On October 20,2008, the Township of Forks Zoning Hearing Board rendered a 5-0 vote denying KMRD's substantive challenge on all counts. KMRD has vowed to appeal this decision despite its constant, overwhelming and unwavering community support. The Zoning Hearing Board deserves accolades for their patience, diligence and long suffering in hearing over 50 hours of testimony.
The following is the text of my summation opinion given prior to the close of these hearings.
Gentlemen of the Zoning Hearing Board, I take this opportunity to present my objections to the “substantive challenge” filed by KMRD, L.P. KMRD’s filing broadly states that current zoning in Forks Township was arrived at and adopted by an elected Board of Supervisors in a manner construed as “arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional”. I contend that not only has KMRD failed to present a plausible case regarding the current 2006 Zoning Ordinance, they also have failed to prove any reasonable hardship. They are not being prevented from building on the named parcels as long as they are in conformance with zoning.
A brief review of history reveals that “zoning” was first implemented to restrict land uses which were considered a nuisance or harmful to neighboring properties. Today, zoning is recognized as a “positive” tool for encouraging preferable development, creating attractive sustainable communities, and the preservation of natural features, historic landmarks and farmland. In rewriting the now adopted 2006 Forks Township Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission, with guidance from URDC (Urban Research and Development Corporation) and input from civically minded residents, sought to fine tune the previous zoning ordinance with an eye to sustainably balancing residential, business, industrial and agricultural needs against the corresponding needs of infrastructure which include schools, roads, police, fire, parks and recreation, etc. Particularly relevant was the change to the “FP” (Farmland Protection”) zoning which was designed to promote agriculture or “open space” by giving a density incentive to “cluster” housing (1 acre housing with a corresponding 1 acre preserved) opposing a 3 acre sprawl tract. Many advertised public meetings were conducted to deliberate the many concerns involved.
At the center of KMRD’s case-in-chief is the “Surrick Analysis”. KMRD fails to pass this three tiered probe. The first probe asks, is the community in a logical area for growth and development? Forks Township has experienced an unsustainable (nominal 50%) rate of population growth in the past decade because of its proximity to commutable New Jersey and its provision of sewer and water. Immediately to the south with an I-78 interchange to New Jersey and no provision for sewer and water, Williams Township did not experience similar growth. Clearly, developers desire the combination of farmland, sewer and water. Forks Township residents have to commute through and impact other municipalities to arrive at any major roads or highways. There is no transportation hub located within Forks Township and public transportation is very limited. The few PENNDOT roads that exist here are high-crowned, two lane, non-shouldered, once dirt roads that offer little or no room for expansion. It is my contention that while Forks Township is a convenient place to build, it is not a logical area for additional growth and development.
The second probe asks, is the community already highly developed? Nearly 100% of developable land in Forks Township is either being built upon or has approved plans on file to be built at a future point. Once the approved plans are built and occupied it is estimated the population will surge by 20-30% to nominally approach 20,000. The challenged parcels of land in the FP are currently “developed” and being utilized agriculturally as farmland. Farming remains a viable industry in Forks Township because the vast majority of soils are Class I, Class II or Class III prime agricultural soils. Prime agricultural soils are a limited nonrenewable resource of statewide importance.
The third and final probe asks, has the community zoning provided for a range of residential housing types? Testimony presented at length during these hearings has shown that zoning was and is in place for a ‘fair share” range of housing types. Forks Township is not at fault because developers, including those involved in this proceeding, chose to build a narrower range of housing types that they considered to be commercially prudent.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, article 1, section 27 states “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic historic and esthetic values of the environment.” Farmland, forest land and open space are provided an exception to the mandate of uniformity of taxation under Pa. Constitution, article VIII, section 2(b)(i) as these lands can be taxed according to use rather than to the prevailing market value.
The MPC (Municipal Planning Code), also known as ‘The Zoning Enabling Act’, empowers townships “to plan their development and to govern the same by zoning, subdivision and land development ordinances…” MPC, Article 1, section 105 expands this definition stating the intent or purpose of the act is “to protect and promote safety, health and morals”. MPC, Article III, section 301(2) states the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan “shall include a plan for land use”. MPC, Article VI, section 604(1) states “zoning ordinances shall be designed to protect, promote and facilitate coordinated and practical community development and proper density of population.” MPC, Article VI, section 604(2) states “zoning ordinances shall be designed to prevent overcrowding of land, blight, danger and congestion in travel and transportation…” MPC, Article VI, section 604(4) states “that no zoning ordinance shall be deemed invalid for the failure to provide for any other specific dwelling type.”
In contrast to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the MPC and Forks Township Zoning, KMRD’s highly dense 3000+ home proposal shows little regard for Forks Township zoning, Forks Township residents, the neighboring municipalities of Easton, Tatamy, Stockertown, Plainfield Township and Lower Mount Bethel Township and the EASD (Easton Area School District). Easton, Tatamy and Stockertown are concerned about the impact of excessive traffic on their already clogged arterial roads. Plainfield and Lower Mount Bethel Townships are concerned about their rural character being jeopardized.
On September 27, 2007, EASD’S Business Manager Jeffery Bader stated KMRD’s 3000+ home development would result in about 4800 new students, $45million in staff, administration and transportation costs, and $10-40million in building expansion. Bader went on to say that even a compromise cutting the development in half would still result in 2400 new students, which is roughly 25% of the current student population of about 9000. Forks Township residents, indeed all property owners within the EASD, are concerned about the impact this would have on their school taxes.
Gentleman of the Zoning Hearing Board, the 2006 Zoning Ordinance of Forks Township is not arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional. Due diligence was adhered to every step of the way. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission reviewed and approved the 2006 Zoning Ordinance before its enactment by the Board of Supervisors. I urge you to unanimously deny KMRD’s substantive challenge in its entirety.
James Wideman
3305 Richmond Road
Easton, Pa.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
