It is that time again to cast your vote for certain Abington Township Commissioners, in particular Ward 10. As you know, Abington Township is strongly considering sweeping changes to the Zoning Ordinance, particularly as it relates to the relaxing of the barriers between residential and commercial zones. One of the proposed re-writes of the Zoning Code includes transitional zones whereby rather than having clear cut residential areas and commercial zones, the new zoning ordinances would allow commercial infiltration into residential areas. Who among you would like to have a commercial establishment next door? Even if that possibility doesn't affect you, the possibility of that ever occuring in Abington Township should be of some concern. Is that what you, as homeowners, want?
The Commisoners have downplayed this by saying nothing has passed yet. However, the Zoning Commission seems to be spending a lot of time in their meetings whereby this topic encompasses the bulk of their discussion, including outlining which areas within the Township will have transition zones. The Commissioners also like deflect any comments or challeneges by ranting and raving about all the misinformation surrounding this and other similar issues, yet they have not proactively attemtped to assuage the concerns of residents by being open or forthcoming when questioned (in fact, they are very defensive) or sending out any type of information to residents. They feign an attempt of transparency by saying meetings are open to the public, but few residents know about these meetings, few have time to attend them (for example, the Zoning Re-Write Commission meets at 5:30), they get cancelled or moved with little or no notice, the minutes from these meetings take too long to be posted online, and the minutes to the Zoning Committee meetings are not available (online).
Yet, the Commissioners are tired of all the misinformation. Really? Why not do something about it? If the Commissioners are so tired of the misinformation, how about stop complaining and whinning about it and instead have each Commisioner send a mailing to their constituents??? How about asking each resident if they want to be on an email distribution list? Unfortunately for Ward 10, Jim Ring would rather ignore questions by residents.
Based on what I detailed in earlier posts, it appears that Jim Ring, Ward 10 Commissioner, is okay with relaxing the standards of our residential areas by allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in our neighborhood even though there is currently a Zoning Ordinance which clearly prohibits it. Jim Ring also supports the use of eminent domain to take a building from a private citizen even though there are other buildings available. Do not be fooled that they are offering fair market value to the owner of this property, because that is not true. Fair market value is a price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept for a property under reasonable and ordinary conditions. This definition assumes that neither the buyer nor seller is under any pressure to complete the transaction. In an eminent domain case, the seller is not willing and therefore, the amount being offered is not fair market value.
Most importantly, during the ordeal detailed in earlier posts, Jim Ring ignored inquiries into a commerical vehicle parking violation, even in the face of Township emplooyees giving preferential treatment and not responding to inquiries. I do not think that a Commissioner or employee under any circumstance should ignore questions by any Abington Township resident. It is bad enough that he appears to be playing favorites among residents and threatening the value of homes by allowing commerical vehicles into our neighborhoods, but to ignore legitimate questions and inquiries into Township issues is inexcusable. Toss in the consideration for re-writing the Zoning Ordinance to allow for more commericalization of our Township, and you see where is going.
Please think hard before supporting Jim Ring and the other Commissioners who have been party to this behavior. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!!!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Eminent Domain & Property Rights of an 80-Year-Old Widow
The Abington Township Commissioners have begun unjustified legal proceedings to seize the property of Elizabeth Patane, an 80-year-old widow, who has made it clear she will fight the taking to the last inch. A rally in support of Mrs. Patane's property rights was held on Saturday, October 17, 2009, featuring a march on the Abington Township building. (www.tinyurl.com/TheStolenProperty).
According to official minutes posted at http://www.abington.org/, by using eminent domain, the Abington Commissioners voted in February to seize Mrs. Patane's storefront property for use as a neighborhood library, even though the main township library is approximately one mile away and no other neighborhood has its own library. Further, there was another building already for sale across the street from Mrs. Patane's property which could have been purchased instead, and without litigation. Township officials have admitted that Mrs. Patane's taxes were current and that there were no code violations or safety concerns. Still, Commissioner Peacock is on record saying, "Taking it is the right thing to do." Initial outlays for the Patane property are anticipated to be almost $2 million (not counting litigation), but the Abington Commissioners have stated on record that they cannot say what the final cost might be, and that there is no fixed dollar amount or cost estimate for the project, nor any guarantee of success. The last high-profile taking in Abington ended up costing almost three times the property's value due to costs of litigation. In Coatesville, $7 million was squandered before the town finally admitted defeat.
Here is what another concerned citizen has to say. Also, here is another person has to say about Eminent Domain.
According to official minutes posted at http://www.abington.org/, by using eminent domain, the Abington Commissioners voted in February to seize Mrs. Patane's storefront property for use as a neighborhood library, even though the main township library is approximately one mile away and no other neighborhood has its own library. Further, there was another building already for sale across the street from Mrs. Patane's property which could have been purchased instead, and without litigation. Township officials have admitted that Mrs. Patane's taxes were current and that there were no code violations or safety concerns. Still, Commissioner Peacock is on record saying, "Taking it is the right thing to do." Initial outlays for the Patane property are anticipated to be almost $2 million (not counting litigation), but the Abington Commissioners have stated on record that they cannot say what the final cost might be, and that there is no fixed dollar amount or cost estimate for the project, nor any guarantee of success. The last high-profile taking in Abington ended up costing almost three times the property's value due to costs of litigation. In Coatesville, $7 million was squandered before the town finally admitted defeat.
Here is what another concerned citizen has to say. Also, here is another person has to say about Eminent Domain.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Memo Fallacy and Precedence
While I addressed Larry Matteo's Memo in the Dear Residents letter, I believe it is worth repeating a few observations, as well as share a new observation.
To reiterate my prior response regarding Larry Matteo's claim that his office had been inundated with anonymous emails regarding commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods, the Memo was the first and only time he has ever acknowledged that he received any emails/inquiries into this Zoning violation. I did send more than one email to Larry Matteo regarding this issue. The first couple of emails were simple inquiries as to whether the initial vehicle was permitted pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance and why, when the initial resident called to inquire about the same, she was met with the indefensible and improper questioning by James Salanik. As Larry Matteo choose not to respond and our questions went unanswered, new questions arose, yet Larry Matteo never once answered these legitimate questions submitted to his Abington Township email address by a tax paying resident. He did not even take the time to even reply with a "no comment" or "please call to discuss". Instead he ignored every email sent to him and then turned around and pointed a finger at me for asking legitimate questions, as if I did something wrong or crazy.
Moreover, the emails he attached to his Memo did not indicate that the Township Manager had sent me an email stating that a letter had been sent to the owner of the vehicle to either park his vehicle in a proper structure or remove it which is exactly what the below Ordinance says must be done. In addition, Larry Matteo failed to share a similar email from Carol DiJoseph, the President of Board of Commissioners, in which she too wrote that a similar letter had been sent. If two letters were sent (two months apart) directing the owners to either park their commercial vehicles in an approve structure or remove them, how can Larry Matteo say these vehicles conform to the Ordinance? Why did it take over fours or five months to come to this conclusion after two letter were sent saying otherwise? Sounds like a rationalization of preferential treatment, doesn't it.
In the Memo, Larry Matteo says that "these vehicles" are not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, I don't see where in the Zoning Ordinance that is says that owners with vehicles that contain business advertisements are permitted to "cover" the business advertisements. Again, here is the Zoning Ordinance:
"Commercial vehicles less than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures".
The ordinance does not say that vehicles may not "display" business advertisements, it states that vehicles "...are not permitted to "CONTAIN" business advertisements, unless parked in approved structures". More importantly, it DOES NOT state that vehicles are not permitted to CONTAIN business advertisements, unless covered. Display and contain are two distinctly different concepts, as is "approved structures" and "covering". More importantly, the Ordinance is a conditional ordinance. In other words, the conditional word is "unless", and the condition is that a vehicle that contains business advertisements is not permitted unless it is parked in approved structures. The mere fact that the business advertisements are covered does not meet the mandate and condition that they be parked in approved structures.
In addition, if this is allowed by the ordinance, then Larry Matteo would not have needed to qualify his position by saying "Both vehicle owners do cover-up the commercial advertising, which is permitted pursuant to the suggestion of our Township Solicitor". The suggestion???? Why does the Township Solicitor need to suggest to cover these vehicles? Does he not understand the conditional nature of this Ordinance, or that this Ordinance has been actively enforced up until the time that a "long-time" resident parks his commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood?
As you know, this is a Zoning issue. When one wants to build or improve their property outside the scope of the Zoning Ordinance, a resident must apply for a variance, and neighbors are notified and given an opportunity to voice any concerns and objections to the variance application. It appears that a "VARIANCE" was granted in this instance without any such notification. Whether the Township realizes it or not, or whether they care to admit it, they have now established a precedent for obtaining a variance without the required notification of neighbors.
To reiterate my prior response regarding Larry Matteo's claim that his office had been inundated with anonymous emails regarding commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods, the Memo was the first and only time he has ever acknowledged that he received any emails/inquiries into this Zoning violation. I did send more than one email to Larry Matteo regarding this issue. The first couple of emails were simple inquiries as to whether the initial vehicle was permitted pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance and why, when the initial resident called to inquire about the same, she was met with the indefensible and improper questioning by James Salanik. As Larry Matteo choose not to respond and our questions went unanswered, new questions arose, yet Larry Matteo never once answered these legitimate questions submitted to his Abington Township email address by a tax paying resident. He did not even take the time to even reply with a "no comment" or "please call to discuss". Instead he ignored every email sent to him and then turned around and pointed a finger at me for asking legitimate questions, as if I did something wrong or crazy.
Moreover, the emails he attached to his Memo did not indicate that the Township Manager had sent me an email stating that a letter had been sent to the owner of the vehicle to either park his vehicle in a proper structure or remove it which is exactly what the below Ordinance says must be done. In addition, Larry Matteo failed to share a similar email from Carol DiJoseph, the President of Board of Commissioners, in which she too wrote that a similar letter had been sent. If two letters were sent (two months apart) directing the owners to either park their commercial vehicles in an approve structure or remove them, how can Larry Matteo say these vehicles conform to the Ordinance? Why did it take over fours or five months to come to this conclusion after two letter were sent saying otherwise? Sounds like a rationalization of preferential treatment, doesn't it.
In the Memo, Larry Matteo says that "these vehicles" are not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, I don't see where in the Zoning Ordinance that is says that owners with vehicles that contain business advertisements are permitted to "cover" the business advertisements. Again, here is the Zoning Ordinance:
"Commercial vehicles less than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures".
The ordinance does not say that vehicles may not "display" business advertisements, it states that vehicles "...are not permitted to "CONTAIN" business advertisements, unless parked in approved structures". More importantly, it DOES NOT state that vehicles are not permitted to CONTAIN business advertisements, unless covered. Display and contain are two distinctly different concepts, as is "approved structures" and "covering". More importantly, the Ordinance is a conditional ordinance. In other words, the conditional word is "unless", and the condition is that a vehicle that contains business advertisements is not permitted unless it is parked in approved structures. The mere fact that the business advertisements are covered does not meet the mandate and condition that they be parked in approved structures.
In addition, if this is allowed by the ordinance, then Larry Matteo would not have needed to qualify his position by saying "Both vehicle owners do cover-up the commercial advertising, which is permitted pursuant to the suggestion of our Township Solicitor". The suggestion???? Why does the Township Solicitor need to suggest to cover these vehicles? Does he not understand the conditional nature of this Ordinance, or that this Ordinance has been actively enforced up until the time that a "long-time" resident parks his commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood?
As you know, this is a Zoning issue. When one wants to build or improve their property outside the scope of the Zoning Ordinance, a resident must apply for a variance, and neighbors are notified and given an opportunity to voice any concerns and objections to the variance application. It appears that a "VARIANCE" was granted in this instance without any such notification. Whether the Township realizes it or not, or whether they care to admit it, they have now established a precedent for obtaining a variance without the required notification of neighbors.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Township finalizing Old York Road study
Township finalizing Old York Road study
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Source - Montgomery News
By Kaitlyn Foti
Staff Writer
Abington is working on a facelift for the Old York Road corridor that could have a lasting impact on the rest of the township.
The township public affairs committee will be making a presentation at its Wednesday night meeting on the finalized Abington Township Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study.
The study, which has been going on for about a year, received half of its funding by a grant from the state. The other half was paid for by the township. Along with possibilities for better pedestrian walkways and creating more green space, the study details possible areas for planned redevelopment along the Abington section of the 611 corridor.
“As a township, we are 98 percent developed. We have to look at redeveloping and retrofitting our commercial districts to make them more viable. We’re trying to optimize what is already here,” said Township Manager Tom Conway.
According to Commissioner Steven Kline, chairman of the committee currently rewriting the comprehensive zoning plan, the focus for future redevelopment is mixed-use zoning. This would allow commercial districts to include residential housing.
“There’s a positive affect if you combine these things. When you have them in two separate places, it adds traffic as people drive from the residential areas to the commercial districts. We could reduce traffic, or at least not create additional traffic, with the combined use of these areas,” Kline said.
The improvement study homes in on four nodes — commercial areas that are viable for redevelopment— along Old York Road. The most prominent area for possible redevelopment is The Fairway. The commercial district surrounding Noble train station embodies the hopes of township officials to revitalize areas, simultaneously adding viability and green space.
Along The Fairway, there are plans for the age-restricted community Rydal Park to add independent cottages, with green trails leading to the stores, businesses and Noble Station. Kline’s committee is considering zoning adjustments that would aid developers in making additional age-restricted housing above and around this and other commercial districts.
“One of the biggest population shifts in the last census is the 55 and older age group. That demographic has dropped the greatest amount because there are not a lot of options for downsizing, to live somewhere that doesn’t need as much upkeep,” Kline said.Other areas that have been noted as priorities in the illustrative plans in the corridor improvement study include London Center, where the Target and Giant are currently located, and the intersection of Susquehanna and Old York roads.
“Susquehanna Road at that intersection is not a straight line; it veers off a little because of the cemetery on one side and buildings on the other. It’s unsightly and it’s dangerous,” said Carol DiJoseph, president of the board of commissioners.
The finalization of the study comes at an advantageous time for the committee that is rewriting the zoning ordinance, which hasn’t been updated since 1996.“Rewriting the zoning ordinance is something that would have to be done. We’re really lucky that this study happened at the same time, because it’s aiding other decisions that we will make while writing the ordinance,” said Larry Matteo, director of code enforcement.
Kline’s committee is using the corridor study to consider making similar zoning allowances for Easton Road, Township Line Road and Keswick Village. Working on the ordinance is an ongoing process. According to Kline, instead of introducing changes to the board of commissioners in a piecemeal fashion, they are waiting until all considerations have been made to introduce a comprehensive plan.
“We’re trying to create a vision. When developers come to us and ask what we have in mind for the township, we can answer them. We have to have a vision,” said DiJoseph.
The Abington Township Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study will be presented June 3 at the public affairs meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the Abington Township Municipal Building, 1176 Old York Road, Abington, and again at a town meeting July 8 at Abington Senior High School. There is no set schedule for the presentation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.
Comments
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Source - Montgomery News
By Kaitlyn Foti
Staff Writer
Abington is working on a facelift for the Old York Road corridor that could have a lasting impact on the rest of the township.
The township public affairs committee will be making a presentation at its Wednesday night meeting on the finalized Abington Township Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study.
The study, which has been going on for about a year, received half of its funding by a grant from the state. The other half was paid for by the township. Along with possibilities for better pedestrian walkways and creating more green space, the study details possible areas for planned redevelopment along the Abington section of the 611 corridor.
“As a township, we are 98 percent developed. We have to look at redeveloping and retrofitting our commercial districts to make them more viable. We’re trying to optimize what is already here,” said Township Manager Tom Conway.
According to Commissioner Steven Kline, chairman of the committee currently rewriting the comprehensive zoning plan, the focus for future redevelopment is mixed-use zoning. This would allow commercial districts to include residential housing.
“There’s a positive affect if you combine these things. When you have them in two separate places, it adds traffic as people drive from the residential areas to the commercial districts. We could reduce traffic, or at least not create additional traffic, with the combined use of these areas,” Kline said.
The improvement study homes in on four nodes — commercial areas that are viable for redevelopment— along Old York Road. The most prominent area for possible redevelopment is The Fairway. The commercial district surrounding Noble train station embodies the hopes of township officials to revitalize areas, simultaneously adding viability and green space.
Along The Fairway, there are plans for the age-restricted community Rydal Park to add independent cottages, with green trails leading to the stores, businesses and Noble Station. Kline’s committee is considering zoning adjustments that would aid developers in making additional age-restricted housing above and around this and other commercial districts.
“One of the biggest population shifts in the last census is the 55 and older age group. That demographic has dropped the greatest amount because there are not a lot of options for downsizing, to live somewhere that doesn’t need as much upkeep,” Kline said.Other areas that have been noted as priorities in the illustrative plans in the corridor improvement study include London Center, where the Target and Giant are currently located, and the intersection of Susquehanna and Old York roads.
“Susquehanna Road at that intersection is not a straight line; it veers off a little because of the cemetery on one side and buildings on the other. It’s unsightly and it’s dangerous,” said Carol DiJoseph, president of the board of commissioners.
The finalization of the study comes at an advantageous time for the committee that is rewriting the zoning ordinance, which hasn’t been updated since 1996.“Rewriting the zoning ordinance is something that would have to be done. We’re really lucky that this study happened at the same time, because it’s aiding other decisions that we will make while writing the ordinance,” said Larry Matteo, director of code enforcement.
Kline’s committee is using the corridor study to consider making similar zoning allowances for Easton Road, Township Line Road and Keswick Village. Working on the ordinance is an ongoing process. According to Kline, instead of introducing changes to the board of commissioners in a piecemeal fashion, they are waiting until all considerations have been made to introduce a comprehensive plan.
“We’re trying to create a vision. When developers come to us and ask what we have in mind for the township, we can answer them. We have to have a vision,” said DiJoseph.
The Abington Township Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study will be presented June 3 at the public affairs meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the Abington Township Municipal Building, 1176 Old York Road, Abington, and again at a town meeting July 8 at Abington Senior High School. There is no set schedule for the presentation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.
Comments
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Accountability - Improper Tax Bill
Switching topics for a moment. As many of you know, Abington Township residents were given the option to downsize their trash/recyclable bins last year. If you selected a smaller trash can like I and many other residents did, your refuse portion of your tax bill should have been reduced by an amount commensurate with the reduction in size.
However, when my tax bill arrived this spring, I was still being billed as if I still had the larger trash can. I called Abington Township to inquire about this and the Abington Township staff person acknowledged the mistake. More importantly, they acknowledged that most of the residents who downsized their trash cans were also likely being over-billed on their taxes. I was told that there was some sort of problem with recording who opted to receive smaller trash cans. I would be willing to bet that most residents paid the amount reflected on their tax bill without checking whether the refuse portion had been appropriately updated.
One would think that since Abington Township was aware of this problem that they would have notified the residents that their tax bills may be in error. Shouldn't Abington Township accept the responsibility of their errors and pro-actively make residents aware that some sort of problem exists in the township records of who selected to downsize their trash container?
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, this is a minor thing, but it does point to a bigger picture and problems.
WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
However, when my tax bill arrived this spring, I was still being billed as if I still had the larger trash can. I called Abington Township to inquire about this and the Abington Township staff person acknowledged the mistake. More importantly, they acknowledged that most of the residents who downsized their trash cans were also likely being over-billed on their taxes. I was told that there was some sort of problem with recording who opted to receive smaller trash cans. I would be willing to bet that most residents paid the amount reflected on their tax bill without checking whether the refuse portion had been appropriately updated.
One would think that since Abington Township was aware of this problem that they would have notified the residents that their tax bills may be in error. Shouldn't Abington Township accept the responsibility of their errors and pro-actively make residents aware that some sort of problem exists in the township records of who selected to downsize their trash container?
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, this is a minor thing, but it does point to a bigger picture and problems.
WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Exhibit 3 - Letter to the Commissioners
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
