FACT: By changing the zoning, the Supervisor’s created their own proverbial “rock and hard place”. As some of you may recall, at a zoning hearing in Dec, 2003, the supervisors voted to increase the density allowed in Sadsbury’s R2 (high density) district from 6 to 10 units per acre. This change was made at the request of another developer, JYF Partners, and was hotly contested by over 100 of our neighbors who attended. 

S.O.S. Note: This decision is significant because until then it would probably not have been economically feasible to build only 264 apartments on the 44-acre parcel zoned R2.  Housing would likely have netted more profit for a developer, which was the intent of the original zoning.

	4 1/2-ft. sidewalks along Lincoln Hwy and on parts of Old Wilmington Road (with a 5 ft planting strip where possible);
	Crosswalks at Lincoln Hwy and Old Wilm Rd intersection and across from the post office;
	Street trees;
	On-street parallel parking on Linc. Hwy. and other “traffic calming measures”

FACT: In response to a question on the grant application that asks whether the Plan is “Subject to controversy or public opposition”, the township responded “Although the township supervisors and a majority of residents are in favor of this plan, a few affected residents oppose it”.  In fact, at several public meetings held to discuss the proposed sidewalks and on-street parking, many of the affected residents attended to voice their opposition. Contrary to the Township’s claim in the application, the overwhelming majority of the affected residents opposed the Plan. Even residents who were not directly affected by the proposal opposed the sidewalks in support of their neighbors whose homes, some with only a few feet of front yard, abut Linc. Hwy. If 4 ½ ft of this land is taken to accommodate a sidewalk, some residents’ front doors will be nearly on top of pedestrians walking by.

S.O.S. Note: The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission representative who presented the terms of the grant at a township meeting stated that they (DVRPC) are interested in hearing comments from the public before this grant is made final.  If you are interested in submitting your opinion to DVRPC, please send your comments to:  Ryan Gallagher, Project Implementation Coordinator, E-mail: rgallagher@dvrpc.org; Fax: 215-592-9125, or call Mr. Gallagher at 215-238-2881. This is your opportunity to let your opinions be heard!

FACT #1: The estimated total cost of this project is $686,250.  $436,250 will be paid for with grant monies, while the township’s share will be as much as $250,000 (a quarter of a million dollars of your money!).  The total cost of this project ($686,250) must be paid by Sadsbury Township with the $436,250 grant monies to be reimbursed to the township periodically, throughout the duration of the project, as construction is completed. When asked at a public meeting where in the township’s budget the $250,000 portion was coming from, Mr. Doratt answered that he didn’t know, despite the fact that the township had indicated in the application that the funds are, in fact, available.

S.O.S. Note: The township will be required to come up with as much as $250,000 up front (not to mention having to pay the other $436,250 to be reimbursed periodically) – where is this money coming from?  Will the township need to obtain another loan and pay additional interest costs?  What other important projects and overdue road improvements will continue to be delayed because our tax dollars are going to be used to finance a developer’s marketing plans?

FACT #2: The affected homeowners will be responsible for normal maintenance of the sidewalks (snow and ice removal) and planting strips (mowing and general landscape maintenance) and will bear any additional liability that sidewalks impose.  But all of us will pay for maintenance of the remainder, which is estimated in the grant application to be approximately $10,000 per year.

FACT: S.O.S. opposed the zoning change from 6 to 10 units per acre in Dec. 2003, stating that it would encourage large apartment complexes and add congestion on our roadways.  Two of the supervisors (Mr. Doratt and Mr. Garris) ignored our comments and passed the zoning change.  This is exactly what put them in the “rock and hard place” position of choosing between 450 apartments (10 units per acre) and the TND Arcadia Land Co. wanted. With this decision, the Supervisors gave away any leverage the Township had to limit the size and scope of this proposed development, deliberately stacking the deck in Arcadia’s favor.

S.O.S. Note: Of the undeveloped pieces of property this zoning change affected, one is owned by Supervisor, Doug Doratt, who voted in favor of the zoning change. When a concerned resident asked at the Dec. 2003 zoning hearing how this change would benefit residents of Sadsbury Township, Mr. Garris responded “I can’t answer that”.

FACT: S.O.S. claimed that changing Light Industrial zoning to allow high density housing would be less beneficial to the Coatesville School District tax base and drastically add to the number of children attending area schools, thereby increasing the tax burden on area residents. S.O.S. also claimed this zoning change would eliminate the creation of new jobs, create more traffic and be an irresponsible economic trade-off.  We urged the supervisors to consult area experts to examine the consequences of this zoning change. The Supervisors (Mr. Doratt, Mr. Garris and Mr. Hensel) ignored our comments and did not even take the time to investigate whether our claims were true.  They chose to approve the zoning change at the Aug. meeting.  Less than 1 week after that meeting, Gary Smith, President of the Chester County Economic Development Council was interviewed for an Aug. 22^nd article in the Daily Local News.  Here are some excerpts from that article:

“Oh no” – That was Gary Smith’s reaction to the news that the Sadsbury Board of Supervisors had voted unanimously to turn 92 acres of land from light industrial into traditional neighborhood development.

Mr. Smith was then quoted in the article as saying:

	“I’m real disappointed that local governments, many times, don’t include organizations like ours before making their decisions on changing land uses.”
	“Your area needs “ratables”, that is, development that brings in tax revenue for the school district. This is especially true in the Coatesville Area School District, where taxes are going through the roof. Business development provides tax revenues for the schools without requiring the services Traditional Neighborhood Developments do.”
	“Your area needs jobs. Light industrial operations provide the kinds of incomes and benefits that support families”.
	“Think traffic is bad now?  Just wait, if the county continues to see industrial land being used for residential development. If people are moving further and further out, they will need to drive further and further to get to their workplaces. Especially since there will be no place nearby to work. They’ll be living on these parcels of land.”
	“Light industrial parks often morph into high-end corporate parks, a la the Great Valley Corporate Center.”

         S.O.S. Note:  The full Aug. 22^nd article entitled “Area could rue lost land for business” is available for your information at Sadsburyville.com. Gary Smith is one of the leading experts on economic development in Chester County; his statements are nearly identical to those that S.O.S. had independently raised previously, proving again that our concerns were well founded. 

FACT: S.O.S. stated in our Feb. 2004 update that the supervisors were being vindictive when they required Stephanie Silvernail and Terry Franciscus to submit resumes to keep their positions on the Planning Commission after their terms expired in Dec. 2003.  After submitting resumes and indicating they were willing to continue serving, the supervisors eliminated their positions rather than reappoint two of the members who had consistently questioned their plans for high density development.   The supervisors claim this charge was not true, and noted instead that the positions were eliminated in order to reduce the Planning Commission size from 9 to 7 members.  When a Planning Commission position was recently vacated by a member moving out of the Township, neither Stephanie nor Terry (each with at least 8 years experience) was contacted to fill this vacancy. Instead, another resident with no previous Planning Commission or zoning experience was appointed. The supervisors themselves have proven what S.O.S. already said: that Stephanie and Terry were eliminated because they consistently questioned the wisdom of the zoning changes sought by the supervisors.

The supervisors are quick to say our statements are false, yet they do not dispute our comments with any facts of their own.  Why do you think that is?  The supervisors have repeatedly been asked in public meetings to justify their decisions and explain to the residents why they feel these zoning changes are warranted and they repeatedly choose to be silent. The Aug. zoning decision was made with virtually no deliberation or explanation. Based on the information in this newsletter and the previous behavior of our supervisors, residents can decide for themselves who is the credible source of information.

S.O.S. Note: The Township only donates $6,000 per year to each Fire Company (Sadsburyville and Pomeroy), a small fraction of their total operating budget.  Any additional monies are provided either by government grants or private donations.  The amount the township donates to the fire companies has not increased in years, even with the added development that has increased the financial burden placed on the fire companies. Furthermore, someone might want to remind the Supervisors of the meaning of the word “volunteer”, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as “acting or serving in a specified capacity willingly and without constraint or guarantee of reward”. Why would the Supervisors reprimand the Fire Company for not attending “Community Day”, rather than thank them for donating their time to protect Sadsbury residents?  Our volunteer firemen generously donate their services to our Community EVERY DAY. The fire companies desperately need volunteers.  Why would anyone want to jeopardize their safety for such a thankless attitude?  This is not good news for such a quickly growing community and is a poor representation of the gratitude of Sadsbury’s citizens.