What does the Future of East Vincent Hold?

With the recent investiture of a new Supervisor, the Court of Common Pleas upholding the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision regarding the haunted house amusement at Pennhurst, and the property owner’s rezoning petition, the time has arrived to ask the most probative question possible concerning the future of East Vincent.  That question is: “What is the Board of Supervisors’ vision for East Vincent?”

As I pointed out in my last blog, substantial financial incentive exists for Richard Chakejian to continue to expand his amusement as he did comparing it from 2010 to 2011. Quoted in The Mercury on Sunday, January 8, 2012, Mr. Chakejian said he was pleased by the Court’s position that the amusement is a by right use.   Mr. Chakejian and his business partner, Randy Bates, have said in various public forums that their intent is to grow the amusement.  Accordingly, one may assume that the amusement will offer more features and likely engage more of the buildings as part of that growth.

If this organic growth is allowed to continue, one may see the 724 corridor becoming a support system to the ever enlarging amusement.  Hotels, fast food restaurants and souvenir stores may be in the offing.  Technically, by using a second building this year as part of the haunted house attraction, and according to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture which oversees such events, there is now an amusement park on the Pennhurst grounds, in violation of the current zoning.

Thus, is it the desire or intent of the Board of Supervisors to permit an amusement park on the Pennhurst site, either by commission or omission?  What is the vision held by Chairman Dunphy, Vice Chairman Peronteau and Supervisor McNeil?

Mr. Chakejian stated at the December 7^th BoS workshop that he needs the rezoning for which he petitioned in order to attract developers and to get his property on “the radar screen.”  I find this remark quite disingenuous.  Mr.  Chakejian’s former counsel, County Commissioner Ryan Costello, sits on the County’s Economic Development Council.  Additionally, a recent conversation with Congressman Jim Gerlach provided the illumination of the Congressman being aware of Mr. Chakejian’s property and his attempt to develop it. 

I know that State Senator Andrew Dinniman is aware of the Pennhurst property and it is likely that State Representative Tim Hennessey knows of it as well.  It seems apparent that Pennhurst is on many radar screens, calling Mr. Chakejian’s statements into question.

When the Jones Motor property was awarded a commercial mixed-use overlay, the Supervisors firmly established their vision for that land.  Agree or disagree, the vision was fixed with no ambiguity.  The Pennhurst property and the 724 Corridor deserve no less as do the residents of East Vincent.

It is incumbent upon the Supervisors to clearly define their vision for Pennhurst and the 724 Corridor.  Since the Township’s Comprehensive Plan mandates that the North Side of the Township be designated for development, the Township has a responsibility to put forth as much effort and energy as has been expended in securing open space for the South Side of the Township. Vague descriptions of development that are indistinct and lacking continuity will yield uncontrolled and unplanned expansion.  The time has come for our leaders to be proactive. Our elected officials must now openly declare what they see as our future.