December 17, 2014

The rejection of a development’s offer of dedication, the selection of a new engineering firm, a roundabout update, and the approval of a conservation plan were among the actions taken by the Pocopson Township supervisors at their meeting on Monday night.

The supervisors unanimously rejected the proposed dedication for the Preserve at Chadds Ford, a Toll Brothers development of single-family homes on Corinne Road.

“We can’t accept the dedication until all the unanswered questions have been answered,” said Supervisor Georgia Brutscher, citing numerous unfinished items at the complex.

After some discussion, the supervisors agreed that McCormick Taylor was the best of four companies interviewed for township engineer and that Gilmore & Associates would get the nod as the alternate at the supervisors’ reorganization meeting on Jan. 5. They also voted to consider the proposal of United Inspection Agency as the township’s electrical inspector at the same meeting.

Public Works Director Mark Knightly said PennDOT was still having an issue with a guide rail on the Route 52 roundabout; however, on Wednesday, after meeting with PennDOT officials, he posted an update on the township’s Web site, said Susan Simone, the township secretary.

Wednesday’s posting said all work has been completed with the exception of the mast-mounted sign on the approach to the roundabout from the Route 926 side.

“The contractor is installing the footing today. Hopefully the mast will be installed Friday. The landscape plantings will be done in the spring of 2015,” the update said.

Weather permitting, the road will open by Christmas; however, temporary road closures for the remaining work are expected to continue through the spring.

Following a recommendation from Holly Manzone and George Zacharkiw, Pocopson’s representatives on the Brandywine Valley Scenic Byways Commission, the supervisors approved the Commission’s Corridor Management Plan.

“Overall, I think the plan is good,” said Manzone. She said she anticipated some editing changes that would make the 202-page report easier to read but would not alter its content.

The commission, a byproduct of the Pennsylvania Scenic Byways program, also includes representatives from Chadds Ford, East Bradford, East Marlborough, Kennett, and Pennsbury Townships. Its purpose is to promote and implement approved plans for the improvement and protection of the scenic area “in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of the residents, property owners, and visitors.”

Manzone said Kennett Township’s bike lane represents an example of the improvements that the initiative can produce. “There is very slow progress being made, but progress nonetheless,” she said.

The Brandywine Valley Scenic Byway runs in a figure-eight pattern through the countryside, along Route 52, former Route 100, and Route 162 in Chester and Delaware Counties. Among the commission’s numerous goals are to maintain an inventory of historic properties, expand educational resources, enhance scenic views, improve bicycle and pedestrian access, and implement traffic calming.

In the early 1990s, Pennsylvania used federal funding to create the Pennsylvania Scenic Byways program. In 2006, the program received $120,000 from the National Scenic Byways Discretionary Grant Program through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Matching funds of $30,000 came from the Chester County Visitors Bureau and an additional $10,000 was received from the state Department of Community and Economic Development, the report said.

In other business, Supervisor Barney Leonard submitted a signed letter of thanks to the township’s Planning Commission for its assistance on updating the township’s Wireless Communication Ordinance. Brutscher and Supervisors’ Chair Ricki Stumpo added their signatures. The ordinance will now go to the Chester County Planning Commission.

It was a bumpy beginning for Concord Township’s new Government Study Commission. There was flak regarding a court brief filed in the commission’s name before the commission was actually empaneled and uncertainty on how to handle public comment periods.

The entire atmosphere surrounding the commission and its reason for being has been controversial.

The seven-member commission — which is scheduled to sit for 18 months — came about as a result of a referendum question on the November ballot. Supervisors passed an ordinance in late July for the question that asked residents whether a government study commission should be formed to explore the possibility of changing Concord’s government structure.

Those possible changes include becoming a township of the first class, staying a township of the second class — but with modifications — possibly adopting some form of home rule charter, or making no change at all. At the end of the 18 months, the commission is required to file an official report with its recommendations.

As previously reported, Supervisors’ Chairman Dominic Pileggi said at the time that supervisors wanted their question to go before the voters to head off a petition drive by citizen’s group Concord First. That petition asked residents if they want the township to go from a township of the second class to township of the first class.

The ordinance for the supervisors’ question was passed a day after Concord First filed its petition.

Supervisors and the Delaware County Board of Elections challenged the Concord First petition in court. That challenge resulted in the Court of Common Pleas’ rejecting the petition even though Concord First had more than the requisite number of signatures to get its question on the ballot. Commonwealth Court later upheld the lower court decision. The matter is now before the state Supreme Court.

As part of the Supreme Court appeal process, attorney Michael Sheridan filed — in the commission’s name — a petition to intervene, telling the high court about the existence of the commission. However, that brief was filed on Nov. 17, a week before the election of commission members was certified by the election board and eight days before the commission members were sworn in.

Members of Concord First challenged the propriety of that filing. Even some members of the commission were uncomfortable with having the brief filed in their name before the panel ever existed.

They’re also uncomfortable with the fact that they did not retain Sheridan — or anyone else, for that matter — as commission solicitor.

(Chadds Ford Live phoned Sheridan’s office the day after the meeting for clarification of events, but the call went to voice and was not returned before this story was published.)

During a lengthy discussion, township solicitor Hugh Donaghue said the brief had to be filed by Nov. 17 because that was the state Supreme Court’s deadline. He said it was proper to let the court know about the referendum and that the commission would exist.

While commission member Matt Houtmann moved to have fellow members accept the brief, member Joshua Twersky moved to table the motion until the commission had its own solicitor to advise the group.

Twersky said it was akin to “malpractice” to accept the brief without first retaining and consulting its own solicitor.

Member Robert Tribit first said he was “offended” that the filing was done in the commission’s name, but then said the characterization might be too strong. However, he still called it an “overreach” because the commission did not yet exist.

However, after more discussion — including members’ being asked if they knew about the filing beforehand — and a check with Roberts Rules of Order on which motion to vote on first, the commission eventually tabled the motion to accept the brief until it has its own attorney.

The commission also tabled consideration of retaining a solicitor until the Jan. 8 meeting.

In the opening minutes of the meeting, Chairman James Gray said the first public comment period of the meeting was open only to questions regarding items on the agenda, but that the board did not have to answer the questions.

Several residents expressed frustration over the limitation. Rufus Miley said people wouldn’t know what questions to ask since the public comment period came before the commission got to the individual agenda items.

Gray later said the commission would reconsider how to handle public comment.

Other business

• Supervisors Pileggi, John Gillespie, and Libby Salvucci sat in on the meeting to answer questions from the commissioners and to offer views on what they would like the commission to consider during its 18-month proceedings.

Pileggi took the lead, saying he would like a better way of enforcing township ordinances. At present, any violation requires the code enforcement officer to take the offender to district court. That, he said, is too long a process. He wants something more immediate, but doesn’t necessarily want a township police department.  He said the state police do not enforce township ordinances.

He would also like the commission to consider adding two more members to the Board of Supervisors, with several representing specific geographical areas of the township and others still serving in an at-large capacity.

Gillespie — citing decades of working as civil a engineer for different townships — disagreed, saying the more supervisors there are, the more difficulty there is to get things done. He wants the number of supervisors to remain at five.

• Twersky, the commission treasurer, presented the group’s budget for 2015. Spending is expected to be $19,700 with the bulk of the money, $13,500, going toward legal expenses.

The remainder of the money will be spent on clerical services ($3,200), printing ($1,750), consultants ($1,000) and for travel, training and operations ($250).

• The next meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Jan. 8. Addressing the group that night will be Elam Herr, the deputy director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors. He will talk about the differences between townships of the first class and those of the second class.

Some taxes in Concord Township are holding steady, but others not. The good news for residents is that their township property taxes are not increasing next year.

Supervisors passed Concord’s 2015 budget during a special meeting on Dec. 16. The board anticipates revenues and expenses to be $4.225 million.

Property taxes will hold steady at 0.944 mills. A mill is a tax of $1 for every $1,000 of assessed property value.

While those taxes are remaining at their current limit, the township’s amusement tax is going up from 3 percent to 4 percent. Supervisors voted to increase that tax during a brief hearing before the budget meeting.

According to Supervisors’ Chairman Dominic Pileggi, the increase will generate an extra $2000 per year, from $16,000 to $18,000 per year, almost enough to fully fund the new Government Study Commission for that same period of time. The commission’s budget is for $19,700.

The amusement tax is placed on admission to various businesses in Concord, including the Turf Club, Sky Zone, Targetmaster and the poolroom at Duffers Pub, among pothers.

Pileggi also said the board would like to enact a tax of $1 per room at hotels, but there’s no enabling legislation on the state level for a hotel ‘pillow tax.”