BAEDERWOOD and the Fairway Transit Ordinance 7 pm at the Township Building Jan 6th, 2011

Ponder these facets of the proposed Ordinance. Citizens may be able to influence some (such as conveyancing, greenspace, bike-paths, transparency, and timely notification) more than others (such as heights and setbacks). Amendments may be possible, but you can surely let your Commissioners know how you feel about the overall plan to "urbanize" our Abington. Remember, MUCH MORE REZONING IS TO COME. Take these pages with you for reference. THE ISSUE BRIEF SUMMARY MY OPINION Circle if you agree or write your own YOUR OPINION Write-in your notes or ideas or preferences

The two front parcels (totaling about 10 acres) are zoned R1 and the rear (8.32 acres) are zoned PB.

The validity challenge requests that all three lots be merged, so that the rear lot would no longer be restricted to 8 homes. If entire site were ruled PB by the court, then about 300 units could be added to the back, while retaining 130,000 sq. ft. of shopping/office in front; if shopping were removed, 422 units could be built (comprised of 1, 2 & 3 bedroom-mix or 738 singles). FTD = 246 units + 205,000 sq. ft. commercial. PB = 276 - 300 units plus 130,000 sq. ft. commercial. PB with Commercial Removed = 422 mixed-size units or 738 single units.

The result would be to allow far more density than the region can tolerate, making congestion unsafe for the public health and welfare. Many citizens feel this threat constitutes a scare-tactic, for it is unlikely they would want to replace the shopping and/or to build so many single units. Instead, we suspect they envision building something similar to the FTD, perhaps with deeper setbacks and more limited heights. FTD is really not much better than either PB. FTD introduces definitions of some aspects of design, but has onerous features; for example, FTD allows buildings to be up to the sidewalk [removing the 60' setbacks in PB] and encourages garages. It is unlikely they would want to rip down commercial and/or to build singles; therefore, they actually want to build something similar to the FTD. And, were they to lose in the court, they would be forced to comply with current density limits.

From 8 to 300 units

Number of units

PB now places virtually no limit on what they can build

This is a misleading statement often made by advocates. PB is limited by height, by required parking, and by setbacks. To create more parking, they would have to give up sq. ft. of commercial. And they are limited to 50 ft. height.

Pedestrian friendly?

Only to pedestrians who are "imported." For those in the community who live within driving distance, we would have to park further away in a garage (and then walk), losing the ability to park near to our preferred store (and to use our cars trunks).

Many suburban shoppers prefer parking near their shops, not in garages; they enjoy being able to get in-and-out quickly. Small pockets of walkable areas with attractive shops and entertainment are very desirable, but only they are if easily accessible.

Forced mixed use FTD requires 20% residential to 80% commercial

Commercial noise and activity are not compatible with residential use; forced mixed use is largely a tool to produce more shoppers for the commercial district thus increasing density (and traffic, and crime, and). PB allows 50 ft. high, while FTD allows 75 ft. without any justification to allowing mid-rise structures. FTD gives incentives to build more, while residents have expressed a preference for fewer. FTD allows for car-sharing, shared-parking, curbside parking along the Fairway, and narrow parking-spaces; to judge how well these concepts are working out, visit Center-City Philly. Setbacks, if the PB were won, would remain a minimum of 60 ft. But the FTD allows 20 - 25 ft., again allowing them to maximize the total sq. ft. Residents are limited to 55%; if Brandolini won PB, they would have 70%...while the FTD gives 80%. Also, pervious surfaces are not now required to be green, for gravel and some hardscapes are allowed. This ordinance does not reasonably or directly mandate Greenspace; open space is not greenspace and neither is pervious surface.

Suburban life is about green residential neighborhoods and seeing the sky. Those who prefer to live near shopping, buy homes near it. Increasing density offers few benefits to the residents (the taxpayers, the voters). Residents have testified almost unanimously against tall buildings. There is no reason to incentivize what everyone knows we don't like. Parking issues disappear when buildings maintain their required amounts of parking-space, which can be pervious hardscapes.

Building Heights

Parking Garages

Other Parking Issues

Setbacks - Buildings erected right up to the sidewalk

Residents have requested more green and setbacks; the FTD gives far less of both.

Impervious Surface Maximum

Everyone must help prevent our Township from becoming fully concreted; all property owners should share in the burden of maintaining pervious surfaces to minimize storm water problems. For beauty, health, habitat, happinessthis ordinance should mandate devotion of a generous portion of every property to greenspace.

Greenspace Lacking

Traffic Study Overdue TRAFFIC SAFETY IS A PIVOTAL ISSUE

Past traffic studies (up to 2007) are totally out-of-date and admittedly incomplete; Omissions in the 2009 study (provided by Brandolini) are laughable (e.g., RR-Bridge T-Intersection ). Ambulances and emergency vehicles must be able to get through this region. Parking garages, reduced setbacks, and mixed use are rewardedwhile no incentive is given to building movie theaters, indoor township pools, community rooms, etc. Those in the proposed ordinance are ridiculously simple to meet, for they are self-beneficial standards in the building industry (e.g., gazebos, water features, public restrooms). Bike paths (which promote health and the environment) are difficult to add. Conveyance is unregulated, creating unknown issues [e.g., resale, township duties to multiple owners]. Long-term costs must be weighed (building new schools, traffic remediation, increased crime, other Township services).

It is mandatory that the Township acquire a contemporaneous and complete traffic study of the roads and intersections affected by congestion around Baederwood. It must be impermissible to allow further congestion on roads and intersections that are now maximally-dense. Ordinances must afford incentives for community meeting rooms, activities for residents (such as movie theaters) and pools (that keep us healthy). Bonuses should benefit the residents, not the builder (e.g., promoting movie theaters and ownership of units).

Emergency Services and Safety

Hearing & Honoring Resident requests

Bonus Points

Bike Paths Lacking

If reducing traffic is truly a priority, biking (with safe paths) should be boosted. Conveyance should not be allowed as a right; when requested conditionally, circumstances can be examined as they arise. Residents should not allow themselves to be bullied by threats; this encourages more bullying (for a billboard validity challenge may be imminent) and costs may ultimately be equivalent. Consider the option of rezoning the 8 acres to NR [Neighborhood Residential] similar to Rydal Waters, but not age-restricted. This property is a perfect example of how actions in one property affect another; this case is all about what we allowed OTHERS to do.

Conveyancing of small parcels to other owners [see P8, section P]

Cost of Litigation isn't the only cost-burden

Solutions Unexplored

Allowing the rear 8 acres to be zoned as neighborhood residential (similar to the adjacent property) would reflect its surroundings more than would 300 units of PB. Allowing the rear 8 acres to become PB would allow other properties such as Rydal Waters to do the same thing.

Legal - Setting precedents for other properties

Legal - Case law

A list of case law that is in our interest has never been provided, despite over $30,000 so far in legal and land planning fees . And our attorney's "opinion " (that we would lose) has been freely offered everywhere including in the news - but we are not allowed to see any documentation Elements of this plan have inspired overdevelopment, contrary to resident wishes. Safeguards are needed to preserve and protect the health, safety & welfare of our residents and our quality-of-life. Elements of this plan have inspired overdevelopment, contrary to resident wishes, just as has the aforementioned comprehensive plan. Web page with full information and links. Email lists by issue with meeting dates, times updates, video times - etc Multiple Open session Meetings for residents. Place for posted questions and answers prior to meetings.

We deserve to know what rights we have and what challenges the law might provide. Residents should be allowed to sign confidentiality agreements and see any part of a lawsuit that is paid for by them and used in their behalf. Review and amend statements used by this developer to substantiate his plan to over-develop; then form a review group that would be required to conduct open-meetings. Review and amend statements used by this developer to substantiate his plan to over-develop; then form a review group that would be required to conduct open-meetings. These tools (requested for a half-decade) are long overdue. They are crucial to resident participation in their government Important issues like this should be brought to residents - not presented in a fashion that forces each resident to start the search anew.

Our comprehensive plan needs review by residents and adjustments by officials to reflect residents needs

The Old York Road Corridor study needs further review by residents

Tools of Transparency The most important request as it is for ALL issues! You will need it again