You are on page 1of 15

ANNOTATED RESPONSES TO PEACOCK LETTER http://abington.patch.

com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-abington-commissioner-ernie-peacock-talksftd?ncid=M255
Opinion, The Neighborhood Files

Letter to the Editor: Abington Commissioner Ernie Peacock Talks FTD
To the editor: I am responding to a recent Patch article, "Montco Judge Remands FTD Ordinance to Zoning Hearing Board." I AM PLEASED, INASMUCH AS MANY ESSENTIAL-TRUTHS ARE NOW TO BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DEBATE. INDEED, I LOOK FORWARD TO ANY EFFORT BY MESSRS. KLINE/PEACOCK TO REFUTE ANY ASSERTION/CLARIFICATION HEREIN. I am the Abington Township Commissioner of Ward 7, the area within which the Baederwood Shopping Center (BSC) on The Fairway is situated. The BSC property was re-zoned by the Board of Commissioners at a special public hearing on Jan 6. This action created the Fairway Transit District (FTD), which regulates redevelopment on the site. NO, IT DOESN¶T, BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF THIS ACTION IS STAYED UNTIL MY APPEAL HAS BEEN COMPLETELY ADJUDICATED. Prior to re-zoning, the property, owned by Brandolini Limited Partnership, consisted of 18.35 acres on three parcels. The front two parcels of 9.93 acres contained the BSC and parking lot and were zoned Planned Business (PB). The rear parcel consisted of a wooded hill of 8.42 acres behind the BSC and was zoned R-1 (low density residential). The ordinance eliminated these three parcels and created a single, new zoning district ² the FTD. This is an important point to emphasize. THIS IS TRUE, AND IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE ³WHOLE FOODS´ STORE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FORMER ³PB´ PARCEL AND, THUS, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ³R-1´ BUILDING RESTRICTIONS; FOR EASE-OF-REFRENCE, THE FRONT (SOUTHERN) PARCELS ARE THE ³TRAPEZOID´ AND THE REAR (NORTHERN) PARCEL IS THE ³PARALLELOGRAM.´ The property was completely rezoned. THIS IS TRUE, PRODUCING DEFECTS THAT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN EXTANT.

This fact allowed the Township to create and regulate uses on the property that were consistent with the needs and interests of the township and its constituent communities, while still preserving the rights of the owner (which, by law, we were bound to do). THIS ACTION WOULD ALLOW BRANDOLINI TO DO MANYTHINGS ³AS OF RIGHT,´ LEAVING ABINGTON POWERLESS TO PROTECT THE CITIZENRY. By creating this new zoning district, the township was able to accomplish several key objectives: AGAIN, NOTHING HAS YET BEEN ³ACCOMPLISHED,´ FOR THE FTD HAS NOT YET BEEN ³CREATED.´ 1. Place absolute caps on residential and commercial density. Under the PB/R-1 zoning, there were several redevelopment scenarios where the density far outweighed that which is allowed under the adopted FTD ordinance. «AND THE RESULT IS A SCENARIO THAT FAR OUTWEIGHS THAT WHICH IS DELIMITED BY CURRENT LAW, FOCUSING ON THE PARALLELOGRAM (WHICH CURRENTLY IS ZONED TO LIMIT ONE HOME PER ACRE, OR A TOTAL OF ONLY 8«INCLUDING THE STEEP-SLOPE); INDEED, THE EXISTENCE OF THIS STEEP-SLOPE HAS BEEN ROUTINELY IGNORED IN GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS BY FTD-ADVOCATES AND THE STATUTORY MANDATES RELATED-THERETO HAVE BEEN IGNORED IN THE FTD ORDINANCE. 2. Require incentives to be met in order to build the upper limits of residential units and commercial space allowed under the FTD. These incentives included increased public and green space, preservation of the existing wooded hill, traffic controls, green infrastructure, etc. Under PB/R-1, the developer did not have to meet any incentives to build the maximum density. AS WAS EASILY DEMONSTRATED FOLLOWING EVEN CURSORY REVIEW OF UNREFUTED TESTIMONY²AT BOTH THE ABINGTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND THE ABINGTON TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONER ³PUBLIC HEARING´²THESE ³INCENTIVES´ ARE BOTH EASILY MET [THEREBY ALLOWING FOR 75-FOOT HIGH BUILDINGS] AND DO NOT COMPORT WITH EXPRESSED-INTERESTS OF COMMUNITY-INPUT [SUCH AS THE REHAB OF A THEATER]. 3. Require that redevelopment be subject to the conditional use process. This process will allow the township to control certain elements of design and construction that were not available to us under the PB/R-1 zoning. AND THIS ALSO FORFEITED THE CAPACITY OF ABINGTON TO HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN OTHER ELEMENTS OF DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION; THE ABILITY TO TOUT SUCH ENHANCED ALLEGED-INPUT YIELDED ALSO THE UNAMBIGUOUS CEDING OF

FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATIONS CARRYING FAR GREATER IMPORT [FOCUSING ON DENSITY, VIDE INFRA]. 4. Eliminate a costly and lengthy legal challenge. Brandolini filed a substantive validity challenge to the PB/R-1 zoning. The township was under a hard deadline to respond to that legal challenge by Jan 31, 2011. That deadline was imposed by Brandolini in full accordance with State law. The FTD rendered that legal challenge moot, and did so on terms that benefited the township. THE TOWNSHIP COULD EASILY HAVE REQUESTED A STAY IN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS (WERE BRANDOLINI TO HAVE FILED-SUIT), INASMUCH AS THE COURTS WOULD HAVE HONORED A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR A DELAY SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE TOWNSHIP TO AVOID AN ADMITTEDLY-RUSHED REVIEW (DUE TO ITS OWN PROCRASTINATION AND SECRETIVE BEHAVIOR). IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS FORMALLY RELEASED IN MID-NOVEMBER AND WAS APPROVED IN EARLYJAUNARY, AND JUDGES ALWAYS PREFER TO ALLOW PARTIES TO RESOLVE ISSUES PRIVATELY BEFORE INITIATING THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. THUS, ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE TOWNSHIP SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO UNDUE PRESSURE IS MANIPULATIVE. THE FTD INDEED MOOTED THE BRANDOLINI-THREAT, BUT IT INVITED MY LITIGATION; THE ASSERTION THAT THE FTD CONTAINED TERMS THAT BENEFITTED THE TOWNSHIP IS ARGUABLE, FOR THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT BENEFIT THE CITIZENRY. FINALLY, MESSRS. PEACOCK/KLINE FALSELY/REPEATEDLY REPRESENTED THAT A COURT-FILING HAD OCCURRED, BUT IT HAD NOT, AS PER A DOCKET-REVIEW [THAT THE READER IS INVITED TO CORROBORATE].

http://www.courts.montcopa.org/courts/cwp/view,a,3,q,36737.asp
Much has been written and said recently by a small handful of critics of the FTD. When these critics express concerns about certain aspects of the FTD, such as the allowable building height, I can chalk that up to an honest difference of opinion. THE KEY-ISSUE IS THAT THE ENHANCED DENSITY IS REFLECTED IN THE EFFORT TO IMPORT AN URBAN-LEVEL OF DENSITY [AS REFLECTED IN BUILDING-HEIGHT] TO A SUBURBAN SETTING THAT IS ALREADY MAXIMALLY-CONGESTED [AS PER ALL REPORTS OF PENN-DOT AND OTHERS]. When these same critics attack the substantive validity of the FTD, charge that proper procedures were not followed, mischaracterize the scope and nature of the FTD«, I can only respond in one way:They are not only wrong, they are irresponsible. FIRST, ANY FAIR READING OF THE MONT-CO PLANNING COMMISSION LETTER YIELDS MYRAID JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE-VALIDITY CHALLENGE.

SECOND, PROPER PROCEDURES WERE NOT FOLLOWED, INTER ALIA, WHEN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WAS ADMITTEDLY ACCELERATED [BY BOTH THE ABINGTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS] DUE TO ALLEGED LEGAL-PRESSURE AND [IN PARTICULAR] WHEN THE COMMISSIONER-CHAIR ABROGATED RULES SHE HAD HERSELF IMPOSED ON THE PROCEEEDINGS WHEN SHE [TWICE] PLEDGED TO ENSURE CITIZENS¶ QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED AFTER ALL [DOZEN CRITICS] HAD SPOKEN. THIRD, THE SCOPE/IMPORTANCE OF THE FTD IS PROFOUND, FOR ITS ACTIVATION WOULD IMMEDIATELY IMPOSE A TOWNSHIPWIDE TEMPLATE THAT WOULD SERVE AS A MODEL FOR OTHER SUBURBAN REGIONS [SUCH AS IS NOW OCCURRING IN LOWER MERION, ALONG CITY LINE AVENUE]. [When these same critics] impugn the motives of the board, township administration and staff, and the expert consultants employed on our behalf who all worked hard to bring the FTD to fruition, I can only respond in one way:They are not only wrong, they are irresponsible. FIRST, NO ONE HAS EVER IMPUGNED ANY MOTIVATION OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP¶S ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF. SECOND, THE MOTIVES OF COMMISSIONERS PEACOCK/KLINE HAVE BEEN IMPUGNED BECAUSE THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY MISREPRESENTED THE TRUTH, PROMINENTLY THE [FALSE] CLAIM THAT THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HAD APPROVED THIS FTD ORDINANCE. THIRD, THE SUBSTANTIVE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE IS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN BECAUSE MESSRS. KLINE/PEACOCK REFUSED TO ACCEPT ANY OF THE MONT-CO PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT²EVEN THE MINOR CORRECTIONS INTERLACED THEREIN²IN WHAT MUST BE PERCEIVED AS AN ARROGANT/ELITIST/EGOTISTICAL DISPLAY. FOURTH, THE EXPERTS ARE ALSO IMPUGNED. THE LAND-PLANNER REPEATED THE MANTRA THAT THE FTD HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE MONTCO PLANNING COMMISSION. THE LEGAL CONSULTANT FALSELY CLAIMED THAT ³REALEN V. UPPER MERION´ CREATED A PRECEDENT THAT UNDERMINED THE POSITION OF ABINGTON DUE TO ³REVERSE SPOTZONING´; WHEREAS THE PROPERTY NEAR KING-OF-PRUSSIA WAS INDEED SURROUNDED BY BUSINESS-USES, 50% OF THE PARALLELOGRAM IS RESIDENTIAL. THE ABINGTON PLAN CALLED FOR TRANSITION-ZONES, AND THIS WOULD BE PERCEIVABLE AS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE THEREOF. WHEN CHALLENGED, THE LEGAL CONSULTANT NOTED THAT THIS WAS ³AN ISLAND OR A PENINSULA,´ THEREBY FATALLY PUNCTUING THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS AN ISLAND [THE GRAVAMEN OF THE SUPREME COURT CITATION] AND GRUDGINGLY

RECOGNIZING THAT THIS WAS A PENINSULA THAT WOULD²THEREFORE²NOT BE COVERED BY THIS ALLEGED-CLAIM OF ³REVERSE SPOT-ZONING.´ [«they are irresponsible.] IF MESSRS. KLINE/PEACOCK FAIL TO RESPOND POINT-BY-POINT TO THIS LETTER, THE ³IRRESPONSIBLE´ LABEL WILL BECOME PROPERLY AFFIXED TO THE TRULY-GUILY PARTIES. In fact, one such critic has stated publicly that his primary interest in challenging the FTD in court is the pursuit of a partisan political agenda. This is beyond irresponsible. It amounts to a deliberate misuse of the resources of the township and the courts. THIS REFERS TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE NOTED THE FACT THAT THE COURTS ROUTINELY CLAIM THAT A CITIZEN¶S COMPLAINT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS BEST REGISTERED IN THE VOTING-BOOTH. INDEED, THIS WAS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A ³PRIMARY´ INTEREST, FOR IT AROSE ONLY AFTER TWO ACTIONS BY MR. KLINE LAST YEAR. BEFORE DETAILING WHAT TRANSPIRED, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MR. PEACOCK HAS GROSSLY/REPEATEDLY BREACHED THE WALL BETWEEN PUBLIC AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY. HIS WEBSITE²TO WHICH THE TOWNSHIP¶S WEBSITE HYPERLINKED²INCLUDED A ³DONATE´ BUTTON FOR FUTURE ELECTIONEERING. AND HE DISTRIBUTED HIS ENDORSEMENT OF THE WARD 7 [DEMOCRATIC PARTY] COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE BOTH ON HIS ³BLAST E-MAIL´ AND VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICE ³SNAIL-MAIL.´ THEREFORE, THERE HAS BEEN NO MISUSE OF GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES, AS WAS VALIDATED WHEN THE TOWNSHIP AGREED TO THE JUDICIAL ORDER THAT MY PETITION BE HONORED IN TWO WAYS. THE PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE IS ³STAYED´ PENDING THE GENERATION OF A RECORD REGARDING THE ³SUBSTANTIVE´ CHALLENGE. BTW, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SOLICITOR HERDER WROTE A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS IN 2009 THAT STATED THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERATING A DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDED ³FINDINGS OF FACT´ AND ³CONCLUSIONS OF LAW´ THAT WAS NOT FULFILLED THEREAFTER. One can only hope that such infamy will not be entertained one minute longer than is absolutely necessary. IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT CORDIAL INTERACTIONS WITH MESSRS. KLINE/PEACOCK HAD EXISTED UNTIL LAST YEAR. RECALLING THEIR MISREPRESENTATION OF WHAT HAD BEEN DONE BY THE MONT-CO PLANNING COMMISSION [VIDE SUPRA], IT WOULD NOT BE SURPRISING IF SUCH DISHONORABLE CONDUCT WOULD YIELD LOSS OF TRUST.

A TRIGGERING EVENT OCCURRED WHEN KLINE IMPUGNED EFFORTS TO ENLIST SUPPORT FROM PENN-DOT TO ALLEVIATE THE CHOKE-POINT AT THE RR-BRIDGE [SUSQUEHANNA ROAD AND WASHINGTON LANE] BY ADVISING THAT EFFORTS BE MADE TO WIDEN IT [VIA PURCHASE OF A CRESCENT OF LAND FROM AN OWNER ALONG BARROWDALE ROAD WHICH WAS ON THE FAR SIDE OF A FENCE ON THE NORTHERN PERIMETER OF THIS PROPERTY]:

From: kline4ward1@comcast.net [mailto:kline4ward1@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:54 PM To: Ernie Peacock; joshshapiro@pahouse.net Cc: rsklaroff@comcast.net Subject: Rydal Train Station Bridge

Do not continue to indulge this idea by Mr. Sklaroff. Yes this intersection has problems, problems that have existed for years and his idea in theory causes more than it solves. Left turns across merging traffic on blind inclines, purchasing or taking property from no fewer than two property owners (you will need to take a portion of the property on Barrowdale & Washington), coordination with PennDOT who in the past has had no interest in working on this intersection and millions of dollars to implementing a plan that avoids solving the main issue - traveling west bound on Susquehanna Rd under bridge to The Fairway & Valley Road & OYR as well as traffic traveling East under the bridge to either Washington Ln or continuing on Susquehanna. There have been many people who have ponder[ed] solutions to this intersections but none that have avoided the main issue and certainly none that considered the possibility of taking private property as Mr. Sklaroff has discussed with me in a past encounter. We should leave Mr. Sklaroff to the thing he knows best, filing lawsuits against synagogues, municipalities/governmental entities, political parties and who knows who else. Hope you had a good weekend and take care.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE [TOTALLY INCORRECT] ³AD HOMINEM´ CLIMAX, HERE, NUMEROUS ERRORS REQUIRE CLARIFICATION. FIRST, HE ALLUDED TO HIS SUPPORT FOR THE EMINENTDOMAIN EFFORT AGAINST THE PATANE FAMILY TO RELOCATE THE ROSLYN BRANCH LIBRARY, A GAMBIT THAT IS PROJECTED TO COST ³THE FORGOTTEN TAXPAYER´ UPWARDS OF $250K. SECOND, RATHER THAN CRITICIZING A POTENTIAL SOLUTION FOR A RECOGNIZED CONCERN, HE FAILED TO UPHOLD HIS OBLIGATION TO POSTULATE HIS OWN SOLUTION TO THIS BOTTLE-NECK CONCERN THAT INTER ALIA IMPEDES MOVEMENT OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES [POLICE & AMBULANCE] AND THEREBY THREATENS THE HEALTH/WELFARE OF THE CITIZENRY.

Now, let me respond, point-by-point, to the most egregious claims being strewn about by these critics (the claims are paraphrased in quotation marks). NOTE THAT THEY ARE LEFT UNATTRIBUTED AND, THEREFORE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE CLAIM [AS WAS DEMONSTRATED SUPRA] THAT HE MISQUOTES/MISCHARACTERIZES FOR NEFARIOUS REASONS. SEE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58335851/Baederwood-Handout-12-13-10 1. ³The FTD was rushed through without input from affected residents.´ THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ABINGTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION OVERTLY RECOGNIZED THAT THEY WERE RUSHED, AS WAS ALSO NOTED BY MR. PEACOCK¶S OWN ADMISSION [CITING THE ALLEGED 1/31/2001 DEADLINE]. ALSO, THIS ISSUE WAS AIRED UNCRITICALLY DURING THE 1/6/2011 PUBLIC HEARING, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROCESS COULD HAVE BEEN ADJOURNED TO ALLOW THE COMPLETION OF DUEDILIGENCE STUDY OF THE PROBLEM DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY. The fact that someone may not like the outcome does not equate to a lack of input. THE FACT THAT ALL DOZEN SPEAKERS OPPOSED THE ORDINANCE MANDATES THAT THE ADVOCATES THEREOF REPLY TO THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS THEY HAVE RAISED, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE CHAIR HAD PROMISED [TWICE] THAT THIS WOULD OCCUR; SHE STATED THIS BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND DURING THE TESTIMONY OF MR. LARRY KANE. The FTD ordinance was posted on the township website in September 2010. The Jan. 6 hearing was advertised six weeks in advance. Commissioner Steven Kline and I held a combined Ward 1 and Ward 7 town hall meeting on Dec. 16. In addition, Commissioner Kline and I sent several blast emails on this subject during the period from September 2010 up to the hearing date. At the hearing, no one was given the unfettered right to filibuster for or against the FTD ordinance, but everyone who wanted to speak was given a fair opportunity to do so. Beyond that, the entire process leading up to that point evolved from the time at which Brandolini purchased the property in June 2005. During the intervening five years, there were eight separate town-wide hearings or meetings, countless blast emails and back-and-forth exchanges between residents and the Ward 1 and 7 commissioners, extensive media coverage and several executive sessions of the board to insure that all board members were fully-briefed on the ordinance. THE ADMITTEDLY-UNOFFICIAL ³DRAFT´ ORDINANCE WAS UPLOADED IN SEPTEMBER, BUT ITS FINAL-DRAFT STATUS WAS ONLY CONFIRMED PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE ABILITY TO REVIEW THE DETAILS OF THE ORDINANCE WERE INDEED IMPEDED BY A TIME-LIMITATION [WHICH WAS SELECTIVELY IMPOSED] AND, THUS, MANY KEY-CRITERIA RELATED THERETO WERE NOT AIRED [AS WAS INCLUDED IN

MEMOS THAT HAD BEEN GENERATED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING]. FINALLY, WHATEVER CHARACTERIZATION MR. PEACOCK WOULD CONJURE REGARDING WHAT HAD OCCURRED DURING THE PRIOR HALF-DECADE²BECAUSE THE-DEVIL-IS-IN-THE DETAILS² THE ABILITY TO SCRUTINIZE THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE WAS SQUISHED INTO A SIX-WEEK TIME-INTERVAL [ADMIDST THE HOLIDAY-VACATION PERIOD]. 2. ³The deadline of Jan. 31, 2011 could have been extended.´ THIS IS TRUE. This is patently false. SUCH A CLAIM IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND CONSCIOUSLY IGNORES THE CAPACITY OF THE TOWNSHIP TO PURSUE THE BEST-INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENRY VIA SEEKING LEGAL RECOURSE. Under the Pennsylvania MPC, the party that files the challenge controls the calendar. In fact, after filing the challenge in January 2009, Brandolini granted more than seven extensions to the deadline. Brandolini made it clear that the January deadline was final. There is no authority under the sun that could have changed that. A SIMPLE MOTION TO DELAY TO A TIME-CERTAIN²TO ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT SCRUTINY OF THE PROPOSED ³CURATIVE´ ORDINANCE WOULD EASILY HAVE BEEN HONORED BY A JUDICIARY THAT WOULD PREFER NOT TO INTERFERE IF A PRIVATE SETTLEMENT IS POTENTIALLY IMMINENT. 3. ³The existing PB/R-1 zoning allowed the construction of only eight single family dwellings.´ THIS IS TRUE, WITH REGARD TO THE PARALLELOGRAM. This is deliberately misleading. While this was true for the eight acres zoned R-1, development on the front 10 acres zoned PB would have been open-ended. In PB districts, there are no caps on density and intensity of uses. It would have come down to how much the developer could cram onto the site. And, if Brandolini had succeeded in its challenge (an outcome which was highly likely according to the township's expert, independent counsel), the site would have been zoned PB, resulting in the allowance for even greater levels of residential and commercial density. BRANDOLINI WOULD STILL HAVE HAD TO COMPLY WITH LAND-USE RESTRICTIONS, SO THERE WAS/IS NO EXISITNG ³OPEN-ENDED´ RIGHT TO IGNORE INTER ALIA BUILDING SETBACK LIMITATIONS. FURTHERMORE, AS NOTED SUPRA, CITATION OF THE ³REALEN V. UPPER MERION´ CASE WAS INAPPOSITE [BECAUSE THIS IS A PENINSULA, NOT AN ISLAND] AND, INDEED, THE WRITTEN-OPINION SPECIFICALLY VALIDATES THE MANDATORY IMPOSITION OF A TOWNSHIP¶S POLICE POWER TO PROTECT THE HEALTH/SAFETY OF THE CITIZNERY

WHEN AN ORDINANCE [AS ABINGTON¶S DOES] SPECIFICALLY CITES THE NEED TO ENSURE SUCH PROFOUND CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED [LET ALONE HONORED]. AND WHATEVER REZONING ANY COURT WOULD IMPOSE [ASSUMINE BRANDOLINI WERE TO EMERGE VICTORIOUS] WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO LAND-USE CONSTRAINTS/APPROVALS. 4. ³The FTD ordinance conflicts with the township¶s comprehensive plan and the Old York Road Corridor Study (OYRCS).´ THIS IS ACCURATE, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE MANDATED TRAFFIC-STUDIES IN BOTH. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE CITIZENRY IS MANDATED IN THE ³STUDY´ AND THE INVOLVMENT OF NUMEROUS TOWNSHIP COMMITTEES IS ADVISED IN THE ³PLAN.´ This is incorrect. BOTH CITE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INCOMPLETENESS OF PRIOR TRAFFIC-DENSITY STUDIES THAT, THEMSELVES, HAVE YIELDED DESIGNATIONS BY PENN-DOT THAT INTERSECTIONS ALONG SUSQUEHANNA ROAD ARE ALREADY RATED AT THE WORST [³F´] LEVEL. Both of those documents recommend that the township should seek to maximize existing space by promoting the construction of mixed-use (commercial and residential) projects. The plan specifically recommends rewriting or revising existing business zoning districts "...to create economic viability by developing areas of complementary uses." The FTD is just such a zoning rewrite. The OYRCS specifically singled out the Fairway area as an ideal site for a mixed-use project that could spur redevelopment in the Old York Road corridor. THIS MANIPULATIVE NATURE OF THIS SELECTIVE CITATION IS ILLUSTRATED BY USE OF THE WORD ³JUST,´ FOR THIS IS ACTUALLY A CORRUPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE ENTIRE PAIR OF DOCUMENTS. FROM THE STUDY: ³ Off-peak vehicular congestion along Old York Road also needs to be evaluated

when considering the corridor. Significant contributors include traffic traveling to major destination shopping centers such as the Willow Grove Mall, The Fairway and Baederwood Shopping District and Abington Shopping Center«.[A]ny new development in this cluster linked to TOD [TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT, MANIFEST AS THE FTD] would require reconfiguration of existing auto dealerships or shopping centers, an action that is possible but not imminent as suggested by the public¶s reaction to the redevelopment of the Baederwood Shopping Center. However, market forces (i.e., supply and demand) may win the day for future development.´
FROM THE ³PLAN´: ³ A transportation system should be designed to meet the differing mobility needs of

residents, businesses, emergency services (police, fire, medical services), and commuters alike«.Abington Township has had to struggle with increasing traffic congestion and time delays, road hazards, and inadequate off-street parking«.Several of the major arterials in the Township are urgently in need of

highway improvements as they currently handle traffic volumes in excess of what the roads were originally designed to handle«.[I]t is generally at the intersections of the various roadways where conflict and congestion develops«.A mixed-use development, if done with care and sensitivity, could enable the developer and the Township to produce a product on a property in an area already populated with higherdensity development.´
5. ³The Planning Commissions of both Abington Township and Montgomery County did not support the FTD.´ CLARIFICATIONS OF PHRASEOLOGY ARE CRUCIAL WITH REGARD TO THE FORMER, ALBEIT NOT WITH REGARD TO THE LATTER. This is incorrect. NOTE THAT MR. PEACOCK DOES NOT PROVIDE QUOTATIONS. Both commissions supported the FTD, in writing, and made non-binding recommendations for revisions to the ordinance. ABINGTON: ³«[Having received] legal advice that not resolving this through negotiation may result in an

untenable and detrimental condition«[,] the proposed Ordinance is approved«with any comments or conditions we may have agreed upon´ [sic].´
MONT-CO: ³ The MontCo Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed zoning map and

text amendments, provided the changes suggested are made.´
THE FORMER MADE NO ³NON-BINDING RECOMMENDATIONS´ AND THE LATTER MADE ³BINDING´ RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS STATEMENT BY MR. PEACOCK IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY [³PANTS-ON-FIRE´] FALSE. The fact that the ordinance was passed with only minor revisions to its original draft is indicative of the considered opinion of the board of commissioners that the ordinance was substantially valid. THERE WERE NO REVISIONS WHEN COMPARING THE SEPTEMBER/NOVEMBER VERSIONS; INDEED, IN JANUARY, MR. KLINE ADMITTED THIS FACT WHEN I WAS READING ³DISCOVERY´ [WITH ANOTHER CITIZEN] AT THE TOWNSHIP BUILDING. Any disagreement with that outcome is a matter of a differing opinion, not a matter of fact. TOTALLY, TOTALLY INCORRECT«PAINFULLY SO. 6. ³The incentives provided by the FTD to the developer (which, if reached, allow for limited increases in residential and commercial density), are not meaningful.´

YES, A FAIR-READING OF WHAT BRANDOLINI WOULD HAVE TO DO, SO THAT 75-FOOT TALL BUILDINGS COULD BE CONSTRUCTED, YIELDS NO OTHER CONCLUSION. Any incentives provided by the FTD to the developer are designed to yield a better project. THESE INCENTIVES²COMPOSED WITH INPUT FROM BRANDOLINI²WERE DESIGNED TO ALLOW BRANDOLINI TO ATTAIN MAXIMAL LAND-DENSITY, AN INFERIOR PROJECT WHEN THE REGIONAL CONGESTION ALREADY HAD BEEN DOCUMENTED BY PENN-DOT TO HAVE BEEN MAXIMAL. 7. ³Traffic in the area will be negatively impacted.´ YES, WHEN A PROBLEM EXISTS, ONE SHOULD NOT EXACERBATE IT. This point is moot because it remains true whether the area is zoned PB/R-1, PB or FTD. BY TACITLY ADMITTING THIS FACT¶S ³TRUTH,´ MR. PEACOCK MUST NOW JUSTIFY WHY HE CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE ADAGE ³PRIMUM NON NOCERE´ [THE FIRST PRIORITY IS TO DO NO HARM´]. [LEGALLY, THE APPLICABLE ADAGE IS ³SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS´ NAMELY, ³PERSONS MUST USE THEIR PROPERTY SO AS NOT TO HARM THAT OF OTHERS.´]. The law does not allow a municipality to deny a developer the right to the lawful use of its property because traffic may increase. ABINGTON CAN EASILY/JUSTIFIABLY/LEGALLY CLAIM THAT THE REZONING WOULD EXACERBATE AN EXISTING THREAT TO THE HEALTH/WELFARE OF THE CITIZENRY. And, in fact, under the FTD, with absolute caps on development, with incentives for providing enhanced traffic control, and with the conditional use requirement, management of traffic will be accomplished more effectively. THE FTD ALLOWS FOR EXPANSION OF RESIDENTIAL USE [FROM 8 TO ~300], A FACT THAT WAS AMBIENT THROUGHOUT ALL PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE. THESE ³CAPS´ ARE POUROUS, AND THERE ARE NO MEANINGFUL INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING ENHANCED TRAFFIC CONTROL WHERE IT IS RECOGNIZED TO BE MOST SORELY NEEDED. THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH ANY ALLEVIATION OF CONGESTION AT THE ³T´-INTERSECTION, AND MR. PEACOCK SKATES AROUND THIS OBVIOUS FACT. 8. "The FTD is an overlay district."

THIS IS HOW IT WAS CHARACTERIZED BY ITS PROPONENTS, NOTING THAT IT WAS WRITTEN [RECALLING ITS DESIGNATION OF PLOTS LESS THAN AN ACRE IN SIZE, WHICH DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE THREE BAEDERWOOD PLOTS] TO BE INVOKED ELSEWHERE. This statement displays a stunning ignorance either of what is specifically in the ordinance, or of zoning law in general. [THIS REFLECTS THE INTENT OF THE AUTHORS OF THE FTD, FOR APPLICATION ALONG ALL THE RR-TRACK ROUTES IN THE TOWNSHIP.] This matters for two reasons. One, an overlay only adds special zoning provisions on top of an existing base zoning district. As noted above, the property was rezoned from three parcels to one with zoning provisions that are unique to the FTD and distinct from the original PB/R-1 zoning provisions. The previous base zoning (PB/R-1) no longer exists. AGAIN, IT WAS NOT YET ³REZONED,´ AND ANY EFFORT TO CONVEY OTHERWISE CONSTITUTES A FAIT ACCOMPLI THAT IS CONSCIOUSLY MISLEADING. There is not an informed person on this planet who could argue otherwise. Two, as a matter of law, when a person files a validity challenge to a new zoning district, he or she must inform the property owner. If the challenger to the FTD did not so inform the owner, the challenge should be dismissed. Whether this is the case remains to be seen. THIS ³INFORMED PERSON´ HAS SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED OTHERWISE, AN EFFORT THAT WAS VALIDATED BY JUDGE DEL RICCI ON 6/15/2011. THE ³REASONABLENESS´ OF THIS EFFORT WAS REFLECTED IN THE FACT THAT SOLICITOR HERDER CONFESSED THAT HE TOLD BRANDOLINI OF THIS HEARING-DATE DURING THE WEEK-PRIOR AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT DENIED TO BRANDOLINI TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN WHAT WAS CREATED AS ³THE LAW OF THE CASE´ [AKIN TO STARE DECISIS]. BRANDOLINI¶S EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THIS CHALLENGE IS THEREFORE LEGALLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE WISHES OF MR. PEACOCK. Finally, I want to take issue with three comments made in the Patch article. AND, IT MAY BE RECALLED, MR. PEACOCK SHOULD ALSO REPLY TO THIS RESPONSE TO HIS [FALSE] FACTUAL ASSERTIONS. 1. It was noted that the presiding judge stated, in his court order of June 15, that "...mistakes have been made on both sides of this matter that have created ... a procedural morass." The judge did not specify what procedural mistakes were made by the township. In fact, on page five of his order, he stated that the writing style of the challenger made it "...difficult for the court to ascertain the exact nature of the procedural deficiencies he is alleging..."

IN-CHAMBERS, HE TOLD SOLICITOR HERDER²IN RESPONSE TO HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAD ONLY BEEN GIVEN THREE [3] PIECES OF PAPER THAT I HAD PERSONALLY DELIVERED TO THE TOWNSHIP [WITH OTHERS BELATEDLY PROVIDED, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THEM VIA THE MONTCO-COURT WEBSITE«WHICH HE ADMITTED HE HAD CONSULTED]²THAT HE SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED THERETO; ESSENTIALLY, HE REBUKED THE SOLICITOR FOR CLAIMING ³THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK!´ One wonders how the judge could ascertain a "procedural morass" if he could not ascertain the "procedural deficiencies." HE REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REFORMULATED, AND THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN TWO SECTIONS, EXPEDITIOUSLY. THEY ARE BOTH UPLOADED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW: PROCEDURAL:http://www.scribd.com/doc/58231060/MontCo-Filing-6-20-11 SUBSTANTIVE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59063149/Abi ngton-Filing-6-30-11 2. The township manager was described as having said that the Fairway Transit District ordinance did provide for more residential development on the property as compared to its prior zoning, but that because of the economic climate, he didn¶t think Brandolini would pursue heavy development. As noted in my comments above, the exact opposite is true. The potential for development was much greater under the prior zoning. It is also irrelevant whether Brandolini would or would not pursue "heavy development." The FTD places a cap on development that stays with the property, regardless of who the owner is. That is the key point. I KNOW NOT WHERE THIS THOUGHT ORIGINATED; DURING MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. LEFEVRE, I HAVE STATED THAT I SUSPECTED THAT THERE MAY BE A DESIRE TO INCREASE THE TAX-BASE HARBORED BY SOME INDIVIDUALS, µTIS ALL. 3. The township solicitor was described as having admitted that "...some commissioners wanted the ordinance passed quickly..." If that is true, Commissioners Kline and I were not among them. If that is true, wanting it passed quickly is a very understandable and very human impulse, given the over five-year history of this situation. Yet, as the solicitor notes, "The commissioners complied with every procedural rule..." That is the only point that matters ² and one that I am certain will be substantiated by the court if the procedural challenge comes before it. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES SUPRA APPEAR CONTRADICTORY [DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT WISH TO GREASE-THE-SKIDS?], THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT WAS ³INHUMAN´ TO IGNORE THE UNIVERSAL CHORUS OPPOSING THIS EFFORT, EMANATING FROM THE CITIZENRY; THE OPPONENTS WERE RESPONSIBLE, DOCUMENTED, AND UNREFUTED. FINALLY, AS DETAILED SUPRA, COMPLIANCE WITH

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS [INCLUDING UTTERING THE TRUTH AND RESPONDING TO CITIZENS¶ QUESTIONS, AS HAD BEEN PLEDGED] DID NOT OCCUR. The stakes in this process are high. If the challenge to the FTD is successful, the likelihood is that the entire site would be rezoned PB. In such a scenario, the Township will lose the control over the redevelopment of the site that we worked so hard to achieve. If such were to happen, the critics may well wish that they had adhered to the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for." REGARDLESS OF ANY ³HEARTFELT DESIRES´ OF PROPONENTS OF THE FTD, IT MUST NOT HARM THE HEALTH/WELFARE OF THE CITIZENRY. -Ernie Peacock, Commissioner Ward 7, Abington Township

[The essay was by Mr. Peacock; this comprehensive, line-by-line, documented refutation thereof is by Dr. Sklaroff. If anyone wishes to challenge any issue raised herein, please call me @ 215=459-4877 or send me an e-mail @ r.sklaroff@verizon.net.] I look forward to reading Mr. Peacock's reply; if he chooses to decline this opportunity, the "silence" will be "deafening." * I feel compelled to ensure that there is no ambiguity as to my current plans. Regarding the Procedural Challenge, a hearing was held before Judge Moore because Brandolini is [again] challenging my standing to file a court-challenge. If this effort to dislodge me fails, they plan to request that I post a multi-million-dollar-bond. Regarding the Substantive Challenge, the next-scheduled event is to be held on 8/24/2011. In the interim, I will submit documents to the Township. It would be highly-desirable were the four Commissioner candidates [#1 and #7, R and D] to comment on each of the points made in this rejoinder to Mr. Peacock's letter-to-the-editor. If invited to do so, I will submit a parallel "letter to the editor" that lays out what has transpired in a fashion that captures the import of my effort...rather than merely off-sets dissemination of erroneous assertions. It will show how the FTD violates the spirit/letter of the Study, the Plan, and the input of the two [MontCo and Abington] Planning Commissions. And it will reflect why it would be desirable for the Rydal-Meadowbrook

Civic Association to remove its head from the sand; it is patently absurd to delay adopting an affirmative stance "until the legal forces have played-out." The stakes are indeed high....

.