Last evening's conditional use hearing before Phoenixville Borough Council went pretty much as expected.
After a presentation to council regarding the proposed development, the lawyer for Father James Evans called him to testify. After cross-examination by the St. Nicholas Brotherhood attorney, Scott Withers of Lamb, Windle, and McErlane, council members were permitted to direct questions also.
Two rumored items of interest were confirmed as fact during last night's testimony.
HUD is not involved in this project, and a sub-lease apparently does exist from Holy Ghost Church with Father Evans/St. Peter's Development Corporation.
I was under the distinct impression that the reason for expediting the development was due to HUD deadlines, and it's unknown when the separation from the project occured.
Since it has been established that the Church does not own any property, and the grounds of the former Reeves/Phoenix Park estate is owned by the St. Nicholas Brotherhood, can anyone supply me with a document which states the Church has the ability to sub-let to anyone for new development on the property? Does this action mean the sale has been withdrawn? Who would actually own the new development if it were built on leased property?
Phoenixville Borough Council exercised extreme caution and laudable judgement last night in approving a motion made by Councilman Richard Kirkner, seconded by Councilman Jeff Senley to continue the conditional use hearing until August 11, 2009 in order to review the documents presented into evidence.
Ownership of the property is a continuing and primary concern, with the outcome to be decided in the Court of Common Pleas, though, as someone predicted, it may take years.
Years.
I have to wonder, with all the legal bills, with the associated costs constantly on the rise, with all the angst and anomosity this proposal has generated, is it worth it?
Is persuing this project really worth it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought Clemm represented the Holy Ghost Church?
He is the lawyer who told us the lease was bogus and this was HUD project in the motion he drafted for board to present 3-31-08 for congregational vote.
How is he Evans attorney now?
This final question probably depends on who you ask.
Post a Comment