Baederwood Shopping Center
( The Fairway Transit District
Ordinances 2000 & 2006 )
Please check all details
for accuracy with the Township or your own Commissioner. If
there are discrepancies
please let us know
so we can correct anything that needs correcting.
Upcoming Meetings
The Latest Update
Chronolgy / History
Our
zoning codebook
___________________________________________________________
UPCOMING MEETINGS - ???? ?
___________________________________________________________________
LATEST UPDATE
9-11
Dr Sklaroff has appealed the dismissal of his case.
____________________________________________________________________________
Chronology/History/Details
8-24-11
The Zoning Board refused to hear the case and quashed it
by saying that Dr. Sklaroff had no standing . So the substantive
claims will not see the "Sunshine". A travesty for residents.
When a resident claims that his elected and paid officials did
not act properly in the passing of an Ordinance that affects us
all in the township, he certainly should have standing and not
be beleaguered by legal maneuvering.
8-11 THE
BAEDERWOOD SHOPPING CENTER AND FAIRWAY TRANSIT ORDINANCE comes
before the zoning hearing board again on August 24 at 7 PM in
the Township building . At issue is whether the ordinance
that was passed is legal . There is more detail and a brief
history below in this email . It would be good to check the
township calendar to verify …http://www.abington.org/resident/events.htm
)
In June
Montgomery County Judge Thomas Del Ricci remanded Abington's
Fairway Transit Ordinance (FTD), which was imposed on the
Baederwood Shopping Center, back to the Abington Zoning Hearing
Board after Abington resident, Dr Robert Sklaroff, filed a
procedural challenge regarding substantive validity of the
ordinance nearly immediately after it was passed. Among other
claims was that residents rights were violated - that they were
given no real opportunity to understand, ask questions or
respond in an informed fashion to the information presented,
which was promptly passed by a 12-2 vote with only Commissioners
Carlin and Zappone voting no.
Judge
Del Ricci stipulated either side may appeal the zoning hearing
board’s decision.
Dr
Sklaroff had also filed, earlier, a separate procedural
challenge against the township—largely for stifling residents’
comments during public hearings and related misbehaviors.
In
addition to the procedural irregularities that pushed the
ordinance through, the Fairway Transit District ordinance,
provides for such a great density as to affect traffic and other
conditions adversely enough so as to threaten the "health
safety and welfare" rights that the township is sworn to
protect. Comparisons presented by the Township paid land
planner did not present issues such as residential
density adequately. And they are important to the issues of
emergency planning and safety, among other things. One township
official has admitted, the FTD did provide for more residential
development on the property than what Brandolini could have had
under the existing "Planned Business" zoning.
A BRIEF HISTORY
The
entire property is 18 acres - 10 acres that the shopping
center sits on which was zoned “planned business” (PB), and 8
wooded acres behind the shopping center, which was zoned as R-1
residential and would have allowed for only 8 single family
homes. To create the FTD zoning, these 2 properties were
merged.
Brandolini Companies, from Berwyn, purchased the PB and R1
properties about 2006 and first tried to present dense zoning on
the PB section to the disapproval of nearly everyone. They then
said that they wanted the right to add the R1 portion as PB as
well & said that all the properties around it had been allowed
to be developed and those 8 acres had been victims of " reverse
spot zoning" .
A
flaw in that argument was that the "commercial" development
allowed on half of the area surrounding the 8 acres was only
zoned to a residential community level - not to PB ( more dense
) standards. They also were ignoring the fact that the steep
slope would have had to be considered, as there are restrictions
for building on steep slopes. There was no guarantee that they
would win. Even the case law offered seemed to have little
connection to this situation. Nonetheless, Brandolini
threatened to challenge the validity of the R1 zoning in
court and threatened that if they won they would be able to
create PB on that land with a curative amendment.
Commissioners Kline and Peacock led a charge to craft an
ordinance to their liking that, amazingly……. gave Brandolini
nearly as much as they would have gotten if they had won and
gave them incentives to do other things that residents had
decried.
On Jan 6 2011 Commissioners
passed
that ordinance 12-2 and created the Fairway Transit District
(FTD), which effectively rezoned the Baederwood Shopping Center
& the 8 rear acres and in various testimony was hinted to be the
model for further development of the Fairway area. Under FTD,
the developer has the opportunity to build up to 246 units, and
build up to 205,800 square feet of commercial space.
Commissioners and our paid land planner had claimed that
building with PB zoning was virtually unlimited - but that is
not the case. It was limited specifically by heights, setbacks
and parking. The Commissioners created the FTD with GREATER
heights ( 75 ft instead of 50 ft ) and shorter set backs (25
instead of 60 ) and they incentivized parking garages ( which
residents repeatedly denounced ) and they REQUIRED elements for
building up to the edge of the property and mixed use even if
the developer hadn't wanted to and residents didn't want it.
They increase the density, traffic and congestion, the heights
and the lack of setback space creates a "city" atmosphere in
our township and these are not the aspects of the suburban
township that most residents chose when they moved here. The
net effect is that the individual developer has vastly more
property rights at the expense of the township residents who
lose what they came here for. The residents would have
preferred GREATER setbacks, MORE greenspace and MOVIE THEATERS
incentivized according to the majority of the testimony.
Commissioners told residents they were "under the gun" of a
deadline and so they rushed to a vote after saying they would
answer questions but refusing to do even that . In addition
blatant falsehoods were presented to the residents, such as the
fact that the ordinance had been approved by the Montgomery
County Planning Commission as is or that the PB district had NO
development caps. In addition, there was "misleading"
testimony . Planning consultant, John Kennedy, said if
Brandolini won in court they might be able to build 422 housing
units, or 738 units . But the 738 were all efficiency
apartments, and it was unlikely ANY builder would opt for such a
thing. And he did not mention that if they did build so many
units what the comparative commercial space would have been .
So there was no comparison of apples to apples. And the lack of
time for response from residents left these matters all hidden
from view or unanswered, or too quickly presented to be able to
process --or without an opportunity to speak again.
They
suggested it was possible the developer wouldn't disturb the 8
acres of trees, as modifying the sloped terrain and cutting down
trees could get expensive. Of course, it is also possible that
years down the line when the bottom acreage has absorbed all the
development for the whole parcel, and no one is paying
attention, an exception to build on the remaining 8 will be
undertaken . Not unlike what happened right next door .
One major concern : that Commissioners Kline and Peacock
helped construct and support an ordinance that seems to
reflect so little of residents' wishes
( and that 10 others voted for it too) .
The consensus from residents was that the township should
uphold the R-1 zoning designation, even if it means time and
money spent in litigation.. As
we can see,
they did spend more time and money in litigation anyway.
And
this time in rightful litigation, because one resident
refused to allow them to get away with such blatant
violations of the due process that residents should be
afforded in ALL cases. Our worries however, include that
the FTD ordinance is being used as a model for other
areas, and many elements of it are seen in the township-wide
rezoning that is being led by Commissioner Kline. Residents
are largely clueless about the details and when we ask for
reports we get meaningless responses ( even power points )
that describe nothing of the increased density and traffic,
increased building heights, the loss of the setbacks , the
"shared parking" ( so that you can drive round & round like
you do in the city to find the available spot) nor of the
studies that say our roads are already failing to service
properly at the current density.
One Abington resident, said at the meeting that he felt the
developer was being rewarded for “repugnant behavior,” and
other residents pointed out that the developer knew how his
property was zoned when he bought it.
The "challenge to our ordinance was no "slam dunk" - we
ended up with both a process and an ordinance that were
not what most of us would like to see repeated-- but we
can surely expect more if we don't each lend our voice to do
something about it . Some of us are grateful that one
resident has undertaken this enormous challenge.
________________________________
Our codebook is in 2 parts
Part 1
Township's
Codebook except for zoning
Part 2
Zoning Portion of Township Codebook
or go to
http://www.abington.org/info/newcodebook.htm
____________________________
If you have any updated information, or something you
would like to share, please
Send your the
information to:
lel@abingtoncitizens.com
|
