8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

1/106

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

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

Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 **Petitioner, *

*v. * NO. 11-02540

*TOWNSHIP OF ABINGTON *1176 Old York Road * JURY-TRIAL REQUESTED Abington, Pennsylvania 19001 *

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

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.1219 Fairacres RoadRydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911[215=333-4900]pro se

PROCEDURAL PETITION FOR REVIEW OF TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE ADJUCIATION

I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., certify that the following statements are true and accurate. This Petition is

providedpursuant tothe 6/15/2011 Court-Order that procedural issues within the initial filing be preserved

[so that they then can be stayed, for potential future-reference]. De-emphasized are mutually exclusive

substantive issues that were included as a key component ofthe initial filing with the judiciary, for this

component was remanded to the Abington TownshipZoning Board [via an application filed on

6/16/2011].Because of the ability to reference previously-filed documentation, it has been possible to

generate this more succinct filing [that continues to have stand-alone characteristics] without sacrificing

phraseology which must specifically be pled to withstand anticipated Preliminary Objections. It is

recognized [indeed, it is hoped] that this filing may become mooted if/when the Zoning Board adheres to

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

2/106

2

due-process statutes;indeed, circulation of this articulation of prior-conduct could yield a salutary effect on

future proceedings.

Parties

1. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. {Petitioner} is a resident/taxpayer of Abington Township who resides inthe ward [#7] in which the Baederwood Shopping Center, a strip-mall, is located {Baederwood}.

2. Petitioner is a person aggrieved because his interests are easily distinguished from those sharedby all citizens due inter alia to frequent use of highways proximate to Baederwood

specifically,regularly traverses the choke-point [Susquehanna Road/Washington Lane]

intersectionand to prior, current, and projected use of businesses located in Baederwood [and

along the Fairway].

3. Abington Township {Abington} is a Pennsylvania political subdivision, within Montgomery County,in which are located both Baederwood and proximate highways and intersections (including,

specifically,that at Susquehanna Road/Washington Lane); its Board of Commissioners adopted

Ordinances 2000/2006 on 1/6/2011, which prompted this substantive validity challenge.

Jurisdiction

4. This Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuantinter alia to Pennsylvania Municipalities PlanningCode [53 P.S. 10909.1(a)(2) & 910.1] and Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure [No. 1091].

5. The legal sufficiency of this Petition comports with a recognized method to seek review of amunicipal ordinance adjudication[as per Pa.R.C.P. 1017]; it states the material facts on which this

cause-of-action is based in a concise, summary form [as per Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a)].

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

3/106

3

6. It is recognized that a recognized method to resolve concerns regarding the honesty of any publicofficial is to invoke the ballot-box but, in this instance, specific statutory violations are alleged.

Overview

7. This Petition has been divided into sections that serve to digest data and assessments thereof.

8. It encompasses the truncated Narrative { 10-82}, Analysis of Narrative { 82-131}, StatutoryRequirements { 132}, Discussion of Legal Concerns { 133-140}, Discussion of Procedural

Objections { 141-150}, Discussion of Overall Process { 151-167}, Proposed Findings of Fact

Overview { 168-172}, Proposed Findings of Fact Specifics { 173-190}, Proposed

Conclusions of Law { 191-196}, Discussion of Legal Status and Conclusions Herein { 197-

210}, Specific Procedural Violations Analytic Approach{ 211-224}, Specific Procedural

Violations Categorized and Detailed { 225-151} and Relief Sought { 211-151}.

9. The Narrative includes the 2007 Planning Reports { 10-22}, Public Hearings in 2009 { 23-26},Ordinances 2000/2006 { 27-34}, MontCo Planning Commission { 35-38},1/6/2011 Public

Hearing [Presentation] { 39-49}, 1/6/2011 Public Hearing [Public Comment] { 50-71}, 1/6/2011

Public Hearing [Commissioner Comment] { 72-80}, and Right-to-Know Requests { 81}.

Narrative 2007 Planning Reports

10. In 2007, Abington adopted two planning-oriented documents that were cited as a precursor to thechallenged Ordinances that created the Fairway Transit-District {FTD} located in Abingtons heart:

Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study[http://www.oldyorkroad.net/Market%20Analysis.pdf]

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

4/106

4

which encompassed Route 611 and adjacent entities, and Abington Comprehensive Plan

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

Baederwood as one of the business-region clusters meriting focused development planning.

11. The Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study{Study} identifies the region s center-of-gravityaslocated near Baederwood, at theNoble SEPTA Railroad-Station; this is said to afford

planners an opportunity to take advantage of the proximity to mass transit as a marketing tool,

particularly for any new residential and office development.

12.

The Study depicts a constraint to new development in this cluster as having become manifest

when strong community opposition to this FTD-linked proposal had emerged; it would require

reconfiguration of existing auto dealerships or shopping centers, an action that is possible but not

imminent as suggested by the public

s reaction to redevelopment of Baederwood. However, market

forces (i.e., supply and demand) may win the day for future development.

13. The Studyadvises further scrutiny of the impact of the FTD on current levels of traffic congestion {A- Existing Conditions Report page 11}:

Off-peak vehicular congestion along Old York Road also needs to be evaluatedwhen considering the corridor. Significant contributors include traffic traveling tomajor destination shopping centers such as the Willow Grove Mall, The Fairwayand Baederwood Shopping District and Abington Shopping Center.

14. The Abington Comprehensive Plan{Plan} has theseGoals in its Zoning section:[U]pdates of the Zoning Ordinance should occur more frequently than they have inthe past.[T]he current Zoning Ordinance is limited in directing futuredevelopment in a more coherent manner than currently exists.The use ofoverlayswould create more Town Center areas [by] providing a cohesiveintegration of commercial and residential. The point here is that innovativemethodsof controlling and directing future growth are required rather than the

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

5/106

5

current approach of fixed, static boundaries based in existing uses.To theseends, the Zoning Ordinance needs to be revised with the following objectives: 6. Greater availability of residential rental properties in clustereddevelopments or in town settings should be encouraged.

15. The Plan cites Goals/Objectives [page 1-3 et seq., page 5 et seq.] related to myriad concerns,abridged thusly: 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 Abington

s

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].

16. The Plan advises promotingBaederwoodwith 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 area alreadypopulated with higher-density development. This type of mixed-use redevelopmentcould provide the age-restricted housing discussed early in this section with retailand access to public transportation and a major thoroughfare (Old York Road)through the Township. The potential of this type of development could be theinfusion of pedestrian traffic, destination mode and retail revitalization neededwithin the Township.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

6/106

6

17. The Planadvises creation 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.

18. The Plan advises that collaboration occur among multiple entities [Administration, CodeEnforcement, 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.

19. The Plan includes a Transportation Plan [Chapter 6, pages 76-83] that encourages mass-transit[page 6-4, page 79] and that recognizes inherent limits when implementing such plans [point #4,

page 6-5, page 80]:

Recent observations of the Meadowbrook, Rydal, Roslyn and Ardsley train stopshave shown that parking space capacity is virtually at one hundred percentoccupancy during weekdays, which suggests that a limiting factor of the currentrider counts is the amount of available parking.

20. The Plan includes an analysis of vehicular data, recognizing the necessity to encompassemergency servicesdespite recognizing existing regional congestionciting decades-old data:

A transportation system should be designed to meet the differing mobility needs ofresidents, businesses, emergency services (police, fire, medical services), andcommuters alike. The system needs to consider individual automobile/trucktransportation and public transit, as well as pedestrian travel. AbingtonTownship has had to struggle with increasing traffic congestion and time delays,road hazards, and inadequate off-street parking. Moreover, the shift to inter-suburban travel (as described in Section B of the 1992 Comprehensive Plan) hasdramatically increased usage of major Township thoroughfares such as [Old] York,Easton, and Moreland Roads.

An important part of the overall comprehensive plan for Abington included thisstudy of the Township

s transportation facilities and thoroughfare system. While

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

7/106

7

not a comprehensive traffic study or plan, the report included herein serves asthe initial step in arriving at an overall plan.This section will: 1) assess theadequacy of the current transportation system, and 2) determine the capability ofthe system to meet future needs. Information for this section was compiled fromthe 1964 and 1977 Comprehensive Plans for Abington Township.

More importantly, the Township retained the engineering/transportation planningfirm of McMahon and Associates (of Willow Grove, Pennsylvania) to assist in thiseffort. A detailed report including maps, traffic counts and other supportive data,analysis of hazardous intersections, general discussions, traffic projections,recommended improvements, and summary is an addendum to the 1992Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to the report for a more thorough discussionconcerning transportation and thoroughfares.Private Transportation (Automobiles/Trucks)

Previously, the Township

s 1964 and 1977 Comprehensive Plans set forth afunctionally differentiated system of highways and roadways.

Four basic types of highways were set forth: major arterials designed as inter-regional routes in the State Primary System; primary streets designed to serve asinter-community connector streets in the State Secondary System; Townshipsecondary or feeder streets designed to collect and distribute traffic withinAbington; and local resident streets. The purpose of classifying highway types is toestablish right-of-way/pavement widths and other design standards in accordancewith the function of the highway and the projected volume of traffic it will carry.Refer to Table 30 in the 1992 Comprehensive Plan for current streetclassifications.

Major Arterials

The major arterial system of Abington Township connects the major centers in thearea, transports the highest traffic volumes, accommodates the longest trip desiresand carries a high proportion of the total vehicle miles traveled in the area. EarlierTownship plans called for rights-of-way in accordance with State HighwayStandards of 80 to 100 feet for major arterials.

Often the recommended rights-of-way cannot be realized in every case; however,these standards are to be applied through the subdivision/land developmentregulations whenever new development is proposed along major arterials. Severalof the major arterials in the Township are urgently in need of highwayimprovements as they currently handle traffic volumes in excess of what the roadswere originally designed to handle. State Highway Department standard for trafficcapacity of major arterials are approximately 37,100 vehicles per day for four-lanearterials at a Level of Service E. Yet, the study by McMahon demonstratedvolumes in excess of 15,000 vehicles/day on some of these arterials includingHuntingdon Pike at 23,200 ADT; Moreland Road (Rt. 63) at 18,000 ADT and OldYork Road (Rt. 611) at 35,000 ADT.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

8/106

8

Primary Streets

Rights-of-way of between 50 to 80 feet are recommended for primary streets tohandle the State Standard capacities of 16,200 vehicles per day at a generalizedlevel of Service E. Many of the Township

s primary streets only have rights-of-wayof 33 feet, yet carry from over 8,000 vehicles per day to 14,650 per day. Of the 15roadways studied by McMahon, these are a few of counts found: SusquehannaRoad at 12,900 to 14,650; Jenkintown Road at 14,650 and The Fairway at 11,800.However, Levels of Service will vary with the individual physical characteristics ofeach roadway.

Secondary Streets

Table 30 in the 1992 Comprehensive Plan lists roads in Abington

s secondary (orcollector) street system. These roads, according to State Standards, have acapacity of 2,500 vehicles per day and should have rights-of-way between 50 to60 feet. In the McMahon study, we find existing traffic volumes range from 3,900vehicles per day on Shady Lane to 5,850 vehicles per day on North Hills Avenue(portion) to 9,500 vehicles per day on Highland Avenue.

Residential Streets

Local residential streets, which make up the bulk of the highway system inAbington, provide access from individual homes to collector streets. With standardcarrying capacities not exceeding 500 vehicles per day, the recommended right-of-way is 50 feet.

Intersections

The transportation study by McMahon and Associates stated that, whileroadways throughout the Township are important in providing carrying capacity toaccommodate travel demands, it is generally at the intersections of the variousroadways where conflict and congestion develops. The Transportation Study performed by McMahon & Associates studied 13 intersections identified byAbington Township as being the most critical. They compared movement at theintersections with standards of the Highway Capacity Manual which rates theLevel of Service for intersections and assigns them a grade ranging from A to F(A being the least 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 hours during peak travel including the intersections of: Susquehanna Road/York Road,

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

9/106

9

Susquehanna Road/Highland Avenue, Susquehanna Road/Washington Lane,Susquehanna Road/Maple Avenue, Moreland Road/York Road, MorelandRoad/Fitzwatertown Road, Fox Chase Road/Cedar Road, Edge HillRoad/Jenkintown Road and Edge Hill Road/Limekiln Pike.Moreover, the study showed trouble at other intersections (Jenkintown

Road/Meetinghouse Road, Jenkintown Road/Washington Lane, Township LineRoad/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.}

21. The Planfinds that approximately 38 intersections have had more than 10 accidents over threeyears (1988-1990); this includes the Washington Lane/Susquehanna RoadT-Intersectionat the

Railroad-Bridge and the Old York Road/Susquehanna intersection (which is both high-volume/high-

accident).

22. The Plan includes a land-use section [page 8-13, page 109] that provided generic and specificsuggestions; the former reflects the overall approach to zoning that includes recognition that

transition zones should exist between housing and businesses:

Revitalize our commercial corridors, Improve housing options to maintain thecurrent and advance our current population, Create guidelines which will enhanceour commercial/industrial properties, and Create transition zones between ourresidential neighborhoods and commercial districts.

Narrative Public Hearings in 2009

23. Two Town Hall Public Hearings were held regarding thedevelopment of the BaederwoodTracts[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.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

10/106

10

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

25. At the second Hearing, opinions were offered by 13 people; opposition was expressed by ten(Schiavonne-page 75, Stewart-page 82, Fedorowitz-page 86, Wirtshafter-page 102, Reed-page

107, Laska-page 109, Sklaroff-page 116, Friedman-page 122, Adcock-page 130, Aloe-page 133)

and support was expressed by three (Allen-page 92, Abrams-page 102, Dratch-page 121).

26.

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

due to the recognized incompleteness of the application process.

Narrative Ordinances 2000 & 2006

27. A preliminary version of the proposed Ordinances was posted on Abington s website by September29, 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 Township

s Website.

28. The finalized version of Ordinances 2000 & 2006was discussed at two Planning Commissionmeetings (November 17, 2010 and December 15, 2010); 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 (absent a contemporaneous explanation and/or a rescheduling effort).

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

11/106

11

29. Prior to the Planning Commission meetings, Petitioner generated a series of questions tethered toeach-and-every section of the proposed Ordinances; Commissioner Kline

s input prompted their

redrafting (from queries to simple-declarative-sentences), yielding a handout which was given to

the Planning Commission members on 12/15/2010 (and orally summarized during the meeting).

30. No response tothese queries (orally/in-writing) was ever received, from the Planning Commissionor from anyone else; a grid-summary (of key-concerns) was composed and circulated.

31. The Planning Commission recognized time-pressures that had been imposed thereupon andapproved the proposed Ordinance[s] provisionally, without specifying either how or when the

issue would be revisited: [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].

32. Thereafter, Commissioner Peacock claimed that the Planning Commission had unanimouslyapproved the draft Fairway Transit District (FTD) ordinance that the Township is presenting as its

cure to the validity challenge filed by Brandolini.

33. On 12/16/2010, a Community Meetinghosted by the Ward #1/#7 Commissionerswas held atSutherland Hall [Abington/Ogontz Campus of Penn State University]; a handout was provided that

summarized the chronology/FTD/crosswalk and Commissioner Kline stated (after rhetorical back-

and-forth) that traffic/safety assessment is mandated by the Realen case [vide infra].

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

12/106

12

34. During the 2010 Holiday Season, civic leaders [Township-wide] did not provide the public a venuefor discussion of this issue during the fortnight before the scheduled 1/6/2011 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. By

information and belief, it is averred that myriad misrepresentations of this process were rendered to

the public, including the overtly incomplete, albeit repeatedly-cited assertionthat inaction would

render the Township to be vulnerable to challenge by the end of January, 2011.

Narrative - MontCo Planning Commission

35. The Montgomery County Planning Commission has thrice reviewed this project, with its mostrecent letter (November 17, 2010) having been based upon review of the index Ordinances; this

letterwhich was touted as having communicated approval thereofactually cited numerous

conditions which were not met and, indeed, dovetailed with concerns herein [vide supra et infra].

36. This letter was authored by Mr. Narcowich [MontCo Senior Community Planner], who remainedsilent during meetings of the Abington Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners;

his Recommendation had been: The MontCo Planning Commission recommends approval of

the proposed zoning map and text amendments, provided the changes suggested are made.

37. Prominent and unambiguous among the recommendations [F.1.] was: The Township shouldconsider 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

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

13/106

13

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.

38. Other consequential considerations therein were meritorious of due-diligence consideration (andwere 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 1/6/2011 Public Hearing [Presentation]

39. On January 6, 2011, a Public Hearing was held regarding the proposed Ordinances to afford anopportunity 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 were approved (12-2), with one

excused-absence (Commissioner Ring) and two anti (Commissioners Zappone/Carlin).

40. No one noted the absence of a mandate that the Hearing-process be completed in one day, foralmost an entire month existed before the alleged 1/31/2011 deadline would arise; furthermore, it

was argued that delay would risk the rapid escalation of legal costs to the six-digit level.

41. Even arguendowere Brandolini torefuse to grant sufficient time for due diligence study of thepotentially-curative FTD-proposal, no suggestion was proffered that Abington could anticipate that

a reasonable judge would have granted a request by the Township to study a remedy that had first

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

14/106

14

been submitted for scrutiny only ten weeks earlier, recognizing that the judiciary consistently

encourages parties to settle/arbitrate matters before entering the Courts.

42. 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 what theyre purchasing. The way its zoned

when they purchase it.]; this demonstrates that Brandolini cannot claim Abington renders it

unable to develop the parallelogram-tract (assuming a new Ordinance has not been adopted).

43.

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 potentialreplacement 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 vehicular

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

15/106

15

access 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&filename=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 constitutesa distinction with a difference would be arguable, forthe access wouldbe attained through the existing Baederwood Shopping 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 businessits 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.}

44. 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]:

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

16/106

16

We have received positive recommendations from the Township Planning Commission

and the County Planning Commission.

45. Commissioner Wachter invoked a non-sequitur [Ive watched the Planning Commissionmeetings. Iguess you have,too, ontelevision.I mean, you cant say this has been rushed

through.The lawsuit has beengoing on fortwo 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 released less than two months prior was

mutually exclusive of the history of a prior curative amendment filing of less than two years prior.

46. After he perpetuated an incorrect claim [What is not before us is traffic], CommissionerWachter 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 anything tonight, the lawsuit

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

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

dont know.]; 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.

47. Planner-Kennedy asserted that he had helped Lansdale institute a bonus-point system, despite thefact that, as of when this Petition was filed on 3/31/2011, Lansdale had no bonus-point system

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

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

17/106

17

48. Yet, Planner-Kennedy discussed a point-system: COMMISSIONERKLINE: Goingto thebonus system, how is it written in the Ordinance who determines the achievement of

bonus points?...And thengoingthrough 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

improvementidentified inthe AbingtonTownship Comprehensive Plan. Is it meantthat

thatis 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 improvement to the traffic system. Not something related to the

project.COMMISSIONER KLINE: Are there any othertownshi p ordinances that

have design standards in this depth? MR. KENNEDY: Yes.we just utilized them, I

utilized them for a clientinthe Borough of Lansdale.[It was a way where the borough

could get some additional amenities thatthey would notnormally get.].

49. Planner-Kennedys fundamental arguments regarding the traffic-density issue were twofold{[A] traffic study is actually required atthe conditional use stage and One ofthe greatest

advantages of a transit oriented development is the fact that you will actually generate

less traffic from that development site itself. One of the major advantages, and this is

somethingthat developers will like,is the factthat by building residential uses here,those

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

work. Those people are less than a half a mile,theyre aboutthree-eighths of a mile;they

are goingto walk over here and catch a train and go to Philadelphia.So, from a traffic

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

18/106

18

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

that were spread outthrough the entire site.}.

Narrative 1/6/2011 Public Hearing [Public Comment]

50. The Commissioner-Chair introduced the public-comment section [If you have questions theywill be noted and answered as we can.] and reinforced this introduction [Im justtryingto

get comments and then well go back and try to answerthose questions.] by articulating a

plan whereby queries would be aggregated rather than addressed individually; yet, she never

requested clarifications requested by this Petitioner (and others) after the public-comment period.

51. The Chair adopted a time-constricted approach that discouraged people (but not Commissioners)from speaking {[W]ere goingto 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 goingto try to

also avoid redundancy.}; instead, the public should be invited to provide maximal input.

52. 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,Ithinkit

was about 15, butthats 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).

53. Specifically, this Petitioner initially posed simple-queries [If Mr. Jonas would please stateaffirmatively thatthe Supreme Court, anUpper Merion case,is the one that he primarily

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

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

19/106

19

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

below.].

54.

Neither of Petitioner

s questions was answered [noting that the answer is 60-feet, carrying

implications regarding the steepness of the slope], although the legal-consultant failed to cite any

case other than Realen vs. Upper Merion when discussing legalities [the Realen case is justthe

latest pronouncement on reverse spot zoning, butitis one of hundreds of cases thattalked

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.

55. Commissioner Wachter s praise for Legal-Consultant Jonas was so absolute that it prompted himto interrupt his personal analysis [I could not find any cases that would change thatSupreme

Court decision, and the reason I 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.

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

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

20/106

20

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: Thats certainly -- point of personalprivilege?

MR.SKLAROFF: Yes?

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

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.

57. The Petitioner was prospectively limited to 300 seconds (viewed as ridiculous), so he dispensedwith both his 73-page memoand his testimony, 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 intersections

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

21/106

21

evaluated 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 withtraffic, 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 particularthat was affirmed after a little bit of scuffle atthe PennState town hall meeting when Mr. 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 have

not 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 thehandout 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.

58. Mr. Larry Kane placed this filing into multiple (historical, legal, operational) contexts; among otherhighly-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 love

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

22/106

22

the 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 right

inthe middle ofit.

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 Upper Dublin Township, I hopeyouve examined that, and the problem is existingin urban blightthere.Ifthis happened on the edge of Willow Grove Park, or on the edge ofCheltenham, or on the edge ofexcuse 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.

59. Other citizens raised queries which were not addressed, such as Mr. Kane (after havingcharacterized 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 workin

AbingtonTownship.]a question which the Commissioner-Chair acknowledged [Okay. And

I will note that question.].

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

23/106

23

60. Mr. Kane also issued a request that mirrors what this Petitioner had also requestedthrough the Right-to-Know Act [The second question I have is if there were any

meetings with Brandolini privately between members of this commission, away

from the Sunshine Laws of Pennsylvania.I would like those questions

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

answered.PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: All right.].

61. 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 andBrandolinis 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.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

24/106

24

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.

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 lawshave 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 all

ofthem 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 I think thats one of the most importantthings here.And the conveyancing, the financing? I dont know why that was evennecessary to putin.Thank you.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

25/106

25

62. Mr. Carson Adcock then conveyed comparable concerns, albeit from the perspective of acontiguous neighbor; unlike how the Commissioner-Chair treated Petitioner, he was 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 thesound 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 beautiful

forests 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 - 6-20-11

26/106

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

27/106

27

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

In other words, if they can use these buildings as collateral, the banks

goingto 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 existingzoning.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 R

3, 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.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

28/106

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

29/106

29

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

I 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 - 6-20-11

30/106

30

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.

64. Mr. Ethan Simon s 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 failed to request that anyone 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 - 6-20-11

31/106

31

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 Abington Township. 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 - 6-20-11

32/106

32

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 reason Im concerned is that there are some flaws with a transitoriented development inthis location. So, my concern is that even if wewanted to have transit-oriented development, it would not result in asuccessful developmentthat 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 - 6-20-11

33/106

33

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 - 6-20-11

34/106

34

65. 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 - 6-20-11

35/106

35

66. 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 rightsmaintained 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.)

67. The next speaker, former-Congressman Jon David Fox, Esquire (13th 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.Justthink back to Baederwood Shopping 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 youlook atthings now,its notthe same place.I keep telling people Im goingbackto where Murrays used to be. I wantto go backto where it used tobe. And I cant go there because theyre not there. And theCommissioners had nothingto do with that.

PRESIDENTDiJOSEPH: Thats correct.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

36/106

36

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 andcreates 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.)

68. Again constricting the capacity of the public to make a point (before she had actually heard it),the Commissioner-Chair denied a simple-request by the next speaker (Mr. Eric Gutche) that a

particular slide be shown as he spoke.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

37/106

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

38/106

38

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

through, 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.

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

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

39/106

39

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 lookatNo. 9. And these are the bonus points.

And thats extremely important, because that gives the developer the

opportunity 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 qualifiesand 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 right

away 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.

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

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

40/106

40

Well,thats certainly a good objective, but whatifitisnt? Whatifitisntmaintained? Whos goingto maintainit? Iguess AbingtonTownship andthe taxpayers.

Bottom line. Ive talked to a lot of residents,Ive been in Abington,Ive

been 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.)

71. The final questioner (Mr. Tom Ferrant) provided sociological input that informed perspectives thatwere 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 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 basicallylet them hold the community hostage and say, you know, were going todestroy this area and basically tank the community by building all theseurban -- you know, this urban blight, then why wouldnt people put thesame money thatthey were goingto use to buy the forest, actually,to fightit, you know, legally?

So, I think that, you know, the community is -- you know, if theyrewillingto do thatthey would be willingto, you know, fightit legally.

So,I dontthink anybody here wants it, or anybody inthe area really does,and for that to be some sort of a pedestrian utopia where everybody isgoingto go back and forth;no,its not.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

41/106

41

Nobody here walks anywhere.Nobody is goingto walk. I mean,nobodywalks.Jenkintown and areas like that, you know? The only place you get people walking is Keswick, around here, but thats -- you know, yourenot sitting on 611 and The Fairway. You know, people are going tododging cars running across the street to get to Noble. Its notgoing to

turn outto be,this big utopian project.

So,I mean,Ithinkthe people here would be willing-- much more willingto put up money to fightit;to say that, you know, were notgoingto payfor it and let people walk all over us. Or have a precedent of peoplewalking all over us. And, you know, put up a fight and, you know, showthem that we wont be pushed around.So thats all.Thank you.

Narrative 1/6/2011 Public Hearing [Commissioner Comment]

72. After having heard a dozen unambiguously-anti comments, Commissioner Peacock recognizedthe passion with which the citizenry had spoken; indeed, he even condemned Brandolini:

I have heard these comments before when we have gone through many,many hearings regarding the many, many different proposals thatBrandolini brought before this Townshi p overthe last five years, and Ithink those of you who have been involved with this from the beginningcertainly rememberthe wide-rangingnumber of proposals that Brandoliniwas bringing before us.

It became mindboggling at some pointto try and sortthrough whatis it dothey really want? They, you know, at one point said they could build 700,thenthey said, well, well just build 500,thenthey said they would build180,thenthey said they would build 400. There was never any clear sensein any of our minds whatitis that Brandolini really wanted to do.

So this has been--I just point this out to remind everyone that that hasbeen an ongoing process for a longtime, and Im certainly well aware ofthat, and I certainly respect all of the various opinions that have beenexpressed tonight, but I think that what is important to point out is theoverriding reality that still faces us.

And the overriding reality is thatthis property is commercially zoned.TheR1 --

May I please finish?

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

42/106

42

You know? Let me say this.Those of you who wantto listen and have anintelligent dialogue aboutthis, please continue to pay attention.

We know thatthe two parcels inthe front are zoned commercial, and thosetwo parcels will be developed, one way or another, whetherits this owner

or another ownerinthe future, and so we cant sit here,in my opinion, andhang our hat on the fact that Brandolini is currently the owner, andBrandolini has been a bad owner, and Brandolini ruined the shoppingcenter, and Brandolinitook away the movie theater.

They did all that. I loved going to that movie theater. I loved going toMurrays Delicatessen. Everyone here appreciated that shopping centerfor whatit was atthattime, and if we wantto blame Brandolini for ruiningthat, we absolutely can do that because thats exactly the result that wesee.

73. After having painstakingly acknowledging these concerns, Commissioner Peacock then led thelistener to a preordained conclusion, based upon conjecture superimposed upon supposition,

reinforced by fear and seasoned by a climactic specter of a court-ordered PB designation;

throughout, he mischaracterized history (supra,we have gone through, many hearings

regarding the many, many different proposals that Brandolini brought before this

Township overthe last five years) and conveniently forgot the concept of transition zones:

But, that emotion that we generate in response to what Brandolini hasdone to that property is somethingthatIm asking all of us to try and putaside for just a moment and lets look a little bit more dispassionately atwhatthe reality is that we are faced with.

The reality is thatthatPB zoning exists. It allows Brandolini or any otherowner in the future to come in and create significant commercial andresidential density on that property.Forget the R 1.They dont have tobuild onthat.They can leave it alone.Just onthe frontPB parcel they can,any owner, can achieve significant commercial and residential density.

I dont wantthat, you dont wantthat, so whatis the alternative here? Ifwe decide that we are goingto fight Brandoliniin court, and we are goingto spend however much money and however many years in litigation tofightthem,then lets presume a couple of possible outcomes.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

43/106

43

First outcome. We win. R 1 gets preserved. What have we won?Brandolini and any other developer can still build significant density,residential and commercial, onthe PB parcels.So,I considerthatto be aPyrrhic victory.

I dont considerthatthatgives us anything of value whatsoever. Becausewhat you will say to me ten years from now, or five years from now, isErnie, how the hell did we get all of those apartments and all of thatcommercial square footage on those two parcels where the BrandoliniShopping Center used to be? And I would have to say to you, well,because they had the rightto do that all along.

So, knowing that, whats the other possible outcome? The other possibleoutcome is we go to court, spend all the money and all the time, and welose. And the Court will then rezone that entire property, I -- can Iguarantee it? Of course not. But whats likely? Theyre going to rezone

the entire property PB.

And thatis the considered advice of our expert counsel and of our expertson our own staff, our solicitor.Itrusttheir expertise.I have to.I cant sithere and second guess the expertise of people who do this for a living.

Im Ernie Peacock from AutumnRoad. Im not a lawyer,Im not a landplanner, okay? So, I trust the expertise ofthe people who have providedtheir council.

So,if all three ofthose parcels get zoned PB,then what do we have? Thepotential for evengreater and even more significant density, commerciallyand residentially.Thats a horrible outcome.

So,given those possi ble outcomes, what outcome made the most sense?To me the outcome that made the most sense is the outcome that you arehearing here tonight.Dont have to like it, dont have to thinkits great orperfect, butI cantell you thatif we donttake control ofthe zoning ofthisproperty, with this ordinance, what we will be left with will besignificantly worse.

And that is not capitulation to Brandolini. I couldnt care less whatBrandolinigets out ofthis. WhatI care is what any potential owner ofthatproperty might be able to do there if we donttake control ofthis zoningand do itin a way that allows for a responsible manageable development.Thats what Im advocating and thats what I hope we will do tonight.Thank you.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

44/106

44

74. Commissioner Wachter emphasized the need to assume control over the parallelogram (ignoringits current status); Commissioner Kline asked three rhetorical questions (using the R3 designation,

the applicability of a traffic study, and the capacity for Brandolini to sell-off this one tract) and

proffered three observations (urbanization, ability to fight in the courtroom, and the need for

separate legislation); Commissioner Gillespie expressed support for the two consultants; and

Commissioner Myers requested recapitulation of the Township

s greenspace acquisitions.

75. Commissioner Lynott provided an extended exposition regarding his bottom-line logic, restatingfalse canards [e.g., referencing the Montgomery County Planning Commission who has

lent their endorsement to the Ordinance and averring the AbingtonTownship Planning

Commissionapproved this ordinance unanimously], suggesting the lack of applicability of

NIMBY-bias (Not In My Back-Yard) that is engendered when people live proximate to a particular

project despite their obvious standing in such regards [Perhaps if my home was adjacentto

this property, ornearby,I might share those feelings and have the same emotions.], and

lauding consultants and fellow-Commissioners for having composed the proposed Ordinances;

ultimately, he incorrectly characterized potential solutions articulated by the citizenry as directly

opposed (to each other), rather than simple, individual reflections of aggregate opposition to the

proposed Ordinances (a concept to which he appeared to have blinded himself prospectively):

Well,Madam President, with your permission I would just like to sharesome thoughts that are goingthrough my mind.

Weve heard, in the last two and a half hours, weve heard a lot ofinformation, highly technical information from Mr. Kennedy, and fromsome of the Commissioners who have been involved, weve heardexcellent input from residents; as I sit here and listen to some of thecomments thatIve heard from residents,I can understand them. Perhapsif my home was adjacent to this property, ornearby,I might share thosefeelings and have the same emotions.

8/6/2019 MontCo Filing - 6-20-11

45/106

45

It didnt escape my attentionthat some ofthe speakers offered whattheyfelt would be good alternatives to the ordinance that were dealing withtonight, butit didnt escape my attentionthat other residents speaking hadalternatives that were directly opposed to the other alternative.To me thatonly illustrates the complexity of what were facing here.

Now, personally Im a guy, whenI sit here and listento complex projectslike this,I always try to getto the bottom line. It may be simplistic, butits the way I work.

And Ithinkthatingettingto the bottom line there is somethingthat everypersoninthis room should keep intheir minds;those of us sitting up herewho are goingto be obliged at some pointto vote yes orno, and those inthe audience who are involved.

We have to ask ourselves, where did this ordinance come from thats in

front of us tonight? Who crafted it? And why is it here laid out in thedetail thatitis?

Was it written by CommissionerPeacock or any other Commissioner uphere? Was it drafted by Mr. Kennedy? No. Was it drafted? Did Brandol