Jenkintown residents concerned about SEPTA’s Stream Restoration and Flood Mitigation Project have requested a meeting with SEPTA officials, which SEPTA confirmed on November 8.

Originally scheduled for November 1, a public meeting will take place at Jenkintown Borough Hall at 6:00pm on Thursday, November 10. The meeting will include a media presentation on behalf of residents who live on the 200/300 block of Runnymede Avenue, and will provide a Zoom link for those who cannot attend in person. A petition for residents has been circulating, and can be found below.

Phase One of SEPTA’s Stream Restoration and Flood Mitigation Project began on Monday, September 19.

To their credit, SEPTA provided a notification and a fact sheet to affected homeowners, which can be found here. No work was planned to take place on private property, and SEPTA has stayed true to their word. They started in Abington, and haven’t laid a finger on the Jenkintown side of the tracks yet, though tree excavation, the construction of a retention basin, and other elements of the flood mitigation plan are scheduled to begin this month.

This week, SEPTA will perform some site clearing at the south end of Runnemede Avenue at the opposite end of the basin’s intended site.

Officials are looking to chart a course in which all parties’ concerns are sufficiently met.

“I understand the residents’ concerns over flood remediation there. I’m looking to gather more information at Thursday’s meeting,” Jay Conners, Jenkintown Borough Council President, said. “I hate to see the trees go. It’s not a Borough project and it’s not our property. It’s been in the works for two years.”

George Locke, Borough manager, has been involved with the project each step of the way, and sees no need to adjust SEPTA’s current plans.

“SEPTA came in a couple years ago and I think it’s a good project. They’re restoring the stream banks so that it doesn’t flood when heavy rains come in. They’re removing some trees to install the basin. We looked at it, and they own it all the way up to the property line of the Runnymede homes. It’s their right-of-way,” Locke said.

“Our engineers looked at the plan four times, it’s been approved the PA Game Commission, the DEP, and the Army Corps of Engineers, along with others. They said it’s not going to negatively affect us, and should assist us. The basin is going to detain excess rainwater and release it into the stream. The hope is that it won’t flood out the train station downstream. Abington, Jenkintown, and Cheltenham are all involved. Water flows downhill, and Abington is above us. The residents’ perspectives are valid, but as long as SEPTA has the approvals we won’t stand in their way,” he said.

Zachary Burd and Frank Reiley, property owners on the 200/300 block of Runnymede, hired an attorney to represent their concerns. Reiley, who has owned property in the area for 42 years, created a petition for other property owners to enhance their voices.

“It’s my contention that there’s a number of problems with the proposed basin,” Reiley said. “It’ll take out a 3.5 acre wooded portion which is a natural buffer to overflow near the residential properties. The right-of-way belongs to SEPTA, though I’d dispute that that area is in fact in Abington.”

Reiley believes property owners in the area have a right to ask that the foliage, which acts as a physical buffer, be left alone.

“We have a right to that buffer zone, not just legally. It’s my belief that if you take down that buffer zone, the tracks are no longer out of sight. It eliminates the noise buffer for the northbound and southbound trains. A relevant question is, ‘Where did the water come from?’ Tookany’s system flows to Philly. This problem goes back to 2001. Abington knew they had a problem and they waited too long. This isn’t necessarily a SEPTA problem. That needs to be addressed before they tear down Jenkintown’s buffer zone.”

Zachary Burd, who financed an attorney with Reiley, has been asking SEPTA officials to consider alternatives to their current approach.

“We’re going to ask SEPTA to explain why they can’t remediate their water problem with the area they’ve already cleared. If they can explain that in a way that makes sense, then we’re going to ask them to reforest when they’re done,” he said. “We don’t want to foot the bill or do the labor involved. They’ve hired an outside lawyer and have probably spent more money than it would’ve cost them to just say we’re going to put trees back when we’re done.”

Burd hopes to make a strong case such that SEPTA rethinks their entire project, but notes that he’s not going to hold his breath.

“They’ve been relatively responsive,” he said. “They’re not ignoring us. They don’t live here but they’re also not trying to end up in a bad PR situation.”

For more details on Reiley’s and Burd’s concerns, you can read GlensideLocal’s previous coverage here.

Like what you’re reading? Follow us on Facebook or sign up for GlensideLocal’s “Daily Buzz” newsletter.