If Ms Bacon's comment reported above reflects the calibers of commitment to community and the creative problem solving skills of Brandywine management, my thought is that the corporation can't leave town quickly enough. This Borough has enough going on without adding a new level of petulance to the mix.

Good for the people in the neighborhood of Brandywine. This just shows what we can do when we make our voices heard. It's our responsibility to make our local government work for us. Good things happen when we take an active part in the direction of our town.

Ms. Bacon has not been working with the neighbors on this project, even though she continues to mislead the boards by saying so. The neighbors from the start have asked Brandywine to decrease the mass and scale of the proposed addition. Brandywine's answers have been to move the same footprint back and forth and never really address the neighbor's concerns. So Brenda, I ask you to stop speaking for us, and reduce the scale & mass, the same advice you now have received from 2 of our local boards! We are not oppose to Brandywine renovating their facility, and keeping within the same footprint.
Dave Gottardi

#1-Brandywine Meeting-Major Process Issues
I attended the 4 hour Planning Board meeting last night and got home at midnight. I walked away increasingly concerned on several fronts. God bless our resident board members for their commitment, but frankly, there is a lot for those who care about this town to be worried about with this issue and others. Please recall that I repeatedly applauded the thorough and impressive work by the Planning Board during their review of the failed Bancroft Development proposal. However, in terms of process, I have to be candid about what I observed last night.

The process was very troubling and almost surreal at times to observe. Yes, our resident boards are not all professional planners or governmental process experts, and folks are doing the best they can (I think….). But what I observed was an over-abundance of caution and deference being paid to the applicant and their hired-gun attorney and a notable handicapping of the public as well as a marginalization of our own Historic Preservation Commission and our paid historic preservation consultant.

#2-The entire purpose of the meeting last night was to determine if the overall use, plan and scale of the proposed development was appropriate for this historic residential neighborhood in terms of compatibility from an historic perspective. It was to go to the HPC first and then was to be considered and acted on by the Planning Board. Well….one huge issue was that the plan being discussed was not the same plan that had been presented to the HPC and rejected. It was altered in several ways that the Brandywine attorney repeatedly characterized as being responsive to the input and prior objections of the HPC.

#3-No members of the HPC, nor the public, had seen this new plan before it was submitted at the meeting last night. However, the attorney kept on asserting how much better it was now and how responsive and reasonable Brandywine was being in addressing and satisfying the HPC’s concerns. That’s all well and good, but this modified plan did not go to the HPC and should have before it saw the light of day by the Planning Board. The HPC Chair as well as the Borough paid historic consultant next to her, who are supposed to be the experts advising the Board, were given very little opportunity to comment during the meeting and it was apparent that they had to struggle to do so at all. All the while, the Brandywine folks were going on endlessly about how wonderful their plan now was. The height of irony was reached when the HPC Chair, for the first time anyone can remember, was actually required to be “sworn in” as a regular resident before speaking on the revised plan, because it was not the plan that the HPC had reviewed. Well if that was the case, why was the plan not sent back to HPC for review FIRST and why was the Planning Board even considering the plan and allowing the applicant to advocate for it and characterize their changes as those that the HPC would be in favor of. It was a highly flawed process and whether the Board intended to or not, it demonstrated an underlying disturbing disregard by them for our HPC and appropriate set of historic preservation procedures

#4-Additional Examples:
-This plan, which again was the first time anybody had seen it, was presented with large exhibit boards and a scale model that were entirely facing the Planning Board Members as the advocates spoke. There was no realistic attempt to include the public in this presentation who were behind all of this material. Out of necessity, I finally briefly interrupted the proceedings by objecting to the public being excluded from critical new exhibits. Don’t forget that this was essentially a brand new proposal. But the Board Chair said that the public would have ample opportunity to review the materials later during the public comment period. This is not how folks should have to follow a presentation, and the review opportunity never really happened anyway. A Brandywine employee did finally distribute a few extra packets that were for the board, but it was too little too late.

#5--Typically, after the public comment portion of the meeting, it becomes closed to any further resident input. The Board then routinely speaks amongst themselves during this period, and is able to ask questions of the applicant and their consultants. However, this repeatedly turned into more endless sales pitch and unsolicited commentary and claims of Brandywine satisfying the HPC’s and resident concerns. Both the HPC and the public were then not permitted to comment on any of this additional “presentation” or the claims made by the applicant. Residents in the crowd were clearly restless as this continued and were not happy with the unfairness of these circumstances.

#6-This post was not about the merits or problems with this development proposal. That will come later. But as a resident, overall, what is often an admirable and fair process by the Planning Board in the past, was not what I observed during my 4 hour investment of time last night. What I saw was a process that was tremendously skewed toward the consideration of the applicant and whether it was intentional or not, it disregarded the residents, the surrounding neighbors, the HPC and our historic preservation process. This post was not intended to cast anyone in a bad light, but rather to shed some light on how this process unfolded so that perhaps something can be learned or improved upon such that residents do not ever feel this way again going forward.

Thanks,
Bill Tourtellotte

Thanks Bill, Could not have said it better.
I too was there for the meeting. I never have witnessed such disregard for the tax paying public. The updated applications were handed out to Planning Board members at the beginning of the meeting unlike most times the applications are distributed prior to the meeting night for a chance of review. We were blocked from the view of the display graphics with the backs of Brandywine spokespeople and the backs of the form boards.
Why can’t the graphics be done on power point and shown on big screen? Think of all the trees that could have been saved and we could have followed the speeches and asked proper questions. Speaking of trees…replacing mature trees with saplings doesn’t count for a one for one replacement…back to the drawing board Brandywine!

Outstanding observations, Bill. It didn't take long to see that Brandywine's presentation was for the planning board and not the public. When we asked a Brandywine employee if they had an extra packet for us to look at we were told there weren't any. The residents were simply an obstacle for the Brandywine corporation to bypass. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Good or bad, the ultimate function of a corporation is to turn maximum profits.
The exclusion of the public from the negotiation process by our elected officials has been an ongoing problem for a long time and it must stop now. Like a storm on the horizon, there are issues approaching Haddonfield that have the potential to change the town and the way of life here forever.
The destiny of our town must be decided by the citizens who live here, not a tiny handful of elected officials who seem to have forgotten they are public servants working for us. It's up to us to make sure they do.
Once again, it couldn't be said any better than Bill did. I would like to add the best way to make sure the process works is for everyone to make their voices heard. Loudly. If the people serving are hard of hearing, the great equalizer is your vote at election time.

This is a travesty in the making. This sets a dangerous precedent. Do you think that this is the last project like this that someone wants to develop in Haddonfield? If we allow this, everyone under the sun will come beating down the doors based on this precedent and Haddonfield as we know it will disappear forever. If a proposal like this wasn't any good at Boxwood Hall, why is it any better on Warwick Road? Whether it is the case or not, this appears to be another situation where the result is a foregone conclusion; our elected officials have already made up their minds. They will continue to exclude the public and marginalize the HPC process until they leave their idelible black mark on OUR town. What is happening here is an ablsolute miscarriage of democracy. It is still not too late. Speak up and speak up loudly, Haddonfield! Because today it's Warwick Road, tomrrow it's your neighborhood!

Gentlemen: I am in full agreement with your commentary and as someone who loves this town and prays that its character is preserved, I hope that the "powers that be" realize that the residents are paying attention to these situations as they unfold. I was unable to attend Monday's meeting due to a commitment with Therapy Dogs, Inc. but I witnessed (unfortuantely) a similar debacle last December over the Methodist Church cemetery fence....it was as if the HPC and the residents' input didn't exist. To our neighbors on Warwick/Moore Lane....stay visible and vocal; you have the backing of folks all over town. As far as Ms. Bacon's threat to leave town if they don't get approval....let's hope there isn't a major traffic jam on King's Hwy. between the Brandywine crowd and the "less affluent: residents leaving town because of the projected increased R.E. taxes resulting from the Bancroft purchase/development!

The PATCH article was inaccurate above in the description that "several residents spoke in favor of the plan". There were only two. It is not as though the rest of the room was against the use or an improvement to the facility. It was the sheer scale and magnitude of the increase in size that folks were objecting to. BTW, while I am still focussing on the significant process problems and "special treatment" that Brandywine received, we are searching for potential answers as to why. As a matter of additional interest, a quick search of the CEO Brenda Bacon's political background and ties show that she and her family members are very heavy contributors to the Democratic political party in the area and that she appears to be very well connected in that regard. That could potentially explain why one of the only two resident proponents of the plan spoke up in favor?

I'm not suggesting that her political ties have influenced our board members themselves, but the applicant appears to be very well politically connected, which folks should be aware of. One of the only two residents who spoke up in favor of this level of increased density is similarly very well connected. Anytime you see an odd resident public response that is out of step with the rest of prevailing sentiment, you wonder why. For example, when the super high density Bancroft proposal was in front of the board, there were only two resindents in favor. One of them was a vendor who sold services to Bancroft and the other was a former employee or partner of the sales broker. Dissenting opinion is a good thing, but the possibility of conflicting interests are something that folks need to be alerted to. The bottom line is that we want our public process to be be clean and fair and result in decisions that are purely in the best interests of the residents and Haddonfield. Not political or profit or outside interests.

Excellent summary/points, Bill--I was also present that evening and had the same reactions. The board should not be entertaining new plans; the point of the session is that they will review the exact materials judged by the HPC. This process allows the public to study and reflect on the issues and be prepared for discussion. Despite Brandywine's pretense that these new, redesigned plans were meant to cooperate with the HPC, I can't help but suspect that it was meant to blindside the HPC and town citizens by making the dialogue about concepts we would have zero time to analyze for a prepared response. To anyone who may know the answer, is the Planning Board required to decline hearing a case if it significantly changes from the one presented to the HPC? If this isn't already a rule, I think we need to consider implementing it for the sake of fairness and accountability. Everybody deserves to come to the table knowing what will be discussed and what to prepare for.

I also agree that cutting off public comment allows for unbalanced dynamics. I have been to other PB sessions where this took place, and it leads to whoever has "the final word" to get away with undebated remarks. In the wrong hands, this closing time because an ideal opportunity for making untrue or misleading statements that become accepted knowledge simply because nobody can refute them. Finally, I'm curious if the four members who voted yes would vote for a project like this next to their own home.

Jackie, you have articulated the inherent process flaws and unfairness perfectly. I do not think that the PB conciously intended to do this, but it sure was the result. For whatever reason, they went way to far to be overly accomodating to the applicant and it resulted in a very bad and unfair process, plain and simple. What is behind how we ended up with such an unacceptable process, I'm not sure. But the community needs to get control of it and insist upon an immediate rebalancing and an end to the fast tracking and special treatment of this application. This has big implications for that neighborhood. And yes, you can be certain that if the four members of the PB who voted for this, or any of those additional members who may vote yes when the expected modestly revised "compromise" plan comes along, would never vote for it if they lived adjacent or near it.

#1-The unfair process issues loom large, and nothing I am about to say should change that issue or reality or need to get control of it and prvent it from happening in the future. However, I am now going to shift to discussion of a few issues with the proposal itself. To be sure, I am all for what is being proposed in terms of use and quality and the need for the facility to be updated. I got the sense that most folks in the room felt the same way. But the mass and scale increase as proposed is entirely unacceptable. The Planning Board is NOT in a tough spot here. Their task is actually quite simple, which is why this is all so perplexing and frankly, disturbing. To be sure, if the existing facility did not already exist today in this residential neighborhood behind the historic home, there is no realistic way that anyone could conceive of it being approved as it sits. It would be a large and non-conforming use in an entirely historic residential neighborhood.

#2-So because that is the case, there is no justification for taking that building that would never be approved today and make it 60% larger. Again, this is not complicated. Why would you compound a significant non-conforming issue, just because a commercial REIT tells you that it is the only way it is profitable to them. That should have no bearing on the discussion, nor should the neighborhood or community bear the brunt of it's impact. This is one of the highest quality historic corridors in the community that is known for historic character. This was formerly known as "Mansion Avenue". This is easy. Yes, it does hurt the character of the neighborhood and environment to increase the building size by 60% or anything close to it. The Planning Board needs to do their job, listen to the public and affected neighbors and insist upon a replacement project of similar size or if larger, a modest increase.

As the property is non-conforming and also in the hitsoric district, Brandywine is not entitled to a massive increase in size and clearly they knew that when they chose to buy the property recently. They purchased what is known as an "under-performing" property in a high income, desirable community. It was and is their intention to enhance the value of the property by repositioning it to appeal to a higher income demographic and experience "upside" income on their investment. What happened last night was an impressive Razzle Dazzle by some very skilled legal and development professionals and a successful manipulation of the facts and process to advocate for their position in this unbridled grab for high density. Utilizing setback requirement figures that are intended for conforming single family residential properties as comparison, using open space calculations that ignore the fact that a very large part of that "open space" is inside the four walls of their courtyard and invisable to the public and might as well be part of the building, the last minute new plan that the HPC never reviewed. The list goes on and on and they were very successful.

If Brandywine wants a bigger property, they should sell the Warick Road property and buy Bancroft! I would have no objection to a reasonably sized seniors project on the Bancroft property. After all, that property has been used for commercial purposes for years, with no harm or foul to local residents. If the town then wants to take an acre or two of Bancroft for open space (using open space funds), then that would be unobjectionable.

The problem is that four PB members clearly bought it all (as proposed!) hook, line and sinker and voted yes even though others on the board were indicating the need for at least some downsizing. John Stokes in particular did not indicate that he was at all moved by the concerns of the residents and could not wait to craft a motion to vote on that enthusiastically played entirely into their hands. Several of the 5 PB members who voted against made it very clear in their comments and tone that Brandywine would almost surely get almost everything they wanted if they just came back and just tweaked their massive plan downward a hair.

Bottom line: The Borough and our boards are clearly falling for the oldest trick in the development book. Come in and ask for the world, then later present changes that appear to make the applicant look "reasonable" and open to suggestions. And then when they come back with something that is still huge but less outrageous, the clear pressure is on the opponents of the plan to "compromise". Then anyone who does not jump on board to this "compromise" is isolated or marginalized and viewed as "extreme" or "unreasonable". Folks, you do not have to be a professional negotiator or developer to see what is happening so artfully. The plan is great and the people proposing are decent folks, I'm sure. But let's not be dopes in this situation. We are under no pressure to "compromise" our princlples or get backed into an unfavorable situation by this orchestrated process. These folks in that neighborhood need to be protected from this high density land grab and we as fellow residents need to help them. Mostly, our boards should put the residents first and insist on a TRULY reasonable compromise, that would reflect a modest increase from the non-conforming institutional facility that is currently there. Plus, the process should not be fast tracked, because it is large and will have a lasting impact. It should proceed at a reasonable pace that respects our historic preservation protections and the concerns of the nearby residents and broader community.

My goodness, the posted comments are nothing short of brilliant; are any of you thinking of running for office next May.....we need clear thinking, objective folks on our Commission and Boards. Regarding the Board members "wanting this in their backyards"....this was a question that the Lee Avenue neighbors asked our Commissioners, the cemetery manager, the Pastor, their attorney and anyone else who was listening. Their response? Well, the silence was deafening. And all we wanted was a compromise and now have a 6' wall bordering our 15' backyards. I know that it sounds like a flea on an elephant's butt compared to what the Warwick Rd/Moore Lane neighbors are facing, but the fact remains....the wants, needs and desires of the neighbors of Lee Avenue were disregarded by the folks who were supposed to be looking out for us. In a town that constantly pontificates about its inclusiveness and small town values, we need to hold the "powers that be's" feet to the fire....their allegiance should be to tax paying residents, not corporations or non profits. Keep fighting the good fight, Haddonfield residents can move mountains when they are united.

If you were on a planning board and you excluded residents from the process while giving preferential to a corporation, what would the reason be? If you were trying to push a deal like Bancroft through and you used executive closed door meetings and told the residents forums for public input would be held after the deal was cut, what would your reason be? It would be because you have an agenda you know the residents would say no to and citizens be damned, you want it to happen because it benefits you and your special interests.
Sitting in a public forum and having elected officials WHO WORK FOR US tell us they'll let us comment on matters that affect us when it's convenient for them?
If this was the dark ages we'd storm the doors, drag these people outside and boil them in oil. Alas, we live in a more civilized time but it comes down to this.
Our elected officials have been doing business like this for a long time. As the years passed the agendas have gotten bolder and more intrusive. It's our fault for letting this happen.
Public meetings need honest and open debate. People must make the effort to see things from the other person's point of view. Respect must be given when earned. But to be excluded from the dialogue and have preference given to an outside corporation in a matter that affects our lives? The hell with that.
Fill the courtroom, stand united and make your voices heard. It's time for the residents to set the agenda.

Brian, I might suggest that in many cases, the processes for the various governmental bodies are reasonable. However, even on the relatively minor issues, there have been many notable reports of administrative or procedural issues that are far less than ideal. Limited advance notice of agendas and meetings, slow reporting of minutes, etc. I'm not going to get into the details, but it could always be better. The problem is that there are increasing complaints of poor process. One example was how the controversial turf proposal was handled. I'm not opposed to turf, but the process, documentation, procedures and pace of passage were entirely innappropriate under the circumstances and insulting to residents. This latest process for the assisted living facility expansion has also been poorly handled thus far as we have been discussing.
-But where I might suggest that your rethink some of your concerns above, is that there are certain limited times when the public cannot be paraded into sensitive processes. One of those times relates to certain aspects of personnel reviews. Another relates to sensitive negotiations regarding contracts, and certainly potential purchases of land for public use. The public absolutely will have its time for evaluation and ultimately voting approval of this proposed purchase. Regardless of how any of us currently or will later feel about the issue, I would not be critical of our leaders for their actions regarding those negotiations to date.

Good point Bill, There are rules, procedures and protocol that have to be followed, you can't just open a meeting up solely to residents and let animosity overtake the proceedings. You're also correct on the turf problem. Is it the right move to install it? Who knows...I do know in my research a lot of the information given was factually inaccurate.
However, my biggest concern about the whole turf issue is that it was no attempt to address all the residents. The community as a whole wasn't given the opportunity to be part of the process. If fundraisers were done at the schools and other venues besides Tavistock, maybe the whole outcome would be different.
One point we differ on a little is discussing Brandywine's approach to asking for the world and settling for a little less. Although you are dead right about Brandywine's approach, I don't feel this is something the planning board is naive about.
Ed Borden is nobody's fool. This is a man deeply involved in the negotiations of Bancroft. Compared to that Brandywine is small potatoes.
I greatly admire and respect your belief in not being critical of our leaders. But after sitting through the Lee avenue fence issue, I was quite frankly appalled at the treatment given the residents. I've watched Commissioner Borden display an attitude toward toward some of the residents that reminded me of a bully in a playground. Every citizen should accorded the utmost in respect from their elected officials.

I also realize being a politician isn't the easiest thing in the world. Taking criticism is a difficult thing to do. But if you look at the Mayor of Collingswood, he regularly has an open forum at the Scottish Rite auditorium to take questions from the residents. It gets pretty hostile sometimes, but he stands up and takes it and answers the questions. It's all about the residents, not the elected officials.
Thanks for going to the Brandywine meeting and committing your time, Bill. Your comments were insightful and terrific.

Thanks Brian. Good points, but I see it differently a far as Ed is concerned. It was obvious to me that his comments at the meeting in relation to the interpretation of the ordinance were setting a clear indication of where his mind is on the issue. He started with a cutting apart of the ordinance terminology that was useful, until he headed for what I and others believe was a innappropriate characterization of its meaning and erroneous conclusions. He essentially concluded that because the site was so much larger than the neighborhood properties, that the use did not have to conform and be compatible to the surrounding properties. Just like that, he was off to the races with a justification of what will undoubtedly be a yes vote on his part when Brandywine tweaks their size down a bit. Well, his thought process and conclusions were flawed and as I said, innappropriate. In reality, the property right next door has a similar vintage historic home and is over an acre in size and is every bit as deep. A few doors away is another similar home and that property is 1.4 acres in size. There are other examples along Warwick Road as well. Yes, the Brandywine property is larger, bit it is not the only large property in that immediate area. But because the Brandywine folks had the unfettered ability after public comment was closed to continue to "sell" their project to the board and add new info and the public was shut out of the conversation, nobody was permitted to correct Ed.

part 2-Furthermore, that analysis, discussion and conclusion by Ed was the basis by which the conversation progressed and appeared to influence other board members before the vote. All the while, the Brandywine folks droned on and on piling on with more uncontested information into the conversation. Fact-While the Brandywine property may be larger, it is NOT the only large or deep property in that neighborhood. that was the norm with many of those historic homes on Warwick Rd, which was previously known as "Mansion Avenue". The Planning Board was charged with determining whether the proposed use changes were incompatible with the surrounding properties and a near doubling in size of the box most certainly is. Claiming that the property is big and thus does not have to comply is an erroneous way of analyzing the issue and standard.

Part 3-Furthermore, in the last minute "think fast" situation that Brandywine created and the Planning Board facilitated, it was lost on most folks that Brandywine's box is exclosing "open space" within their building in the courtyard. That is of no use or benefit to this situation and from the public perspective, it might as well be part of the building. The appropriate way to look at the size of this project from a massing standpoint would be to take the size of that courtyard, and multiply it by the number of stories and add that to the building size. From a practical standpoint and from a scale perspective, that is the true and appropriate size of the box from the perspective of the community's interest for this evlauation. I do not have the plans in front of me, but I would guess that the box is probably more like double the size of the existing building, rather than 60% larger if analyzed from that more relevant perspective. I repeat, I am totally in favor of what Brandywine wants to do, but the size has to come down much closer to what is there now to make this an appropriate and fair situation for the community and neighborhood. If that means less units, so be it. If that means more aspects underground, then they should do that. Get rid of the courtyard if they have to. That's for them to figure out. But it is just too big a box as proposed and as dictated by our ordinances in terms of compatibility.

-Separately, the four board members who voted in favor of the proposal have to ask themselves whether they would do this to themselves if they were nearby or adjacent. Let's not forget, the applicant has no existing legal right to increase the size of their non-conforming use. I'm sure we all know that none of the four would be in favor of this if they were affected by it like the neighbors and nearby residents are. But let's use an actual example. John Stokes, who clearly appeared to be the most excited PB member about saying yes to Brandywine, was in a similar situation himself just recently. The calm in his own neighborhood was seriously in question when the Radnor field property was proposed for potential development. HIS home backs up directly to the field and he was very active in opposing the development proposal. He can rest assured that I was at those meetings and actively stood up for him and his neighbors that night. I'm sure he is otherwise a good guy. Someone should ask how he could he have been in that same position himself so recently, yet completely sell out his fellow residents so eagerly. I hate to point fingers, but on those boards, you agree to work for and protect the rest of us and your actions are the subject of scrutiny. Frankly, I believe that he has some explaining to doto these folks regarding this serious disconnect in his actions in these two circumstances. The sad and betrayed looks in the eyes of those nearby residents were very real that night.

Bill, Brian, and all,

I have been following the discussion of this important issue with interest, but it is getting a little difficult to access and will probably become more so as the original coverage on the Patch site gets overshadowed by new events. It might be more fruitful to move over to the "Haddonfield Talks" site where single topic discussion threads can be carried on at length and are maintained permanently.

Bill Reynolds

Bill, I took your advice and moved the article link and comments over to haddonfieldtalks.com . Hopefully the folks above and others will keep the communication going.

In that other location.

Bill, As you said, I'm sure John Stokes is a good guy too but I wonder why a resident would have such a difficult time relating to a concern he recently experienced. Maybe he was swayed by Brandywine's presentation but I thought it obviously scripted and predictable.
The Radnor field situation is what caused me to scrutinize the ongoing process of Haddonfield politics. When I attended a meeting and read a proposal for the lower income housing to be situated at Radnor because it was the less affluent section of town, I did a double take. Privately feeling that way is one thing, but to actually put it out there in those terms in a public forum shows a truly elitist attitude.
How does one have faith in your government to represent every citizen equally with an attitude like that. Then commissioner Borden later announced in the courier post article that because of the bancroft sale, Haddonfield will become more expensive and some of the less affluent will be forced to move. At least he's consistent.
The management of the town has been poor. The infrastructure of this town is terrible. There will a series called crumbling Haddonfield in the Haddonfield United facebook page. When you see how many streets, sidewalks, curbs and benches are crumbling apart in a town with the highest tax rate in south jersey, it's stunning.
All focus is on agendas that in their present forms will throw Haddonfield into massive debt and alter the town forever.