St. Peter
Monday, August 01, 2011
Separation of Church and Rate-ables
St. Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
St. Peter
Recent Comments
Merchantville Blog 2.0
- Mville Citizen
- Merchantville, NJ, United States
- Please send suggestions
for topics to mvillecitizen@yahoo.com.
76 comments:
There are a lot of questions. Enlarging the Chestnut driveway. Adding water runoff into Chestnut culverts. Widening the Morris entrance. Cutting down shade trees. Adding parking lot lights. Leaving the portable building sitting on the parking lot. Not using the vacant lot behind the maintenance hut for parking overflow. Not adding stack parking for overflow parking during events.
Rediculous! Why destroy a beautiful Merchantville home just to make room for parking? What a waste. This would also make Chestnut street look pretty crappy. Their must be a better solution.
Be happy that the church and school are attracting enough people to warrant more parking.
Merchantville First Baptist Church was told NO when they wanted to tear down a Victorian home that they owed next to their church on East Walnut Street. They needed more parking for their school too. People realized what an eyesore that would make on their street. It would have also decreased property values of the homes along one of our more coveted streets. Once we loss one of these old home we do not get them back!
St. Peter's should also be told NO! They need to find another solution. Churches in Center City Philadelphia have been conducting services for decades without their own parking lots! People park their cars in other areas and WALK! I know because I am one of them. If they are allowed to tear this home down what will be next?
What happened to our historic preservation?
Merchantville needs to persevere our streetscapes in order to preserve the look and feel of our historic town!
“They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot…”
Why not park elsewhere and WALK??? The crippled and elderly should be given closer spots. The rest should walk!!! Laziness is no reason to destroy a beautifull Merchantville home.
I had a great alternative to enlarging the parking lot! Since you can get from Chestnut to Maple through the parking lot the church could simply install a drive through window and people could just drop off money on their way through rather than parking and having to walk such a great distance! Just think how much more money they could make that way! Right! Isn’t all about the more people you get, the more profit..I mean donations you get? Not about your neighbors, community, and trees! Who needs them..cut em down…pave away
Father ******* is the worst thing to ever happen to St. Pete's. He ruined the church and serves only his own interests.
Lay off Father. That Church and School are a pinnacle to this community. It's only one house, not that nice at that. Come on, really. Don't people have better things to worry about. Sounds like someone may be jealous that the guy runs a successful parish.
Why destroy a beautifull Merchantville home for parking space? Are people too LAZY to walk? This is an outrage! If you live in town WALK to church. If you're from elsewhere and arrive late, park on the street and WALK to church. It's not that hard people.
Small victory. Historic preservation commission makes recommendation to planning board against demolition. For those against this decision, maybe you should try to imagine your neighbors house being destroyed for 24 parking spaces. Loyal Merchantville residents who appreciate the history of our small town understand.
Successful parish. I assume that is in reference to the money that this tax free business brings in. A pretty church and parking will not bring you closer to God. It must be nice to not feel the effects of a down economy.
What do people think about potential conflicts of interest? Do you think members of the parish who are on boro boards should be recused from this decision? Does anyone know if they have been already recused?
There is no ethics law in Merchantville. The State conflicts law may be useful guide to standards in NJ:
Section 23(e)(4 ) of the Conflicts Law provides that a State officer or employee shall not act in his official capacity in any matter wherein he has a direct or indirect personal financial interest that might be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.
State officers are specifically prohibited from either agreeing to or in fact representing, appearing for, or negotiating on behalf of any person or party, other than the State, in connection with any cause, proceeding, application, or other matter pending before any State agency.
Alice: Does anyone know if they have been already recused?
Cannot tell ya about the HPC but I know at least two Planning Board members have announced prior to receiving the application for the parking lot expansion that they would recuse themselves from both discussion and voting due to financial conflicts. In fact, one will not attend.
Also, a few meetings ago during an open discussion on conflict of interest, the Planning Board counsel offered his opinion touching on APPEARANCE of conflict --a step beyond law for local governance-- which has guided the board since.
My impression is that the Planning Board is nonpartial in its philosophy and practice.
"impartial"
(apparently nonattentive, er?)
A parking lot just may bring you closer to God if you have better access to the church. Maybe you have an inside track none of us know about. Tearing down an unattractive house isn't exactly a one way ticket to hell either. What does any of this have to do with feeling or not feeling the effects of a down economy. People who go to St. Pete's also patronize the local businesses after church, i.e., the diner. Separation of Church and State - Father should get his parking.
"Tearing down an unattractive house isn't exactly a one way ticket..."
Attractive or not, the house in the way earns the town a substantial amount of taxes every year for services that the church and its parishioners benefit from at no cost.
Merchantville has suffered from a decline in ratables every since the Cherry Hill mall opened and there has been no great scheme by government or church leaders to reverse the trend. And too Merchantville is a poorer than average town in a very expensive state so every dollar of revenue is important.
The need the church is talking about is a shortage of parking for a few hours a week. The problem is solvable in other ways that would not be a financial loss to the town.
No one has asked Council to allow Sunday 9 AM to 2 PM Parking on "No Parking This Side" of the streets surrounding the church. That change would cost neither Borough nor church anything but a few signs. It would free up more parking spaces than the church is proposing with its expansion which would cost parishioners more than a quarter million dollars.
No one has asked the bank that controls the receivership on 23 West Park Corporate Center to allow parking at off hours and weekends for the price, say, of a dozen church goers pouring and spreading buckets of asphalt sealer on that empty 100-car parking lot every year or two.
No one has asked the church to expand its parking lot onto its unused ground behind its maintenance office. That area alone could hold most of the additional parking spaces the church says it needs. It is closest to the church building and out of sight of the community.
No one has asked the church to do with its parking lot the same that every large town does for special events such as concerts and plays. Go to the Annenberg Center in Philly and park across the street. It is STACK PARKING only, 100 cars bumper to bumper with a foot of spare room on each side to get back in and leave when everyone else leaves at the end of the show. Just marking half of the church lot for stack parking would solve the overflow problem each Sunday morning.
Tearing down a ratable is an expensive, one-way ticket when a little imagination about parking alternatives could create what is needed free or nearly free.
If it is too much to ask for people to walk to church, what makes you think they would walk downtown to support our businesses. Maybe the church could use the house for a member of the parish who lost their home.....or is that too unselfish. They obviously have the money. I guess not....this is big business and as usual "the rich get richer"
Who said they would walk downtown!lol If the house is sitting there vacant and no taxes are being collected then what is the difference if only that one house adds on to the parking lot. None. It's not as if a parking lot isn't there to begin with but you would think so by the way people are addressing this. The church probably has other reasons why they didn't use the locales being suggested.
The church presently has 159 parking spaces according to their lawyer. That is enough.
Why wouldn't the church make this house available to members of the community who lost their jobs and are struggling to make ends meet. That's what Jesus would do! Do you really think Jesus would destroy a perfectly good home to make way for parking when people are struggling?
what is the difference if only that one house adds on to the parking lot.
The width of the house property increases the church's frontage on Chestnut by 1/3, from 100 feet wide to 150 feet. The existing driveway which comes to the street in the center with landscaping on either side will be split into two driveways, eliminating the present landscaping and extending outward to 125 feet wide. All the trees on the house side will be cut down including the mature maple along side of the house and the three specimen trees on the islands in the existing parking lot that were planted to shade the parking lot. So visually the Chestnut entrance will look much bigger ... asphalt 125 feet wide running up to the church buildings and without shade.
A two-foot wide trench will cut across the Chestnut entrance to catch the storm runoff before it hits the street. The water will be diverted directly to one of the two Chestnut culverts on that side of Chestnut. However, no change will be made to the Chestnut culverts which cannot hold the runoff now. So one might expect a third more flooding with the additional pavement.
The house lot will add 22 parking spaces (adds 24 but loses 2 at the top end) and give enough extra width to allow doubling the number of vehicles parking down the center.
Big difference in appearance ... but that was not the implied question. The commenter's real question is "who cares?" He doesn't. I thnik he would be very happy on River Road in Pennsauken next to that old, closed A & P supermarket with the huge empty, decaying parking lot surrounded by a broken down cyclone fence. We'd say who cares if he lives there.
The described design sounds like two or three spaces presently on Chestnut Avenue will be lost, so the net gain for the area would then be just 19 or 20.
Hmmm, tear down a potential ratable, cut down trees, tear up ground that absorbs water and park 20 extra cars for a period of 4-5 hours on a Sunday morning. Makes absolute sense to me.
The lawyers for the church postponed the meeting. It will be Tuesday, August 23rd at 7:30PM at borough hall. please come and represent your community
Why not make Chestnut St. one way and allow parking on both sides of the street? Problem solved.
I agree with the last comment, but no need to go to that extent. I live on a one way street that is not nearly as long as Chestnut and it can get annoying. Good idea though, why not just allow on street parking on the non-parking side on Sundays only? This is what they have done in Philadelphia for years for the many churches in neighborhoods that don’t have any parking lots.
I think the doubled up Sunday street parking is a good idea. It slows traffic speed as well, and that is always good on Morris St.
Lavardera: Sunday street parking is a good idea
I agree with you, lavardera. And the Amer. Assoc. of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends parking both sides as a traffic calming tool.
However, not all of Council appreciates that argument. At least one says Morris and Chestnut would have to be made ONE WAY for parking both sides.
AASHTO says ONE WAY speeds up traffic. Council's solution has been to add speed humps.
Do you remember the old cartoon showing six different (and silly) ways to construct a kid's swing in a tree? (As the architect requested it... As the engineer designed it... As the supplier ordered it... As the plant manufactured it... As the contractor installed it... What the customer wanted.
There's actually a street near a school in the town where my mom lives (Haddon Heights) that is one way only during school hours, and it allows for both side parking. I think that's actually a great idea for Chestnut.
Speaking of ONE WAY streets, there is a interesting article in the July 21 SmartMoney titled,Is 'Brain Training' Worth Your Cash? Companies are selling seniors on fitness for the mind. But do the exercises have any value?.
"For boomers and seniors worried about staying sharp, retirement communities and companies are pushing fitness for the mind -- exercises, games and classes that promise to stave off memory loss, improve your attention span and help you become more productive.
"The problem, experts say, is that all these exercises may not be worth the extra cash.
"There's not strong evidence that tailor-made brain games are any better than just, say, reading or doing a crossword puzzle or doing something else to stimulate the brain," says Marc Agronin, director of mental health and clinical research at the Miami Jewish Health System and author of How We Age"
"According to a 2010 survey by AARP, baby boomers are more concerned about "staying mentally sharp" than running out of money. A separate 2011 poll by the Associated Press finds boomers are significantly more afraid of a deteriorating mental state than they are of death."
Here's the address: www.smartmoney.com/retirement/planning/is-brain-training-worth-your-cash.
Back to the proposed expansion of parking behind St. Peter's, let me suggest that more asphalt creates more heat unless special measures are taken ... such as shade trees.
Has anybody seen the NOAA Climate Prediction Center's long range temperature forecast for August-September-October? The agency predicts 33-to-40 percent chance of our area being ABOVE NORMAL in average temperature.
Actually, that says more than what it reads. Climate Prediction Center uses a 30-year base to establish its norms. Every decade it updates its base, this year beginning to use 1971 to 2000. Well, we all know how much warmer those three decades were than the three previous when Pine Hill skiing was the rage.
So, when NOAA's CPC forecasts ABOVE NORMAL for the next three months, it is talking about warmer than the warmest three decades in 12,000 years.
Maybe we should start parking on grass.
Philadelphia PA August/September/October
BELOW NORMAL 64.64 (deg F)
NORMAL 65.27
ABOVE NORMAL 65.90
http://www.grassypavers.com/
Parking on grass is a great idea and above is a link to one of the options for stabilizing the surface.
However, our code is still in the "Pine Hill skiing" decades and favors non-permeable (asphalt, concrete) parking surfaces.
Do we have any forward thinking council persons who would propose a change?
In the 1970s the Moorestown firehouse on Main Street (towards Lenola) installed a front driveway having a grid with alternating concrete and grass blocks in a checkerboard pattern. It was the first and only firehouse with a grassy front lawn that I knew of. Five years or so later I noticed the grid had been removed and concreted over. I don't know why although I might suggest that over time the grass became sparse at best and never better than spindly and yellow.
That experiment was during the times of popular interest in ecology with solar panels going onto roofs, with southern glass walls and windowless north walls being designed into new housing, and with beds of boulders in the basement air return ducts to absorb and emit heat passively.
I loved it all but none was cost effective with heating oil running 33 cents a gallon.
Last year I met a designer for Kohler --he draws the designs for products that will be coming into the marketplace five to ten years from now-- and got a tour of his home in the north Jersey hills. He designed it. A lot of glass in particular areas. The staircase to the second floor has a lid on it with counter weights that raise it open when anyone wants to navigate the stairs. The rain shoots off the roof through spouts and down onto pads in the grass to eliminate downspouts that invariably clog in the woods. And, yes, there are the air-circulation boulders to catch and release heat.
HOWEVER, the ecological effort suffers from a critical miscalculation (which he did not want to tell me about). When he built the house he relied on PSE&G's rate structure of OFF-PEAK-HOUR electricity costing a fraction of ON-PEAK. He heated his boulders with OFF-PEAK electricity, well, until PSE&G ended its OFF-PEAK rate leaving Mr. Kohler with the most expensive heating system in the world and no way to change it in his house of concrete slabs and glass corridors.
Thank you, Alice, for the link to "Grassy Pavers". It is a friendly idea but I do not see many buyers at $2 a foot. What does recycled asphalt cost, $10 a ton?
Thank you, Alice, for the link to "Grassy Pavers". It is a friendly idea but I do not see many buyers at $2 a foot. What does recycled asphalt/gravel cost, $15 a ton?
In the 1970s the Moorestown firehouse on Main Street (towards Lenola) installed a front driveway having a grid with alternating concrete and grass blocks in a checkerboard pattern. It was the first and only firehouse with a grassy front lawn that I knew of. Five years or so later I noticed the grid had been removed and concreted over. I don't know why although I might suggest that over time the grass became sparse at best and never better than spindly and yellow.
That experiment was during the times of popular interest in ecology with solar panels going onto roofs, with southern glass walls and windowless north walls being designed into new housing, and with beds of boulders in the basement air return ducts to absorb and emit heat passively.
I loved it all but none was cost effective with heating oil running 33 cents a gallon.
I've personally enjoyed all of the stimulating and insightful comments on this subject. Many folks really seem to think they have their finger on the pulse of the borough.
When this conversation moved to (paraphrasing) "removing the house adds to global warming" I was looking to see if Al Gore had relocated here. But, fortunately, we live in a land where we can all have an opinion.
Devolving this chain to include personal attacks on the clergy and the accusation that things would be better with a drive thru money drop is uncalled for. Being on Camden's doorstep, this wannabe town could do a lot worse than having a church that needs to expand parking to handle the congregation. Over the past few years the Catholic Church has been closing and consolidating parishes due to lack of attendance and interest and the towns are stuck with empty buildings. We have many churches in our town and they all seem to be doing very well. While I am a resident and the loss of tax revenue would be a rounding error in the grand scheme of things, I have have no real vested interest in how this goes. However given the state of the world today having and helping a church of any denomination is probably a positive thing. Just sayin...
My last point - One benefit of taking the trees down is that there are less leaves for the borough to ignore in the fall.
benefit of taking the trees down is that there are less leaves"
The Anon above raises some thoughtful ideas. If I might add a reverse side of a couple of his points, the first would be that many non-ratable properties in a small town, no matter how flourishing those nonprofits happen to be, could drag the town towards impoverishment.
Are we there? I don't know but the petitioners are saying it is time for our town to give up the fight.
St. Peter owns seven properties encompassing 4.81 acres of prime, downtown real estate. By comparison the Town Centre East triangle will be developed into a multimillion dollar housing/ business complex that covers 1 acre. St Peter proposes adding half that size to its tax-exempt holdings just to park 22 cars.
I am all for nonprofits being successful but I expect them to frugally manage their affairs ... because everyone must pay the costs.
As to cutting down trees let me ask the question, "If the existing parking lot were approved back whenever on the condition that islands and shade trees must be part of the architecture, then when would it be permissible to remove those elements from the approved site? 10 years later? 10 months later? 10 days later? Or are they a permanent requirement as long as the lot exists?"
What's wrong with a thriving church doing what it needs to do to get more parking? I don't see a problem. We should be be happy that St. Pete draws so many out of towners.
@Reality Check: What's wrong with property owners trying to keep a buffer from very bright lights and traffic around their homes and trying to keep their street residential?
I can't sit on my back deck facing the yard at night because of code-violating lights in that parking lot. Tearing down #82 will make it so the light now comes at me from two angles. I bought the house knowing about the parking lot behind me, not one to the side as well.
R.Check:"church doing what it needs to do to get more parking? "
Taking another ratable property is not necessary for the Church to add the sixty spaces it wants. It has several other options that are better.
Stacey K,
Why are you so angry about some lights and traffic for a house of worship? What's your problem with God? It is a triumph that the church needs more space for parking. I pray that this need continues to grow.
The last comment (8/20/2011 12:16 AM) is absurd in every detail. Stacey does not come across as angry, although she has cause, she is expressing a serious problem, so serious in fact that public law now addresses lighting requirements and restrictions for parking lots.
Governor Florio spent billions on walls down Route 295 to keep sound from annoying residents nearby. Once I scoffed about the cost to a man who lived off of the 295 jughandle exit onto Route 70. He quickly responded that not only was noise abated, the repeated flashes of exiting vehicle headlights on his windows was eliminated and that made the million dollars a mile worth every penny.
Anon's conclusion that a complaint about lights was a "problem with God" points up the irrationality of the writer. I suppose he would be happiest if every tree were torn down and every grain of fertile soil asphalted over for church parking. It appears to be "to the devil" thinking.
I'm not irrational. I just have a sense for the greater good. A church parking lot can not be compared to living next to 295. How can you make that comparison. Do you even go to church??? Stacey K knew she was buying a house next to the parking lot of a thriving house of God. If the Church is so successful in gaining a congregation that they require demolishing an additional house or maybe 3 or 4 along Chestnut and Morris for the greater good of more parking space- so be it. That's a good problem to have.
A while back there was a discussion about changing the law that only the land a churches sanctuary sat on would be tax free.
Considering the amount of land that St. Peter's and other churches of that size now own and pay no tax I think this would be a good idea!
"...for the greater good of more parking space..."
Joni Mitchell would disagree.
It is not 3 or 4 properties. That milestone was passed decades ago.
Lot 10 will be the 7th residential ratable that St Peter has acquired and demolished. It would have been the 8th torn down if St Peter had not withdrawn from last year's intended purchase of 35 W. Maple which sits between St Peter and the funeral home.
St Peter is the largest landowner in Merchantville. It is larger than the apartment complex across the street. It has more acreage than all commercial/residential properties in town combined and more than all office ratables combined and condos combined too. It is larger than Wellwood Park and larger than the community center and park. The purchase of Lot 10 will make it larger than all utilities added together.
The proposal to expand the parking lot would add just a little more than a quarter of an acre. However, all of Merchantville's public parking only equals 0.30 of an acre.
What if the Borough allowed the expanded parking on Chestnut Ave with the condition that St. Peter deed over the Chestnut parking lot to the Borough for shared public parking? Like the commuters' "Park & Ride" parking lots you see along highways, the Chestnut lot could be Merchantville's "Park & Walk" entrance to the bicycle path.
Have any alternative solutions been explored? Many posters have made several viable suggestions. I just hate to see historic houses torn down for any reason, especially for parking. Once gone they can never be replaced. The financial aspect also makes sense.If the house is providing revenue- why lose it? What other gifts will Merchantville make in the future?
I'm glad the church is doing well with attendance, but I think a solution for a few hours per week can be made. Especially if there is under utilizd space on the lot already. Lastly, I believe this house has a connection to the Wirth Florist shop and family. I may be mistaken but ask Karl.
I'm sure the people next door are happy. What is their take on living next to a parking lot?'
Zoning Hearing is tonight, Tuesday 23Aug. I asked the Zoning Officer if revised plans had been submitted for tonight's meeting, and he said no. So the proposal to demolish the house stands. Come out to the meeting and speak your mind.
Meeting canceled. Sounded like several issues - applicant asked for delay, no quorum, engineer could not make it - not exactly sure if it was one or all of those.
Now on the agenda for the 13Sept meeting.
Please consider the following, The current flooding on West Chestnut Ave. is due to the overflow of DRAINAGE water from the parking lot expansion for the GYM several years ago. At that time the church installed a 36" drain which was sent into a 14" Merchantville connector to the main 36" Merchantville drain. The increased drainage from a new larger parking lot will be served by with TWO 36" drain pipes into the 14" connector to the now insufficient 36"main drain. The Members who approve the variance must also approved the borough expenditure to correct the size of the Merchantville drains on West Chestnut Ave. to handle the parking lot water from the TWO 36" drains.
In addition the lighting is of the most intrusive type possible and consists of a hodgepoge of several different styles including Public Street styles and box fixtures pointed into the bedroom windows. The lights all turn on by a schedule set by photoelectric cell. How can you give a variance to do whatever you like to an institution, when the record shows a lack of proper fixture usage and or consideration of how long the lights are on. I hope all neighbors can come out and express their opinion at the September meeting.
WOW! St Peter's controls close to 5 acres of prime real estate and the house at 82 West Chestnut will be its 8th tear down. All for a parking lot. Something in the name of fairness has to be done. Deny the permit. Otherwise, the churches and non-profits will have a field day with Merchantville. BTW- I have nothing against the church. I just have a problem with taxable property disappearing and we the taxpayers have to subsidize the non-profits and churches. Fair is fair. We each should 'share' and sacrifice.
Jerry, your pipe sizes do not show on the survey of the St. Peter property which is in the public record. The survey shows one 14" pipe draining the parking area behind the gym and church. It runs to a culvert on Chestnut Ave. The rest of the storm runoff, that from the Morris St. parking lot, convent and school, runs downhill on the surface to Chestnut Avenue ... and into the same culvert.
However, your analysis is correct -- too much parking lot runoff is being fed into the Merchantville culvert.
The church should be required to catch all of its runoff and pipe it across Chestnut Ave. to Merchantville's 36" main line. And it would be an easy fix. The church has its manhole on the Chestnut Ave sidewalk and the Merchantville 36" line has a manhole directly across the street. If I were to make a guess I'd say Merchantville put a grated manhole across from St. Peter specifically for a direct connection. It has no other purpose.
"Parking Alternatives" above suggests STACK PARKING which is bumper-to-bumper parking in lots for special events where everyone leaves at the same time.
Funny thing, people stack-park their cars when they go to the Kimmel Center in Philly for a show and they sit in individual seats. But those same people when they go to church park their cars in individual spaces and stack-park themselves in pews, sitting together hip to hip.
Last night St. Peter's lawyers and engineers postponed for a second time their presentation to the Planning Board. Maybe that is because their proposal is already in trouble with the Borough engineer who reported that St. Peter cannot have two driveways onto Chestnut Ave. only 35 feet apart which are each two ways. Each drive must be one way for safety. Of course that would be an inconvenience to parishioners who want to slip into the parking lot, run into church, and then after the service slip out the same drive onto the street. "One Way" would force them to drive around the whole lot to get out with 150 others doing the same thing.
The engineer also reported that the church did not address the Chestnut Ave. flooding problem and the plan would degrade the ecology and it needed to do something else with its lights.
What I don't get is why St. Peter does not do the simple thing. Run one two-day drive right up the center of the existing Chestnut Ave parking lot and extend the existing parking white lines out to the new center drive. For forty-some weeks a year parishioners could park exactly as they do now and then on the dozen holidays they begin stack parking, when one car pulls into a space up to the curb, another pulls in behind it. Close off the parking lot with grass islands extended to the center driveway and plant a few trees and bushes ...maybe a nice sign welcoming folks to the St. Peter campus... and stick a culvert right in the middle of the driveway to catch all of the parking lot runoff. It would be a cheap solution to the parking sortage and would satisfy all the complaints of the Borough, including the saving of a ratable.
It is said the Savior walked from town to town in sandals. Does his church need individual parking spaces to worship him?
Who will pay for the cost of repairing the existing West Chestnut Ave. flooding created by the building of the Gym and parking lot? Who is going to pay to make the connections needed to handle the expanded new drainage from leveling 83 West Chestnut Ave.? The answer is stack parking in the existing lot keeping the trees, curbs and borders. If additional parking is needed designate West Chestnut Ave. and Morris Street as one way and park both sides from 8:00am to 1:00pm Sundays only.
As a town we should proceed with extreme caution. The new application for variance has 12 items an increase from the original 7 items. Each variance item is asking for cart blanch to do whatever they see fit, as cheaply as possible. We should tell them what is proper or suffer the indignities that the hubris of the organization will inflict upon the borough in the name of economy.
Jerry: "Who will pay for repairing Chestnut flooding?"
Trust the Planning Board in deciding the application. But come to the September meeting to voice your concerns.
Blogger Reality check said...
"What's wrong with a thriving church doing what it needs to do to get more parking? I don't see a problem. We should be be happy that St. Pete draws so many out of towners."
That's exactly why Merchantville is going down the tubes... too many out of towners! And history has shown that churches will do whatever they need to do get what they want. It's the Christian way, right? :)
Happy Mom: ...will do whatever they need to do get what they want
That is a universal phenomenon not particular to religious organizations or to any one sect among them. Everybody does what he needs to do to get what he wants.
Some call them "the takers" but I find even "the givers" do what they do to get what they want. It is just more intrinsic.
Merchantville always had a lot of out of towners. There are so many churches that have drawn from other communities for like ever. Town should be used to it by now. Father Anthony should get his spaces to accomodate all those folks from Cherry Hill you don't want to see like our town. lol
Last night zoning board began to hear the application but it ran late and was continued to 27Sept 7:30. The church made its presentation, and the board began asking its questions, but as it was after 11pm the meeting was stopped to be continued in 2 weeks. Still to come is the public comment part of the application, so the opportunity for the public to speak will be on 27Sept.
The church brought an additional expert witness, a planner who made an extremely contrived argument for destroying a historic house.
The church also brought out many supporters from its parish who were all prepared to stand up and ask the zoning board to allow the demolition. Citizens of Merchantville need to turn out in like numbers to make clear we don't like this behavior. Think you don't have time, or it does not affect you? Imagine your neighbor's house torn down, and a parking lot with street lighting built up against your fence line.
See you on Tuesday 27Sept11 7:30pm.
@lavardera- Thanks for the update. I hope that other residents show up. A few ratables torn down here and there eventaully add up to real $$$. In addition, one never knows whose house may be next. The line for church and non-profits need to be drawn. The costs to taxpayers and the environment is simply too great. There are alternatives I hope that they will be explored.
Shame on you people for opposing the success of St Pete's. You can't stop us based on loss of tax dollars. That is unconstitutional.
We're just getting started! Do you really think one house demolition will satisfy our need for parking? We will buy every adjacent property that comes up for sale and nobody can stop us.
Anon- you sound a bit greedy and self-serving. Is that what a good Catholic does?
The church plans to one day demolish a few additional houses along Chestnut for parking. I saw the plans. If adjacent neighbors are so upset by the success of the church and its expanded parking needs, they should sell out too.
The above commenter may be confused in saying other properties are being considered for demolition in the future.
The survey used in the site plan was an update of an older version which showed the property on Maple located between McFallon Hall and the Brown funeral home. The Church had planned to purchase that property in March 2010 but subsequently decided not to. The update added 28 W. Chestnut to the old survey without removing anything.
The Church's town planner introduced four "Special Reasons" for the demolition which she said was a legal phrase acceptable to a court. She did not say if the applicant was prepared to go to court were the application denied but she made clear that she was convinced her client would prevail, saying she had case law to support the application.
The four Special Reasons she presented were:
a. Public Health, Safety & Welfare (traffic circulation on site would be improved),
b. Reduction of Population Density by Demolishing a House (a good thing for the community she said),
g. Provision of Space For a Variety of Uses (she did not explain),
h. Promotion of Free Flow of Traffic by Additional Off Street Parking (neighborhood traffic would flow freely).
The Planner said the lack of parking was a HARDSHIP because it negatively impacted the "operation". She ended by saying that the three frontages (Maple, Morris, Chestnut) created a unique "negative" situation which the parking lot expansion attempts to mitigate.
The Planning Board Chairman had to restore order in the room after a board member spontaneously commented about item "b."
Just wondering how many of the parishioners are Merchantville residents? Its wonderful to see contrived arguments to tear down a historic house. Just one more aside, I wonder how many of those supporters from the church who may or may not live in town would support something similar taking place next to their house or in their town. Perhaps someone can ask. I will try to be there to ask, but there is strength in numbers. Just saying.
FYI (because it is mentioned in an earlier comment in this thead) - the property on Maple between Fallon Hall and Brown Funeral Home is under agreement of sale and is slated to become a group home for eight people - four adults with downs syndrome and four adults who are their caretakers. Not sure what the taxable/tax-exempt status of the new owner will be.
Have you noticed the saga at the Chestnut entrance to the St. Peter parking lot? A double barricade has appeared at the end of the parking lot with a hand printed sign on 8x11 paper on the right barricade reading "EXIT" and another on the left barricade reading "ENTRANCE". The signs are opposite the large white arrows on the pavement.
For several days many people continued driving in the right side and out the left side but more and more began following the signs so that at any moment cars were moving in all directions. This morning more cars were obeying the signs than the arrows. Of course you know there will have to be a new training period if someone figures out that the signs are up backwards.
The Franciscans and Dominicans created model educational systems for their clergy and parishioners over hundreds of years. The Church was the font of knowledge and learning for a thousand years during the Medieval Period. What has happened of late?
Is the special meeting still on for tonight 9/27/11 at 7:30pm?
At the meeting tonight, the application was unanimously denied.
A YES for Merchantville and a NO for the church. Now let's start bagging leaves.
Yes. The house survives!
Thanks to all who stood.
I'm glad the house was saved. My grandfather raised three children there in the 1930's, one of whom was my father.
Post a Comment