Approval of an ordinance on vehicle-care-related facilities pushed to August meeting
One potential builder says an ordinance up for approval in Whitpain Township is illegal in nature, targeting a single developer and set of plans.
The Whitpain Township Supervisors recently held a public hearing to discuss what sounded like a basic change to update zoning legislation. Most may glaze over such information, especially when it is worded as such:
“As advertised, a public hearing on Ordinance No. 4-265, an Ordinance amending the Code of the Township of Whitpain at Part II [General Legislation], Chapter 160 [Zoning], by amending and restating Article II [Definitions] and Article XIX [C Commercial Districts] to provide specific definitions, standards and criteria for a drive-through vehicle care facility as a special exception.”
That’s the specific agenda item wording the supervisors faced on July 16 during its usually scheduled meeting. To handle any votes or decisions on the matter, a public hearing legally had to be held.
Alexander M. Glassman, assistant solicitor to Whitpain Township, introduced the necessary documentations, including recommendations from both the county and township’s planning commissions.
Recommendations from the county's planning commission were dated on a June 10, simply had rewording recommendations, while one from the township's own planning commission did the same on June 11. The Whitpain planners voted 7-0 to recommend an approval of the ordinance, pending two minor typo changes.
“The township over the past few months and years, has received interest from multiple prospective developers for various auto-related uses in the C-Commercial District, in the CSC-Community Shopping Center Overlay District,” said Glassman. “The interest came as both informal inquiries and general presentations to the township staff.”
Glassman said at least three of those “inquiries” involved the inclusion of car washes, while others had “vehicle-care-related facilities” as a part of their presentations. He also noted that surrounding communities have had “an influx” of such businesses, adding that such additions also often accompany residents’ concerns, stating a worry for “the concerns that these present.”
“The township determined that specific requirements were warranted, as these uses have a particularly different impact on the community, primarily related to access, noise, and vehicle circulation,” said Glassman. “The township staff developed an ordinance for drive-thru vehicle care facilities, including car washes, oil-change facilities, and other auto-care uses.”
Glassman said that the new wording of the zoning codes were necessary to address:
With the township’s main corridors of DeKalb and Skippack pikes also being under construction as part of the Route 202 Widening Project, Glassman also said that how these types of businesses will be accommodated for in the future was also a matter to discuss.
The assistant solicitor also said that the wording had gone through not only the planning commissions, but also through advertising and public comment, with alterations being made at various steps “based on comments received from planning commissions.” He noted that such wording changes would then be applicable to all businesses in the C or CSC zoned districts, “including the township’s two existing car washes.”
Glassman said that the code change would alter “dimensional criteria for proposed future drive-thru vehicle care facilities.” He noted changes would include:
Prior to opening the floor to public comment, Glassman asked if the board had any questions or comments. Board Supervisor and Chair Scott Badami asked the first question.
“Mr. Glassman? Is this draft ordinance directed at any one specific party?” asked the chair.
“No. It is noted at the beginning that there’ve been multiple inquiries that we have seen both informally and also have received at monthly township planning meetings,” said Glassman. “As you’re aware, currently the zoning ordinance does not have a use for these types of facilities. As we always want to make sure we are providing for all uses, township staff thought it was important to have a use with criteria, so that any prospective property owner or applicant would know the criteria that they’d be asked to provide and have if they move forward with any development of one of these facilities.”
Badami asked, and Glassman confirmed, that these codes would also be applicable to the two existing car washes in the township already. Glassman added that the township had discussed at length an existing car was at 646 Skippack Pike, Blue Bell, a Sunoco station, which was currently “going through and getting additional relief and making some changes to that property.”
Christen G. Pionzio, a real estate and zoning law attorney, of Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell, and Lupin, PC, spoke as a member of the public.
“I’m sorry to have to be here tonight,” said Pionzio, “but this is not my favorite thing to do, is to come to a municipality and say to the folks that are considering something that what you’re going to do if you pass this ordinance is something illegal.”
Pionzio, who is also a solicitor for municipalities, said that such action would be called “Special Legislation.” She said that the question asked by Badami, if this was directed at a particular party, was spot on.
“That’s exactly why I’m here,’ she said. “It is our position that it is [directed at one business].” Pionzio said that she represents the owners of 901 DeKalb Pike, known as the “Reed’s Town Country Store.”
Pionzio said, as the process has been for her 29 years of working in the township, there was a staff meeting with the owners of the location, her clients, and the planning commission. She said the planning commission meeting included “all of your department heads and staff.”
“It’s a real think session, where you lay your cards on the table, and say ‘OK, this is what we want to do, are we facing any problems?’” said Pionzio of the meeting held on April 3, 2024. She said it was at that time the teams discussed that C-Commercial Use listed many types of business, and “others by special exception.”
Pionzio added that “having car washes in the C-District was nothing new for Whitpain Township,” who added that part of the April conversation was over concerns of what it would look like on the corner.
“This is a prime corner where you’re doing all those road improvements,” said Pionzio. She said township staff discussed things like “ingress and egress, vacuums along street frontages, the normal stuff” in that same meeting. She added her clients then took the feedback from the township staff, and continued planning, asking for a slot in the June 5 planning committee meeting to continue progress.
“In the meantime, an ordinance was drafted unbeknownst to us,” said Pionzio. “On May 21, Supervisors authorized that, at this meeting, for it to be advertised and for this hearing to be scheduled.”
Pionzio said that conversations continued, even on May 22, regarding architects to use for the potential project. She said the clients have a rendering of their plan already prepared.
“They’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on architects and professionals to come up with something that was worthy of that corner,” said the attorney. Pionzio said that, when the team did return to the table on June 5, “no one person mentioned this ordinance.”
“No one talked about the fact that this ordinance, one of the criteria that your solicitor skipped is that it is prohibited on a corner,” said Pionzio. “That immediately eliminates this property.”
She said that many details were discussed with the planning commission, but none of it pertained to a new ordinance.
“This is still a conversation among the group on the substantive development of this corner for a car wash, when staff and everyone at that meeting knew you guys already authorized an ordinance that doesn’t permit it,” said Pionzio, who said that her client then filed a special exception use request, and it was denied as an ordinance was pending.
Pionzio said that the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits Special Legislation, and that her offices had contacted the township’s solicitor and included case study about such actions. She said that her client would appeal the ordinance if the township supervisors were to pass it.
“Obviously [the ordinance] was written to prevent this car wash on this corner,” said Pionzio. She said it was suspicious that, while two other car washes have been permitted in the township, at no previous time had this ordinance been discussed.
“Why now, right after we come in for a meeting?” questioned the lawyer. “I don’t have to hypothesize it. It’s pretty obvious.”
She said she was still hopeful that things could be discussed outside of legal proceedings.
“If you pass this ordinance, we will appeal,” said Pionzio. “We’d rather work with your staff, work with you, come up with something that looks like [the renderings].”
She lastly appealed to the supervisors to no move forward with the ordinance.
“You have an opportunity here,” she told the supervisors. “Instead of picking a fight, and spending lots of taxpayers’ dollars, on something that you should be involved in, you can work with us to come up with something you can be proud of.”
Pionzio left the rendering of the planned corner with the supervisors, and said she would send digital copies to the board. No additional public comments were made on the matter.
The supervisors opted to have an executive session to discuss the public hearing, which they held after the agenda’s action items. After returning, Badami said that the topic would be pushed to the next month’s agenda.
“At this time, I would take a motion to continue this matter, agenda item number three, until our next meeting on Aug. 6, 2024,” said Badami following the executive session. Supervisor and Vice-Chair Kimberly Koch made such a motion, with Supervisor and Secretary Jeff Campolongo making a second of the motion. No public comment was made on the continuance, nor any comments from the board.
The motion to continue the topic to Aug. 6 meeting was passed unanimously by all supervisors.
