Riled Residents Request 'Re-vote' On Merion Ave. Subdivision

Residents voiced opposition to a proposed subdivision in Penfield on Thursday night and angrily demanded that the Haverford Township Planning Commission take a “re-vote” on the issue because residents did not receive mailed notifications in advance of the commission’s February vote.

The Planning Commission voted on Feb. 10 to recommend that the Haverford Township Board of Commissioners approve a proposal for developer Rayer Builders of Media to build a minor subdivision at 716 Merion Ave.  The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to vote on the proposal on April 11.

The proposed subdivision calls for three, two-story colonial-style homes, two of which would be on lots measuring 6,250 square feet, and one of which has an 8,484 square-foot lot, said the project engineer for the proposed subdivision, Michael Ciocco of Catania Engineering Associates, Inc. of Milmont Park.

The Planning Commission gave the public the chance to comment on and ask questions about the  subdivision proposal at its March monthly meeting because commissioners learned after the Planning Commission's vote that the township had neglected to mail residents notifications about the meeting.

Amongst an audience of some 35 people, several residents at Thursday’s meeting yelled during their individual comments that they wanted a “re-vote.”

But an attorney for the township solicitor’s office, Kelly Sullivan, advised the commission against taking another vote on the issue.

Sullivan said even though residents did not receive mailed notifications as they normally do, the meeting was publically advertised, which meant the township was in compliance with the “Sunshine Act,” or public meetings law.

The mailed notices are a courtesy but not a requirement, Planning Commission Chairman Joseph Russo said in an interview.

One resident, Pierre Hebert of Larchmont Avenue, stormed out of the meeting when he became frustrated with township officials' responses.

Hebert asked the commission, “What rule says you can’t re-vote?  What’s the law, rule or procedure that says you can’t re-vote?”

Sullivan said a “re-vote is not appropriate because the public meeting was advertised.”

Hebert asked the same question several other ways and shouted that his question was not being answered.

He abruptly left the meeting after Assistant Township Manager Lori Hanlon-Widdop said that the commission was following legal advice.

Later in the meeting, Planning Commissioner Angelo Capuzzi asked, “If we were to re-vote, what are the consequences, legally?

Hanlon-Widdop said if the commission wanted an answer to that question, they would need to seek legal advice from Sullivan in executive session.  The board did not make a motion to go into executive session.

Residents also said they were opposed to the proposal itself.

Both residents and planning commissioners said they had concerns about an existing, 12-inch underground storm water pipe which the developer plans to utilize for the proposed subdivision site.

James Buckler, an attorney for the developer, said no one is sure who owns the pipeline.  It is not clear to the township or the developer if the line is privately or municipally owned, Russo said.  Buckler said he is working to find an answer.

Planning Commissioner Chuck Reardon said he wanted residents to know that the commission had asked Buckler for more information about the pipeline during the commission’s February meeting.

“It wasn’t because it wasn’t addressed at the last meeting,” Reardon said.  “I want people to know these questions were asked.  And I’m really, deeply sorry you all didn’t get your notifications.”

The developer has agreed to the commission’s request that the developer pay for and hire someone to “scope,” or place a camera down inside the pipeline in order to determine if the line is sufficient to handle additional storm water runoff, and to also look at the integrity of the line and make sure there are no cracks in it, Russo said in an interview.

Nancy Lin, who lives across from the proposed development at 746 Penfield Ave., said she is “afraid the runoff problem will be serious.”

Lin said she has already had her home’s lawn, driveway and garage flooded by runoff and she fears that her home will flood if a subdivision in built next to her house.

She asked the commission to “reconsider this development. I want some assurance for my home in Haverford Township.”

Other residents said they were also concerned about flooding.

The commission asked another resident, Sangeetha Sambandam of 706 Merion Ave., to comment on a letter she had written to the board.

Sambandam, who owns a home on a site adjacent to the proposed subdivision, said she has been researching the proposed site’s land surveys and deeds going back to 1916, and discovered from the deeds that there were restrictions on one of the three parcels, Parcel C.

Sambandam said she has not been able to determine what the restrictions are or if they are valid, although she has found several deeds which make references to a restriction “in the deed before.”

Buckler said he was not aware of any restrictions that would affect the developer’s plans.

Reardon said it is common for a deed restriction to be placed on a property by a seller in order to restrict further development of the property for a number of years.  He suggested this could be a possible explanation for the reference to a deed restriction on Parcel C.

But Sambandam’s husband, Rajan Sambandam, said he disagreed with that explanation because none of the other parcels had restrictions and “it’s only on Parcel C, which is low-lying and could collect water.”

Two members of the Board of Commissioners attended the meeting, 1^st Ward Commissioner Steve D’Emilio, 5th Ward Commissioner Jeff Heilmann and 8^th Ward Commissioner Chris Connell.

Connell thanked the Planning Commission for letting the public be heard and he encouraged residents to come to him if they still had questions after the meeting.

Connell and Russo both urged residents to attend the Board of Commissioners meeting on April 11, when the board is scheduled to vote on the subdivision proposal.

“It’s also important, if it goes to the commissioner’s meeting on the eleventh that you show up,” Connell said.  “It is not a waste of time.”