| Kings Mill (KMRD) vs. Forks Township - FINAL 5:0! Cost $166,000 |
... keeping you informed!
| Forks Action Committee |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| KMRD appeals Judge Giordano's Ruling! At their April 2, 2009 meeting, Forks Supervisors learned that KMRD, true to expectations, has filed an appeal of Judge Giordano's runling in the Procedural Challenge. As reported on the FAC blog: ...Kline told the Board he is "not surprised" (but is disappointed) that KMRD has filed an appeal of Judge Giordano's ruling on the Procedural Challenge. KMRD has lost it twice, once before the Zoning Hearing Board and once before the local courts. It will now go to the Commonwealth Court. Kline said that his opinion is that this challenge as well as the substantive challenge are examples of greedy developers suing the Township to try to force zoning changes that would provide them with a "multimillion dollar windfall." The cases have nothing to do with affordable housing since they had approval for affordable housing and they chose not to build it. The developers allege that they are interested in preserving farmland but nothing can be "farther from the truth" since they are proposing 3,000 units in the Farmland Protection District. In closing, Kline said, "I want to make it clear to everybody, that the Board and the Township intends to continue to vigorously defend against these challenges to the Forks Township Zoning Ordinance." Chuss asked what reasons have been given for the appeal and Kline said that all that has been filed so far is a notice of appeal saying "We're appealing." He guesses that they are using the old reasons "plus a few more indicating that Judge Giordano didn't know what he was doing - in more legal terms than that." Please read Christopher Baxter's Morning Call article for additional details. ..................................................... KMRD 0, Forks 1 - Judge Giordano rules! Procedural Challenge Reprinted from FAC blog - 3/7/09: On March 3, 2009, (Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County) Judge Emil Giordano ruled in favor of the Forks Township Zoning Hearing Board's (ZHB) February 2008 decision in the KMRD, L.P. procedural challenge. Judge Giordano dismissed the appeal "with prejudice." KMRD's procedural challenge alleged that the 2006 Zoning Ordinance was was not properly advertised per the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Had the court ruled in favor of KMRD, a county-wide (maybe further) can of worms would certainly have been opened as most municipalities use similar formats in ordinance advertisements. Originally, before the ZHB, KMRD/Kings Mill alleged that every zoning ordinance back to 1983 was procedurally flawed and should be void. KMRD cited 18 violations. The Township refuted them with over 300 pages of documentation. KMRD then reduced the list to one single alleged flaw, the public notice. KMRD said that the entire ordinance should have printed in the newspaper. The cost would have been $55,000. Forks Zoning Hearing Board ruled against KMRD's challenge. And, KRMD appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where, before Judge Giordano, KMRD lost its appeal. The next step for KMRD/Kings Mill, should it decide to pursue this further, is an appeal to the Commonwealth Court. According to Solicitor Kline (at the March 5th Board of Supervisors meeting), KMRD has 30 days to do that. Please read Christopher Baxter's Morning Call article for more. To read the judge's ruling, click here. .......................................... KMRD/Kings Mill Procedural Challenge Oral Arguments Before Judge Giordano On February 3, 2009, Northampton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Emil Giordano heard the oral arguments in the KMRD/Kings Mill appeal of the Forks Zoning Hearing Board's determination that the Township followed procedures in the legal advertising of its 2006 zoning ordinance. KMRD wants all zoning ordinances enacted since 1983 declared invalid - a move which would allow development of their owned/under contract parcels in the Forks FP (Farmland Preservation zoning district) under 1983 rules. Judge Giordano rightly observed that a decision in favor of KMRD would have far reaching ramifications in every municipality in Pennsylvania. The Morning Call's Riley Yates was there. Please read his article for more details. ....................................................... Oral Arguments - February 3rd at 9:00 AM KMRD/Kings Mill Procedural Challenge The Northampton County Court of Common Pleas has scheduled the oral arguments in the KMRD Procedural Challenge (large file) for 9:00 AM, February 3rd. This is the challenge that the Forks Zoning Hearing Board rejected on March 24, 2008. KMRD alleged that Forks Zoning Ordinances back to 1983 were enacted with flawed procedures and should therefore be declared invalid. It is no secret that KMRD would prefer to develop the land they own and/or have under contract using 1983 rules. So, if you have time on Tuesday, February 3rd, you may want to watch the proceedings in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas for yourself. ......................................................... KMRD appeal filed against Forks Zoning Hearing Board decision No one thought it would actually be over after the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) ruled in favor of Forks Township in the KMRD/Kings Mill substantive challenge to Forks Township's Zoning Ordinance. Not really. True to his word, KMRD's legal council (and a principal in KMRD), attorney John VanLuvanee, has filed an appeal of the ZHB decision with the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas. Please read Riley Yates' January 2nd account from the Morning Call for all the details. And, remember, "It ain't over till it's over." (Yogi Berra) ............................................................. Forks 5 - KMRD 0 October 20, 2008 - a good night for Forks! Yes! Forks' Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) voted 5:0 against the KMRD/Kings Mill challenge to Forks zoning ordinance - because the "applicant" failed to meet the burden of proof. The meeting went on for three hours. The testimonies of three Forks residents are now part of the court record. Please read the considered and thoughtful words of James Wideman and David Billings. Mark Mulrine spoke, too. Although we do not have a copy of his testimony, Mulrine spoke to his disregard for developers who come to our township, build, devastate, and leave. These Forks residents, our friends and neighbors, spoke for you and for our Township. We owe them our gratitude and our thanks. Please read Christopher Baxter (Morning Call) and Tony Nauroth (Express Times) for more of this most gratifying final session of the KMRD/King's Mill challenge to Forks' 2006 zoning ordinance. And, yes, it will be appealed in the Northampton Court of Common Pleas - VanLuvanee said so. There is more coverage of the hearing finale in the FAC blog. ............................................................. The last one! - Kings Mill Round 25 - October 20th - 7:30 PM Forks Municipal Building Update 9/9/08: Round 24 on September 8th was almost the end. There is to be only one more session - round 25 on October 8th. At that session, both sides will present their summary arguments, they will agree on each other's "errata sheets," and you, the residents of Forks Township and other concerned folks from around the area, will be given an opportunity to be heard. Finally. Your comments will become part of the case record - the one going to the Northampton Court of Common Pleas when the loser of this challenge, either KMRD or the Township, appeals the decision of our Forks Zoning Hearing Board. On September 8th the Township's attorney, Steve Goudsouzian cross-examined Dennis Glackin, KMRD's second to the last witness. Glackin once again stated that the Forks Zoning Ordinance does nothing to preserve agricultural land or soils. And again, he said that the LVPC casts agricultural and vacant land as the same. He did, however, admit that the Forks Zoning Ordinance's allowable uses in the FP (Farmland Protection) are mostly consistent with agricultural uses. VanLuvanee's last rebuttal witness, Charles Unangst of Hanover Engineering. testified to plans prepared by his company in November of 2007 and revised in September of 2008 - showing new configurations of intense townhouse and apartment development in many of the KMRD owned or controlled parcels. There were no mobile home parks shown but neither were all of the parcels. This was the first time these plans were exhibited. Each parcel depended on the extension of the sewer line and water supplied by the Easton Suburban Water Authority (ESWA). Unangst even had letters from ESWA stating that they could supply water to the parcels shown. In addessing the sewer need, he said that the sewer line is "just across the street" (Newlins Road - in the Riverview development.) None of the plans shown conformed with current allowed development in the FP nor with the Township's Act 537 Plan - the plan, filed with the State, that determines where sewer lines will be allowed. The KMRD high density development can not be done without municipal services. The total number of dwelling units shown for the selected parcels was 1648. The Township closed with Mr. Charlie Schmehl (of URDC) as a "rebuttal-rebuttal" witness. He countered the testimony of Glackin as to the total number of acres available for development in Forks. The data used by Glackin (originally prepared by the LVPC) was wrong according to Schmehl. It included land already approved for developments, and among other sites, Township parkland, as available. It even showed Riverview and the Strycker Brigade lands as available. The Morning Call and the Express Times chose not to send reporters. Please read David Billing's Everything Forks blog post for more. October 20th will be here before you know it! Check out the Kings Mill page for more about the project, the lawsuits, and the history. Come to the last session. This is it. Monday, October 20th is your night! 7:30 PM - Round 25 of the KMRD zoning challenge ............................................................. Update 8/10/08: Round 23 on August 4th was not the end of it. There will be at least one more session on September 8th. At that session, Forks will cross-examine Dennis Glackin, KMRD's first of two rebuttal witnesses. KMRD will also present another, as yet unnamed, rebuttal witness. If this holds true to form, yet another meeting will be needed for the cross-examination of that rebuttal witness and for the summary statements of both sides, KMRD and Forks Township. There will also be a review of each side's "errata sheets." On August 4th KMRD attorney VanLuvanee completed his cross-examination of Charlie Schmehl (URDC), the Township's final witness. VanLuvanee's questions focused on "affordable housing," Forks SR and SR1 zoning districts, and came just short of blaming the Township for not forcing developers to build "affordable housing." He said that the new businesses the Township wishes to attract will bring employees who will not be able to find affordable housing in Forks Township. Attorney Steve Goudsouzian countered by asking Schmehl who controls the prices and types of buildings built? The answer of course, is the builder - not the Township. VanLuvanee referred (in his cross of Schmehl) to e-mails exchanged between then Planning Commission (PC) chairman Vito Tamborinno and PC vice chairman Erik Chuss and Schmehl during the preparation of the new (and here contested) Zoning Ordinance. He also referred to minutes of the October 25, 2005 joint workshop of the PC and BoS in which the Zoning Ordinance draft was discussed. (Note: These minutes are not available online). James Wideman, former member of the PC, said that he attended many workshops and that he did not see any developers at the workshops. VanLuvanee ran Mr. Glackin - who first testified as an expert planner at the November 13, 2006 session - through a series of questions designed to defend his earlier testimony and his use of the 2000 census data. His reasoning for using the old 2000 census data was that the 2003 census, in his opinion, had bad data and the 2007 LVPC data was not yet available. Glackin stated that the Forks Zoning Ordinance does nothing to preserve agricultural land or soils. He testified too, that the ordinance does nothing to encourage the building of apartments or multi- family dwellings. He also said that the LVPC casts agricultural and vacant land as the same. Neither the Morning Call nor the Express Times sent a reporter. Please see David Billings' Everything Forks blog for more on Round 23. .............................................................. Update 6/21/08: At Round 22 (on June 16th), Charlie Schmehl of Urban Research & Development Corp (URDC) was cross-examined by attorney John VanLuvanee representing the KMRD partnership. With questions about open space and "the path of growth," VanLuvanee tried to make his point that "infrastructure follows development." Mr. Schmehl continues to maintain that the Farmland Protection (FP) is already "highly developed" - as farmland. A "path of growth" determination is important in the Surrick analysis - an item crucial to the challengers' contention that Forks' zoning is too restrictive. Additional cross examination of Mr. Schmehl by attorney John VanLuvanee is scheduled for Monday, August 4th at 7:30 PM. KMRD will also present a rebuttal witness. For more, see Madeleine Mathias' Morning Call (6/17/08) article. ................................................................. Update 5/17/08: At Round 21.5, Charlie Schmehl of Urban Research & Development Corp (URDC) continued his testimony on behalf of Forks Township. He was questioned as to whether or not the Forks FP (Farmland Protection) zoning district is in the "path of growth" and replied that, in his opinion, it is not; it is "highly developed." A "path of growth" determination is important in the Surrick analysis to help in the decision of whether or not Forks' zoning is too restrictive. Mr. Schmehl said that the FP is a distinct area from the rest of the Township. It is actively farmed and according to the Surrick analysis, actively farmed land is "developed" land. It is not "vacant" land. Also discussed was the Heritage Building Group v. Plumstead Township (2003) case. The court ruled for the township. Schmehl cited the Surrick case, the Heritage case, and the Montgomery Crossing Associates v. Township of Lower Gwynedd case in his testimony. (In the latter, the higher court overturned the lower court decision and found in favor of the township.) Much of the Glackens Report (the expert used by KMRD early on in the hearings) was refuted and inaccuracies, particularly the amount of available-for-development acreage, were detailed. For more detail, see Madeleine Mathias' Morning Call (5/20/08) article. Cross examination of Mr. Schmehl by attorney John VanLuvanee is scheduled for June 16 at 7:30 PM. .................................................................... Update 4/27/08: When is it appropriate to postpone a scheduled public hearing? Ans.: When the court recorder is a no-show! That's what happened to the KMRD substantive challenge hearing session (round 21) set for Monday, April 21st. After waiting half an hour and after multiple attempts to reach the court recorder by phone, the session was gaveled open and then gaveled closed. It was officially postponed until May 14 at 7:30 PM. For those of us hoping to see this challenge end in June, another month has been added. Look for the finish in July/August 2008. ................................................................... Update 4/5/08: At Round 20 of the Kings Mill/KMRD challenge to Forks Township's Zoning Ordinance, the last witness for the Township, Charlie Schmehl of URDC (Urban Research and Development Corporation), gave the first half of his testimony. His testimony will be continued at the April 21st session. On May 14th (note: this is a Wednesday - and not the usual Monday), the challenger's attorney, John VanLuvanee will cross-examine Mr. Schmehl. A June 16th session has also been scheduled. Presumably this will be the night the summations are given by both sides. In brief, Mr. Schmehl described the process and scope of developing the ordinance, including the changes the LVPC (Lehigh Valley Planning Commission) made to accommodate Forks' zoning map. He discussed the prime agricultural soils in the FP (Farmland Protection) District and noted that they are some of the best in the country. Schmehl talked of farming as an industrial land use. He noted the peril to water quality with the degree of impervious surface proposed by KMRD for its 600 plus acres. Mr. Schmehl refuted the "facts" presented by KMRD's New Jersey planning expert, Art Bernard on March 12, 2007. (See also, ZHB Minutes from 3/12/2007 and 4/23/2007 and Madeleine Mathias' 3/24/07 article in The Morning Call ) Mr. Bernard used 2000 census data to make his case and ignored the 56% growth that occurred in Forks over a six year period after that census. Mr. Bernard ignored the building that occurred after the census. Mr. Bernard ignored the opportunities that the KMRD partners had during that time to build the kinds of properties that the challenge alleges Forks' (FP) zoning does not permit. For more meeting details, please read the articles by Madeleine Mathias' (Morning Call) and JD Malone (Express Times). It is winding down! ................................................... Update 3/29/08: On Monday, March 24th, the Forks Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) listened to Solicitor Karl Kline's testimony under questioning by attorney Steven N. Goudsouzian and to cross examination by attorney John VanLuvanee and came to a conclusion. That conclusion was that in the procedures leading up to the adoption of the 2006 Zoning Ordinance, all the T's were crossed and all the I's were dotted - the prescribed procedure was followed. The vote was unanimous. The 2006 Zoning Ordinance is legal. The ZHB also considered the subpoena request by KMRD for all zoning ordinance (enactment) documents back to 1983. Since the ZHB had already ruled the 2006 Zoning Ordinance to be in compliance and therefore legally in force, the ZHB saw no reason for the Township to dig back into (up to) 25 year old records to satisfy what was referred to by Goudsouzian as a "fishing expedition." The motion was to "deny the remaining procedural challenges as moot based upon the denial to the procedural challenge to the 2006 Zoning Ordinance." The vote was 4:1 with Robert Kimmel, the newest ZHB member, casting the single nay vote. Please see both Madeleine Mathias' Morning Call article and the Express Times Easton Area Blog post by JD Malone for more details. Expect this ZHB decision to to be appealed to the courts. VanLuvanee said it would. On Monday, March 31st the continuing substantive challenge to the Forks 2006 Zoning Ordinance resumes at 7:30 PM. Charlie Schmehl of Urban Research & Development Corporation will testify. He and his firm guided the Township through the 2006 Zoning Ordinance re-write. He also worked with the Township on the new SALDO (Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance), and the soon to be adopted new Forks' Comprehensive Plan. The expectation is that Mr. Schmehl's testimony will conclude on March 31st. An April 21st meeting has also been scheduled. ................................................... Update 2/22/08: On Monday, February 18th at Round 1 of the KMRD, LP Procedural Challenge (large file), attorney John VanLuvanee had his co-attorney, Kellie McGowan testify to her review of township records regarding the 2001 and 2006 zoning ordinances principally obtained from right-to-know requests. VanLuvanee said that her testimony would show that he was not on a “fishing expedition” but rather on a systematic record search, which also included the public library archives of Express- Times legal notices filed by the township. VanLuvanee’s ultimate intent was to get the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) to issue a subpoena for all zoning ordinance documentation back to 1983. Independent of this request, ZHB Solicitor Michael Shay noted that there may be issue of “standing” since KMRD did not own land in the township at the time of the enactment of the older zoning ordinances. The ZHB ruled not to issue a subpoena at this time but to instead consider the procedural challenge of zoning ordinance 2006 before making that decision. Since the Township had previously provided KMRD with 300 pages of documentation pertaining to the enactment of the latest (2006) zoning ordinance, attorneys for the township requested that it be allowed to present testimony to rebut the KMRD claim of procedural errors in its enactment. The Township's position is that if the 2006 zoning process is deemed correct, then there is no reason to look back as the ordinance is valid. KMRD, on the other hand, maintains that there have been errors of procedure that would negate all zoning ordinances adopted after 1983. Thus, the principals of KMRD believe that they should be allowed to build under 1983 rules. The ZHB agreed with the Township and requested KMRD to proceed with only the 2006 ordinance challenge. In testimony that followed, Ms. McGowan alleged that the public hearing for the 2006 zoning ordinance was not proper because the summary legal notice published in the Express Times prior to the hearing was not consistent with MPC (Municipal Planning Code) standards. This is KMRD's only issue with the 2006 zoning ordinance procedure. The legal notice was drafted for publication by Forks Solicitor Karl Kline. The evening's proceeding ended before the Township could put Karl Kline on the stand to refute the claim of error and to provide testimony as to the sufficiency of the legal notice. Attorney Kline will testify at Round 2 on March 24th. Ms. McGowan concluded her testimony by stating she was a principal in KMRD, LP as well as being an attorney in the law firm of Eastburn & Gray, PC (the same Doylestown law firm that employs VanLuvanee.) VanLuvanee asked that the hearing resume on March 24, the date originally reserved for Round 20 of the substantive challenge, instead of March 31 as scheduled. The ZHB granted the date change. Round 20 will begin on the same night, time permitting. March 31 and April 21 have also been reserved for the substantive challenge. Morning Call reporter Madeleine Mathias' thorough article is a must read! ......................................................... Update 2/17/08: Zoning Officer Tim Weis was the Township's witness at the February 11th session. Mr. Weis detailed the Township's higher density and/or mutli-family developments, including Riverview Estates, Penn's Ridge, Evergreen Terrace, and the latest - Two Tees. Weis discussed a map that he prepared that graphically illustrates all the land currently being farmed in Forks Township. It was prepared under the premise that farmland is developed land (land in use) and is not vacant land. He said that under that premise there are only 186 acres of land left that is suitable for development and not yet developed (or planned to be developed.) Read Madeleine Mathias (Morning Call) and JD Malone (Express Times) for more details, including the KMRD attorney's suggestion that the ZHB's newest member, Robert Kimmel, step down from this (the KMRD zoning challenge) hearing. Mr. Kimmel did not comply. He said that he has been reading the transcripts to get up to speed. The Township is expected to call only one more witness before the case winds down. At least 1/2 hour at the end of the session was spent on discussion of the upcoming Procedural Challenge (large file) and possible document subpoena. The challengers want the township to produce all zoning ordinance records dating back to 1983. They hope to find procedural errors in the ordinance processes of the past that would negate zoning and allow them to go forward under the 1983 zoning. That ordinance allowed for higher density in is what is now the Farmland Protection District. The Township has produced 300 pages of documentation for the 2006 zoning ordinance process and says that if that is found to be procedurally valid, there is no need to go back further as the current zoning ordinance is legal and applicable. ......................................................... Update 12/23/07: Laura Laudone-Weis of Laudone & Associates, a real estate appraisal firm, testified for the Township. Some of the statistics that she reported - most from the latest LVPC report - Lehigh Valley Profiles & Trends and the real estate MLS - include: Ms. Laudone-Weis reported on her study of Forks real estate and on her experience in preparing feasibility studies for municipalities as well as developers. She testified that developers prefer to build condos over apartments because it is less risky. She noted that both Penn's Ridge and Riverview had apartments (approved) in their original plans and chose instead, to build something other than apartments. She said that low income housing is not profitable and that if the FP zoning is changed to allow sewer and water, it will be fully developed with housing. ......................................................... Update 12/1/07: At round 17, witness John R. Wichner, an engineer with Traffic Planning and Design Inc., testified that the Kings Mill and Weis Market projects will add 18,000 vehicles per day to Forks Township roads. Wichner said that currently Sullivan Trail, like Route 248 (Easton/Wilson), handles 14,000 vehicles a day. He also said that traffic on Sullivan Trail would increase by 23% to 36%. Please read Tom De Martini (Morning Call) and JD Malone (Express Times) for more. Also, on November 30, the Express Times published an editorial about the traffic Kings Mill traffic impact. Attorneys for the Township said that they have three (3) more witnesses to call. ........................................................... Update 10/20/07: At the October 15th zoning hearing session, we learned from witness Fred Hay (Forks Township Engineer) that Forks is indeed "nearly built out." That is, built out by a definition that includes all land with approved but not yet built developments/projects and all farmed acreage (the State of PA considers farmland to not be vacant land - it is land in use for agriculture). According to Hay, only 5% of the remaining land is suitable for development and that acreage is in isolated pockets. Please read Tom De Martini (Morning Call) for more details. ........................................................... Update 10/6/07: It was Forks 1 - Kings Mill 0 (zero) on Thursday night at the Board of Supervisors meeting! The 80 +/- attendees were elated. The residents' statements were passionate and convincing enough to sway Supervisor Don Miller from the fence. He picked the side of Forks. The vote to request an "indefinite" continuance was 2:3. The two were Ackerman and Hoff. The three were Howell, Miller, and Nicholas. The audience appeared unanimous against the motion. What's next? The Zoning Hearing Board reconvenes on Monday, October 15 and the township continues its defense. Read JD Malone (Express Times) and Tom De Martini (Morning Call) for more details ........................................................... Update 10/2/07: On Monday, October 1st, the Forks Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) voted 5:0 to deny Kings Mill LLC an indefinite continuance on the current challenge hearing while the partnership and the Township attempt to work out a settlement. The letter for the request was sent to the John Pappas, Chairman of the Zoning Hearing Board. In it, Kings Mill's attorney, John VanLuvanee, stated that the Township "joined in" the request. The trouble with that sentence was that it wasn't true. The Zoning Hearing Board didn't like that (among other things) and voted unanimously to deny the request. The public was allowed to speak and not one of the speakers, Including all the candidates (Wideman, Billings, Chuss, and Egolf - with his vote on the Zoning Hearing Board - blogs are linked) was in favor of it. Supervisor Howell spoke as well. He got applause. Supervisor Ackerman was there but did not speak. Read candidate James Wideman's testimony. The Board of Supervisors will be discussing the Kings Mill request at its (public) meeting on October 4th. A letter will be sent to the zoners with the Board's request, should there be one that is, for an indefinite (?) continuance. The ZHB will have to consider the matter one more time if that happens. Wondering how it will come out this time? Be there for Round 16 on October 15th! Please read Tom De Martini (Morning Call) and JD Malone (Express Times) for more. Also, in today's Express Times, there is a letter from Board of Supervisors' Chairman David Hoff (and outgoing supervisor) refuting an earlier letter on the subject by candidate David Billings. Also, read candidate James Wideman's letter to the editor - Express Times. This is the meeting you've been waiting for! Don't miss it. Bring the family. Pack the house! Thursday, October 4th at 7:30 PM. ............................................................ Update 9/29/07: According to articles in this week's Morning Call and Express Times, the Zoning Hearing Board will discuss and vote on a Kings Mill request for an indefinite continuance while Kings Mill and the Township try to iron out a compromise. The Township is in the midst of its defense. Kings Mill presented witness during the first eleven hearings. The Supervisors have not voted and will likely have this on their meeting agenda, Thursday, October 4th. Don't wait to read about it after the fact! Round 15 is an important one - be there! .......................................................... Update 8/13/07: Easton's Chief Planner, Becky Bradley testified that Kings Mill as proposed would add 17,000 vehicles a day to Easton's streets! She stated too, that the development would open the door for more development in Lower Mount Bethel Township. LMBT Supervisors, Luis Santiago and Charles Palmeri testified as well. Please read Jimmy Miller (Express Times) for more on the hearing. .......................................................... Update 6/23/07: Two more Township witnesses testified at the 6/21/07 hearing, Layne Klein, a lifetime Forks farmer/landowner, and Albert Jinks, the Forks developer who brought age-restricted manufactured home developments to the Township. Klein spoke to quality of Forks farmland, to its scarcity, and to probable conflicts with residential development in the FP. Jinks described why he lowered allowed densities for his communities (more and smaller units = few sales). Please read Madeleine Mathias' Morning Call (6/19/07) report for more hearing testimony. The next round is scheduled for August 13 at 7:30 PM. The Township will continue with its witnesses. .......................................................... Update 5/27/07: The Township began its defense in Round 12 on May 21st with two witnesses, Margaret Dissinger, VP of Land Development for Omega Homes (Penn's Ridge) and Jeffrey Bader, EASD Business Manager. Dissinger testified that although Omega intended to build apartments, market conditions changed and the money was in townhouses. Bader testified that the annual per student cost, exclusive of buildings, is $12,000. School tax money realized from a typical townhouse is $2,500 - a net deficit of approximately $9,500! If the townhouse has two students, that deficit becomes $21,500 - $9,500 for the first student + $12,000 for each additional one. Bader also that a development of this size could double our school taxes! Not kidding - DOUBLE! Please read Christina Georgiou's thorough coverage of the testimony in the May 24, 2007 edition of The Easton News. The Township will present more witnesses at the next session on June 18. .......................................................... Please read Madeleine Mathias (Morning Call) for a report on Round 11. - Just a guess but It may have been the last session for Kings Mills' witnesses. If so, the Township's defense and witness presentation will commence with Round 12. Contrary to what we've overheard at the hearings, the sessions are NOT as boring as watching paint dry. They are not as exciting as some things - most things in fact - and are somewhat tedious by nature as the case against the Township is being built. Please read Christina Georgiou (The Easton News, 1/31/07) for details of the Jan 29th hearing. And, plan to attend the February session - scheduled for the Municipal Building where the chairs have backs and padded seats! Update 2/18/07: Kings Farm, the plan submitted by the developers in late December 2005 under the old zoning ordinance, was rejected by the Board of Supervisors on February 15th as incomplete. The vote was unanimous. Read Joe Nixon (Morning Call) and Courtney Lomax (Express Times) for more. Attorney for the developers, John VanLuvanee, stated that the developers will appeal the decision. The last Round 25 of the Zoning challenge was held Monday, October 20th at 7:30 PM. |
|
|
