BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA -

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

Thursday, January 6, 2011 -

Abington Township Building 1176 Old York Road Abington, PA 19001 7:00 p.m. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: CAROL T. DiJOSEPH, PRESIDENT ROBERT A. WACHTER ERNIE PEACOCK JAMES H. RING LORI A. SCHREIBER DENNIS ZAPPONE WAYNE C. LUKER WILLIAM J. LYNOTT MICHAEL W. GILLESPIE LES BENZAK JOHN J. OCONNOR STEVEN KLINE PEGGY MYERS MICHAEL OCONNOR JOHN CARLIN -

Jon R. Pichelman Court Reporter 10 Presidential Drive Limerick, Pennsylvania 19468 610-547-4581

PRESENT: R. REX HERDER, ESQ., Township Solicitor MARC D. JONAS, ESQ., Special Counsel for Abington Twp MICHAEL NARCOWICH, Senior Planner, Montgomery County Planning Commission JOHN KENNEDY, Special Township Planner from Kennedy and Associates LAWRENCE MATTEO, Director of Code Enforcement MARK PENECALE, Code Enforcement BURTON T. CONWAY, Township Manager

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH:

Good evening. Were

here tonight to amend the Abington Township Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map creating a Fairway Transit District, FTD, Ordinance No. 2000 and Ordinance No. 2006. this time I would like to have a roll call, please? MR. MATTEO: Wachter? Here. At

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: MR. MATTEO: Schreiber?

COMMISSIONER SCHREIBER: MR. MATTEO: Ring?

Here.

Gillespie? Here.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: MR. MATTEO: Kline?

COMMISSIONER KLINE: MR. MATTEO: Luker?

Here.

COMMISSIONER LUKER: MR. MATTEO: Lynott?

Here.

COMMISSIONER LYNOTT: MR. MATTEO: Zappone?

Here.

COMMISSIONER ZAPPONE: MR. MATTEO: Peacock?

Here. Carlin? Here. Jay OConnor? Here.

COMMISSIONER CARLIN: MR. MATTEO: Benzak?

COMMISSIONER JAY OCONNOR:

MR. MATTEO:

Michael OConnor? Here.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL OCONNOR: MR. MATTEO: Myers? Here.

COMMISSIONER MYERS: MR. MATTEO:

Madam President? Here.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH:

Stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please? (Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: The purpose of the

hearing is to afford an opportunity to all concerned citizens to comment on an ordinance of the Township of Abington amending the Abington Township Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map pursuant to Article VI of the Township Municipalities Planning Code by adding a new Section 504 creating a Fairway Transit District, here to be known as the FTD, and to establish specific standards and requirements applicable to such district; create a new use C-34, Transit Oriented Development, TOD; use C-35, Car Share Facility, and use J-4, Transit Station, and amending Article X, sign regulations. At this time I would like to call on our attorney, Rex Herder. MR. HERDER: Thank you, Commissioner.

I just wanted to say a few words to explain where we are tonight and how we got here, and I think everybody is aware of the fact that this whole process was initiated when the owner of the Baederwood Shopping Center filed a substantive challenge to our Zoning Ordinance and Map and proposed a cure to the defect that they allege, and that defect was the fact that there is a relatively small -- it is eight acres, but its a relatively small parcel that has no road frontage thats zoned R-1. is not zoned R-1. When that challenge was filed, the Township had essentially three choices. No. 1 was to defend the R-1 zoning, No. 2 was to accept the landowners proposed cure, which was to zone that R-1 parcel to PB such that the entire Baederwood Shopping Center owners property would be PB; or, third, to adopt our own cure. And after due consideration it was the Commissioners determination to try and not be reactive to this situation, but to be proactive, to adopt our own cure, and one which would be in keeping and compatible with the Townships long-range planning goals for that area of the Township as those goals are set forth in the Old York Road Corridor Study. So, what you have before you tonight is the FTD Ordinance and that is the culmination of that process. Its surrounded by other ground that

The Ordinance was prepared at the staff level by the Township, which is customary, thats the way these things are done routinely. It was prepared chiefly by the townships land use

consultant, Mr. John Kennedy, who is here this evening. I would point out that there are two ordinances before you, they go hand in glove or in tandem, if you will. One is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance itself, The other overlays this zoning

to the text of the Ordinance.

district on the Baederwood Shopping Center property. And because they go hand in glove, or are in tandem, one will not work without the other, it is appropriate that they be considered together this evening and voted on in one motion. And that is all that I have to say at this point, and I know that Mr. Kennedy does have a presentation for the Board of Commissioners and for the public concerning this ordinance. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Herder. And I will turn to Mr. Kennedy and you can give us your presentation. MR. KENNEDY: much. me? Thank you very Can everybody hear Thank you, Mr.

Good evening.

Hopefully? Ill try to speak up.

My name is John Kennedy.

I am principal

of Kennedy and Associates, Planners and Land Use Consultants. Were located in Harleysville, Pennsylvania. We were hired to look at the eight-acre parcel behind the Baederwood Shopping Center to examine the existing zoning with respect to the challenge that had been filed by the landowner. And you see that area right here on this side, and Ill try to go back and forth as best I can. The eight acres and the shopping center together comprised 18 acres, which is split zoned. Approximately 10 acres is zoned PB, Planned Business, that is the area you are familiar with along The Fairway here, and the eight acres behind, which is a wooded property, is zoned R-1 Residential Low Density. You see the site outlined here in blue, and, as I mentioned, this is the existing Baederwood Shopping Center. For your reference, The Fairway is along the bottom. When we start to look at any site, we go back to planning fundamentals. And we examine all sites in this

fashion. And we look at several factors. We look at the current zoning on the tract, the surrounding zoning on other parcels around the tract,

we look at current uses on the parcel, and surrounding uses around the parcel. We also look at physical constraints such as shapes, or topography, and examine environmentally sensitive areas which would include items such as flood plains or wetlands or steep slopes. We also review relevant planning documents such as zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, comprehensive plans, and in this case we also examined one additional document which is the Old York Road Corridor Study that was recently adopted by the Township. We also take into account trends in -- current trends in planning. The ten acres that is zoning PB, located right here, is similar to zoning around it. The R-1 parcel, which you see here in yellow, is isolated. zoning districts. challenge. The zoning on the R-1 piece, from a planning perspective, really is not justifiable, and from a planning sense I can really find no planning justification for it to be zoned R-1. Its surrounded by other districts, other

And that, in essence, is the basis of this

The R-1 portion, this eight acres, is a remnant that is left over from previous zoning changes that have taken place in the past and, in my opinion, it is no longer an appropriate location for the least dense district in the township. Looking at the surrounding zoning we see two possibilities for potential replacement zoning. One possibility would be to the north and to the west, we have a district called SNRD, which is Senior Neighborhood Residential. In my opinion, after reviewing the standards for this district, it is not an appropriate or logical choice for replacement zoning for several reasons. To begin with, the SNRD District has a 25-acre minimum site area requirement. In addition, the eight acres does not have any connectivity to the existing SNR District. In other words, there are no right-of-ways or vehicular access points that would connect this to the balance of the district. And then, furthermore, the eight acres also lacks direct access to an arterial highway. And that is

one of the stated purposes in Section 305.1, which is the SNR purpose statement. Now, of course, we do have direct access, roadway access, down to The Fairway, through land

ownership patterns; however, The Fairway is a primer street and it is not an arterial highway. Looking then to PB, to the south, as a possibility for replacement zoning, we do find that it does make some logical sense. The landowners other holdings are zoned PB, previously the landowner had requested a zoning change to PB, and therefore we thought it was worthwhile to examine in greater detail the impact of PB zoning on the entire tract. We did this by first taking a look at the PB standards. of the PD District. In my 30-year experience I can easily say that PB is one of the most liberal districts that I have ever seen. It has a wide range of uses that are allowed. Anything from commercial to industrial to community service to residential. Down this side right here we see uses which are permitted by right. This continued up here. These And here you see pages from the Zoning Code

then -- these other uses are by conditional use or a special exception. Just looking at some of the uses allowed by right we find the typical uses such as drycleaners, hotel, laundry, but when we come down to, for instance, item 19, D-13, thats an industrial use, Recycling Drop-Off Center.

We also have items such as an Amusement Arcade. And then when we come down to item 29, use 29, we have H-1, Apartment/Multiplex Building. So, there is a wide array of uses that can happen in a PB District besides just a shopping center. In addition, its a fairly intensive district, from a dimensional standpoint. We look over here we have -- I apologize that its a little bit hard to see, but we have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with a minimum lot area of 100. Now, there is some break for standards below 30,000 feet, and standards above 30,000 square feet, but we still have a maximum height of 50 feet, impervious coverage of 80 percent, when its below 30,000, 70 percent when it is above 30,000 square feet. What we see here is a combination of H-1 residential standards, PB standards, and then the parking standards. And again we see the minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The yards as noted. The building height,

50 feet for lots greater than 30,000 square feet, which this certainly is. We have building coverage of 50 percent for

greater than 30,000 square feet and impervious of 70 percent on lots greater than 30,000 square feet. These then are the H-1 or the apartment standards, multiplex standards, which apply to the PB. You see the minimum lot area for an apartment building is 10,000 square feet, and then this amount of land has to be allocated for each unit, and it varies depending on the type of unit. We then, from the parking standards, also see that parking is based on the type of unit as well. And one thing I would call to your attention that is lacking here, which in my opinion is one of the major shortfalls of the PD District, is you see that there is no density or what in the business we typically call DU per acre, dwelling units per acre. That would be used to typically

define what the maximum number of units on a given parcel would be. You do utilize that in some districts for some uses. In this particular district, in this particular use, there are no density caps or density regulations whatsoever. Therefore what we did, as to the next step, was to prepare a series of studies. And Ill just very

briefly go through those so that you can see the impact of PB zoning on this site. The first study that we did, you see the site outlined here in black, the first study is a depiction of existing conditions today. The lower portion of the property is zoning PB, the upper -- the back portion here, which is wooded, in this scenario is basically ignored. As it exists today, with the present standards, you could put 276 units, which works out to be 26 DU per acre, or dwelling units per acre, and thats based on the 10.5 acres of PB. On the property right now. Now, that would be using a standard bedroom mix, what I call market rate bedroom mix. So, it is a

realistic depiction of what could happen on the property. I would also point out that there are no limitations or regulations on mixtures. So, for instance, these buildings could be clustered, and a parking deck could be placed here, and additional commercial could actually be developed on the property. The next study we did was, assuming that the entire property is zoned PB, however the existing shopping center would stay in place.

So, what we see here is the shopping center as is in front, and then we were asked to maximize the amount of dwelling units that could be obtained in back. We were able to get 300 units on the back portion, which works out to be 15.9 between dwelling units per acre on the entire 18.9 site. Once again, that is with a bedroom mix. We then in addition have the existing 130,000 gross square feet of commercial. And I suppose if somebody wanted to build a parking deck down here they could actually add more in this area. The final study we did again assumes that the entire district, the entire site, is zoned PB. And we

were asked to come up with a realistic depiction of what could be obtained on the property, if the entire site had been rezoned, in terms of residential. We came up with a total of 422 units on the entire site, which works out to be 22 units per acre. And

that again is with a market rate bedroom mix of one, two and three-bedroom homes. So, immediately we were asked, so this is the maximum number of units you can get on the site? answer is, no. And my

If you remember back a couple of slides I stated that there was no density, absolute density, in a PD District. It is based solely on the land area per unit of a given unit type, and how much parking you can satisfy. The only thing you have to really meet are the building coverage standards and the impervious standards. So, for instance, if somebody wanted to build all efficiency units with this same sketch, nothing would change. The parking would stay the same, the buildings would

stay the same, you could get in excess of 700 units on the site with the zoning of the entire site PB. Now, that in itself to me, as I stated before, is one of the major down sides of PB zoning. In my opinion it would be an unwise planning choice for the Township to allow, primarily because there is no real control over the quantity or quality of development at all, there is no development cap; there is no requirement for any kind of streetscape or design standards for any of these buildings. PB zoning is not really capable of implementing the Townships planning goals as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or the Old York Road Corridor Study. And, in fact, it implements no long-range vision of what is appropriate for this important corridor in the township.

After this exercise it was our recommendation to create a new district and rezoning the entire property to this district. This would allow the implementation of the key elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Old York Road Corridor Study. In essence we would be taking a reactionary moment and turning it into a visionary opportunity. So, the result is the Fairway Transit District, or FTD, which is before you this evening. As written, the FTD will create pedestrian oriented development. uses. It will mandate a mixture of It creates

It provides defined minimum design standards. It would leverage the

absolute limits on development.

Townships transportation facilities and encourage redevelopment; and, most importantly, it would address the present challenge to the Township Zoning Ordinance. What I would like to do is very briefly go through the highlights of the FTD Ordinance. The FTD Ordinance, above all, puts the control back in the hands of the Township. As written, any site larger than one acre, which this property obviously is, requires a conditional use hearing.

And what that means is that its an additional layer in the planning process. Its an additional

forum for input from the public, the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners. What the process would be, to develop this property under FTD; an applicant would have to come in, file a conditional use application, a conditional use plan, and all the other documents that are required; renderings, the reports and studies, et cetera. That would then first go to

your Township Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission. Both of those bodies would have a chance to review the plans and the documents. recommendation. After that there would then be a public hearing scheduled. The public hearing would be in front of the Board of Commissioners. At that point the public could see plans for the second time. Commission first. You could then have -- you would then have the Applicant present his vision of the community and the development that he has planned. You would then have the opportunity to basically discuss the development with the Applicant. They would be seeing them at the Planning They would then make a

Under the MPC, if youre inclined to approve the conditional use, you would also have the ability to attach conditions. As long as they are reasonable conditions. An example might be, say somebody came in and wanted to do, along the Fairway, a six-story hotel with a little conference center, and you see the layout; you say, thats a great use, we really like it there, we think it would be a great addition to the township; its a little bit close to The Fairway; could you put a plaza in front of it to push it back? That would be an example of a reasonable condition. After that process is concluded, the Applicant would then engineer his plans and come back and go through the subdivision and land development process that you all are familiar with. So, they would have to go back to the Planning Commission again for my guess would be several meetings and then come back in front of the Board of Commissioners. So, there is that extra layer where you have control over what actually gets put there. There is also a requirement for a mix of uses. So, somebody cant come in and just do an apartment complex. They cant come in and just do straight commercial. They have to do a mixture of uses. The mixture is a 20/80 split. There can be no more than 80 percent of one use and no

less than 20 percent of another.

That is

based on the gross floor area of the total of all the buildings, regardless of what their uses are. There are absolute limits on development. Which is something that is absolutely lacking in the PB zoning. There is a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre, which on the site would yield 189 units. We do have bonus provisions that would allow a slight increase in density to 13 units per acre, which is 246 units. Still substantially less than the 276 you can do today,

right now, if somebody were to file a plan. In addition, there are absolute caps on the amount of commercial space that can be placed on the site. There is a maximum FAR, or Floor Area Ratio, of .20. And what that is really is -- thats planning It basically simply means that an area

jargon, I admit.

equivalent to 20 percent of the land area of the site can be built as space. And that works out to be approximately 165,000 square feet. Again, we do have the bonus provision, if somebody wants to apply greater amenities to the site, and the FAR then goes up to .25. And that actually means that 25

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

as space. So, there are absolute limitations on what can be built. We have included bonuses because we would like to encourage people to do even better projects and provide greater amenities to the community. ways that you can help spur redevelopment. The bonuses, as you see, are fairly modest. Its simply a three unit increase in density and a .05 increase in FAR. However, these bonuses require real commitment and real improvement to the property and/or the community. There is a variety of them. number of points. Theyre on a menu. You acquire a certain That is one of the

Some are less expensive than others, but all

of them contribute greatly to improving the quality of the community and the site and the development. There are also minimum design standards. The design standards are required, regardless of whether the bonuses are used or not. matter. It doesnt The design standards provide

absolute minimums for streetscape, building design and form, parking, public open space, landscaping and other items. And then finally one of the major purposes of this ordinance is to spur redevelopment. However, we are also sensitive to the fact that this is an existing site, there are buildings on it today, there are tenants in there

today; so, we do need to have a mechanism where it could act as a transition over to this type of community. You may be fortunate enough to have what happened to the car dealership down the block where somebody comes in and completely clears it. possibility. Thats one

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

provide for an orderly transition. That is a concept of nonconforming development. It is very similar to -- you are probably familiar

with nonconforming site or nonconforming use. Basically the only difference is that an applicant, a nonconforming development, has to conform with all of the development standards collectively. And the way this is done is that there would be a permitted expansion of what exists on the site, up to 15 percent of the gross floor area of all the buildings together. Once you have 15 percent, then requirement -- conformance with all FTD standards is absolutely required. So at this point, if there was, say, ten or 12,000 square feet added to one building right now, that wouldnt trigger it. But then at a certain point, and I believe its

somewhere in the range of about 17,000 square feet or so, beyond that there would need to be a conditional use plan filed. It

would be a master plan.

It would show you what the intentions

are on the entire property and you would then go through that process that Ive just described a few minutes ago. Id just like to very briefly compare PB zoning with FTD. Side by side. As we see here, under PB zoning a conservative estimate would be 422 units. On the FTD we would have an maximum of 189, or 246 even if all the bonuses are applied. And we would have an undetermined amount of commercial could be added here (indicating). There would then be caps placed on commercial of

no more than a little bit over 206,000 square feet. Another comment I would like to make in terms of -- just generally in terms of transit ordinances. This

actually has been carefully tailored to your community. In terms of overall density, 10 units per acre, 13 units per acre and the overall FAR; as transit ordinances go, its actually quite low. So, what that means is were actually not pressing the site tremendously. There is no reason to use every square foot of the site. And during the Planning Commission there was a great deal of discussion about the use of this property up here

(indicating). Now, I have 30 years of experience of working for developers. And developers dont like to spend money, if they

dont have to. As many of you are aware, there is a band in here which is quite steep. However, you could make a road up there.

You could build a road up there and in the business its what we would call an unloaded road. side of it. Because there is nothing on either

Its just a road going up to get to a point to

build something. Developers hate building unloaded roads. Especially if they dont have to. Because youre talking

about building something, hundreds and hundreds of linear feet of road, at $350 to $400 a linear foot, just to get up here to build a few units. They are not going to do that if the standards would allow them to build everything down here(indicating). And thats one of the reasons why you see this blue line here, which is roughly the lower part of the site. With the standards that are in place, it actually is very easy to obtain the maximum build-out within this area. Right here (indicating). So, its something we have

thought about very carefully. I would also point out, I havent gone through the bonuses in great detail, but one of the bonuses,

which actually doesnt cost a developer a dime, but it will get them a point, is to simply save 50 percent of the existing trees on a site. Now, that doesnt cost him a dime, but the price to you, the Township, cant even be calculated. So, those are the types of things that we have tried to build into the Ordinance. In summary, the FTD will provide great control over the size, the type and the quality of development; it will place absolute limitations on development; it will mandate a mixture of uses, and it will help create a pedestrian environment and streetscape along The Fairway we which we hope will spur redevelopment in the Township. Planning really should be visionary. Unfortunately, thats not always the case. But, this is a rare opportunity to eliminate a defect in your Ordinance and replace it with genuinely better standards so that you can actually implement your stated planning goals in your Comprehensive Plan and in the Old York Road Corridor Plan. We have received positive recommendations from the Township Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission. In my professional opinion, I would recommend that you adopt the FTD Ordinance and map change as presented.

That concludes my presentation and Im more than happy to answer any questions. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: very much, Mr. Kennedy. Before we go on, one point is I think -the gentleman in the back, there are a couple of seats up front. If you wanted to find a seat, I believe there is one Okay? Good. And a little bit about procedure. What were going to do now, Im going to ask the Commissioners for any comments or questions for Mr. Kennedy, and following that I am going to then turn it over to allowing anyone from the public here to make their comments. And were going to try to adhere to a five-minute cap or we will be here all night. As you can see Okay. Thank you

over here.

there are several people here in the room, and were going to try to also avoid redundancy. So, having said that, let me turn it over now to the Commissioners, and who would like to speak? Yes, Commissioner Peacock, and welcome. COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Thank you very I

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

was a late a few minutes. attendance for being late.

I do apologize to everyone in

Do I have to attend detention afterwards? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Yes. I would

definitely like to take this opportunity and indulge my colleagues on the Board, and those of you who are here in attendance, to speak for a few minutes as the Commissioner of the ward in which this project resides and to state up front that unequivocally I support this ordinance and I am going to ask that my colleagues support it as well. I think that its important that everyone who is here in attendance, and anyone who may be watching on television after the proceedings are televised on Channel 43 next week, or whatever channel youre watching on, that this is not a process -- we have not come to this conclusion lightly, we have not come to this conclusion without an incredible amount of effort and thought and work on the part of many people in the township staff, on this Board, and the experts who we hired to assist us in this process, and I want to assure you that during this entire process that I always kept, foremost in my mind, the concerns and the questions and the

comments that residents, who live in Ward 7, the ward that I represent, have presented to me. This, however, does not mean that every issue that residents have presented to me has been successfully addressed, I grant that. That would be an impossibility. There

were so many disparate opinions and disparate ideas and wishes and desires expressed on the part of so many people that it would be entirely impossible to satisfy everyone in this regard. But, I do hope that everyone understands that this is not something that the Township is doing as a surrender to the developer, its not something the Township is doing to throw up its hand and say -- you know what? done with it. This is something we are doing with our eyes wide open and we are doing it, I firmly believe, and will aver to everyone here, we are doing this knowingly because we took the bull by the horns as a township. We were presented with a legal challenge by the developer to the existing zoning on that property, and under the law we had to respond to that challenge. And one of the responses that we certainly could have entertained was simply to give the developer what they requested. And what the developer requested Lets be

was to rezoning the entire property PB or Planned Business.

And I think weve all seen here tonight that under that scenario we would be faced with a significant amount of commercial and residential density on that property. Its an amount of commercial and residential density that I certainly could not tolerate, as a resident of that area. I live on Autumn Road, which is a few blocks away, and those of who you live in that area know its a cut-through street. There are other cut-through streets in Ward 7, and so I know that everyone was concerned about issues like traffic. I am as well. I live in the ward, too. So, we want you to know that. Yes, there will be development on this property, but with this ordinance we have taken the opportunity to make sure that what does occur on this property will be within reasonably manageable limits and that it will contain elements of design, landscaping, lighting, and so forth, that will allow the Township to exercise much greater control over the quality of what is built there, let alone the quantity of what is built there. So, I feel very strongly about this and I hope that, as we proceed through the commentary tonight, and as people from the audience ask their questions and make their comments, I want to remind everyone as well that we have

utilized expert counsel, an attorney with over 30 years of experience in zoning law, a land planner with over 30 years of experience in land development, and so we are utilizing the best tools at our disposal to come up with the best possible solution to this situation. And I hope that once we have concluded the proceedings tonight that, even though you may still have some misgivings, even though you may still feel that there are issues that are unresolved, like perhaps traffic, that we will, with this foundation going forward, be able to successfully address the major concerns and issues and result I think in an outcome that we will all feel is the correct outcome in the final analysis. Thank you for your indulgence and I yield the floor. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioner. Commissioner Wachter? COMMISSIONER WACHTER: This goes back Well said,

several years, in fact I thought it was five or six years when the issue of reverse spot zoning was first raised. And I remember, it was I think Commissioner Agostine at the time who had reported to the Board, and this was before Commissioner Peacock or several

commissioners were on the Board then, and at that time I asked presently, with the present zoning, by right -- by right, which means what would a developer have a right to use, and I had to go back and dig out some old notes, and it was between 400 and 700 units which was brought out. So, if we dont do anything at all

tonight, and we just leave the lawsuit thats pending go as it is, that were looking at a possible 400 to 700 units. Now, you could say, well,

this type of unit wouldnt go in there, or wouldnt be successful. Thats not before us. Nothing is before us now

about using this land use. correct?

Mr. Matteo, Mr. Penecale,

I mean, were not looking at any of that. The lawsuit that were involved in, and

its public record, is something called reverse spot zoning. Now, what the Supreme Court has said is the singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit of the owner, or to his economic detriment, is invalid spot zoning. Now, what has happened with this spot, as was explained very well by Mr. Kennedy, its that over the years things have changed.

So, years and years ago, this is what it looked like, okay? It was all the same. Now all around it; Rydal Waters, Rydal this, Rydal Brook, Rydal Rydal; so, now we have this one area thats all by itself. And nobody on the Board here was involved in that. This is 30 -- who knows how many years. This is my 19th, but I had nothing to do with any of that. So, thats what -- this is what were left with. Now, spot zoning, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has said it is an arbitrary exercise of police powers that is prohibited by our constitution. Now, the term reverse spot zoning, thats what were in here now for, is used to describe the circumstances where the unjustified difference in treatment arises from the rezoning of land thats been rezoning all around it and were left with this thing in the middle. So, thats as far as my legal research has taken it. And Ill amend something Commissioner Peacock said, because I know Marc Jonas, and I -- Im going to say 35-plus. Thats as far as Im going, Mr. Jonas. Thats how

long weve been -- I could not find any cases that would change that Supreme Court decision, and the reason I couldnt find any because, frankly, I didnt look.

This is not my area of expertise. rely on experts.

If I want to rely on an expert legal opinion,

I think Mr. Jonas is not only a principal with a law firm in Eastburn and Gray, I believe you clerked for a president of the Commonwealth Court, was it? And has been selected by his peers

as a superior lawyer for the past five or six years? -- I dont want to embarrass him; however, he has not been elected five times as a commissioner on this Board, as I have, so I dont know how you weigh those things. Now, if we dont do anything tonight, the lawsuit proceeds, I dont know how its going to work out but it could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to battle this up to the Supreme Court, and the chances of winning, I dont know. Im not making a comment on it. We want to do whats best for the entire township. Now, maybe you would want to consider this. No one is going to be happy with everything. Maybe get a

hundred or 200 people -- suppose, even if we put this zoning in, isnt that little plot of land still there? separately, couldnt it? I think it could be. So, the developer owns it. Get a hundred people together and they each said, all right, well each put up $10,000. Now you get a home equity line of credit at 2.7 percent or whatever; you get a million dollars and you get a developer That could be sold

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

-- or, you

know, a nonprofit, and you could -- and I dont know, ask your accountant, ask your lawyer, maybe you could even give it to the township, after you buy it from the developer, and get a tax refund -- a tax write-off or something. So, there are things that could be done. Also, now -- and dont say, well, its our tax dollars. Its my tax dollars, too, all of this. I dont

want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defend something that doesnt look like its defendable. Is this the best solution that has been presented tonight? Ive watched the Planning Commission meetings. I guess you have, too, on television. I mean, you

cant say this has been rushed through. The lawsuit has been going on for two years. time. Were trying to get the best possible solution. Is everybody going to be happy? No. When you have What is not So, this has been going back some

time to comment, if you want to ventilate, fine.

before us is traffic, what is not before us is these other things that will be involved, because that really doesnt have anything to do with what we have to do here tonight. There is no land use plan that is before us to consider.

The developer has not presented what they want to put. So, were trying to get the best solution for the Township. Is it going to be satisfactory to everybody? No. Its impossible. But, how do we get out of this the best way we can? We hired an excellent land planner, we

have an excellent attorney; and, you know, Ill listen to everything that you say but I have to weigh it with what the experts think on this and what I have seen happen in other cases. So, I thank you for your indulgence, thanks for coming out tonight, and lets hope that were able to come to some kind of solution that would be the best for the entire township. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: you finished? COMMISSIONER WACHTER: PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioner Kline? COMMISSIONER WACHTER: than five minutes. I tried to keep it -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: was about 15 but thats all right. Well, I think it I hope I was less Thank you all. Commissioner? Are

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: me. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: COMMISSIONER KLINE: President.

Thats good for

Commissioner Kline? Thank you, Madam

I had a few questions to go through, some specifics of the ordinance, but I did want to first start with some of the more global issues. Can we go back to the map of the -first map that you showed which shows the R-1 and the PB? With the other zoning districts in and around that area? Can you take a moment to explain, like, where The Fairway is, where Old York Road is, and then also the relationship of other PB zoning districts in and around The Fairway District, now that everybody has a better understanding as to the regulations of PB? MR. KENNEDY: right here is The Fairway. Train Station is right here. COMMISSIONER WACHTER: microphone? MR. KENNEDY: to go back and forth here. Im sorry. And Im going Could you use the Sure. For your reference,

This is Old York Road. So, the Noble

The Noble Train Station is right

here on this side.

This is The Fairway.

This is where I

believe its Barnes and Nobles is. A VOICE:

The shopping center. No, no, no. Im sorry.

MR. KENNEDY: A VOICE:

Thats Bed, Bath and Beyond. Bed, Bath and

MR. KENNEDY: Beyond. Thats what Im thinking of. A VOICE: toward the bottom. MR. KENNEDY: station is right in here. here.

The train station is down

Thats right, the train

The Rydal station is right up

There are existing apartment buildings basically right The old car dealerships which are vacant,

across the street. right here.

We have -A VOICE: Not anymore. Not

anymore. MR. KENNEDY: Well, actually they were

vacant, when I started this job. Somebody leased it out and theyve got a lease there, but I dont believe they bought it and I dont believe theyre spending any real money on it. A VOICE: Chevy head over there; right? MR. KENNEDY: Thats exactly right. So, If youre in the market for a

basically this entire area around it is zoned PB.

And then we have AO zoning up here, and then we have the SNRD District that I describe up here, which I believe Rydal Park had taken over after Elliott Building Group went bankrupt. So, that is the surrounding zoning. COMMISSIONER KLINE: So were talking

about a fair amount of that area on both sides of Old York Road, from roughly the train tracks all the way up to I guess its the library, and then the entire length of The Fairway to the end of Baederwood Shopping Center property, and also including Rydal East and West -MR. KENNEDY: Yes. Yes. -- are all zoned

COMMISSIONER KLINE: PB. MR. KENNEDY: extent right to here, thats correct. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Yes.

The PB actually does

One comment that

Ive picked up, from people looking at this presentation both from the Planning Commission and in emails that Ive sent out, and Commissioner Peacock has sent out, is that some of the density numbers that we talk about, that youve talked about in the PB District, are more of an academic exercise because nobody would tear down the shopping center, or necessarily tear down the shopping center, to create that density.

Thats one of the assumptions in those slides, except for the one where you show the development extending towards the back. MR. KENNEDY: That is correct. But, as I

mentioned earlier, we do see there was a demolition that took place right here, just on Old York Road. So, it is possible, it is conceivable, somebody could demolish it. COMMISSIONER KLINE: In relationship to

the FTD Ordinances, with the setbacks, being that theyre meant to dictate development closer to The Fairway would almost do the same exact thing as the PB District? MR. KENNEDY: Well, what it would do is,

because the FTD standards are more compact, in essence, it allows a more compact development pattern. So, in other words, we dont get a pattern of sprawl which is; if you really think about it, much of this development up and down here is one story pavement on surface, which is extremely inefficient, consumes a lot of property. But, you can only do -- you have to do whatever the zoning tells you to do. The reason why we have created more compact development standards is to, number one, mandate that development take place on The Fairway, because that is part of the FTD, because you do have to create a streetscape, but then

that would also encourage people to simply develop in the immediate area roughly where the shopping center is today. COMMISSIONER KLINE: So in both

scenarios youre almost dealing a similar effect to the existing shopping center and your scenarios have described the PB District being developed out as residential and commercial anew and if somebody was to develop under the FTD Ordinance there would be similar effects to the shopping center. MR. KENNEDY: is correct. COMMISSIONER KLINE: There is a Yes, thats correct. That

provision in there for one acre minimum for the lot size. MR. KENNEDY: Yes. Can you -- I mean,

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

were dealing with a much larger property here. MR. KENNEDY: Uh-huh. And can you go into

COMMISSIONER KLINE: that a little bit? MR. KENNEDY: Sure.

The primary reason

-- it actually has a couple different functions. No. 1, that is the one use that is allowed by right, and then anything larger than that is a conditional use. Which is deliberate. In my

opinion I feel very strongly that any major development here should be a conditional use.

But, the other reason for it, which really does require it, is that there may be, in the future, the need where somebody, some user may come along and absolutely require that a fee simple lot be created. One example might be say a -- somebody like Starbucks came in and said we like this location, we want to build a full-blown store here but our corporate entity requires that we buy fee simple lots so you must give us a lot. You have to have some minimum increment of lotting. one acre. COMMISSIONER KLINE: the financial subdivision aspect? Or not? No, it actually has That would be a And that relates to And so thats actually the primary function of the

MR. KENNEDY:

nothing to do with the financial subdivision. one acre fee simple lot that could be conveyed. COMMISSIONER KLINE: MR. KENNEDY:

Okay.

So what it does is it

establishes a minimum lot that somebody can cut it up into. Whereas, in the PD District, somebody can take that land and cut it up into 15,000 square foot cookies. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. The

impervious coverage it talks about -- I think its compatible

with most of the other ordinances in the Township, but the impervious coverage calls for 70 percent in the base ordinance. MR. KENNEDY: actually the same as PB. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Right. But it Yes, it is. Which is

doesnt call for what the other 30 percent is to be. MR. KENNEDY: The other 30 percent would

be the opposite of impervious, it would be green space. However, that is just green space. In other words, thats simply area that is not paved over or built on with buildings. Aside from that, in addition to that, there is a requirement for improved public open space. That is a completely different part of the ordinance. Some of that might be green, some of that might be paved, because it could be in the form of a plaza. COMMISSIONER KLINE: MR. KENNEDY: se, is not necessarily open space. COMMISSIONER KLINE: And going back to Okay.

So the green space, per

the green space, two questions that go along with that are there is a requirement for the parking area to be landscaped in this ordinance.

MR. KENNEDY:

Yes, thats correct. A certain portion

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

of the parking area has to have green islands which currently does not exist in the current shopping center. MR. KENNEDY: That is correct. And then also,

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

along those same lines, the setback or the streetscape along The Fairway, and I believe it also includes the main access drives that would be created, would require a -- I think its a six-foot landscape buffer between the cartway and sidewalk? MR. KENNEDY: There is a -- there is required what is called a six-foot verge, landscaped verge. Now, that could be landscaped in a variety of ways. It can be -street trees are mandated, but it could also be planting beds, but it could also be improved as decorative pavement with benches, for instance. But, it has to be landscaped and

improved in some fashion. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. And then

beyond that there is an eight-foot clear sidewalk area which, when we say clear sidewalk area is something that in order for pedestrians it does give people eight feet of clear area. even if stores were to have doors that opened up onto the sidewalk, those doors would be clear of that eight feet. So,

MR. KENNEDY: Thats correct. It has to be devoted to pedestrians. One point I would also, just to quickly elaborate on the parking landscape, there is actually two elements in the Ordinance. One is a certain area within the

parking area itself has to be landscaped, a certain percentage. line. Thats measured inside the curb There is also a parking buffer

requirement which is also actually in addition to that. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Going to the bonus

system, how is it written in the Ordinance who determines the achievement of bonus points? Is that something that

happens -- I mean, Im sure it happens at the staff level, I would assume? hearings? MR. KENNEDY: Well, that would happen at Or does that happen at the conditional use

-- that would happen in the conditional use process. So, in other words, what would happen is that would be one of the recommendations that your Planning Commission would make when they first look at the plan. Also the County, Im sure, would weigh in on that on their review of the plan.

You would also most likely send that off to your Township Engineer. They would render an opinion whether

the bonus provisions have been met. Ultimately it is the Board of Commissioners that decides. COMMISSIONER KLINE: use hearing. MR. KENNEDY: That is correct. Okay. And then At a conditional

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

going through the bonus, just a couple of points. Theres a couple of bonus items that are similar in nature. So, for instance, four, five and six all talk about road connections. MR. KENNEDY: Yes. And it is my

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

understanding its not if you achieve six you dont get the points for five and four also, you just get the points for -MR. KENNEDY: correct. COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then the same That is correct. That is

thing would be the case with the structured parking. You either get the nine, the empty nine, which is two points of the 10, which is three points. MR. KENNEDY: That is -You cant get both

COMMISSIONER KLINE: by achieving the 10.

MR. KENNEDY:

That is correct. And then

COMMISSIONER KLINE: furthermore the green roofs at 12 and 13. MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

And then the

traffic improvement bonus item, which is No. 11, says the provision of one off-site traffic improvement identified in the Abington Township Comprehensive Plan. Is it meant that that is

outside of the scope of any required traffic improvements that arise from a traffic study? MR. KENNEDY: Yes. Related to the

COMMISSIONER KLINE: development? MR. KENNEDY:

It has to be a genuine

outside improvement to the traffic system. Not something related to the project. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Right. So if the

traffic study comes through and says they have to change X, if they have to change some intersection or some timing of lights, that doesnt count as this bounce. MR. KENNEDY: No. It has to be

COMMISSIONER KLINE: something outside of that requirement.

MR. KENNEDY:

He would have to do that,

even if he werent going for the bonus. COMMISSIONER KLINE: was making that clarification. Are there any other -- that you know of, are there any other township ordinances that have design standards in this depth? MR. KENNEDY: Yes. As a matter of fact, Thats why I just

we just utilized them, I utilized them for a client in the Borough of Lansdale. COMMISSIONER KLINE: township. MR. KENNEDY: Oh, in this township. Not for Lansdale Im sorry, in our

COMMISSIONER KLINE: but -MR. KENNEDY: knew any other -COMMISSIONER KLINE: township going through our Zoning Ordinance. MR. KENNEDY: Oh, no.

I thought you meant if I

No.

No.

In our

Im not familiar

with anything in your Zoning Ordinance that does. This is actually a fairly new trend that youre starting to see. Weve utilized it in just a couple of ordinances. We have also actually used it, been an actual user

of them, in just a couple of ordinances, as I mentioned in the Borough of Lansdale, and it was a way where the borough could get some additional amenities that they would not normally get. COMMISSIONER KLINE: more questions, Madam President? DiJOSEPH: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLINE: The financial PRESIDENT Okay. And then two

subdivision clause in the Ordinance, which I believe is on page eight, and it is letter P. MR. KENNEDY: Yes. Kind of in the

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

middle of the Ordinance. Could you go into that in some -- either you or Mr. Jonas or Mr. Herder, because it does reference the solicitors involvement. If we can have some

explanation, because there has been some confusion as to what clause in the Ordinance? MR. KENNEDY: Okay. Ill give you the

planning side of it and then maybe Marc or Rex can give you the legal side of it. Its actually something that is very common. My understanding is actually it exists today in Abington Township. One example would be Macys over at Willow Grove Mall,

and it is really an element that is used to facilitate financing of purchase of that building and that building footprint only. It does not replace zoning, it does not replace the need to meet all the requirements of zoning. And the property always has to still conform with all the zoning and subdivision and land development standards, regardless of whether they own that one footprint or not. So, it is strictly a financing. It may be a little different in the sense that in this case it was actually placed in the Ordinance, which in my opinion is a good thing, because now the rules are written down; but, it is something that is very, very common, it is found in a lot of communities, and I think maybe the Acme might be another example of it here in Abington. So, there are examples that already exist today in Abington Township. COMMISSIONER KLINE: And when it talk about, and maybe this is for Mr. Herder, it talks about cross easements for parking areas and all appurtenant ways pedestrian accesses and utilities shall be created, recorded and maintained between such lots, and those cross easements shall be subject to approval by the Township Solicitor, youre not approving any zoning change or any zoning modifications to the property, you are merely just making sure that whatever agreements there are between financial subdivision holders, that those easements

exist so that no portion of the financial subdivision is isolated from other portions of the subdivision. MR. HERDER: Thats correct.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: And then my last question deals with traffic, because it is probably one of the most talked about issues in that area, and one of the most talked about issues when you talk about any development that has any potential development in that area. The normal traffic process, or traffic analysis, or slash improvement process in any development process, how does that -- can you give some, or somebody give some explanation as to how that occurs? Just so we understand

the differences between how traffic is dealt with in the zoning stage and how its dealt with in different stages through a development? MR. KENNEDY: Well, in this case it

actually is required -- a traffic study is actually required at the conditional use stage. So, right up front, before a subdivision application is ever submitted, youre actually getting a traffic report. Which I think is a good thing. Because at that point the development has not totally solidified. So, what that means is that there still may be some adjustments made. Then at the land development and

subdivision stage an amended traffic report could then be conducted at that point. One of the greatest advantages of a transit oriented development is the fact that you will actually generate less traffic from that development site itself. One of the major advantages, and this is something that developers will like, is the fact that by building residential uses here, those people are not going to get in their car and drive to the train station and park and go to work. Those people are less than a half a mile, theyre about three-eighths of a mile; they are going to walk over here and catch a train and go to Philadelphia. Thats actually one of the

other reasons why its less likely that people would develop up here. Because aside from the expense and the cost, there is actually a marketing disadvantage for a developer. So, from a traffic standpoint, this actually would generate less traffic on the local roads than development that were spread out through the entire site. But, there will be numerous opportunities for the Township to evaluate the traffic, and the traffic would have to be -- the traffic reports would have to go into detail on the types of uses that are being proposed on the

site and then they would evaluate the impact on the surrounding roads and intersections. COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: President? Madam

May I? I just wanted to clarify, because I -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Mr. Peacock,

yes.

Go ahead. COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Thank you very

much, Madam President. I think the basic point that Mr. Kline was asking, and he can correct me if Im wrong, is that what were here to do tonight is to approve a zoning ordinance and we cannot refuse to approve that zoning ordinance because potential development there might create more traffic. Is that correct? MR. KENNEDY: That is absolutely

correct. The purpose of tonight is strictly to evaluate the Ordinance for adoption or not. COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Right. And then

we can deal with traffic, as always, in the land development process. But, because of the conditional use aspect of this

Zoning Ordinance, we actually get to deal with it even before a plan is submitted and can have a greater impact on traffic improvements at that point.

MR. KENNEDY:

Absolutely. And during

that process, and that dialogue, you can request certain changes of a developer to the project. COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: COMMISSIONER KLINE: Okay. Thank you.

And then my last

comment would be, and I dont know how -- I think you may have brought this up in your slides, but commercial development on the PB has no maximum, youve mentioned that a couple of times, and the allowability of a parking garage only gives better chances that somebody will maximize or go to higher limits of commercial development in the PD District; is that correct? MR. KENNEDY: That is correct, yes. And in the FTD

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

Ordinance, where we do allow for a parking garage, the parking garage, using the maximum square footages of commercial space and/or residential space, the parking garage would take the same parking that is required anyhow and compact it into a smaller area. MR. KENNEDY: would, yes. COMMISSIONER KLINE: President. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. Just a Thank you, Madam Yes, it would. It actually

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

Okay.

Mr. Wachter. I just had a

COMMISSIONER WACHTER:

question that kind of occurred to me, and I dont know if Mr. Jonas -- I dont want to put you on a spot, but if we changed the zoning then does any future developer, as of the time we do this, are they bound by it? Or, you know, theres a developer there. This is ex post facto. Could he raise an issue and say Cant I use

I like the zoning you had before you changed it. that instead? MR. HERDER:

No. There are provisions

built into the Ordinance that deal with when it takes effect and how much change a developer is allowed under the existing land use provisions. As a theoretical matter, a new owner of the property could always ask that they change the zoning back, but youre under no obligation to do so. COMMISSIONER WACHTER: would be bound by whatever we decide to do. MR. HERDER: Yes. Yes. It would be what Okay. So they

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: theyre purchasing.

The way its zoned when they purchase it.

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: purchased before under other zoning. the new zoning applies. MR. HERDER: apply. COMMISSIONER WACHTER: PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH:

But this was

I just want to make sure

Yes, the new zoning will

Okay. Okay. Are there

any other comments from Commissioners at this time? Because Im going to open it to the public. (No response.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Kennedy. You did a very good job. Now, anyone who would like to speak, if you would come forward and give your name and address, please? And were doing five-minute comments, please, and were Thank you, Mr.

not, by the way, debating. If you have questions they will be noted and answered as we can. Yes, sir? MR. SKLAROFF: S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F, 1219 Fairacres Road, Rydal. ridiculous. Five minutes, 300 seconds, is I have written a 73-page memo, summarized it in Greetings. Bob Sklaroff,

five pages of testimony all of which has been distributed to

you, and so I have to dispense with all of that in order to get a couple of questions answered. No. 1. If Mr. Jonas would please state affirmatively that the Supreme Court, an Upper Merion case, is the one that he primarily relies upon? that. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: is your next comment? MR. SKLAROFF: out? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Were not debating anything. No. Not right now. Well, could we find that All right. And what I would like to know

I just want you to -Well, its a

MR. SKLAROFF: clarification question.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: questions. question? MR. SKLAROFF: to them? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. SKLAROFF: I will note your questions.

I want to note your

Whats your next

Will we get the answers

Perhaps. Thats clearer.

Perhaps.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. SKLAROFF:

Go ahead.

Thats No. 2. I would

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

between the two properties. Namely, what is the level of Rydal Waters and the one down below. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. SKLAROFF: Yeah. Of Rydal Waters? That was height?

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. SKLAROFF: difference.

Whats the

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

about 70 feet? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: SKLAROFF: Okay. Fine. MR.

Do you know the answer to that off hand? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Were not doing Im just

that right now.

Hes not answering those questions.

trying to get comments and then well go back and try to answer those questions. MR. SKLAROFF: Well, the reason thats

important is, Im sure there are some laws about the street that has to go uphill from one to another. And one possibility that could exist is that it would really not be possible to connect the properties as was designed with a street right down the spine and then zigzagging to the northwest. And theres been no comment on that in the presentation and I consider that to be a fault.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH:

Got your question.

So youre talking about the grade and how they could possibly -MR. SKLAROFF: Correct. Fine. Thank you.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. SKLAROFF:

Thats No. 2.

No. 3. This is a project that affects the entire township, as evidenced by discussion of the issue of the problem with one acre or less, and so therefore the false argument that this would only be affecting ward seven is punctured. The next point that has to be punctured is this lack of discussion of traffic. As I extensively documented, there has never been a comprehensive review of traffic, despite the fact that both the Old York Road Corridor and the Abington Plan report explicitly states that deficiency continues and that currently, for example, something like 9 of the 13 intersections evaluated were F. congested already. Which is the most

And these are numbers that go way back even

before the modern era. So, the position in the premum non nocere, youve heard that line before, the first is causing no harm; you have police powers that you are obligated, as a township, to maintain, and that includes safety.

And thats also in the Supreme Court decision. And so therefore not dealing with traffic, and

therefore not dealing with the capacity for emergency vehicles to traverse the area, particularly the key intersection, is a major fault in the presentation of the data here. And in particular that was affirmed after a little bit of scuffle at the Penn State town hall meeting when Mr. Kline admitted that indeed safety considerations were germane to the discussion. And so therefore, for these reasons, and others that youve had a chance to review, even though I have not had a chance to review a lot of the other data, because of various delays in the discovery process, there are major problems with credibility. When I get a letter saying explicitly there has been no communication, no meetings, between or among the Commissioners or the Township personnel regarding these issues, and I know otherwise -- for example, I know that information that I gave to the local state rep made its way to two of the Commissioners, and again thats in the memos, or in the handout you received, that means that there were meetings, communications occurring. And so therefore when I get a letter

saying there havent been any, thats a misrepresentation.

And there are many, many other issues that are sprinkled through my report and my testimony which damage the credibility of the people involved here. So, in short -- 30 seconds? In short, I would like to suggest that you feel that you do not have this mandate that you have to act immediately; that even if they threatened 400-some odd units, they still have to deal with parking- related issues, and that this is a problem that affects the health and safety of people in the area and therefore you should do your due diligence, have multiple meetings just like they did in Upper Merion, and in the process do your job, as opposed to the way Mr. Wachter said; well, I didnt really read this stuff but I believe and I adopt by reference what I was told by people I respect. Thats not your responsibility. Your responsibility is -COMMISSIONER WACHTER: -- point of personal privilege? MR. SKLAROFF: Yes? I know you Thats certainly

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: arrived late but that was nothing what I said. MR. SKLAROFF: read the --

Well, you said you didnt

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: you. Thats fine. MR. SKLAROFF:

All right.

Thank

No, wait a minute. You

said you did not read, you did not study -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. SKLAROFF: a mistake. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: order. MR. SKLAROFF: I understand. All right. The Youre out of Sir?

-- and therefore you made

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: next person who would like to speak? MR. KANE:

Larry Kane, 1043 Pheasant.

Madam President, Im a little shocked at one thing you said. tonight? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Yes. In other You said you were not debating here

words, we are not debating back and forth. We are just trying to get opinions and thats what I want and Im looking for your comments. MR. KANE: and Ill have a statement. I would like to know -- Mr. Kennedy, a very nice report. I liked especially the part of that picture Okay. I have two questions

on the upper side there, which is Rydal Waters, which is an urban blight, and I think we should note that. I have a question for Mr. Kennedy. doesnt have to answer. He

Id like to know if hes done work for

any developers that have done work in Abington Township. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: note that question. MR. JAMES: The second question I have Okay. And I will

is if there were any meetings with Brandolini privately between members of this commission, away from the Sunshine Laws of Pennsylvania. And then I have a statement. I think this is a very sad day for Abington Township because a company is getting rewarded for an absolute distaste and repugnant behavior toward this community. This Township has watched this shopping center in limbo for five or six years now. have been devalued. York Road. The property values

Other vacant properties stand vacant on Old

The town is one of the greatest places to live in

America; we love the schools, we love the police, we love the diversity, but what we dont like here is somebody coming in and degrading a shopping center. We dont like the shoddy construction. And the Carpenters Union is right about that.

There is dangerous construction that occurred, and I was right in the middle of it. We dont like the people who were assigned to this who conducted their construction in very unsafe ways, and I find it absolutely repugnant, as a citizen, that a company that cares nothing about this town is being rewarded in the end with a green light to go ahead. And, Mr. Kennedy, I think your report is fascinating, its interesting, but I dont think it really warrants our attention in one respect. We are a township that has, what? 64,000 people? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. JAMES: Not quite. 56.

Okay. Well take it. We are

a very proud township with a lot of moxie and a lot of courage, weve done things well, weve had pretty good leadership over the years, and I dont think we should apologize or fail to go to court against anybody who treated us this way. Brandolini has the same problem in Upper Dublin Township, I hope youve examined that, and the problem is existing in urban blight there. If this happened on the edge of Willow Grove Park, or on the edge of Cheltenham, or on the edge of -- excuse me. tonight. I speak for a living. Im having trouble

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

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 of the ordinance is to protect the township, I understand that, but in the process you are going to set a precedent that is unprecedented, and you will open other builders to allow themselves to hold this township hostage, which this builder has for the last four or five years. And thats all I have to say but I would like -(Applause.) MR. KANE: me. You will have to excuse Its

Im not used to being on this side of the microphone. But, I would like those questions answered.

different.

I think

they are important questions that have to be answered. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: right. speak? Make a comment? MS. LEHMANN: Lane in Meadowbrook, and what he said. And on top of that Mr. Kennedy, with all of his experience, if he were Mr. Snow and Brandolinis land planner, I think he should be very proud. But, my land planner Lora Lehmann, 1431 Bryant All

Anyone else who would like to

might look at that spot and see that what we have there is an R-1, and a neighborhood, and on the other side

neighborhood.

All neighborhood residential uses there.

And

only half of that property is bordered by the PB. And so for him to say that we couldnt make it SNR -- I think his comments were that we have a 25-acre minimum. Well, the SNR was created for that particular lot and they made up the 25-acre minimum when they made it up. So, we can call it QNR and make up whatever minimum we need to make a nicer residential section. And if we have a residential section on that area, then they cant merge those three lots. Because

theyre zoned differently. And that changes the amount of PB that can be had before. And I dont know how we could get to that last screen that he had, but the thing that keeps being missing in all of the analyses is the fact that we are being given these 422 units, and 700 and some units, and then it said in little letters underneath there -- I dont know if Mr. Kennedy can get to that last slide that we had -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: to do that. No, hes not going Thats

Just continue on with what youre saying.

just a comment. MS. LEHMANN: So in there, 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 on the other side we had 276 units and 200,000 square feet of commercial. So that makes a pretty good difference, if were trying to compare apples and apples. And that figure seems to keep going missing. So, what we need to look at is we need to look at things apples to apples, and we havent been given the right figures. And the right-to-know laws have also not

been honored. I was denied some of the right-to-know documents without any reasons given. And in writing, I asked for them in

writing, was denied by Mr. Conway, and other right-to-know documents were given late, if they were given at all. I havent

heard yet whether all of them were there, and thats an issue. The green space that Mr. Kennedy said was in there, I would like, when you get to the question period, for him to say exactly where that is. Because I looked through that

ordinance, and when I asked Commissioner Kline where it was he said, well, theres impervious surface. Well, gravel is impervious surface and its not green. So, Id like to know where exactly in that ordinance is the line that says we have 20 or 30 or whatever the

percent is of green space.

Because youve heard again and again

how important that is to the residents of this Township. In addition, this builder has been incentivized to build -- if he won in court he would get 50-foot buildings. We are incentivizing him, giving him bonuses, to go

to 75. If he won in court he would have 60-foot setbacks from the road, which Abington residents have asked you for. things back so you can see the sky. city. And you have given him incentives to build up, like the city, against the wishes of the residents. If you wanted to incentivize what the residents asked, where is the incentive to build a movie theater? The number one request again and again from Abington And no incentive in there for community rooms, or To set

Not build them up like the

residents.

movie theaters, or the things that youre being asked for. I dont believe that the Commissioners that worked on this heard the residents at all. And I think thats one of the most important things here. And the conveyancing, the financing? I dont know why that was even necessary to put in. Thank you. (Applause.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: else at this time? Anyone else? Anyone

MR. ADCOCK: Road. Thank you, President DiJoseph.

Carson Adcock, 1714 Brook

Only a few summers ago my family would wake up in the morning to the sound of giant oaks and poplars and ash trees being chain sawed to the ground and trucked out of Abington. For several weeks straight I would come home in the afternoon to sit with my mom as the Elliott Building Group detonated dynamite that would shake through our house, rattling the dishes and cracking the plaster. Elliott received the consequences of their actions sooner, rather than later, but we nonetheless are here left with the loss of one of the most beautiful forests in Abington. The clear-cut lot at Rydal Waters was a direct result of zoning decisions made by your predecessors in this room, and your decision here tonight carries significant consequences. Thats why we, the residents, are here tonight not as obstructionists -- you know, it seems like thats how I think some of us have been portrayed lately -- not as obstructionists who like to cause trouble and hear ourselves talk, but as advocates with good solutions for preserving and improving our

township.

Specifically, were

here to advocate for first the environment, in this case a beautiful stand of mature growth forest that was hundreds of years in the making. Second, were here to advocate for property rights. Namely, the Zoning Code from 1996 that you

guys wrote and passed and has this lot zoned residential. Third. Were here to advocate for flood control. And fourth were here to advocate for green space. In other townships nearby provisions are being made to buy more green space. In our case all we have to do is protect our current Zoning Code and weve got eight acres of mature growth forest, of green space, you know, right here. Were here to advocate for our school system. Others have made that case and you probably will You know, another apartment building would

continue to.

continue to burden our school system. Were here to advocate for lower traffic, whether thats what were supposed to be talking about here tonight or not. Were here to advocate for, I think the bottom line is that were here to advocate for the suburb and

the suburban way of life, as opposed to an urban way of life, and the suburban way of life that you have chosen as well as we have. So, thats why we, the residents, are here tonight. Finally, at least speaking for my family, and I think for a lot of the residents, were here to advocate for an alternative solution to dealing with this problem that Brandolini has faced our township with. Mr. Kennedy did a nice job in

pointing out that they came in from outside, they have presented us with a problem; as a community, we need to find a solution how to deal with it. As Ms. Lehmann mentioned, and as weve said in previous meetings up to this one -- you know, argue that this is a doughnut hole zoning, as Mr. Herder and Mr. Kennedy have, or you could argue that its just residential along with everything thats behind it. And if we had to rezone everything

that touches commercial, eventually our whole township would be zoned commercial. I would suggest tonight that you go with R-3 zoning. After taking a more careful look, I think that the

SNR probably is not -- too many adaptations would have to be made to call this SNR in a way that was most defensible. And working with, you know, the law side of things, I think that if we just rezoned it R-3, which is the

same zoning as exists on the other side of this SNR tract, R-3 is right over here, and is approximately the same residential density as the SNR density, and same green space and everything else. I mean, I think thats a simple and good solution, its

creative, legally defensible, et cetera. Technically speaking, you know, youve heard Mr. Kline argue that this reduces the number of residential units that could be built on the three-lot Brandolini property. Practically speaking, however, it opens

the door to vast new -- so, I mean, technically speaking it -- Mr. Kennedy has argued it does. units conceivable. It reduces the total

If you clear-cut, if you knocked down all

the commercial buildings, you could build up apartments and so forth, you know, as on the PB lot; but, practically speaking, and I think that we all know this, it opens the door to vast new development as it would be much easier, and cheaper, for Brandolini to -- and this is exactly what Brandolini wanted a few years ago, they wanted to build this apartment building back on this lot. I mean, its no secret. Its cheaper for Brandolini to secure bank financing for new construction on undeveloped land than it would be for them to secure financing for redevelopment of existing collateral.

In other words, if they can use these buildings as collateral, the banks going to be much more comfortable than if they had to knock down these buildings and, in the meantime, they have no collateral. It would be very

difficult to get financing to end up with more units under the existing zoning. I mean, it would be nearly impossible. would ever do it in practice. Okay. Anyhow. Ernie Peacock, Steve Kline and Rex Herder basically communicated to us, the residents, that the proposal before you tonight is both the path of least resistance and the path of least risk. Well, I mean, first of all, I think the R-3 idea, rezoning the eight acres as R-3, is less risky, legally. rights. Were talking about rezoning their existing PB Which apparently they have not agreed that they would Nobody

be agreeable to this cure. We still may face a legal challenge, even if we do pass this cure. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: please -MR. ADCOCK: up. Yes. Thank you. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Please do. Ill wrap it Sir? Can you

MR. ADCOCK:

Many are growing

understandably frustrated, feeling that our representative is interested in doing the easy work of hearing our ideas, concerns and solutions, but not interested in actually doing the hard work of fighting for and implementing these ideas and solutions. I would just ask you tonight, a final word for the Commissioners; you know, did you run for commissioner to take the path of least resistance or to fight for and defend the Abington that we love? My goodness, Mr. Peacock obviously ran explicitly standing on the Rydal Waters property clear cut and described it as a failure of local government. Mr. Peacock, do you want to stand on the -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: you, Mr. Adcock. MR. ADCOCK: of land? Of course not. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. ADCOCK: -- fight with you, not against you. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: thought. Complete your Mr. Adcock, please. -- the new clear cut piece Thank you. Thank

We want to fight

MR. ADCOCK: more sentence here?

If I could just make one

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: way over your time. I think we got the -MR. D. ADCOCK: my time. Ill be up next. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH:

Well, youve gone

You can have a minute of

We have I believe

heard all of your salient points. You have repeated yourself more than once. MR. ADCOCK: sentence? Would that be fair? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. ADCOCK: One sentence. Okay. Could I just have one

I would just say to my

fellow residents that, you know, weve been fighting this for several years and I would just make the comment that its been nice plugging for this with you. last stand here tonight and -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: the Chair, please? MR. ADCOCK: Youve been thoughtful, Do you want to face It looks like this will be our

resilient, courageous and eccentric at times, no more than myself, and Im proud and grateful to have you as my neighbors and friends. (Applause.)

MR. D. ADCOCK: Road.

D. Adcock, 1714 Brook

Im probably not as eloquent as the previous three speakers, or even as well informed, but Ive been in the township for 40 years now, close to, three different locations, and when I moved into this particular area at 1714 Brook Road the vast majority of the area, or at least certainly the area bordered by Old York Road, The Fairway, and Susquehanna, the majority of it was residential. Over the course of time you all, and those who preceded you, have undermined me, undermined my property, undermined the value of my home, and my property, by continuing concessions to builders and developers over the course of the 20-plus years. I probably havent been as aggressive as I should have been. I probably havent sued as I probably could have or should have, either this Board or the builders myself. I have done one thing. The last time some area was developed, or going to be developed, I ended up buying the property myself so that we could maintain some green space. Now, I dont think that I probably have the money at this moment to buy the rest of that property, as was suggested by someone here, but I do find it offensive that

this Board of Commissioners will not stand up for the zoning that has been there and has been there. I mean, youve got R-3 up here, my house is right there, and its R-1. What do you do with me as R-1 in all of this commercial area? I dont get it. I dont understand it. In fact, you know, you, Mrs. DiJoseph, the President, said

when a -- you know, when you buy a property you get the zoning that goes with it. What was the zoning that went with this when it was bought? I know were not answering questions but its rhetorical, I guess. It was what? R-1? they bought. Keep it. Thats exactly what you said not more than ten minutes ago. So, fight for that. You know, Ive been sold out over the course of time, and I dont like it. I dont appreciate it. I Thats the zoning

pay my taxes. Perhaps maybe you should make -- I want to know ultimately what is going to be done to take care of me, and perhaps the other residents that are left in this newlydeveloped commercial area? Are you going to decide, oh, Mr. Adcock, you wont have to pay taxes because the Township has agreed to concede to every builder, every developer that comes down the street.

I was here and I had my discussions regarding the Rydal Water project and, you know, that failed. Because we needed to negotiate, not stand our ground, and thats what occurred. Youve got, quote, urban blight. Now its grown actually back into more green space again, which I guess will be turned back into who knows what. But, these are

just some of my concerns and some of my thoughts of how I, D. Adcock, have been sold by the river, or up the river, whatever it is, and done harm by you and your predecessors. I am asking you to take a stand. certainly this much of the property does not -- is not commercial and it doesnt border commercial. Youve got commercial area here and here. Thats whats commercial. Youve got the whole -And

lets see, up until -- youve got Susquehanna coming up here, and once you get past the corner property its not commercial. So, thats the basis that I want you to consider. And I want you to consider if you owned a property in there that was R-1. it? you? How you would you feel about

And would you want your Commissioners to stand up for Or would you want them to capitulate, because its the

easy course of action?

I would suggest you not take the path of least resistance and less risk and ultimately it is up to you all. But, I think Ive said my piece and I think youve got significant decisions to make. Ill be very upset if you continue to sell out the residents of the Township. (Applause.) MR. SIMON: you. Good evening. Thank

Im Ethan Simon, Hemlock Circle. First of all, I do want to say, I do

have one question. Ive been trying to follow this but theres always something new Im learning. On the last slide shown by Mr. Kennedy he showed a picture of the -- a blue line and said, practically speaking, most of the development would be off the hill. So, I looked at that and I said, well, then, why do they want this so much? develop it? Why do they want to So,

If its really not practical for development?

that confused me and Id appreciate some follow-up there. I think its clear today that opinions are fixed, and that was made clear by several Commissioners. And Ive had chats with my own Commissioner, so

its pretty clear that thats where -- its clear to me that a vote would be in favor of this. So, I

do want to make a statement related to the zoning, however, and especially with respect to what may come in the future. I do this because a year ago with a neighbor I gathered 300 signatures of people, handwritten signatures, door to door, of people who were opposed to the change in zoning, primarily because of increased density that would result from it. So the key point I would like to make with two examples is I am concerned that the Commissioners are actively promoting a policy to increase urbanization in Abington Township. And I say that for two reasons. The first reason is that by providing concession of changing the residential zoning to FTD, in this situation, I believe would simply make it much easier for the developer to put in a development. Sure, there are other options they can take, and those are laid out, but those seem to be harder to do than if they now have an extra eight acres. So, that would be

the first example of how I feel we are really greasing the skid for additional development. Im also concerned that -- and again with utmost respect to the good presentation by Mr. Kennedy, and I do not know Mr. Jonas but the credentials certainly sounded very fine -- I always believe in seeking multiple opinions, and

it comes across to me that over the last year really there have been only two sources of expert opinion that have been sought, and it I think there may have been intermediate options that simply havent come to the forefront. And there could be many I

within the Township who have the expertise to provide that. simply do not.

Let me move to the second example that really concerns me the most, and that is the transit oriented development, which is in the title of this Fairway Transit District and is mentioned many times. Typically transit oriented development is designed to promote high density urban development around a train station with a radius of about a quarter to a half a mile. A typical walking distance. Successful examples are

in Alexandria, Virginia, for example, the two metro stations with the development here, and here is the large 20-story building to the front, and they basically taper off as you go -as you go down. So, transit oriented development, by its nature, really does promote heavy urbanization. So, Im

concerned about the use of the term in our planning and in this particular situation.

The reason Im concern is that there are some flaws with a transit oriented development in this location. So, my concern is that even if we wanted to have

transit oriented development, it would not result in a successful development that would thrive. The reason I say that is we lack the required density of a collector support transit system, such as subways, trolleys, buses, shuttle buses, needed to feed a transit hub, we lack the grid streets favored in a transit oriented district area. In addition, its ironic that TODs are intended to reduce traffic congestion, and reduce environmental destruction, but I think in this case its my opinion that the opposite would happen. The other point is I just think the geography does not work for transit oriented development and I think this has to be considered for a reason Ill say a moment. These are the two train stations that -and in this case Ive been a little conservative in that these are quarter -- for some reason I drew a quarter-mile radius, not a half mile, but you get the point. You can now look at that as -- and Im not the best artist or draftsman here, but you put this red construction paper over areas that are already residential or

simply, you know, if you block up the whole bottom section of the tract you no longer are left with the ideal circle needed for transit oriented development but youre left with a very small piece of the pie. The concern I have here is that without proper space for an adequate transit oriented development, what well wind up with is something that bears no resemblance to what we expect we would find simply by reading what people write about the benefits of transit oriented development. So, I probably have little time left so I do want to make a few more points. So, the first point, just to summarize, is that Im concerned about the movement towards high density housing that this proposal seems to signal. To me its putting up, in a sense, a neon billboard to other developers saying, please come to Abington, buy a car dealership lot along the train tracks, 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 the opposite thing. We are greasing the skid for further development and were going to encourage further density in a place where residents simply dont want that density. Thats one of my key points.

To close, the other question I have is have we calculated the cost to the Township by having increased residential density? forth? The cost of schools, fire and so That density will come, if

Thats certainly mentioned.

we follow the course that were on. So, I think the arguments for the FTD have vacillated between ones which have said this is really the best outcome for the township of a bad set of options to ones which say, no, this is the way we want to go because this is the right option for the township. If its the latter, Im very concerned and ask each commissioner to look within and ask, do you want to be the ones to promote urbanization of the Township? I do not wish that to happen, I know at least 300 other residents do not wish that to happen, so even if you pass this legislation please be very cautious and very thoughtful as you move forward with this implementation and with the cascading effect that will follow. Because had the Rydal Waters property not been rezoned -- I believe Mr. Kennedy, in response to a question at the meeting in November, seemed to indicate -- I wont say he did, because Im not sure he did or not -- but, my interpretation of his response was that had the Rydal Waters

property not been rezoned, we might not be having the discussion about the particular property now. So, Im worried that were going to continue this cascading into the future. So, please be cautious

and keep the residential character of Abington intact. Thank you. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: (Applause.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: thats it? Is there anyone else? MS. ODHNER: Susan Kahn Odhner. Oh, yes. And I believe Please. Okay.

Hello everyone. My name is

Im from 1349 Warner Road. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Would you get

closer to the microphone, please? MS. ODHNER: Okay. Thank you. And would you

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: repeat that information? MS. ODHNER: Okay.

Susan Kahn Odhner,

1349 Warner Road in the Meadowbrook/Abington area. And I just want to speak from the heart that one of the reasons I came to the Abington area, because it was very beautiful, semi-rural, lots of trees, and Ive been here for probably over 25 years, and Ive watched it slowly

decrease, and the trees cut down, and more buildings come up, and the lovely wonderful quality of this area is changing. And this is a really big change here now, and Id like to speak up against it. And Id like to speak

not only for myself but many people that Ive talked to, the residents in my area where I live and many others. Wed prefer the green, and its really important to make sure that there is adequate green space. Just pervious is not enough. Twenty percent pervious could be all gravel. enough. Thats just not -- you know? Or wood chips. Its not

Its got to be green. At least thats important to me. And the high density I find very

upsetting, too. The urbanization of this area has been creeping up on us. And many people dont get to the meetings as their

life intrudes. I talked to a number of people, wondering if they were going to come. sick. Couldnt do it. They were busy, they were

I just wanted to speak up for that. Also Id like to say that I am -- its

important to have the 60-foot setback from the street.

To have

the buildings right up against the road, or pretty close, six foot away, it blocks the air, and the light, and the feeling of space.

Parking lots are okay, you see the trees between the cars even, but to have the buildings right up to the edge is not good. In my opinion. And one more thing. I heard that there was incentive given for a parking garage. everybody wants is a theater. wanted a theater. But really what

When we were polled the residents

Could we have an intensive for the theater,

rather than a parking garage? Thank you very much. Please fight for

the green space for me and my fellow residents and everyone here. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. DRAVING: points. I just have three short

Walt Draving, 1431 Bryant Lane. I just would, you know, reiterate over

and again that we all want our rights maintained and that that maintenance of those rights is what we expect you to fight for. And, also, when you consider the cost of going up against this character Brandolini, 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 be done.

And also wed like you to have a roll call vote so we can see which of the Commissioners actually vote for this, quote, ordinance. So, thank you very much. (Applause.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Just a minute.

(There was a pause in the proceedings for the court reporter.) (Reconvened.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: ahead. Name and address, please? MR. FOX: Abington Village, Ward 11. I appreciate the time the Commissioners have given to the residents tonight, Madam President and members of the Board, but this is a serious issue. And having been Jon Fox, 2115 Guernsey Avenue, All right. Go

lucky enough to serve on this board, this is a wonderful board, I know that sometimes there is a rush to have decisions and sometimes you may feel rushed by others. rush has to be put on you. If you dont think that enough time has been taken, and you dont think that the right decision is to move forward, I hope that youll understand that we residents would appreciate that being cautionary, especially tonight. That doesnt mean the

Here we are in 2011. Just think back to Baederwood Shopping Center as we all knew and loved it. It had

a lot of great stores that all of us went to regularly, 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 telling people Im going back to where Murrays used to be. be. I want to go back to where it used to And the

And I cant go there because theyre not there.

Commissioners had nothing to do with that. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: MR. FOX: something to do with that. Thats correct.

The outside forces had

So, we dont blame you, youre our

salvation, and were looking to you for that guidance and patience and great decision-making that youre used to doing and that we appreciate. It is 2011 and we already have existing traffic situations already. The Fairway, Susquehanna,

Washington Lane, are already well-traveled roads, so any kind of development must be careful development, if its development at all. I believe that adopting this ordinance allows greater development and creates greater traffic problems. Just because a developer cannot achieve a desire

under existing zoning does not mean that you or we should have a

new 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 request that the Board not adopt this ordinance. To say, as we heard earlier tonight, that the case of the traffic situations well take care of later is a case, I believe, of having the cow leave the barn and not being able to take care of it later. too late. Taking care of it later is Its too late for this township, its too late for

quality development, its too late for Abington Township. What makes Abington great is planned development and not overdevelopment. I hope the Board will take this matter seriously into consideration and realize that you are not forced to take a vote tonight, this matter can be tabled and under circumstances in the future I hope that youll realize that we, even though were not elected, and we are not sitting in your position of authority, we feel with you the situation that Abington should remain number one and by remaining number one we need this ordinance not to be passed. Thank you. (Applause.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: else? And if you can avoid redundancy? Is there anyone

MR. GUTSCHE:

Can somebody put the

aerial photo back up instead of the map? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: and tell us. We remember. No. Just go ahead

And your name and address, please? Yes. My name is Eric

MR. GUTSCHE:

Gutsche and I grew up in Abington near Huntingdon and Woodland at 1239 Rosemont Lane. My fundamental question, and were asking for questions -- my fundamental question is, what are you going to say to the next developer that comes in where the old Wanamaker store was who wants to be zoned Fairway Transit District? They are next door to it and adjacent to this property. How do you keep them from demanding to be Fairway Transit District? How do you keep the automobile dealers across the way from selling to a property owner who will demand to be Fairway Transit District? How do you keep the office buildings at the corner of York Road from being -- demanding to be Fairway Transit District? This is something you all may have discussed already, but we would generally like to know what is the total scope of the expansion of Fairway Transit District?

Now, I will tell you that Ive been away for a quite a long awhile, Ive been living in the Washington, DC area, Ive been in Fairfax, Ive been Alexandria, and I have seen what happens when the subway comes in, I have seen what happens to the automobile dealerships which are removed and there are now 20-story office buildings there. So, you can anticipate in the long term, rather than just looking at this one property, you can anticipate that you are going to see a far larger displacement than you can imagine in the vicinity all along from Noble Station to Rydal Station along The Fairway. I was there as a young sprout when that was a golf course. I was there when the Harbisons owned the top In the past year or two I Ive walked

of the hill above the golf course.

have occasionally walked through this property.

down through where that neck is that is zoned R-1. I have also walked up from Rydal Park, up through Harbisons property and I ended up talking with Tom Harbison one time. And frankly he was rather appalled at what

transpired with that property that his parents had bought years ago, 18 acres for $21,000. Okay? But,

over all the scope of it is how large a district are you all going to allow to be the Fairway Transit District? When all is

said and done, ten years from now, 15 years from now, whats it going to look like? Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MORSE: Road, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. Paul E. Morse, Jr., 755 Glen

Ward 7.

I have a couple of questions, Madam Chairman. One of the questions is Mr. Kennedy said he had been working with developers for 30 years and Im curious who those developers were and I would also like to know whether Brandolini, or any of the Brandolinis associates, were part of them. And I would also like to know from Mr. Kennedy what government agencies, like Abington Township, or Jenkintown or what other development 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 it not to, I encourage each and every one of you to note no; if it does go through, would they be able to sell off the upper half? Assuming they do not develop it? Because its my understanding they could cut into the steep slope and they could put in a lot of apartments there and leave that area open.

So, my question is could they, under this, be able to cut that off and sell it to someone else adjacent, for example? Another question, and its kind of been hinted at with some of the other people, and is this ordinance only for Baederwood? And the Baederwood Shopping Center? Its my understanding that it is not. And while its Mr. Peacocks and Mr. Klines areas, and theyre very concerned, I would ask each and every other Commissioner to take a very close look at areas that could be developed in your area and the residents would be equally upset if something like this was put forward. If you see buildings right on the street, I dont think thats a good development and certainly not what Abington grew up under. I would also like to point out, and one of the other speakers mentioned it, Mr. -- or, the Brandolinis bought this shopping center knowing full well what the zoning was. Just because they havent been able to make a success of it should not be an Abington Township problem. And we do not need to respond to that. Its their problem. Let them deal with it. We dont need to solve their problem.

Now, I havent gone through a lot of the ordinance, and thats my fault, but I would like to point out some minor discrepancies, if I could, if I look at No. 9. And these are the bonus points. And thats extremely important, because that gives the developer the opportunity to go and raise the level or the density and everything else. For example, it talks about off site bus shelters and amenities. And I guess that means that we could have a lot of ads. And I know everybodys complained as we go up and down Old York Road we see the ads and everybody says, oh, thats not good. It doesnt address that. It talks about public commuter parking quality, and you get -- it qualifies and you get a point for that, but I believe that most public parking people can park there and walk to wherever they want. There isnt anybody protesting it. So, I could see them getting this one, a bonus

point right away for this, because its so nebulous. I look at the preserving woodlands and it talks about mature trees. subjective. Mature tree. Thats not objective, thats

Whats mature to you may not be

mature to me. I think that needs to be dealt with. Road connection right-of-way. It talks about allowing future connections between The Fairway and Old

York Road. It doesnt talk about how wide, it doesnt talk anything about it, it just says provided space. concern. It talks about building materials. Decorative masonry. Well, again subjective. Not objective. Thats a

It talks about wind turbines and geothermal power and things like that, and what it says is expected energy use. So, when I calculate that, as a developer,

my expected energy use is, in all likelihood, going to be a lot less than what it is. Ive been very active in the Drexel communities, and graduated from there quite a few years ago, as many of you know, and weve rehabilitated some old fraternity houses down there. And its really funny because, when I was

there we didnt have half the technology and, as a result, the fraternity houses had to be rewired, and rewired, and rewired. And I guess I want to point out that expected energy

use initially is a lot, lot less than what it always ends up, in my opinion. And then it goes on on the green roofs, and it talks about maintaining the green roofs for the life of the building.

Well, thats certainly a good objective, but what if it isnt? What if it isnt maintained? Whos going

to maintain it? I guess Abington Township and the taxpayers. Bottom line. Ive talked to a lot of

residents, Ive been in Abington, Ive been active in Abington, in the Township and in the School District. The community

doesnt want this, the community opposes it, the community has been to a lot of meetings and the community is tired of it. We would like you to hear us, we would like you to vote no, and were willing to spend the money to fight it. We are willing to spend the money to fight it, if Brandolini wants to. Thank you. (Applause.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: else? Okay. MR. FERRANT: Ferrant, 1854 Canterbury Road. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: that. Will you repeat yourself? MR. FERRANT: Canterbury Road. When all this kicked off I was in Iraq, so I missed a lot of it, but coming back here, what I just was hearing was that the, you know, litigationwise it was, you know, Tom Ferrant, 1854 He didnt hear Actually yes. Hi. Tom Anyone

sort of not a defined, like, end. to win this or whatever.

Like, you know, were going

But I heard that, you know, we should all come up with a million dollars to buy the, you know, the forested area there, and if everybody is going to put a billion dollars up to, you know, buy this forested area and basically let them hold the community hostage and say, you know, were going to destroy this area and basically tank the community by building all these urban -- you know, this urban blight, then why wouldnt people put the same money that they were going to use to buy the forest, actually, to fight it, you know, legally? So, I think that, you know, the community is -- you know, if theyre willing to do that they would be willing to, you know, fight it legally. So, I dont think anybody here wants it, or anybody in the area really does, and for that to be some sort of a pedestrian utopia where everybody is going to go back and forth; no, its not. Nobody here walks anywhere. Nobody is going to walk. I mean, nobody walks. Jenkintown and areas like

that, you know? The only place you get people walking is Keswick, around here, but thats -- you know, youre not sitting on 611 and The Fairway. You know, people are going to dodging

cars running across the street to get to Noble. Its not going to turn out to be this big utopian project. So, I mean, I think the people here would be willing -- much more willing to put up money to fight it; to say that, you know, were not going to pay for it and let people walk all over us. all over us. Or have a precedent of people walking

And, you know, put up a fight and, you know, show

them that we wont be pushed around. So thats all. Thank you. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Anyone else? (No response.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: All right. Okay. Last call.

Now, Commissioner, do you have anything you want to say? COMMISSIONER KLINE: talked already once so -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Peacock? COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: Okay. Where do I Okay. Yes, Mr. I do but Ive

begin. A lot of people stepped up to the microphone and made some very compelling comments, and certainly I can hear and see the passion in the room on this issue. I didnt need to be here tonight to know that that passion existed.

This has been going on for five years, since Brandolini first purchased the property in 2005. I have

been involved with this issue since I was elected Commissioner and started my term in January of 2008. So, I think, you know, clearly I dont need to be reminded of the passion and emotion that many people have on this issue. I do understand it. I do respect it.

I have heard these comments before when we have gone through many, many hearings regarding the many, many different proposals that Brandolini brought before this Township over the last five years, and I think those of you who have been involved with this from the beginning certainly remember the wide-ranging number of proposals that Brandolini was bringing before us. It became mindboggling at some point to try and sort through what is it do they really want? They, you

know, at one point said they could build 700, then they said, well, well just build 500, then they said they would build 180, then they said they would build 400. There was never any clear

sense in any of our minds what it is that Brandolini really wanted to do. So this has been -- I just point this out to remind everyone that that has been an ongoing process for a long time, and Im certainly well aware of that, and I

certainly respect all of the various opinions that have been expressed tonight, but I think that what is important to point out is the overriding reality that still faces us. And the overriding reality is that this property is commercially zoned. The R-1 -May I please finish? You know? Let me say this. Those of you

who want to listen and have an intelligent dialogue about this, please continue to pay attention. We know that the two parcels in the front are zoned commercial, and those two parcels will be developed, one way or another, whether its this owner or another owner in the future, and so we cant sit here, in my opinion, and hang our hat on the fact that Brandolini is currently the owner, and Brandolini has been a bad owner, and Brandolini ruined the shopping center, and Brandolini took away the movie theater. They did all that. I loved going to that movie theater. Delicatessen. I loved going to Murrays Everyone here appreciated that shopping center

for what it was at that time, and if we want to blame Brandolini for ruining that, we absolutely can do that because thats exactly the result that we see.

But, that emotion that we generate in response to what Brandolini has done to that property is something that Im asking all of us to try and put aside for just a moment and lets look a little bit more dispassionately at what the reality is that we are faced with. The reality is that that PB zoning exists. It allows Brandolini or any other owner in the future

to come in and create significant commercial and residential density on that property. Forget the R-1. They dont have to build on that. They can leave it alone. Just on the front PB parcel they can, any owner, can achieve significant commercial and residential density. I dont want that, you dont want that, so what is the alternative here? If we decide that we are going

to fight Brandolini in court, and we are going to spend however much money and however many years in litigation to fight them, then lets presume a couple of possible outcomes. 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, on the PB parcels. So, I consider that to be a pyrrhic victory. I dont consider that that gives us anything of value whatsoever. Because what you will say to me

ten years from now, or five years from now, is Ernie, how the hell did we get all of those apartments and all of that commercial square footage on those two parcels where the Brandolini Shopping Center used to be? And I would have to say to you, well, because they had the right to do that all along. So, knowing that, whats the other possible outcome? The other possible outcome is we go to court, spend all the money and all the time, and we lose. And the

Court will then rezone that entire property, I -- can I guarantee it? Of course not. But whats likely? to rezone the entire property PB. And that is the considered advice of our expert counsel and of our experts on our own staff, our solicitor. I trust their expertise. I have to. I cant sit here and second guess the expertise of people who do this for a living. Im Ernie Peacock from Autumn Road. not a lawyer, Im not a land planner, okay? So, I trust the expertise of the people who have provided their council. So, if all three of those parcels get zoned PB, then what do we have? The potential for even greater and even more significant density, commercially and residentially. Thats a horrible outcome. Im Theyre going

So, given those possible outcomes, what outcome made the most sense? To me the outcome that made the most sense is the outcome that you are hearing here tonight. Dont have to like it, dont have to think its great or perfect, but I can tell you that if we dont take control of the zoning of this property, with this ordinance, what we will be left with will be significantly worse. And that is not capitulation to Brandolini. I couldnt care less what Brandolini gets out of this. What I care is what any potential owner of that property might be able to do there if we dont take control of this zoning and do it in a way that allows for a responsible manageable development. Thats what Im advocating and thats what I hope we will do tonight. Thank you. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioner. Commissioner Wachter? COMMISSION WACHTER: The first thing I Thank you,

asked years ago, and the first thing I said, what if we dont pass this, and if we leave it like it is, what by right would an owner have? By right means that the law now, if he comes out and presents something. Now, it doesnt mean its

going to happen tonight. Weve gone through this.

Youve been

through the planning commissions, youve been all there. Right now Brandolini could present something, under current zoning, between 420 and 700 units. Now, Im not saying that they will, Im not getting into, well, this is a good idea, but this is the exposure. As an attorney sometimes we look and say, whats the worst that can happen? The worst that can

happen is they put in all these efficiencies, 700 efficiencies, which they could do that, under the present zoning. We have no control over a lot of that now. Ive read through all this, contrary to what some other people maybe havent, and in Abington thats what we do when we have laws. Unlike other parts of government that we might have been subjected to. Weve all read through these

laws. We read, this looks like a way out. This gives us some control. We dont have any control over a lot of this now. So, thats all I have to say. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioner? Commissioner Kline. COMMISSIONER KLINE: President. Thank you, Madam Any other

I think I wanted to take some time to review some of the questions that came up in some of the speakers up here so that we can get some clarification as to those. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: you would. COMMISSIONER KLINE: There was a Sure. I was hoping

question, and Im not sure who would answer this, whether its Mr. Kennedy, or Mr. Jonas or Mr. Herder, but the idea of either modifying the SNR District to some hybrid, or using the R-3 District, which is on the other side of the SNR District, bordering on was that Huntingdon Road and Susquehanna, would be a viable option to cure the potential validity -- this potential invalid zoning doughnut hole. somebody speak to that? MR. JONAS: Commissioner. The last thing you want to do is to respond to a substantive validity challenge by creating another zone on a parcel of ground that seems like -- and often that still is subject and susceptible to the test that weve not only in the Realin case, because the Realin case is just the latest pronouncement on reverse spot zoning but it is one of hundreds of cases that talked about spot zoning. I can respond to that, Can

The difference is whether the island or the peninsula is zoned around or whether its zoned in a way to be deficient. So, the worst thing we can do is try to be cute and to come up with a solution that is defective and deficient all over again. And I can suggest to you that Montgomery County has been subjected to a number of prolonged validity challenges over the years. I was involved in one many years ago in Upper Providence that went for 40 nights and three years and I can tell you, after the 40 nights there still was no arc to be seen. In Lower Gwynedd there was a validity challenge not so many years ago that went on for 57 hearings. In New Hanover Township theyve had a succession of validity challenges that I think at this point must be well over -- in the hundreds. So, my answer to that is

that R-3, when I look at the Zoning Map on the board, R-3 seems as suspect to me, as the R-1, and would provide I think a culpable claim for another attack and a challenge. The recommendations youve had from Mr. Kennedy, and from me, and certainly I think it would be fair to say that many of us dont shy away from fights, but the recommendation is to avoid a prolonged battle, and to avoid what other people have said, having the judge in Norristown decide

what the future of this tract might be. So, the R-3, at least at first

glance, suggests to me that its just another peninsula or island that is unjustifiably different from the surrounding properties and I would be concerned about that as a so-called cure. COMMISSIONER KLINE: Thank you.

My next question has to do with -- just so we understand the datum point at which the Township had to consider certain aspects of drafting this ordinance and drafting a cure to not deal with the litigation. So, the first one is traffic. There was a datum point in which the Township had to work and adhere to and that datum point, if I remember correctly from most of our conversations, is -- the datum point stems from what the current usage of the land is. And that is the PD District and potentially a developed R-1 District. And when we did our analysis, regardless of whether you believe Brandolini will tear down the shopping center or not, that traffic datum works off of that density. that correct? MR. KENNEDY: That is correct, yes. So in doing the FTD Is

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

Ordinance, to stray from that density one way or -- stray from

this density to -- stray from that density, period, would be difficult. If we went higher -- Im trying to say, staying in the density similarities puts us in the same situation as far as looking at traffic as a datum point for this overall property. Does that make sense? MR. KENNEDY: It does, yes. So when we talk

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

about traffic, its not as if were working from a property that is a farm land and all of a sudden we are going to impose 246 units as a maximum on this property. Were actually working

from a datum, whether you believe its 276 or you believe the number may be at 200, or 220, were still dealing with a datum point in the rough range of what the traffic generation may be if you were to develop this property with the 246 in the commercial development. MR. KENNEDY: Thats correct. Okay. The question

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

came up as far as how the Township goes about changing zoning for other properties in and around The Fairway and -- the Noble/Fairway area. The only way that that occurs, from my understanding of being on the board, and dealing with other zoning changes, is its a legislative. And from our analysis

of the area, we have not found any other anomalies such as this R-1 piece that exists that would put the Township in the same situation as we find ourselves now with the Baederwood Shopping Center property, in that Noble/Fairway; is that correct? MR. KENNEDY: That is correct, and the

FTD, as proposed, is strictly applying to the Baederwood Shopping Center. COMMISSIONER KLINE: So if the Board was

to -- if there was an opportunity for any property in the Noble/Fairway area that is currently zoning PB that would change to FTD, it would have to be done as a purely legislative act, not under the gun of litigation. Because we dont perceive

there to be any potential for litigation similar to the R-1 zoning for some of the other properties in the Noble/Fairway area. I think I asked the same question twice, but Im just trying to clarify. So, the only way that that would happen is if this Board was to decide to change that, for whatever reason it may be. Now, that hasnt happened. Were just dealing with the Baederwood Shopping Center. MR. KENNEDY: a separate process. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Yes, separate. Yes. That would have to be

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

There was a

question that talked about selling off the back portion of the R-1 -- or the back portion of the property after it was zoned FTD, or possibly even zoned PB if it went through a litigation piece. But, lets say, for the sake of this question, that the R-1 is gone one way or the other. Selling that off under

the FTD Ordinance would still require street frontage. MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it would. It would still So,

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

require street frontage under the PB Zoning District.

unless somebody, whether its the developer of the entire property is going to sell that piece off, unless they planned to sell it off as green space, or as donated, you know, woodland, or something like that, they would have to create some type of street frontage through a public right-of-way in order to make that back portion property developable outside of the entire development site of 18 acres. MR. KENNEDY: Thats correct. Even

though the back portion is a separate parcel, you would have to create some kind of access which would then involve the front portion. It basically would still trigger the conditional use plan process. They would still have to provide then a master plan on the entire property.

COMMISSIONER KLINE:

Okay. And, Im

sorry, Im just going through and making sure I -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: COMMISSIONER KLINE: Take your time. I guess Ill sum up

and if I find something else Ill ask for more time. But, you know, from my standpoint

this decision is not made lightly. This decision has taken a long time for the Township, for staff, and for everybody involved, including resident comments, to come -- to get to this point for the last four, four and a half years, from what I can go back and remember. There is nothing done here quickly. There is nothing done here lightly. Certainly from my standpoint there is nothing done here easy or without considerable consideration. You know, the Township Control Urbanization? I sincerely believe the FTD Ordinance controls

urbanization, especially when I have to compare it to the current zoning of the PB District. If I was looking at the difference between FTD Ordinance and an entire area zoned R-1, I would agree with everybody sitting in this room. But, thats not what Im dealing with. Im dealing with a zoning district, PB, which our expert has said is a very liberal zoning district.

Control density? I believe were doing that also. Were capping it. There hasnt been a study as to commercial density, commercial square footage in the PB District. Because if you build a parking garage, depending on how high you go with that parking garage, and depending on how many buildings you attach it to, you can continue to build commercial square footage. I mean, we can make examples of that, but just in my looking at the plan, and with my profession, I think that density of square footage for the commercial space is close to or over the 200,000 square feet thats a maximum in the FTD District. Fighting? The Township is ready to fight. I think everybody on the board was ready to fight, was ready to take this on, and we hired our consultants for the sole purpose of creating a defense, creating an avenue by which to defend and fight for the Township. What happened was in the analysis it became clear that that defense was not as concrete as we would like it to be. And with that open-ended, or with that open-ended possibilities of more density, and the potential for greater development rights, the Township took the opportunity to develop an ordinance that does give us control.

We have a conditional use. We have maximized. We have capped density. And I think, going through

the fight, taking on this validity challenge, whereas we may have won, if you take that point, if you say we may have won the validity challenge, we still end up, we still have the potential, for greater development than what we have developed - what we have put into the FTD Ordinance. And I think, in my opinion, the FTD Ordinance puts controls in this ordinance that exist nowhere else in the 1996 zoning ordinance. It uses new modern type zoning codifying and puts some control back into the Townships hands which does not exist. And I think whether you believe we should fight or

not, this ordinance gives us control. It maximizes density and it takes the situation and turns it somewhat to a positive. As much of a positive as we can get out of this lousy situation that the Township has found itself in. So, thank you for the time. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Commissioners? Commissioner Lynott? COMMISSIONER LYNOTT: Well, Madam Okay. Any other

President, with your permission I would just like to share some thoughts that are going through my mind.

Weve heard, in the last two and a half hours, weve heard a lot of information, highly technical information from Mr. Kennedy, and from some of the Commissioners who have been involved, weve heard excellent input from residents; as I sit here and listen to some of the comments that Ive heard from residents, I can understand them. Perhaps if my

home was adjacent to this property, or nearby, I might share those feelings and have the same emotions. It didnt escape my attention that some of the speakers offered what they felt would be good alternatives to the ordinance that were dealing with tonight, but it the didnt escape my attention that other residents speaking had alternatives that were directly opposed to the other alternative. To me that only illustrates the complexity of what were facing here. Now, personally Im a guy, when I sit here and listen to complex projects like this, I always try to get to the bottom line. I work. And I think that in getting to the bottom line there is something that every person in this room should keep in their minds; those of us sitting up here who are going to be obliged at some point to vote yes or no, and those in the audience who are involved. It may be simplistic, but its the way

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 the detail that it is? Was it written by Commissioner Peacock or any other Commissioner up here? Was it drafted by Mr. Kennedy? No. Was it drafted -- did Brandolini? want this ordinance? Did Brandolini

Did Brandolini craft it? Absolutely not. Here is where it came from. And Ive

made a couple of notes, just in the hope that I wouldnt forget anything. To begin with, a panel of distinguished citizens who make up the Abington Township Planning Commission, with a wide range of disciplines, a wide age range, economic, socioeconomic stature and so forth, a group of citizens of our township. Thats part of where it came from. And they approved

this ordinance unanimously. Then there is the Montgomery County Planning Commission who has lent their endorsement to the Ordinance. Then there is the professional land planner that we hired to help us, who has the expertise that those of us -- most of us sitting up here simply dont have. Key Abington Township administration folks who have

nothing but the best interests of Abington Township at heart.

I was sorry to hear some of the implications about weve sold out the residents and forth. I

dont know anyone sitting up here, and I know everyone up here pretty well, who has any intention of doing anything except that which would help to benefit the citizens of Abington Township. But, my point here is that all of these people together, the collective wisdom of all of these people. Not a single individual, or a group of individuals, or Dont

somebody with an emotional attachment to what happens. forget where this ordinance came from.

All of these people together, and

I think Ive mentioned -- I meant to mention some members of the Board of Commissioners are much more deeply involved than others, because in Commissioner Peacocks case this property is in his ward, and it abuts very closely to Commissioner Kline, so we must also add members of the Board of Commissioners to all of the distinguished people whose collective wisdom has said this is the best approach for Abington Township. Now, thats the bottom line that Ive arrived at and I just wanted to share that thought with others. Thank you. MR. CARSON ADCOCK: wisdom out here, too. Theres collective

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: other Commissioner wanted to speak?

Thank you.

And any

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: President. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Gillespie. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: Yes.

Yes, Madam

Commissioner

First of all I

wanted to thank young Tom over there for his service. Thats off the beaten track here, but thanks, Tom. Afghanistan. I do understand really where youre coming from. My family did come here a hundred years ago last For your service in

year, so, Im not a hundred, but I do understand where youre coming from. I remember York Road with a farm, and I remember probably 90 percent of your homes werent even here when I was a kid. Its a tough decision, its really tough, but I think we hired the best and, and as the other Commissioners have said, we have really done what we feel is the best in this very, very tough situation. So, I just wanted to add my comments. Thank you. MR. FERRANT: I have a comment to add.

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: line. Sir, youre out of line. Commissioner Peacock? COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: opportunity again, Madam President.

No.

You are out of

I appreciate the

I did hear the comment about the collective wisdom, and I will respond, and I think that -- I hope that Ive made it clear to everyone in here, I have been directly involved in working with you, if you are in Ward 7, and even those of you are in Ward 1, I have been directly involved; I have communicated with you, I have listened to the things that youve had to say, and it was my responsibility to sort through all of that input, and when this ordinance was being put together. Given the parameters that Ive already laid out for you, that we were working within, knowing that there was going to be development there one way or the other, what we did achieve, I believe this firmly, is the lowest possible density and the ability to control other elements that will happen on this property, including traffic, including design standards, and basically creating a development that, given the other alternatives, is far superior in comparison. So, your wisdom was part of this process, absolutely.

And one question that was asked that I do think needs to be addressed was I think the comment was made, what would happen if we just dont vote on this tonight. And I wonder if we can get perhaps our solicitor to tell us what the outcome would be if we decide to not vote on this tonight and take more time to think it through? MR. HERDER: At present we have until

the 31st of this month in which to reach a decision. If a decision is not reached, that puts us directly into court. At that point it is a deemed denial and then we are in court and we are on the defensive and it will be completely out of the Commissioners hands as to what ultimately happens with these processes. COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: And that is an

outcome that I do not think serves the best interests of this Township. Thank you. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: you. All right. Are there any -MS. LEHMANN: just a second to say something. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: you are out of order. MS. LEHMANN: Some absolute untruths -No. Mrs. Lehmann, Excuse me. I would like Okay. Thank

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: order. MS. LEHMANN: said. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: order. MS. LEHMANN:

You are out of

Some untruths have been

You are out of

Is there a way to correct

an untruth thats been before this board? PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: order. I will not hear it. MS. LEHMANN: This Ordinance is -I will not hear it No. You are out of

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: and I will ask you to be removed. MS. LEHMANN: they are not -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: order.

-- for other places where

You are out of

All right. Are there any other Commissioners that wanted to comment at this time? Yes. Commissioner Myers. Yes. Actually I

COMMISSIONER MYERS: dont really have a comment.

And, Tom, Im going to make you

work in your last two weeks. I heard from the audience, I dont want to say the accusation but something like that, that we were

giving in to the developer; that we werent concerned about green space. Tom, can you just quickly review the open space since 1996 that we had purchased in order to not have development? And where we have worked, and I dont want to say against the developer, but we have not worked in cooperation with the developer? MR. CONWAY: Hillside. Certainly. To

summarize, we have acquired, since 1996, over a hundred acres of open space. The most significant piece of course was the 80-acre piece by the Hillside Seminary, and there have been, as you know, a number of other very significant pieces elsewhere throughout the community, but totaling over a hundred acres since 1996. COMMISSIONER MYERS: the property in Rydal/Meadowbrook that we -PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: property? COMMISSIONER MYERS: property. MR. CONWAY: little over 10 acres, yes. COMMISSIONER MYERS: was Somerford? And how many acres The Jackson property was a The Jackson The Jackson And specifically

MR. CONWAY:

Five. And where is that

COMMISSIONER MYERS: located? MR. CONWAY:

Thats located directly

across the entrance to Alverthorpe Park, a fully wooded site that backs up to Manor College. COMMISSIONER MYERS: So clearly this

Board, and the members of this Board, and previous members of this Board, have really had a history of working for this Township and for preserving any property that we possibly can, but at some point you have to weigh that and you have to weigh each of us representing individual wards and you have to weigh whether you are going to encumber your wards taxpayer money for litigation. PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: Okay. Thank you.

Any other Commissioner who wants to speak at this time? (No response.) PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: -A VOICE: A point of information? No. I am going to Okay. I am going to

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH:

close the hearing and we are going to vote. The hearing is closed and I make a motion to adopt ordinances 2000 and 2006.

Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: second. Second. I have a

And we will have a roll call, please. MR. MATTEO: Wachter? Yes.

COMMISSIONER WACHTER: MR. MATTEO: Schreiber?

COMMISSIONER SCHREIBER: MR. MATTEO: Gillespie?

Yes.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: MR. MATTEO: Kline? Yes.

Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLINE: MR. MATTEO: Luker?

COMMISSIONER LUKER: MR. MATTEO: Lynott?

Yes.

COMMISSIONER LYNOTT: MR. MATTEO: Zappone?

Yes.

COMMISSIONER ZAPPONE: quick comment before I cast my vote.

I want to make a

As an elected official, and elected by the people, I have the authority to say whats in my heart to protect the people of this Township. For 12 years Ive been saying I will continue to say I will not tolerate a developer coming into this

neighborhood, this community, my house, and strong-arming the residents of this Township. My vote is no. (Applause.) MR. MATTEO: Peacock? Yes.

COMMISSIONER PEACOCK: MR. MATTEO: Carlin?

COMMISSIONER CARLIN: MR. MATTEO: Benzak?

No.

COMMISSIONER BENZAK: MR. MATTEO:

Yes.

Jay OConnor? Yes.

COMMISSIONER JAY OCONNOR: MR. MATTEO:

Michael OConnor? Yes.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL OCONNOR: MR. MATTEO: Myers?

COMMISSIONER MYERS: make a comment.

I am also going to

I feel tonight that I am voting for control and I am voting for limitation and I am voting not to encumber taxpayer money of those residents of Ward 8 so my vote is, yes. MR. MATTEO: Mrs. DiJoseph? Yes. Motion passes

PRESIDENT DiJOSEPH: and thank you very much and good evening

(Hearing was concluded at 9:40 p.m.)

C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N

I, Jon R. Pichelman, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript before the Abington Township Board of Commissioners was taken stenographically by me on Thursday, January 6, 2011, and that this transcript is a true and correct transcript of the same, fully transcribed under my direction and to the best of my ability and skill. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee or attorney of any of the parties in this action, and that I am not financially interested in the event of this action.

_______________________________ Jon R. Pichelman Court Reporter 10 Presidential Drive Limerick, Pennsylvania 19468 610-547-4581