This is a letter that was mailed to each of the Abington Township Board of Commissioners. To date, not one has responded. The attachments referenced below are the same as those previoulsy referenced in the Memo and posted at Exhibits A, B, C and that were included in the "Dear Residents" letter.
Dear Board of Commissioners:
In response to the attached Memo (the “Memo”) from Larry Matteo dated March 30, 2009, I believe it is imperative to provide to the Board of Commissioners (“Commissioners”) the proper context and a complete accounting of the course of events which preceded the Memo, since I am sure that many of you were not afforded that consideration. Accordingly, attached is a copy of a letter (Dear Residents), including attachments, recently sent to all the Residents in response to the Memo in order to present the facts of the unfortunate “handling” (or more appropriately, mishandling) of a simple inquiry of a clear Zoning Ordinance violation. I implore you to read and reflect upon it with an open mind and impartiality. Please do not assume that just because Larry Matteo says that the vehicles in question are in compliance that it is so. How many of you have read the actual Zoning Ordinance in question that clearly states what commercial vehicle owners must do with their commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods? I have attached the Code (Attachment A, #6) for your review. After reading the attached, there are two issues that I would like for you to consider: 1) the question of whether or not there is a Zoning Ordinance violation, and 2) the handling/mishandling of the initial and subsequent inquiries into a possible Zoning Ordinance violation, the arbitrary and capricious application of the Zoning Ordinance, and the preferential treatment provided by certain Township staff. I trust that at least a few will be surprised and disappointed by the mishandling of the initial inquiry and the non-response by the staff, as well as agree that there is no legal basis or foundation for the Solicitor’s suggestion to cover the vehicles, given the actual Code and the letters sent to vehicle owners.
Moreover, I hope that after reading the entire account the Commissioners will consider, look into and take action to correct both the Zoning Ordinance violations and the inappropriate conduct by of the Township staff. If not, I am afraid I will have no choice but to forward the attached materials to the Philadelphia Inquirer and other local papers and let them investigate and present an account of the facts and circumstances surrounding Abington Township’s failure to enforce its Zoning Ordinance, the preferential treatment provided to select residents by certain Township staff, including ignoring legitimate inquiries by residents, and the subsequent condoning of such actions by the Commissioners. In addition, as a long-time resident, I know many residents in nearly every Ward and have begun contacting them regarding these issues and they have pledged their support to contact other residents and their Commissioners if needed in order to get some accountability. Moreover, as a sanity check, I presented the situation to a group of neutral individuals from many different backgrounds, including the legal profession. I took the position of a commercial vehicle owner to plead a case for allowing the vehicles and gave each a copy of the Code. While many thought covering was a creative solution, they found that given the wording of the Code, specifically the clause “not permitted unless parked in an approved structure”, compels the owner (and the Township to uphold and enforce) to either park the vehicles in an approved structure or remove them. A couple said that even though the ads are now covered, the vehicles still “contain” business ads. If the Code said, “are not permitted to display business ads”, covering might be deemed permissible. Most importantly, the removal of the phrase “unless stored in an approved structure” would at least give room for other alternatives.
Can you honestly say that the spirit of the Memo’s “not permitted unless covered” is equivalent to the Code’s “not permitted unless parked in an approved structure”? Can someone please explain the Solicitor’s “interpretation”? I am confident that a court will have no trouble interpreting the Code and discerning a clear, distinct and actionable difference between these phrases. The original caller/inquirer and I are prepared to seek relief via a Mandamus action, if necessary. However, at the suggestion of legal counsel, I am first appealing to the Commissioners before taking any action, since these issues/actions should be of concern to each one of you as Commissioners and as residents of the Township. Accordingly, I hope the Board, which I believe is comprised of intelligent and ethical individuals, will quickly rectify the gross misapplication of the Code and conduct of certain staff members.
No comments:
Post a Comment