Newtown Township Board of Supervisors' Meeting Update

By the end of business Monday, April 8, there was only one new business item on the agenda for the Newtown Board of Supervisors meeting.

That item was, “Resolution for Plan Revision Approval- The Episcopal Academy; Pumping Station and force main connection to gravity sewer system Ashford(Liseter)development.”

There were no specific items designated for old business or any of the other categories on the agenda for the meeting. You can still see the agenda on the township's website, newtowntownship.org.  At times, I think that this is deliberate on the part of the Township Manager and Supervisors.  Other times, I think that the Township Manager and Supervisors still don’t know how to create an accurate agenda.  

If it is not a deliberate attempt to dissuade residents from attending the meeting, but rather incompetence, it would suggest that the other items that made it to the agenda that night were an afterthought and not specifically excluded from the agenda.

So, I ask, was Supervisor Ed Partridge’s last minute question toward the very end of the meeting truly just a question he came up with right before the meeting adjourned? That question concerned the CR zoning amendment.

Apparently, Ed asked for clarification from Solicitor Sokorai as to whether the proposed zoning amendment would include a restriction on the type or use of a liquor license in the proposed CR zoning amendment areas.  This is the same CR zoning amendment that was authorized at the February 25 BOS meeting for public advertisement for a hearing and possible action.  Yet, still no public notice and no explanation as to why it has not been advertised.

At the February 25 meeting, Dr. Lambert made a motion to authorize the advertisement of the CR Zoning Text & Map Amendment to allow residential or office space above commercial space with the same square footage.  Mr. Catania seconded the motion.  At that same meeting, the Chair called for the vote and the vote was 4 to 1 with Mr. Wood voting against the motion.  The motion carried.

Even though Regi Siberski, a resident who has looked out for community interests for years, asked both Supervisor Partridge and Supervisor Nawn neither has provided an answer as to what is going on with this proposed zoning amendment.

So, I’ll ask the question here, “Why, Mr. Partridge, did you ask about the CR zoning amendment and will you put the zoning amendment on the agenda for the next Supervisors’ meeting?”  “What is the status of the CR zoning amendment?”  And, finally, Mr. Partridge, now that your question has been answered by Mr. Sokorai, “Do you support the CR zoning amendment as proposed in January?” Hopefully, Mr. Partridge and/or any and all of the other Supervisors will speak to this issue prior to the next meeting.  Otherwise, it will just remain on the list of the “whatever happened to issues from my previous posts”  Here is the list again, no answers and no resolution on any of these issues since that post and one addition.

• The cats at the Newtown Square Grille Barn and the Barn itself.  Are the cats gone? What is the Barn's status?

• The Walking Trail at Springhouse.  Why haven’t the Supervisors required the developer to finish this development?  There was to be a walking trail.  It’s like many other issues in this township, it would seem to me, selective enforcement.

• The outstanding issues of hundreds of thousands of dollars that Kelly and Close Engineers have invoiced the township, but the township and/or the Municipal Authority have not paid.  They know that they have been invoiced, but are not mentioned as payables in either the Township Budget or Financial Statements. Why is that?

 • The left arrow for the Traffic Light at Terrazza and Rte. 252. The township could make that turn easier especially since the Gradyvill Road Bridge is now not proposed to reopen until at least February 2014.  They have approval from PennDot for the turn arrow.  It was on the agenda.  Why hasn’t this traffic arrow been put in place?

• The Commercial/Residential (CR) zoning ordinance amendment.  The Supervisors authorized advertisement of the hearing for this issue.  That was about a month ago (now almost two months ago).  The public notice of the hearing has still not been advertised.  Why is that?

• Supervisors asking the taxpayers to spend about $80,000 for their medical benefits.   Why is this still an issue?

 • Televising township meetings--why have Supervisors not made this a priority?

• What is the status of the new ambulance collections services contract which was approved on January 28?  Apparently, as reported to Regi Siberski by Chairman Catania, the township has still not retained the new company.  Why is that?