Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association

RMCA encourages each person to read the precedent and draw their own conclusions. Much of the text above is drawn from the actual case, which can be downloaded as a PDF.

The Realen Case is not at all similar to ours - our traffic situation is already at further than capacity and to increase that at the measure that Brandolini proposes does INDEED affect our health, safety and welfare. (The Realen case involved an agricultural plot in a far less developed area, among other differences). Furthermore, Brandolini has submitted totally BOGUS traffic studies that do not address peak hours, the bridge underpass or other key intersections. They also ignore traffic that will be diverted through the neighborhoods. We stand to have cause for any reasonable judge to grant us an extension until proper studies are done. This site is leading you to believe that Brandolini would win hands down if we do not capitulate. Where is the list of the flaws in Brandolini's case?????
You are being told that there are flaws in your PB ordinance -- which would be completely irrelevant. Brandolini has the right to build according to the PB ordinance now, but it doesn't want to do that because in order to put up all of those units that they're talking about ( that they are THREATENING YOU with ) they would have to tear down the shopping center. And the 700 unit number is single units - they don't WANT to put up 700 and difficult to rent and manage or 400 units either if it means tearing down the shopping center. They want to KEEP the shopping center and put up 245 units, too - on green space zoned for 1 houe per acre. Also I understood from my Commissioner that 200,000 ft.² of commercial was the amount that they can build under the new FTD proposal not 170,000 .
In addition, the health, safety and welfare of Abington Township also depends upon preserving green space, which cleans the air and provides quality of life. Unless I missed it, I saw no proposal whatsoever for green space or open space preservation in this entire 18 acres. The only thing that I did notice was that they are required to have 20% pervious surface- which as I understand, can be done even if 100 percent is hardscaped - because these days we have hard scapes that are pervious, where water can get through. This ordinance was written by our OWN attorney and land planner and I hope other Abington residents find this to be unacceptable, too. If we are going to retain green space in this Township-every property owner has to do his/her share. And by the way RESIDENTS are required, even in the denser R4 zones, to retain at least 45% pervious surface. Why should commercial areas not also do their part for the health safety and welfare of our Township?
The other issues that are not being explained correctly on this site or by the Commissioners, are details of the transit oriented area, and the fact, as well, that this ordinance contains a little clause that permits the commercial property owner to divide his land up into small parcels with virtually NO oversight--- sort of "condo style". Most people did not even catch that one tiny paragraph. If he happens to bump into an easement while he's chopping his property up, such as a sewer easement, he has to get approval from ----only ONE PERSON - the solicitor (yup, one person and one person only). If he doesn't bump into an easement, he's SUPPOSED to follow the Township regulations, but there is no process in this ordinance that provides for any oversight that he is doing so. He doesn't have to go for any land division or sub division or zoning approval. And the Township could be left dealing with 18 owners for an 18 acre parcel instead of one - see p8 section P . It's tiny - but outrageous ----- and please be advised the Land Planner is recommending this as the model ordinance for the whole area --- got any friends near the Fairway or near Noble station? Better have them read the whole ordinance .
The transit oriented district is a recognized term that invites increased density ( a prerequisite to receiving greater government grants.) Did we ask for greater density. Are we becoming pedestrian by "importing" people who can walk or are we building what we would like to see meet OUR needs? For those who can already walk to this shopping area, Rydal Park, Rydal Waters & Rydal East & West, the pedestrian shopping will be nice. For all the rest of us it simply means we are going to have to park our car further away from the shops , possibly even in a parking garage, and then walk. But why is a MIXED USE ( residential & commercial ) being FORCED in this ordinance. The area is already mixed because of the above mentioned residential areas. If the Baederwood & other commercial centers were strictly commercial that would keep our township well balalnced. Comissioners and Planners have asserted that commercial noise & hours do not mix well with residential use. Why are they forcing it here...... and throughout the Township in the new rezoning about to be sprung on us. Keep Pedestrian districts do not get us any closer to our shopping, and do not prevent any of our car trips. They only will add MORE car trips & traffic if mixed use brings in more residents. This is YOUR Land Planner and YOUR Commissioners proposing this for the WHOLE AREA.
And that Brandolini would win the right to say that we had zoned elsewhere all around him could only be done in front of a judge who ignored the facts. FACT: the PB area next what Brandolini wants to rezone was rezoned DOWNWARD from PB (Planned Business) to SNR (Senior Neighborhood Residential). And in other words we moved away from commercial and into a very restricted residential configuration. How would that give him cause to win. His plot is much more similar to the SNR that it borders than to the PB.

It is unfortunate that this Rydal -Meadowbrook site has printed certain segments that seem to support us having no option in the face of Brandolini's challenge - as the Commissioners also seem to want you to believe . They both seem to be taking part of Judge and Jury and deciding the case to be lost. I think residents should be more than a bit dismayed that the Land Planner and the Attorney have spent no time pointing out the flaws of Brandolini's case and the damage to the health, safety and welfare of Abington residents from having such overbuilding. And in fact, that these professionals have reported to the press and in public meetings that we would not win seems to me to be a breach of their fiduciary responsibility to those that hired them. If they were the judge rather than the advocates for our cause, I might not find that so disturbing.
I hope Rydal Meadowbrook will correct the writings that they have that are misleading in this same way.

Residents are meeting December 13th at 7pm at the Brownstone Cottage next to Sunrise at Abington to discuyss these issues . Please join us . Park in the Wachovia Bank lot next door. The Commissioners meeting will be too late for you to understand the issues and address the Planning Commission December 15th ---- The Planning Commission should hear your remarks as they are the ones recommending to the Board whether or not to proceed.

Lora Lehmann
215-885-0504

These are the key-quotes from the above-essay that require documentation:

1. a agreement acceptable to Brandolini avoids litigation (that is very likely to fail)

2. The PB zoning is poorly written...and] it fails in several ways

3. The PB zoning and existing R-1 zoning cannot realistically be the basis for a defense

4. a zoning plan designed to limit Brandolini rights is unlikely to be accepted by courts...[inasmuch as] a zoning ordinance must be presumed constitutionally valid unless a challenging party shows that it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not substantially related to the police power interest that the ordinance purports to serve

5. an ordinance will be found to be unreasonable and not substantially related to a police power purpose if it is shown to be unduly restrictive or exclusionary....Similarly, an ordinance will be deemed to be arbitrary where it is shown that it results in disparate treatment of similar landowners without a reasonable basis for such disparate treatment

6. details in the Realen v. Upper Merion case that are substantially different than the Baederwood Shopping Center [zoned agricultural abutting confluence of highways leading to multiple regional malls]

7. at Baederwood, the capacity for traffic is much more limited and many residents argue that it is already at capacity at rush hour [AND throughout the day]

8. Brandolini argues that there would be little to no measurable impact on traffic. Abington Township has a responsibility to test this premise [particularly with regard to the ability of emergency vehicles to arrive and to function effectively], which does fall within its Police Power

9. "spot zoning" [the rezoning of a tract from commercial to residential designation for the purpose of preventing a shopping center development for which the landowner had conditionally agreed to sell the property is problematic, but "reverse spot-zoning" [the allegation from Brandolini] is unprecedented [particularly because no such action has transpired].

10. a zoning hearing board's performance of its fact-finding function deprived the applicant of a fundamentally fair proceeding and whether particular necessary findings of the board, although minimally supported by record evidence, capriciously and without reasonable explanation disregard overwhelming evidence having a contrary import

In my view, this legal analysis does not suffice. There is no need yet established that the current zoning is problematic. Brandolini knew this zoning status when it [voluntarily] purchased Baederwood. The traffic bottle-neck is intuitive and would predictably be greatly exacerbated were hundreds of people to be living in a concentrated region, adjacent to Susquehanna. The cases detailed herein do not puncture the simple narrative that Brandolini cannot demand the back-property be rezoned to its desires, for the Upper-Merion case is not applicable. Simply put, maintaining the status-quo zoning status accommodates the reasonable development of this property. Thus, Abington should simply follow its rules--seek a continuance because this process can reasonably be demonstrated to have really JUST BEGUN--and then complete the due-diligence mandated-study.

[I read their traffic study, the analysis of which will be provided separately.]