THE FORMER YMCA
IN THE HEART OF ABINGTON
What we ended up with :
HOW THEY STARTED OFF :
THEN
CONCISE TIMELINE of PART TWO of the saga :
1-31-19 AO zoning obtained
( map and text amendment were passed )
2-??-19 -Word had it that the architects were already given a go to
get underway by Feb -- plans were ready for the community
presentation given just 2 months or so later
4-24-19 - BET's Michael Markman and a rep from CHOP hold a comunity meeting that few know about unless
they were on a Facebook page or happened to get an email
5-17-19- anticipated submission of the plans
6-25-19 - presentation of plans at Planning
Commission meeting
7-11-19 - Land Development before the Board of Commissioners -
it was approved with a bizarre exchange that completely changed whatever it
was that was approved at the Planning Commission - the
shenanigans never end . Of note - the Planning Commission is only
advisory - but nothing is supposed to get to the very end without
public scrutiny - so if they CHANGED IT - and the public hasn't
had a chance to weigh in on those changes that should happen.
Nothing is as it should be
TIMELINE of PART THREE of the saga
10-20-20
THEY
continue to ask for more
: WOULD LIKE LARGER,SIGNS, LIGHTED SIGNS
, SIGNS ON MORE SURFACES CONTRARY TO CODE. ARE YOU SURPRIZED
PART TWO OF THIS SAGA
SENIOR APARTMENTS NO MORE
After - yes - well over a year of detailed testimony on a
zillion tiny little points of version after version after
version...and many promises made .... BET President Michael Markman
has apparently pulled a Roseanne Roseanadana and said "Oops-
Nevermind......"..." We have a new deal we want to make - so forget everything we just said in
those endless meetings for over a year in order to obtain the new
zoning that makes the YMCA land far more valuable to us. I'm going to
do something else now. Your opinion no longer needed. Thanks for all your time - including
Christmas , Thanksgiving, vacations, and ...yeah...sorry...pretty much all your
free time. "
Well actually ..no... I haven't heard him thank ANYONE for
all the sacrifices they made so he & BET owner Bruce Toll could
profit so nicely. Or say he was sorry.
Here is the
On 4-16-19 the news dribbled out via email and some Facebook posts
that BET was
planning to enter into an agreement with CHOP ( Children's Hospital of
Phila ) to build for them, and lease to them, a new
medical office facility. The news was not posted on the Calendar
or under the news section on the website. BET's page is still
linked on the Township website - so if you went there would you
find it? Well the whole first paragraph is about the apartments
( Abington Terrace) and was old news, so it would be unlikely you
would read any further to find out that it was announced further
down on the page
4-24- 19 BET holds a community meeting
but few residents are there - majority of attendees are Commissioners,
BET/CHOP or YMCA people because it was not broadly announced.
Markman said this new proposal addresses 90-98% of the concerns
that residents had. They will build a 2 story, 37,000sf
facility that they will retain ownership of and lease to CHOP. They do not anticipate that there is enough room left
in the AO limitations for future expansion on the site . The
only entrance /exit appears to be on York Rd.
The historic part of the YMCA, Colton Hall, may
be able to remain - to be used as a daycare center for the YMCA, if
that works out. The setbacks on all sides will increase - and
the rear yard will be increased to a full 116 feet. The
house that was to be turned into a park on Huntingdon Rd will
remain in use as a home - he promised to buy it from the owners and
will probably just turn around and resell it. It will not be
part of the project.
CHOP told us they have over 50 locations in PA and south
Jersey. They are trying to get as much care as close to
patients' homes as possible. In all their facilities, they promise
that they spend a lot of time responding to neighbors' concerns,
such as trash, traffic, lighting etc . They hope to help keep families
from having to travel all the way into the city for neurology,
cardiology and other services. They will have a developmental gym and
have occupational & physical therapy as well as speech, audiology, ENT
and other services including
a pediatric urgent care that will operate on the
weekends and during the week with expected hours from 2:00 pm to 10:00
pm during the week (weekend hours unclear) .
As of yet, nothing has been submitted to the Township .
They expect to submit the engineering plan based on largely what
he presented tonight to the Township by May 17th and
expects then that they will go to the Twp Planning Commision June 25th
( Montco Planning Commission too - perhaps before ours ?)
and then to proceed to the Board of Commissioners for a vote.
Given the set-backs, the smaller overall scale & heights, the
preservation of Colton Hall - or at least its facade- this project is,
in my view, a much better fit for the property. But what was
wrong with this all along has been the process and the way the
residents' rights and concerns were put behind the developer's.
And in the end, the developer
literally presented one thing to get the zoning - drug everyone
through the ringer til he had it ... and once he had the use "by
right" - did whatever he wanted to do. The residents, now, will
have very little to say about it. And they will no longer be
protected as a residential community by the R-3 zoning that was placed
next to them intentionally when the 2017 zoning was passed. So
our broken process still fails to protect resident rights.
Oh wait - I
forgot myself there for a moment ..... Commissioner Spiegelman has
told
residents they, in fact, have no zoning rights . He
thinks that the decision to build whatever HE thinks is good is
totally up to him and his fellow Commissioners. I disagree that
our government is intended to operate that way --- and only does
because he has failed to put in rules that make it operate properly
and protect us from developers' greed that ruins our communities. While he may be
able to get away with that because no one will take on the
enormous task of challenging him .... our system of
government is actually intended to allow us the means to elect
people that we believe will represent us
as we would like to be represented. It provides us with speaking
rights to let our Commissioners know what "representing us
" actually means to us. Commissioner Spiegelman has
famously been involved in shrinking those speaking rights . When our representatives
start trying to convince us that we have no rights that they must
protect..... and instead that the rights are all theirs, then we are in trouble . Here it has been
very clear... developers have found a way around all our zoning
laws - but they can only get away with that if our own representatives
allow it and don't close the loopholes by passing laws on our behalf.
Close the loopholes Commissioner Spiegleman - you have been asked many
times now. Legislate so that no developer can drag residents
through endless meetings until everyone "cries uncle". If this
were proposed with normal zoning, they would have had a long wait
between submissions and so would have cut to the chase very
quickly. Each time they did not get approval, they simply
trimmed a tiny bit off and resubmitted. Legislate to prevent
that, and also give us tools that allow your constituents
to weigh in openly and see clearly which of you is representing
them and which of you aren't. And legislate so that ALL
questions asked about a project are answered promptly.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
PART ONE OF THIS SAGA :
ABINGTON TERRACE - Senior apartments
- APPROVED 13-1
Jan 31, 2019: In a Hearing so riddled with problems that should have made it null and void, the Commissioners voted tonight 13-1 against the overwhelming majority of voices of the residents that they are elected to serve. They voted in favor of the millionaire/billionaire developers (BET Investments - Bruce Toll from Ward 1 and Michael Markman from Ward 2 ) whose only interest was their bottom line. The Commissioners, who had no obligation whatever to move this forward, were completely complicit throughout, causing a more than a year-long nightmare for the nearest residents trying to protect their property -(see below ) but also for the great number of residents fighting alongside them to keep this density and the precedent of developers rewriting our zoning code from becoming a standard in Abington. Only Commissioner Zappone voted with the majority of residents whose wishes were made publicly known. Commissioner DiPlacido was not in attendance. Commissioner Sanchez, despite having been sworn in as House Rep already, stayed on as Commissioner and voted.
The
results of your Commissioners decision
1) Without any need to do so, only out of greed, BET rewrote our
code to give themselves greater density than other landowners are
allowed by code.
2) They wrote their own bonuses. Ones that make sense only for them -
not for the residents of the Township whom the code is supposed to
serve.
3) They failed to notify other property owners who had a right to be
notified. And Commissioners and all the experts were complicit in this
4) They failed repeatedly to properly identify the other
properties that also were eligible for this bonus ------on purpose one
can only imagine.
5) The first part of the hearing was on a completely different
ordinance than the second part - properties were removed from
consideration. In their final analysis - they decided ONLY the YMCA
property applied - yet Sunrise clearly also fit the specs
6) People
who should have had party status at he hearing were improperly denied
that status
7) The Commissioners and our solicitor allowed testimony that amounted
rather clearly to perjury in response to questions asked of the
developer's representatives
8) Our Solicitor falsely told the Board (prior to their vote) that perjury was applicable in court
or judicial settings only - the PA statute defines it to include
testimony in an official proceeding under oath - which this was -
9) State Rep Ben Sanchez attended the meeting as a Commissioner,
influenced the vote and voted, despite Article II Section 6 of
the PA Constitution that prevents him from holding these 2 jobs at
once. An explanation someone reported that he was not taking money
for his "service" seems to ignore the fact that the only position that
he was elected to and could possibly be serving under is one that comes
with compensation and/or
perquisites.
10)
An historic treasure is likely to be lost , unless they
somehow decide out of the goodness of their hearts , at the last
minute , to change their minds and save it.
Colton Hall is one of the most grand and historic buildings that
Abington has and is situated on historic lands next to an historic
cemetery.
11) Acres of treasured community service space, a disappearing
luxury in Abington, was converted to corporate apartment space -high
rise senior housing . Land that daily served 10,000 families will now
serve perhaps 130 families and the wealth goals of 2
millionaires / billionaires
DOCUMENTS Text and Map Amendments & PERIPHERAL
DOCUMENTS
:
http://www.abingtonpa.gov/Home/Components/News/News/5450/16
INFO BELOW THIS LINE MAY BE OUT OF DATE -
BUT FIND TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY TO SEE THE PROGRESS
OVERVIEW : Developer BET Investments, Inc. (Michael Markman Former Ward
2 Commissioner and Bruce E. Toll of the well known Toll
Brothers) wrote their own zoning,
starting with nearly 50 units per acre where, on part of the
property, only 4 are allowed. On the rest, they would be
removing valuable CS ( Community Service ) space. By writing a "text amendment" to our
ordinance, their new provisions would apply
throughout the Township, wherever the conditions can be met. Multiple
properties are already identified, but the developer himself could not
recognize
all of the properties that
applied. A new one was revealed Dec 18th, 2018, over a year later -
after they denied the existence of it. To take care of that, they
simply wrote a condition into the zoning that eliminated it, picking
and choosing which properties should have, and not have this zoning.
Residents have spent a full year of their time going to endless
meetings, reading endless revisions, consulting with lawyers and
others, learning the laws, engaging their neighbors . A full
year of "battle" for which they will never be reimbursed .
There was a complete disrespect for their time and concerns and
frequently attemps to withhold information, withhold documents and to only tell the public
at the last minute.
Commissioners had no obligation to hear this re-zoning
request. They could have simply chosen to say no - our zoning
code is carefully thought out, recently updated and we don't want
developers amending it to suit themselves on the fly. In addition to the increase in density and many other
unpleasant factors you can read about below, the removal of the valuable
Community Service property will benefit one developer and a handful of
residents instead of a large community, and a treaured historic landmark - one of the oldest
buildings in the Township with one of the richest histories is
to be lost. Their concern at all times has been for their bottom line.
You have only to watch their "sightline"or "view shed" presentations to
recognize just some of the deceit that has been part of this process.
At every turn the Developer has been
accommodated.
On Jan 11th, 2018 BET said they would
come from the Planning Commission to the Code Committee and
would ask for a hearing on the version that had been created from
those 2 working meetings.
That did not happen. The
Planners did not approve it - so when they came back it would have been
turned down. But the Developer was allowed to "try again" - and again they did not
gain approval . And again .
So they just kept going, hoping to wear everyone down. When that
did not work either, they simply asked for a hearing BEFORE any
Planning approval was given - and based simply on what THEY were
willing to write or not write, in disregard of what they had said to
gain the OK, they requested the hearing . In the week of
Christmas . And were GRANTED it . They were even
granted a Conditional Use hearing for a property that did not even
have the proper zoning for it. How did that get past the zoning
officer, the solicitor and everyone else? Looks like the developer has
lots of friends ( some who even declared their friendship openly on
video).. and it appears we are seeing what "friendship" looks like in the
"real
world".
This project heralds the end of " suburbia" - and welcomes the
transformation of Abington with urban
style development & deep densities by setting a precedent that will open the
door to all developers to rewrite
our laws and codes - laws and codes that are there to
protect us. If this developer needs ONLY 8
COMMISSIONERS to say yes, why should any other developer be forced to
hold to our code? How many residents want to give up a year of
their lives to battle a developer? How many others will file suits
against the ridiculous measures that serve no real purpose -- like a
requirement to be 400 feet from transportation. What if they are 500
feet . Or only on ONE main road. Or 50 feet further away from a
hospital. Aren't those just lawsuits waiting to happen? To fix
the property they just found out about, they said the "hospital " had
to be in Abington . Why. What judge would not find that absurd.
This should NOT be approved. The consequences will change Abington
forever.
If you see errors ON THIS PAGE ,
please let me know- This
project has changed again and again - if something is found that is
out of date please tell me so I can fix it .
This was BET's first proposal - Their
vision is not at all what the vast majority of residents declared they
want for our town
THE YMCA PLOT, THE PERAMETERS & THE PROCESS
BUILDINGS
Developer BET Investments.com bought the YMCA in the center of
Abington ( for a sum no one could compete with - because the property
does not carry the dense zoning they were paying for ). They intend to
rewrite the zoning
to make density greater
than anything we have in our code or than we have seen. They
will have to merge several properties . The YMCA, the Helweg
Funeral home, the little house to the left of the funeral home, and
the house of a resident who was bought out because she was so highly
impacted. Another resident was "compensated" for the impact.
ZONING DESIGNATIONS / UNITS PER ACRE
The rear
area behind the main Y building (or perhaps in the middle
of it - we are still not completely clear exactly where the line is) is zoned R3 and would
allow a little over 4 units per acre. BET first wanted
close to 50 units per acre-- then after many battles it was 36 and as
of 12-18-18 it came down to 26 units per acre -
approx 130 units for ( STILL more than
any other apartment is allowed. Why -Theere is a designation
E-10 that could have accommodated them withut the bonuses) The front is zoned Community Service
and that would be lost - when CS land is so scarce. The
rear R3 residential single family homes was intended to buffer the
homes there now.
OTHER CONCERNS
Heights,
buffers, greenspace, impervious coverage, as well
as setbacks, emergency vehicle access, who on the "receiving end" of
the "improved "stormwater , that will be sent off the property etc .... all these and more are concern to
us .
ABSURD BONUS SYSTEM
Taking things residents hate, like underground parking and rewarding
the developer for putting that in --the reward being the
removal of something residents treasure or something the loss of which
might impacts their health, safety and welfare . The developer
is being allowed to increase
density or removegreenspace or increase impervious coverage -
all of which are detrimental
THE PRECEDENT BEING SET AND THE LIKELY LAWSUITS THAT WOULD FOLLOW -
every other
developer is will be happily hoping for this to pass - and waiting in
the wings.
A CORRUPT PROCESS
Commissioners,
elected by the residents at every turn are favoring the developer and
acting in ways that are NOT safeguarding the
interests of their residents, including allowing endless
meetings, violating the promised processes, scheduling the
hearing a week before Christmas when they knew few could come,
refusing to take up legislative fixes requested by residents,
withholding documents, giving
last minute notice, or no notice at all in cases where they knew
residents would have no way of finding out without direct notice. Refusing to print a primer on necessary procedures and even
entertaining false testimony under oath. Although they are not
"required by law" to do some of these things, they know that the
interests of the residents who elected them are harmed when they act
in this manner.
On Nov 8th BET was
actually granted a Hearing for the Conditional Use of their
specific project before the
zoning text and map change were approved. In other words - the
appropriate zoning did not even exist when the hearing was placed on
the agenda ...and approved. How did that happen? So much
that Commissioners have allowed has NOT been in the interests of their
constituents. Only in the interest the developers, Michael Markman and
Bruce Toll...friends of many in the leadership roles .
U CAN
TAKE ACTION
--- Take
action by
:
-- ATTENDING MEETINGS
---
Signing
on in support of the residents' letter,
---
Requesting a sign
for your lawn
- ( only $5 per sign or $2.50 if you split one
with your neighbor)
---
Funding a sign for us to place - or flyers for distribution
---
Printing out a flyer to share
with your neighbors who are not connected by email
---
Email your Commissioners - here are the addresses
ask why they would even consider approving such a thing
(you
can post your letter or the response you received on the R.O.A.R.Z
Facebook page or send where you also can join in the discussion)
---
Sign up to receive the "Newsloop" to get alerts on meeting dates and
other information on this and other issues.
---The "Nutshell" below explains the
situation in more depth and the photos tell the story
well of what they intended
--- The main issues
, below, are important for you to understand
--- There is both a simple timeline
and a chronology of events below
--- Learn more about the
current zoning and see the zoning charts
---And the next meeting is listed just
below this paragraph in red in RED ( check back here for snow info or cancellations or
changes-
The Township website is the
official place for that, but if I am able, I try to post what I learn
here )
SPEAKING RULES
SPEAKING at
Hearings: Comments are allowed at a designated time
(usually at the end right before the vote)
for anyone in attandance. For those who have "Party Status"
they may question all the witnesses who have presented, and I don't
believe their time is limited as long as they don't repeat themselves, stay on-topic
and are asking questions or presenting evidence. We have asked
for a written primer on this and repeatedly been refused . At
the 1st hearing date ( 12-18-18) they defined "party
status " as those within 4 blocks of the property being rezoned ( up
to then they had only identified the YMCA property and Meadowbrook
Apartments as being rezoned - but at that meeting another property fit
the specs too - and there may be many others. ) I believe that
was improper - because their zoning applied Township wide - not just
at those 2 properties - so someone who believes it impacts them cannot
even ask if they are refused party status.
SPEAKING OPPORTUNITIES at regular meetings : At the meetings
there is always an opportunity
for you to speak - Please come prepared to do so. It really is far more effective when you speak than if you just show up and they don't
know how you feel. Even if you keep it very simple ....... Also they tell you not to repeat something - but
briefly you should say, for instance, "I agree that setbacks are
important " without redoing the whole 9 yards about that topic. If you don't,
they are left with the impression that there is ONLY ONE VOICE saying
it !
CHANGING THIS PROCESS:
You
can /should also tell your Commissioners that changes in this
process need to be made - so
1) Residents are not under attack for a year
or more, as these residents were, reviewing version after version by a developer with
only his own interests in mind.
2) Residents should be allowed equal
time to speak and to present in order to PROTECT their property rights
against developers wanting to
TAKE
them away.
3) Residents shuld have a clear path and RIGHT to get something onto
the agenda for discussion. Ben Sanchez prevented it entirely- and I
believe he falsely informed residents about their rights and the
process for doing this.
4) All meetings should be filmed (including EDC
meetings) and all the links to the issue
should be on a single, developer funded page
on the Township website. ( These meetings have been
filmed thius far, except for the EDC meeting which was also important.
5)
Our zoning rights should be upheld unless the developer convinces the
RESIDENTS that elect the
Commissioners that this is a desirable project .
6) A single page with all the links to an issue like this should be
available on the Township website for EVERY issue. JUST
before the hearing on this project, they put up a page with the links
( which they were trying to improperly pass off as a Right To Know
response) . But every issue needs such a page.
None of these things are being
afforded to the residents by the people that they elected.
The most important part of this issue is that passing this will open the door for many, many other developers to seek out only 8 Commissioners to overrule the voices of those they govern . Developers, Abington residents themselves, Bruce Toll and his CEO Michael Markman of BET Investments, are writing the zoning to please themselves and their bottom line, and against the wishes and interests of their neighbors and fellow Abington residents, a huge majority of whom have spoken against the project.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION BY:
THE NUTSHELL
:
Understanding what is happening.
In November 2017 Developer BET
Investments, Inc announced
their intent to try to REWRITE our Zoning Ordinance
with a text & map amendment.
Our zoning ordinance was newly passed in April 2017 after years
of hearings, focus groups, etc.
BET = Abington residents Bruce E Toll, Principal
( yes of Toll Brothers fame) and former Ward 1
Commissioner Michael
Markman, President. Our AbingtonYMCA and the Hatboro Y are building a
new mega-facility at the former Willow Grove Day Camp site on
Davisville Rd.
They expect to open the new site near the end of 2019 - it
will be awesome. But we will miss them in Abington.
BET
bought the YMCA "Cube" building, the historic YMCA building, the grounds,
the house next doors and the
funeeral parlor. --
They were bought on contingency of getting
the zoning that they wanted.
The rear acres next to the houses on Huntingdon Rd are zoned R-3
( about four houses per acre) . BET is asking for 36 per
acre.The properties in the front along York Road are zoned CS -
Community Service - we could use MORE not less community
service use in our town.
BET wants to rezone all the properties they are buying to A/0,
Apartment/Office -- but that is not enough for them - they want a
much greater density. A/O offers 16 units per acre - BET has invented
a new use, H-12 - that they think will only apply to them
and one other property
We think they are greatly mistaken, and that Meadowbrook
Apartments will not be the only property seeking to use
that new, dense zoning.
The new use, H-12, initially requested a use of 50 units
per acre . In Nov 2018, when they asked for a hearing, it
was still as high as 36 units p/acre
The proposal is for a senior (55+) apartment building -
but people as young a s18 can live in such units as long as 1
person is over 55
At 50 feet looming over the neighborhood behind it, with 225 units
(reduced to 4 0 ft
now near the neighboring homes) it is disturbingly large
The parking garage underneath it
all covered nearly evey inch of the property developed with virtually all the
"greenspace" being on top of the parking garage.
Modifications in height,
# of
units etc have been made multiple times, dragging neighbors to meeting after
meeting
During all these meetings, and all the 52 or more changes
they say they made, they have refused to make any significant reductions
in density and setbacks
They are still
asking more rights
than they bought -- even if they were to be "gifted" a
change in zoning from R3 and CS to A/O to accommodate the
project.
Why does BET believe they & 1 other
property owner should be gifted a use
that is far more dense & intense than any other A/O property
owner has ?
In order to supposedly limit this zoning to themselves &
to Meadowbrook Apts they put in ridiculous conditions that only
these two properties could meet
There is little doubt that this would open the door for every
other developer to want to do the same thing. A developer's
dream.
What would be
the commissioners grounds for saying no to other
developers wanting to write their own zoning for themselves once this
is passed.?
Not only will the neighborhood behind the YMCA be deeply
impacted, but there is little doubt that the whole
Township will be, too |
Residents want their zoning codes enforced.
They
protect our rights and help preserve the value of our investment.
Almost the
whole town wants development that does not reflect New York
City. That's why we moved here.
On November 8th the Commissioners violated their own
promised process in favor of the developer and did NOT require
an OK by the Planning Commission before setting a Hearing, which
they were under NO OBLIGATION whatsover to set. The developer
dragged this out for a full year and then asked them to set the
hearing literally a week before Christmas, when very few residents
would be able to come.
|THERE HAS BEEN NO GREATER OVERT DISSERVICE TO RESIDENTS
THAT I CAN RECALL IN A ZONING PROJECT.
It is surely not concidental that Mr Markman has overtly had a
the very closest of relationships with many on this Board.
How can Commissioners pretend that they are serving the people
that elected them when they schedule such an important
Hearing that affects our whole Township at a time when they know that
many will not be able to attend?
THERE IS
OVERWHELMING DISAPPROVAL BY CITIZENS -
SO... HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY PASS?
ARE OUR OFFICIALS ACTING IN OUR INTERESTS ONCE WE ELECT THEM ?
Over 700 resident voices had been registered as opposed to this at the
1st Planning Commission meeting 8-28-18 . They either
spoke up themselves, sent their association leaders, signed petitions or otherwise registered their disapproval.
Then hundreds of signs went up all over town . 4
( Count 'em FOUR) spoke in favor
at the 8-28 meeting . D
10-26-18
Letter with this date is submitted by BET to Township requesting to
request attendance at
the Nov 8 meeting
& at that meeting to request,
in essence 4 hearings: a hearing for the text and map amendments,
the 2 separate plots would be merged to one,
and in the same meeting they would like a Hearing
on their Conditional
Use application, which was requested before the lands were
zoned for it .
10-13 EDC meeting has a presentation by Markman on the economic
impact. Only ONE side is presented - the income
.
Residents were not even notified. No figures reflect the
income that might come from other uses. It is presented as
though the amounts paid to the Township are a "gift" that benefits
other residents rather than a
fee for services
rendered - where the cost of those dservices is significant. Even the
permit fees are presented as a one time
"gift" rather than monies that would simply pay for work
performed. Work that would not be needed but for
this project .
11-1-18 New links are coming soon. The Developer will come to the Nov
8th meeting
and request to go to the November 15th Planning Commission and request a
Dec 13th hearing .
( That ended up being Dec 18th)
11-8-18
The hearing was approved for Dec 18th - Holiday time Residents were completely ignored when asking to
have the proper process as promised
( where the Hearing
would not be set until after the Planning Commission approval, as was
laid out January 11, 2018 )
\
The residents were also
even ignored in their simple request not to have it at their busiest
holiday time .
The absolute refusal by 12 of the 15
Commissioners to even
give this tiniest of considerations was
astounding.
A Nov 15th Planning Commision was set
and a Dec 18th hearing .
11-9-18 fiscal impact study was done again : Fiscal
Impact Analysis dated November 9, 2018, prepared by David C. Babbitt,
AICP;
11-15-18 Mother Nature sends a snow storm. The Planning Commission
meeting is cancelled and tentatively reset for Dec 11
12-11-18 The Planning Commission voted 5-1 against the project - both
text and map amendment.
See residents comments here
https://youtu.be/6VJ2OdD5sVg?t=9473
12-18 - Part 1 of the hearing ( it was recessed at 11 pm ) Party
status denied to some and allowed to others not within
their supposed geo-graphic radius of 4 blocks of the property being
rezoned, despite their negotiations
with other properties
that do not fit any of the guidelines but
which they recognize could have this zoning applied if/when properties
are merged.
Because so many changes were made - including reducing density to 26
units per acre max a new version will need
to be produced and they will readvertize and they will allow
those with party status to question again .
It was discovered that Valley Glen is also a property that would
have that use by right. Markman claimed
not to know that.
1-10-19 The Board of Commissioners decided thgey will advertize
the new ordinance .
1-19-19 The Montgomery County Planning Commission report this
time approved it - despite no clear grounds ( see detailed chronology)
1-22-19 The
FOURTH (!) Planning Commission date and this time -
complete with false testimony from the Developer's team about
which properties apply
and with documents still withheld and many, many other irregularities,
(see the expanded
CHRONOLOGY
below
) that completely tainted
the process, the vote was 5-3 against . Ron Rosen,
Charles DiCello, Dale Russel, Glen Cooper and Daryl Baker voted for it
against the residents greatest voice ----
Lucy Strackhouse, Cathy Gauthier, and Mavis
Robinson voted in line with the overwhelming voices from the community
against this proposal
Boff was absent . The motion will thus be recommended to
the Board to pass. Did they PAY to attend 4 Planning Commission
Meetings ?
1-31-19
The supposed continuation of the Hearing - even though the
ordinance has changed and properties have been both added and deleted
and the required reviewers
never saw the final version
.......
in a flawed hearing where multiple problems prevailed, not the
least of which was the developer falsely testifying-again-
that Sunrise does not apply ( although it meets all the
standards and surely does..... )
See the detailed
CHRONOLOGY
below
for more
details on the above dates / events
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS
Montgomery County's Comprehensive Plan -
Montco 2040: A Shared Vision
The Township Zoning Ordinance
as passed
4-27-17
P 25= AO // P 28-29 = AO chart // P21 =
R3 // P 351 & 352 =Maps
The Old
York Rd Corridor Study Completed 3-2-10
Chapters
1-3
Chapter 4-6 plus appendices
The Township Comprehensive Plan
The Pa Municipalities Planning code
THE
MAIN ISSUES
-
Not only is the proposed
development undesirable as it is - consider also :
1)
It sets a precedent regarding aquiescing to all those
who want to change our code township-wide and obtain far more
than our zoning offers them. If we do that for them,
why would another be turned away?
2)
The interests of the applicants :larger profit -nothing more ---
This profit comes at the expense of the home values &
quality of life of nearby
residents, and via the precedent set, more congestion and
traffic for us all . The value of every home in Abington is
affected by increases in traffic congestion,
noise , crime, density etc . When these are done for the benefit
of the few , and for the riches of the developer, rather than
something that is done for the benefit of the many, and desired
by many, this
explains how we end up with the wrong zoning to make a good
community
3 )
It sets a precedent for a bad
process where Commissioners move the applicant forward
with no need to do so before
they learn from their residents if this is what they want.
When Commissioners are willing to put residents rights second
and a developer's first, we can expect our communities to
reflect the developer's dream, not ours. No agreement to move forward on a change to zoning
should happen without a demand from the residents
( the ones the Commissioners are elected to
serve.) After, and only after residents are satisfied their questions have been fully
answered and they want to move ahead,
should the developer be approved to move to any formal meeting,
like a Planning Commission review. Otherwise, residents get put on the
fast train and hold no bargaining chips to have the developer
actually even answer their questions fully. And what good is
having questions answered if afterwards we have no say in
whether it should go forward or not?
Our communities need to be developed
according to the vision of those who
live and work here, not the vision of thos profiting.
4)
It represents zoning done on the
fly, rather than thoughfully. The last zoning changes took
years (about 8 ) with many, many places
for resident input. Many, many factors were considered.
This is a complete departure from what the zoners agreed was the
correct zoning for that plot. And it takes rights away
from others . It is just nowhere close to
what was envisioned - or reasonable and it makes a mockery out
of the process that required people to give their time to
develop the zoning plan in the first place.
5) It will apply in multiple other locations.
As of the end of January, no others were notified of what
was happening, and all the other possibilities were not
even identified - such as properties that could be merged and
bought - others who might have their zoning changed just
like this one is having, on the whim orf the
Commissioners. Without true and proper information on this,
a visible example of what could be build at Meadowbrook
Apts ( which immediately qualifies) and other properties
and without
notification of those who might find themselves next to such a
development, we are doing all of Abington a disservice.
.
6) It follows the usual
"bargaining manoeuver" where absurd numbers and dimensions are
requested , so when they reduce them to perhaps just
double the rights they
should have had , everyone
thinks they "compromised"
7) It sets
up a situation where we could be overrun with legal challenges
of others wanting the same rights.... why should one have
them and the others be denied?
8) It sets a trend for
overwhelming numbers of rental units that might easily
upset the balance of a "homeowner owned" community versus
a "tenant occupied/ corporate controlled" housing community.
I can promise you the interests of those two groups are not
fully in sync and are often quite opposite. If ever you want to
understand it - this is the case to do so....
Meadowbrook
Apartments has been named as another place where this kind of
intense development could take place. What are the odds that any
of those tenants, already living in multi-story corporate owned
facilities, would want to come to meetings to fight for the rights
of homeowners being challenged in zoning matters? Or for
excessive density? Or for Corporate Landlords to keep their
share of the greenspace? etc They have almost no motivation
to work to retain those import things, because they are not
homeowners.
9) The loss of recreational lands and
programs that are not replaced also affect the values of
everyone's homes - again , for the profit of a single property
owner. The YMCA was bequeathed as a place where the children of
Abington would benefit. Once that is taken, what is
replacing it?
10) Unfair tactics are being used to pass
this - with many citizens, who stand to be greatly
impacted, not even being told of the project, with
meetings that were allowed to be set without any public
approval, with residents being told that they could not legally
ask to have the project stopped, with renderings that showed
"sight-lines" from ridiculous angles that did not accurately
reflect the visual impact, the number of shenanigans that were
played to removed residents rights was astounding. This will be
a gift to many developers - at the expense of many residents.
The Commissioners, if they approve this - are not working in
their constituents interests. And how about setting a Hearing a
week from Christmas.....?
11)
The developer has already
renegged on a promised 2nd meeting witht he community.
In a neighboring Township, the same developer was found,
through a Right to Know on the internal documents, to be trying
to get the Township to quietly quash the rights of the
residents that were due as a part of the conditional use zoning. He
has not answered simple questions like where the water will
enter the Tookany. He has not offered the full side by
side of the currently zoned rights versus what he is asking .
He put in the most "disingenuous "view" that I could ever
imagine seeing . A neighbor made the real view to show his
attempt at deceiving the residents.
Shall we invite this developer to have free rein in Abington?
Once he has the zoning, he does not really have to build what he
has shown us.
12)
Spot Zoning: Our code
is being ridiculously "riddled" with silly "conditions"
to prevent the "appearance" of what
really is "spot
zoning" so that this one developer can profit. These silly
conditions make sensible zoning a joke. Do you really think
someone 500 ft from a bus stop should have enormously more
rights than someone 400 ft from one? And these
ridiculously worded conditions are providing a field day
for the lawyers - many lawsuits have been prompted by just these
kinds of convoluted conditions being crafted. They are in
nobody's interest. Ah yes- except the developer's....
13)
Monstrosity : One of
the words used by Commissioners to describe what is being
presented - is this a developer that you
want to give more rights to?
14)
Stormwater, greenspace, buffers and
environmental concerns are literally non-existant
It would set a precedent
that would literally repeat every failure that you see in poor city
planning and transform Abington into an urban setting - with many of
the same urban problems .... Related
Info
: the Stormwater Management
Ordinance click here
15)
Once passed they can build whatever they want - not what they
proposed....
The changed zoning would enable their use as proposed - but also would
give them the right to build something totally different - as long as
it fit in those guidelines that were newly passed. Ie: no need for
any more resident input if it passes - they would have the use by
right .
At the 1-29-18 meeting Markman said
, in essence, he would make assurances that he would build as
was decided via this process to approve. But will anyone even
remember to put that into writing ? Will anyone remember this
promise if he doesn't? And who's gonna actually sue him if he doesn't
......?
16) The Commissioners had NO OBLIGATION to move this forward before residents had received ample information to give an intelligent and informed response as to whether this rezoning was in their interest . The process needs to change so that NO zoning challenge like this ever again puts residents last . Public meetings such a Planning Commission are NOT the best means of deriving information. Open video-taped meetings with back and forth freely allowed are the only way of securing information fully for residents - and Commissioners and Planners may attend such meetings as well, to really understand what their constituents want.
17)
Commissioners need to legislate better rules to protect us
The Commissioners have been asked to PLACE THIS ISSUE ON THE AGENDA
for discussion so they could be asked to stop allowing developers to
continually challenge the residents and their resources in a manner
that is contrary to all rules of fair play. They have thus far refused
to do so. Ask your Commissioner to help that get
done. Some form of
legislation is definitely needed to amend the process that allows
developers to challenge residents unfairly. But if we cannot even get
them to put this on the agenda, then there is little hope tof having a
responsive government with elected legislators acting in the interests
of those who elected them. Any Commissioner is able to make a motion
to discontinue consideration of the the current plan which the
developer has had 11 months to try to modify sufficiently . Residents
by and large would like the property developed in accordance with its
current zoning - or if exceptions to that are made then they would be
DESIRED exceptions.
18)
Unfair Notification Practices
& Procedures in General :
When
did they know & when did residents know ?
I
first learned that the project was being talked about at the
County and at the Township in June of 2017. A formal letter was
sent November 20, 2017 to the Township. Yet, Commissioners who
didn't notify their residents until just days before the Jan
11th meeting were saying they had "just found out".
Would one believe the
Commissioner in whose Ward it is (Sanchez) was kept in the dark?
The YMCA was finalizing plans in January 2016 to move to
Willow Grove. Do you think that your
Commissioners not telling you anywhere along the way was
an "accident", or unavoidable, or unknown to
them?
19) How we are all affected by
over-building :
lack of greenspace ,stormwater absorption areas, traffic,
etc.
Overall Township density, traffic, crime, cost of services,
police numbers, flooding, sewer capacities, etc. are affected.
And the urban look and feel of our street where the sky is
blocked out by large buildings....
WHAT IS THE
CURRENT
ZONING-WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED:
Currently
there is split zoning between Community Service (CS)
on the front where the YMCA complex and the other 2 buildings
are and mid density residential (R3),
on the portion behind the YMCA that also borders the
residences on Huntindon Rd.
The developer wants
it all to change to a more
intense A/O ( Apartment-Office) use.
R3 would allow one house on a 75 x 100 parcel with
30ft front and rear buffers and 12 ft side buffer -
5.7 units per acre--- They are asking to put 47.8 units per acre .
The newly passed Township wide Zoning ordinance already included expanded rights for A/O zoning, such as: 1st floor grocery stores, laundry facilities, sitdown restaurants, and a host of other "gifts" that weren't previously part of A/O and that some of us don't think wise to include everywhere anyway. Offices, run generally in the daytime, are far better next door neighbors to residential uses than grocery stores or restaurants who want to stay open as late as possible & may have thousands of customers in and out for brief periods, as well as deliveries all times of the day and night, noise, odors and other side effects such as , early morning dumpster activity and excessive signage for specials, etc. These expanded uses will already be felt by those who were next to A/O properties.
2015 or earlier – YMCA is planning its exit from Abington as it plans to merge with the Hatboro YMCA & build a mega facility on the site of the former Willow Grove Day Camp.
1-13-16
By Jan 2016
The
YMCA is already getting approvals for the Zoning on the new intended
property in Willow Grove .
http://www.montgomerynews.com/publicspirit/news/ymca-proposes-combining-abington-hatboro-sites-at-new-facility-in/article_44bc84a8-96a0-5c23-a8eb-a5f06dd2a3c2.html
The Commissioners had no obligation to move forward. Here are the 9 that voted for it and against the residents. Sanchez Ward 7 //// Spiegelman Ward 11 /// Brodsky Ward 2 /// Rothman Ward 3 /// Hecker Ward 10 /// Gillespie Ward 13 //// Myers- Ward 8 /// Luker Ward 5 // Schreiber Ward 14
Residents have now been stuck with an obligatory path to follow. They will have , meetings to attend and research costs to incur, no matter the outcome of the residents information sessions.
10-26-18
Letter with this date is submitted by BET to Township requesting to attend
the Nov 8 meeting & at that meeting to request
in essence 4 hearings: a hearing for the text and map amendments ,
the 2 separate plots would be merged to one,
and in the same meeting they would like a Hearing on their Conditional
Use application, which was requested before the lands were
zoned for it . They were granted all of that. Which means that the
Commissioners must be going into the Text and Map portion with a
bias that it would be passed.
No Conditional Use application, it seems to me, should have gotten past the zoning
officer that reviewed it, let alone onto the agenda to request
a Hearing.
They simply were not in possession of the Zoning that would
allow the Conditional Use. Once they obtained the zoning, then
they should have
a right to request a Hearing. That gives residents the time to
fully research and understand what WAS approved and what their rights
in that regard are. And isn't there an "appeal " time that should have
been respected, before a conditional use would be decided ? On top of all this - they would
like the hearing to be Dec 13th- right between Hanukkah and Christmas
- a time for
family and celebration. Residents protested the holiday timing
too - but rather than have it taken out of the "holiday rush time" , the developer would later be granted a date even closer to
Christmas - Dec 18.... a near impossible date for much resident
participation. Even those most directly challenged might have trouble
keeping such a date free.
1
0-30-18 10-30-13 EDC meeting has a presentation by Markman on the economic impact. Only ONE side i s presented - the income . Residents were not even notified by Commissioner Sanchez or otherwise. Markman presents that the project is going to enrich the Township & School by over $600,000 with aprox 100,000 going to the Township ( the amount they just gave to a church as a gift) with most going to the school Michael Markman on behalf of BET persuades that the monies he pays for permits and inspections are a one time "benefit" to the Township rather than something that he receives a service for in return - so the Township receives no benefit - or shouldn't be. Markman presents a one sided view of the financial benefits to the EDC - failing to mention any of the costs . Residents were not notified that he would be presenting an economic impact statement to the Economic Development Committee on this date. One resident noticed it late the night before - and the meeting was at 7:30 am the next morning. . Only one side was considered. The money coming IN side. What money or quality of life figures were "going OUT " were not presented. The loss of Community Service land, the loss of a treaured historuic landmark. The loss of the low impact residential use that is currently zoned behind hte neighbors on Huntingdon Rd , the precedent of developers writing so much more into their zoning just for their bottom line and the lawsuits that will result as others demand the same rights, the cost of the "improved storm water management " where now MORE water than before will be collected and sent off site while the impervious surface will be increased . Markman was allowed to present his one time costs ( for permits and fees ) as an economic benefit rather than as a payment for the services he needs to have provided. Although the lack of notice prevented residents from coming with prepared statistics, the EDC chair Doug Callentine did not accomodate such a gaffe by allowing extra time for residents to be heard. He allowed but a smattering to be heard. In fact, though,the way it was viewed, by the Committee seemed to be that money from taxes was the only real concern and that projects such as this have no other "economic " costs in a community. How absurd. If that were the case, every property in Abington should just be allowed to build double or triple what they now own, and that would be a great boon to the Township --- at least that is how THIS EDC seems to be operating.11-1-18 - This is the first time that
the residents learn of the October 26th letter and about the new plan and the Hearing request. They have just 1 week to research, prepare, read , strategize, organize others....... The Developer wants to attend the Nov 15th Planning Commission and wants a Hearing Dec 13th . They want it approved BEFORE the Planning Commission gives it a thumbs up ( they have had 3 failed attempts to get one.) They picked Nov to ask because, just as they did in January, they could go right to the Commissioners full Board meeting and not bother with the pesky Code Committee where things are supposed to be fully aired with resident participation first. After residents see the lay of the land and how Commissioners have lined up - they have another opportunity at hte full Board meeting to address their concerns again. Markman has made sure that none of these advantages are there for the residents. And the Commissioners, elected by the residents to serve their interests have been pretty much dishonored by their representative yet again. Clearly 1 week's time is not sufficient for people that don't have a staff of people to serve them and still hold full time jobs and have a family to tend. Markman knows this ----- but so do your Commissioners so it is astounding to see how overtly they have favored the opponents of their residents.
11-15-18 The scheduled presentation
to the Planning Commission is snowed out. New tentative date is Dec
11th.
11-15-18 A Right to Know Request is made for all the BET
documents - to try to understand the many irregularities like how the
Conditional YUse Hearing was scheduled on a property with no zoning to
accommodate it. Those documents - or a response as to why they
are not being provided - are due in 5 business days ( by 11-26-18).
They were provided finally on 12-21-18 and were horrendously
incomplete .
11-27-18 The
Right to Know response did not arrive by its deadline. But a day later
I was told that documents were posted....
11-27-18 The posted documents did not, by any stretch, of the
imagination , satisfy the Township's obligation for a response
to the request for all the documents in this matter ...... but it did
reflect a first !!! In 12 years' time I have never been able to
get them to post the documents, meeting dates and all the information
on an issue such as this chronologically and on a single page
--- so residents didn't have to look all over the place or hunt up old
emails from their Commissioners to review the project. This was
the very first time that this had been done. Separately from the
Right to Know request I had asked for this page once again.
12-5-18
At the Code Committee meeting Commissioners were asked to rescind the hearing scheduled for Dec 18th because there were irregularities at the meeting where the date was set ( at least 1 Commissioner believed he had to vote for it before Christmas to meet a Municipalities Planning Code deadline. Perhaps there was concern that the Conditional Use hearing triggered that . The Conditional Use Hearing never should have been part of the motion as there was no zoning to accommodate it. It was eventually removed after complaints were made --- but how many other Commissioners may have been led to believe there was a deadline? The Conditional Use application itself should have been rejected because of the lack of zoning. How did that get on the agenda? That should be understood. Who reviews that. The Zoning Officer , Mark Penecale . If not...who?? That it was then subsequently approved showed a mindset going into the zoning change Hearing that they expected it would pass . Can you say "bias"?) There were other irregularities, too. The Planning Commission was supposed to advise them as to whether this was a project worthy of moving forward for a hearing. How did it move forward anyway.....before any approval from the Planning Commission ( in threee tries) proposed that it should? And further, any meeting whatsoever being held 7 days before Christmas is not in the interests of the residents who elect the Commissioners. No matter what your faith, you know this is an impossible time for most to attend! Who are the Commissioners servingwith such actions? Explanations for these things should be forth-coming. But transparency is not something we have any overabundance of.
At the meeting, BET's (newest)
attorney, Robert Gundlach from Fox Rothchild, refused party status to
myself - even though I live within 4 blocks of a parcel they have just
been negotiating with regarding the zoning, and I live close to several
other large parcels that similarly could apply. I believe that
this refusal of party status was
improper. They knew what I intended to ask in advance, because I had emailed my questions in
advance to the Commissioners. My questions were laid out - and I also
submitted them so they could be part of the record of the hearing. I
had a right though, to ask those questions openly and to formulate a
follow up question if warranted.
Many of my questions were about
the improprieties in this case, similar to those described
endlessly above.
For instance, at this hearing, although Michael Markman had protested
again and again that there was only ONE property (Meadowbrook Apts )
that was possibly affected by the proposed zoning, and only 2
hospitals that were relevant, Valley Glen has now been added as
an affected property. It is
within proximity of the 3rd hospital I asked about before - ( Einstein/Moss
in Elkins Park). Markman answered that there were no known
properties there.
In addition, their negotiations with the property 4
blocks from me, show that they believe other properties may be merged
and will become eligible for this zoning. They added a
condition ( changing what was advertised) that any merged parcels
could ony include a single residential property. However, this
acknoledgement (that merged properties with other zonings besides AO)
are possible recipients of this new dense zoning is a
significant change to what was advertised and what has been previously
presented.
So they are not
being up front...... have not notified many affected
(like Valley Glen) or their contigous neighbors and I would assess,
as I think you would , too, that this
confirms they are not really in control of the impact on density to the Township
this project can realistically have. Many properties may
be merged and rezoned.
They have gotten to this point by keeping the Planning Commission meetings focused on their one project
- as if it were a Conditional Use hearing - and never properly vetting
what they were at the Planning Commission for - the serious alteration
of our Zoning Ordinance and the Township wide impact that could
have.
Here is the video of the meeting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiT61oEGamM
Flooding
were repeatedly being told by Commissioner Spiegelman et al
that there is no stormwater
management on the site today – despite testimony by
BET quite to the
contrary . Here is BET’s testimony at
the 4-10 -18 Planning
Commission where a Pennypack
Creek neighbor told of the
flooding he already was
experiencing:
–“ the water from the YMCA property does not go down Susquehanna towards
Valley Road today. It's all collected in the parking lot and it is piped around the
western side of the YMCA and out to York Road, down York Road and then
it crosses over and goes to the Tookany Creek (
that is storm water control – it is
controlled to go to the Tookany – not follow normal flow. Baeder Creek is part of the Tookany system
) so while our
proposal will install stormwater facilities that do not exist today on
the YMCA as far as control and reduction we will be required to comply
with the township ordinances as it relates to stormwater reduction and
controls. However that will not have a positive or negative impact to
his (Pennypack Creek resident’s) particular
problem because our water does not go that direction.
This has been proven
again and again not to be so. In fact, stormwater
reduction on one property
means an increase in our
streams …which threatens countless
other properties. So it matters which watershed it will go . After
telling this resident it would go to the Tookany (Baeder Creek )
direction, that was apparently reversed - ..they ultimately
decided, according to Spiegelman, that it would go to the Pennypack.
One more feature of the false testimony in this hearing
Clearly, however, residents in BOTH watersheds are already experiencing an overabundance of water that over taxes our streams and threatens all who live along them. They deserve honest answers and proper calculations of water . This water will be captured on the property of another (BET) and sent to waterways that that impact these neighbors’ homes – so his property can profit – while their values are threatened and diminished )
PUBLIC NOTICE OF MEETING ABINGTON TOWNSHIP
ZONING HEARING BOARD
THEY WOULD LIKE LARGER,SIGNS, LIGHTED SIGNS
, AND SIGNS ON MORE SURFACES CONTRARY TO CODE
October 20, 2020
7:00 PM Notice is hereby given that the Township of Abington Zoning
Hearing Board (ZHB) will hold a meeting as is required by the Zoning
Ordinance on October 20, 2020 at 7:00 PM by webinar. There are two
ways for the public to participate in the meeting. Residents can
access the meeting online by a computer, iPad, iPhone, or Android at
https://zoom.us/j/97813570465. This link will enable residents to hear
the meeting and see presentations. Residents will be unable to share
their screen or video. Residents, who are unable to join online, can
listen to the meeting by calling 1-929-436-2866 and entering the
meeting ID number 978 1357 0465 when prompted. The following
application will be heard: 20-14: This is the application of Abington
Terrace, LP, owners of the property addressed as 1073 Old York Road,
Abington, PA, 19001, also known as the CHOP and YMCA development. The
applicants seek variances of Section 2208.2-A of the Zoning Ordinance
of the Township of Abington to install four wall signs and two
monument signs for both the CHOP and YMCA. The relief is requested as
only one complex-identification sign is permitted for the site, three
of the wall signs would exceed the allowable maximum height of 20
feet, one of the monument signs would exceed the allowable maximum
height of 8 feet and the allowable maximum area of 50 square feet, and
all six signs would have internal illumination when only external
illumination is permitted. The property is zoned within the Apartment
Office District of Ward # 7 of the Township of Abington. A copy of the
application and plans are on file with the Zoning Office and are
available to view on our website at www.abingtonpa.gov. If there are
any questions, please feel free to contact me at 267- 536-1013.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted to
publiccomment@abingtonpa.gov no later than 4:00 PM of the meeting
date. If a member of the public would like to participate but requires
assistance or accommodation, please contact the Township at
publiccomment@abingtonpa.gov or (267) 536-1099 prior to 10:00 AM on
October 13, 2020. By Order of the Zoning Hearing Board. Shaun
Littlefield Interim Zoning Officer Township of Abington Note: There is
a 30 day period after the date the decision is rendered for any and
all aggrieved persons to file an appeal in the appropriate court to
contest the actions of the Zoning Hearing Board. Applicants that take
action on a Zoning Hearing Board Approval during the 30 day appeal
period, do so at their own risk.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Please check back - this is an on-going timeline
____
_________________We welcome your comments to share either anonymously or with your name attached with your fellow Abington residents. Send any updated information, comments, corrections or questions to: lel@abingtoncitizens.com We especially hope if you see any errors, you will help us get the corrections made .