Upper Mount Bethel Township Engineer objects to elements of ordinance amendment for River Pointe developer Lou Pektor to be voted on this evening

On September 8, 2020, UMBT Supervisor John Bermingham held a Q&A session on the River Pointe zoning ordinance and SALDO amendment, also known as "Version 10".  In attendance were roughly 12 citizens, Mr. Bermingham, Supervisor Teel, Township Engineer Justin Coyle, and Township Manager Ed Nelson.

During this session, several residents asked pointed questions about the amendment, such as building height, building spacing, amount of potential building area, sewage disposal, road ownership, wear and maintenance, the process used to produce the amendment, and a reported effort to attach convenants to the properties targeted for development.  Additionally, resident Janet Pearson - the UMBT Open Space chair and former tax collector, presented research that called into question claims that 84% of land in UMBT is not taxed.  Ms. Pearson said she believes the actual number is in the 60s.

The most notable outcome of the meeting was that after citizens asked questions for over an hour - including one resident suggesting that buildings over 60 feet in height be conditional uses, Mr. Coyle made statements that reflect he would advise against adopting the proposed amendment in its current form - if he were asked for an opinion.  This is due to a few significant ways in which the township would be granting "by right" development of buildings and businesses.   Mr. Coyle stated that he would make his opinion known at this evening's meeting.  The question is how the amendment ever got this far without advice like Mr. Coyle's (and that of the LVPC) being taken into consideration and acted on...

Let's review how the process is designed to work, summarize what is known about how UMBT supervisors got to where they are today, and consider some comments made at yesterday's informal yet informative meeting.

The PA Municipalities Planning Code provides for a comprehensive plan, which lays out the goals of the community, including development, recreation, roadways, finance, etc.  UMBT is currently involved in an LVPC project called Plan Slate Belt, a ten municipality multi-municipal plan for the Slate Belt communities.

The zoning ordinance is statutory, and is to be written to achieve the goals of the comprehensive plan.

The MPC provides for planning agencies – a local planning commission, a county planning commission and regional planning agency (multi-municipal).  UMBT does not have the latter.  When a zoning ordinance or SALDO amendment is proposed, it is required by the MPC to request a review from all planning agencies.  Note these are advisory only – it is the supervisory body that has the authority to enact all legislation.

The Department of Community and Economic Development publishes a guidebook for township supervisors.  In this guide, it states the function of the comprehensive plan and describes how zoning ordinances are to be created.  The planning commission assists the BOS, and a professional planner should be utilized.  It envisions that the planning commission is the forum where community input and feedback may be received and used to shape the draft ordinance, and the result is sent to the BOS where their primary purpose is making the decision of adopting or not adopting the draft.  It states that the courts have found that ordinances passed without proper planning may be found to not be valid.  As the LVPC found in its review, proper planning has not been done.

Mr. Teel stated on 9/8/20 that he has worked for months on the amendment (note it was received in approximately March or April.  Significant ordinance amendments can take a year or more to draft, with a professional planner).  Mr. Teel is one person.  Drafting ordinance amendments is a process that requires airing of proposals and feedback from other unbiased community members.

The problem with the current draft, which is a “very significant change” (Township Engineer Justin Coyle of Carroll Engineering), and therefore requires a professional planner’s involvement, is it has not been guided by or received the recommendation of a professional planner.  The great majority of the process has taken place in private negotiations with a developer, and continues to be with the reported effort to negotiate deed covenants (which are not an element of any tool required or suggested by the MPC).  It is notable that a draft of purported deed covenants is not available to the public, and Mr. Teel reported on 9/8/20 that there has been no progress or agreement with the developer on them.

One citizen questioned why supervisors would seek to use deed covenenants to control development, when it is accepted to do this though the ordinance and SALDO.  Let the number of buildings and their placement be governed by the usual tool - the ordinance.  Mr. Teel did not have a good answer to this question, because there isn't one.  His answer was a poor excuse - "any changes to the amendment would have to be reviewed again by the planning commissions."  An amendment that requires significant modification does need to be resubmitted to the planning agencies - and there is a very good reason for that and it happens routinely.  You don't do a work-around no one has heard of to circumvent the process.  And Mr. DeFranco and Mr. Teel have already shown that they have no respect for the LVPC and the planning experts on its staff (see below).  Another resident pointed out that she as a homeowner needs a variance if she wants to do something on her property outside the ordinance - why should a developer be exempted from variances as the amendment proposes?

Furthermore, the only professional planner’s advice that has been received – which is from the county planning agency (LVPC), is both critical of significant aspects of the draft ordinance as well as having been ignored – willfully by at least one member of the BOS (DeFranco).  And another (Teel) has made comments that are consistent with those of the first.  Mr. DeFranco stated prior to receiving the LVPC’s recommendation “I don’t care what the LVPC says.”  This is not an indication of an open minded BOS member, acting based on competent advice, on behalf of his constituents.  Mr. Teel has stated (9/8/20) “I wouldn’t trust the LVPC – look at what they did to Tatamy.”  This is apples and oranges, assuming the LVPC recommended something that ultimately negatively impacted Tatamy.  The LVPC has cautioned UMBT that proper planning has not been done, that the environment may be impacted, criticized exempting a single use from zoning and SALDO regulations, etc – this is the opposite of the LVPC either missing something or advocating something that would cause a negative impact on UMBT and its citizens.

When asked by a citizen what the rush is to adopt the amendment, Mr. Teel responded that he has worked on the amendment for months and the developer has been trying to line up tenants.  This is not a justification for hurrying to adopt an amendment that is not designed to satisfy good community planning, but rather to satisfy the developer.  Mr. Coyle made comments that may have been designed to address the purported urgency or lack thereof - he pointed out that approvals for land development for storm water, soil disturbance, etc require over a year to be approved.  Furthermore, the DRBC is involved for water extraction in excess of 10,000 gallons a day.  Multiple attendees pointed out that while good manufacturing jobs are universally desired, it may be that no manufacturers at all materialize at River Pointe.  Mr. Teel's personal effort to achieve a goal he envisions is not a substitute for intelligent planning.

The only other professional advice appears to be that of the township engineer, who does not have an official say and has pointed out that he serves the BOS and should not have a position, but he also serves the Planning Commission and he has an opinion.  He stated on 9/8/20 at an unofficial meeting hosted by Supervisor Bermingham emphatically “Industrial business parks should be a conditional use”, and “building heights over 60’ should be a conditional use”.  “Making these uses permitted by right gives up all control the township has over an Applicant.  You can’t do that.”  Note that these two items in Version 10 of the draft would be considered uses permitted by right, if it is adopted.  Also note that it was in a meeting with several members of the community that Mr. Coyle made these statements, after hearing concerns from the attendees over the process and consequences if the draft were adopted.  This is the kind of interaction that should take place, over the course of several official meetings, in the process of drafting an ordinance amendment.

The process of drafting of an ordinance amendment based on requisite planning as laid out in the MPC, and followed by municipalities across Pennsylvania, has been turned on its head in the case of Version 10.  Proper planning has not been done on which to base the changes proposed, and the process of revising and updating drafts was not done at the planning commission, but rather in private, out of the public view – contrary to having public participation as is customary and expected.  It is believed that the township planning commission did not see any draft of the amendment until Version 10, and were given only hours to browse its 28 pages prior to meeting to review it.  It is also reported that at this meeting (July 15), BOS member Teel as Vice Chairman of the PC, stated “I don’t see why we have to go through every page.”  Note that the planning commission, as the entity responsible for maintaining and advising on updates to the ordinance, should go through every word of a proposed legislative amendment, in order to advise the BOS.  This calls into question to what extent the review was, and also Mr. Teel’s motivation in suggesting a cursory review, since he is also reported to be the chief negotiator with the developer.  Should a BOS member be recommending against a full review by the advising body, when that BOS member will vote based on that advice?  Should the person who helped revise in private an ordinance amendment, vote to advise the supervisory body that he also sits on to adopt said amendment?  It is further reported that Mr. Teel is now the Chairman of the planning commission.  

BOS members are to be making decisions as elected officials for their constituents, not in spite of them.  Numerous statements were made by the public against adoption of the amendment at the August 31, 2020 BOS hearing.  The process followed here suggests a potential dereliction of duty, if the draft ordinance is passed.

 

 

Upper Mount Bethel Township Supervisors seek to ram through zoning changes on September 9 drafted by developer Lou Pektor, after pledge that River Pointe Logistics Center would meet zoning

 In September 2019, a development group named River Point Logistics Center (Lou Pektor) purchased 725 acres of land in Upper Mount Bethel Township, in the I-2 and I-3 districts zoned for industrial use. 

Officials cautiously optimistic of development

Several officials across the Lehigh Valley commented on the proposal to develop new industry in the Slate Belt - this is a Holy Grail to some in the area - and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission views the Slate Belt as having some of the best last remaining opportunity for development.  Don Cunningham of the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corp. weighed in:

[He] said the project will be one of the largest industrial developments in Northampton County in years. He said the development will bring a lot of tax revenue to the township and school district, but warned there will be challenges, such as establishing public water and sewer.

“There’s a considerable amount of work to make the property developable, plus there will be significant public input on what people view as being reasonable there,” (Morning Call, Nov 6, 2019, emphasis added)

John Reinhart, retired school superintendent and long time resident of the area stated:

“I would hope there would be some higher-level jobs, and also that it would be a clean and green operation, not something that would upset the environment,” (same article, emphasis added)

And Northampton County Exectutive Lamont McClure's comments:

“I’ve been talking about warehouse proliferation and where it shouldn’t be going,” he said. “But there are some places where light manufacturing or manufacturing would be appropriate, such as the new site in Upper Mount Bethel Township."

He said officials need to iron out specifics, such as building a wastewater treatment facility. If a sewage system isn’t deemed feasible to build, McClure predicted it would mean a warehouse would wind up there.  (same article, emphasis added)

There have been many articles in the past year on UMBT supervisors' proposal to install sewer in the area, while residents have argued that there is not a need.  Here is one article, from September 2019, in which critical comments of the sewer proposal during a Lehigh Valley Planning Commission review are quoted.

Note that in the article, it is pointed out that UMBT contains lands in a tax sheltered area, the LERTA - and that Planning Commission Commissioner Richard Molchany observed that with a sewer and poor planning, UMBT could turn into Macungie, with similar traffic congestion and unsafe roads.  Furthermore, 

Because new businesses in parts of the township would qualify for local, school and state tax rebates, Molchany said the plan amounts to spending taxpayers' dollars to bring in subsidized development that would increase the cost of road maintenance. (WFMZ, Sept 26, 2019, emphasis added)

At the same meeting, 

Commissioner Stephen Melnick said the township should put together an updated comprehensive plan first to identify potential problems before proposing solutions.   (WFMZ, Sept 26, 2019, emphasis added)

Handful of officials and special interests in UMBT welcome irresponsible development PDQ, while ignoring their citizens' wishes and shit-canning zoning

There are opposing themes apparent if you review the comments of longtime community leaders, county level planning and development leaders, and residents and compare with those of UMBT board members as well as officials they have appointed to critical committees such as the township Planning Commission, Zoning Hearing Board, and Economic Development Committee (how many municipalities have one of these?).

In short, as we will see, the deck has been stacked in UMBT in favor of blindly irresponsible development at all costs, which validates the concerns of the community leaders and county planning and economic development leaders quoted above.  We shall also see that those on a mission in UMBT to lay the red carpet out to River Pointe Logistics will not take criticism constructively, and are ignoring the wishes and welfare of the almost 7000 residents they represent.  To the contrary, considered and reasoned advice are simply potential logs in their path to be ignored and/or eliminated.

River Pointe pledges to meet zoning requirements, but a few weeks later submits proposed ordinance and SALDO amendments to shield itself from local regulation

On February 27, 2020, Pektor and his staff proposed an outline of proposed development in which it was stated that all township zoning requirements would be satisfied.  

What was not announced was that Pektor's organization already or would begin work shortly behind the scenes with UMBT supervisors to scrap the township's zoning ordinance - or more accurately, to alter the ordinance to exempt lands in the I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from numerous articles of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, when it was stated that River Pointe Logistics Center would comply with all local, state and federal requirements, they meant those in effect when a land development plan was submitted - not those in effect on February 27, 2020.  The old switcharoo.

Only 1-1/2 months later (if not earlier), UMBT supervisors were in possession of River Pointe's first proposed amendment of the zoning ordinance and SALDO.  BOS Chairman Bermingham actually stated publicly that the purpose of the amendment was so that River Pointe would not have to apply for zoning variances.  In other words, River Pointe anticipated that it would need zoning variances, even though earlier they had represented they would satisfy all regulatory requirements.  This is what is called a discrepancy in mixed company.  In private, a different term might be used.

After River Pointe assuring community that they would comply will all regulations, the movement

to change the regulations commenced, and UMBT supervisors are on board, so to speak.  It should also be  noted that UMBT supervisors complimented River Pointe for holding the February meeting at which citizens were misled. You can not make this shit up, people.

The PA Municipalities Planning Code requires that the township planning commission and county planning commissions review substantive amendments to the zoning ordinance or SALDO (subdivision and land development ordinance).  The township planning commission is the gatekeeper of these - they are responsible for maintaining and updating these documents, with proper planning and the BOS having the final say.  Only three months after the Pektor presentation, the UMBT planners had an amendment specifically for River Pointe Logisitcs Center on their agenda.  The MPC provides for what is called a "curative amendment", in which a land owner claims the ordinance is defective.  What happened in this case was different - Pektor's team went through the ordinance and SALDO, found all the articles that were not defective but rather they merely wished to be exempted from, and crafted an amendment (including this list) that they submitted to the UMBT supervisors.  For your viewing pleasure, behold all the "inapplicable zoning and SALDO provisions" that the BOS is on the verge of granting River Pointe Logistics Center when it meets on September 9:

Pektor's lengthy list of articles that River Pointe would be exempted from in

the UMBT Zoning Ordinance and SALDO under the proposed amendment

Usual land development process, versus a corrupted process - Can you spot the differences?

When a developer goes through land development, they may require zoning variances if they do not comply with one or more articles.  They may also desire to be exempted from SALDO requirements, which is done by requesting one or more waivers.  They may be required to go through Conditional Use approval if the proposed development has potential traffic or other impacts.  The Zoning Hearing Board hears variance requests, the Planning Commission advises on whether or not each waiver should be granted, and the BOS votes to grant or deny each waiver.  The BOS also hears Conditional Use hearings.

River Pointe, with the open support and enthusiastic encouragement of the UMBT BOS, seeks to turn this process totally on its head - in contravention of the Municipalities Planning Code and common sense.  Why deal with proving you deserve relief from pesky zoning or SALDO requirements if yiou can eliminate them?  Imagine if any developer, whether it be an industry, commercial business or builder, could rewrite the zoning ordinance before they submit their plan, so that there are no obstacles whatsoever.  You want to build a garage in your front yard, so you ask your buddies on the UMBT BOS to change the ordinance instead of applying for a variance.  The ordinance would soon be littered with "exemptions".  This is preposterous 

Not only does River Pointe request to be exempted from the list of articles above in the zoning ordinance and SALDO, there are several other additions to the ordinance that will only apply to its development.  For example, it is proposed that Steep Slopes in River Pointe's development have its own, relaxed (of course) definition.  In this manner, slopes that would never normally be developed are now no obstacle.  No waiver or variance needed - all lights are green.  River Pointe proposes that many local regulations be waived - for its development only - and justifies this by arguing that state and local regulations will protect the residents of UMBT.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, as anyone with knowledge of the PA DEP and EPA knows.  Consider the sewage sludge fight in UMBT only a few years ago, in which under oath the PA DEP representative responsible for oversight of practices associated with these materials, admitted that he was not even aware of the regulations that he was to enforce.  There are countless examples of incompetence, lack of staffing, and uninformed decisions that have led to degradation of the environment under the supervision of PA DEP.  The whole structure of of the MPC, and zoning and land development ordinances that are authorized by it, is designed to protect local resources using local regulations.

UMBT supervisors, overcome by a virulent case of euphoric crapulence, are on the verge of enthusiastically approving this amendment which is known as "Version 10".  Ten times the impact to citizens and the environment, and ten times the pain:

Upper Mount Bethel Township Amendment authored by River Point Logistics Center to circumvent local regulati... on Scribd

The amendment that would exempt only River Pointe from many local zoning and SALDO regulations

under the false premise that state and federal oversight is all that is required.

If this were true, the local ordinances can be tossed in the trash can and all uses made exempt

There is no evidence that the BOS or planning commission have made any substantial changes or revisions to what River Pointe has submitted.  To the contrary, River Point itself revised the proposed amendment, and "Version 10" went before the township planners on July 15.  It is reported that planners had only hours of notice to review the 28-page amendment.  In this age of Zoom meetings, the township engineer recited for 45 minutes the key aspects of the proposal, a few questions were asked, and this was the balance of the critical evaluation that was done locally by those charged with planning.  28 pages of major changes to the zoning ordinance, with a few hours to browse and maybe an hour to discuss.  This was orchestrated by the BOS, whose responsibility it is under state law to use the planners as an advisory body.  But the planning commission has been hollowed out by the BOS, and none other than supervisor Bob Teel is one of its members.  Mr. Teel is a Realtor, and is well known to be in favor of the River Pointe development, so his job on July 15 was likely to usher the amendment through, rather than seek out problems.  UMBT planners, or rather their Solicitor who also works at the pleasure of the BOS (Ronold Karasek), produced a short list of recommendations (mostly of errata) as a result of the July 15 meeting.   One observer stated that this list may not represent what actually was discussed during the meeting.  Note this is not even signed.  Memo to BOS - pass it without asking any questions.  Job... done.

UMBT Planners recommendations, drafted by the BOS and planning commission Solicitor

The proposed amendment was also sent to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, which rendered a detailed critical evaluation in a 9-1/2 page review letter dated July 31, 2020.  It is presented below both on Scribd and in hardcopy.

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission review of Upper Mount Bethel Township zoning amendment for River Point Lo... on Scribd

An outline of the LVPC's review:

• The proposed amendments are generally inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan
• The plan proposes to remove significant environmental protections
• The plan proposes to treat planned industrial parks considerably different than other uses in the same zoning districts
• Proposed intensity supports urban level density contrary to the character of the township and fiscally unsustainable in terms of bridge and road maintenance
• Uses having a major traffic impact should continue to be conditional uses since this process allows for additional measures to mitigate impact to the community
• Site design standards should meet the needs of the overall community, not be tailored for a specific developer, in order to prevent a long term increased tax burden to residents and businesses

BOS comments reflect a supposed urgency

If you consider the comments of many BOS members, you get the impression that there is an urgency and they must act quickly.  Allegedly there is a proposed manufacturing facility that would be one of the first to be proposed, and this is a hot number that will go elsewhere if there is a delay.  No details can be provided however, because the manufacturer wishes to be anonymous.  On an act of blind faith, BOS members are locked and loaded to gut the zoning ordinance on a promise and a prayer.  Consider that the BOS held a hearing on the amendments on August 31, and in the face of strong opposition from residents as well as the scathing LVPC review, tabled the matter until only Wednesday September 9.  Supervisor Bermingham stated that the BOS needed time to consider the comments received.  NINE DAYS, which includes a holiday weekend?   Supervisor Teel stated that he wanted to pursue "deed restrictions" with the developer during this time (!).  Which is it, a few days to cool off and "consider" comments, or add some deed restrictions?  These supervisors are seeking a means to an end, not acting like a team to get to what is right for UMBT and its citizens.  To this observer the BOS intends to come back and do what they didn't have the guts to do on August 31.  Apparently real estate "professional" Teel is planning to use deed restrictions as a substitute for the zoning he is championing destroying.  You don't use a monkey wrench to do the job of a hinge.

Supervisor De Franco bitched that everyone knows how they will vote, so a nine day delay is a waste of time.  This is the most honest comment of all, and shows that the BOS as a whole could not give a shit about UMBT's zoning ordinance, SALDO or its citizens.

What's the rush, and what problem are we trying to solve?

An urgent, drastic and poorly designed zoning change - why is this happening?  As the LVPC states, such changes should be carefully and properly planned, not this mess designed for and by River Pointe and a disaster for UMBT and its citizens.  During the August 31 hearing, former UMBT planning commission chairman Scott Minnick (apparently resigned in the last month) stated correctly that UMBT should hire a professional planner to review such a radical proposal.  You don't rush such a change to please a developer - this is grossly incompetent.  BOS members are to act in the best interests of their citizens, with the guidance of professionals and within the framework of the Municipalities Planning Code and Second Class Township Code.  Not out of self interest.

Mr. De Franco's Economic Development Committee has the following Mission and Vision:

UMBT Economic Development Committee states it will seek "constructive community input"

and "intelligent economic growth"

Towns and townships always want to increase their tax bases.  More money, more money.  And community leaders always want to brag about jobs created.  Developers often over-promise on the kinds and numbers of jobs, and leaders are happy to let them because it looks good on paper.  Too often these promises are not met.

There is no doubt that UMBT would be fostering an "accommodating environment" with this proposal.  This is paving the way for River Pointe to have anything it wants.  This is not "developing ideas and programs" - this is opening the cash register and saying have you way with our assets.

And at what cost is development?  The word "responsible" is not notably absent from Mr. DeFranco's committee's statement, so let's focus on "intelligent economic growth".  This requires an intelligently designed development plan for UMBT, and Version 10 of the amendments drafted by River Pointe's paid henchmen is anything except an intelligent plan, as Mr. Minnick's comments and those of the LVPC show.  These amendments were designed for fast and furious development, as even Supervisor Bermingham has stated.  These changes do not "respect the rural beauty of the township" - they seek to violate it.

UMBT supervisors have received "constructive community input" from both their citizens (250 showed up on August 31 and gave them an earful, with the exception of a few noted below) as well as the LVPC.  BOS members aren't hearing what they want (more on this as well, below), so they are ignoring the constructive comments they have received.  At the August 31 hearing, resident Charles Cole pointed out it was a "hearing", but asked if the BOS members are listening - suggesting (correctly) that they may not be.

Now to the real question - is economic development in UMBT needed so badly that UMBT supervisors should corruptly trash their zoning ordinance and SALDO?  Are taxes skyrocketing?  Are they too high?  The answer is "NO" to each question.  Let that sink in.  The BOS is proposing a reckless course for UMBT and its citizens, to purportedly increase the tax base, just for the sake of doing it.  And whatever benefits it brings to those with special interests.  Nine times out of ten, development costs a municipality more than it returns, and the vast majority of residents who spoke on August 31 obviously do not view River Pointe as some kind of savior or white knight that will save their town.  Quite the opposite.  Is anyone listening?

Special Interests

The corrupted and bastardized process by which UMBT supervisors are operating leads to all kinds of suspicion of what is in it for the few.  A leading example is resident Ron Angle.  Minutes reflect that Mr. Angle has inquired at several meetings about the status of town's 537 (sewage) plan.  At the August 31 hearing, Mr. Angle stated this amendment is a done deal.  Mr. Angle owns a piece of property that River Pointe wants - or more accurately may need.  It is in aqua on the map, which shows River Pointe's property in red.

River Pointe's land in red, Ron Angle in aqua, Cloverleaf Saddle Club in yellow

Wells have reportedly been drilled on Mr. Angle's property, and it apparently is being considered for wastewater treatment and or disposal associated with River Pointe's development.  River Point has made mention of a "drip irrigation system" somewhere near Potomac Street, which happens to just be where an additional piece of River Point-owned land is, next to Mr. Angle's property.  Cha ching!  It should be mentioned that it is also reported that approximately 40 wells were drilled by mistake on land not owned by River Pointe or Mr. Angle in this area, without the land owner's permission.  River Pointe is hot to trot but it may want to consider having its property corners checked.

The property in yellow is owned by Cloverleaf Saddle Club, and longtime Zoning Hearing Board member Jeff Manzi, who is approximately 70 years old and reportedly has no experience with horses, is rumored to have recently joined the club.  It is never to old to learn - or maybe get in on a deal.  Mr. Manzi is exactly someone you don't want on your town's zoning hearing board.  He would be much better placed on Mr. DeFranco's Economic Development Committee - but a member of a ZHB can not be on any other committee by state law. He is the Chairman of the Bangor Area Commercial and Industrial Development Authority, and has stated that his group has been trying to get River Pointe's property developed for years.  He was quoted in the Nov 6 Morning Call article as stating “It’s (River Pointe) going to be revenue, not only for our township, but the school district. It’s all about the location in my opinion,”  More money more money, and let's not look at the consequences.

Speaking of Cloverleaf Saddle Club, it is reported that River Point has offered to buy Cloverleaf's land, and in exchange River Pointe would build a world class riding club to replace it on other land.  And River Pointe would retain ownership of this new parcel in the event Cloverleaf were ever liquidated.  Now that's incredible.  Great time to have Mr. Manzi a member, so he can help negotiate the deal.

Another Zoning Hearing Board member, Lee McDonald, who is the brother in law of a BOS member, felt the need to show everyone on August 31 that he sees the amendment as a glass half full kind of situation - cherry picking a single aspect of the amendment to argue that hey, it isn't all that bad.  If you scratch the surface of Mr. McDonald's argument, you will find that it fails.  He stated that under the amendment, 40% of the area can be covered, versus 50% under current zoning.  Without developing steep slopes, which the current ordinance more strictly regulates, River Pointe may not be able to get to 40 or 50 percent. This is not to mention the multiple other ways in which the amendment would permit irresponsible development.Zoning Hearing Board members are to interpret the ordinance, not promote development.  Just came in to do a solid for my BIL and the BOS.  Uh huh.

Supervisor Due reportedly was hoping to develop an aquarium in UMBT, around the same time that the now defunct aquarium project in Easton being discussed.  He attempted to pursue funding from the county and/or state, but Don Cunningham put his weight behind the Easton proposal.  At a public meeting, Supervisor DeFranco reminded Mr. Due about this, and reportedly stated that Mr. Cunningham at the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corp. has no use for the Slate Belt and "keeps development for himself."  Imagine your elected officials at a public meeting grousing about their private development projects.  Furthermore, Mr. DeFranco reportedly stated that he had no interest in what the LVPC's comments were on the River Pointe zoning amendments before they were received.  Where is this covered in the PA Municipalities Planning Code?  The BOS must solicit recommendations from the county planning agency, but it is to ignore them.  It does not state that.  Mr. DeFranco and other BOS members have made this very clear through their actions.  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Solicitor Karesek deserves mention here.  Not because of special interests, but rather the cold hard facts.  He is paid $375 per meeting for BOS and planning commission meetings, and in his role as BOS Solicitor he works at the pleasure of the BOS.  If the BOS supports something, by necessity Mr. Karesek will be as well.  He is working on behalf of the BOS, not UMBT citizens.  This is something to keep in mind.  At the August 31 hearing, Mr. Karasek spoke at excruciating length on how BOS members meeting with and discussing zoning amendments, as long as it was not a majority of members, was not illegal.  One should not conclude that everything the BOS is doing is proper.  For example, Mr. Teel's proposal to use deed restrictions to justify a bastardized form of spot zoning for Industrial Parks in the I-2 and I-3 zoning districts.  Speaking of special interests, what could Mr. Teel hope to gain, as being only a simple country Realtor?

What will happen on September 9?

It is referred to as a special meeting on the UMBT website, to be held at Community Park at 5pm.  Doubtless the BOS will hope fewer people show up than on August 31.  It is doubtful that anything has transpired of substance since August 31 - the BOS certainly will not have retained a professional planner as Mr. Minnich has wisely advised.  The intent is likely to vote this very poorly conceived amendment into law.  The inmates are running the asylum.

You know how Mr. DeFranco feels - who gives a crap what the professionals at the LVPC have to say, and hey Dave, look that Cunningham guy didn't support your pet personal project.  Screw this, let's vote this bad boy in and to hell with what anyone thinks.

Concerned residents should attend, prepared to either make a comment or simply make them vote while you watch.  Represent yourself and your community.  It is the only way to fight tyranny.