Dear Residents:
After reading Larry Matteo’s Memo dated March 30, 2009 (the “Memo”), which presented a gross misrepresentation and omission of the facts, I felt compelled to respond so that you may have a complete picture with which to make a reasonable and informed opinion. Although this all started out as a simple inquiry into a possible Zoning Ordinance violation, the inappropriate response and mishandling of the inquiry by certain officials of Abington Township (the “Township”) has unfortunately turned this into something quite different. I apologize for the length of this letter, but unlike the Memo, I wanted to start from the beginning and provide to each of you all the facts, including the actual Zoning Ordinance, so that you can judge for yourself whether the initial vehicle in question (or subsequent vehicles) conforms to the Zoning Ordinance, whether any real or perceived preferential treatment was afforded, and whether this situation has been handled in an appropriate, fair and professional manner representative of government officials.
Below is a summary of the events and facts:
- As you may know, a neighbor moved into the Overlook neighborhood last fall and along with his personal vehicle, he also had a commercial vehicle.
- He initially parked the commercial vehicle on the street.
- Another resident (not me) called the Township to inquire about the permissibility of parking this commercial vehicle in a residential neighborhood per the Township’s Zoning Ordinance.
- Township Zoning Ordinance - Section 301.4 (the “Code”) (see Attachment A) states the following in #5 and #6 below, of which #6 is relevant to this situation:
- "Commercial and recreational vehicles and boats greater than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to be parked or stored in residential districts, except in approved structures. Trucks, tractors, trailers, and flat beds more than eighteen (IS) feet in length, eighty (SO) inches in width, or more than 8,200 pounds in gross vehicle weight shall not be permitted".
- "Commercial vehicles less than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures".
- The Memo suggests that the vehicles in question conform to the permitted size and scope contained in the Zoning Ordinance and that James Salanik removed any oversized vehicles. However, the resident’s inquiry had nothing to do with size of the vehicle. Item #6 above says that vehicles less than 25 feet are not permitted to contain business advertisements. The issue of (or restriction due to) size is addressed above in #5 of the Code, which is not relevant in this case. Again, the inquiry had nothing to do with the legality or conformity of any vehicles’ size. Instead, the issue is business advertisements, which is addressed in #6 above, and which undeniably says that if vehicles less than 25 feet in length contain business advertisements, as the vehicle(s) in question clearly does (do), then it must be parked in approved structures (or removed if not parked in structures). More on this issue to follow.
- After some time had passed and the commercial vehicle was still parked on the street, the resident again called the Township and spoke with James Salanik. James Salanik told the resident that “the only thing wrong with this vehicle was the writing since it was not in violation due to its size”. Only thing!? The business advertisement was the sole reason (or “scope”, to use Larry Matteo’s word) for the inquiry. Moreover, commercial writing is the fundamental scope of #6 of Section 301.4 of the Code. I am not sure how much more clear the following words can be “…are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures.” By James Salanik’s own admission to this resident, the writing was in violation. He clearly said to the resident that the writing was “the only thing wrong”. Imagine if a neighbor built an addition onto his home and the Township said the addition was up to Code except the “only” thing wrong was that it is over the property line, but let’s not enforce that “only” problem.
- After the resident asked for my counsel and help, I wrote to the Township explaining the above and asked among other things the following - Is it standard procedure to enforce just part of a particular item contained in the Township Zoning Ordinance? For example, as James Salanik pointed out, the vehicle is legal in terms of its size; it is just the writing that is in violation, so let’s just ignore it?
- During the same telephone conversation, James Salanik then asked the resident - "do you know who this person is", to which the resident responded “no”. James Salanik proceeded to explain to the resident that this individual was raised in and grew up in this neighborhood, a long-time resident, etc”. The resident was dumbfounded by this line of questioning, reasoning/explanation and seemingly preferential treatment by James Salanik. The resident’s reply should have been what I asked in one of my emails to the Township, which was - Since when does the length of residency give one the right to be above the Zoning Ordinance or receive preferential treatment at the expense of other residents? I ask all of you, whether you care about this issue or not, does this seem fair or ethical? Many of you are also long-time residents of the Township. In fact, I would reckon that many of you have been residents a lot longer than this individual has been alive. Does that entitle any of you to preferential consideration in Zoning Ordinance related matters? I surely hope not. One thing is indisputable. James Salanik’s questions (and deference) regarding the owner of this vehicle were inappropriate and indefensible.
- There is an old saying that goes – “It is not what you know, but who you know, that matters”. In this case, a variant of that saying may be more appropriate, which is – “it is not who you know, but who knows you, that matters”.
- The resident contacted me after the telephone conversation with James Salanik seeking my counsel, assistance, and advice. I began by sending an email to inquire as to the status of this situation. Every attempt to contact the Township officials went unanswered. More on this below in #15.
- James Salanik’s response to the resident’s inquiry is troubling on two counts. First, his response demonstrates an arbitrary and capricious application and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. He and the Township have an obligation to uphold and enforce the Zoning Ordinance consistently and without regard to who is in violation. If this poses a problem, then he or others need to recuse themselves. Second, it would appear by James Salanik’s questioning of whether the resident knew whom this person was, that preferential consideration was afforded to the owner of this vehicle, which is alarming, unfair and unethical. Whether this preferential treatment is real or perceived is irrelevant. Perception is often as important as reality. There should not be any perception of preferential treatment or consideration under any circumstances. I hope that you as taxpayers expect more from those instilled in running our Township. We have all read or heard about the preferential dealings and treatment afforded others in the City of Philadelphia scandals.
- James Salanik apparently thought the solution was to have the commercial vehicle moved from the street to the driveway, which was neither a solution nor an option per #6 of the Code. In fact, he told the resident during their conversation that he was going to stop by, talk to this individual and have them move the vehicle into the driveway. The suggestion of a visit appears a little out of the ordinary, especially since James Salanik has never responded to any inquiries by me. As cited above, the Code clearly states that vehicles with commercial advertisements are “not permitted unless parked in approved structures”. Driveways are not structures. Items #3 through #7 of Section 301.4 (See Attachment A) were enacted for a reason, specifically to maintain residential aesthetics and the amenity of the Township.
- I tried contacting James Salanik, Larry Matteo, and James Ring (our Board of Commissioner for Ward 10) a number of times to no avail. When Larry Matteo says in his Memo that their office was inundated with anonymous emails, it is because they refused to respond to or acknowledge any of my legitimate email inquiries! I chose to send emails because I find it quicker than regular mail and an effective means to document a situation such as this. The Township website gives both telephone numbers and email addresses as way of contacting our Township officials. Perhaps I wrongly assumed that if one gives their email address, it is meant to be used and that one can expect a response. Why post both a telephone number and email address if you are not going to have the courtesy to respond? Isn’t that part of what Township officials are paid to do, respond to resident inquiries? I find the Memo very disingenuous when it says the Township office was inundated by emails. Had any of the individuals I emailed just once answered, responded to or even acknowledge the receipt of my correspondences, I am sure this issue could have been resolved more quickly. Instead, James Salanik, Larry Matteo, and James Ring choose to ignore repeated, legitimate questions and concerns regarding the Township’s Zoning Ordinance. The Township has adopted the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law regarding access to public records. The fact that my questions, whether anonymous or not (which is permitted under this law) go unanswered, is outrageous.
- I then reached out via email to Carol DiJoseph, President of the Board of Commissioners. She immediately responded to my email and indicated that she would look into this matter. Shortly thereafter, Carol DiJoseph let me know that a letter was sent on January 7 to the owner of the vehicle and Carol DiJoseph stated that the letter said “He had until January 19 to either move the vehicle into a structure or get it out of the neighborhood.” [Please see Attachment B] When January 19 came and went, the vehicle was still in the driveway. I again wrote to Carol DiJoseph and Larry Matteo indicating that not only is this individual in violation of the Code but now he is also in violation of the letter of January 7 that Carol DiJospeh said was sent giving the owner the option to remove the vehicle or park it in a structure. I asked in that email why the directive of the January 7 letter had not been upheld and enforced. No answer.
- Instead, the owner decided to cover the business advertisement with some sort of removable magnet coverings. In my email to Carol DiJoseph and Larry Matteo, I applauded his creativity, but said that I do not see anywhere in the Code where it gives one the alternative to cover the business advertisements on vehicles. This move was designed to circumvent the Code, as well as ignore the letter of January 7, which stated to either park the vehicle in a structure or remove it. Neither the Code nor the letter of January 7 makes any reference to covering the commercial advertisements as an option. The Code is quite clear that vehicles less than 25 feet in length are not permitted to contain commercial writing. If instead the Code said vehicles are not permitted to “display” business advertisements, then covering the business advertisements would seem to be a reasonable and permissible option. However, the Code says “contain” and stipulates what an owner must do with the vehicle if it “contains” writing. This may seem like a subtle difference, but it is a legally valid difference. Alternatively, if #6 did not include “…unless parked in approved structure”, I could also see maybe choosing to covering, but instead the Code directs what residents must do.
- While I am not a contractor or one who owns a commercial vehicle, I do know of other people in the Township who were directed to either park their commercial vehicles in approved structures or forced to remove them. There is not an option in #6 of Section 301.4 of the Code to cover the commercial writing because if there were, I am sure that the Township would then have to address in its Zoning Ordinance what constitutes appropriate covering. The bottom line is that even if you put lipstick (covering the commercial writing) on a pig (the commercial vehicle), it is still a pig (commercial vehicle). Is the Township now going to go back to all those previously forced to remove their vehicles and let them know they can bring back their vehicles as long as they cover the writing?
- I again contacted Ms. DiJoseph to inform her of the covering tactic and she said she was going to forward my email on to the appropriate people. After that email, she no longer responded to any further follow-up emails. I suspect those “appropriate” people were Larry Matteo and James Salanik, and maybe Jim Ring.
- On February 15, 2009, I sent via regular mail, letters to
Larry Matteo, James Ring and Tom Conway (Township Manager) which detailed many of the same points contained in this letter. Included with the Memo, Larry Matteo attached an email that was sent to Tom Conway by me. Not surprisingly, Larry Matteo did not send to you a key email from Tom Conway to me, dated March 24 (see Attachment C). As you will see, as recently as March 24 (six days before the Memo), Tom Conway indicated to me that a letter similar to the one sent on January 7 (see Attachment B email from Carol DiJoseph stating a letter was sent) was also sent to the owner of the Star Plumbing vehicle directing him to either remove his vehicle or park it in an appropriate structure. Why? Because according to the Code, this vehicle as well as the original vehicle is not permitted unless parked in a structure. - Then, according to the Memo, at the suggestion of the Solicitor, he said it is okay to ignore the established Zoning Ordinance and the two prior letters issued by Abington Township directing two separate owners that they either remove the illegal vehicles or park them in the appropriate structure. Whether you care about this issue or not, I find it hard to see where covering vehicles is permitted in scope pursuant to the Code. Moreover, why send out two letters, to two different individuals, two months apart if these vehicles are in fact permitted in “size and scope”? Seems a bit odd and contradictory.
- Now that you have read the actual Code relating to this inquiry and the background information, I ask each of you, do you agree with the Memo when it says – “these vehicles do conform to the permitted size (although not the issue) and scope” as outlined in #5 of Section 301.4 of the Code? Do you think the Code, as currently written, permits the covering of business advertisements? Do you think it was relevant and revealing that James Salanik acknowledged that “the only thing wrong with the (original) vehicle is the writing”, yet he chose to ignore or downplay the main point/scope of #6? Do you think that James Salanik should have brought up the fact that the owner has a long history in the Township, etc? Is that really relevant or even ethical when considering a potential violation of this or any Zoning Ordinance? Why would the Township issue two separate letters about two months apart directing the owners to either park the vehicles in a structure or remove them if they conform to the Code? Do you think it is unreasonable to expect an acknowledgement, even a “no comment” reply or “call me to discuss” reply from our Township officials when emails are sent to their official email addresses? Is it disingenuous to claim that your office was inundated by emails when two Township employees (Larry Matteo and James Salanik) and one elected official (Jim Ring) failed to respond to any of the emails? Is anyone disturbed by the actions of the Township in this matter? I surely hope so.
- To those who have sent me questions regarding the Memo, I hope this letter helps. To those who said they too wondered about the “conformity” or permissibility of the commercial vehicles, I thank you and encourage you to let the Township know of your concerns, either about the violations, the seemingly preferential and inconsistent treatment afforded in this matter, or the mishandling and refusal to answer any inquiries. To those of you who do not care about Zoning Ordinance violations or are indifferent one way or another, which is your prerogative, let me offer the following. As taxpayers and homeowners, it is in your best interest to care about zoning, other similar issues, and cases where Township officials act inappropriately, even when you assume it doesn’t affect you. There may come a time when you have to address something you truly care about, but find yourself in a similar situation. In addition, I know many of you take pride and put a lot of effort and time into the appearance of your property, and rightly so. Typically, your home makes up a large portion of your net worth. In the face of declining home values and rising taxes, the amenity of your neighborhood adds value to each of your homes. Given an option (and everything else being equal), which do you think potential homebuyers prefer or pay more for, a neighborhood or street free from commercial vehicles (or any of the items listed in Section 301.4 of the Code) or one interspersed with commercial vehicles? Call a realtor and ask them about their experiences in this regards. You cannot necessarily think in terms of your own likes of dislikes, but think about it in terms of when a buyer is considering spending their money purchasing a home. They will use any reason to discount the value of the home or neighborhood or alternatively choose to buy a home somewhere else. Google this issue and you will see for yourself that communities throughout have similar zoning ordinances.
No comments:
Post a Comment