Unless the skies of heaven part and deliver a thundering bolt of wisdom, replete with a full understanding and acknowledgement of the intentions of the Founding Family members of the St. Nicholas Brotherhood, the next time we view news on this unholy project on holy ground will be during the Court of Common Pleas process.
It is what it is, just as expected.
May God bless the original founding members of the St. Nicholas Brotherhood for their farsighted, intuitive intentions.
*****
Council OKs Holy Ghost project with conditions
Thursday, August 13, 2009
By Dennis J. Wright, dwright@pottsmerc.com
PHOENIXVILLE — Following a continuation from its last meeting, Borough Council approved the conditional-use application of St. Peter's Housing Development Corp. Tuesday evening.
However, the approval comes with a host of conditions, which were calmly accepted by the applicant — the Rev. James Evans, developer, St. Peter's Housing Development Corp.
At issue is the 1.9-acre parcel at Starr and Bridge streets, which Holy Ghost Orthodox Church wishes to sell to St. Peter's Housing Development Corp. The property appears to be owned by the St. Nicholas Brotherhood, founded in 1938 to hold title to the property, which was donated to the church by the Reeves family, majority holders of the former Phoenix Steel Co. The brotherhood leased the property to Holy Ghost Church for 99 years in 1941.
A lawsuit was filed on July 13 in Chester County Court regarding proper ownership.
Anthony T. Verwey, filling in for borough solicitor Andrew D. Rau, reiterated that the borough would take judicial notice over the dispute of the owner of the property.
The conditional-use application hearing was continued from the July 28 council meeting after council President Henry Wagner chided the applicant for "poor preparation" due to the lack of exhibits in their presentation.
Mark C. Clemm, of Morris and Clemm P.C., Plymouth Meeting, representing St. Peter's Housing Development Corp. and Holy Ghost Church, told the council last month that there is a lease between Holy Ghost Orthodox Church and St. Nicholas Brotherhood. He stated that there is a sublease between Holy Ghost Orthodox Church and St. Peter's Housing Development Corp.
Following an executive session last month, Rau read a statement authorized by the council regarding the ownership issue. "In light of the active litigation concerning ownership and control of the property, any approval, if issued, shall be subject to presentation of a final unappealed order of a court of competent jurisdiction establishing the applicant or applicant's rights vis-a-vis the property owners. If the conditional use and/or subdivision land development is approved, this shall be pre-conditioned to plan filing and issuance of permits," the statement read.
On Tuesday evening, Scot R. Withers, of Lamb McErlane P.C., West Chester, representing the Brotherhood, said he had several objections he wanted on the record.
"I had the opportunity to review the sublease," Withers said. "The condition placed by council is applicable. The sublease does not change our objection. Ownership needs to be determined.
"I also object to the basic 11th hour amendment to the planning commission as an agreement of sale. The applicant should proceed under the old agreement of sale or go back to the planning commission with this. The sublease means subdivision, which involves an engineer to make an opinion."
Clemm responded to Withers' objections by saying, "A sublease isn't a subdivision. I've never heard of this before. They want the application going back to the planning commission is a thinly veiled attempt to delay this project.
"I don't know if his objections mean anything. The standing issue will be resolved in a court of law."
During a brief public comment session, planning commission member Marcia Eldred said that she attempted to bring up the ownership issue.
"We had to wait until this meeting to bring it up," Eldred said. "I just wanted to go on record with that."
After Verwey closed public comment and the record, Wagner asked council what was their desire.
Richard Mark Kirkner (D-North) made the motion to grant conditional use with six conditions. Those conditions, as read by Kirkner, are:
1. In light of the active litigation concerning ownership and control of the property, any approval, if issued, shall be subject to presentation of a final, unappealed order of a court of competent jurisdiction establishing the applicant or applicant's rights vis-a-vis the property owners. If the conditional use and/or subdivision land development is approved, this shall be pre-conditioned to plan filing and issuance of permits.
2. The applicant shall follow all protocols or mandates of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission as a condition of approval.
3. Council may impose or issue additional conditions in the context of subdivision and land development consideration and approval.
4. Due to the integral relationship of these proceedings to the concurrent review of the subdivision and land development applications, the applicant shall reimburse the borough for all consulting and legal charges related to this project. The applicant has previously executed a reimbursement agreement with the borough.
5. The project shall be in accordance with borough ordinances, as well as the testimony and evidence provided at hearing.
6. The Phoenixville Borough Council reserves the right to issue a formal decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law, if necessary.
After Mike Speck (D-East) seconded the motion, Kendrick Buckwalter (R-West) asked to make a condition for a traffic light at Church and Starr streets at the cost of the applicant.
Wagner said that is a condition that can always be made later on in the process.
Kirkner told the audience, "We have been put into this situation due to not knowing about the ownership. We can't resolve that tonight. The ownership issue has to be resolved before the permits are granted. I suspect in a few years some of the opponents of this may be living there."
When asked about the conditions, Evans calmly answered, "These are normal conditions that are acceptable at this point."
"In regards to ownership, unfortunately, this isn't a luxury we have right now. It is important for council to act," Wagner said.
Following a roll call vote, the motion passed 5-1 with Buckwalter dissenting.
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/08/13/news/srv0000006103911.txt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"owned by the St. Nicholas Brotherhood, founded in 1938 to hold title to the property, which was donated to the church by the Reeves family"
NO ONE GAVE THIS PROPERTY TO US
OUR PEOPLE PAID FOR IT ....... JUST LIKE THEY ARE PAYING TO DEFEND THE LEASE THAT WAS WRITTEN TO KEEP IT FOR CHURCH USE ONLY.
Everyone keeps stating this is a HOLY GHOST PROJECT. Why?
The land is not owned by Holy Ghost
The 270 membership in March 2008 did not approve this with 2/3 vote
The signers on agreements of sale and sublease ARE NOT decsendants of founders.
The food sales income and dues have been used in the 50-60 thousand dollar range for this lawsuit filed against the owners. With all that church money, and vast amounts paid out by defendants of land, the social hall could have been build without selling frontage and road to Evans for the luxury apts that none of those promised a room, with a vote, will afford.
HOW ABOUT THIS CONDITION:
1: Take this project elsewhere.
2: The Planning Commission and some Council members don't want it built at all.
3: Why waste anymore time and money
4: State Ethics Board will be notified about Mr.Evans involvement and now Mr. Knabbs appointment to PC.
5: Why does't council call a special meeting and review all of its Policies because winging it like they have lately is JUST NOT WORKING.
At this point is is up to the courts to determine if this project actually happens. Council has relinquished their right to decide. If they had NOT changed the zoning to allow it they would have fulfilled their responsibility but I guess that's too much to expect. We can only hope the real Brotherhood's attorneys are as good as their reputation seems to be. And if on the slim chance the Court gets it wrong then future Council's can add conditions that make it impossible to complete and I hope they do.
Post a Comment