Conshohocken is clear on Wawa application

There is no shortage of information and opinion regarding how the developer interested in placing a Wawa at the site of the Moore car dealership has impacted our community. The Wawa development was first proposed in 2012. Since that time, over 27 hearings have taken place over countless hours.

The findings and results of these hearings is the Conshohocken Zoning Hearing Board, the Conshohocken Planning Commission, and the Conshohocken Borough Council have all voted to reject the application. And yet, here we are, hearing the same exact application. This letter is my thoughts on considerations to ponder as the latest proposal to amend the zoning laws is weighed.

According to Anderson’s American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, § 5.12 the definition of spot zoning is: “the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.”

Given that the amendment, as written (Section I, Part 12, 5, B, 2), can be applied to only a single parcel within the R-O district and the defining characteristic is the narrowness and unjustified nature of the benefit to the particular property owner, to the detriment of a general land use plan or public goals (i.e. the Comprehensive Plan) it appears the proposal meets the qualifications of spot zoning.

Furthermore, the developer has not demonstrated a hardship necessitating relief for that property. Quite the contrary. There have been many other proposals for use of that parcel that would not require such a drastic change to the existing zoning not to mention the characteristic of the Borough’s upper avenues.

Recently an argument has been put forth to support the proposed amendment in order to halt the further incursion of legal fees. No tax-paying resident enthusiastically supports using public funds for litigation purposes. Yet protecting our citizens and enforcing the laws is the very essence of our government. Furthermore, given the very shaky legal ground with respect to spot zoning outlined above, it is not difficult to imagine continued legal challenges should the amendment be passed. So it

would be naïve to think a “yes” vote to this proposal will mean an end to the borough’s legal expenses.

Additionally, one has to think if the developer were confident in their appeal of the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision to unanimously reject their variance request, they would have pushed it through the courts rather than sit on it for over a year and return to council.

Other arguments have been offered that the vast majority of Borough residents support the proposed amendment, yet there is no proof offered for this claim. Anyone who has attended the public meetings of the Planning Commission, Zoning Hearing Board, or Council will know that an overwhelming number of people in attendance at these hearings do not support the proposed amendment. Finally, consider the character of the proposal’s applicants. They have bullied the Borough with threats

of legal action and consequences if they do not get what they want. They constantly distort and twist the facts to suit their purposes. You have to look no further than how they continually state the parcel in question is not in a residential area when 4 of the 5 adjacent properties in the Borough are owner occupied homes. Or, during the Zoning Board hearings, when the applicant changed the application from a Wawa to that of a “generic convenience store with gas” because people interested in the true impact to the area requested store receipts and traffic data from existing Wawa stores. What is the applicant trying to hide?

Are these the actions of someone who is looking for a mutually beneficial partnership? I say “no.” And I ask borough council to also say “no” to an amendment which is unjustified, quite possibly illegal, and not in the long term best interest, health, welfare, and benefit of the Borough and its residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. David Rhodes Conshohocken