green space, per

se, is not necessarily open space.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And going back to

the green space, two questions that go along with that are there

is a requirement for the parking area to be landscaped in this

ordinance.


42/125

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thats correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: A certain portion

of the parking area has to have green islands which currently

does not exist in the current shopping center.

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then also,

along those same lines, the setback or the streetscape along The

Fairway, and I believe it also includes the main access drives

that would be created, would require a -- I think its a

six-foot landscape buffer between the cartway and sidewalk?

MR. KENNEDY: There is a -- there is

required what is called a six-foot verge, landscaped verge. Now,

that could be landscaped in a variety of ways. It can be --

street trees are mandated, but it could also be planting beds,

but it could also be improved as decorative pavement with

benches, for instance. But, it has to be landscaped and

improved in some fashion.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. And then

beyond that there is an eight-foot clear sidewalk area which,

when we say clear sidewalk area is something that in order for

pedestrians it does give people eight feet of clear area. So,

even if stores were to have doors that opened up onto the

sidewalk, those doors would be clear of that eight feet.


43/125

MR. KENNEDY: Thats correct. It has to

be devoted to pedestrians.

One point I would also, just to quickly

elaborate on the parking landscape, there is actually two

elements in the Ordinance. One is a certain area within the

parking area itself has to be landscaped, a certain

percentage. Thats measured inside the curb

line. There is also a parking buffer

requirement which is also actually in addition to that.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Going to the bonus

system, how is it written in the Ordinance who determines the

achievement of bonus

points? Is that something that

happens -- I mean, Im sure it happens at the staff level, I

would assume? Or does that happen at the conditional use

hearings?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, that would happen at

-- that would happen in the conditional use process.

So, in other words, what would happen is

that would be one of the recommendations that your Planning

Commission would make when they first look at the plan. Also the

County, Im sure, would weigh in on that on their review of the

plan.


44/125

You would also most likely send that off

to your Township Engineer. They would render an opinion whether

the bonus provisions have been met. Ultimately it is the Board

of Commissioners that decides.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: At a conditional

use hearing.


COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. And then

going through the bonus, just a couple of points. Theres a

couple of bonus items that are similar in nature. So, for

instance, four, five and six all talk about road connections.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And it is my

understanding its not if you achieve six you dont get the

points for five and four also, you just get the points for --

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct. That is

correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then the same

thing would be the case with the structured parking. You either

get the nine, the empty nine, which is two points of the 10,

which is three points.

MR. KENNEDY: That is --

COMMISSIONER KLINE: You cant get both

by achieving the 10.


45/125


COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then

furthermore the green roofs at 12 and 13.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then the

traffic improvement bonus item, which is No. 11, says the

provision of one off-site traffic improvement identified in the

Abington Township Comprehensive Plan. Is it meant that that is

outside of the scope of any required traffic improvements that

arise from a traffic study?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Related to the

development?

MR. KENNEDY: It has to be a genuine

outside improvement to the traffic system. Not something related

to the project.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Right. So if the

traffic study comes through and says they have to change X, if

they have to change some intersection or some timing of lights,

that doesnt count as this bounce.

MR. KENNEDY: No.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: It has to be

something outside of that requirement.


46/125

MR. KENNEDY: He would have to do that,

even if he werent going for the bonus.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Thats why I just

was making that clarification.

Are there any other -- that you know of,

are there any other township ordinances that have design

standards in this depth?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. As a matter of fact,

we just utilized them, I utilized them for a client in the

Borough of Lansdale.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Im sorry, in our

township.

MR. KENNEDY: Oh, in this township.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Not for Lansdale

but --

MR. KENNEDY: I thought you meant if I

knew any other --

COMMISSIONER KLINE: No. No. In our

township going through our Zoning Ordinance.

MR. KENNEDY: Oh, no. Im not familiar

with anything in your Zoning Ordinance that does. This is

actually a fairly new trend that youre starting to see.

Weve utilized it in just a couple of

ordinances. We have also actually used it, been an actual user


47/125

of them, in just a couple of ordinances, as I mentioned in the

Borough of Lansdale, and it was a way where the borough could

get some additional amenities that they would not normally get.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. And then two

more questions, Madam

President? PRESIDENT

DiJOSEPH: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: The financial

subdivision clause in the Ordinance, which I believe is on page

eight, and it is letter P.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Kind of in the

middle of the Ordinance. Could you go into that in

some -- either you or Mr. Jonas or Mr. Herder, because it does

reference the solicitors involvement. If we can have some

explanation, because there has been some confusion as to what

clause in the Ordinance?

MR. KENNEDY: Okay. Ill give you the

planning side of it and then maybe Marc or Rex can give you the

legal side of it.

Its actually something that is very

common. My understanding is actually it exists today in Abington

Township. One example would be Macys over at Willow Grove Mall,


48/125

and it is really an element that is used to facilitate financing

of purchase of that building and that building footprint only.

It does not replace zoning, it does not

replace the need to meet all the requirements of zoning. And the

property always has to still conform with all the zoning and

subdivision and land development standards, regardless of

whether they own that one footprint or not.

So, it is strictly a financing. It may

be a little different in the sense that in this case it was

actually placed in the Ordinance, which in my opinion is a good

thing, because now the rules are written down; but, it is

something that is very, very common, it is found in a lot of

communities, and I think maybe the Acme might be another example

of it here in Abington. So, there are examples that already

exist today in Abington Township.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And when it talk

about, and maybe this is for Mr. Herder, it talks about cross

easements for parking areas and all appurtenant ways pedestrian

accesses and utilities shall be created, recorded and maintained

between such lots, and those cross easements shall be subject to

approval by the Township Solicitor, youre not approving any

zoning change or any zoning modifications to the property, you

are merely just making sure that whatever agreements there are

between financial subdivision holders, that those easements


49/125

exist so that no portion of the financial subdivision is

isolated from other portions of the subdivision.

MR. HERDER: Thats correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then my last

question deals with traffic, because it is probably one of the

most talked about issues in that area, and one of the most

talked about issues when you talk about any development that has

any potential development in that area.

The normal traffic process, or traffic

analysis, or slash improvement process in any development

process, how does that -- can you give some, or somebody give

some explanation as to how that occurs? Just so we understand

the differences between how traffic is dealt with in the zoning

stage and how its dealt with in different stages through a

development?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, in this case it

actually is required -- a traffic study is actually required at

the conditional use stage. So, right up front, before a

subdivision application is ever submitted, youre actually

getting a traffic report. Which I think is a good thing. Because

at that point the development has not totally solidified.

So, what that means is that there still

may be some adjustments made. Then at the land development and


50/125

subdivision stage an amended traffic report could then be

conducted at that point.

One of the greatest advantages of a

transit oriented development is the fact that you will actually

generate less traffic from that development site itself.

One of the major advantages, and this is

something that developers will like, is the fact that by

building residential uses here, those people are not going to

get in their car and drive to the train station and park and go

to work.

Those people are less than a half a

mile, theyre about three-eighths of a mile; they are going to

walk over here and catch a train and go to

Philadelphia. Thats actually one of the

other reasons why its less likely that people would develop up

here. Because aside from the expense and the cost, there is

actually a marketing disadvantage for a developer.

So, from a traffic standpoint, this

actually would generate less traffic on the local roads than

development that were spread out through the entire site.

But, there will be numerous

opportunities for the Township to evaluate the traffic, and the

traffic would have to be -- the traffic reports would have to go

into detail on the types of uses that are being proposed on the


51/125

site and then they would evaluate the impact on the surrounding

roads and intersections.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Madam

President? May I? I just wanted to clarify, because I --

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Mr. Peacock,

yes. Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Thank you very

much, Madam President.

I think the basic point that Mr. Kline

was asking, and he can correct me if Im wrong, is that what

were here to do tonight is to approve a zoning ordinance and we

cannot refuse to approve that zoning ordinance because potential

development there might create more traffic. Is that correct?

MR. KENNEDY: That is absolutely

correct. The purpose of tonight is strictly to evaluate the

Ordinance for adoption or not.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Right. And then

we can deal with traffic, as always, in the land development

process. But, because of the conditional use aspect of this

Zoning Ordinance, we actually get to deal with it even before a

plan is submitted and can have a greater impact on traffic

improvements at that point.


52/125

MR. KENNEDY: Absolutely. And during

that process, and that dialogue, you can request certain changes

of a developer to the project.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then my last

comment would be, and I dont know how -- I think you may have

brought this up in your slides, but commercial development on

the PB has no maximum, youve mentioned that a couple of times,

and the allowability of a parking garage only gives better

chances that somebody will maximize or go to higher limits of

commercial development in the PD District; is that correct?

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct, yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And in the FTD

Ordinance, where we do allow for a parking garage, the parking

garage, using the maximum square footages of commercial space

and/or residential space, the parking garage would take the same

parking that is required anyhow and compact it into a smaller

area.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it would. It actually

would, yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: Thank you, Madam

President.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. Just a

minute. Is there any other Commissioner that wanted to speak?


53/125

Okay. Mr. Wachter.

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: I just had a

question that kind of occurred to me, and I dont know if Mr.

Jonas -- I dont want to put you on a spot, but if we changed

the zoning then does any future developer, as of the time we do

this, are they bound by it?

Or, you know, theres a developer

there. This is ex post facto. Could he raise an issue and say

I like the zoning you had before you changed it. Cant I use

that instead?

MR. HERDER: No. There are provisions

built into the Ordinance that deal with when it takes effect and

how much change a developer is allowed under the existing land

use provisions.

As a theoretical matter, a new owner of

the property could always ask that they change the zoning back,

but youre under no obligation to do so.

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Okay. So they

would be bound by whatever we decide to do.

MR. HERDER: Yes. Yes.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: It would be what

theyre purchasing. The way its zoned when they purchase it.


54/125

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: But this was

purchased before under other zoning. I just want to make sure

the new zoning applies.

MR. HERDER: Yes, the new zoning will

apply.

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Okay.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Okay. Are there

any other comments from Commissioners at this time? Because Im

going to open it to the public.

(No response.)

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Thank you, Mr.

Kennedy. You did a very good job.

Now, anyone who would like to speak, if

you would come forward and give your name and address,

please? And were doing five-minute comments, please, and were

not, by the way, debating. If you have questions they will be

noted and answered as we can.

Yes, sir?

MR. SKLAROFF: Greetings. Bob Sklaroff,

S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F, 1219 Fairacres Road,

Rydal. Five minutes, 300 seconds, is

ridiculous. I have written a 73-page memo, summarized it in

five pages of testimony all of which has been distributed to


55/125

you, and so I have to dispense with all of that in order to get

a couple of questions answered.

No. 1. If Mr. Jonas would please state

affirmatively that the Supreme Court, an Upper Merion case, is

the one that he primarily relies upon? I would like to know

that.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. And what

is your next comment?

MR. SKLAROFF: Well, could we find that

out?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: No. Not right now.

Were not debating anything. I just want you to --

MR. SKLAROFF: Well, its a

clarification question.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: I want to note your

questions. I will note your questions. Whats your next

question?

MR. SKLAROFF: Will we get the answers

to them?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Perhaps.

MR. SKLAROFF: Perhaps. Thats clearer.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Go ahead.

MR. SKLAROFF: Thats No. 2. I would

like to ask Mr. Kennedy if he knows the gradation, the height,


56/125

between the two properties. Namely, what is the level of Rydal

Waters and the one down below.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: That was height?

MR. SKLAROFF: Yeah.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Of Rydal Waters?

MR. SKLAROFF: Whats the

difference. In other words, when you go uphill, are we talking

about 70 feet?

PRESIDENT

DiJOSEPH: Okay. Fine. MR.

SKLAROFF: Do you know the answer to that off hand?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Were not doing

that right now. Hes not answering those questions. Im just

trying to get comments and then well go back and try to answer

those questions.

MR. SKLAROFF: Well, the reason thats

important is, Im sure there are some laws about the street that

has to go uphill from one to another. And one possibility that

could exist is that it would really not be possible to connect

the properties as was designed with a street right down the

spine and then zigzagging to the northwest. And theres been no

comment on that in the presentation and I consider that to be a

fault.


57/125

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Got your question.

So youre talking about the grade and how they could possibly --

MR. SKLAROFF: Correct.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Fine. Thank you.

MR. SKLAROFF: Thats No. 2.

No. 3. This is a project that affects

the entire township, as evidenced by discussion of the issue of

the problem with one acre or less, and so therefore the false

argument that this would only be affecting ward seven is

punctured.

The next point that has to be punctured

is this lack of discussion of traffic. As I extensively

documented, there has never been a comprehensive review of

traffic, despite the fact that both the Old York Road Corridor

and the Abington Plan report explicitly states that deficiency

continues and that currently, for example, something like 9 of

the 13 intersections evaluated were F. Which is the most

congested already. And these are numbers that go way back even

before the modern era.

So, the position in the premum non

nocere, youve heard that line before, the first is causing no

harm; you have police powers that you are obligated, as a

township, to maintain, and that includes safety.


58/125

And thats also in the Supreme Court

decision. And so therefore not dealing with traffic, and

therefore not dealing with the capacity for emergency vehicles

to traverse the area, particularly the key intersection, is a

major fault in the presentation of the data here.

And in particular that was affirmed

after a little bit of scuffle at the Penn State town hall

meeting when Mr. Kline admitted that indeed safety

considerations were germane to the discussion.

And so therefore, for these reasons, and

others that youve had a chance to review, even though I have

not had a chance to review a lot of the other data, because of

various delays in the discovery process, there are major

problems with credibility.

When I get a letter saying explicitly

there has been no communication, no meetings, between or among

the Commissioners or the Township personnel regarding these

issues, and I know otherwise -- for example, I know that

information that I gave to the local state rep made its way to

two of the Commissioners, and again thats in the memos, or in

the handout you received, that means that there were meetings,

communications occurring. And so therefore when I get a letter

saying there havent been any, thats a misrepresentation.


59/125

And there are many, many other issues

that are sprinkled through my report and my testimony which

damage the credibility of the people involved here.

So, in short -- 30 seconds?

In short, I would like to suggest that

you feel that you do not have this mandate that you have to act

immediately; that even if they threatened 400-some odd units,

they still have to deal with parking- related issues, and that

this is a problem that affects the health and safety of people

in the area and therefore you should do your due diligence, have

multiple meetings just like they did in Upper Merion, and in the

process do your job, as opposed to the way Mr. Wachter said;

well, I didnt really read this stuff but I believe and I adopt

by reference what I was told by people I respect.

Thats not your responsibility. Your

responsibility is --

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Thats certainly

-- point of personal privilege?

MR. SKLAROFF: Yes?

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: I know you

arrived late but that was nothing what I said.

MR. SKLAROFF: Well, you said you didnt

read the --


60/125

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. Thank

you. Thats fine.

MR. SKLAROFF: No, wait a minute. You

said you did not read, you did not study --

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Sir?

MR. SKLAROFF: -- and therefore you made

a mistake.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Youre out of

order.

MR. SKLAROFF: I understand.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. The

next person who would like to speak?

MR. KANE: Larry Kane, 1043 Pheasant.

Madam President, Im a little shocked at

one thing you said. You said you were not debating here

tonight?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Yes. In other

words, we are not debating back and forth. We are just trying to

get opinions and thats what I want and Im looking for your

comments.

MR. KANE: Okay. I have two questions

and Ill have a statement.

I would like to know -- Mr. Kennedy, a

very nice report. I liked especially the part of that picture


61/125

on the upper side there, which is Rydal Waters, which is an

urban blight, and I think we should note that.

I have a question for Mr. Kennedy. He

doesnt have to answer. Id like to know if hes done work for

any developers that have done work in Abington Township.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Okay. And I will

note that question.

MR. JAMES: The second question I have

is if there were any meetings with Brandolini privately between

members of this commission, away from the Sunshine Laws of

Pennsylvania.

And then I have a statement.

I think this is a very sad day for

Abington Township because a company is getting rewarded for an

absolute distaste and repugnant behavior toward this community.

This Township has watched this shopping

center in limbo for five or six years now. The property values

have been devalued. Other vacant properties stand vacant on Old

York Road. The town is one of the greatest places to live in

America; we love the schools, we love the police, we love the

diversity, but what we dont like here is somebody coming in and

degrading a shopping center.

We dont like the shoddy

construction. And the Carpenters Union is right about that.


62/125

There is dangerous construction that occurred, and I was right

in the middle of it.

We dont like the people who were

assigned to this who conducted their construction in very unsafe

ways, and I find it absolutely repugnant, as a citizen, that a

company that cares nothing about this town is being rewarded in

the end with a green light to go ahead.

And, Mr. Kennedy, I think your report is

fascinating, its interesting, but I dont think it really

warrants our attention in one respect. We are a township that

has, what? 64,000 people?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Not quite. 56.

MR. JAMES: Okay. Well take it. We are

a very proud township with a lot of moxie and a lot of courage,

weve done things well, weve had pretty good leadership over

the years, and I dont think we should apologize or fail to go

to court against anybody who treated us this way.

Brandolini has the same problem in Upper

Dublin Township, I hope youve examined that, and the problem is

existing in urban blight there. If this happened on the edge of

Willow Grove Park, or on the edge of Cheltenham, or on the edge

of -- excuse me. I speak for a living. Im having trouble

tonight. -- if you found this on the edge of Jenkintown, or any

other place, you would also find this repugnant and horrible.


63/125

This should not happen. And I know this

ordinance -- I understand -- Steve and Ernie, I understand the

purpose of the ordinance is to protect the township, I

understand that, but in the process you are going to set a

precedent that is unprecedented, and you will open other

builders to allow themselves to hold this township hostage,

which this builder has for the last four or five years.

And thats all I have to say but I would

like --

(Applause.)

MR. KANE: You will have to excuse

me. Im not used to being on this side of the microphone. Its

different. But, I would like those questions answered. I think

they are important questions that have to be answered.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All

right. Anyone else who would like to

speak? Make a comment?

MS. LEHMANN: Lora Lehmann, 1431 Bryant

Lane in Meadowbrook, and what he said.

And on top of that Mr. Kennedy, with all

of his experience, if he were Mr. Snow and Brandolinis land

planner, I think he should be very proud. But, my land planner

might look at that spot and see that what we have there is an

R-1, and a neighborhood, and on the other side


64/125

neighborhood. All neighborhood residential uses there. And

only half of that property is bordered by the PB.

And so for him to say that we couldnt

make it SNR -- I think his comments were that we have a 25-acre

minimum. Well, the SNR was created for that particular lot and

they made up the 25-acre minimum when they made it up. So, we

can call it QNR and make up whatever minimum we need to make a

nicer residential section.

And if we have a residential section on

that area, then they cant merge those three lots. Because

theyre zoned differently. And that changes the amount of PB

that can be had before.

And I dont know how we could get to

that last screen that he had, but the thing that keeps being

missing in all of the analyses is the fact that we are being

given these 422 units, and 700 and some units, and then it said

in little letters underneath there -- I dont know if Mr.

Kennedy can get to that last slide that we had --

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: No, hes not going

to do that. Just continue on with what youre saying. Thats

just a comment.

MS. LEHMANN: So in there, where we have

the two neighboring ones, and there were the amount of units


65/125

with additional commercial, it was Mr. Kennedys job to say how

much commercial.

Because over on the other side we had

276 units and 200,000 square feet of commercial. So that makes a

pretty good difference, if were trying to compare apples and

apples. And that figure seems to keep going missing.

So, what we need to look at is we need

to look at things apples to apples, and we havent been given

the right figures. And the right-to-know laws have also not

been honored. I was denied some of the right-to-know documents

without any reasons given. And in writing, I asked for them in

writing, was denied by Mr. Conway, and other right-to-know

documents were given late, if they were given at all. I havent

heard yet whether all of them were there, and thats an issue.

The green space that Mr. Kennedy said

was in there, I would like, when you get to the question period,

for him to say exactly where that

is. Because I looked through that

ordinance, and when I asked Commissioner Kline where it was he

said, well, theres impervious surface.

Well, gravel is impervious surface and

its not green. So, Id like to know where exactly in that

ordinance is the line that says we have 20 or 30 or whatever the


66/125

percent is of green space. Because youve heard again and again

how important that is to the residents of this Township.

In addition, this builder has been

incentivized to build -- if he won in court he would get 50-foot

buildings. We are incentivizing him, giving him bonuses, to go

to 75. If he won in court he would have 60-foot setbacks from

the road, which Abington residents have asked you for. To set

things back so you can see the sky. Not build them up like the

city.

And you have given him incentives to

build up, like the city, against the wishes of the residents.

If you wanted to incentivize what the

residents asked, where is the incentive to build a movie

theater? The number one request again and again from Abington

residents. And no incentive in there for community rooms, or

movie theaters, or the things that youre being asked for.

I dont believe that the Commissioners

that worked on this heard the residents at all. And I think

thats one of the most important things here.

And the conveyancing, the financing? I

dont know why that was even necessary to put in. Thank you.

(Applause.)

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Anyone else? Anyone

else at this time?


67/125

MR. ADCOCK: Carson Adcock, 1714 Brook

Road. Thank you, President DiJoseph.

Only a few summers ago my family would

wake up in the morning to the sound of giant oaks and poplars

and ash trees being chain sawed to the ground and trucked out of

Abington.

For several weeks straight I would come

home in the afternoon to sit with my mom as the Elliott Building

Group detonated dynamite that would shake through our house,

rattling the dishes and cracking the plaster.

Elliott received the consequences of

their actions sooner, rather than later, but we nonetheless are

here left with the loss of one of the most beautiful forests in

Abington.

The clear-cut lot at Rydal Waters was a

direct result of zoning decisions made by your predecessors in

this room, and your decision here tonight carries significant

consequences.

Thats why we, the residents, are here

tonight not as obstructionists -- you know, it seems like thats

how I think some of us have been portrayed lately -- not as

obstructionists who like to cause trouble and hear ourselves

talk, but as advocates with good solutions for preserving and

improving our


68/125

township. Specifically, were

here to advocate for first the environment, in this case a

beautiful stand of mature growth forest that was hundreds of

years in the making.

Second, were here to advocate for

property rights. Namely, the Zoning Code from 1996 that you

guys wrote and passed and has this lot zoned residential.

Third. Were here to advocate for flood

control.

And fourth were here to advocate for

green space.

In other townships nearby provisions are

being made to buy more green space. In our case all we have to

do is protect our current Zoning Code and weve got eight acres

of mature growth forest, of green space, you know, right here.

Were here to advocate for our school

system. Others have made that case and you probably will

continue to. You know, another apartment building would

continue to burden our school system.

Were here to advocate for lower

traffic, whether thats what were supposed to be talking about

here tonight or not.

Were here to advocate for, I think the

bottom line is that were here to advocate for the suburb and


69/125

the suburban way of life, as opposed to an urban way of life,

and the suburban way of life that you have chosen as well as we

have. So, thats why we, the residents, are here tonight.

Finally, at least speaking for my

family, and I think for a lot of the residents, were here to

advocate for an alternative solution to dealing with this

problem that Brandolini has faced our township

with. Mr. Kennedy did a nice job in

pointing out that they came in from outside, they have presented

us with a problem; as a community, we need to find a solution

how to deal with it.

As Ms. Lehmann mentioned, and as weve

said in previous meetings up to this one -- you know, argue that

this is a doughnut hole zoning, as Mr. Herder and Mr. Kennedy

have, or you could argue that its just residential along with

everything thats behind it. And if we had to rezone everything

that touches commercial, eventually our whole township would be

zoned commercial.

I would suggest tonight that you go with

R-3 zoning. After taking a more careful look, I think that the

SNR probably is not -- too many adaptations would have to be

made to call this SNR in a way that was most defensible.

And working with, you know, the law side

of things, I think that if we just rezoned it R-3, which is the


70/125

same zoning as exists on the other side of this SNR tract, R-3

is right over here, and is approximately the same residential

density as the SNR density, and same green space and everything

else. I mean, I think thats a simple and good solution, its

creative, legally defensible, et cetera.

Technically speaking, you know, youve

heard Mr. Kline argue that this reduces the number of

residential units that could be built on the three-lot

Brandolini property. Practically speaking, however, it opens

the door to vast new -- so, I mean, technically speaking

it -- Mr. Kennedy has argued it does. It reduces the total

units conceivable. If you clear-cut, if you knocked down all

the commercial buildings, you could build up apartments and so

forth, you know, as on the PB lot; but, practically speaking,

and

Public Hearing - 1-6-11

Documents

Transcript of Public Hearing - 1-6-11