Kings Mill (KMRD) vs. Forks Township - the battle so far
... keeping you informed!
Forks Action Committee
Kings Mill Round 24 - September 8th - 7:30 PM

Forks Municipal Building

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 s
ent 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.

Round 24 of the Zoning challenge
Monday, September 8th at 7:30 PM.
Links to Kings Mill blog
posts and related articles
  • The median income of homeowners in Forks is $68,900.
  • Forks ranks 4th in mean income in Northampton County.
  • Forks has the 6th highest home prices in the Northampton County.
  • Right now, there are less than 10 homes for sale in Forks at prices below $200,000.