Resident calls supervisors ‘despicable’

Concord Township residents vented frustration over the Vineyard Commons decision during what was, at times, a loud exchange with supervisors Tuesday night.

There were raised voices, applause, jeers and vigorous gavel banging. At one point, resident Vineet Gupta called the supervisors “despicable.”

Gupta’s comments came after supervisors said they could not rule out using eminent domain to acquire property for required road improvements involved in the project and after residents were told supervisors were not required to answer questions being posed to them.

“What is happening here is a mockery of democracy,” Gupta said.

He challenged the supervisors’ contention that most of the people who spoke out against the development during the Planning Commission meetings were from outside of Concord, saying the people in the room Tuesday night were all Concord residents who don’t want the project.

“I don’t know where you’re getting your facts, but you guys are the most despicable characters,” Gupta said.

At issue was the Concord Township Board of Supervisors’ decision regarding Vineyard Commons, the proposed 160-home development on 230 acres in Beaver Valley. The board gave preliminary plan approval to the project in March and then clarified some of the conditions of that approval in a special session on April 14. However, the board failed to give residents a chance to comment during that April 14 meeting.

“Under the advice of counsel, we’re doing that now,” said Supervisors’ Chairman Dominic Pileggi at the start of the May 5 meeting.

Mueller-quoteSolicitor Hugh Donoghue, as he did last month, read the clarifications into the record. There was a motion and a second to approve followed by the comment period, which began with a simple question.

Resident Ed Keane, president of the Concord Township Historical Society, asked why the developers would not be required to complete road improvements before three to five years into the project construction.

“Explain why it’s in the best interest of the township not to have these road improvements done before shovels hit the ground,” Keane said. “These roads should be done first before anything happens on this project.”

Pileggi said only that such is the procedure the township has used for other projects and “this is what we’re going to do here.”

Keane argued that the Route 202 intersection with Beaver Valley Road was a major intersection that’s already inadequate for today’s traffic.

Pileggi’s response was “we’re comfortable with that decision.”

At that point the audience in the almost fully packed meeting room began to grumble.O'Donoghue-Quote

Resident Ken Hemphill followed, asking the board whether the township would use eminent domain to “seize land along Route 202” for the road improvements if developers were unable to buy the properties.

“I think that would be an option, but normally we haven’t had to do that,” Pileggi said.

He added that developers normally pay the costs of property obtained through eminent domain.

Hemphill responded saying, “So you’re willing to use eminent domain to take other people’s property for road improvements for a development while we’re asking you to use eminent domain to protect this land?”

Loud applause drowned out Pileggi’s response, but he dismissed Hemphill and moved to the next resident.

Colette Brown — one of the litigants in the Concord First controversy seeking to have the township change from township of the second class to township of the first class — challenged the board’s earlier decision and asked if those previous votes would be rescinded since there was no public comment allowed when the board voted in April.

Pileggi said the only matter at hand was to have the public comment period as advised and vote on the clarification with those comments on the record.

“So there’s no consideration or concern for the public opinion of the people you were elected to represent?” Brown said.

There was more applause from the audience and calls for Pileggi to respond to Brown’s question.

Pileggi did so by saying, “Personally, I’m doing what I think is in the best interest of Concord Township.”

The audience jeered at that response, which prompted Pileggi to say there was obvious disagreement “so let’s move on to the next question.”

Brown eventually asked whether an elected official’s most important role is to “serve and act on behalf of the residents and taxpayers…Have you done anything to assess whether the majority of voters are in favor or opposed to the Beaver Valley development?”

Pileggi said the board listened to the testimony at the hearings and is acting on this plan.

Brown followed with another question: “So, based on the testimony in the hearings, you’d agree the majority of residents are opposed to the development?”

Pileggi responded: “No.”

The rest of his comment was drowned out by jeers and laughter from the crowd.

Pileggi began banging his gavel, loudly calling for order, and said the majority of people who spoke at the hearings were not from Concord Township.

At one point, a resident turned to another person sitting nearby and said he thought the gavel was going to break.

Anne Mueller followed Brown and asked several times how the development was in the best interest of the township.

She said the board keeps talking about outsiders who spoke at the hearings, but she then pointed to the applicants’ representatives, saying they were outsiders and the supervisors showed “rude disregard” for township residents.

Again she asked how Vineyard Commons was in the township’s best interest and, again, received no answer.

She continued, saying the board has lost its humanity and ability to listen to what people have to say.

“You’ve taught that democracy doesn’t really work here,” Mueller said.

She challenged the safety of the roads in question and said traffic would only get worse. She said the water quality would degrade. Again, she asked how and why the development is in the township’s best interest.

This time the solicitor said, “This is not the time for the board to answer questions.”

Mueller continued to press the issue until Supervisor Kevin O’Donoghue, who did not attend the April meeting, responded by saying he would be voting against the resolution that clarified the conditions.

“If I were here on April 14, I would have voted no, and I’m going to vote no tonight,” O’Donoghue said. “I do not feel this is in the best interest.”

The crowd applauded that response, but not those of other supervisors.

Supervisor John J. Gillespie said the application was prepared in accord with township regulations, and that township consultants reviewed those plans and issued letters. Supervisors listened to testimony, he said.

Supervisor Libby Salvucci said only that she has neighbors who have told her that they do favor the development because it would broaden the tax base by bringing in new residents. However, she added, those neighbors have also told her they are reluctant to speak out publicly because of the contentious atmosphere in the township.

She also said the plan is in compliance with township zoning.

Pileggi made no comment. Supervisor Dominic Cappelli had previously recused himself from the matter because of past relationships with developers and did not attend that portion of the meeting.

It was at this point when Gupta made his comments.

The vote was 3-1 and came after nine residents had made comments or asked questions.

At the conclusion of the regular portion of the meeting, Cappelli announced he was resigning from the board effective May 31.

A woman in the audience who stayed for the entire session, applauded and cheered.

Cappelli said later that it was time for him to leave the board. He said even though he recused himself from the Vineyard Commons application procedure, he still received telephone threats.

His term in office would have expired at the end of the year, and he was not running for re-election.

About Rich Schwartzman

Rich Schwartzman has been reporting on events in the greater Chadds Ford area since September 2001 when he became the founding editor of The Chadds Ford Post. In April 2009 he became managing editor of ChaddsFordLive. He is also an award-winning photographer.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (22 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...

Comments

comments

This Post Has One Comment

  1. maureen groves

    I am one of the “outsiders” that Concord Township refers to. I live 1.2 miles OUTSIDE of Concord Township. The development decisions that they have made in the past several years have negatively effected my quality of life, and that of many many “outsiders”. The OUTSIDERS that Concord Township are complaining about are neighboring townships and citizens that have to deal with the excessive traffic, the excessive loss of green space and wildlife refuges, that excessive out of control development in Concord Township has approved over and over again.

    There is no brick wall that divides communities and townships and counties and states. These IMAGINARY LINES were created centuries ago for very different reasons.

    My point is that Concord Township needs to respect the ENTIRE COMMUNITY as a WHOLE. Money is money. Taxes are taxes. Sewage issues irrupt when the ground is compromised. These things happen in ALL of townships- everywhere.

    I don’t think that Concord Township supervisors have considered the impact that their decisions have on the surrounding community and the quality of life (or lack of) that they are leaving for future generations to deal with.

    A community is not defined by imaginary lines. A community is defined by sharing a respect and consideration for each other.

Leave a Reply