Our lawyer, Thomas
Dernoga, and three community representatives, Myron Davis, Letitia Wade,
and Judy Torgerson,
met at 5:00 on Tuesday, May 16 at Fratelli's Restaurant with three
representatives from
the Michaels Corporation. They were Tom Melbourne, Dennis Brownley,
who manages the Giant
shopping center, and Norman Rivera, a lawyer. Mr. Brownley showed
us a drawing of a
possible plan for redeveloping the Giant shopping center with the State
condemning and removing
the buildings along Maryland Avenue, and the Giant more than
doubling in size,
becoming a full-service Giant (except for a pharmacy). When asked for the
time line of this
project, however, he could say only that it was anticipated in the next
two or
three years and intimated
that it was. linked to the "upgrade" (widening) of Kilmer Street which
was tied to the building
of the gas station. Since the shopping center and the plot of land slated
for the gas station
have different owners, the link between them is only that they are both
being
managed and built
by the Michaels Corporation. In fact, from what the Michaels representatives
said, no definite
go-ahead for this project currently exists.
Tom asked us what we
wanted as a community, but he only meant as far as making adjustments
to the plan for the
gas station. He pointed out that an Amoco gas station had been built recently
near Forbes Avenue
and Rt. 450 with considerable community input which had resulted in
adjustments such as
limiting the height of the sign, putting brick facings on the buildings,
and
other design features,
and that this had led to community acceptance. When asked if the station
were built next to
someone's house, he had to admit that it wasn't.
We did get a chance
to tell them what we didn't like about the plan for a gas station. Torn
Melbourne pretended
to take umbrage when I called their deal with Cheverly a corrupt bargain,
but I enjoyed saying
it way too much to care. To Mrs. Wade's concerns about direct effects on
her property, they
mostly said I) traffic is going to increase in time anyway (probably true),
and
2) there will be no
increases in fumes or pollutants and no danger from the gasoline tanks
(less
likely to be true).
Our lawyer did an excellent
job of keeping the Michaels' reps on point. He stated our case
directly, pointing
out that the community doesn't want a gas station as our "entrance
monument", no matter
how well designed a gas station it is. Afterwards, we felt as a group that
the main reason they
had for holding the meeting was to make themselves look better by trying
to reach an accommodation
with the community. Unfortunately, they didn't offer any
alternatives to the
gas station. In the interests of full disclosure, let me add that the Michaels
reps did buy iced
tea all around and order two platters of appetizers, from which both lawyers
ate heartily
Judy Torgerson