Update . . . Tonight’s Supervisors Meeting

My primary reason for attending the Board of Supervisors meeting tonight was for the announcement of the Sidewalks Subcommittee members. Three members were chosen from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths (STAP) Committee.  Supervisors Kichline, Donohue and Richter; Planning Commissioners Bob Whalen, Trip Lukens and Vicki Snyder; and STAP members Sean Moir, Jim Donegan and Molly Duffy are the 9 members of the Sidewalks Subcommittee.  Township Manager Mimi Gleason will serve as the facilitator of the committee.

After the announcement of the Sidewalks Subcommittee, I expected an outline of the committee with a stated process; but none was offered.  What was the meeting schedule – how often would the committee meet? Would the meetings be open to the public?  What was the timeline for the committee? Will the community be given regular updates at future supervisors meetings?  In other words, I was looking for specifics on the subcommittee and the process. 

In a review of the February 22 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes, I found the following:

” . . . He [Lamina] said the plan is to have the new subcommittee begin work in March with the goal to conclude the process by the end of this year. . . “

So during the next 9 months, I guess the Sidewalks Subcommittee will begin a process to re-examine where the community wants and needs sidewalks.  I believe that the end-goal is for the Board to adopt formal policies and procedures to provide guidelines for the development and construction of sidewalks in the township.  Although not mentioned tonight, I am assuming that the subcommittee will set a goal to include the residents through area focus groups.  Transparency and openness of the Sidewalks Committee is going to be important if the community is to trust this process. 

I have publically stated, and remained concerned, that during this re-examining process by the Sidewalks Subcommittee there are liability issues to the township from developers/contractors doing work in Tredyffrin.  As long as the formal policy on sidewalks remains a ‘open issue’, this liability will exist.  Here’s hoping that the Sidewalks Committee is able to get underway quickly, remain focused and meet their goals and objectives by the end of the year.

Another item of personal interest to me tonight was the Mt. Pleasant town hall meeting.  Scheduled twice before and cancelled each time due to snow, I am pleased that the meeting is re-scheduled for next Monday, March 22 at the First Baptist Church on Upper Gulph in Mt. Pleasant.  Today I had received an invitation to attend the meeting from Officer Larry Meoli and was glad to hear the town hall meeting mentioned tonight.  Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Richter will be the liaisons from the Board of Supervisors at this Mt. Pleasant community meeting. Also in attendance will be representatives from the township staff, police and zoning. 

Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday, March 15 to Include Announcement of Sidewalk Subcommittee Members

The February 22 Board of Supervisors motion to reverse the St. Davids Golf Club decision included the creation of a  joint sidewalk subcommittee; members to come from the Board, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths (STAP) Committee.  This subcommittee is to re-examine where the residents want sidewalks in the township and then create a formal process and procedure to design, develop and construct sidewalks and paths in Tredyffrin.  The agenda for the Monday, March 15 Board of Supervisors meeting includes an announcement of the sidewalk subcommittee members.  I am curious which members of the 3 organizations will be on the sidewalk subcommittee.  Personally, I would have liked the sidewalk subcommittee to include a couple of  residents (non-Tredyffrin board/committee members) to bring a different perspective.  Just a thought.

Attorney Offers Legal Opinion on February 22 Board of Supervisors Vote

A follower of Community Matters, a local attorney (most likely a municipal attorney) has offered his legal opinion on various township topics, including St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue.  Overnight I received his legal opinion on the February 22 vote by the Board of Supervisors to reverse their earlier vote and decision to set up a sidewalk and trails review subcommittee (Board of Supervisors 2/22/10 Meeting . . . St. Davids Golf Club Motion.)  As indicated in the post of St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making? the supervisors vote of February 22 created much dialogue from the community.  Understanding the supervisors decision from a legal perspective is important; I ask you to reflect on the following:

JudgeNJury, March 3, 2010 at 12:36 AM Said:

Other matters kept me from focusing on the February 22 vote before, but now that I have looked at it (and at the risk of beating a dead horse), I wanted to add my two cents. In short, it seems to me that the BOS once again failed to follow appropriate procedures when it passed the second part of the February 22 motion.

Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) authorizes townships to establish planning commissions. Tredyffrin Township did so, and Section 43-6 of the Township Code specifically states that the Planning Commission “shall have all other powers and duties provided by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.” (http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=TR1485).

Section 303(a) of the MPC states that:

“Whenever the governing body, pursuant to the procedures provided in section 302, has adopted a comprehensive plan or any part thereof, any subsequent proposed action of the governing body, its departments, agencies and appointed authorities shall be submitted to the planning agency for its recommendations when the proposed action relates to . . . the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlargement of any street, public ground, pierhead or watercourse.” (http://mpc.landuselawinpa.com/MPCode.pdf).

Section 107(a) of the MPC contains the following definitions:

1) “Governing body” includes “the board of supervisors in townships of the second class.” Tredyffrin Township is a township of the second class, and it has adopted a comprehensive plan (http://www.tredyffrin.org/departments/community/comprehensive.aspx).

2) “Planning agency” includes planning commissions.

3) “Public ground” includes “parks, playgrounds, trails, paths and other recreational areas and other public areas.” Under this definition, it seems clear that sidewalks qualify as a “public ground.”

The second half of the February 22 motion did two things: it (1) “form[ed] a Subcommittee . . . to begin a process to reexamine where the community wants and needs sidewalks;” and (2) relieved St. David’s from its obligation “to build the path, until the new policies are adopted or the Township has put in place designs and funding for sidewalks or paths that would connect to the proposed St. David’s pathway.” It seems to me, then, that the motion was a “proposed action of the governing body [the BOS]” that “relates to . . . the location [and] opening . . . of any . . . public ground.”

Therefore, the BOS was required to submit the motion “to the Planning Commission for its recommendations” before it could vote on the motion. The Planning Commission then would have had 45 days to make a recommendation. See MPC Section 303(b). As far as I know, the BOS did not submit its proposal to the Planning Commission before it voted on it.

As a practical matter, compliance with these procedures probably would not have made much difference. The BOS could have submitted the proposal to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then, regardless of what the Planning Commission recommended, voted to approve the motion. That reality does not, however, change the fact that the BOS appears to have ignored procedures once again.

Are Fair Housing Rules being Broken in the Mt. Pleasant Community of Tredyffrin? How Can we Help these Residents?

If you have been following the St. Davids Golf Club and the ongoing sidewalk saga, you have probably seen Christine Johnson, who has attended and spoke out at recent Board of Supervisors meetings.  A passionate Mt. Pleasant resident, Christine has been very vocal in her support of sidewalks and of her Panhandle community.  I have written several posts concerning the struggles of Christine and her neighbors re college housing and associated planning and zoning issues; and police enforcement (primarily noise and speeding concerns in the community). 

Back in the fall at a Board of Supervisors meeting there was agreement to conduct meetings between Mt. Pleasant neighbood members and township representatives including the police, zoning officer, township engineer and supervisors.  Informal discussions were held and a town hall meeting was planned with the residents in mid-December.  Unfortunately, that meeting was cancelled due to snow.  Another town hall meeting date was chosen for early 2010 but again that meeting needed to be cancelled due to snow. 

As far as I know, a third date has not been chosen for the town hall meeting. This ongoing situation is frustrating for Christine and her Mt. Pleasant neighbors . . . as the problems with college rentals and zoning issues remains unsolved. I am committed to providing updates and to continue to shine light on Mt. Pleasant’s challenges until we can reach a resolution on their problems.

Christine in her quest to research and better understand her rights as a resident of Mt. Pleasant community has reached out to the Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia.  Based on the information that Christine is providing below, there has been some stretching of the fair housing laws by some of the landlords in the advertising of college housing in Mt. Pleasant. 

I know that Tredyffrin Township does not have specific zoning regulations that deal with college rentals as do some of the neighboring municipalities.  As a first step, I think we need to get the town hall meeting back on the schedule and then start working on helping the Mt. Pleasant folks.  I think Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline are onboard to represent the Board of Supervisors; can I appeal to help find a new date for the town hall meeting?

     Violating Fair Housing Laws

According the the Fair Housing Act,  you cannot discriminate against families.  Shouldn’t famillies have the chance to  live in Mt. Pleasant?  I’m sick of seeing our houses advertised as “Rental – Student Approved”  “Student Approved House” “Villanova Student Rental” “College Rental” “Great for College Students” etc, etc, etc.

When describing your rental, please be aware the misuse of a phrase can, however innocently used, be in violation of federal fair housing laws. The list below is fromHousing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) www.homeny.org:

The following list of words and phrases are considered to be in violation of the federal fair housing laws when used in advertising of the sale or rental of housing because they may indicate a preference, limitation or discrimination to the ordinary reader. This list is not all-inclusive but should be used as a guide and example of unacceptable language.

1. Max 2 people, 3rd extra charge
2. Great for one
3. 1 Person pref.
4. ideal for couple
5. ideal for working couple
6. ideal for adults
7. Suitable for couple
8. In quiet adult community
9. perfect for working single
10. adults pref.
11. ideal for 2 adults
12. professional & students only
13. looking for professional
14. mature adults
15. professional couple pref.
16. 1 person pref.
17. employed couple or single
18. ideal for a single
19. employed male/student
20. ideal for students
21. ideal for single person /couple
22. perfect for students
23. suits 1-2 employed adult/student
24. Ideal for male/female
25. great for students
26. no pets or children
27. max 2 people
28. ideal for single female
29. working single
30. male/female suitable for one
31. 2 bedroom maximum/2 person occupancy

Township Lawsuit . . . Where Does it Stand?

I received the following from John Petersen this morning in regards to the township lawsuit.  There has been much discussion and debate concerning the lawsuit; I think it is important that the facts be presented in John’s own words.

Just so everyone is clear about the [law]suit – I did speak with Tom Hogan at length on Tuesday. I have decided, for the time being, to stand down on the suit so that the subcommittee can go forward.

However….

I have made it clear that the new subcommittee cannot suffer the same fate as the BAWG. I, along with many of the people here, will pay close attention to happens with that process. I note with interest, the stimulus funds that have been received on behalf of sidewalks. I do wonder what this new process means for those funds….

I want to leave you with Bruce Parkinson’s comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8aILCXIcLQ

When he looked to his left, he was looking at me: re his comments about this matter being a “political football”. If there is a political football, it is because Kampf, Lamina, and especially Olson, have made it so. My issue is about following the rules. Parkinson on the the other hand, apparently believes that as a member of the club and the club itself, is subject to a different set of rules. And to that end, the government can break its own rules for the benefit of the club and its members. At least, I think that is what he was saying. When it comes to political footballs, I take Parkinson’s comments to be nothing short of a political threat.

in other words, they were instrumental in getting people like Olson back on the board…they could be instrumental in getting people removed. In other words, Parkinson was telling the BOS to “play ball.” There is simply no other way to take his comments.

For the record, Parkinson is a local committee for the GOP and is also a member of the county GOP executive committee. Further, he was chairman of the building committee in 2005 when the development was approved.

Parkinson was the one, along with the club president, to agree to the sidewalks. You didn’t hear him talk about that on Monday….did you????

I simply do not have any more time to waste on folks that are so intellectually weak that they could be placed in a position to break the rules (Kampf, Lamina, Olson and Richter). And for sure, I don’t have any more time and patience to deal with the country club set and that faction of the GOP that believes it is OK to corrupt the government so long as it suits their needs.

I believe that if I went to court, I would prevail. However, that victory would not result in a thorough review of the sidewalks, trails and paths. That is what the subcommittee is supposed to do.

If it turns out to be a ruse, there will a stiff price to pay for that.

Political committee seats folks..that is where the path to taking our government and community back begins. That is what I’ll be concentrating on now.

United in their Resolve, Tredyffrin Residents Speak Out Against Actions of Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf & Richter

Last night’s Board of Supervisor meeting represented a victory for the people. 

‘New Matters from Board members’ of the meeting kicked off with Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter making apologies to the community in regards to the St. Davids Golf Club motion and vote to return escrow which occurred at the last Board of Supervisors meeting. They took responsibility for their actions, admitted that procedure had not been followed and stated that they would try to ‘do better’ in the future. Mention was made that everyone makes mistakes and that they had learned from theirs.

As I listened to the apologies, I thought to myself . . . OK, they made a mistake, admitted their mistake and now they will just ‘fix it’.  But no, there was no offer of correction, no suggestion to ‘reverse the decision’, nothing.  Were they thinking that the community would just accept their apology, move on and act like the ‘mistake’ never happened?  I don’t think that they were prepared for what was to come next . . . it was the residents turn to speak.

I cannot remember the last time I was so proud of this community.  Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic life.  And one after another, residents took to the floor.  People came from all over the township . . . Chesterbrook, Malvern, Berwyn, Strafford, Mt. Pleasant, Wayne.  It did not matter if the speakers were Democrats, Republicans or Independents, there was no political party agenda.  They were firefighters, lawyers, retired citizens, members of township boards, one after another, each passionately saying the same thing over and over.  Separately, the residents spoke, but united their message. Each person in his or her own way sought justice from the Board of Supervisors, appealing for the ‘wrong’ to be made ‘right’.

The ‘sidewalk’ became a symbol for something much larger . . . it represented how four individuals (Lamina, Olson, Kampf, Richter) thought they could be allowed to just make the rules and break the rules, without consequence or intervention for their actions.  What I heard loud and clear  was the powerful voice in this community of intolerance to their actions; residents are standing together.  Were the supervisors listening?

In the words of Martin Luther King, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”  Speaking out, many in the audience eloquently spoke of their distrust in our elected officials.  We elect these people because we believe that they will serve our best interests.  We entrust them to govern according to the rules . . . to follow the policies and procedures as set forth by the Home Rule Charter.  We rely on them to make the best decisions in our interests.

In the end, there was no resolution to ‘righting the wrong’ of the vote to return the escrow to St. Davids.  Not last night, but I believe that this matter is far from over.  I believe that between now and the next Board of Supervisors meeting, a way must be found to resolve this matter.

Trust in our elected officials must be restored.

Tredyffrin Township’s St. Davids Golf Club Decision Now on YouTube

To make sure that more people are able to see the January 25 Board of Supervisors meeting, my husband Jeff has uploaded the relevant part of the meeting to YouTube.  Due to time restrictions on YouTube, the St. Davids Golf Club portion of the meeting is provided in 3 sections – Supervisor Kichline’s remarks, Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s remarks, and the final board comments and vote of the supervisors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Ngs60RjuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV1K9nuxMmw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydOzfvGFuMQ

We all make choices in life, some are better than others.  This line in my article, ‘ . . . A moment of choice is a moment of trust and it is a testing point of character and competence . . .’  sums up how I feel about the recent St. Davids Golf Club decision of our Board of Supervisors. 

I absolutely encourage everyone who reads this post, to forward it to your friends, neighbors and co-workers.  Watch each of these video links . . . this is important for all residents of Tredyffrin Township. Our local government is  based on policy and procedure.  What happens when a few people are allowed to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit.  You be the judge. 

St. Davids $50K Cash Offer . . . Lots of Questions, But Not So Many Answers!

First off, let me say that I truly appreciate the amount of time extended by the BAWG committee on behalf of the residents of Tredyffrin Township.  As a committed community volunteer, I understand all too well the amount of time and effort, this project demanded of the BAWG committee.

Now on to last night’s Board of Supervisor meeting, the BAWG report and the St. Davids Golf Club’s $50K cash ‘offer’.  The BAWG members were introduced, thanked and given framed commendations for their efforts.  It was my understanding that BAWG Chairman Tom Colman would give a summary of the report; he did not, choosing instead to thank the township staff and other BAWG committee members for their willingness to help in the process.  I expected that Supervisor Chairman Kampf would then ask if his fellow supervisors or audience members had any questions/comments related to the BAWG report.  However, Mr. Kampf did not ask for comments but instead made a motion to accept the BAWG report as a township public document.  Without further discussion, all supervisors voted to accept the BAWG report as a permanent document and proceeded on to the budget discussion. 

As I had stated in an earlier posting, I intended to ask my questions surrounding the $50K St. Davids Golf Club cash offer contained in the BAWG report.  In the official acceptance of the BAWG report as a public document, Mr. Kampf referenced using the report’s recommendations going forward – to me this implied anything contained within the pages of the report could be considered (including the St. Davids ‘offer’) as possible budget revenue sources.

Troubled by the offer from St. Davids Golf Club which appeared in the BAWG report as a suggested revenue resource, I decided to publically ask the following questions:

• Where did the $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer come from?
• Was this a written offer from St. Davids Golf Club Board of Directors and was it made directly to the BAWG committee?
• Was the Township Solicitor, Township Manager and members of the Board of Supervisors advised of the St. Davids Golf Club offer (prior to BAWG’s publication of its report)?
• If this is a written offer, what are the conditions and timeline for its acceptance?  Who has the authority to accept the offer?
• Was this offer and the details discussed with the Planning Commission or Sidewalks, Trail & Paths (STAP) Committee prior to appearing in the BAWG report?
• Are any of the members of the BAWG committee also members of St. Davids Golf Club?
• Are any of the members of the Board of Supervisor also members of St.  Davids Golf Club?

Just to ask these questions, became a testament to my patience (and for those who know me, I do not claim patience as one of my virtues).  Apparently, Mr. Kampf decided that at first my questions were not budget-related; and therefore could not be asked during the budget discussion.  However, having not been given an option to comment on the BAWG report earlier, and knowing that this report was now a public document that could be used in budget discussion, I felt compelled to keep going — to get the questions out there, and hopefully answered. 

Finally getting the questions asked, I looked to the supervisors for answers to the ‘mystery’ of the St. Davids Golf Club $50K offer — where did it come from, who made the offer, what’s the timeline, etc. etc. I  suggested that acceptance of this offer would be setting precedent for future land development projects (along with usurping the authority of the Planning Commission).  In reponse to the question of the St. Davids offer, they knew nothing of any offer and suggested that Tom Colman come to the microphone and address my questions.  Mr. Colman’s explanation was that he had just ‘heard’ of the offer, didn’t know from where or from whom, but thought it could have been right here in Keene Hall.  He mentioned that the BAWG committee was independent and made decisions on their own, even stating that the Township Solicitor had suggested the removal of the St. Davids offer from the report, but that the BAWG members voted to keep it in. 

Following Mr. Colman’s explanation that there was no $50K offer in writing and complete vagueness of the offer’s origination, I once again stepped forward.  I told the supervisors that I had read every Board of Supervisor and Planning Commission meeting minutes from 2004 onward and that there was absolutely no discussion of any $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club — was this OK to have a offer in this official public document that had no verification or proof to exist?  My sense was that yes we can accept the BAWG report as public document with a suggested revenue source that is not verifiable and has no basis.

I sat there for a full 20 min. as the budget discussion continued on, trying to understand what had just happened.  There was an easy solution, a right solution — why couldn’t someone make it?  Why not offer the public full disclosure, why not take a stand and do what’s right?  For this taxpayer, the St. Davids Golf Club cash offer of $50K appearing in the BAWG report was wrong.  If this offer existed (albeit no one was willing to publically admit that the offer existed) where was the proof of its existence?  Why wasn’t this so-called offer being seen as a way to allow St. Davids Golf Club off the hook for building the sidewalk?  Sure, St. Davids would come out ahead — the cost of the sidewalk is more likely $75-100K, not $50K.  What about the authority of the Planning Commission – the sidewalk was part of the acceptance of the St. Davids Golf Club land development agreement?  Doesn’t anyone see the potential future problems with setting this kind of precedent?  

At the end of the evening, other members of the audience took the stand to make similar remarks about the St. Davids’ offer.  There certainly seemed a need from people to understand what they had just witnessed.  Under new Board matters, Supervisor DiFilippo made a motion to set up a subcommittee with board members and Planning Commission members to look at the St. Davids offer and how they may be able to deal with future land development situations.  Mr. Kampf offered to be on the subcommittee with Ms. DiFilippo.  The motion passed, 6-0.   This motion confused me further.  If there was no actual $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club, why was there a need for a subcommittee to look at it? Or did I just misunderstand the the reason for this subcommittee?

I do not question the integrity of the BAWG members or their commitment to this project.  I just believe that if an error or inaccuracy is made, we should try to correct it – I still contend that there is great mystery surrounding the inclusion of St. Davids Golf Club’s $50K cash offer in the BAWG report.  I also believe that the St. Davids offer had no business in this official report and should be removed as a possible revenue source.  Following the Board of Supervisor meeting, Mr. Colman stopped to tell me that one of the BAWG members, Rob Betts was a St. Davids Golf Club member and that he recused him from votes pertaining to St. Davids.

It is fascinating to look at the dynamics of our local government.

Understanding Township Planning Commission Authority

So that everyone is on the same page, here is the description of the township’s Planning Commission and its authority.  It seems fairly clear that the Planning Commission is the last word on land development in the township.

From the Tredyffrin Township website:

“Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission is a volunteer group of nine residents appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Each member is appointed to a four-year term. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the Planning Commission to prepare, update and oversee implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance and to review land development and subdivision applications. Land development decisions by the Planning Commission are final, while the Board of Supervisors has final approval authority on all subdivision applications.”

Did the BAWG committee consult the Planning Commissioners before including the St. Davids Golf Club’s $50K sidewalk offer in their report?

Countdown to Board of Supervisor Meeting. . . Looking for Answers

Full Disclosure Request

Where are you going to be Monday night at 7:30 PM?  I suggest that you either attend Tredyffrin Twp’s  Board of Supervisors meeting or tune in from home.

There are questions swirling in regards to the recently released BAWG report and the suggestion of a $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club in regards to the sidewalk construction.  St. Davids Golf Club has been in default since July 2008 to build the sidewalks and now mysteriously this $50K offer from the country club appears in the BAWG report. Since BAWG released its report, I have been trying to get the following questions answered, but to date I have come up short. 

• Where did the $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer come from?
• Was this a written offer from St. Davids Golf Club Board of Directors and was it made directly to the BAWG committee?
• Was the Township Solicitor, Township Manager and members of the Board of Supervisors advised of the St. Davids Golf Club offer (prior to BAWG’s publication of its report)?
• If this is a written offer, what are the conditions and timeline for its acceptance?  Who has the authority to accept the offer?
• Was this offer and the details discussed with the Planning Commission or Sidewalks, Trail & Paths (STAP) Committee prior to appearing in the BAWG report?
• Are any of the members of the BAWG committee also members of St. Davids Golf Club?
• Are any of the members of the Board of Supervisor also members of St. Davids Golf Club?

Prior to Monday night’s Board of Supervisor meeting (and BAWG presentation), I suggest that you review the timeline (and Planning Commission minutes) that I put together for an earlier blog entry.  Click here for St. Davids Golf Club Sidewalks – Is it to Nowhere? 

It is my understanding the Tom Colman, Chairman of the BAWG committee will make a public presentation on the report and here’s hoping that there will be time for the public’s questions and answers.  This is one taxpayer with questions, and so far . . . no answers.

Mt. Pleasant Update

Some updates to report on Mt. Pleasant:

Recently, there was a meeting with some of the Mt. Pleasant residents, the township police and Supervisors Judy DiFilippo and John DiBuonaventuro to discuss concerns and ongoing issues in this neighborhood.  A town hall type meeting is currently in the works which will include Mt. Pleasant residents and landlords, in addition to township representatives.   Providing an open forum for the participants to air their differences will encourage a path for peaceful solutions.  This is good news. I salute those involved in the process and look forward to hearing about the scheduled date for this town hall meeting. 

At this time, Tredyffrin Township does not have a specific ordinance that address student housing in the township. I was told that the township is looking at neighboring municipalities ordinances for student rental properties with the intention of creating our own ordinance.  With the township budget cuts, are we going to have money to pay for a new ordinance? I did some checking on my own — Radnor Township has specific ordinances and guidelines concerning student renters. In their ordinance, Radnor has established oversight and enforcement policy for landlords and students.  It would be interesting to know if Radnor has seen a difference in policing requirements as a result of stricter penalities for landlord/student offenses. Following up and enforcing rental housing is challenging in Tredyffrin. Tredyffin’s  Zoning Officer, Emmy Baldassarre (Tel: 610-408-3614) is doing a good job with follow-up when specific situations are brought to her attention. Understand that she can only do this job if she is provided with specific details of offenses.  Emmy is very approachable and I would encourage the public to contact her with zoning questions.

I received an update from last night’s Planning Commission Meeting.  An applicant for a property on Upper Gulph/Mt. Pleasant area presented a subdivision plan to convert a single family home in to a twin. The plan included an addition which would greatly expand the footprint of the properties.  A number of Mt. Pleasant residents attended and after thorough discussion, the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously, 7-0 to not recommend the proposed subdivision plan to the Zoning Hearing Board.  The plan now moves to the Zoning Hearing Board and we will wait to see what happens.

Mt. Pleasant Neighborhood. . . How Can We Help?

Mt. Pleasant community is located in the panhandle area of the township and borders on Upper Gulph Road.  The historic Carr School (c.1833) is a local landmark that you pass on Upper Gulph. I became particularly aware of the Mt. Pleasant community when I co-chaired Tredyffrin 300 with Judy DiFilippo.  For the celebration, we did a special 2007 calendar which featured special places and people from around the township.  Included was a photo which featured a tea party in front of Mazie Hall’s house in Mt. Pleasant. Ms. Hall passed away in 2006, at the age of 103 – she never married and lived her entire life in the same Mt. Pleasant house.  Read the Phila Inquirer’s Mazie B.Hall obituary for details of how Mazie made a difference!

During my election campaign, I spent a wonderful Sunday afternoon in Mt. Pleasant and spoke to a number of its residents.  One young woman, Christine Johnson impressed me with her spirit and community activism on behalf of her neighbors.  Mt. Pleasant is an interesting mix of young families, older people who have lived there for years and college students from Cabrini and Villanova who are renters during the school year.  There was a real sense from Christine and her neighbors that the township was not helping them with their ongoing issues and they have become frustrated to the point of creating a Mt. Pleasant Community Action Group.  The residents complained of loud parties, speeding cars, trash, etc.  In addition, the neighbors do not think that the zoning has been followed in regards to single family homes housing multiple unrelated persons.  Mt. Pleasant residents feel that their community is looking more and more like college dorm life.  Apparently as recently as 6 years ago, there were no college rentals and that now 1 in 4 houses in Mt. Pleasant is rented to students.  The residents have documented 17 homes are now college rentals. It appears that the ordinance and zoning in the Mt. Pleasant area allows for 3 unrelated persons living in a house but my guess is that there are often times more than 3, their names just don’t appear on the lease.  Maybe 3 or less persons sign the lease but I’m guessing that these houses are home to many more during the school year.  As I walked through the neighborhood, I saw several instances where multiple mailboxes existed on individual houses.  One house had a commercial trash dumpster in the back of the house with a large commercial-like asphalt parking area.  Would appear to me that it was designed for many more cars than would be needed for a single family dwelling.

Another complaint which community members echoed was in regards to police.  The police are often called to Mt. Pleasant because of the loud parties, drinking, etc. but are giving the kids warnings in lieu of fines.  I am all for the idea of warnings, but are the police keeping track of how many warnings some of these kids are getting?  At some point a stricter approach may be in order.  Don’t get me wrong – I spoke to some of the college students and they were respectful and actually one of the neighbors spoke highly of the students living next-door to her.  I am sure that the majority of the students are ‘good kids’, I just think maybe some guidance could be useful.  If the landlords are aware of their tenant issues in the neighborhood, why not supply a list of ‘dos & donts’ that might improve the community living situation. 

The residents have taken their concerns to the Board of Supervisors a number of times, asking for help with the situation.  One resident stated that when she complained about the noise to the police, she was told by the police to shut her windows and doors as a solution.  Not acceptable.  I would like to know the record of complaint calls to Mt. Pleasant and how follow-up to the neighborhood was handled.

Bottom line is the students may have a right to live in Mt. Pleasant (assuming no zoning ordiances are being broken) but the residents also have rights.  We need to ensure that the quality of life of these residents is also protected.  On behalf of the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood, I would ask for township support . . . supervisors, police, zoning officer, etc.  Tonight’s Planning Commission agenda actually includes a subdivision request on a Mt. Pleasant-Upper Gulph property.  Here’s hoping that the Planning Commissioner ask the intentions of this owner (investor?) — is this property going to be used as another college rental to add to the other 17 rentals? 

St. Davids Golf Club Sidewalks . . . Is it to Nowhere?

It seems that the discussion of St. Davids Golf Club sidewalks has stirred some ‘old wounds’.  Not understanding why the BAWG report contained an offer of $50,000 from St. Davids Golf Club re the installation of sidewalks, I did some background research.  Based on meeting minutes from the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, I think I have been able to piece together a timeline for the St. Davids project.  It is important to understand the history of the project to see where we are. 

St. Davids Golf Club Timeline:

• 11/04: St. Davids GC presents Planning Commission with sketch plan for their proposed new country club addition.  Following the initial meeting, the Planning Commission discusses the the land development plan at many meetings and on-site visits.
• 8/05: Sidewalks, Trails & Path Board (STAP) established by Board of Supervisors to review sideswalks, trails, etc.
• 8/05: Planning Commission approves the final plan for St. Davids project with 8 conditions (including sidewalks).  $25,000 was put in to escrow for the sidewalks. STAP would review the sidewalk requirement for the St. Davids project and offer their opinion on materials, size, etc, understanding that the Planning Commission had the final decision.
• 7/06: STAP makes recommendation re sidewalks at St. Davids –  4-ft wide asphalt path.  (As a concession to St. Davids GC, using asphalt would not require curbing and stormwater management.  The cost of construction would be far less using asphalt.)
• 7/06: Planning Commission accepts STAP’s recommendation and St. Davids GC is given  2-year construction timeline, which by my calculations expired in  7/08.
• 10/08: St. Davids GC comes to Planning Commission and requests reconsideration of ordinance and plan requirements for the sidewalks previously approved in their 2004 application to rebuild the clubhouse.  Request denied.

The October 16, 2008 meeting minutes of the Planning Commission are extremely useful to this discussion, here is the link.  There was much discussion at this particular meeting from representatives of St. Daivds, Planning Commissioners, neighbors, etc.  The final vote was 6-2 against St. Davids GC request.

Now 13-months goes by with no further discussion between St. Davids GC and the Planning Commission.  Fastforward and we now have an offer (?) in the BAWG report of $50,000 from St. Davids Golf Club in lieu of building sidewalks?  Am I missing something?  First off, where did the $50,000 number come from?  Was this offer made directly to the BAWG committee; was the offer in writing?  I found no reference to this offer anywhere in the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisor meeting minutes. 

Aside from not understanding why this sidewalk issue found its way in to the BAWG report, I am troubled by the precedent that can be set by this kind of situation.  What does this say to the authority of the Planning Commission?  What about future developers working in the township — everyone will want to work in Tredyffrin because each time a land development requirement comes up that they think is ‘too expensive’ and don’t want to do they can just offer the precedent set by St. Davids Golf Club (should the sidewalks decision somehow be changed). 

Another question – it appears to me that St. Davids Golf Club has been in default since 7/08 to build the sidewalk.  The Planning Commission approved the country club’s project with certain requirements, including the construction of sideswalks.  Does St. Davids just get a ‘pass’ . . . and why is the country club not expected to be in compliance as any other developer or contractor?  Why should the rules be different for the country club?  Again, am I missing something? 

I know that I stated that I didn’t want my blog to be political but rather community  based, however I’m guessing that there is some behind the scene politics involved with St. Davids and the $50,000 showing up in the BAWG report.   Wonder how the Planning Commissioners are feeling about this item in the report, particularly the 6 members who voted against St. David’s request over a year ago?  I would hope that the Board of Supervisors supports the decision made by the Planning Commission.

Is this indeed going to be the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’ because St. Davids Golf Club doesn’t have to build it?