"Forks Rocks!"

“Forks rocks” was a comment from the floor at the10/4/2007 BoS meeting, regarding the message it would send to developers about plans that are not consistent with the Forks Township Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In a 3-2 vote, that defeated the implementation of a resolution intended to suspend litigation and start negotiations with KMRD, Supervisors C. David Howell, Donald Miller, and Bonnie Nicholas resounded that cry. In this well attended meeting, many citizens engaged the Supervisors during the 90 minutes of deliberations on this topic. Notably, all comments were against the resolution. It did not appear to this participant that anyone in the audience was in favor of this resolution.

The defeat of this resolution reinvigorates the Board’s previous vow to “vigorously oppose” KMRD’s litigation. I commend the BoS for having the fortitude and proactive vision to not cave to the saber-rattled schoolyard whims of KMRD. Forks Township Solicitor Karl Kline summed up the stance of the BoS in the Spring issue of the Forks’ Quarterly by stating, “It is the township’s firm belief that the Zoning Ordinance is legal and that it provides an appropriate framework for balanced, rational development.”

Also, and far from least, by defeating this resolution Forks Township sends a clear message to the EASD, Easton, Stockertown, Tatamy, Plainfield Township, LMBT, and UMBT that your concerns are our concerns.

Once again, I applaud the BoS for Thursday nights decision.

As a citizen of Forks Township and a candidate for Supervisor, I vow to uphold and defend our Comprehensive Plan and Zoning.

KMRD Request for an"indefinite continuance" opinion

The Zoning Hearing Board deliberated and heard public testimony tonight regarding KMRD's request that their substantive challenge be "continued indefinitely". Among those testifying for denial of this request were C. David Howell, Erik Chuss, Sharon Davis, David Billings, Duncan Williams, Nicole Alexander, and myself. Nobody testified in favor. The ZHB voted unanimously to deny KMRD's request. Members of the ZHB include Chairman John Pappas, Robert Egolf, Ronald Asteaks, Lou Moyer, and Peter Rossi.

Below is my testimony in support of this denial.

 

Forks Township Zoning Hearing Board Members,

RE: An “indefinite continuance” of KMRD’s Substantive Challenge

Regarding the current proposition, I believe we need a brief recap of where we have come from. Along with the substantive challenge before you, KMRD presented the Township with a very aggressive sketch plan of a development. KMRD fully understood that this plan was not even marginally consistent with the 2006 enacted zoning ordinance or the1997 municipal comprehensive plan. Both of those documents were enacted after considerable hours of due diligence by various public committees, followed by numerous public hearings, and other reviews. The basis of the substantive challenge is that Forks Township zoning is arbitrary, unreasonable, exclusionary, and unconstitutional. During the span of 9 (nine) months, 11(eleven) hearings and more than 20 (twenty) hours of testimony, KMRD presented their case. To date Forks Township has presented 3 (three) hearings. School, police, fire, EMS, and other public safety impacts have not been fully addressed. Our high-crowned rural roads and traffic concerns await expert testimony. The irreversible conversion of our prime agricultural soils and our rural historic heritage has not been defended. Forks Township has barely begun to present its case. To put it simply, granting an “indefinite continuance” of these proceedings, at this point, would be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the constitutional right of due process.

KMRD is asking that Forks Township suspend these proceedings so that they might negotiate some remedy that they feel is lucrative. However, they are clearly indicating that if these talks breakdown, they wish to reserve the right to come back and resume these proceedings, even though their evidence has already been presented. The people of Forks Township through the Board of Supervisors have put these proceedings into the hands of the Zoning Hearing Board. The people’s side of the case should be heard. In June 2006 Supervisors vowed to “vigorously oppose” this zoning challenge. A written statement issued Monday June 26, 2006 by Supervisors stated, “The Board stands firm in its position that it will not allow several ****** developers to dictate the future of land development within Forks Township”. To date I am not aware of any public deliberations or votes by the Board of Supervisors indicating an opposing view. KMRD can stop these proceedings right now by totally dropping their various challenges.

The ZHB is an autonomous body that has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final adjudications on substantive challenges. Gentleman, the future of Forks Township is in your hands. Granting an “indefinite continuance” now would be “penny wise and dollar foolish”, that is to say, contrary to the best long term interests of the people of Forks Township. Please stay the course and vote to deny any motion for an “indefinite continuance” of these proceedings.

James Wideman

3305 Richmond Road

Easton, Pa. 18040

610.216.8989

jameswideman@gmail.com

KMRD Impacts Taxes

Once again, my position that Higher Density leads to Higher Taxes is confirmed. In today's Express-Times District has big concerns about major development, EASD Business Manager Jeffery Bader states that the KMRD 3000+ home proposal  would have an impact to EASD of nominally $45million (staff, administrative, and transportation costs) plus $10-40million(building expansions). More simply put TAXPAYERS of the EASD (you and me) are going to have to finance  $55-85million. This would be achieved through the issuance of Bonds and Higher Property Taxes. EASD Board Member Alfred Capecci stated that the KMRD proposal almost gave him a (metaphorical) heart attack; clearly this is not a healthy scenario.

School impacts are not the only adverse impacts. Police, Fire, EMS, and Township administrative staff would need significant size increases. Our roads (mostly high crowned rural roads with little or no shoulders and little room for expansion) would see significant trip volume increases and need maintenance at an increased schedule. The irreversible conversion of prime agricultural soils and parts of our rural historical heritage are also notable impacts. Forks Township Taxpayers would have to shoulder these burdens. At the same time, the developers would be enjoying a stroll to their local (they do not live here!) bank.

Forks Township zoning is fair and constitutional contrary to the KMRD litigation. KMRD's "By Right" plan is also fair and constitutional and should be resubmitted. Their current challenges should be withdrawn. The Forks Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) should not allow KMRD's ploy of an "indefinite continuance" which would mean that the ZHB would suspend hearings of these current challenges for the near term. This interruption would come during  Forks Township's presentation of witnesses refuting KMRD contentions. These witnesses are testifying to the validity  and constitutionality of Forks Township Zoning Laws on behalf of Forks Township citizens. They should be heard now and not suspended indefinitely. Of what interest is it to the Forks Township Community, which includes the EASD, to allow this litigation to rear its ugly head again in the future?

If these concerns are also your concerns, Please Attend the upcoming ZHB and BoS meetings on October 1, 7:30pm and October 4, 7:30pm respectively.

James Wideman

Forks Township vs. KMRD

Greetings,

KMRD is trying a "slam dunk" strategy. First they slam us (Forks Township) with as much extreme litigation as they can dream up, then they dunk us and say they want out and would we not  rather compromise. This is akin to a scoundrel of a thief coming into your home to steal your new plasma TV and when he realizes he is about to be caught tells you he will leave peaceably if he can just have your older TV. I say a trip behind the barn would be more appropriate. Do I have a witness?

Today's  Morning Call Forks, developer weary of litigation article leaves a few unanswered troubling questions. There have been no public discussions to date regarding the BoS and KMRD. No consensus. How is it that Karl Kline can speak for the BoS so liberally about matters that may have been discussed in a BoS executive session? What best interest is it for the Township to have hearings "continued indefinitely" or to seek "middle ground"? 

This KMRD vs. Forks Township litigation is the prevailing focus of this election. Many other questions that need answers hang in the balance. Let me know what your opinion is. I hope you want to put  these developers in their place as much as I do. They want to devastate our environment, our rural heritage, our schools, our roads, and our fragile tax base. Our Police, Fire, EMS, and Public Works Departments  would be heavily impacted by  proposals that are outside our current zoning.

Local government should be ruled by our Representatives who were elected to represent the best interests of the community, not self interests. Our Solicitor should take care not to assume the position of the Board. Developers should not have any right to state a Board position for the Supervisors.

On Monday October 1, 2007 7:30pm, we will hear how the Zoning Hearing Board will handle the "continued indefinitely" issue. At the BoS meeting October 4, 2007 7:30pm, I am sure this will be deliberated extensively. Please attend these meetings if you can. I can assure you, right now, that there is nothing better on TV. 

Best regards,

James Wideman

Candidate for Forks Township Supervisor 2007  (Please Vote!)

P.S. Forks Township needs your support.