|
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
|
|
Position Paper – Zoning
Ms. Agostine has responsibility for the current status of two major projects in Ward 7—Rydal Park and the Galman/Acme property—and great concern exists regarding how she might handle a much larger one. . .the potential sale of the Abington Country Club. Instead of ensuring the broader community knew of what was transpiring, she invited only a few people in the Jenkintown Manor neighborhood (in which she lives)—and no one else—to a meeting at which this information was revealed. [Indeed, notice of this event was one of only two limited “updates” she remitted since January 1, 2003, despite her claim to the Times Chronicle that she had sent “at least five” during this past year.]
Therefore, appreciating what has animated her past conduct yields insight as to whether she would consider it a priority to involve her constituents in her activities. For example, she often acted against the interests of the Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association, notably when she attempted to preclude its input from being addressed at a committee meeting which she was chairing (code enforcement); appended to this memo is a précis of the audience’s reaction to her conduct [from the Times Chronicle this past March].
For these reasons, an attempt was made to review the lawsuits arising from her approval of construction of an apartment house next to the Acme (across from the Plaza). Yet, despite repeated promises, information was not forthcoming from Abington personnel (and Jenkintown’s didn’t wish to assist a political candidate), so the relevant files were copied from the Prothonotary’s Office in Norristown [Captions #02-22223 & 02-22304].
The allegations state the maximum height is exceeded [§402.3], and that the land owner (John Barnes Trustees, Inc.) had not submitted written-approval for land development. Also, it is alleged that zoning relief by variance wasn’t acquired for the following: curbing that encroaches into the required (25’) buffer; use of an H-2 property for an additional principal use [§801.A]; narrowing the width of parking spaces (from 10’ to 9’) [§902.1]; and creating steep slopes of more than 25% in the front-yard setback, the side-yard setback, and in the retention basin. The remainder of the legal file was constituted of motions/briefs that culminated in a 2/3/2003 Order by Judge Tom Branca that filing of the challenge by the protestants was timely and he would not concur that it was frivolous.
During the 9/3/2002 Code Enforcement Committee Meeting, “Ms. Agostine (its chair) stated she looked into all the dimensional requirements and she is satisfied there are no violations.” [page 7, ¶3] Immediately, Mr. Michael Hynes (Jenkintown Solicitor) said “there are structures and failures to meet all the buffer requirements and steep-slope overlay is in violation and the ordinance requires a variance for 9’ x 18’ parking stalls.”
The responses to these concerns—which “survived” this discussion instead of being resolved thereat—were as follows: “Mr. Powers replied the retaining wall minimizes any sleep slope issues. The detention [sic] basin has a 41” slope, which is normal height.” “Solicitor Herder stated in 1997, Foxcroft went before the Zoning Hearing Board to get a variance to reduce the size of every parking space to 9’ x 18’ and it is consistent with the other properties in the Township.” “Mr. Jonas stated all the code issues have been addressed by the applicant, the zone enforcement staff, and the engineering staff.” [Also, a fire safety concern was raised and rebutted, but this wasn’t included in the complaint.] Ultimately, Mr. Hynes concluded that approval “be contingent upon receiving the variances and special exceptions in order to meet with the objections of the Borough to this plan. This plan is over-dense. . . .The maximum amount of development is placed on this lot, and everything else is shoehorned in. . . .We ask you to enforce your ordinance.”
Ms. Agostine, earlier, had stated that this proposal had been filed after a 35-year delay (per a restrictive covenant with local residents and Jenkintown Borough), and that, “When the 35 years was coming close to expiring, she personally tried to get the Borough to request an extension of the covenant. The Borough stated they had no problem with its being developed.” Immediately, Mr. Hynes said, “The Borough objects to this kind of development, because it does not comply with the zoning ordinance. . . .”
These exchanges impugn the ability of Ms. Agostine to communicate with integrity. Further, they show she requires a “formal liaison structure” because her version of what might transpire during a crucial exchange is subject to being contradicted immediately. But, that’s not all! A traffic study provided by Mr. Jonas (representing the developers) stated “the apartments will generate 500-600 vehicles per day. There would be 40 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 60 trips during the p.m. peak hour. There were 1800 trips measured at the intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Washington Lane. This development would contribute less than 2% to the existing conditions” [page 4, ¶ 3].
Curiously, during the Planning Commission Meeting (8/27/2002), Mr. John DiPrimio asked “Mr. Roth (the project manager) if he [had] received approval from PennDOT.” He noted that Greenwood Avenue is a state-road, but the response was quite ambiguous [page 5, ¶14]: “Mr. Roth replied we do need a permit and have not applied for that yet?” Mr. DiPrimio still voted for the project, but it therefore appears that it was known prior to Ms. Agostine’s meeting that there was uncertainty regarding PennDOT’s posture.
Confronted with an identical situation a few months ago, regarding the Yorktown Inn, successful efforts were made to ensure the developer financed creation of a dedicated left-turn lane for northbound traffic at the intersection of Old York and Church Roads. [All that was required was counting-cars while sitting outside the Marco Polo and being tenacious during a few presentations of these data.] My mother and I felt, simply, that the medical adage “Primum Non Nocere” [“The first priority is to do no harm.”] applied; the developer was obligated to fix (and, certainly, not to exacerbate) a recognized danger. [The only traffic-related construction is a deceleration-lane entry at Greenwood Avenue.]
Our approach contrasts dramatically with the leadership tone set by Ms. Agostine, which is remarkably comparable to her dismissive approach to concerns raised regarding the Rydal Park Driveway Controversy [page 9, ¶13]: “Commissioner Agostine agreed that the intersection is heavily traveled, and to address those issues will involve cooperation from the state and both municipalities to solve the traffic problems. . . .” Yet, she voted approval before she had ensured that enhanced grid-lock wouldn’t occur, per her quote!
Thus, she doesn’t advocate for the populace (failing to communicate with residents), for enforcement of the zoning code (noting how she avoided the “variance” charge), or for communications that productively resolve controversy (rather than enhance it). These concerns provide additional raison d’etre for this challenge to her candidacy. |
|
To contact me--Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.--just send an e-mail (rsklaroff@comcast.net).
|