That is the question. "Why? It can't be for the pay. It can't be for the glory."
They are right. It's not for the token pay and it's not for any glory. I don’t have any acreage to sell and I commute to work like many of you. I live here in Forks Township because I love it here. And, I don't take things for granted.
Forks Township is ever changing. I want these changes to be for the better. Sitting at home and waiting to see how things turn out isn't the way to insure the best outcome. I know that I, like Forks Township, must be proactive.
I served for 1-1/2 years on the Forks Planning Commission (PC). I have a good understanding of what's in our immediate future. I've listened to developers, I've studied plans, and I've spoken out publicly about policy I like and I don’t like. I'm on record as being against high density development in Forks' Farmland Protection District and for open space preservation. I'm on record as being against any changes to Forks' Act 537 Plan - the sewer plan - to accommodate dense development. I'm on record as being against any development that will inevitably lead to higher taxes. I’m for expanding our Parks and Recreation system to include a "passive" park with a walking path, trees, a pond with benches, a place of reflection away from everyday stresses.
I was chairman of the Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee on Farmland & Historic Preservation. The committee's work made recommendations which are currently being reviewed by the appointed Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee for inclusion in the 2009 Forks Township Comprehensive Plan.
I want to fight the good fight. I want Forks Township to evolve into a vibrant, lively community that residents will continue to love and continue to call home. Forks Township has just gone through a period of intense growth. In light of the current economic downturn, many details will need careful scrutiny to assure efficient sustainable services. I look forward to working with local businesses to address their needs and to making Forks a desirable new business destination. To that end, I urge all residents to shop locally whenever possible.
I have integrity. I have high standards. I have energy and vision. I ask that you support my run for Forks Supervisor with your write-in vote on May 19th.
This blog is open to all. Post any questions or comments you have for me here or email them to me at jameswideman@gmail.com.
Jim Wideman
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Friday, October 24, 2008
KMRD-FORKS ZHB Summation Opinion
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.
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
"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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
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
Thursday, September 27, 2007
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
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
