The final version of the Costco development settlement will be presented in the courthouse in Media this week. If all goes as planned, Supervisor Dominic Pileggi projects the store being open in one year. Pileggi also said Wegman’s has looked at two sites in ConcordTownship.
At the November 1 Concord Township Meeting, supervisors stepped briskly through items on the agenda. November was declared “Lung Cancer Awareness Month” and “Alzheimer’s Awareness Month.”
Pennsylvania Trooper Rosemary McGuire reported cooperation between police inDelaware and Chester Counties to solve the robberies at area businesses in the last month. This past week there have been many more car break-ins. Window smashing and lock breaking are the two methods used. In all cases, valuables were visible.
Vandalism and robberies in the township parks have become a problem. Approval was given to spend up to $3000 for a fixed camera to be installed in the township park onSmithbridge Road.
During public comments, township resident David Cleary asked for action on a zoning violation on the property at139 Schoolhouse Lane. Pileggi said that the property in question had already been given conditional usage variance. David Cleary also asked for cost analysis of fees paid Concord Township Solicitor. That analysis will be on next month’s agenda.
November 6 at3 PM, the township will celebrate “American Hero Memorial Veterans Day” atTownshipPark onSmithbridge Road.
About Emily Myers
Emily Myers has lived and worked in Chadds Ford for over thirty five years. She founded the parent company of Chadds Ford Live, Decision Design Research, Inc., in 1982. ChaddsFordLive.com represents the confluence of Myers' long time, deep involvement in technology and community. Myers was a founding member of the Chadds Ford Business Association and currently serves on its board of directors. Her hobbies include bridge, golf, photography and Tai Chi. She lives with her husband, Jim Lebedda, in Chadds Ford Township.
- Web |
- More Posts(96)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
“I would like to thank the Chadds Ford Live for taking interest in the questions and concerns I raised at the November 2011 Concord Township Board of Supervisor’s meeting, but I do need to clarify the issues I have presented.
I originally submitted an open records (Right-to-Know) request at the April 2010 Concord Township Board of Supervisor’s Meeting. After numerous follow-ups both verbally and in writing, Concord Township has failed to provide the documentation that describes the “conditional usage variance” you mention in your story. The property in question (139 School House Lane) is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood and is itself zoned residential (R-2D) per Concord Township records. Additionally, this matter made a 17 year journey through the court system and the final ruling from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appellate Court was:
“Last, we specifically reverse the finding and/or conclusion of the Court of Common Pleas that there were no violations of the ordinances of Concord Township and specifically, henceforth, enjoin all commercial activity on the Cappelli property unless and until permitted under the ordinances of Concord Township and applicable zoning law.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appellate Court ruling Kerr v. Cappelli, Nos. 2830 C.D. 1998 & 2829 C.D. 1998
The property owner clearly lost a lengthy and exhaustive court battle, but to action was ever taken by Concord Township. The appellate court clearly rule in its 21 page opinion that the zoning laws are just as applicable for this property owner as any other citizen or property owner in Concord Township.
I have concern with the integrity of Concord zoning enforcement and the Concord officials who have taken oaths to uphold the laws and regulations of Concord Township. In this situation, even with the very well written opinion from the courts, Concord Township has taken no action to right this wrong.
Can the Concord Township officials hold one of their fellow supervisors accountable for following the zoning regulations?
75 other residents of Concord Township have signed a petition regarding the zoning of 139 School House Lane.
With regards to the fees Concord Township is paying for legal services (Solicitor fees), the questions I asked to the October 2011 Board of Supervisor’s Meeting and follow up at the November meeting clearly highlight some strange billing and accounting.
In both 2009 and 2010, the legal services fees overspent the budgeted amounts by more than $30,000 in each year.
1. Where did the money come from to cover the overspending? What other budgeted services were the funds taken from to cover the overspending for legal services?
2. Why was the budget for legal services reduced for 2010 when in 2009 the budget was overspent by more than $30,000?
3. In 2009 and 2010, the monthly retention uses up 2/3 of budget for legal services, yet any actually work billed by the hour from the remaining budget. Why is the retention fee so high, and why is it so disproportionate to the other local solicitors?
4. Why is there no record of the Concord Township officials agreeing to a fee / payment structure for legal services from the appointed solicitor?
These questions are fairly simple and straightforward. They were provided in a written form at the October 2011 Board of Supervisor’s Meeting, so it is unclear why it is taking so long to get a response.
I am glad you have chosen to cover these concerns and I am looking forward to your follow up on these issues.”
End of comments
David Cleary