Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association

Thank you Dr. Sklaroff for posting this e-mail. I believe this e-mail, Commissioner Peacock and I drafted drafted, sums up some of the very important points that need to be contemplated while residents personally deliberate the issues involved in the Baederwood Shopping Center project.

Having summarized the database as succinctly as possible [both yesterday and today], it is incumbent upon me to suggest a battle-plan.

First-and-foremost, it is necessary to assess the legalities of the current environment. Mr. Marc Jonas has been hired to provide this input, and it is vital that his conclusions be subject to scrutiny. If his report has solely been provided orally, then the Commissioners who hired him are guilty of mis-/mal-/non-feasance, for his input is vital for the CITIZENRY to weigh, prior to deciding the best course for the Township to adopt.

He must be pressed to provide a case-law citation that would serve as the smoking-gun which Brandolini could brandish against the simple decision to defend the current Ordinance. I believe I have demonstrated that--to whatever degree the current zoning law may be outdated--Peacock/Kline wish to replace it with an Ordinance that also has loopholes...and [by the way] would cede total control to Developers.

If he cannot "put his money where his mouth is," then those who have advocated this perspective--projecting an all-knowing mien in the process--must themselves be condemned, for they will have demonstrated their lack of alliegance to the voters who have opted for their brand of "representation." It is not insignificant that both Peacock/Kline are up in 2011 for re-election, and one would think that [despite a partisan registration-edge favoring the D's] they would be hesitant to sell-short their constituents [notwithstanding comprehensive e-mailed reports].

***

Assume the legal-concerns are a "wash" or [better-yet] are indicative that the Township can expertly defend its posture (which has been intended, it may be recalled, to uphold the community's self-image and culture).

It is then necessary to tackle the specifics of this proposed Ordinance. My non-professional review found it to be SO riddled with problematic give-aways that, candidly, no clause emerged unscathed.

NONE.

All of this has been produced--including longstanding concerns with traffic-congestion--and the Commissioner-advocates of this proposed Ordinance will be hard-pressed to defend their posture.

Therefore, what remains is to address Kline's arguments articulated herein from the perspective of the Overton Window [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window]: "Proponents of policies outside the [political] window seek to persuade or educate the public so that the window either 'moves' or expands to encompass them."

Applied here, what is most glaring is his assertion [which I also heard him present last year @ Chili's, during another meeting hosted by LEL] that the alternative [without changing the Ordinance] would be the capacity of Brandolini to construct even MORE units along the Fairway.

Although I'm not a city-planner, let's take a look at this mini-gambit and [as chess-players might say] let's see if it should be "accepted" or "declined."

First, he would forfeit/cede the capacity to change the zoning of the large rear-property ["one home per acre"], thereby hemming-in what development could be generated elsewhere.

Second, before concluding that he would be able to construct a sky-scraper across from Rydal Park E/W, recall that OTHER zoning constraints [liberalized in the proposed Ordinance] would have to be satisfied, namely, all of those "504.8 Standards" over which my analysis elided. It may be recalled that I merely noted that they can only properly be scrutinized by a side-by-side comparison/contrast with currently-applicable law.

What must be subject to cogent debate is what may be a key-motivator to Kline, the desire to import an urbanization to Abington that--everyone agrees--does not now exist. In this regard, consideration must be given to what was composed on another page of this web-site, namely, that the confluence of streets in the Baederwood region PALES in comparison to the intersection of major interstate highways in the King-of-Prussia region...let alone the lack of any proximate regional-shopping magnet comparable to the double-mall thereat [with many surrounding commercial entities].

***

Strip away the sales-tactics that are palpable, and what remains are serious/fatal flaws in both the legal and operational presentations provided both privately and on this web-page by Kline [as amplified by my having reprinted his elucidation of his viewpoint to a bunch of other people, last month].

Simply put, if he cannot produce legal proof of the veracity of his comments, he should be ridden out of town on a rail. And if he cannot defend the "devil in the details" of the proposed Ordinance, he should be tarred-and-feathered...and then ridden out of town on a rail. The same goes for his trusted-companion, Ernie [Tonto] Peacock.

Colorful language aside, I eagerly await provision of countervailing feedback to my rather stridently-phrased viewpoints. I feel there is no time for theatrics, here, so Kline/Peacock should be compelled [indeed, should FEEL obligated] to reply to EACH and EVERY point I have painstakingly articulated on this web-site.

Smooth-talkin' won't work.

This is the cover-page of what I provided to the Commissioners last night; as anyone noting the time-stamps on my postings on this web-site earlier in the day, I was a bit fatigued by the time I rose to speak (@ 10:10 for only three minutes) and, therefore, did not remain to acquire feedback.

***

December 9, 2010

To: Abington Board of Commissioners
Re: Baederwood Shopping Center Proposal

Appended hereto is a critique of the proposed-Ordinance, which has been uploaded onto the website of the Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association. In short, there is nothing good about this act of capitulation to Brandolini due to presumed/unspecified legal concerns; indeed, it would seem that Brandolini wrote this document via Messrs. Kline/Peacock.

THUS, YOU ARE FORMALLY REQUESTED TO UPLOAD THE LEGAL ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY MR. JONAS—ASAP—SO THAT ITS CITATIONS OF RELEVANT PRECEDENT CAN BE SCRUTINIZED BY THE COMMUNITY.

ALSO, YOU ARE FORMALLY REQUESTED TO SEEK A CONTINUANCE REGARDING THE LEGAL COMPONENT OF THIS ISSUE, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO SCRUTINIZE THIS PROPOSAL —WHICH IS FAR MORE PROFOUND THAN MERELY A ZONING-ISSUE—PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE REGIONAL IMPACT OF ANY EFFORT TO CREATE A PRECEDENT-SETTING “FAIRWAY TRANSIT ZONE.”

FINALLY, YOU ARE FORMALLY REQUESTED TO UPLOAD THE OVERALL ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY MR. KENNEDY—ASAP—SO THAT ITS TENETS CAN BE COMPARED/CONTRASTED WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

I blogged on each page of the website. Problematic was the mandate that the poll offer only two options: Accept/Modify the Ordinance, rather than voting to maintain the status quo. Regarding the other issues—Hearings, Ordinance, Precedent, Traffic—extensive input was provided for public consumption/scrutiny. Each of these sites can be accessed easily by starting on the home-page (on the RMCA website) devoted exclusively to this issue, to wit http://rmcivic.com/brandolini. The homepage contains extensive background information from Messrs. Kline/Peacock, which I amplified by uploading a recent e-mail they composed.

Therefore, the purpose of this download is to provide a copy of what I have uploaded, for this proposed Ordinance is riddled with omissions and commissions that harm the citizenry. If there is any clarification needed regarding these concerns, please do not hesitate to send cogent feedback; in particular Messrs. Peacock/Kline are invited to upload point-by-point rejoinders to the concerns raised on each of the categories of information provided.

Having immersed myself in this issue during the past three days--after having studied it episodically during prior years--I feel I can succinctly summarize the salient features of the situation...for the neophyte-taxpayer who wishes to get up-to-speed and for the seasoned-citizen who wishes to test his/her knowledge-base and cogent-approach to this explosive issue.

I formally submitted downloads from this web-site to the Commissioners last night, this to ensure total informed-consent had been provided to them. Indeed, that is also why I unearthed the letter from Kline/Peacock that was also placed on this web-page. The goal is to expedite efforts to slice-through rhetoric/politics/posturing and then to grapple with fundamental perspectives as to the future of the Township's culture.

Therefore, this three-part presentation is intended to (1)--present how the database has been distilled, (2)--present the cover-memo that was submitted to the Commissioners that presents how the immediate concerns have been distilled, and (3)--present opinion as to how the citizenry might contend with the urbanization-plans of Kline/Peacock...again in a distilled fashion.

Because of this time-ambush, it is mandatory that everyone SNAP TO ATTENTION. This means that the RMCA must demonstrate leadership, rather than behaviorally ceding responsibility for adopting an independent posture...to the Commissioners who faithfully attend their Board meetings. I refer specifically to Kline, who was tossed-out this past Monday when he tried to crash a get-together organized by Lora Lehmann (averring "I just want to listen"). It is unclear when the RMCA Board will be able to meet, inasmuch as there will be an anticipated fortnight-hiatus after next Thursday's Town Meeting @ PSU-Abington/Ogontz...and the approval-process will begin in earnest during the first week of January.

In any case, particularly because questions raised on this web-site have not been addressed by anyone else, just yet, and time-is-tight, I will provide information/opinion that has otherwise not been uploaded--and which is heavily-documented--and then handle whatever response it engenders.

--to be continued---

This e-mail was generated in response to queries raised by the electorate; this narrative is provided so that a full appreciation of their perceptions can be shared rapidly with the public.

From: kline4ward1@comcast.net
To: [distribution]
Subject: RE: Value of apartment complexes and transit hub/SEPTA parking center in Fairway area?
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:36:31 -0500

It would be helpful to start off with a little background on the zoning of the area. The entire area we are discussing, those properties bordering on The Fairway from the eastern edge of the Baederwood property/Rydal East up to Old York Road on both sides of The Fairway and the properties bordering on Old York Road (both sides) from the Noble Train Bridge to the edge of, but not including, the library property on the west side of Old York Road and the entry to the Rydal Waters property on the east side are all zoned in the PB (Planned Business) District.

The PB District is from the 1996 Zoning Ordinance. Unfortunately, it provides the Township with very limited control over development and contains several contradictions and loopholes. Development on these properties has remained mild, however they have the same density potential as the Baederwood property. The one residential use allowable under the PB District is H-1 Apartment/Multiplex Building. The H-1 Apartment/Multiplex Building use can only be built on properties with a minimum of 10,000 sq.ft. Outside of that restriction, the H-1 use allows a density of 22 two-bedroom units per acre, 29 one-bedroom units per acre and 43 efficiency units per acre (note that the Baederwood property is 18.8 acres, meaning that well over 400 units, in any configuration, are possible). In addition, because there is no requirement for a mixture of uses, the H-1 density would not eliminate the possibility of, nor require including, retail/office space in conjunction with the H-1 density. The one mitigating factor in all of this potential residential density and retail/office square footage is the parking requirements. Unfortunately, the PB District allows for C-16 Parking Garage Use, which on larger properties could allow for the upper ranges of these density/square footage calculations to be reached.

We only share this quick analysis so that it is understood that, although the current development on most of the properties we are discussing is mild, the potential for much greater development already exists.

Now, we would like to answer your question regarding the benefit of TOD (Transit Oriented Development) for this area.

Because of the infrastructure and close proximity to multiple forms of transportation public and private, and the density allocation already existing (albeit without the controls needed), this area is the township's best location to create TOD. TOD regulated areas have the potential to create a pedestrian-friendly, compact commercial/residential area that can (in the long run) reduce the dependency on automobile travel. Much of our experience in Abington and other surrounding first-ring communities (those municipalities surrounding a metropolitan area) is that we live in one location and shop in other locations. This was suitable 20-30 years ago when not much existed outside of Abington going away from the city. Now, with increasing development further out from this first-ring, we and others commute to commercial areas in Abington by visiting one location, conducting our business, then getting in our cars and going to another location. How many of you have stopped at Jules Thin Crust, had something to eat and then got in your car and went to Old Navy (when it was there) or to Target?

TOD attempts, through zoning regulation, to reduce this suburban travel mind-set by requiring a mixture of retail/office uses with residential uses and requiring shared property access without using the roadways. There is also the potential for public parking provisions so that regardless of your use in the area (visiting someone, shopping in another location or using public transportation to get to another part of the township or to the city) you can leave your car parked without concern. If you try to achieve that same result by separating these uses, you would need to utilize more land.

There is also a fiscal impact to consider. With the current tax base in the township at its maximum (because we are 98% built-out), in order for our budget to be balanced, even if we maintain services at the bare minimum, we will require more revenue. This revenue comes in one of two ways: property tax increases on the current population or finding responsible ways to increase revenue through development that creates less of an impact than the revenue it produces. This is also recognized in a TOD concept. By concentrating the residential and retail/office uses in a compact area you maximize the revenue to the municipality in a much smaller area than by trying to find additional land to achieve the same result.

There are other benefits to promoting change in this way. For example, many of the properties in the Noble/Fairway area predate the required stormwater management facilities of today’s standards. New development, while not necessarily producing much more impervious coverage, will need to incorporate stormwater management facilities that meet today's standards. We can also incorporate other green building incentives, as we have done with the proposed FTD ordinance, to create more environmentally-friendly development and building practices. For example, Baederwood Shopping Center currently does not have any storm water management facilities in an area that routinely experiences stormwater run-off problems. Any new development would need to incorporate full stormwater management facilities, thus alleviating the strain on the watersheds in this area.

We wish to close by stating that we are not in favor of increasing the density already allowable in the PB District. In fact, we would like to see that density reduced. This is what we have done with the proposed FTD ordinance. We believe there is great potential in this area as long as the zoning ordinances are drafted carefully. We know that is not the case with the existing zoning. We believe strongly that it is the case with the proposed FTD ordinance. We hope this explanation of the issue answers your questions and addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact either of us if you have any questions.

There will be two meetings related to the Baederwood Shopping Center project.

The first meeting will be a continuation of the first Abington Township Planning Commission's meeting held last month reviewing the draft FTD (Fairway Transit District) ordinance. The Planning Commission will continue its review on Wednesday, December 15th at 7:30 pm in the Main Board Room at the Township Administration Building at 1176 Old York Road.

The second meeting will be the follow evening on Thursday, December 16th. Commissioner Ernie Peacock (Ward 7) and I will host a Community Meeting to answer your questions regarding the Baederwood S.C. project. We will be available to answer your questions regarding density, traffic, environmental concerns, process, zoning and anything else on your mind. This meeting will be held at 7:00 pm in the Sutherland Auditorium on Penn State Abington's campus. The auditorium is located on School Lane, between Woodland Road & Cloverly Lane. Parking will be available on campus, follow "Special Event Parking" signs.

These two meetings are in preparation for the first public hearing, on Thursday, January 6th at 7:00 pm in the Main Board Room at the Township Administration Building, for the Abington Board of Commissioners to consider adoption of this ordinance as a solution to the legal challenge brought upon the township by Brandolini (owners of the Baederwood Shopping Center).

TheAbington Township Planning Commission will review the Fairway Transit District (FTD) Ordinance for potential adoption by the Abington Board of Commissioners. I received a couple of inquiries to summarize the process and the FTD Ordinance.

PROCESS:
Brandolini filed a Substantive Validity Challenge of the 8.32 acres wooded hill behind the existing shopping center that is currently zoned R-1 Residential (low-density) with a Curative Amendment that would allow the PB (Planned Business) District to extend from the front 10 acres (where the current shopping center presides) to the 8.32 acres. In response to the filing the Board hired a Land Use attorney, Marc Jonas, and a Land Planner, John Kennedy, to assist the Board in protecting the township's interests. The township has been given extension continuously since the original filing, granted by Brandolini, to hold the first hearing. The last date the hearing was scheduled was early November but was canceled at the request of the township so that we may re-evaluate the process.

Upon counseling with our solicitor and special land use attorney, the Board decided to take a different approach because they feel strongly that the Validity Challenge has merit. Therefore the Curative Amendment part of the process could become bogged down in litigation and potential take the decision making out of the control of the township. In order to protect the township's interest and control we have decided instead to review the township drafted FTD Ordinance through a legislative process. The Planning Commission meeting is the first step in the review and public involvement process.

BACKGROUND:
Although the current property is only used for retail and office space, the PB District allows for residential units as an allowable use. There is also precedent that PB allows for a mixture of uses (residential/office/retail). Therefore if the PB District was to be extended from the front 10 acres to the rear 8.32 acres our hired land planner estimates, through a test plan, that the property owner would be able to build 300-350 residential units in addition to the 130,000 sq.ft. of retail & office space.

When we starting drafting a new ordinance we set out to maximize the density to an amount lower than Bradnolini's previous proposed zoning district (BSCRD Ordinance) and cap retail & office space at a sqaure footage total equal or lower than their previous proposal. We also wanted to build in incestives to future development that would allow the developer higher denisty/square footage with provisions that benefit the township such as green building process, greater public transportation accommodations, secondary traffic patterns to alleviate current and future traffic problems and storm water management facilities that outperform the current requirements.

The FTD Ordiannce will allow 180 residential units on the full 18 acres as the base density and a maximum of 245 residential units after achieving the maximum bonus points. It also caps the retail office space to 136,000 sq.ft. in the base ordinance which may be increased to 170,000 sq.ft. with maximum of bonus points.

The FTD Ordinance also eliminates some of the bothersome loopholes and contridictions contained in the PB District and replaces them with solid planning, evironmental controls, and design standards not present in the current PB District.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
There will be several opportunities for the public to learn and weigh in on this proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission is the first the public sgtep followed by a public hearing to be scheduled in early January 2011. Of course I will also be available by phone and e-mail as usual to hear your concerns and questions.

At the request of the township, the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 3rd is cancelled. No new scheduled date has been determined but it is anticipated that a new meeting will be scheduled in January 2011.

This cancellation has been done in coordination with Brandolini and the township is expecting an extension letter on their Substantive Validity Challenge.

Any questions contact me at kline4ward1@comcast.net or (215) 758-2702

In my last newsletter I reported that the Board of Commissioners was going to start advertising for the first public hearing on November 3rd at 7:30 pm in the main board room on the second floor of the Township Administration Building of Brandolini's Substantive Validity Challenge of the R-1 Zoning for the rear 8.32 acres of their property. This part of their property is the mostly wooded hill behind the shopping center and they are contending that the R-1 Residential Zoning District (which only allows single family homes on 1 acre minimum lot sizes) is a left-over zoning classification after other properties surrounding this 8.32 acres have been rezoned to higher density residential and/or commercial zoning. The term they use is "Reverse Spot Zoning".

Brandolini filed this Substantive Validity Challenge back in the January of 2009 and has granted the township several extensions of time postponing the start of this hearing. In December of 2009, the Board of Commissioners hired an attorney who specializes in Land Use, Marc Jonas, to examine the possibilities of a defense of the R-1 Zoning and represent the townships interests during this process. The Board also hired a Land Planner, John Kennedy, to examine the history of the zoning changes in and around the parcel in question and to look at Brandolini's proposed cure for this perceived problem and also represent the townships interests during this process.

The hearing scheduled for November 3rd will be the first public meeting of what I suspect will be several public meetings to deal with this issue. The Board of Commissioners will sit as judges in the hearing listening to the testimony of the applicant attempting to prove their case that the Validity Challenge has merit. The Board's special counsel, Mr. Jonas, will be present during this presentation and will attempt to cross examine, dispute or question any of the testimony presented if deemed necessary. Township's special counsel will then be given an opportunity to defend the Validity of the Zoning if he feels there is a defense.

After all testimony is presented, the Board will then need to make a judgement on whether the applicant has proven that the current Zoning is Invalid. In the eventuality that the Board finds this to be true the Board would need to adopt a cure for this invalid zoning. Brandolini has proposed a cure that would extend the PB Zoning (Planned Business District) that current governs the front 10 acres of their property (where the shopping center exists currently). This proposal does not seem to be in the best interest of the township and the neighborhood given the broad-base regulation that exist in the PB Zoning District. To prepare for this potential outcome the Board's Land Planner, Mr. Kennedy, has been working on a cure that would incorporate the ideas and recommendations expressed by the Board of Commissioners, the Comprehenzive Plan and the Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study. This cure would be a new Zoning District called Fairway Transit-Oriented District (FTD). All though this ordinance is only a "Draft" and through the process may not be presented it is available for review on the Township's Website at http://www.abington.org/newspage/downloads/bsc%20redev%20litig.pdf

I want everyone to understand that this is only a "Draft" and would still need to go through a full public process before it can be adopted. I welcome your comments and concerns.