Patrick Henry: "To cover with the veil of secrecy the common routine of business, is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man, and every friend to this country.”
There are 3 new housing developments/apartment buildings planned for Chalfont's future.
The Newest and Most Pressing Development is coming in at the Butler and Bristol intersection. On July 12, 2016 at the Borough Meeting, a 57 unit townhome tract, a (possible) Dunkin Donuts, and one other possible commercial unit were brought up as a suggested project, to be built on 7 acres. This land, previously owned by Rich Dreyer, is now owned by Envision Land Development. In order for this to occur, there must be a substantial change in the Borough Ordinance.
THE CONCERN: Chalfont was zoned to balance commercial (business) with residential building in a nice cohesive percentage. However, at the October meeting the first reading of the ordinance Zadell would like to change: Ordinance 427; this is to amend the Chalfont ordinance zone. Which, in essentially says: "WE once dreamed Chalfont would be a wonderful town; a kaleidoscope of business and residential, a peaceful community were one could shop and walk home."
The original purpose of the Butler Avenue Commercial Overlay was (as stated in Section 27-1008.1 of the zoning ordinance) to encourage innovative planning with contribute to village character and vitality of community.
Provide for a mix of commercial and business uses that share infrastructure, thereby reducing congestion while promoting efficient traffic flow and increased pedestrian access.
The proposed amendment would require at least half the development to be residential and would permit up to 90% to be residential, thus there is no balance of commercial/business.
During the October 11th meeting (2016), the "first reading" of Ordiance 427, amending the Chalfont Borough Ordinance by amending the Butler Avenue Gateway Commercial Overlay Zoning district passed the "first reading" by a vote of 4 in favor and 3 opposed.
None of the residents were informed of this possibility prior to the reading. This proposal came up during the July 12th Borough Hall meeting. Residents were not made aware of the possibility of town-homes being built in an area zoned commercial.
Township manager Sandra Zadell assured the residents who voiced their opposition and concern, that prior to the November 8th meeting in which the final vote takes place, residents would be informed.
As of this article, dated 10/31/2016, residents deny being contacted by the Borough or the Council.
Residents also complain there is no email address to reach any of the Borough Council members.
Many concerns range from possibility of Chalfont accepting federal funding from the Government for the Refuge Resettlement Program to increased traffic congestion, to the over saturation of housing in Chalfont, when already, the average house for sale in Chalfont stays over 180 days on the market, and many are in foreclosure.
Residents all agree on one thing; they were not informed of this major amendment to the code, and feel there is a lack of communication that, at this point, feels purposeful and secretive.
As a vital part of the community, please plan to attend the November 8th meeting (after you vote!) so you can express your concern (or approval) for this development. It is the final vote, if it goes through, it will be very difficult to repeal.
Most residents are in agreement they would like to see this project tabled until January, which will give them enough time to
Monday, October 31, 2016
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Chalfont Borough Lack of Transparency
At the September 2016 meeting of the Chalfont Borough Town Council, some issues were raised that seem to be an ongoing problem as anyone who has attended a council meeting can attest to.
Often times, the "agenda" for the meeting is posted online a few hours prior to the meeting. The agenda for the Sept 13th meeting contained four action items.
During the meeting, it was announced that there were more action items. When a resident brought up the difference, the township manager, Sandra Zadell and lawyer (Nate Fox) explained they didn't even have to publish the agenda prior to the meeting and Chalfont went above and beyond by publishing the Agenda prior to the meeting, implying the citizens should be grateful.
The action items they added were things that had already been paid for, and needed to be approved "formally." One of those things was the demolishing and disposal of a house. The other was for payment to a uniform company.
Of concern: Does township manager or any of the council members have any personal connection to the businesses township manager Sandra Zadell had hired prior to voting/approval?
The second thing that was of concern: During the June 14th boro meeting, it was brought up that weeds in the sidewalks in front of some homes in the business district were cause for concern. The council said it was a blight on the community and established that the council would pay to have the weeds killed, but after that it would be the homeowners responsibility and they would send letters to the residents about this new rule.
At the end of the meeting, a resident spoke about a retention basin that his new neighbors mow very rarely. The resident takes extreme care of his lawn/flowers, etc, and his neighbor allows the basin to get very high. A few of the council members (the manager and lawyer) were very sarcastic to this resident. The manager stated Chalfont couldn't "regulate aesthetics." But, isn't that what they are doing by sending letters to residents warning those resident if they don't take care of their weeds they will be fined?
When another resident questioned why the boro disregarded the complaints of the resident about the overgrown basin next to his property but the weeds were a problem, and suggested ticks and mosquitoes live in tall grass were a health danger, boro manager Sandra Zadell sarcastically said, "We can't outlaw ticks. Ticks have a right to live in town." And a few members also pointed out that tall grass minimizes erosion...
Third Concern from attending that meeting: A water well had recently tested 2 points below toxic readings (68 out of 70) and that the well was taken off line (in July of 2016). There were no updates to be found on the Aqua website nor the Chalfont boro website.
There was a mention iduring the August boro meeting that it would be tested every 2 weeks. IWhen a resident asked what the latest readings were, and the council president (Engle) and Manager Zadell, stated they hadn't heard anything. The resident asked if they had called Aqua to inquire and the manager stated, "When they call us, I will put it up on the website." Zadell had not bothered to call.
Also, in the minutes of the August meeting, President Engle had stated, "The wells tested well below the toxic level." giving the false impression that 2 points below EPA toxic level is nothing to be concerned about.
These concerns and issues not only point to a lack transparency, but safety. Either they are not taking it seriously, or they want to downplay this water issue. We have an apartment building being built right now and a new development that will be going in soon, so, perhaps they don't want to make this an issue, for fear it will drive potential residents away.
They recently tore down a historic building citing that there was asbestos in it (the old age home on Park and 152) in order to build this apartment building. Residents on the streets being affected were concerned that the boro/developers kept making changes without letting the residents know. Many residents have gardens, and when construction was tearing down the building, residents called and asked about the danger of the asbestos being released into the air. The residents were ignored. They started tearing down the building and no one was advised one way or the other if this was safe or not.
There is a total lack of transparency from the township manager and town council. The only way to assure the safety of Chalfont residents is to stay vigilant and attend the meetings.
Often times, the "agenda" for the meeting is posted online a few hours prior to the meeting. The agenda for the Sept 13th meeting contained four action items.
During the meeting, it was announced that there were more action items. When a resident brought up the difference, the township manager, Sandra Zadell and lawyer (Nate Fox) explained they didn't even have to publish the agenda prior to the meeting and Chalfont went above and beyond by publishing the Agenda prior to the meeting, implying the citizens should be grateful.
The action items they added were things that had already been paid for, and needed to be approved "formally." One of those things was the demolishing and disposal of a house. The other was for payment to a uniform company.
Of concern: Does township manager or any of the council members have any personal connection to the businesses township manager Sandra Zadell had hired prior to voting/approval?
The second thing that was of concern: During the June 14th boro meeting, it was brought up that weeds in the sidewalks in front of some homes in the business district were cause for concern. The council said it was a blight on the community and established that the council would pay to have the weeds killed, but after that it would be the homeowners responsibility and they would send letters to the residents about this new rule.
At the end of the meeting, a resident spoke about a retention basin that his new neighbors mow very rarely. The resident takes extreme care of his lawn/flowers, etc, and his neighbor allows the basin to get very high. A few of the council members (the manager and lawyer) were very sarcastic to this resident. The manager stated Chalfont couldn't "regulate aesthetics." But, isn't that what they are doing by sending letters to residents warning those resident if they don't take care of their weeds they will be fined?
When another resident questioned why the boro disregarded the complaints of the resident about the overgrown basin next to his property but the weeds were a problem, and suggested ticks and mosquitoes live in tall grass were a health danger, boro manager Sandra Zadell sarcastically said, "We can't outlaw ticks. Ticks have a right to live in town." And a few members also pointed out that tall grass minimizes erosion...
Third Concern from attending that meeting: A water well had recently tested 2 points below toxic readings (68 out of 70) and that the well was taken off line (in July of 2016). There were no updates to be found on the Aqua website nor the Chalfont boro website.
There was a mention iduring the August boro meeting that it would be tested every 2 weeks. IWhen a resident asked what the latest readings were, and the council president (Engle) and Manager Zadell, stated they hadn't heard anything. The resident asked if they had called Aqua to inquire and the manager stated, "When they call us, I will put it up on the website." Zadell had not bothered to call.
Also, in the minutes of the August meeting, President Engle had stated, "The wells tested well below the toxic level." giving the false impression that 2 points below EPA toxic level is nothing to be concerned about.
These concerns and issues not only point to a lack transparency, but safety. Either they are not taking it seriously, or they want to downplay this water issue. We have an apartment building being built right now and a new development that will be going in soon, so, perhaps they don't want to make this an issue, for fear it will drive potential residents away.
They recently tore down a historic building citing that there was asbestos in it (the old age home on Park and 152) in order to build this apartment building. Residents on the streets being affected were concerned that the boro/developers kept making changes without letting the residents know. Many residents have gardens, and when construction was tearing down the building, residents called and asked about the danger of the asbestos being released into the air. The residents were ignored. They started tearing down the building and no one was advised one way or the other if this was safe or not.
There is a total lack of transparency from the township manager and town council. The only way to assure the safety of Chalfont residents is to stay vigilant and attend the meetings.
Chalfont VFW and Bucks Beautiful Honor the Past
Thanks to local Veterans (Chalfont VFW Post 3258) and Mrs. Becker (who had 600 daffodils donated for this project!) the St. James Cemetery Daffodil project is off to a great start! Daffodils were placed alongside the road and also next to Veterans graves on October 22, 2016. Though Chalfont is growing rapidly, it's important to honor the past and those who led the way! Daffodils generously donated by Bucks Beautiful !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)