Plainfield Township Voters Choose Between Two Bipartisan Slates in Supervisor Election to Fill Two Seats

 In the primary election this year, as covered on this blog, Upper Mount Bethel Township Supervisor candidates John Bermingham (R) and David Friedman (D) joined forces, asking voters to vote for them if they were of the same party, and to write in the candidate in the other party, for two open Board seats.  The reason was the majority of the Board of Supervisors had allowed a developer who owns over 700 acres to rewrite several sections of the zoning ordinance and SALDO.  The election results show that a majority of citizens did not agree with this actions of the BOS; the tactic worked and two candidates who supported the ordinance changes were frozen out of the general election.  Unfortunately, concerned citizens remain on the defensive and are fighting the changes in an appeal to the Commonwealth Court.

 In Plainfield Township, a PAC is supporting two candidates, Glenn Borger (R) and Don Moore (D) in an election of two supervisors.  There are two other candidates, Bob Cornman (R) and Joyce Lambert (D).   The PAC has signs with the two candidates they support on them, while Mr. Cornman and Ms. Lambert are supporting each other; each has a sign for him or herself and the other in their yard.

Joyce Lambert's House with signs for herself (D) and Bob Cornman (R)

PAC sign supporting Glenn Borger (R) and Don Moore (D)

What has created these alliances?  A failed request to rezone farmland to solid waste, to allow Waste Management to create a new landfill in the township, since Grand Central Sanitary Landfill on Pen Argyl Road is forecast to exhaust all space in the solid waste zoning district in 2028.  The new landfill would have been to the east side of Pen Argyl Road, while the current one is on the west side.  Waste Management envisioned a "Twin Peaks" landfill, but the township Board of Supervisors voted against zoning additional space for solid waste disposal in July, 2020, by a vote of 3-0-2.  Steve Hurni abstained because he has a conflict of interest as he is a board member of Green Knight Economic Development Corporation.  Joyce Lambert abstained because she felt she did not have enough information, though the request was straightforward and WM had submitted over 900 pages in support of its request.

Gary and Linda Perin's property that had been proposed for the new landfill at Delabole and Pen Argyl Roads, titled under the name "Slate Spring Farms LLC", was posted with campaign signs for Joyce Lambert and Bob Cornman as early as October 4:

On October 21, the signs were no longer there, indicating possibly a strategic shift to not advertise that Ms. Lambert and Mr. Cornman are believed to be pro-expansion:

It appears that Waste Management is unwilling to take "no" for an answer.  Mr. Hurni and Mr.  Cornman are board members of Green Knight, which operates a landfill gas to electricity plant that benefits when GCSL does well.  It would have to shut down the plant some years after GCSL closes, when the production of landfill gas decreases.  Mr. Hurni also has yard signs for both Mr. Cornman and Joyce Lambert in his yard.  Mr. Hurni curiously asked the State Ethics Board in August 2020 if he could vote on GCSL and Green Knight matters as a township BOS member, after abstaining for 8+ years.  In September he was told "no", and in October Ms. Lambert attempted unsuccessfully to put rezoning back on the agenda of the BOS.

Mr. Hurni was a top individual supporter of Representative Marcia Hahn (R), contributing $2,000 to her campaigns in both 2016 and 2018. Mr. Bermingham was sanctioned by the Republican Party for supporting Mr. Friedman in the UMBT primary - looking at Mr. Hurni's yard one wonders where these holier than thou people are now?

Plainfield Supervisor and Green Knight Board member

Steve Hurni's front yard on October 21, 2021

Mr. Cornman recently stated that if elected, he would resign from Vice President of Green Knight, a position he has held for 22 years, and put all his efforts into what is best for the citizens of Plainfield Township.  Mr. Cornman and Mr. Hurni have been board members of Green Knight since its inception in 1999.  While they could immediately vote on matters related to the landfill or Green Knight if they resign from Green Knight, due to no longer having a conflict of interest in the eyes of the State Ethics Board, who would believe that either one does have a practical conflict of interest?  Mr. Cornman only a few years ago was the Green Knight Project Manager for the Synagro proposal to locate a sludge drying plant on Waste Management property, and the community was unanimous in its objection to this.  Mr. Cornman's idea of what is best for the community has been established.

The Poop and Water Extraction Blog was created to inform citizens of zoning and planning issues that concern them.  We try not to stray into politics.  However, there is no way for Waste Management to continue to operate a landfill beyond 2028 in Plainfield Township unless the balance on the township BOS changes.  Unlike UMBT, voters have observable evidence before the election of their leaders to choose the direction of their township.

Below is a profile of the four candidates.  Only Mr. Moore appears to have a campaign website.  It is located at donmoore4supervisor.blogspot.com

Glenn Borger – Completing a second term as a Board member.  Believes in keeping taxes reasonable, operating the township debt free, and spending wisely.  Supporter of recreation, open space and retaining the character of the township.  Former member of Planning Commission, Environmental Advisory Council and Recreation Board.  Mr. Borger voted against the landfill’s request to expand in July 2020.

Don Moore – Believes in respecting the agricultural roots of the township and preserving farmland.  Former member of Environmental Advisory Council and Zoning Hearing Board.  Advocate for adhering to and updated zoning ordinance and SALDO, locating uses in accordance with the Zoning Map and following the township’s Comprehensive Plan – its vision for the future.  Mr. Moore spoke out against the Synagro and Waste Management proposals due to their lack of compliance with the zoning ordinance, SALDO and Comprehensive Plan.

Bob Corman Jr. – Former long time Planning Commission member and Chairman, and Vice President of Waste Management-created nonprofit Green Knight Economic Development Corporation for over 20 years.  Also, member of the Recreation Board and Environmental Advisory Council.  Unsuccessfully advocated for Green Knight Energy Center to be placed where not permitted by zoning in 1999 - a solid waste use in a commercial industrial zone.  He was the Green Knight Synagro Project Manager and despite recusing himself, he participated in the first Synagro Site Plan review.  He suggested multiple times that the plan to place the Synagro plant in the exact location of the proposed Energy Center in a commercial industrial district could be conditionally approved.  Voted off the planning commission after this meeting, and Synagro was forced to move to a site in the Solid Waste district where it was permitted.

Joyce Lambert – Long time township secretary, and current Board member.  Often focused on tax revenues, but missing the big picture.  Believes that preserving open space costs the township taxpayers money, but does not seem to realize that more residential development means increased school taxes and overall taxpayers will pay higher taxes. Ms. Lambert made a motion in November 2020 to revisit Waste Management’s proposal to rezone farmland to solid waste after the BOS had rejected it, but failed to receive a second.

Two cross party write-in candidates defeat pro-corruption competitors in Upper Mount Bethel Township Board of Supervisors primary

The ground shook in Upper Mount Bethel Township when hundreds of write-in ballots were canvassed in an off-year election.  There were two Democrats and two Republicans on the ballot, running for two seats on the Board of Supervisors.

In a Republican stronghold, Democrat David Friedman received 330 write-in votes, cast by Republicans on their ballot.  Incumbent candidate and former Chairman John Bermingham received 660 votes, and loser incumbent candidate Anthony DeFranco received 253 votes to round out the Republican primary results.  Thus, DeFranco is now a lame duck on the Board, and during his remaining meetings he will have to suffer the embarrassment of looking at write-in winner Friedman sitting in the audience, waiting to take his seat.  Republican Bermingham also performed a coup, by receiving 213 write-in votes on the Democratic ballot, besting the 104 vote tally of candidate Stavros Barbounis.

DeFranco spearheaded the effort to allow developer Lou Pektor and his River Pointe Logistics development (now renamed "RPL" to thinly conceal the reputation of River Pointe) to escape many of the zoning and development regulations that apply to everyone else.  DeFranco and BOS member Robert Teel worked feverishly to allow Pektor to circumvent numerous zoning variances and special exception approvals that were scheduled to be addressed at an advertised Zoning Hearing Board hearing on March 24, 2020.  Instead, this hearing was cancelled, and Pektor drafted an amendment (the "text amendment") which was rushed through a hasty approval despite objections of the Township Engineer, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, and many citizens who were aware of how amendments are supposed to be drafted and reviewed.   This amendment exempts Pektor's kind of developments in the township's I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from many regulations.  The piss-poor excuse for haste by DeFranco and Teel was there was an alleged single business anxious to locate in Pektor's development.  This business' interest evaporated like a fart in the wind by the time the amendment was approved by a majority of supervisors through a corrupt process.  Barbounis in an interview failed to state objection to the corrupted process by which the amendment was passed, so voters passed over him.  If you aren't with us, you are against us - thanks for participating.

Thanks to DeFranco and Teel and the two other supervisors who supported their effort to roll out the red carpet to a vulture, UMBT citizens are left with the township's pants down around its ankles, waiting for a telephone pole to be shoved by Pektor into its ass.  Pektor has since shifted into 3rd gear, proposing an Neighborhood Improvement Zone - which if approved would make his projects eligible for grants and funding.  A NIZ would also give him a seat at the table to control matters outside his development, but within UMBT.

Now Pektor has unveiled yet another bold move in this chess game in UMBT - he is putting pressure on the Bangor Area Commercial and Industrial Development Authority (BACAIDA) to rapidly approve an agreement by which the BACIDA will take ownership in name only of the Met Ed property in UMBT, which is also in a zoning district that his developments are exempted from regulations.  Phase II of an EPA remediation would take place, after which Pektor would take ownership and he has announced plans to place a 900,000 sq ft warehouse on that property.   The BACAIDA is playing ball with Pektor, having agreed at its May 11 meeting to complete a draft agreement, which may be approved at a planned "emergency" meeting in June.  This agreement would assist Pektor in obtaining funding and grants.  Look for this to be advertised on short notice (2 day requirement for an alleged emergency meeting) - this should be an in-person meeting.

Pektor's urgency to achieve check and mate may be to get all the pieces of his plan in place before a return to the transparency and regular order of public meetings, the imminent departure of DeFranco from power, or a combination of the two.  He's ready to shift into 4th gear, and 5th won't be far behind. 

It's a shame that DeFranco and Teel have put the citizens of UMBT in such an unenviable position of fighting the Goliath of Pektor.  The pummeling of DeFranco and Barbounis in an off-year election by cross-party write-in votes is reflective of the corruption that pervades the current Board of Supervisors.

The UMBT citizens nightmare with Pektor is a word salad of acronyms.  The LERTA will screw the township out of tax dollars; the BACAIDA is said to be a "conduit" for funding of Pektor's project on Met-Ed property using OPM; the LVPC has given a thumbs down to the text amendment, the amendment proposed only a few weeks later to correct some of the screwups in the text amendment, and Pektor's projects; Pektor is proposing an NIZ to gain funding and grants (more OPM) as well as a seat at the table in decisions affecting his projects and surrounding properties.  In short, this is FUBAR, and SSDD.

Supervisor candidates Bermingham and Friedman poised to successfully block pro-River Pointe candidates from Upper Mount Bethel Township general election

 In Upper Mount Bethel Township there were four candidates in the primary election, vying for two Board of Supervisor (BOS) seats, two Republicans and two Democrats.

Republican incumbent candidate John Bermingham was the sole voice of reason on the BOS during the runup to the Board of Supervisors essentially granting multiple zoning variances and SALDO waivers, under the thin guise of a zoning amendment (known as the "Text Amendment").  The Text Amendment was authored by developer Lou Pektor, who requested several significant changes to the ordinances that would specifically exempt his kind of business from regulation.

The other Republican candidate was incumbent Anthony DeFranco, who spearheaded with comrade Robert Teel  the effort to clear the decks in UMBT for Pektor's development.  DeFranco is the driving force behind the township's Economic Development Committee, which has cheerlead for Pektor's development, by holding regular meetings with representatives of Pektor's team.  DeFranco and Teel appointed themselves to the township planning commission, to keep the oiled wheels of corruption running smoothly down the track.

On the Democratic side was David Friedman, a 44-year long resident of the township, former member and chairman of the planning commission, and member of a zoning update committee.  Mr. Friedman has been active in questioning and challenging the process by which the Text Amendment was passed, and believes it was not in the best interest of the township.  He believes in responsible development, and using an accepted public process with citizen input to make well-planned changes to township ordinances.  Not the process used to pass the Text Amendment.

The other Democratic candidate was Stavros Barbounis, also a former planning commission member, who does IT work for the township and is the chairman of the parks and recreation department.  He has been a resident for 6 years.  In an interview by the Morning Call, Mr. Barbounis said he was concerned about "procedural problems" in following regulations, but apparently he was not sufficiently concerned about the Text Amendment to speak against it.  Rather, he said that he felt the previous zoning was "too restrictive" for Pektor's kind of development.  That doesn't justify side dealing with a developer to grant several variances and waivers, by ramming a zoning amendment that the developer himself authored through approval - against multiple the recommendations of the township engineer.

Bermingham and Friedman asked voters in their respective parties to write-in Friedman and Bermingham, in lieu of voting for DeFranco and Barbounis - a bold but not improper thing to do.  In this fashion, if the write-in tallys exceeded the vote totals for DeFranco and Barbounis, they would not be on the ballot in November.  A local blogger critiqued and questioned this strategy - you can find his post here, and pointed out the the Slate Belt Republicans Association ex-communicated Bermingham for his actions.

It appears that this maneuver may have succeeded.  The unofficial results show that write-in votes significantly exceeded the totals for DeFranco and Barbounis, and Bermingham and Friedman were the top vote recipients.  Unless a lot of people wrote in another candidate(s), or errors in spelling were made, Bermingham and Friedman will be the only candidates on the ballot in November.  This is democracy in action, folks.  Screw me over once, blame on you.  Screw me over twice, blame on me.  If these results bear out what it appears they may, Bermingham may feel it was worth losing out on receiving the SBRA's annual calendar.

Example of why you must do due diligence when buying property - 3396 Green Meadow Circle Bethlehem

This blog focuses on projects that do not meet zoning.  Let’s look at a property being sold for residential use, and see how an unsuspecting buyer in a hot market may commit to buying a property that may be not buildable.

The property in question is at 3396 Green Meadow Circle, in Bethlehem City.  It is 3.48 acres, and is off the end of a cul de sac in a very nice neighborhood.   The Altonah Estates development was created in the 1960s by an attorney named Ellwood Shimer, and the homes were “estate homes”, some of which were owned by doctors and lawyers.  The lot is the last one in the development that was not built on (except the neighboring lot which was not built on for similar reasons, and then purchased as buffer by an adjacent landowner).  The asking price is $179,000.  Neighboring lots have water and sewer service – but as will be seen services to this lot are problematic.  The listing for the lot is here.  Note that several illustrations of exotic custom home designs are shown, and interior home pictures, but there is only one picture of the lot that is up above, on what we will see is an inaccessible area.  There is a picture of the street, but not of the frontage of the lot that is for sale.  A picture of the frontage from Google Maps is shown below, since the Realtor chose not to present an accurate depiction:

At first glance this lot looks attractive, rectangular and overlooking the city

First hints of problematic nature of the lot - steep slopes

So, why was this lot never developed?  Steep slopes.  The elevation lines above are at 20' intervals.  The north end of Bethlehem is home to “Camel’s Hump”, which is a hill that juts up about 200 feet compared with the surrounding terrain.   The Archibald Johnson estate is on the north side of Camel’s Hump, and this property is literally on the south side.  The peak of the hump is a few hundred feet off the northeast corner of the property.

Report of developer Shimer negotiating to possibly allow for a reservoir on the property

In the 1940s, there began discussion of the possibility of a reservoir on Camel’s Hump.  This idea was still being evaluated in the 1960s, and there is evidence that the developer had discussions with Bethlehem of this possibility.  The reservoir would have been fed via gravity from Bethlehem reservoir(s) to the north.  However, this plan was scrapped and in 1978 the developer made the last adjustment to lot lines, as shown in the diagram below.  Note that the plan states “City can not serve [water] over this elevation [450']”, and  this elevation is right near the street.

Last subdivision of subject lot, with water service limitation warning

A prospective buyer contacted the City Engineer, and he stated that static water pressure at the cul de sac is 32 psi – the bare minimum for water service.  He stated that a supplementary pump would be need to be provided for a home on this lot.  He also stated that the sewer connection in the street was not extended to the end of the road, and that the lot owner would have to pay to rip up 130 feet of city street, excavate, and replace the paving.  Furthermore, the steep slopes on this lot would make a sewer connection problematic, as a 2% slope is the recommended maximum, while the lot has slopes of 35% and more.  Gravity sewer lines do not function properly with too steep a slope.  Thus a non-standard solution will be needed to connect sewer to a home anywhere on the lot.

A neighbor with a two-story house reports that he has only a half basement due to a large boulder that could not be removed.  He had to install his own water pump to supplement the city pressure, and water and sewer cost $34,000 to install.  Part of this cost was excavating in rock to run the lines.

The Bethlehem Zoning Officer was asked about building on this lot, and his first response was to point out that Bethlehem has a Steep Slopes Ordinance.  The Ordinance has requirements for the minimum lot size required for developing on slopes over a certain percentage.  Slope is rise over run, like a line.  So a 45 degree slope would have a slope of 1/1, or 100%.  You can do the math to find out a 15% slope is 8.5 degrees, a 25% slope is 14 degrees, and a 35% slope is 19.5 degrees.

“Ready to Build”

The advertisement for the lot until a month ago included statements such as “there is a designated driveway entry”, “ready to build” and "utilities available on site".  We covered the last one above, and we will see that none of these is true.

Discussion with owner “This is the place” (Brigham Young, 1847)

A prospective buyer met the landowner on site, who proceeded to lead the way up a ramp on the left side of the property, through the “designated driveway cutout”.  The ramp is fairly steep – a 20% grade and about 200 feet long.  The owner proceeded to the top left of the property, and stated “don’t you think this is the place to build a house?”  Indeed, this is the least steep portion of the property, as well as would have the best view if trees were removed.  Remember, this juts upward almost 200 feet above the north end of Bethlehem.  The problem is, there is no way to get up there.  The owner supplied Sheet 2 of a three sheet site plan she and her husband paid to have created in 2006.  Here is a hi resolution version obtained later from the engineer.  Note areas with no shading are over 25% slope.

Owner's site plan showing extensive proposed excavation and grading

Discussion with owner’s engineer

The owner paid a whopping $175,000 for this lot in 2004, and hired an engineer to create a development plan for a house.  This plan required a massive 24 foot excavation at the deepest point, and well over an acre of disturbance.  The proposed driveway would have a 15% slope, while the Ordinance allows a maximum slope of 10%.  This engineer was contacted, and he stated that the maximum must have been 15% when he created the plan.  He also stated “I would not agree to purchase that lot unless you have obtained ALL approvals.  Zoning, Engineering and Conservation District (erosion and storm water)”.  Further, he stated “I would suggest a plan that proposes the absolute minimal disturbance” which is the exact opposite of the plan he was hired to create.   The engineer supplied the two missing sheets of the site plan he had created.

Sheet 3 of owner's site plan showing proposed 15% driveway profile and existing grades

Sheet 1 of owner's site plan showing areas of 0-10%, 10-15%, 15-25%, and >25% grades

Any development will have to conform to current zoning, so the 10% is the maximum driveway slope.  If there is significant rock formation below the surface, the proposed 24’ excavation may not even have been possible to achieve.  Even if it can be, the proposed excavation for the owner’s plan might exceed $1m.  If disturbance exceeds an acre, an NPDES permit is required, which alone may cost $20,000.

The Steep Slopes Section of the Zoning Ordinance

Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance Steep Slopes on Scribd

The three page section of the zoning ordinance is shown above, and it contains everything that will make this lot difficult very to develop.  The complete ordinance is here.

1. Steep Slopes pertains to construction on slopes >15%
2. Construction on slopes >25% requires a 4 acre lot, slopes>35% a 10 acre lot
3. Walls no greater than 5' tall
4. Driveways shall have a slope no greater than 10%

What the site plan reveals

An inspection of Sheet 1 of the site plan reveals that within the building setback (dashed line), there is no location adjacent to the street with less than a 25% slope to build.  The “construction area” is defined in the steep slopes ordinance as an area of disturbance such as driveway, house, etc.  To build near the top of the property requires routing a driveway through areas of slopes >25%.  Therefore, a lot size of 4 acres or more is required, but the lot is 3.48 acres.  Also revealed is that the ramp is outside the building setback, so nothing could be built on it.  Furthermore, Sheet 3 shows the existing ramp has a 20% slope, so it can not be used as a driveway.  If the slope of the ramp is lessened to 10%, this requires excavating down about 10 feet.  But the steep slopes ordinance allows for 5’ high maximum retaining walls.

If a home could be built off the cul de sac frontage, it is impossible for there to be a garage within the setback due to the steepness of the existing terrain.  Who is going to build a custom home, and not have at least a one-car garage?

An analysis shows that with an absolute minimum 15% driveway up the ramp and beyond, using three tight switchbacks, it is possible to reach near the top left of the property.  However, a 15% grade driveway with tight setbacks is a significant hazard for winter driving, as well as 50% in excess of the 10% permitted.

Discussion with Zoning Officer

With the previous site plan in hand, the Zoning Officer was revisited.  He agreed that a variance would be needed for the minimum lot size to develop on steep slopes.  He also agreed that walls over 5’ tall will require a variance, and that a driveway over 10% will require a variance.  Basically, to build anything on the lot will require a zoning variance.

Discussion with Conservation District

A specialist with the county Conservation District was contacted, and provided the topography of the lot.  The Conservation District will have to approve an Erosion and Sedimentation plan for development on the lot.  He stated that there would likely be multiple controls required, which would be very expensive, for development on this lot.  A swale at the top of the property to intercept water from offsite, drainage at each driveway setback, and a filter basin.

Not “ready to build”

The fact that multiple variances will be needed to put a home anywhere on this lot by definition means it is not “ready to build”.  It is ready to be a pain the butt and bank account of the person who purchases it.  It is a beautiful property, but it is essentially not buildable.  Who would pay to create a custom home on the 35 to 50% slopes at the bottom, and not have even a single car garage?  Hoping to obtain variances to build on the upper portion is even more of a gamble – there is no guarantee variances would be granted.  Neighbors would have a legal right to appeal in court if variances were granted to build anywhere on the lot.

And if one does build, and new runoff issues are created that affect neighbors (there currently are some runoff issues in the area), who is going to be blamed?  The person with the highest property - this lot.

Neighbors threatened with Cease and Desist for speaking with Prospective Buyers

It is reported that concerned neighbors are informing prospective buyers of the issues with this property, including that there are drainage issues in the area, and zoning variances are needed to build on this lot.  It is also reported that these neighbors have been threatened with a cease and desist by the Seller's attorney.  Now why would that be?   Those things are facts.

Realtor makes some adjustments to listing based on feedback

A Realtor and lot owner have an obligation to to divulge known issues with a lot that affect its value and ability to be developed.  Feedback on the above issues was supplied to the listing Realtor. The ad now reads that a “designated opening for a walking path” is present (no longer a driveway), and the phrase “Ready to Build” has been removed from the listing.  Now it reads that it is ready for you to bring your engineer, architect and dreams.  A buyer better also bring a big fat loan from a bank, and be prepared for nightmares, in order to build on this property.  The neighbors report that the current owner’s husband was asked if he checked the zoning prior to purchase, and he replied “why would I have to do that?”  It is noted that he never was able to build his dream home on the lot – that is why he should have checked the zoning.

This blog post is supplied to show that due diligence is needed when buying property.  The Seller would like nothing more to dump this property, possibly onto an unsuspecting new owner.  The prospective buyer she spoke with was not told of anything her engineer found in 2006, nor supplied with anything except an 8-1/2 x 11" copy of Sheet 2 of the Site Plan.  In the interest of full disclosure, the Realtor should hand each prospective buyer the 3-page Steep Slopes ordinance, as well as the 3-page site plan.  But will she?

Upper Mount Bethel River Pointe Logistics Center zoning appeal status in NorCo Court of Common Pleas

On February 16, the first hearing was held in the matter of an appeal by citizens to overturn a zoning amendment (infamously known as the "Text Amendment") that the UMBT BOS passed, which severely neuters important portions the zoning ordinance for a very narrow set of uses - the very uses that Lou Pektor's proposed River Pointe Logistics Center development plans on 725 acres of land in the I-2 and I-3 zoning districts.  This amendment was drafted by Pektor's organization, and township officials consumed by irrational euphoric crapulence and an eagerness to go after a fast buck accepted it hook, line and sinker.  The only significant changes that may have been considered were mysteriously relegated to proposed "deed restrictions" for the alleged sake of expediency by former Realtor and now supervisor Robert Teel.  Only a Realtor would propose zoning regulations through such a thing.  It is not believed purported deed restrictions (which consumed ie wasted much discussion time during the few meetings that took place) ever came to pass after the amendment was adopted in September 2020.  The amendment was so poorly conceived and railroaded through by pro-Pektor supervisors, without proper thought or revision, that within only a few weeks of adoption the BOS proposed yet another poorly conceived amendment of the Text Amendment.  This sounds like Keystone Cops so far...

The authority of the Board of Supervisors versus that of the Zoning Hearing Board

The township supervisors have the authority to pass zoning amendments, and the township Zoning Hearing Board has the authority to grant or deny zoning variances when a proposed project does not comport with the ordinance - the non-compliance determined by the Zoning Officer.  The Zoning Officer enforces the ordinance and ZHB interprets the ordinance and rules on requested variances to it if hardships exist when called on to do so.  The supervisors also have the authority to hear and grant special exception use applications, while the Zoning Hearing Board has the authority to hear and grant conditional uses.  Special exception and conditional uses are both permitted uses, but not by right - meaning that conditions on permits may be attached by the body that grants approval.  The purpose of these reviews of projects that may impact the environment and community is to determine if conditions are necessary or possible to protect the health safety and welfare.  If not, the application must be denied.

It is important to understand that the BOS and ZHB are independent bodies, though the BOS appoints members of the ZHB.  The ZHB has a Solicitor, which represents the ZHB.  The BOS can sue the ZHB, as it is quasi-judicial body.   A decision of the BOS (in the case of Conditional Uses or Land Development plans) or Zoning Hearing Board (Special Exception Uses, variances) on land use matters may be appealed to county court in what is known as a land use appeal.  The court's decisions may be appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and in rare cases all the way to the State Supreme Court.  The authority of the BOS and ZHB as well as how hearings are conducted, venue, appeals, are prescribed in the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), which you can find online.

How and why the appeal is in county court

The saga began in February 2020, when River Pointe Logistics Center applied to the Zoning Hearing Board for multiple zoning variances, and a special exception hearing triggered by multiple ordinance requirements, in order to develop only a single 23.4 acre lot at 303 Demi Road for a 300,000 sq ft building.  Actually this lot was owned by New Demi Road LLC at that time, a related company owned by Pektor, with the vast majority of the remaining 725 acres under the River Pointe Logistics Center name.  This map shows 303 Demi Road, two lots that have since been transferred from River Pointe to New Demi Road LLC (angled stripes), and a third lot since purchased by New Demi Road LLC (horizontal stripes).  Also shown is a lot (aqua) that resident Ron Angle is rumored to be selling to River Pointe for its septic system, and the Cloverleaf Riding Club (yellow) which is believed to be selling/exchanging its land with River Pointe for an alternate site with a world class facility constructed by Pektor.  Said property would revert to Pektor if the Riding Club ever is dissolved.

Here is the advertisement for the ZHB hearing, for a single 300,000 sq ft building:

February 2020 Zoning Hearing Board application for variances and Special Exception review that enumerates the extensive relief ultimately granted through an ordinance amendment by the UMBT BOS

This hearing was reportedly going to be rescheduled once or twice, but by July instead a draft of the Text Amendment was submitted to the UMBT BOS by Pektor, which essentially exempts only uses like River Pointe's from all the articles listed in the ad, for which New Demi Road (or River Pointe, take your pick) had requested relief for at the scheduled March 24, 2020 ZHB hearing.  

The short and sweet basis for the citizens' appeal and why this is in court is that they argue that in passing the Text Amendment the BOS granted the variances requested by River Pointe (New Demi Road), and granted the Applicant relief from being required to obtain both Special Exception and Conditional Use approvals as required by the ordinance - none of which is in the BOS' authority as prescribed in the MPC.

A variance from articles in the Zoning Ordinance may only be granted by the ZHB.  The citizens argue that the BOS usurped the authority of the ZHB by essentially granting variances that were pending before the ZHB, and in doing so exceeded its own authority.

Was New Demi Road's ZHB application a Trojan Horse or legit,

and why did/is Pektor pursuing a 300,000 sq ft warehouse he has said he can't sell?

First, let's examine some low hanging fruit.  The pro-Pektor supervisors have been selling his platform that his development primarily targets manufacturing facilities with good paying jobs, and to an alleged lesser extent some large warehouses.  Pektor has stated there is no demand for smaller warehouses, such as 300,000 sq ft.  So why is New Demi Road seeking approval for a 300,000 sq ft warehouse, as the first project out of the gate?  There is a disparity here.

Since Pektor submitted the Text Amendment only a few months after the scheduled hearing, one has to wonder if this zoning hearing application was part of a devious plan to later reveal the amendment, or rather did Pektor realize after filing the application that there was no way in hell he would obtain the requested relief?  Let's look at the relief requested by River Pointe of the ZHB:

• Buildings over 40,000 sq ft in said district require a Conditional Use approval
• Developments of over 500 trips ADT are considered a major traffic impact
• All uses with a major traffic impact require Conditional Use approval
• All uses with a major traffic impact require a Traffic Impact Study
• Developments in areas of 15-25% slopes require Special Exception approval
• Developments in areas of greater than 25% slopes are not allowed, period
• Access roads in areas of steep slopes are not allowed unless alternate alignments are not possible

It is not clear from the ad what was requested in regards to Special Exceptions, but it appears the Applicant was possibly expecting to go through a Special Exception, as well as requesting to be exempted (a variance) from some Special Exception review requirements.  For example, one article simply prohibits development on greater than 25% slopes.

As to Conditional Use, apparently the Applicant requested that it not be required to go to the BOS for Conditional Use review(s) as required by the ordinance.

These are all major variances to the Zoning Ordinance, and it is likely that none of these requirements would be granted if the state prescribed criteria for use variances is applied.  To obtain a variance, you must show a hardship that your site has unique characteristics not shared by other lots.  you must show there will no impact to the health safety and welfare of others.  How could anyone expect to win an argument that their project should not be considered to have a major traffic impact, when the same criterion is applied to other applicants and they are?  The same problem lies in arguing that your project should be allowed in areas of steep slopes, while any other Applicant will be told he has to abide by steep slope requirements.  Does an argument that because your lot is unique because it has steep slopes, it should be exempt from triggering a major traffic impact, make any sense?  Nope, and the ZHB would have been faced with this problem.

How do you solve a problem like Maria?  The Text Amendment

And across the remainder of the 725 acres of Pektor's land, wow, we would have to come back for each development, and that would be a LOT of ZHB denials, and we would never get anything built.  we're screwed!

Once the Text Amendment was revealed a few months after this wishful thinking zoning appeal was filed, and residents asked why it was necessary, a supervisor stated "The amendment will prevent River Pointe from having to come in for variances each time it wants to build a new project."  It sure will - the amendment prevents not only New Demi Road from needing extensive and impossible relief, it gives blanket exemptions of articles of the ordinance for steep slopes, traffic impacts, building heights and size, to ALL of Pektor's projects.  Why use a ball peen hammer, when you can use the 20-ton press to solve all the problems in one fell swoop?  No reviews of any kind, no traffic studies, no problems on steep slopes, no more teachers dirty looks.

The inequities of the Text Amendment are numerous. River Pointe encompasses numerous lots of varying topography and other characteristics.  One size definitely does not fit all, which is why a zoning ordinance allows for exceptions when necessary and proven on a case by case basis.  Issuing carte blanche right to violate ordinance provisions for a particular entity wafting around promises of jobs, income or whatever is simply wrong.  The citizens are making a somewhat novel legal argument, brought about by the unusual circumstance of an applicant having requested extraordinary zoning relief, which may only be granted by the ZHB, and the BOS then swooping in and granting that relief (and more!) through a zoning amendment.  An amendment advised against by many entities, including the township engineer.

Status of court appeal - preliminary objections phase

If you read the citizens' complaint, you may be confused that the text amendment is referred to as the "variance".  From the application for variances in February 2020, the complaint states that the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission reviewed the "variance" in July 2020.  The LVPC technically reviewed the amendment.  The citizens' lawyer however views the amendment as having morphed from and serving out the purpose of the application to the ZHB for variances, and hence the granting thereof improper (ie illegal) by the BOS.  

The usual preliminary objections were raised, such as wrong venue, failure to exhaust other remedies, lack of standing (citizens are not near or affected by the proposed development).  Incredibly, the Defendant claims that the citizens should take their complaint to the UMBT ZHB, not the court - addressing the wrong venue and failure to exhaust remedies prong.  In response, the citizens agree that the issue at hand would have and should have been addressed by the ZHB through a hearing that never took place - because the BOS intervened.   That avenue is no longer available.  The citizens replied to the standing argument by stating that an area that encompasses 725 acres in fact is of impact on the Plaintiffs.

The judge indicated after oral arguments on February 16 that a decision on the preliminary objections to the appeal may be expected in up to seven weeks.

Upper Mount Bethel Supervisors are sued over River Pointe amendment, continue to ignore citizens and experts, appoint second hack Supervisor to Planning Commission

The Upper Mount Bethel Township Board of Supervisors are achieving a perfect score, if the objective is to be totally incompetent and appear to be corrupt.  Previously, we covered that the BOS passed a comprehensive zoning amendment on September 9, written by developer Lou Pektor, that would exempt Pektor's planned development within the township's I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from having to comply with several articles of the zoning ordinance and SALDO (subdivision and land development ordinance).  This was done against the strong dissent of the township engineer, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, two civil engineers who are township residents, the virtually unanimous opposition of residents, and the silence of township Solicitor Karasek.  It is important to note the Karasek would be the one to legally advise the BOS that they are doing something inadvisable, yet he has and continues to act like a deaf-mute in regards to this matter.  Karasek has taken an approach of "I am not in a position to offer an opinion on policy" - which is total and unadulterated bulls shit.  

A Solicitor is responsible for advising the BOS, and if they develop a policy without going through standard procedures, the policy is likely to be poorly crafted.  The problem in UMBT is the Solicitor represents the BOS, not the citizens, and Karasek is being a good soldier and doing what he feels the majority of the BOS wants him to do, as opposed to speaking up and saying "I would [strongly] advise the BOS to consider..."

Township engineer Coyle also serves the BOS, and in this case he pointed out at the eleventh hour at the adoption hearing on September 9 that while he should not be offering an opinion on the amendment, he was strongly in opposition to multiple elements of it.  Following this, the very best Solicitor Karasek could offer was "If the BOS feels it isn't ready, it could table this until next month..." After all, he is earning a generous hourly rate.  Of course, the BOS went ahead and immediately passed the amendment.

Recall that citizens were told by the BOS:

• That this amendment was necessary so that the developer would not have to come in for variances each time a business filed an application.  Total nonsense - why should any use be exempted from needing variances?
• That there was a rush to pass the amendment, because the developer is hot to trot and there are "good businesses" ready to sign on to develop.  Such rumors should never be counted on (which citizens pointed out multiple times), and furthermore ordinance amendments should never be rushed under any circumstance.
• When it appeared that there were issues not covered by the amendment, citizens were told that revisions would cause it to have to be sent back to the LVPC for review, so passing it and using "deed restrictions" to resolve outstanding deficiencies was the course of action to save time.  This is total bullshit, dreamed up by Realtor/Supervisor Teel.  The UMBT Solicitor in fact sent a second amendment to the LVPC for review on September 28 - only nineteen days after the first amendment was passed.  Instead of simply editing the draft of the first amendment, and sending it back to the LVPC.  

The lawsuit - appeal of the passage of the First Amendment

The big news is citizens filed a timely appeal of the passage of the amendment in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, and more details will be stated here in the near future.  This group of citizens is not a collection of "not in my back yard" or NIMBY, the pejorative term that is commonly applied to citizens objecting in cases of zoning.  Rather. it consists of members who have helped shape public policy, including one who is a former supervisor in another township.  This has been covered in WFMZ, the Express Times and the Morning Call.

The Second Amendment - prepared and sent out with no public notice

No, not that second amendment lol.  Karasek should have strongly advised the BOS at the September 9 hearing that not only due to concerns about the content of the amendment, but also because of what it did not yet contain, that the BOS should not adopt it that night.  Apparently someone pulled their head out of their ass between September 9 and September 28 and realized Teel's proposed deed restrictions would not work.  Was it Karasek?  No citizen (and they are watching very very carefully) was aware that a second amendment draft was even prepared, until the LVPC issued a review letter on October 30.  So the excuse by Teel - and that is all it was - that a delay would result by going back to the LVPC, was revealed to be nothing but more happy talk since within only a few weeks the BOS in fact had to go back to the LVPC as the Solicitor should have advised would be required.

Food for thought - if this amendment was not discussed at a BOS meeting, did the BOS even see it before Karasek submitted it?  Was he authorized to send it?

Solicitor sends second amendment for review with no notice to the public

It must be noted that at the end of the review letter of the second amendment, the LVPC curiously compliments the UMBT BOS as to the amendment responding to some comments in the LVPC's review of the first amendment.  

LVPC attempts to put lipstick on a pig with euphemisms - closer to consistent is not consistent

In this blogger's view, this is political bullshit.  The second amendment does nothing to address the fact that several articles of the ordinance will not apply to the I-2 or I-3 district, that industrial business parks will be permitted by right and not by conditional use, the buildings of 100 feet are permitted by right, that traffic studies will not be required, that township environmental regulations will not apply.  In fact, the LVPC in its review of the second amendment did again comment that buildings of 100' should not be permitted by right.  Lastly, UMBT Supervisor Teel stated prior to receiving the LVPC's first review that he has no interest in what the LVPC has to say about anything.  So Teel does not see the LVPC as the "regional expert on planning, zoning and development" as stated in the excerpt states.

Second amendment to cure defects in Upper Mount Bethel Twp amendment for River Pointe on Scribd

LVPC review of second amendment in Upper Mount Bethel Township for River Pointe on Scribd

"Good" business that was hot to trot, trotted right on past UMBT

The citizens warned on multiple occasions that making changes based on the rumor of any business filing an application was folly, because such projects very often fail to materialize.  Undaunted, some UMBT Supervisors continue to sing this tune.  At the October 12 BOS meeting, Economic Development Committee Chairman Scott Cole announced that Reddington Farms, which had been rumored to be seeking to site within River Pointe, was no longer planning to do so.  Bam!  Exactly as citizens predicted.  It must be noted that Reddington Farms is not the kind of "manufacturing business" with good paying jobs that the BOS is ballyhooing as what they envision in River Pointe.  Resident are rightfully concerned that they will end up with mostly warehouses and tons of truck traffic, and that by exempting River Pointe from township regulations control will be impossible.  This is Engineer Coyle's concern.  Reddington Farms is said to require 50,000 gallons of water a day at the site of one of its current operations - and lots of truck traffic.

Current Reddington Farms location - not coming to UMBT

Look at all those trucks

Second BOS member appointed to Planning Commission - to advise himself

At the October 12 BOS meeting, BOS and planning commission member Teel said that "considering the important issues coming before the planning commission in the near future, I think we need to fill the planning commission vacancy."  Note that in the spring, Teel tried to put BOS member DeFranco on the planning commission, but yielded to concerns that having two BOS members on the planning commission would be inappropriate.  No kidding.  Having one BOS member on the planning commission is inadvisable - and especially one like Teel, who has exhibited no working knowledge of planning and zoning other than he hates the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission but knows it has to review ordinance amendments.  Teel stated that DeFranco has "construction experience" as he promoted DeFranco.  Whoo hoo.  Big deal.  What you want on a planning commission is someone with engineering experience, not what the standard sizes of lumber are.  What Teel really wanted was DeFranco, a proponent of River Pointe, on the planning commission, to ram through the second amendment that only the BOS was aware existed and had been submitted to the LVPC for review.   Then, when the second amendment comes before the township planning commission, likely at its November meeting, Teel and DeFranco will sing its praises and make sure it is recommended to the BOS - in other words to themselves - for approval.  At the July planning commission review of the first amendment, which was over 20 pages and had been in members' hands for only hours, Teel said "I don't think we have to go through every page of this..."  Of course not, if you want to ram a huge change to the zoning ordinance through without someone realizing major issues with it.  The review of the second amendment at the planning commission is likely planned by Teel and DeFranco to be as thorough.

Supervisor Bermingham pointed out that with more supervisors on the planning commission, the independence of the committee from the BOS would be compromised.  Supervisor Due joined Bemingham in voting no, with Pinter and Teel voting yes.  Due actually stood up for what is right.  However, after he had abstained, DeFranco voted yes to make it 3-2 and to install himself on the planning commission.  After the vote, citizens pointed out that the independence of the planning commission is important and they are correct.  The planning commission advises the BOS.  Teel, DeFranco and Pinter obviously do not care about independence and informed and unbiased opinion, but rather about how to get what they want.

Musical chairs on UMBT Planning Commission

The LVPC's review of the first amendment was addressed to Scott Minnich, a civil engineer.  Mr. Minnich gave constructive advice during the August 31 special hearing on the first amendment - which was promptly ignored.  He was no longer on the planning commission when the review was received.  Likewise, Stavros Barbounis was no longer on the planning commission when the review of the second amendment was received.  Given how the BOS is acting, it isn't surprising that the planning commission is like musical chairs.  What is very concerning is that an element within the BOS appears to have taken it over.

Township Engineer Ed Nelson shows off his knowledge - or lack thereof

At the September 28 BOS meeting, township manager Ed Nelson showed that even though he was once a township supervisor, he's generally an ignorant of municipal procedures and concepts.  A far cry from the previous township manager, Rick Fisher.  Nelson is the perfect stooge and partner for the corrupted process being perpetrated by the BOS.

First, Nelson said that he was "recommending to the BOS" that certain roads be changed to one-way.  Karasek listened to this for several minutes before finally pointing out that the manager can not make such a recommendation by himself, that a traffic study would likely be required and the township engineer would have to be involved.  Next, Nelson recommended that speed bumps be installed, in specific locations.  Once again, Karasek had to intervene, with the same warnings he made about altering traffic direction.

Next, Nelson recommended to the BOS that it hire Pennoni Engineering to be a Community Planner as well as an Alternate Engineer for the township.  This is interesting for a few reasons.  The first it, apparently the BOS is showing some yield to the pleas by both citizens as well as the LVPC that it do planning before zoning changes.  The problem is, they already made the zoning changes.  Second, Pennoni apparently has ZERO experience in municipal planning.  So Nelson, a place holder as township manager, recommended hiring a place holder as planner, as Rome burns.  If Nelson had any initiative to actually find a planner, he would have discovered Urban Research and Development in Bethlehem, which has extensive experience in planning and zoning, including testifying in related court matters.  But he was seeking to help create a veneer to make it look like the BOS was taking some action, when it was not.  Or he was simply incompetent, or both.

Supervisor DeFranco's Economic Development Committee sings praises of River Pointe

Speaking of stooges, Supervisor DeFranco's Economic Development Committee has the perfect choice in Scott Cole.  At the October 12 BOS meeting, Chairman Cole spoke effusively about the regular meetings that the EDC was having with "Lou's representatives" and "Lisa" (Lisa Pektor).  Of course Lou is sending representatives to meet regularly with people on their knees eager to pleasure him orally, as well as continuing to keep tabs on the promises (and BOS actions) to exempt him from zoning regulations.  Cole and the pro-River Pointe Supervisors appear completely oblivious to the fact that you do not treat a developer as your friend or partner.  And certainly not this developer.  Cole's words reflect that he is afflicted with a Stage IV case of euphoric crapulence for River Pointe, and as though he makes frequent trips to a fridge stocked with River Pointe Fever Kool Aid.

Cole announced that the EDC has done a lot of "analysis" of future revenue associated with River Ponte.  Hmm, better change the Excel spreadsheet to reflect that Reddington Farms is gone.  And since River Pointe is in the LERTA, don't expect much property tax revenue any time soon.  Working hard on spreadsheets that predict the future is not necessarily working smart. There is a difference.

Cole also made a peculiar request.  He stated that the EDC has been working for "many months" on River Pointe (doing God knows what, one has to ask), and that they have been using an outdated Comprehensive Plan.  He said he was recommending to the BOS that it hire a planner to update the  township's Comprehensive Plan.  Perhaps Ed Nelson's Pennoni hire - an engineer with no planning experience?  Now, the people up front in the room, the BOS and Manager Nelson, should be keenly aware that UMBT is a member of Plan Slate Belt, which is currently developing a 10-municipality Comprehensive Plan across the ten Slate Belt Communities.  Each municipality has three representatives.  Supervisors Due, DeFranco and Manager Nelson are the three representatives from UMBT.   Not one UMBT representative showed up for the October Plan Slate Belt meeting, and not one person at the front of the room informed Mr. Cole that they are already working on the next comprehensive plan (are they?).  Instead he was told it was a good suggestion and they would look into it.  

Why isn't Mr. Cole already aware that UMBT is working on a comprehensive plan update, and why wouldn't one of the three township's representatives involved have told him (and the assembled citizens) when it became obvious he did not?  Could it be because they aren't taking it seriously, or don't know what they are doing?  Both seems likely in this case.   A majority of UMBT supervisors are acting like the township is an island unto itself, and planning is the very last priority on their minds.  The only planning they are doing is projecting for big big revenue from River Pointe, consequences and the potential for negative community impacts and economic losses be damned.

The first step to solving a problem is realizing that you have a problem.  UMBT supervisors as a group are totally ignorant of how to do planning or alter zoning or the consequences of not exercising restraint in making quick changes, and they are not receiving competent advice from most of those who could or should advise them.  The only solution that appears feasible is that citizens obtain relief in court.

Edit - UMBT will vote tonight to advertise Second Amendment

On the agenda for tonight, in Section VI, item 6 - is a vote to advertise the Second Amendment.  That will cost several thousand dollars.  More of taxpayer's tax dollars at work.  Apparently Supervisors are expecting a favorable recommendation from Teel, DeFranco and whoever else is left on the planning commission when it meets on November 18.  You can hear Teel now "I don't think we really need to go through this..."  Why bother?  It's all FUBAR and you will pass it anyway.

Then, the BOS will convene a hearing at which members of the public will object, make some good suggestions which will be ignored, and the BOS will pass the Second Amendment.  We have seen this D-movie before.

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.