8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

1/196

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIACIVIL DIVISION

ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D. *1219 Fairacres Road *

Rydal, Pennsylvania19046-2911 **Petitioner, *

*v. * NO.11-02540

*TOWNSHIP OF ABINGTON *1176 Old York Road * JURY-TRIAL REQUESTED Abington, Pennsylvania19001 *

** * * * * * * * * * *

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.1219 Fairacres RoadRydal, Pennsylvania19046-2911[215=333-4900]pro se

MANDAMUS-PETITION FOR REVIEW OF TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE ADJUCIATION

I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., certify that the following statements are true and accurate, noting thatthis Mandamus Petition is provideddue to the intent to: (1)Resolve concerns raised inDefendants Motion to Dismiss by clarifying/amplifying points made in the original document (so-designated as having amplified 1-5, 7-8, 146-152&159-161 and the concluding Wherefore rhetoric); (2)Retain the capacity to cite all documents that had been appended both to theAmended Complaint and to the Default Motion; and (3)Refine the intent of this request to comportwith Defendants legal input acquired in the interimto wit:

Parties

1. Robert B. Sklaroff, a resident/taxpayer of Abington Township, resides in the ward [#7] in

which the Baederwood Shopping Center is locatedand hereby challenges Ordinances

2000/2006 {A}; Plaintiff is a person aggrieved because his interests are easily

distinguished from those shared by all citizens due inter alia to his frequent use of the

highways proximate to the Baederwood Shopping Center and, specifically those at the

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

2/196

2

Susquehanna Road/Washington Lane intersection (as well as his prior, current and

projected use of businesses located in this strip-mall).

2. Abington Township is a Pennsylvania political subdivision, within Montgomery County, in

which are located both the Baederwood Shopping Center and proximate highways and

intersections (including, specifically,that at Susquehanna Road/Washington Lane); its

Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinances 2000/2006 on 1/6/2011which prompted this

substantive validity challenge (the refilling of which is faced with a cover sheet and a

notice to defend, provided by staff).

Jurisdiction

3. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuantinter alia to the Pennsylvania

Municipalities Planning Code [53 P.S. 10909.1(a)(2) & 910.1] and the Pennsylvania Rules of

Civil Procedure [No. 1091]after an effort to file this challenge before the Abington Township

Zoning Hearing Board on 2/4/2011 was rejected by staff (which informed Plaintiff that he

would be contacted the following morning, after staff had discussed the matter with the

Township Solicitor, albeit an act which never transpired); although staff stated that no

formal legal advice was being proffered, it was necessary to effect the filing the next day

because the 30-day filing time-frame would toll the following day (when Plaintiff was

scheduled to appear at 8:30 a.m. for MontCo jury-duty and, thus, could not feel

prospectively confident the effort would be satisfactorily completed before time had

expired).

Overview

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

3/196

3

4. This dual-purpose filing contains all elements of what is needed legally to initiate this

process and it comprises key-elements of what could yield resolution ofthis ongoing

zoning-controversy; although the latter may be perceived by Defendant as burdensome

(perhaps because of the desire to avoid the need to confront myriad legal and due process

oversights/errors, amply documented), the legal sufficiency of this filing complies with Pa.

R.C.P. 1017 (the filing of a Complaint) and, thus, comports with the recognized method to

petition for review of a municipal ordinance adjudication.

5. Thus, this Complaint has been divided into sections that serve to digest data and

assessments thereof [albeit without bullet-points]; what is encompassed are the Narrative

{

9-73}, Legal Analysis {

74-81}, Objections {

82-88}, Legal/Database

Procedural/Criteria Analysis/Synthesis {

89-91}, Discussion {

92-108}, Proposed

Findings of Fact Overview {

109-113}, Proposed Findings of Fact Specifics {

114-

131}, Proposed Conclusions of Law {

132-137}, Discussion of Appellate Alternativesand

Proposed Order {

138-145}, and Relief Sought {

146-151}.

6. The Narrative includes the 2007 Planning Reports {

9-19}, Public Hearings in 2009 {

20-

22}, Ordinances 2000/2006 {

23-30}, MontCo Planning Commission {

31-34}, 1/5/2011},

Public Hearing [Presentation] {

35-44}, 1/5/2011 Public Hearing [Public Comment] {

45-

63}, 1/5/2011 Public Hearing [Commissioner Comment] {

64-72}, and Right-to-Know

Requests {

73}.

7. The Appendix includes lengthy excerpts from two pivotal documents that depict how the

future of this region has been envisioned (chosen in a disinterested fashion) and an

elaborative citation of current zoning criteria (which depict tensions that are created

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

4/196

4

between developers and residents; overall, this filing complies with Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a)

because it states the material facts on which this cause-of-action is based in a concise in

summary form (as well as elaboratively, consonant with the provision of sufficient

documentation to sustain specific/pungent assertions therein).

8. Since it is recognized that governmental bodies must often mediate between/among such

forces, cogent analysis has been included that scrutinizes the conduct of public officials

candidlywith material allegations which enhance the Defendants ability to provide a

meaningful response; the overarching goal is to elucidate [perhaps, in a take-no-prisoners

posture] because, it is felt, the decision of the Abington Board of Commissioners was far

too hasty to be judicious/reasonable.

Narrative 2007 Planning Reports

9. The 2007 Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study{B} has been cited as a precursor to

the Ordinances being challenged, creating the Fairway Transit-District [FTD], which is

located in the heart of Abington Township; it recognized that the center-of-gravity is not

adjacent (for it is at the Noble SEPTA Railroad-Station)and that strong community

opposition to this proposal had been registered, but it appeared to favor validating market

forces over the interests of the constituency

[http://www.oldyorkroad.net/Market%20Analysis.pdf]:

CONSTRAINTS

From an economic point of view the TOD Cluster has few constraints. Themost troublesome constraint is that there are only a few truly vacant sites,limited largely to the Eckenhoff Buick Pontiac GMC site and the RydalWaters site. The center of gravity in the TOD cluster wants to be locatedclose to the Noble Station to take advantage of the proximity to mass transitas a marketing tool, particularly for any new residential and officedevelopment.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

5/196

5

Except for the vacant Eckenhoff site, any new development in this clusterlinked to TOD would require reconfiguration of existing auto dealerships orshopping centers, an action that is possible but not imminent as suggestedby the publics reaction to the redevelopment of the BaederwoodShopping

Center. However, market forces (i.e., supply and demand) may win the dayfor future development.

10. The 2007 Old York Road Corridor Improvement Studyadvised further scrutiny of the impact

of the FTD on current levels of traffic congestion {A - Existing Conditions Report page

11}

[http://www.oldyorkroad.net/Existing%20Conditions/Existing%20Conditions%20Report.pdf]

which has never transpired:

Off-peak vehicular congestion along Old York Road also needs to beevaluated when considering the corridor. Significant contributors includetraffic traveling to major destination shopping centers such as the WillowGrove Mall, The Fairway and Baederwood Shopping District andAbingtonShopping Center.

11. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Planhas been cited as a precursor to the FTD-related

Ordinances being challenged; the Goals in its Zoning section {B, Chapter 9} provide

context (although unlisted is what should be intuitive, namely, to preserve existing property

characteristics)

[http://abington.org/code/Comp%20Plan%202007_files/comp%20plan%20072707.pdf]:

[U]pdates of the Zoning Ordinance should occur more frequently than theyhave in the past.[T]he current Zoning Ordinance is limited in directingfuture development in a more coherent manner than currently exists.Theuse of overlayswould create more Town Center areas [by] providing acohesive integration of commercial and residential. The point here is thatinnovative methodsof controlling and directing future growth arerequiredrather than the current approach of fixed, static boundaries based inexisting uses.To these ends, the Zoning Ordinance needs to be revisedwith the following objectives: 6. Greater availability of residential

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

6/196

6

rental properties in clustered developments or in town settings should beencouraged.

12. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan cites Goals/Objectives [page 1-3 et seq., page 5 et

seq.] related to myriad concerns, abridged thusly {C}: Housing [enhance diversity, but

conserve the character and encourage maintenance of existing housing], Natural

Resources/Green Spaces [preserve/protect], Parks and Recreation [collaborate],

Community Identity/Pride [encourage open access to all of Abingtons governing bodies],

Township/Community Facilities and Services [identify/fulfill, maintaining awareness of

realistic fiscal constraints], Wastewater Treatment [update facilities], Transportation [relieve

traffic congestion and provide for the safe and efficient access to commercial, recreational,

and institutional centers; encourage mass-transit and non-vehicular movement; update

McMahon Study; encourage Transit-Oriented-Development and the development of

medium-/high-density residential uses at transportation nodes and in commercial districts];

Township Finance [stability]; andLand Use & Zoning [revise zoning map to comport with

comprehensive plan, encourage mixed-use, create a seamless transition between

commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods].

13. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan cites the BaederwoodShopping Center

(Brandolini), recognizing the desirability of promoting any such effortthat specifically

might include age-restricted housingwith care and sensitivity:

A mixed-use development, if done with care and sensitivity, could enable thedeveloper and the Township to produce a product on a property in an areaalready populated with higher-density development. This type of mixed-useredevelopment could provide the age-restricted housing discussed early inthis section with retail and access to public transportation and a majorthoroughfare (Old York Road) through the Township. The potential of thistype of development could be the infusion of pedestrian traffic, destinationmode and retail revitalization needed within the Township.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

7/196

7

14. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Planadvises promotion of mixed-use business districts

along main arteries (residential, retail, office) and development of methods to aesthetically

improve [sic] commercial corridors with surrounding neighborhoods to create a supporting

climate; it is noted that mixed-use is to occur along main arteries [citing Old York Road,

not citing The Fairway], and that creating a supportive climate is necessary [an approach

that is antithetical to efforts to accelerate approval of proposed Ordinances that would

portend radical change to the region].

15. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan advises that that collaboration occur among

multiple entities [Administration, Code Enforcement, Community Development, Economic

Development Commission and Planning Commission] and, specifically, that they meet

periodically to share information, vision, and policies in an effort to maximize departmental

resources of the Township in achieving the economic development mission; such due-

process/due-diligence efforts cannot become manifest if these entities are not provided an

opportunity to review (if not approve) proposed Ordinances that would portend radical

change to the region.

16. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan includes a Transportation Plan [Chapter 6, pages

76-83] that encouraged mass-transit [page 6-4, page 79] and that recognized inherent limits

when implementing such plans [point #4, page 6-5, page 80]; this suggested that available

parking should be increased before attracting hoards of all-day congestion to the regional

roads:

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

8/196

8

Recent observations of the Meadowbrook, Rydal, Roslyn and Ardsley trainstops have shown that parking space capacity is virtually at one hundred percent occupancy during weekdays, which suggests that a limiting factorof the current rider counts is the amount of available parking.

17. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan includes an analysis of vehicular data, recognizing

the necessity to encompass emergency servicesdespite recognizing existing regional

congestionciting data (dating back to 1964) that have not been updated (despite this

recommendation):

A transportation system should be designed to meet the differing mobility

needs of residents, businesses, emergency services (police, fire, medicalservices), and commuters alike. The system needs to consider individualautomobile/truck transportation and public transit, as well as pedestriantravel. Abington Township has had to struggle with increasing trafficcongestion and time delays, road hazards, and inadequate off-street parking.Moreover, the shift to inter-suburban travel (as described in Section B of the1992 Comprehensive Plan) has dramatically increased usage of majorTownship thoroughfares such as [Old] York, Easton, and Moreland Roads.

An important part of the overall comprehensive plan for Abington includedthis study of the Townships transportation facilities and thoroughfaresystem. While not a comprehensive traffic study or plan, the reportincluded herein serves as the initial step in arriving at an overall plan.Thissection will: 1) assess the adequacy of the current transportation system,and 2) determine the capability of the system to meet future needs.Information for this section was compiled from the 1964 and 1977Comprehensive Plans for AbingtonTownship.

More importantly, the Township retained the engineering/transportationplanning firm of McMahon and Associates (of Willow Grove, Pennsylvania)to assist in this effort. A detailed report including maps, traffic counts andother supportive data, analysis of hazardous intersections, generaldiscussions, traffic projections, recommended improvements, and summaryis an addendum to the 1992 Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to the reportfor a more thorough discussion concerning transportation andthoroughfares.Private Transportation (Automobiles/Trucks)

Previously, the Townships 1964 and 1977 Comprehensive Plans set forth afunctionally differentiated system of highways and roadways.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

9/196

9

Four basic types of highways were set forth: major arterials designed asinter-regional routes in the State Primary System; primary streets designedto serve as inter-community connector streets in the State SecondarySystem; Township secondary or feeder streets designed to collect anddistribute traffic within Abington; and local resident streets. The purpose of

classifying highway types is to establish right-of-way/pavement widths andother design standards in accordance with the function of the highway andthe projected volume of traffic it will carry. Refer to Table 30 in the 1992Comprehensive Plan for current street classifications.

Major Arterials

The major arterial system of AbingtonTownship connects the major centersin the area, transports the highest traffic volumes, accommodates thelongest trip desires and carries a high proportion of the total vehicle milestraveled in the area. Earlier Township plans called for rights-of-way in

accordance with State Highway Standards of 80 to 100 feet for majorarterials.

Often the recommended rights-of-way cannot be realized in every case;however, these standards are to be applied through the subdivision/landdevelopment regulations whenever new development is proposed alongmajor arterials. Several of the major arterials in the Township are urgently inneed of highway improvements as they currently handle traffic volumes inexcess of what the roads were originally designed to handle. State HighwayDepartment standard for traffic capacity of major arterials are approximately37,100 vehicles per day for four-lane arterials at a Level of Service E. Yet, thestudy by McMahon demonstrated volumes in excess of 15,000 vehicles/dayon some of these arterials including Huntingdon Pike at 23,200 ADT;Moreland Road (Rt. 63) at 18,000 ADT and Old York Road (Rt. 611) at 35,000ADT.

Primary Streets

Rights-of-way of between 50 to 80 feet are recommended for primary streetsto handle the State Standard capacities of 16,200 vehicles per day at ageneralized level of Service E. Many of the Townships primary streets onlyhave rights-of-way of 33 feet, yet carry from over 8,000 vehicles per day to14,650 per day. Of the 15 roadways studied by McMahon, these are a few ofcounts found: Susquehanna Road at 12,900 to 14,650; Jenkintown Road at14,650 and The Fairway at 11,800. However, Levels of Service will vary withthe individual physical characteristics of each roadway.

Secondary Streets

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

10/196

10

Table 30 in the 1992 Comprehensive Plan lists roads in Abingtonssecondary (or collector) street system. These roads, according to StateStandards, have a capacity of 2,500 vehicles per day and should have rights-of-way between 50 to 60 feet. In the McMahon study, we find existing trafficvolumes range from 3,900 vehicles per day on Shady Lane to 5,850 vehicles

per day on North Hills Avenue (portion) to 9,500 vehicles per day onHighland Avenue.

Residential Streets

Local residential streets, which make up the bulk of the highway system in Abington, provide access from individual homes to collector streets. Withstandard carrying capacities not exceeding 500 vehicles per day, therecommended right-of-way is 50 feet.

Intersections

The transportation study by McMahon and Associates stated that, whileroadways throughout the Township are important in providing carryingcapacity to accommodate travel demands, it is generally at the intersectionsof the various roadways where conflict and congestion develops. TheTransportation Study performed by McMahon & Associates studied 13intersections identified by AbingtonTownship as being the most critical.They compared movement at the intersections with standards of theHighway Capacity Manual which rates the Level of Service forintersections and assigns them a grade ranging from A to F (A being theleast delay and congestion, F being the very worst).

The study performed by McMahon and Associates showed 9 of the 13intersections functioning at a Level of Service F during one or more hoursduring peak travel including the intersections of: Susquehanna Road/YorkRoad, Susquehanna Road/Highland Avenue, SusquehannaRoad/Washington Lane, Susquehanna Road/Maple Avenue, MorelandRoad/York Road, Moreland Road/Fitzwatertown Road, Fox ChaseRoad/Cedar Road, Edge Hill Road/Jenkintown Road and Edge HillRoad/Limekiln Pike.

Moreover, the study showed trouble at other intersections (JenkintownRoad/Meetinghouse Road, Jenkintown Road/Washington Lane, TownshipLine Road/Meetinghouse Road, Township Line Road/Church Road, EastonRoad/Woodland Road, and Fitzwatertown Road/North Hills/Woodland Road)which warrant future study. {Improvement was recommended for remainingintersections described in the report.}

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

11/196

11

18. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan also finds that approximately 38 intersections have

had more than 10 accidents over three years (1988-1990); this includes the Washington

Lane/ Susquehanna RoadT-Intersection at the Railroad-Bridge and the Old York Road/

Susquehanna intersection (which is both high-volume/high-accident).

19. The 2007 Abington Comprehensive Plan also includes a land-use section [page 8-13, page

109] that provided generic and specific suggestions; the former reflects the overall

approach to zoning that includes recognition that transition zones should exist between

housing and businesses {B}:

Revitalize our commercial corridors, Improve housing options to maintainthe current and advance our current population, Create guidelines which willenhance our commercial/industrial properties, and Create transition zonesbetween our residential neighborhoods and commercial districts.

Narrative Public Hearings in 2009

20. Two Public Hearings were held regarding theTown Hall development of the Baederwood

Tracts[10/14/2009 & 11/18/2009]; they were well-attended (with an estimated 100+ people at

both) and transcripts thereof demonstrate expression of near-unanimity in opposition to

this plan {D}.

21. At the first Hearing, following a presentation of the proposed curative amendment that had

been submitted by Brandolini, 13 people were invited solely to ask questions; at the second

Hearing, 27 people (excluding presenters) were permitted to ask questions, although

some offered opinions regarding the overall projectwith opposition having been

expressed by ten (Schiavonne-page 75, Stewart-page 82, Fedorowitz-page 86, Wirtshafter-

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

12/196

12

page 102, Reed-page 107, Laska-page 109, Sklaroff-page 116, Friedman-page 122, Adcock-

page 130, Aloe-page 133) and support having been expressed by three (Allen-page 92,

Abrams-page 102, Dratch-page 121).

22. Among those who expressed opposition was a presenter who had circulated a petition

signed by 300 people (Stewart) and a representative of the Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic

Association (Aloe); most queries focused on traffic-congestion, with most replies tentatively

suggesting procrastination.

Narrative Ordinances 2000 & 2006

23. A preliminary version of the proposed Ordinances was posted on the Townships website

by September 29, 2010; Commissioner Kline wrote: Although this Ordinance is only a

Draft and although the process may not be presented, it is available for review on the

Townships Website.

24. The finalized version of Ordinances 2000 & 2006 received scant and hasty scrutiny during

the six weeks between their being released for discussion at two meetings of the Planning

Commission (November 17, 2010 and December 15, 2010) and their being approved by the

Board (at its January 6, 2011 meeting); no other Township entity reviewed either of

them(noting, also, cancellation of a November 3, 2010 meeting) and, further, Commissioner

Peacock wrote that assessment of the FTD by the Code Committee (via a Public Hearing)

was deleted at my request (without his having proffered a contemporaneous explanation

and/or a rescheduling effort) {E}.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

13/196

13

25. Prior to the Planning Commission meetings, Petitioner generated a series of questions

generated by each-and-every section of the proposed Ordinances; Commissioner Klines

input prompted their redrafting (from queries to simple-declarative-sentences), yielding a

handout {F} which was given to the Planning Commission members on 12/15/2010 (and

orally summarized during the meeting).

26. No response tothese queries (orally/in-writing) was ever received, from the Planning

Commission or from anyone else; a grid-summary (of key-concerns) was composed and

circulated {G}.

27. The Planning Commission recognized time-pressures that had been imposed thereupon

and approved the proposed Ordinance[s] provisionally, without specifying either how or

when the issue would be revisited {H}: [Having received] legal advice that not resolving

this through negotiation may result in an untenable and detrimental condition[,] the

proposed Ordinance is approvedwith any comments or conditions we may have agreed

upon [sic].

28. On 12/16/2010, a Community Meetinghosted by the Ward #1/#7 Commissionerswas held

at Sutherland Hall [Abington/Ogontz Campus of Penn State University]; a handout was

provided that summarized the chronology/FTD/crosswalk {I} and Commissioner Kline

admitted (after rhetorical back-and-forth) that traffic/safety assessment is mandated by the

Realen case [vide infra] {J}.

29. During the 2010 Holiday Season, civic leaders [Township-wide] did not provide the public a

venue for discussion of this issue during the fortnight before the scheduled 1/6/2011

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

14/196

14

vote;as a result, Abingtonians were denied the opportunity to provide timely input

regarding this initial statutory manifestation of the two 2007 Plans [vide supra], which was a

template for other communities.

30. Illustrative of myriad misrepresentations of this process to the public are(overtly

incomplete, albeit repeatedly-cited) assertions (including the claim that inaction would

render the Township to be vulnerable to challenge, despite the fact that developers would

be empowered by new ordinances); Commissioner Peacock has also suggested that the

proposed Ordinances had been reviewed by Brandolini {E}: [T]he PC unanimously

approved the draft Fairway Transit District (FTD) ordinance that the Township is presenting

as its cure to the validity challenge filed by Brandolini.

Narrative - MontCo Planning Commission

31. The Montgomery County Planning Commission has thrice reviewed this project, with its

most recent letter (November 17, 2010) having been based upon review of the index

Ordinances {K}; this letterwhich was touted as having communicated approval thereof

actually cited numerous conditions which were not met and, indeed, dovetailed with

concerns herein [vide supra et infra].

32. Surprisingly [perhaps, not so surprisingly], Mr. Narcowich [MontCo Senior Community

Planner] remained silent when reference was made (during the Planning Commission and

Board meetings); his Recommendation had been: The MontCo Planning Commission

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

15/196

15

recommends approval of the proposed zoning map and text amendments, provided the

changes suggested are made.

33. Prominent and unambiguous among the recommendations [F.1.] is: The Township should

consider requiring that the traffic study examine potential impacts on designated

intersections; nevertheless, there is no evidence that any Township Official or

Commissioner raised this concern for discussion/analysis, despite the fact that it was

repeatedly emphasized by multiple speakers (including, in particular, this Petitioner) and

merely acknowledged by myriad authority-figures.

34. Other consequential considerations therein were meritorious of due-diligence consideration

(and were often cited empirically by speakers): Lot-Size [one-acre threshold]; Density

[net/gross land area]; Use Regulations [C-34]; Design [Fenestration, Renderings, Building-

Design, Open-Space]; Automobiles [Parking, Vehicular Circulation and Street-Width];

Transit-Station-Use [Utility-Use]; Signage [Illumination]; Faade [Public/Primary];

Pedestrians [Crosswalks, Curb-Cut-Materials; SEPTA-Oriented], Bonus [Off-Site Traffic-

Upgrade, Road-Link, Preserved-Trees, Other-Amenities]; Regulations [Intent/Required]; and

Grammar [Typographical-Errors].

Narrative 1/5/2011 Public Hearing [Presentation]

35. On January 5, 2011, a Public Hearing {L} was held regarding the proposed Ordinances {M}

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; the two Ordinances

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

16/196

16

were approved (12-2), with one excused-absence (Commissioner Ring) and two anti

(Commissioners Zappone/Carlin).

36. There was no mandate that the Hearing-process be completed in one day, for an entire

month existed before the alleged 1/31/2011 deadline; furthermore, the risk that legal costs

would immediately/inevitably rise to the six-digit level was undermined by the fact that the

identical process adopted in 2008 (holding two Public Hearings) could have been mirrored

in 2011.

37. Even arguendo Brandolini would refuse to grant sufficient time for due diligence study of

the potentially-curative FTD-proposal, a reasonable judge could have been asked to grant a

request by the Township to study a remedy that had first been submitted for scrutiny only

ten weeks earlier; the judiciary consistently encourages parties to settle/arbitrate matters

before entering the Courts.

38. The Commissioner-Chair recognized (albeit in a different context, were Brandolini to sell the

tracts) that a property-purchaser knowingly assumes its zoning-status extant at the time of

purchase [PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: It would be whattheyre purchasing. The way its

zoned when they purchase it.]; this illustrates again why Brandolini cannot claim the

Township renders it unable to develop the parallelogram-tract (assuming a new Ordinance

has not been adopted).

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

17/196

17

39. The land-planner/consultant, John H. Kennedy, provided an oral-summary of his analysis

(which was not critiqued assertively by the Commissioners and was not allowed to be

critiqued atall by the public) {with instant-commentary that could have been raised for

cogent discussion}:

The R-1 portion, this eight acres, is a remnantthat is left over fromprevious zoning changes that have taken place in the past and, in myopinion,it is no longer an appropriate location forthe least dense districtin the township. {This does not mean that it should be escalated to thecommercial-level zoning, particularly recognizingthe facts that half oftheborderis zoned-residential and that a transition-zone could be created.}

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 NeighborhoodResidential. {This is an example of what could be adopted, consonantwith the Rydal Waters designation, liberalizing potential usage.}

In my opinion, after reviewing the standards for this district, it is not anappropriate or logical choice for replacement zoning for several reasons.{This opinion, it may be noted, did not include consideration of criteriarelated to safety/traffic/density, as is superficially elucidated infra.}

To begin with, the SNRD District has a 25-acre minimum site arearequirement. {This was created forthis site and could be modified.}

In addition,the eight acres does not have any connectivity to the existingSNR District. In other words, there are no right-of-ways or vehicularaccess points that would connectthis to the balance ofthe district. {Thereis no necessity for such linkage to occur with properties owned by others.}

And then, furthermore, the eight acres also lacks direct access to anarterial highway. And thatis one ofthe stated purposes inSection 305.1,which is the SNR purpose statement. {The current searchable PDFavailable on-line [Version 6.0, Adopted 5/9/1996] does not include thisdesignation, as is not surprising,noting it is 15-years ancient;thus, it canonly be surmised that this stated-purpose must be perceived ascontrolling, ratherthan being subjectto the granting of a variance by theZoning Board and Board of Commissioners, particularly when it isrecognized that arbitration-mechanisms exist and that Brandolini knewthis designation prior to its decision to purchase the tract [http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codes/0569_A/Zoning.pdf#xml=http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/searchresults.asp?cmd=pdfhits&index=0569_A&f

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

18/196

18

ilename=zoning.pdf&fn=C:/siteinfo/ecodes/codebooks/0569_A/Zoning.pdf].}Now, of course, we do have direct access, roadway access, down to TheFairway, through land ownershi p patterns; however, The Fairway is aprimer street and it is not an arterial highway. {Whetherthis constitutes

a distinction with a difference would be arguable, forthe access wouldbe attained through the existing BaederwoodShopping Centertracts.}

Lookingthento PB,to the south, as a possibility for replacement zoning,we do find that it does make some logical sense.The landowners otherholdings are zoned PB, previously the landowner had requested a zoningchange to PB, and therefore we thought it was worthwhile to examine ingreater detail the impact ofPB zoning on the entire tract.PB is one ofthe most li beral districts that I have ever seen.As many of you areaware, there is a band in here which is quite steep. However, you couldmake a road up there. You could build a road up there and inthe business

its what we would call an unloaded road, because there is nothing oneither side of it. {He then segued into advising adoption of the FTD-approach, notwithstanding the existence of the excerpts supra, therebyfailingto address such issues as public-input and traffic-congestion.}

40. Planner-Kennedyset the tone for misrepresenting the actions of the two Planning

Commissions [vide supra] when he concluded his presentation thusly [n.b., he cited no

qualifiers, whatsoever]: We have received positive recommendations from the Township

Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission.

41. Commissioner Wachter invoked a non-sequitur [Ive watched the Planning Commission

meetings. Iguess you have,too, ontelevision.I mean, you cant say this has been rushed

through.The lawsuit has been going on for two years.], for he knew or should have

known that the Planning Commission meetings yielded a qualified resolution with a

whereas section that unambiguously noted that this entity had felt rushed; furthermore,

the necessity to scrutinize an extensive proposed Ordinance that had been officially

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

19/196

19

released less than two months prior was mutually exclusive of the history of a prior

curative amendment filing of less than two years prior.

42. After he perpetuated an incorrect claim [What is not before us is traffic], Commissioner

Wachter mischaracterized the threat facing the Township, inasmuch as there was no

pending litigation and, as noted supra, any commitment to proceed through the judiciary

would not necessarily yield excessive legal costs [Now,if we dont do anythingtonight,

the lawsuit proceeds, I dont know how its going to work out but it could cost us

hundreds ofthousands of dollars to battle this up to the Supreme Court, and the chances

of winning,I dont know.]; per statute, the only inherent risk as to the ultimate outcome

would have been alteration in the zoning of this particular tract, not imposition of a major

Zoning Code alteration.

43. Planner-Kennedy asserted that he had helped Lansdale institute a bonus-point system

[COMMISSIONER KLINE: Going to the bonus system, how is it written in the

Ordinance who determines the achievement of bonus points?...And thengoing through

the bonus, just a couple of points. And thenthe traffic improvement bonus item, which

is No. 11, says the provision of one off-site traffic improvement identified in the

AbingtonTownship Comprehensive Plan. Is it meantthatthatis outside ofthe scope of

any required traffic improvements that arise from a traffic study?...Related to the

development? MR. KENNEDY: Yes.It has to be a genuine outside improvementto

the traffic system.Not something related to the project.COMMISSIONER KLINE:

Are there any othertownship ordinances that have design standards inthis depth? MR.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

20/196

20

KENNEDY: Yes.we just utilized them,I utilized them for a client inthe Borough of

Lansdale.[It was a way where the borough could get some additional amenities that

they would not normally get.]; yet, Lansdale has no such bonus-point system [see

http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=LA0393, Chapter 122, Article XXXVI, 122-3603].

44. Planner-Kennedys fundamental arguments regarding the traffic-density issue were twofold

{[A] traffic study is actually required at the conditional use stage and 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 ofthe major advantages, and

this is something that developers will like, is the fact that by building residential uses

here,those people are notgoingto getintheir car and drive to the train station and park

and go to work. Those people are less than a half a mile,theyre aboutthree-eighths of a

mile; they are going to walk over here and catch a train and go to Philadelphia.So,

from a traffic standpoint,this actually would generate less traffic onthe local roads than

development that were spread out through the entire site.}; the first assertion ignored

safety-related issues and the second assertion cries for documentation (both generic and

specific to the Township).

Narrative 1/5/2011 Public Hearing [Public Comment]

45. The Commissioner-Chair introduced the public-comment section [If you have questions

they will be noted and answered as we can.] and reinforced this introduction [Im just

trying to get comments and then well go back and try to answer those questions.] by

articulating a plan whereby queries would be aggregated rather than addressed

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

21/196

21

individually; yet, she never requested clarifications requested by this Petitioner (and others)

after the public-comment period.

46. The Chair adopted a time-constricted approach that discouraged people (but not

Commissioners) from speaking {[W]ere 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 inthe room, and

were going to try to also avoid redundancy.}; instead the public should be invited to

provide maximal input.

47. A back-and-forth exchange with Commissioner Wachter was corroborative of this

Commissioner/ Public disparity [I hope I was less than five minutes. Itried to keep it--

.Well, I think it was about 15, but thats all right.Thats good for me.]; this may

have beengood for her fellows (no matter how rambling, incoherent, incorrect and

repetitive), but it was bad for selected members of the public (including this Petitioner,

whose input was unique and heavily-documented).

48. Specifically, this Petitioner initially posed simple-queries [IfMr.Jonas would please state

affirmatively thatthe Supreme Court, an UpperMerion case,is the one that he primarily

relies upon?...I would like to askMr. Kennedy if he knows the gradation, the height,

betweenthe two properties.Namely, whatis the level ofRydal Waters and the one down

below.]; neither was answered subsequently [noting that the answer is 60-feet {B},

carrying implications regarding the steepness of the slope], although the legal-consultant

failed to cite any case other than Upper Merion vs. Realen when discussing legalities [the

Realen case is just the latest pronouncement on reverse spot zoning, but it is one of

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

22/196

22

hundreds of cases that talked about spot zoning] and, thus, it seems he considers no

other case to add anything substantive to the legal-analysis beyond the dicta within this

particular Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion.

49. Commissioner Wachters praise for Legal-Consultant Jonas was so absolute that it

prompted him to interrupt his personal analysis [I could not find any cases that would

change thatSupreme Court decision, and the reasonI couldnt find any because, frankly,

I didnt look.]; because he is the only practicing attorney serving as an Abington

Commissioner, such inaction served to diminish the capacity of the ultimate decision-

makers to oversee consultant-input.

50. This Petitioner was interrupted after he had attempted to point-out and to discuss the due-

process deficiencies inherent in the approval process that had transpired by referencing the

quotation from Commissioner Wachter [see

49, supra]; yet, he was not permitted to

complete his testimony:

MR.SKLAROFF: In short,I would like to suggestthat you feel that youdo not have this mandate that you have to act immediately; that even ifthey threatened 400-some odd units, they still have to deal with parking-related issues, and thatthis is a problem that affects the health and safetyof people inthe area and therefore you should do your due diligence, havemultiple meetings just like they did in UpperMerion, and in the processdo your job, as opposed to the way Mr. Wachter said; well,I didnt reallyread this stuff but I believe and I adopt by reference what I was told bypeople I respect. Thats not your responsibility. Your responsibility is

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Thats certainly -- point of personalprivilege?

MR.SKLAROFF: Yes?

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: I know you arrived late but that wasnothing whatI said.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

23/196

23

MR.SKLAROFF: Well, you said you didnt read the

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: All right. Thank you. Thats fine.

MR.SKLAROFF: No, wait a minute. You said you did not read, you didnot study

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Sir?

MR.SKLAROFF: -- and therefore you made a mistake.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Youre out of order.

MR.SKLAROFF: I understand.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. The next person who would like tospeak?

MR. KANE: Larry Kane, 1043 Pheasant.

51. The Petitioner was prospectively limited to 300 seconds (viewed as ridiculous), so he

dispensed with both his 73-page memo [N] and his testimony [O], and focused on

content and process:

This is a project that affects the entire township, as evidenced bydiscussion of the issue of the problem with one acre or less, and sotherefore the false argumentthatthis would only be affecting ward sevenis punctured.

The next pointthat has to be punctured is this lack of discussion oftraffic.As I extensively documented, there has never been a comprehensivereview of traffic, despite the fact that both the Old YorkRoad Corridorand the Abington Plan report explicitly states that deficiency continuesand that currently, for example, something like 9 of the 13 intersectionsevaluated were F, which is the most congested already. And these arenumbers thatgo way back even before the modern era.

So,the priority in the primum non nocere, youve heard that line before,the first is causing no harm; you have police powers that you areobligated, as a township, to maintain, and that includes safety.And thatsalso in the Supreme Court decision. And so therefore not dealing with

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

24/196

24

traffic, and therefore not dealing with the capacity for emergency vehiclesto traverse the area, particularly the key intersection,is a major faultinthepresentation ofthe data here.

And in particular that was affirmed after a little bit of scuffle at the

PennState town hall meeting whenMr. Kline admitted that indeed safetyconsiderations were germane to the discussion. And so therefore, forthesereasons, and others that youve had a chance to review, eventhough I havenot had a chance to review a lot of the other data, because of variousdelays inthe discovery process,there are major problems with credibility.

WhenIget a letter saying explicitly there has beenno communication,nomeetings, between or among the Commissioners or the Townshippersonnel regarding these issues, and I know otherwise -- for example,Iknow that information that Igave to the local state rep made its way totwo 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 Iget a letter sayingthere havent been any,thats a misrepresentation.

And there are many, many other issues that are sprinkled through myreport and my testimony which damage the credibility of the peopleinvolved here.

52. Mr. Larry Kane placed this filing into multiple (historical, legal, operational) contexts; among

other highly-critical comments regarding the proposed Ordinances, it was interrupted by

applause:

Ithinkthis is a very sad day for AbingtonTownship because a company isgetting rewarded for an absolute distaste and repugnant behavior towardthis community.

This Township has watched this shopping center in limbo for five or sixyears now. The property values have been devalued. Other vacantproperties stand vacant onOld YorkRoad. The townis one ofthe greatestplaces to live in America; we love the schools, we love the police, we lovethe diversity, but what we dont like here is somebody coming in anddegrading a shopping center.

We dont like the shoddy construction. And the Carpenters Unionis rightaboutthat.There is dangerous constructionthat occurred, and I was rightinthe middle ofit.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

25/196

25

We dont like the people who were assigned to this who conducted theirconstruction in very unsafe ways, and I find it absolutely repugnant, as acitizen, that a company that cares nothing about this town is beingrewarded inthe end with a green lightto go ahead.

And,Mr. Kennedy,Ithink your reportis fascinating,its interesting, butIdont think it really warrants our attention in one respect. We are atownship that has [56,000] people?

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 overthe years,and I dont think we should apologize or fail to go to court againstanybody who treated us this way.

Brandolini has the same problem in UpperDublinTownship,I hope youveexamined that, and the problem is existing in urban blight there. If this

happened on the edge of Willow GrovePark, or on the edge ofCheltenham, or on the edge of excuse me. I speak for a living. Imhavingtrouble tonight. --if you found this onthe edge ofJenkintown, orany other place, you would also find this repugnant and horrible.

This should not happen. And I know this ordinance -- I understand --Steve and Ernie,I understand the purpose ofthe ordinance is to protectthetownship, I understand that, but in the process you are going to set aprecedentthatis unprecedented, and you will open other builders to allowthemselves to hold this townshi p hostage, which this builder has for thelast four or five years.

53. Other citizens raised queries which were not addressed, such as Mr. Kane (after having

characterized the undeveloped Rydal Waters tract as an urban blight); he queried

consultant-Kennedy [Id like to know if hes done work for any developers that have

done work in Abington Township.]a question which the Commissioner-Chair

acknowledged [Okay. And I will note that question.] and then issued a request that

mirrors what this Petitioner had also requested through the Right-to-Know Act [The

second questionI have is ifthere were any meetings with Brandolini privately between

members ofthis commission, away from the Sunshine Laws ofPennsylvania.I would

like those questions answered. I think they are important questions that have to be

answered.PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: All right.].

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

26/196

26

54. Ms. Lora Lehmann was able to rebut a few of the assertions made by consultant-Kennedy,

recognizing that she has uploaded far more elaborative chronology/critique onto her web-

site http://www.abingtoncitizens.com/Issues/Development/Baederwood/Baederwood.htm;

her views are also cited verbatim because they reflect acute awareness of aggregated

concerns and reflex-refusal of the Commissioner-Chair to show a slide (upon specific

request) to illustrate a point:

Mr. Kennedy, with all of his experience, if he were Mr. Snow and

Brandolinis land planner,Ithink he should be very proud. But, my landplanner might look atthat spot and see that what we have there is anR1,and a neighborhood, and on the other side neighborhood. Allneighborhood residential uses there. And only half of that property isbordered by the PB.

And so for him to say that we couldnt make it SNR -- I think hiscomments were that we have a 25-acre minimum. Well, the SNR wascreated for that particular lot and they made up the 25-acre minimumwhen they made it up.So, we can call it QNR and make up whateverminimum we need to make a nicer residential section.

And if we have a residential section on that area, then they cant mergethose three lots. Because theyre zoned differently. And that changes theamount ofPB that can be had before.

And I dont know how we could getto that last screenthat he had, butthethingthat keeps being missingin all ofthe analyses is the factthat we arebeinggiven these 422 units, and 700 and some units, and then it said inlittle letters underneath there -- I dont know ifMr. Kennedy canget tothat last slide that we had.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: No, hes notgoingto do that. Just continue onwith what youre saying. Thats just a comment.

MS. LEHMANN: So inthere, where we have the two neighboring ones,and there were the amount of units with additional commercial,it was Mr.Kennedys job to say how much commercial.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

27/196

27

Because over onthe other side we had 276 units and 200,000 square feetof commercial.So that makes a pretty good difference, if were tryingtocompare apples and apples. And that figure seems to keep going missing.So, what we need to look atis we need to look atthings apples to apples,and we havent beengiventhe right figures. And the right-to-know laws

have also not been honored. I was denied some of the right-to-knowdocuments without any reasons given. And in writing,I asked forthem inwriting, was denied by Mr. Conway, and other right-to-know documentswere given late, ifthey were given at all. I havent heard yet whether allofthem were there, and thats anissue.

The green space thatMr. Kennedy said was in there,I would like, whenyou get to the question period, for him to say exactly where that is.Because I looked through that ordinance, and whenI asked CommissionerKline where it was he said, well,theres impervious surface.

Well,gravel is impervious surface and its notgreen.So,Id like to knowwhere exactly in that ordinance is the line that says we have 20 or 30 orwhatever the percent is ofgreen space. Because youve heard again andagain how importantthatis to the residents ofthis Township.

In addition,this builder has beenincentivized to build --if he wonin courthe would get 50-foot buildings. We are incentivizing him, giving himbonuses, to go to 75.If he won in court he would have 60-foot setbacksfrom the road, which Abington residents have asked you for. To setthingsback 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 thewishes ofthe residents.If you wanted to incentivize what the residents asked, where is theincentive to build a movie theater? The number one request again andagain from Abington residents. And no incentive inthere for communityrooms, or movie theaters, orthe things that youre being asked for.

I dont believe that the Commissioners that worked on this heard theresidents at all. And Ithinkthats one ofthe mostimportantthings here.

And the conveyancing, the financing? I dont know why that was evennecessary to putin.Thank you.

55. Mr. Carson Adcock then conveyed comparable concerns, albeit from the perspective of a

contiguous neighbor; unlike how the Commissioner-Chair treated Petitioner, he was

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

28/196

28

permitted to speak extensively (beyond a time-limit, to complete thoughts, finishing-up,

etc.):

Only a few summers ago my family would wake up inthe morningto the

sound ofgiant oaks and poplars and ash trees being chain sawed to theground and trucked out of Abington.

For several weeks straightI would come home inthe afternoonto sit withmy mom as the Elliott Building Group detonated dynamite that wouldshake through our house, rattlingthe dishes and crackingthe plaster.

Elliott received the consequences oftheir actions sooner, ratherthan later,but we nonetheless are here left with the loss of one ofthe most beautifulforests in Abington.

The clear-cut lot atRydal Waters was a direct result of zoning decisionsmade by your predecessors in this room, and your decision here tonightcarries significant consequences.

Thats why we,the residents, are here tonightnot as obstructionists -- youknow, it seems like thats how I think some of us have been portrayedlately --not as obstructionists who like to cause trouble and hear ourselvestalk, but as advocates with good solutions for preserving and improvingourtownship.

Specifically, were here to advocate for firstthe environment,inthis casea beautiful stand of mature growth forestthat was hundreds of years inthemaking.

Second, were here to advocate for property rights. Namely, the ZoningCode from 1996 that you guys wrote and passed and has this lot zonedresidential.

Third, were here to advocate for flood control.

And fourth were here to advocate forgreen space. In other townshipsnearby provisions are being made to buy more green space.In our case allwe have to do is protect our current Zoning Code and weve got eightacres of mature growth forest, ofgreen space, you know, right here.

Were here to advocate for our school system. Others have made that caseand you probably will continue to. You know, another apartment buildingwould continue to burden our school system.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

29/196

29

Were here to advocate for lower traffic, whether thats what weresupposed to be talking about here tonight ornot.

Were here to advocate for, I think the bottom line is that were here toadvocate for the suburb and the suburban way of life, as opposed to an

urban way of life, and the suburban way of life that you have chosen aswell 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 theresidents, were here to advocate for an alternative solutionto dealing withthis problem that Brandolini has faced our township with.Mr. Kennedy did a nice job in pointing outthatthey came in from outside,they have presented us with a problem; as a community, we need to find asolution 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 thatits just residentialalong with everythingthats behind it. And if we had to rezone everythingthattouches commercial, eventually our whole township would be zonedcommercial.

I would suggesttonightthat you go with R3 zoning. Aftertaking a morecareful look,Ithinkthatthe SNRprobably is not--too many adaptationswould have to be made to call this SNRin a way that was most defensible.And working with, you know,the law side ofthings,Ithinkthatif we justrezoned itR3, which is the same zoning as exists onthe other side ofthisSNR tract, R 3 is right over here, and is approximately the sameresidential density as the SNR density, and same green space andeverything else. I mean, I think thats a simple and good solution, itscreative, legally defensible, et cetera.Technically speaking, you know, youve heard Mr. Kline argue that thisreduces the number of residential units that could be built onthe three-lotBrandolini property. Practically speaking, however, it opens the door tovastnew -- so,I mean,technically speakingit Mr. Kennedy has arguedit does. It reduces the total units conceivable. If you clear-cut, if youknocked down all the commercial buildings, you could build upapartments and so forth, you know, as on the PB lot; but, practicallyspeaking, and Ithinkthat we all know this, it opens the doorto vastnewdevelopment as it would be much easier, and cheaper, for Brandolinito --and this is exactly what Brandolini wanted a few years ago,they wanted tobuild this apartment building back onthis lot.I mean,its no secret.

Its cheaper for Brandolinito secure bank financing fornew constructionon undeveloped land than it would be for them to secure financing forredevelopment of existing collateral.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

30/196

30

In other words, if they can use these buildings as collateral, the banksgoingto be much more comfortable thanifthey had to knock downthesebuildings and,inthe meantime,they have no collateral. It would be verydifficult to get financing to end up with more units under the existing

zoning.I mean, it would be nearly impossible. Nobody would ever do itin practice.Okay. Anyhow.

Ernie Peacock,Steve Kline and Rex Herder basically communicated to us,the residents,thatthe proposal before you tonightis both the path of leastresistance and the path of least risk.

Well,I mean, first of all,Ithinkthe R3 idea, rezoningthe eight acres as R3, is less risky, legally. Were talking about rezoning their existingPBrights. Which apparently they have not agreed that they would beagreeable to this cure.

We still may face a legal challenge, evenif we do pass this cure.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Sir? Can you please --

MR. ADCOCK: Ill wrap it up. Yes. Thank you.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Please do.

MR. ADCOCK: Many are growing understandably frustrated, feelingthatour representative is interested in doing the easy work of hearing ourideas, concerns and solutions, butnotinterested in actually doingthe hardwork of fighting for and implementingthese ideas and solutions.

I would just ask you tonight, a final word for the Commissioners; youknow, did you run for commissionerto take the path of least resistance orto fight for and defend the Abingtonthat we love?

My goodness,Mr.Peacock obviously ran explicitly standing onthe RydalWaters property clear cut and described it as a failure of localgovernment.

Mr.Peacock, do you wantto stand onthe --

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Thank you. Thank you,Mr. Adcock.

MR. ADCOCK: --the new clear cut piece of land? Of course not.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Mr. Adcock, please.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

31/196

31

MR. ADCOCK: We wantto fight-- fight with you,not against you.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Complete yourthought.

MR. ADCOCK: IfI could just make one more sentence here?

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Well, youve gone way over yourtime. Ithinkwe gotthe --

MR.D. ADCOCK: You can have a minute of my time. Ill be up next.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: We have I believe heard all of your salientpoints. You have repeated yourself more than once.

MR. ADCOCK: Okay. Could I just have one sentence? Would that befair?

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: One sentence.

MR. ADCOCK: I would just say to my fellow residents that, you know,weve been fighting this for several years and I would just make thecommentthatits beennice plugging forthis with you. It looks like thiswill be our last stand here tonight and --

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Do you wantto face the Chair, please?

MR. ADCOCK: Youve been thoughtful, resilient, courageous andeccentric at times, no more than myself, and Im proud and grateful tohave you as my neighbors and friends. (Applause.)

56. The next speaker, Mr. Dee Adcock (the father of the preceding speaker and the 2010

Republican Congressional Candidate in the 13th District) echoed these thoughts;

specifically, he articulated the precedent (which occurred with regard to the contiguous-

plot) to invoke some sort of an arbitration-mechanism (as opposed to capitulating to

encroaching developers):

Im probably not as eloquent as the previous three speakers, or even aswell informed, but Ive been in the township for 40 years now, close to,three different locations, and when I moved into this particular area at1714 BrookRoad the vast majority of the area, or at least certainly the

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

32/196

32

area bordered by Old York Road, The Fairway, and Susquehanna, themajority ofit was residential.

Over the course of time you all, and those who preceded you, haveundermined me, undermined my property, undermined the value of my

home, and my property, by continuing concessions to builders anddevelopers overthe course ofthe [past] 20 plus years.

I probably havent been as aggressive as I should have been. I probablyhavent sued as I probably could have or should have, eitherthis Board orthe builders myself.I have done one thing.The last time some area wasdeveloped, or going to be developed, I ended up buying the propertymyself so that we could maintain some green space.

Now,I dontthinkthatI probably have the money atthis momentto buythe rest ofthat property, as was suggested by someone here, butI do find

it offensive that this Board of Commissioners will not stand up for thezoningthat has beenthere and has beenthere.

I mean, youve gotR3 up here, my house is rightthere, and its R1. Whatdo you do with me as R1 in all ofthis commercial area? I dontgetit.Idont understand it. In fact, you know, you,Mrs.DiJoseph,the President,said when a -- you know, when you buy a property you getthe zoningthatgoes with it.

What was the zoning that went with this when it was bought? I knowwere not answering questions but its rhetorical,Iguess.It was what? R1? Thats the zoningthey bought. Keep it.

Thats exactly what you said not more thanten minutes ago.So, fight forthat.

You know,Ive been sold out overthe course oftime, and I dont like it. Idont appreciate it.I pay my taxes.Perhaps maybe you should makeI wantto know ultimately whatis goingto be done to take care of me, andperhaps the other residents that are left in this newly-developedcommercial area?

Are you going to decide, oh,Mr. Adcock, you wont have to pay taxesbecause the Townshi p has agreed to concede to every builder, everydeveloperthat comes downthe street.

I was here and I had my discussions regarding the Rydal Waters projectand, you know,that failed. Because we needed to negotiate,not stand ourground, and thats what occurred.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

33/196

33

Youve got, quote, urban blight.Now its grown actually back into moregreen space again, which I guess will be turned back into who knowswhat. But,these are just some of my concerns and some of my thoughtsof how I, Dee Adcock, have been sold by the river, or up the river,whateveritis, and done harm by you and your predecessors.

I am asking you to take a stand. And certainly this much ofthe propertydoes not is not commercial and it doesnt border commercial. Youvegot commercial area here and here.Thats whats commercial.

Youve got the whole -- lets see, up until -- youve got Susquehannacoming up here, and once you get past the corner property its notcommercial.So,thats the basis thatI want you to consider.

And I want you to considerif you owned a property inthere that was R1.How you would you feel about it? And would you want your

Commissioners to stand up for you? Or would you want them tocapitulate, because its the easy course of action?

I would suggest you nottake the path of least resistance and less risk andultimately it is up to you all. But,I think Ive said my piece and I thinkyouve got significant decisions to make.Ill be very upsetif you continueto sell outthe residents ofthe Township.

57. Mr. Ethan Simons testimony reflected many forces-at-play that have been articulated

herein, including the continual-learning process, the steep-slope factor, and creeping-

urbanization; again, however, the Commissioner-Chair requested that the consultants

clarify any of the highly-specific points he raised in these regards (with cogent explanations

derived from personal experience):

First of all,I do want to say,I do have one question.Ive been trying tofollow this buttheres always somethingnew Im learning.

On the last slide shown by Mr. Kennedy he showed a picture ofthe -- ablue line and said, practically speaking, most ofthe development would beoffthe hill.So,I looked atthat and I said, well, then, why do they wantthis so much? Why do they wantto develop it? Ifits really not practicalfor development? So,that confused me and Id appreciate some follow-upthere.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

34/196

34

Ithinkits cleartoday that opinions are fixed, and that was made clear byseveral Commissioners. And Ive had chats with my own Commissioner,so its pretty clearthatthats where its clearto me that a vote would be infavor ofthis.

So, I do want to make a statement related to the zoning, however, andespecially with respectto what may come inthe future.

I do this because a year ago with a neighborIgathered 300 signatures ofpeople, handwritten signatures, doorto door, of people who were opposedto the change in zoning, primarily because ofincreased density that wouldresult from it.

So the key point I would like to make with two examples is I amconcerned that the Commissioners are actively promoting a policy toincrease urbanization in AbingtonTownship. And I say that for two

reasons.

The first reasonis that by providing concession of changingthe residentialzoning to FTD, in this situation, I believe would simply make it mucheasier forthe developerto putin a development.

Sure, there are other options they can take, and those are laid out, butthose seem to be harderto do than ifthey now have an extra eight acres.So,that would be the first example of how I feel we are really greasingtheskid for additional development.

Im also concerned that -- and again with utmost respect to the goodpresentation by Mr. Kennedy, and I do not know Mr. Jonas but thecredentials certainly sounded very fine -- I always believe in seekingmultiple opinions, and it comes across to me that overthe last year reallythere have been only two sources of expert opinionthat have been sought,and it I think there may have been intermediate options that simplyhavent come to the forefront. And there could be many within theTownship who have the expertise to provide that. I simply do not.

Let me move to the second example that really concerns me the most, andthat is the transit oriented development, which is in the title of thisFairway TransitDistrict and is mentioned many times.

Typically transit oriented development is designed to promote highdensity urban development around a train station with a radius of about aquarterto a half a mile. A typical walking distance.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

35/196

35

Successful examples are in Alexandria, Virginia, for example, the twometro stations with the development here, and here is the large 20-storybuilding to the front, and they basically taper off as you go -- as you godown.

So,transit oriented development, by its nature, really does promote heavyurbanization. So,Im concerned aboutthe use ofthe term in our planningand inthis particular situation.

The reasonIm concernis thatthere are some flaws with a transit orienteddevelopmentinthis location. So, my concernis that evenif we wanted tohave transit oriented development, it would not result in a successfuldevelopmentthat would thrive.

The reasonI say thatis we lackthe required density of a collector supporttransit system, such as subways, trolleys, buses, shuttle buses,needed to

feed a transit hub, we lack the grid streets favored in a transit orienteddistrict area.

In addition,its ironic thatTODs are intended to reduce traffic congestion,and reduce environmental destruction, but I think in this case its myopinionthatthe opposite would happen.

The other point is I just think the geography does not work for transitoriented development and Ithinkthis has to be considered for a reasonIllsay a moment.

These are the two train stations that -- and in this case Ive been a littleconservative inthatthese are quarter-- for some reasonI drew a quarter-mile radius,not a half mile, but you getthe point.

You cannow look at that as -- and Im not the best artist or draftsmanhere, but you put this red construction paper over areas that are alreadyresidential or simply, you know,if you block up the whole bottom sectionof the tract you no longer are left with the ideal circle needed for transitoriented development but youre left with a very small piece ofthe pie.

The concern I have here is that without proper space for an adequatetransit oriented development, what well wind up with is something thatbears no resemblance to what we expect we would find simply by readingwhat people write aboutthe benefits oftransit oriented development.

So,I probably have little time left so I do wantto make a few more points.

So, the first point, just to summarize, is that Im concerned about themovementtowards high density housingthatthis proposal seems to signal.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

36/196

36

To me its putting up, in a sense, a neon billboard to other developerssaying, please come to Abington, buy a car dealership lot along the traintracks, because the township is promoting development.

I realize that the Ordinance is designed to limit that development, but at

the same time, by limiting it, trying to limit it, I think we are doing theopposite thing. We are greasing the skid for further development andwere goingto encourage further density in a place where residents simplydont wantthat density.Thats one of my key points.

To close, the other question I have is have we calculated the cost to theTownshi p by having increased residential density? The cost of schools,fire and so forth? Thats certainly mentioned. That density will come, ifwe follow the course that were on.

So,Ithinkthe arguments forthe FTD have vacillated between ones which

have said this is really the best outcome for the township of a bad set ofoptions to ones which say,no,this is the way we wantto go because this isthe right option forthe township.

If its the latter, Im very concerned and ask each commissioner to lookwithin and ask, do you wantto be the ones to promote urbanization oftheTownship?

I do not wish that to happen, I know at least 300 other residents do notwish that to happen, so even if you pass this legislation please be verycautious and very thoughtful as you move forward with thisimplementation and with the cascading effectthat will follow.

Because had the Rydal Waters property not been rezoned --I believe Mr.Kennedy,in response to a question atthe meetinginNovember, seemed toindicate --I wont say he did, because Im not sure he did ornot-- but, myinterpretation of his response was that had the Rydal Waters property notbeen rezoned, we mightnot be havingthe discussion aboutthe particularproperty now.

So,Im worried that were goingto continue this cascadinginto the future.So, please be cautious and keep the residential character of Abingtonintact.Thank you.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Okay.

(Applause.)

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

37/196

37

58. Ms. Susan Odhner then spoke on behalf of her neighbors, focusing on green-space;

again,the Commissioner-Chairignored any further probing ofthis and related issues that

were conveyed from the heart from a long-time resident who had no agenda:

I just want to speak from the heart that one of the reasons I came to theAbington area, because it was very beautiful, semi-rural, lots oftrees, andIve been here for probably over 25 years, and Ive watched it slowlydecrease, and the trees cut down, and more buildings come up, and thelovely wonderful quality ofthis area is changing.

And this is a really big change here now, and Id like to speak up againstit. And Id like to speaknot only for myself but many people that Ivetalked to,the residents in my area where I live and many others.

Wed preferthe green, and its really importantto make sure thatthere isadequate green space. Just pervious is not enough. Twenty percentpervious could be all gravel. Thats justnot-- you know? Or wood chips.Its not enough. Its gotto be green. At leastthats importantto me.

And the high density I find very upsetting, too.The urbanization of thisarea has been creeping up on us. And many people dont get to themeetings as their life intrudes.

I talked to a number of people, wondering if they were going to come.They were busy,they were sick. Couldnt do it. I just wanted to speak upforthat.

Also Id like to say thatI am its importantto have the 60 foot setbackfrom the street. To have the buildings right up againstthe road, or prettyclose, six foot away, it blocks the air, and the light, and the feeling ofspace.

Parking lots are okay, you see the trees betweenthe cars even, butto havethe buildings right up to the edge is notgood.In my opinion.

And one more thing.I heard thatthere was incentive given for a parkinggarage. But really what everybody wants is a theater. When we werepolled the residents wanted a theater. Could we have anintensive forthetheater, ratherthan a parkinggarage?

Thank you very much. Please fight for the green space for me and myfellow residents and everyone here.Thank you very much.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

38/196

38

59. The next speaker, Mr. Walter Draving, tersely reflected the posture of the (applauding)

residents:

I just would, you know, reiterate over and againthat we all want our rights

maintained and that that maintenance of those rights is what we expectyou to fight for.

And, also, when you consider the cost ofgoing up against this characterBrandolini, that you should also consider the cost of yielding to him,which means building more schools, having more traffic and having more-- possibly, you know, more crime and more police work that has to bedone.

And also wed like you to have a roll call vote so we can see which oftheCommissioners actually vote forthis, quote, ordinance.

So,thank you very much. (Applause.)

60. The next speaker, former-Congressman Jon David Fox, Esquire (13 th District, 1994-1998)

emphasized the absence of urgency, counseling for due-process considerations to prevail;

again, the Commissioner-Chair acknowledged this concern, but pointedly failed to address

it:

I appreciate the time the Commissioners have given to the residentstonight,Madam President and members ofthe Board, butthis is a seriousissue. And having been lucky enough to serve on this board, this is awonderful board,I know that sometimes there is a rush to have decisionsand sometimes you may feel rushed by others. That doesnt meanthe rushhas to be put on you.

If you dont think that enough time has been taken, and you dont thinkthat the right decision is to move forward, I hope that youll understandthat we residents would appreciate that being cautionary, especiallytonight.Here we are in 2011.Just think back to BaederwoodShopping Center aswe all knew and loved it. It had a lot ofgreat stores that all of us wenttoregularly,it helped the economy, and it was a joy to go there.

And if you look at things now, its not the same place. I keep tellingpeople Im going backto where Murrays used to be. I wantto go backto

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

39/196

39

where it used to be. And I cantgo there because theyre notthere. Andthe Commissioners had nothingto do with that.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Thats correct.

MR.FOX: The outside forces had something to do with that. So, wedont blame you, youre our salvation, and were looking to you for thatguidance and patience and great decision-makingthat youre used to doingand that we appreciate.

It is 2011 and we already have existing traffic situations already. TheFairway,Susquehanna, Washington Lane, are already well-traveled roads,so any kind of development must be careful development, if itsdevelopment at all.

I believe that adopting this ordinance allows greater development and

creates greatertraffic problems. Just because a developer cannot achieve adesire under existing zoning does not meanthat you or we should have anew zoning ordinance to please a developer.

Many are here tonight, and the hundreds who could not be here tonight,who wanted to be, but there was no more room left and they had to go.We respectfully requestthatthe Board not adoptthis ordinance.

To say, as we heard earlier tonight, that the case ofthe traffic situationswell take care of later is a case, I believe, of having the cow leave thebarn and not being able to take care ofit later.

Taking care of it later is too late. Its too late for this township, its toolate for quality development,its too late for AbingtonTownship.

What makes Abington great is planned development and notoverdevelopment. I hope the Board will take this matter seriously intoconsideration and realize that you are not forced to take a vote tonight,thismatter can be tabled and under circumstances in the future I hope thatyoull realize that we, even though were not elected, and we are notsitting in your position of authority, we feel with you the situation thatAbington should remain number one and by remaining number one weneed this ordinance notto be passed.Thank you. (Applause.)

61. Again constricting the capacity of the public to make a point (before she had actually heard

it), the Commissioner-Chair blocked a simple-request by the next speaker (Mr. Eric

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

40/196

40

Gutche) that a particular slide be shown as he spoke; as a lifelong Abingtonian, he provided

a unique perspective:

My fundamental question, and were asking for questions -- my

fundamental question is, what are you going to say to the next developerthat comes in where the old Wanamaker store was who wants to be zonedFairway TransitDistrict?

They are next doorto it and adjacent to this property.How do you keepthem from demandingto be Fairway TransitDistrict?

How do you keep the automobile dealers across the way from sellingto aproperty owner who will demand to be Fairway TransitDistrict?

How do you keep the office buildings at the corner of YorkRoad from

being-- demandingto be Fairway TransitDistrict? This is something youall may have discussed already, but we would generally like to know whatis the total scope ofthe expansion ofFairway TransitDistrict?

Now,I will tell you that Ive been away for a quite a long awhile, Ivebeen living in the Washington,DC area, Ive been inFairfax, Ive beenAlexandria, and I have seen what happens when the subway comes in,Ihave seen what happens to the automobile dealerships which are removedand there are now 20-story office buildings there.

So, you can anticipate inthe longterm, ratherthan just looking atthis oneproperty, you can anticipate that you are going to see a far largerdisplacement than you can imagine in the vicinity all along from NobleStationto Rydal Station alongThe Fairway.

I was there as a young sprout when that was a golf course. I was therewhenthe Harbisons owned the top ofthe hill above the golf course. Inthepast year or two I have occasionally walked through this property. Ivewalked downthrough where thatneckis thatis zoned R1.

I have also walked up from RydalPark, up through Harbisons propertyand I ended up talking with Tom Harbison one time. And frankly he wasrather appalled at what transpired with that property that his parents hadbought years ago, 18 acres for $21,000. Okay? But, over all the scope ofit is how large a district are you all going to allow to be the FairwayTransitDistrict? When all is said and done,ten years from now, 15 yearsfrom now, whats itgoingto look like? Thank you. (Applause.)

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

41/196

41

62. The next questioner (Mr. Paul E. Pete Morse, Jr.) reiterated and, thus, re-emphasized

questions raised by others; the Commissioner-Chair requested redundancy be avoided, but

she failed to honor repeated articulations of comparable queries (as, perhaps, was

anticipated by the public):

One of the questions is Mr. Kennedy said he had been working withdevelopers for 30 years and Im curious who those developers were and Iwould also like to know whether Brandolini, or any of the Brandolinisassociates, were part ofthem.

And I would also like to know from Mr. Kennedy what governmentagencies, like Abington Township, or Jenkintown or what otherdevelopment agencies Mr. Kennedy may have done work for.

I would also like to know whether with this ordinance, if it does gothrough, and I strongly encourage itnot to, I encourage each and everyone of you to note no;ifit does go through, would they be able to sell offthe upper half? Assumingthey do not develop it?

Because its my understandingthey could cutinto the steep slope and theycould putin a lot of apartments there and leave that area open.

So, my questionis could they, underthis, be able to cutthat off and sell itto someone else adjacent, for example?

Another question, and its kind of been hinted at with some ofthe otherpeople, and is this ordinance only for Baederwood? And the BaederwoodShopping Center?

Its my understandingthatitis not. And while its Mr.Peacocks and Mr.Klines areas, and theyre very concerned, I would ask each and everyother Commissioner to take a very close look at areas that could bedeveloped in your area and the residents would be equally upset ifsomething like this was put forward.

If you see buildings right on the street, I dont think thats a gooddevelopment and certainly not what Abingtongrew up under.

I would also like to point out, and one ofthe other speakers mentioned it,Mr.-- or,the Brandolinis boughtthis shopping center knowing full wellwhat the zoning was. Just because they havent been able to make asuccess ofit should not be an AbingtonTownship problem.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

42/196

42

And we do notneed to respond to that.Its their problem. Letthem dealwith it. We dontneed to solve their problem.

Now,I haventgone through a lot of the ordinance, and thats my fault,butI would like to point out some minor discrepancies,ifI could,ifI look

atNo. 9. And these are the bonus points.

And thats extremely important, because that gives the developer theopportunity to go and raise the level orthe density and everything else.

For example,ittalks about off site bus shelters and amenities. And Iguessthat means that we could have a lot of ads. And I know everybodyscomplained as we go up and downOld YorkRoad we see the ads andeverybody says, oh,thats notgood.It doesnt address that.

Ittalks about public commuter parking quality, and you get--it qualifies

and you get a point forthat, butI believe that most public parking peoplecan park there and walk to wherever they want. There isnt anybodyprotesting it. So, I could see them getting this one, a bonus point rightaway forthis, because its so nebulous.

I look atthe preserving woodlands and ittalks about mature trees. Thatsnot objective, thats subjective. Mature tree. Whats mature to you maynot be mature to me.Ithinkthatneeds to be dealt with.

Road connection right of way.Ittalks about allowing future connectionsbetweenThe Fairway and Old YorkRoad.It doesnttalk about how wide,it doesnt talk anything about it, it just says provided space. Thats aconcern.

It talks about building materials. Decorative masonry. Well, againsubjective. Not objective.

Ittalks about wind turbines and geothermal power and things like that, andwhat it says is expected energy use. So, when I calculate that, as adeveloper, my expected energy use is, in all likelihood,going to be a lotless than whatitis.

Ive been very active inthe Drexel communities, and graduated from therequite a few years ago, as many of you know, and weve rehabilitated someold fraternity houses down there. And its really funny because, whenIwas there we didnt have halfthe technology and, as a result,the fraternityhouses had to be rewired, and rewired, and rewired. And Iguess I wanttopoint out that expected energy use initially is a lot, lot less than what italways ends up,in my opinion.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 3-31-11

43/196

43

And thenitgoes on, onthe green roofs, and ittalks about maintainingthegreen roofs forthe life ofthe building.

Well,thats certainly a good objective, but whatifitisnt? Whatifitisntmaintained? Whos goingto maintain it? Iguess AbingtonTownship and

the taxpayers.

Bottom line. Ive talked to a lot of residents,Ive been in Abington,Ivebeen active in Abington,inthe Township and inthe School District. Thecommunity doesnt want this, the community opposes it, the communityhas beento a lot of meetings and the community is tired ofit.

We would like you to hear us, we would like you to vote no, and werewillingto spend the money to fightit. We are willingto spend the moneyto fightit,if Brandolini wants to.Thank you.

(Applause.)

63. The final questioner (Mr. Tom Ferrant) provided sociological input that informed

perspectives that were contrary to those of Consultant-Kennedy, with particular regard to

the cultural impact of this project; again, this constituted a from my heart sincere set of

cultural/experiential observations:

When all this kicked-offI was inIraq, so I missed a lot ofit, but comingback here, whatI just was hearing was thatthe, you know, litigation-wiseit was, you know, sort ofnot a defined, like, end. Like, you know, weregoingto winthis or whatever.

ButI heard that, you know, we should all come up with a million dollarsto buy the, you know,the forested area there, and if everybody is goingtoput a billion dollars up to, you know, buy this forested area and