Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association

I have a day-job, so what has been composed [based on the first half of the document] should suffice to illustrate the reasons why this proposal should not be adopted.

"504.8" defines building-standards and, as previously discussed, this can only be analyzed cogently by cross-ruffing with existing standards; why would any repeat-specification be needed?

"Section 4" allows for liberalization of signage for unspecified reasons.

"Section 5" allows for "accessory uses" for unspecified reasons.

"Section 6" specifies one parking-place per 250 sq-ft leased; this would appear to be insufficient, for one could imagine a small shop which would need to accommodate a group of customers (some who had arrived in autos) simultaneously.

"Section 7" provides a catchall that, essentially, invalidates any potential application of prior law to this project; again, composing a cross-walk (even if labor-intensive in its generation) is vital.

"Section 8" allows for severability, a sly way to undermine the allegedly-cohesive rationale for this effort. If each component is intended to interlock with all other components, then nothing should be allowed to become operational if any definable defect exists.

If anything vital has been overlooked [or if a cognizable defense can be generated to what has been composed], further comment will be provided.

One starts with the assumption that this point-system has been "gamed" to allow for the ability of the Developer to max-out on the actual provisions in this section [75' tall = 5-stories, probably]. Thus, the counter-"game" is to document only {8} points necessary in this regard; this is all too simple, unfortunately.

1. Who could reasonably dispute a claim that "transit amenities" have been provided? {1}

2. Who could reasonably dispute a claim that "street/landscape amenities" have been constructed? {1}

3. Noting the seemingly-desirable facets to this grab-bag, one can easily view this Arborist's Dream as a big "tease" of what a Developer might deign to give-back; all would be disappointed by the minimally-costly items actually integrated within the project. {0}

4.-6. Who could reasonably dispute a claim that all that stuff about a linkage with Old York Road is has not been satisfied, for the putative site thereof is obviously apocryphal, and might reasonably be perceived as remaining so for many years. {1 + 2 + 3 = 6}

7. Who could reasonably dispute a claim that non-cinderblock has been predominently used on facades? {2}

We're already @ {10} points, allowing for somewhat facetious observations about the remaining items....

8. Does this mean we are approving construction of a windmill farm?

9.-10. Does this mean that the Developer would not otherwise WANT to provide structured-parking to accommodate both the residents and the public? {3 + 2 = 5}

11. Right, redesigning the intersection of the Fairway with Rydal/Valley Road could be claimed as an improvement...with an impact on traffic-flow that would be de-minimus. {3}

12. "Hear Ye, Year Ye. Slap on a green-roof for a few bucks and earn Development Points worth mega-bucks!" {3}

13. It is my understanding that stormwater management has been remiss throughout the Township and, thus, this type of criterion should be converted into a mandate. {3}

THERE YOU HAVE IT, enough additional points to explode the previously-specified limitations on height, impervious cover, non-residential floor area, and residential units.

"504.6(L)-(R)" evince concerns that are comparable to those discussed regarding (A)-(K). Yet, others reflect the lack of "transparency" that should be mandatory in any such ambitious creation.

"L" defines public-space within buildings, but it doesn't mandate the size of public-space [to be developed as in Society Hill, for example] outside of buildings.

"M" finally references a document, albeit in a limited fashion. All these number create a MEGO ["My Eyes Glaze Over"] response, otherwise, because they do NOT reference a document; the contrast constitutes an in-your-face insult to the critical reader, for undoubtedly such citations are known to exist to the Developer.

"N" fails to address potential conflict between parallel-parking and bicycling-lanes, as others have addressed [http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf]; in light of the purported "green-ness" of this project, one wonders why.

"O" constitutes another one of those nefarious self-referential "loops" that would appear extraneous and, thus, would prod the curious to express wonderment (that could easily segue into dismay if not satisfied informationally).

"P" is the "Mother of All Black-Holes," for it would allow for COMPLETE ESCAPE from compliance with this entire set of requirements by a simple business transaction that creates some sort of a legal sub-entity. It is particularly reprehensible that the Solicitor would be empowered to act unilaterally; one would think that all decision-making authority should remain in the realm of the Commissioners.

"Q" creates an "almost-loop," for left undefined is what would be "applicable." If the lawyers are so potent as to be attempting to compose a document that couldn't reasonably be challenged, one would think that such contingency-planning would be mainstreamed.

"R" allows for "phasing" which would seem apt [particularly in a crazy-economy] so, again, it's unclear why this section is needed...unless it's being inserted to allow somehow for NON-compliance under "phased" circumstances, notwithstanding what appears to be the intent of this sentence.

The mandate that a cross-walk be provided between existing and proposed specifications is never more vital as it is with regard to the "Special Development" Provisions listed herein.

"504.6" provides for a lot of concepts that appear to be reasonable, but that require clarification. For example "A" recalls the artist's conception of a central "street" that would arise from the Fairway; yet, no drawing provided a year ago depicted the back-area (where the "landlocked" zoning is focused) and how--for example--a fire engine might be able to enter/function.

If memory serves, the counterargument raised @ the meeting (@ the Abington Middle School) was that the buildings would be fireproof, but such a wild assertion would require explanation [no paper products employed?] prior to being [predictably] refuted.

"B" recalls the Illegal/Undocumented Alien/Immigrant dispute, for simply "registering" connotes approval that otherwise would be subject to due-diligence scrutiny.

Those recalling the Kol Ami debate of a decade ago should recall that the argument raised was that "expansion of an interrupted nonconforming use" was @ the heart of the synagogue's legal effort (inappropriately, as it was predicted by few people other than myself and confirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, citing RLUIPA). Thus, all this lingo about projected/subsequent development should NOT entail giving a developer a "pass" from properly imposed Township oversight.

"C" is soooooooooooooo "cute"; self-referential "approval" simply allows for creation of an operational/legal loop. What is to comply must befit a clear statement of reasonable requirements, not open-ended affirmations of intent.

"D" specifies walking should be "as easy as possible"; this creates an obvious "out" for a developer, who might simply claim compliance cognitively with this mind-reading mandate.

"E" again uses a judgmental word ["improves"] that allows for placing the legal burden on the Township if the interpretive power of the developer is to be overturned.

(This is another example of why it can be reasonably concluded that Brandolini composed this document. Either that, or Kline/Peacock are pass-through non-intellects...or worse, knowing compliant with transparent Swiss-cheese.)

"F" is truly dumb, for there should be an accommodation @ key transit sites [like a bus stop] for more than 10 bikes.

"G" cannot be interpreted based on reference to a section [706(H)] that is not quoted with precision; this is not inconsequential, for it may be recalled that the concept of a "reverse spot-zoning" legal argument is ambient. Here, if a given "residential" definition is not applied appropriately to any one "adjacent" site, will not a crack be created for challenges to be predicated on specifications of another [otherwise meeting an unstated definition, "similarly situated"] "adjacent" site?

"H" refers to curb-cuts, which have been extensively defined [http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/curbcuts.pdf]; once this term is employed, it is vital that it be specified in both formalistic and lay lingo. Only then can these numbers be reasonably studied.

"I" again uses "whenever possible"; this renders any potential to invoke this phraseology TOTALLY moot. Indeed, it is this attitude that is struck by the Gestalt of this piece-of-work, and it should therefore not be surprising to its proponents that critics characterize it as milquetoast.

"J" again "adopts by reference" without mandating, just for example, that any deviation of a submitted report from a Township report be rectified. The implications of the absence of such a mandate are immediately apparent, notwithstanding any sidebar commitment to devote a few bucks to remedying the cosmesis of a non-vital intersection.

"K" allows for street-blockage by a van [for an unspecified time-span]; one would think that these wonderful city-planners would design a layout that--just as in Disneyworld, decades ago--the supply-mechanisms can be made invisible to the circulating-public.

When cases arise on the basis of litigation, a key-concept is to divine "legislative intent"; a key component thereof is an exclusion that otherwise might have been specifically cited. This concept is particularly notable in this discussion.

"504.4(A)"--Although lots less than an acre in size are not "required" to encompass mixed-uses, that allows for them to "choose" to have them; is it desirable to focus on this level of permissiveness?

"504.4(B)"--As written, the 80/20-split is precisely mandated; nothing can be 79/21 or 81/19. Also, clearly, this yields a five-story building as a dominant model, thereby yielding a specific mandated-height that would "trump" any "generic" height-limitation elsewhere...to the so-called "reasonable man" [or woman] deigning to interpret the overall impact of this blueprint.

"504.5(A)"--If the minimum-size is an acre, then it's unclear why the subsequent grid [(D)] accounts for building-heights tethered to a lot-size that is less than an acre.

"504.5(B)"--And what is to apply if an otherwise compliant lot doesn't have at least 100' of frontage? This is another one of those built-in ambiguities that must be clarified, lest an unscrupulous developer attempt to capitalize [no pun intended] on a "black hole" that might be knowingly created.

"504.5(C)"--These appear "reasonable" but, again, citation of a standard reference that would justify the initial description of this being a "district standard" [thereby applicable throughout the Township]; one certainly wouldn't want to set-up an opportunity for further challenges based on the fact that a law aimed @ the Baederwood-region might somehow be circumvented elsewhere, right?

"504.5(D)"--It is unclear why 75% of the buildings would have to be at least 20' in height.

"504.5(E)"--Having just received a crash-course in "impervious paving," it is desirable to note how this comports with EPA-criteria (and how semi-pervious paving might be invoked to evade this requirement); this is an example of why there is a reasonable desire to have a "footprint" proposal should be provided prospectively.

[Even if it is only a model, to which final compliance wouldn't be mandated, it should be provided; later, were deviation therefrom to occur, such would subsequently require explanation. THEY know what THEY envision and, thus, they should be sufficiently candid to "share" such intent with the unknowing, unsuspecting public.]

"504.5(F)"--This hearkens back to the "80/20" criterion [supra], although it uses the term "maximum"...thereby suggesting that some variation would constitute a "minimum" and, thus, conflict with the stringent aforementioned "80/20" mandate.

"504.5(G)"--Since buildings can be either attached or detached [see 504.3], it is unclear whether this "maximum" number of dwelling "units" on a given acre would be satisfied if only ONE "unit" densely dominated the entire site.

In lieu of "wading into the weeds," certain issues must be appreciated by everyone who wants to understand the fundamentals of the gambit that is being posed to the electorate.

"504.3(A)"--Reference to "C-34" seems ambiguous, for the "community-use" citation [supra] does not comport with the "transit-oriented" appellation [in this section].

"504.3(B)"--NOTHING should be allowed "by right." That's why a zoning code exists; everything should be subject to automatic scrutiny.

"504.3(C)"--NOTHING should be allowed "conditionally." That's a major source of dismay when the citizens are attempting to scrutinize "a pig in a poke." A developer should be forced to provide AT LEAST ONE MODEL PLAN of how a proposal will "translate into action," even if it's not finalized; this would then be subject to reasonable analysis, so that one can visualize/conceptualize what is envisioned/proposed.

"504.3(D)"--NOTHING should be allowed "conditionally." Noting that one of the components thereof is a "drive-in facility" [for banks and retail establishments, vide supra], the potential for enhanced traffic is undeniable...and therefore should be subject to traffic-study projections that are generated initially...rather than allowing for a "bait and switch" to transpire.

"504.3(E)"--These exclusions are enlightening; if restaurants/take-outs are excluded, what sort of "drive-in facility" is included in (D)?

Although this document is portrayed as derivative of prior strategic-plans, it is unclear whether any interim "modification" has transpired. This is an example of why "the devil is in the details."

"504.1"--Does the Township's Comprehensive Plan call for each of the listed-purposes of the FTD? For example, stripping-away the "gimmes," does it call for a Town Center that causes enhanced density and residential diversity?

"504.2"--Crying for attention is a durable reference for these definitions; the possibility exists--in the curious mind--that subtle methods of expanding the flexibility of these terms has been mainstreamed.

One of the ways a "sensitive" and "respectful" representative-of-the-people will convey a desire to entertain public-input by providing a parallel-memo that details the CHANGES that are proposed, so that a typical reader can rapidly appreciate the "before/after" effects thereof.

The introductory phraseology does not allow for an appreciation of what is, specifically, to be accomplished by this Ordinance; a stand-alone elucidation-document is customarily generated for Congress by staff and, thus, such information-sharing (whether already composed secretly or ordered-to-be-generated ASAP) is vital if there is true concern for the Commonweal.

"34"--Listing what is included is noted, but what is NOT included (for whatever reason) represents a glaring omission.

"35"--The creation of a car-share facility would undoubtedly cause a rapid-increase in auto-volume in the immediate-area; this one factor must be taken into account when a proper traffic-study is conducted.

On other pages of this exquisitely-designed web-site, I have expressed anguish over the warp-speed plan of Kline/Peacock to achieve approval of this document within less than a month, absent a cogent approval process that reflects the capacity of Abington to complete its due-diligence responsibilities, on behalf of its citizenry.

I am neither a lawyer nor a city planner, so this cursory review of the capitulation-proposal [noting that it was composed secretly, in collaboration with Brandolini during closed-meetings held throughout 2010...and perhaps earlier?] is itself subject to refinement by those who have a better grasp of current zoning law.

The goal is to provide an initial elucidation of what initially strikes the reader; candidly, previous study of this dense legalese led to identification of glaring "black hole" concessions and, thus, a more detailed discussion had been deferred.

Now, however, in preparation for next week's double-meetings on this topic, it is necessary to articulate specifics that [in my view] poison the atmosphere, indeed, that strongly suggest that a major effort is being made to effect FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE in our Township [not dissimilar to the orientation of the Democrats on a national level] by importing an urban Philadelphia and injecting a "Town Center" within an already-congested region.

I do not believe in extortion, so the suggestion that Brandolini could already invoke current zoning law to effect its goals FALLS FLAT; it is not inappropriate for these two Commissioners to demand that Brandolini release a plan that would comply with what already is extant...so that this could be scrutinized by the public?

Illustrative of the aloofness of the elected representatives of the immediate-community is that the "Traffic"-memo [reproduced elsewhere on this website] provoked a dismissive posture from both of them, when distributed more than a year ago; even the idea of rehabbing/widening the RR-Bridge T-intersection was dismissed without recognizing that this was do-able, per this citizen's "chats" with regional Penn-DOT officials.

With these thoughts in-mind [and knowing that this set of memos is being composed without the luxury of being able to cross-ruff with current zoning law], it is necessary to embark on an effort to help others structure the discussion...and to encourage these two sitting Commissioners to REPLY point-by-point to the concerns raised herein.

{I might add that it is CURIOUS that the Penn State meeting has been scheduled to occur one day AFTER the Planning Commissioner meeting, particularly when one recognizes that the latter half of December is anticipated to be down-time for most of the community (vacations, celebrations, reunions, etc.); one would have thought that the incumbent-Commissioners--engaged in a self-styled "listening tour" would have hosted a series of Town Hall discussions of all facets of this issue, already, during recent weeks.}

The sitting-Commissioners appear poised to seek rubber-stamp endorsement of this flawed/faulty/foul creation during the first week of the new year; this level of elitism...when one allows one's self to experience the feeling of being snookered...is the underlying reason why the arrogance of the national-Democrats was soundly rejected by the voters, last month.

Finally, threaded throughout both the proposed Ordinance and superficial analysis thereof [performed in conjunction with having reviewed the Old York Road Corridor Master-Plan] is the concept that the proximity of two RR-stations affords a unique opportunity to perceive this challenge within a regional context; yet, in-depth discussion of this concern has NEVER been "Topic-A" during any community meeting called by the two sitting-Commissioners in this region, the heart of the Township.

Thus, it appears that the very utility of the RMCA is going to be tested rapidly, for the unavoidable conclusion is that this proposed Ordinance represents a grab-bag for Brandolini, impugning the integrity of its authors; one outcome that cannot be tolerated would be demonstrating any degree of deference to these two sell-outs.