- Home
- Association
- News & Insights
- Mission & History
- Membership
- Register or Join
- Bylaws
- Board of Governors
- Greenbaum Award
- Contact
- Terms & Policies
- Community
- Government
C:News & Insights
After years of neglect, the Baederwood Shopping Center is finally being upgraded by its owner.
Innovation & Growth Initiative: Montgomery County Benchmark
Learn about Abington's Next Century. To access a white paper that compares Abington to the rest of Montgomery County, click here >
Banner News Beaderwood

Meetings on Zoning
Planning Commission
The Commission met on December 15 and voted to recommend that the Board of Commissioners pass the FTD ordinance. They did make several comments about amendments and changes they would like to make in the future, but traffic was of little concern to them. Please participate in the RMCA Survey in advance of the next meeting.
Board of Commissioners
The full Board will meet on January 6 at 7:o0 p.m. in the Administration Building. This is your last chance to express your point-of-view before the vote is taken.
Previous Planning Commission Meeting
On Wednseday, November 17th at 7:30 pm the Abington Township
Planning Commission reviewed the FTD (Fairway Transit District) Ordinance which the Township of Abington has drafted as a potential solution to the Substantive Validity Challenge and Curative Amendment filed by Brandolini. This ordinance has been drafted through the services of the Board hired land use attorney, Marc Jonas, and land planner, John Kennedy along with input by township staff and Commissioners. – Newsletter of Commissioner Steven Kline
3 comments by Members are their personal opinions (see RMCA policies)

Ambushed!
That was the tenor of the anger animating the public’s attitude expressed during the Abington Township Planning Commission Hearing on November 17th.
Why?
Because the proposed ordinance regarding the Baederwood Shopping Center was so transparently faulty, sporting a “bonus-system” that had been admittedly conjured without citing precedent or authority.
Capitulation.
Indeed, the lawyers had been composing this ordinance secretly—working only with staff and commissioners, not the public—for upwards of nine months.
Railroad Job.
Repeatedly, it was advised that it must be approved by the end of January, lest costly court costs befall the township because the owner is placed at a “disadvantage” by the current zoning.
Why?
Because, although the official tri-parcel status was known by these purchasers when the land “passed” to Brandolini, it had the “right” to claim harm in the process.
Done-Deal.
This was the take-it-or-leave-it atmospheric that overtly pressured the Commission members whenever they raised potential defects in the Ordinance.
Density.
This was the theme of the Commission members and the residents, the response to which the presenter had no cogent reply—no metric for assessment—despite recognizing the concern.
Bottle-neck.
Although reminded that the traffic study failed to include the T-Intersection at the railroad bridge (Washington Lane and Susquehanna Avenue), and that there is already a back-up routinely extending to the Valley Road traffic light.
No remedy.
Despite recognizing this specific issue, the ordinance proponent admitted he had no specific relief to offer suburbanites who had chosen homes in a community without urban sprawl.
Primum non nocere.
“The first priority is to do no harm” was presented as both an aphorism for wise medical care and for public officials who feel threatened by a monied developer.
Arrogance.
There is no other explanation for the aloofness exhibited on behalf of this boarded-up strip-mall, allowed to fester to leverage approval in a form of the game “Chicken.”
Behavioral extortion.
The Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association website traces the multi-year history of near-unanimous opposition by residents/taxpayers—expressed at multiple hearings—to this project.
http://www.rmcivic.com/brandolini
Smooth-talking Commissioners—Kline and Peacock, both of whom are standing for re-election in 2011—should deign to listen…and to fight to maintain the quality-of-life of their constituents.
Hope springs eternal.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
r.sklaroff@verizon.net
This is in response to Mr. Sklaroff's post of 11/18/10.
Fact:
The 10 acres where the current shopping center resides can be occupied by 260 units plus with a equal mix of 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units along with the retail/commercial space as a by right use under PB (Planned Business) zoning district.
Fact:
If Brandolini succeeds in the validity challenge and gets the curative amendment they have requested which extends the PB onto the rear 8.32 acres then they will have the right to build few hundred units in addition to the amount they can build on the front 10 acres.
Fact:
The FTD Ordinance, with all of the bonus computation met, would allow a maximum of 246 units on the entire Baederwood property of 18.8 acres.
Fact:
Traffic can not be regulated with in a zoning ordinance and is part of the land development process. Regardless of this, the potential traffic issues exist with or without this zoning change because of the allowable density under the current PB District on Brandolini’s property. The FTD Ordinance at least creates density incentives that include improvements to traffic patterns and/or intersections.
Fact:
The time frame is real and the township has continually asked for and received extensions, from Brandolini, for these hearings to begin which allowed us to make progress on how we could deal with this issue.
Fact:
Commissioner Peacock and I, along with many of our fellow Commissioners, have sat through many meetings over the last few years, where the public was very clear in there concerns, criticisms and desires. WE GOT IT and we used that knowledge within the framework of developing this ordinance. Unfortunately ZERO density is and will not be an option because of the property’s existing rights.
Fact:
Threats regarding my potential re-election will have no bearing on doing what I think is right and what I think is in the best interest of our neighborhood and township.
To: Steve Kline
Cc: RMCA Membership
From: Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Re: Legalities and the Proposed Ordinance
Please upload the legal analysis that supports your view that--absent the interim-adoption of a curative ordinance--common law precedent would favor Brandolini.
Please explain why--in light of the fact that the secret meetings you held all year, until November, led to the sudden release of a "take it or leave it" proposal--the Township cannot approach the Court and seek a continuance in January...permitting the citizenry to complete a due-diligence study of this gigantic proposal.
Please explain why the Ordinance has so many vagaries [such as empowering the solicitor instead of the Commissioners] that appear to provide carte-blanche to Brandolini to avoid compliance with fundamental zoning mandates.
Please explain why you have failed to address the discrepancies in the traffic reports [Township v. Brandolini] which, necessarily, must encompass the increased stress on the T-Intersection RR-bridge bottleneck (and the traffic-light downstream).
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
r.sklaroff@verizon.net