Ernie Holling Appointed to West Pikeland Board of Supervisors
At the West Pikeland Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, October 19, Supervisors Shemonsky, Bright, Cracas and Hallman unanimously appointed long-time resident and citizen advocate Ernie Holling to the Board. Ernie assumes Bob Barker’s vacated Supervisor position, which expires in 2011. Bob Barker resigned from the BOS in September due to the demands of his job.
Shemonsky said that they had received inquiries from a number of interested citizens regarding the open spot. Bill Cracas nominated Ernie, and Richard Bright seconded the motion. Ernie was sworn in immediately after the vote, and joined the other supervisors at the head table for the remainder of the meeting.
A 25+-year resident, Ernie joins the BOS after many years involvement in township issues and politics. His elected positions have included Republican Committeeman and Commissioner (Chairman) on the West Pikeland Government Study Commission. Volunteer positions have included Trustee of the Chester Springs Library, Board Member of West Pikeland Land Trust, and Alternate Member of the WPT Planning Commission. He presently services as a member of the Board of Directors for the Green Valleys Association, a premier watershed advocacy group. He has also worked behind the scenes to solve township problems, organizing township communications and organizing a fund to provide independent litigation defense counsel.
Ernie can be reached at eholling@westpikeland.com or by calling 610-827-9141.
Congratulations, Ernie!
Unofficial Primary Election Results for May 19, 2009 linked here
Link to court filing is here -- Motion to Dismiss here Pretrial Conference May 29 here Order Dismissing here
Lawsuit alleges official was fired for comments about park plans
By DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — Former Township Manager Jeri L. Diesinger, who was fired last fall, has filed a federal lawsuit against the township.
Diesinger’s attorney, Sidney L. Gold, said his client’s First Amendment right of free speech was violated after she spoke out on a matter of public concern.
“Our position is she was punished for that by taking her job away,” said Gold.
Gold’s firm specializes in employment discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination.
Diesinger began working for the township on March 5, 2007, and was unlawfully fired Oct. 31, 2008, the lawsuit alleges.
“At all times … Diesinger maintained an excellent job performance rating and fulfilled all of the duties and obligations commensurate with her employment,” the suit says.
In the suit, Gold laid out an account of events leading up to Diesinger’s termination. The suit
alleges Diesinger was fired after she spoke out about the ongoing controversy with the Lionville Youth Association.
The township recently retained attorney Christopher Gerber to fight the litigation.
“The claims are absolutely baseless and will be defended vigorously,” said Gerber, a partner with Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew LLP, a law firm that specializes in defense of municipalities.
In summer 2007, the youth association requested another playing field be built in the township to accommodate an increase in the youth population. In November, township supervisors began to pursue plans to comply, the suit states.
But according to the suit, the field plans came to a halt when three new supervisors — Bob Barker, Richard Bright and Bob Shemonsky — began serving their terms in January 2008. At that time, the board increased from three to five supervisors.
The new supervisors “halted the building of said field, allegedly because they desired to ‘look into (the field project) further’ and gather ‘more information’ from LYA,” the suit states.
Residents serving on a finance review committee “falsely stated” to supervisors at two public meetings in summer 2008 that the township could not afford to build a new soccer field, the suit states.
As a result, Diesinger said the committee misrepresented the township’s financial situation and that the township’s budget had sufficient funds to build the field, according to the suit.
Diesinger then prepared her own financial report and presented it to finance committee members and two supervisors at a meeting in late August 2008.
Two months later, Diesinger was fired.
“Shemonsky stated to Diesinger that the board had ‘decided to make a change in the management of the township’ because it ‘had some complaints from some of the committees,’” the suit states.
“Diesinger believes … her employment was in fact terminated in retaliation for expressing her opinion on a matter of public concern, namely her opposition to the township’s statement that constructing an athletic field was a financial impossibility,” the suit states
In addition to violating her First Amendment right to free speech, the suit alleges that her parallel right under the Pennsylvania Constitution was violated.
Diesinger wants the township to:
· reinstate her as manager;
· compensate her for wages and other benefits lost;
· pay her for pain and suffering damages; and
· reimburse her legal fees.
Gold filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 20.
The case has been assigned to Judge Lawrence F. Stengel.
No trial date has been set.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
Copy of Court Filing Linked Here Motion to Enlarge Response TIme Here WPT Answer to ACMEC Complain here
|
Hindu society sues township over temple plans |
|
By DANIELLE LYNCH Staff Writer WEST PIKELAND — Saying his clients are being deprived of their civil rights, an attorney for a group seeking to build a Hindu temple sued the township Friday. “It’s an unfortunate circumstance,” said attorney Richard Lipow, representing Adhi Parasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational and Cultural Society (ACMEC) of North America. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The society “alleges that the township’s zoning and land development ordinances, both on the face and as applied to ACMEC, violates its First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech and assembly; its Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law; its parallel rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution; and the federal Religious Land Use and the Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,” the suit states. Sriram Adhimoolam, a representative of the society, had presented a plan for a 26,000-square-foot temple and a 9,000-square-foot auxiliary support building on a 24.5-acre site in the 1400 block of Route 401. The cultural society sought conditional-use approval of the plan in 2008. On March 16, township supervisors approved religious purposes for the property but with substantial requirements, including that the proposed Hindu temple can be no larger than 5,000 square feet. Supervisors created 18 conditions with 23 further specifications as requirements of the plan. “It’s important we be consistent with the previous decision of the zoning hearing board,” Supervisors’ Chairman Bob Shemonsky said in March. In 2002, the zoning hearing board granted the cultural society a special exception to conduct religious-based activities in a farmhouse on the property. During 2001 testimony, the applicants said they might later seek to build a 5,000-square-foot temple, according to court documents. Lipow said testimony about a future building during the previous zoning hearing was irrelevant. “The purpose of that hearing was to allow for a special exception to worship there; that’s all,” Lipow said. Township Solicitor Guy Donatelli declined to comment Friday on the lawsuit. He said he did not have a chance to review it. The board’s decision and order states federal law is applicable to the society’s application. And similar to the zoning hearing board’s special-exception approval, the board “believes that when dealing with a land-use issue involving a religious use of land, federal law requires that local zoning regulation cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless that burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest,” the decision and order says. “But (the federal law) does not demand the township ignore its zoning ordinance.” Lipow argues otherwise. “You can’t use a zoning ordinance to substantially burden a religious use without articulating a compelling governmental interest,” Lipow said. “In my opinion they (township supervisors) didn’t articulate it. All they did was substantially burden my client.” In the order, the board states it is not denying the society’s right to expand. Rather, the board believes that by permitting certain expansion with conditions “it is accommodating the proposed religious use while mitigating the adverse effects on the surrounding community to the greatest extent possible,” says the order. “The board’s concerns are more than aesthetic concerns, and its determination is not based upon any perceived inconvenience to the community — there is no condition contained anywhere in this decision and order which compels the structure to look anything other than a Hindu temple … the plan as currently constituted presents an intensity of development on a piece of ground that simply cannot accommodate it,” the order says. Lipow said the size of the temple is driven by religious architecture, not by the size of a congregation. “Certain gods need distance from each other,” Lipow said. The cultural society reached out to the supervisors through Donatelli, stating it would be willing to work on a settlement proposal, “but they (township officials) ignored it,” Lipow said. “We’re always willing to work it out and negotiate.” Lipow said his clients are township property owners and are saddened by the township’s resolution and by the public’s reaction. Lipow said the neighbors acted out of fears. “I think the board felt a lot of pressure from the neighbors and the people who elected them,” Lipow said. In the suit, Lipow states township residents attending the conditional-use hearings were provided a forum in which they repeatedly made known their displeasure with his client’s project. “While only one township resident spoke in favor of the project, numerous residents expressed surprise, shock and anger at the prospect of a ‘mosque’ being constructed in their neighborhood,” the suit states. “They expressed concern that the temple would become a ‘mecca’ for Hindus and that ‘if you build it, they will come;’ residents expressed their fear that a large Hindu temple would cause an influx of Hindus into their township.” The cultural society desires to move forward with its plan immediately, the suit states. “Essentially, the township’s board concluded that because the farmhouse was satisfactory for purposes of worship, demolition of non-landmark status old buildings on the property was not warranted,” the suit states. “The township’s board reached this conclusion by ignoring undisputed testimony that the farmhouse was too small an edifice in which to place gods.” To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com |
Copy of Filing located Here Hearing Order Here Transcript May 5 Here
Judge halts work on new sports field
Delay ordered until merits of an appeal filed by neighbors can be adjudicated
Monday, April 20, 2009
By DANIELLE LYNCH, Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — At the request of neighbors, an administrative law judge has halted construction of a new playing field considered critical to the township's involvement with the Lionville Youth Association.
A hearing to address the matter is set for today.
Attorney George Asimos is representing Henry and Barbara Jordan, neighbors of Pine Creek Park, where the new field is planned. Asimos said his clients want to protect a Pickering Creek tributary's water quality. The tributary and associated wetlands directly abut the proposed playing field, he said.
Lionville Youth Association officials requested the field be built in fall 2007 to accommodate township children involved in youth sports. After months of controversy and missed deadlines, the officials said West Pikeland children will be suspended from athletic programs in June if a second regulation field at the park is not leveled, graded and seeded or sodded by May 15.
At today's hearing in Norristown, Judge Bernard A. Labuskes Jr. will be asked to continue to halt work on the field until a final decision is rendered on the Jordans' appeal of a permit issued by the state Department of Environmental Protection, according to Asimos.
Asimos blamed the situation on state regulations not followed by the township.
The DEP issued a permit to allow construction of the new community
soccer field at the park on April 3. Asimos filed an appeal of the permit on April 8, saying his clients do not believe the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual and water-quality protection requirements are being followed.
The township proceeded with work on the field on April 9. The work began immediately after a meeting with officials from the township and the Chester County Conservation District.
James R. Kenney Excavating & Paving, the contractor hired by the township, began moving earth until April 10, "and that was it," township Solicitor Guy Donatelli said.
The work stopped after attorneys for the Jordans asked Labuskes of the state's Environmental Hearing Board "to stay the DEP permit on an emergency basis," according to Donatelli. The township opposed the request, Donatelli said.
State DEP spokesman Dennis Harney said his agency does not have a position on the judge's order but "does stand by our determination that the permit was properly issued, based on the technical merits of the application."
The project consists of a regulation-sized soccer and lacrosse field 195 feet wide and 330 feet long. The plan includes associated stormwater management improvements.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
Copy of Conditional Use Hearing Decision and Order
Supervisors OK Hindu temple application
But officials attach various conditions to plan for a worship center in West
Pikeland
By DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — Township supervisors approved a conditional-use application for religious purposes on a property off Route 401 but with substantial requirements including that a proposed Hindu temple can be no larger than 5,000 square feet.
“The Board of Supervisors granted the request to the extent of allowing a church or similar place of worship there,” said township Solicitor Guy Donatelli on Thursday. “But because the plan they submitted was not consistent with township ordinances the board has said the applicant will need to come back with a plan that is consistent with the ordinances and includes the conditions listed in the decision and order.”
The plan for a new 26,000-square-foot temple and a 9,000-square-foot auxiliary support building on a 24.5-acre site was proposed by Sriram Adhimoolam, a representative of Adhi Parasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational and Cultural Society of North America.
Richard Lipow, the attorney representing the society, reacted about the
board’s decision on Thursday but saying, “We’re considering our options.”
In 2002, the township’s zoning hearing board granted the applicant a special exception to conduct religious-based activities in the historic farmhouse on the property. During the 2001 testimony, the applicants said in the future they may seek to build a 5,000-square-foot temple, according to court documents.
The board rendered its 39-page decision and order at a meeting on Monday night.
“It’s important we be consistent with the previous decision of the zoning hearing board,” said Supervisors’ Chairman Bob Shemonsky.
The board has no intent to halt religious-use on the property but it’s important to have conditions, Shemonsky said.
Lipow has said that appearance of the temple is protected under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act of 2000.
The board’s decision states that the federal law is applicable to the society’s application.
And similar to the zoning hearing board’s special-exception approval, the board “believes that when dealing with a land-use issue involving a religious-use of land, federal law requires that local zoning regulation cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless that burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest,” the decision and order says. “But (the federal law) does not demand the township ignore its zoning ordinance.”
The board states in the order that it is not denying the society’s right to expand. But rather the board believes that by permitting certain expansion with conditions “it is accommodating the proposed religious use while mitigating the adverse effects on the surrounding community to the greatest extent possible,” says order.
“The board’s concerns are more than aesthetic concerns, and its determination is not based upon any perceived inconvenience to the community — there is no condition contained anywhere in this decision and order which compels the structure to look anything other than a Hindu temple … the plan as currently constituted presents an intensity of development on a piece of ground that simply cannot accommodate it,” the order says.
Supervisors created 18 conditions with 23 further specifications that will be requirements of the plan, according to Donatelli.
Some of the conditions include:
“A single structure not to exceed 5,000 square feet;
“Maximum rated occupancy of any structure ... shall not exceed 200 people;
“Sufficient parking (either current or held in reserve) to accommodate special events anticipated at the property;
“Facilities related to sewage capacity and water use (i.e. bathrooms, sinks and kitchen, etc.) shall be limited to those necessary to accommodate 200 people;
“No up-lighting or other type of lighting on the exterior of the building or any spires except for necessary door and exit safety lighting;
“No bells or other sound emitting devices on the exterior of the building except for those specifically identified as a safety alarm;
“The applicant shall limit its hours of operation to between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. and extinguish all parking and driveway lighting by 10 p.m.; there shall be no motion activated lights;
“There shall be no overnight stays at the property;
“No portion of the property shall be utilized as a soup kitchen or a commercial establishment, such as a rental for functions such as banquets, wedding receptions, parties or other gatherings without specific approval for specific time periods from the Board of Supervisors; and
The society “shall not engage in any medical or educational services or training at the property.”
In addition, the board made several environmental conditions regarding stormwater, wetlands, adequate tree screening, steep slopes and riparian buffer zones. The board’s decision came about 60 days after the conclusion of the eighth conditional-use hearing in January.
Supervisor Bill Cracas said the board spent a lot of time listening to the testimony from the hearings.
“I knew little about Hindu faith even though it’s one of the great religions of the world,” Cracas said. “We can’t bring our preconceptions to other religions.”
A group of about 50 residents had been opposed to the plan and urged supervisors to deny it. In addition, the township’s planning commission, land trust and the Green Valleys Association also made recommendations against it.
There were no complaints from residents who attended Monday night’s meeting. One resident, Wayne Freese, commented on the board’s order.
“This is a unique situation in which a decision is being unanimously backed by township residents,” Freese said.
The society has seven days to agree with the board’s decision and order, according to Donatelli. If not, the society’s application is deemed denied and the society has 30 days to file a land-use appeal in county court.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
2009-10 budget in Downingtown Area would hike taxes by 3.75%
Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:09 AM EST
By DANIELLE LYNCH, Staff Writer
DOWNINGTOWN — The Downingtown Area School Board passed a preliminary budget for the 2009-10 school year Wednesday night.
Next year's budget stands at $184 million, which includes a 3.75 percent property tax increase, according to Richard Fazio, the district's chief financial officer. The tax increase is below the 4.1 percent cap set by the state under the Taxpayer Relief Act.
The 2008-09 property tax rate was 24.85 mills, with 1 mill equal to $1 in tax for every $1,000 in assessed property value.
A 3.75 percent hike would raise the tax rate to 25.78 mills. A home assessed for tax purposes at $150,000 would therefore generate a school property tax bill of $3,867 — an increase of $139.50 over the prior year.
"All the department heads are looking at ways to cut back," said district spokeswoman Pat McGlone.
Fazio said the goal of the administration and school board is to get next year's tax increase below 3 percent and close to 2.8 percent. By May, the administration hopes to decrease the budget to meet the targeted goals. He said the school district is anticipating about a $5 million loss in tax revenue this year.
At a finance meeting last month, Fazio said the administration plans to take several items into consideration, including the fund balance, copiers and fuel purchases, staffing adjustments, allocation reductions, third middle reserve and contingency.
The 2009-10 preliminary budget includes a 4.1 increase in expenditures over last year's $177 million budget.
A final recommendation for the 2009-10 budget will be presented to the school board for approval in June.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
URL: http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2009/02/14/news/srv0000004700515.prt
Downingtown Area officials address Original plans for a new middle school fell through last year
By DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff Writer
DOWNINGTOWN — Downingtown Area officials discussed ways to alleviate middle school overcrowding at a facilities meeting Wednesday night.
Administrators have recommended that some students be relocated to the Downingtown Educational Center on a temporary basis until a third middle school is built. District parents that attended the recent meeting voiced concerns about this proposal.
“I’m concerned that sixth-graders going to DEC will have a very different experience than other middle school students,” said Barbara Hurt-Simmons of West Pikeland, who is president of the Joint Home and School Association.
Even though Hurt-Simmons said she knows the school district will provide all the necessary learning materials to the students, she’s not sure they’ll have the same experience.
Tony Watson, the district’s director of secondary education, said the administration will do everything it can to minimize disruption to students.
About 1,270 students attend Downingtown Middle School and 1,493 attend Lionville Middle School, according to district spokeswoman Pat McGlone. The desired capacity per building is 1,350 students.
The educational center is located on Manor Avenue in Downingtown and houses some programs run by the Chester County Intermediate Unit (CCIU). The school board decided at its January meeting that an agreement with the CCIU will be terminated after a one-year extension of the lease.
If the school board eventually approves the option to use the education center facility as a temporary third middle school, sixth-grade students assigned to the new middle school would attend classes in the building beginning in the 2010-11 school year, according to McGlone.
At the direction of the school board, Watson prepared short- and long-term recommendations and considerations for the education center. As part of his short-term recommendations, Watson said the district should keep alternative education programs there. He said students assigned to the third middle school should start in the facility until a third middle school is built.
Long-term considerations for the facility include 21st century possibilities, an administration building, expand alternative education or lease all or part of the building again, Watson said.
The board has had to consider new options after original plans for a new middle school fell through last year.
The Siemens Tract, off Lionville Station Road in Uwchlan, was originally where the third middle school was slated to be built. In 2006, the district purchased the 242-acre property for $22 million with the intent of developing athletic fields, a middle school, a high school and an elementary school.
But last May, the school board instead decided to sell the Siemens Tract to Caldera Properties for $30.1 million. Then in June, the board approved a new agreement with Downingtown 242 LP, an affiliate of Stoltz Management Co. The company decided to terminate the sales agreement in August.
Parents at Wednesday’s meeting asked why plans for the Siemens Tract fell through.
“There was never an official turn-down to the school district by Uwchlan to build on the Siemens Tract,” said Richard Fazio, the district’s chief financial officer.
According to Fazio, two of the three Uwchlan supervisors were suggesting other options for the land, including a mega-high school or converting Downingtown East High School into a third middle school. These suggestions weren’t in line with what the school district wanted and after several meetings with the township it became apparent it wouldn’t work out, Fazio said.
In addition, the property is zoned planned industrial commercial which is also part of the reason the school district is not pursuing plans there, according to school board member Norman Long, who is chairman of the board’s facilities committee.
“That land is not zoned for educational purposes,” Long said.
Even though no decisions have been made yet about the third middle school site, Downingtown Area officials are actively pursuing closure on negotiations, Long said. The target open date for the new school is for the 2012-13 school year.
School board members at Wednesday’s facilities meeting voiced their opinions with the plans.
Board member Alice Johnson said she was not in favor of moving sixth- and seventh-graders to the education center facility. Instead she suggested spot redistricting of some students from Lionville Middle School to Downingtown Middle School until the third middle school is built.
Bill Fagan said that if the school district waits and does nothing, then there’s “a fear that inflation could kick in when the economy comes back.”
“Really, all this is anticipation and speculation based around unknowns,” said school board President Bob Eldredge.
District officials will be discussing this issue through March. The next discussion is expected to take place at the Feb. 11 school board meeting.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
Final Testimony Urges Supervisors to Deny Conditional Use
Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — Residents urged township supervisors to deny the request for a proposed Hindu temple in the 1400 block of Route 401 at a hearing on Thursday night.
A plan for a new 26,000-square-foot temple and a 9,000-square-foot auxiliary support building on a 24.5-acre site has been proposed by Sriram Adhimoolam of Adhi Parasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational and Cultural Society of North America (ACMEC).
About 60 people attended Thursday's hearing. Residents asked the Board of Supervisors to deny ACMEC's request.
"In talking with residents of West Pikeland Township I am assured they will support your decision to deny even if it results in legal actions by the applicants," said Tom Grant, reading from a letter on behalf of resident Ernie Holling, who was unable to attend the hearing.
In 2002, the township's zoning hearing board granted the applicant a special exception to conduct religious-based activities on the property. ACMEC is now seeking conditional-use and land-development approval to construct a new temple and auxiliary building.
In addition to neighbors being against the project, the township's planning commission, an advisory board, recommended the township vote against the conditional-use approval in a May 2008 memo.
The West Pikeland Land Trust executive committee also recommended the township deny granting conditional use for the ACMEC temple as currently proposed.
"We are familiar with the property in question and its environmental assets and constraints, and its historical assets, and note that it neighbors existing farmland and other designated historic resources," said trust member James Rowan, reading from a letter to township supervisors.
Rowan said the West Pikeland Land Trust also agrees and endorses with the public statement made earlier this month by John Hoekstra, director of watershed advocacy for the Green Valleys Association.
Hoekstra said the Green Valleys Association strongly urges township officials to deny granting conditional-use for the temple as it is currently proposed. He said several residents "raised their concern for the well-being of the Pickering Creek and its supportive ecosystems."
"In our opinion, the encroachment into the riparian zone and the proposed construction of retaining walls in very close proximity to the existing wetlands pose degrading threats to this high quality watershed and its associated wetland," Hoekstra said at a previous hearing.
Opponents of the temple said religious views have nothing to do with why they are against the plan. Rather, they voiced concerns with the size of the buildings and the impact it could have on natural resources and stormwater management.
Another concern of residents has been the lack of consistency of the plans. In particular, they referenced testimony before the zoning hearing board in September 2001 when the applicant was seeking a special exception to use the property for religious purposes.
During the 2001 testimony, the applicants said in the future they may seek to build a 5,000-square-foot temple, according to court papers.
"If ACMEC had stayed with the original 5,000-square-foot temple, the project may have been built by now without community resistance," said resident Mark Weiss.
The appearance of the temple is protected under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act of 2000, according to Richard Lipow, the attorney representing ACMEC.
In regards to the 2001 testimony, "my clients' thoughts and predictions about the future of the property were not germane," Lipow said. "They changed their minds about what they wanted to do."
In addition, Lipow said his clients may have been referring to the 5,000-square-foot sacred area that is part of the current proposed temple plans.
Another concern of residents was how many people would use the temple.
According to the project statement, the cultural society's congregation has about 200 members in North America, and about 20 members reside within a 50-mile radius of the site.
"The majority of the contributing members are not Pennsylvania residents and many are over 1,000 miles away with some as far as the West Coast," the project statement says. "The 20 local members are expected to use the facility most."
But neighbors took issue to these numbers saying that they found them hard to believe because of the size and scope of the project.
In response to the opposition from the community, Lipow said, "I think this is basically a fear of the unknown - these are good people (the neighbors) who are faced with something new and different and it worries them."
Thursday was the final conditional-use hearing regarding ACMEC's proposal.
Lipow and Fronefield Crawford, the attorney who represented residents Sue and Larry O'Donnell, will now file briefs, according to township Solicitor Guy Donatelli. The Board of Supervisors has 60 days to render its opinion and decision on the conditional-use request, he said.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
ACMEC Conditional Use Hearing Statement from GVA Environmental Engineer
Meliora Environmental Design, LLC
MEMO
To: John Hoekstra, Watershed Director, Green Valleys Association
From: Michele Adams, P.E. Meliora Environmental Design
RE: Conditional Use Plans for ACMEC
West Pikeland Township, Chester County
Impacts to Wetlands and Water Quality of Lower Pine Creek
Date: January 15, 2009
Dear John:
Per Green Valley Association’s request (GVA), I have reviewed the Conditional Use Plans for ACMEC located in West Pikeland Township, Chester County with regards to anticipated impacts to the water quality of Lower Pine Creek, a High Quality stream, and the associated wetlands. The plans that were provide to me by GVA are the Conditional Use Plans Prepared for ACMEC by Yerkes Associates, dated May 4, 2007 and last updated 10/20/2008, sheets 1 through 14.
You have asked me specifically to comment on the anticipated stormwater impacts and water quality impacts to Lower Pine Creek, a High Quality stream, and the wetlands adjacent to the proposed development footprint.
The plans indicate that the proposed project includes a 26,370 square foot Temple, a 9,100 square foot Auxiliary Building, and associated parking, entrance drive and site elements (wastewater absorption field, grading, etc.). The plans indicate the Limit of Disturbance is 4.61 acres.
The site was formerly a farm and the existing residence and barn are proposed for removal. The “top” of the site as indicated on the plan set is to the east. The highest elevation is to the north at Elevation 456, falling to Elevation 380 along Lower Pine Creek, a drop of approximately 76 feet. There is a local high point of Elevation 434 under the area of the proposed Temple, with the topography falling away to the north, south and east.
The proposed buildings and parking are located over an area of rolling topography and moderately steep slopes (15% -25%), with a local high point at the proposed location of the Temple and Auxiliary Building at Elevation 434. To construct the proposed building and parking as a relatively flat site, the site plan indicates areas of extensive earthwork
West Pikeland Township
Conditional Use Hearing
January 8, 2009
Green Valleys Association Public Comments
Re: ACMEC Temple Application
Green Valleys Association (GVA) is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit watershed organization whose 155 square mile stewardship area includes the Pickering Creek watershed. Several residents in West Pikeland Township some who are members of Green Valleys raised their concern for the well being of the Pickering Creek and its supportive ecosystems. With this in mind, they appealed to and encouraged GVA to review the plans submitted by ACMEC.
In addition to reviewing the submitted plans with Meliora Environmental Design’s founder and principal engineer Michele Adams P.E., GVA representatives attended the public hearings on this application as well as read the expert testimony provided in the case through transcripts that were also provided to GVA by concerned residents. The expert testimony provided by Ms. Pamela Stephens and Mr. Wayne Grafton on behalf of the O’Donnell’s corroborate with the opinion independently reached by GVA.
Green Valleys Association strongly recommends to West Pikeland Township’s Conditional Use Hearing Board that they deny granting conditional use for the ACMEC Temple as currently proposed.
In our opinion, the encroachment into the Riparian Zone and the proposed construction of retaining walls in very close proximity to the existing wetlands pose degrading threats to this High Quality watershed and its associated wetland. We also call into question why the wetlands are not shown to lead to and connect to the existing spring. The deep cuts which would provide the necessary fill required in this plan would result in the burial of this spring and we feel that this would be a direct violation to the waters of the Commonwealth. To support that opinion I reference Chapter 93, Section 93.1of the Pennsylvania Code which defines surface waters as, “Perennial and intermittent streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, springs, natural seeps and estuaries, excluding water at facilities approved for wastewater treatment such as wastewater treatment impoundments, cooling water ponds and constructed wetlands used as part of a wastewater treatment process”. The Clean Streams Law states that Waters of the Commonwealth shall be construed to include any and all rivers, streams, creeks, rivulets, impoundments, ditches, water courses, storm sewers, lakes, ponds, springs and all other bodies or channels of conveyance of surface and underground water, or parts thereof, whether natural of artificial, within or on the boundaries of this Commonwealth. Additionally, the deep cuts proposed in this plan would greatly alter the hydrologic regime of this site further degrading the water resources. At my request, Michele Adams, principal of Meliora Environmental Design, is here tonight and can speak directly to these points.
Furthermore, it is our opinion, that the applicant as well as the township has a responsibility of respecting and abiding by the deed restriction that was placed on this property. Again it is our opinion that this deed restriction was set forth to provide for possible future development but not at the expense of the rural character of the surroundings properties as well as not to subject the natural resources of this property to degrading stresses posed by these encroachments. We are not unfamiliar with deed restrictions as GVA’s property, known as Welkinweir, has a deed restriction on the 197 acre estate which provides for a small building envelope for future considerations. When GVA wanted to relocate this building envelope, East Nantmeal Township was directly involved with this decision as was the Natural Lands Trust.
In closing, I would like to state again, it is Green Valleys Association’s recommendation to deny granting this conditional use.
Thank you for providing this opportunity for public comment.
Respectfully Submitted
John Hoekstra
Director of Watershed Advocacy
Green Valleys Association
Why the flip-flop on past viewpoints?
Friday, December 26, 2008 6:07 AM EST
This letter is in response to your unsigned NIMBY editorial of Dec. 22. In your previous editorials relating to the development of open spaces in Chester County, you have consistently (and correctly) championed planning. I have read numerous articles and editorials in your paper in favor of regional planning, cluster zoning, local planning and planned communities. Your philosophy is sound. When given an opportunity, let's create a living environment that is in harmony with nature and the historical roots of the community. Let's not overburden the environment with too much on site sewage discharge and endless traffic.
Now, it seems, you've changed your tune. You are supporting proposals that will radically change the West Pikeland countryside.
Do you really believe a temple with a total of 35,000 square feet is going to be occupied by 50-200 members? That's more than 13 feet by 13 feet per worshipper with a full house.
So the builders of the temple obviously have much larger plans for the structure that they're not sharing with us. A modest building of 5,000 square feet (as per the original proposal) would be more doable. A mega structure of that size in semi-rural West Pikeland is no more appropriate here than the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County or Trump's Taj Mahal would be.
As for your flip-flop on defending the over- burdened rural ecology, I can only assume that you've surrendered completely to political correctness.
Joseph E. Groff
Chester Springs
Residents challenge proposal for temple
Monday, December 22, 2008 6:37 AM EST
WEST PIKELAND —
Opponents of a proposed
Hindu temple in Chester
Springs say religious
denomination has nothing
to do with why they are
against the plan.
"The proposed temple
would not be in alliance
with the land I've
fought to preserve,"
said resident Larry
O'Donnell. "We have no
objection to the
religious activity."
A plan for a new
26,000-square-foot
temple and a
9,000-square-foot
auxiliary support
building has been
proposed by Sriram
Adhimoolam of Adhi
Parasakthi Charitable,
Medical, Educational and
Cultural Society of
North America. The
24.5-acre property is in
the 1400 block of Route
401.
In 2002, the township's
zoning hearing board
granted the applicant a
special exception to
conduct religious-based
activities on the
property. The society is
now seeking
conditional-use and
land-development
approval to construct a
new temple and auxiliary
building.
O'Donnell and his wife,
Sue, are being
represented by attorney
Fronefield Crawford.
They testified about why
they are against the
temple at a
conditional-use hearing
Thursday night.
"Frankly we don't care
about religious uses …
as long as it (the
temple) doesn't cause
health and safety issues
for the community,"
Larry O'Donnell said.
When Supervisors'
Chairman Bob Shemonsky
asked him to clarify
what he meant by health
and safety issues,
O'Donnell said he was
worried the temple would
increase traffic and
pollution.
During Sue O'Donnell's
testimony,
She drew comparisons
between the proposed
Hindu temple and St.
Elizabeth's Roman
Catholic Church in
neighboring Upper
Uwchlan. She said the
church is appropriate on
its property off Route
100 but would not fit
well at the proposed
temple site in West
Pikeland.
Sue O'Donnell said she'd
oppose any
35,000-square-foot
structure on the site
off Route 401 — whether
it was a church,
synagogue, circus or
Wal-Mart.
"We'd object to anything
of that size," she said.
Richard Lipow, the
attorney representing
the applicant, said the
O'Donnells' testimony
about the church and
temple was an
irrelevant, unfair
comparison.
"I view the comparison
inevitable and almost
anecdotal," said
township Solicitor Guy
Donatelli.
In addition to the size
of the temple, Sue
O'Donnell raised
concerns about how many
Hindus may migrate to
the area to use the
proposed facility.
At a previous hearing,
Adhimoolam explained
that unlike Christian
worship, there is no
scheduled time of
religious gathering. He
said the temple is open
to members generally
between 10 a.m. and 6
p.m. daily and the
length of visit is at
the member's discretion.
"The most likely time
for temple visits is
during a Saturday or
Sunday in late morning
or early afternoon, and
in 2001 ACMEC testified
before the township's
zoning hearing board
that on average no more
than five families visit
the site on typical
Saturdays or Sundays,"
the society's project
statement says.
According to the project
statement, the
congregation has about
200 members in North
America and about 20
members within a 50-mile
radius of the site.
"The majority of the
contributing members are
not Pennsylvania
residents, and many are
over 1,000 miles away
from it, some as far as
the West Coast," the
project statement says.
"The 20 local members
are expected to use the
facility most."
Sue O'Donnell said the
calculations of the
temple's membership were
ridiculous because it
would be the only temple
of its kind in North
America.
She said she was
concerned about the
project for
environmental reasons,
including its impact on
sewage, stormwater
runoff, wetlands, steep
slopes, tree buffer zone
and historic
preservation.
The appearance of the
temple is protected
under the Religious Land
Use and
Institutionalized
Person's Act of 2000,
according to Lipow. In
addition, it's protected
under the free exercise
clause of the First
Amendment and the equal
protection clause of the
14th Amendment.
Two additional hearings
have been tentatively
scheduled for 7 p.m. on
Jan. 8 and 15.
To contact staff writer
Danielle Lynch, send an
e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com.
A Response to DLN Editorial -- Monday, December 22, 2008 7:52 AM EST
Your December 22nd editorial speaks of Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) as though it was a societal flaw. Advocacy is core to the nature of a democracy and people tend to address only the issues which directly concern them; they always have and I suspect always will. As a society we need people to speak up and engage. Whether they are proponents or opponents of an issue it remains important for them to speak. It is one of the reasons we guarantee freedom of the press so jealously. In creating that right we expect the press to respect that freedom and do the homework which honors their profession.
Good governance is best achieved when two opposing viewpoints work to find a position which is not uncomfortable to either party. Without advocates, those who govern may not see the broader spectrum in an issue. It is the job of the advocate to speak clearly, concisely, and bring fact and sometimes emotion to those who govern. It is the wisdom of the governors to listen to the varying perspectives, understand the motivations and balance them while taking into account their own convictions in making a decision.
You cite their position of concern with traffic as laughable and yet one only needs to understand the impact at this particular site, when several years ago the ground was consecrated by the leader of their faith. You reported it along with the massive traffic created and the Inquirer quoted the Police Chief’s count of 600 visitors (Sep 9, 2000). One can also look to New Jersey when a Township rejected a Hindu faith application because they believed the claims of low attendance contrasted with the size of the facility were laughable. That proposal was for 29,000 sq feet and could hold 3,000 people though the petitioners said there would never be more than 150. This proposal is for a main building of 27,000 sq ft and should have between 20 and 200 visitors. Which laughable position is correct?
In the New Jersey case, after two and a half years, the Township did not find the applicant’s representations credible. Our supervisors must look to the representations, but also look beyond them the potential impact if the representations are incomplete or totally inaccurate. Their decision must be grounded in the science which speaks to the impact and respect the people who bring that information to them.
The O’Donnell’s have been consistent advocates of the preservation of open space in West Pikeland and have taken actions in the past to preserve West Pikeland. Was that NIMBY or township improvement which we all applauded? When one knows them you are assured their personal viewshed is not the issue, it is the preservation of what makes West Pikeland of great value to residents and visitors alike.
Laws require we notify neighbors of applications which affect them so they may speak-out and the DLN should applaud and encourage those who do, not trivialize their efforts.
Ernie Holling
Chester Springs
DLN Editorial -- Monday, December 22, 2008 7:52 AM EST
Faithism or placeism?
That was the central theme of the discussion at last
week's conditional-use hearing regarding the
proposed 26,000-square-foot Hindu temple and
9,000-square-foot auxiliary support building in
Chester Springs. Residents have made it clear they'd
prefer the building be constructed elsewhere and
delivered testimony saying as much.
Most of the testimony centered on the fact that it
wasn't the religious aspects of the temple that
bothered them, but the fact that it was being built
in West Pikeland, where it would stand out against
the background of the township's rootsy, rural
nature. Residents Larry and Sue O'Donnell testified
that it was not the religious activity that bothered
them, but the temple's proposed location — in the
1400 block of Route 401.
"Frankly we don't care about religious uses … as
long as it (the temple) doesn't cause health and
safety issues for the community," Larry O'Donnell
said, citing increased traffic and pollution in the
township as areas of concern. Sue O'Donnell added
that she'd be opposed to any 35,000-square-foot
structure on the site off Route 401 — whether it was
a church, synagogue, circus or Wal-Mart.
We'd be inclined to
agree with them, if we thought there was any merit
to their claims. It's true that West Pikeland is one
of the county's more scenic areas, and the temple
will likely stand out among its barns wooden fences.
But the fact of the matter is that the O'Donnells,
and residents like them, are suffering from an acute
case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)-ism
In other words, it's OK to build it, just please
don't build it here. Sue O'Donnell basically said as
much, when she drew comparisons between the proposed
Hindu temple and St. Elizabeth's Roman Catholic
Church, located in neighboring Upper Uwchlan. She
said she believes the church is appropriate on its
property located off Route 100, but would not fit
well at the proposed temple site in West Pikeland.
Maybe because it's too close to her own home?
The idea that the temple would cause an increase in
traffic to the area is laughable. Sriram Adhimoolam,
a representative of Adhi Parasakthi Charitable,
Medical, Educational and Cultural Society of North
America (ACMEC), has previously testified that
AMCEC's congregation in North America is about 200
members. About 20 of them reside within 50 miles of
the site.
Unlike Christian worship, Adhimoolam has said, there
is no scheduled time of religious gathering. The
temple would be open to members generally between 10
a.m. and 6 p.m. every day and the length of visit
would be at the discretion of a member. Even if
every member of the church visited the temple at the
same exact time, an extremely unlikely scenario, the
impact on the area surrounding the proposed temple
would be minimal.
Would it seem out of place in West Pikeland?
Possibly. But is that a reason not to build it? In
our opinion, no.