Sunday, September 6, 2020

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:


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.






Saturday, August 1, 2020

Husband and wife activists post responses to Waste Management Grand Central Sanitary Landfill self aggrandizement in Express Times "Opinion"

This past week, the Express Times posted a lengthy opinion credited to a "Guest Columnist" that was authored by Waste Management's public relations employee Adrienne Fors, in which she claims that a proposal to expand Plainfield Township's Solid Waste Zoning District "deserves a second look".  It must be nice to have what appears to be free advertising in the newspaper - since letters to the editor are limited to 250 words.  Ms. Fors' piece is 851 words.  Surely Waste Management can afford to take out a whole page advertisement, and the Express Times is just as surely desperate for the income it would have generated.

This is not the worst part - Ms. Fors' screed contains several falsehoods and misleading statements, in an effort to paint the action that the Board of Supervisors took on July 8 as premature, uninformed and without forethought.

Husband and wife activists Tom Carlo and Elisa Robles each wrote letters to the editor - staying within the 250 word limit in response to Ms. Fors' screed, published on July 30 and August 1 respectively.

Ms. Robles is apparently not a fan of Ms. Fors' position.  She calls Ms. Fors' words "laughable and offensive" and states that the "guest column" is nothing more than a promotion of the company's agenda - all of which would be hard to dispute.  Waste Management's agenda is to continue to make millions upon millions in revenue annually from its property in Plainfield Township for decades into the future.  Plainfield Township's vision, based on the July 8 Board of Supervisors meeting, is that the township has stored enough of Pennsylvania and the tri-state's solid waste, and that the landfill will have to shut down in 2028 - the year it is expected to reach 980' elevation.  It is currently at 968'.  Waste Management has proposed three projects in the span of four years that would help it realize its goal - in early 2016, it proposed that the landfill be allowed to dispose of liquid wastes that do not pass a paint filter test.  In late 2016, it proposed the Synagro sludge drying and pelletizing plant, and in 2020 it proposed to expand the zoning district so that it can continue to operate until half the people currently living are dead.  At the moment, each of these proposals is DOA.

"As a lifelong resident of the area, believe me I care..."

Ms. Fors has reportedly stated many times, on tours of the landfill as well as at town meetings that she is a "lifelong resident of the area," and if this were to be believed one might assume that anything she promotes - such as a forever solid waste business in Plainfield Township and bordering Pen Argyl - she would be happy to live near.  However, when one scratches the surface, it becomes apparent that Ms. Fors is actually a lifelong resident of western Monroe County, not Northampton County where Pen Argyl, Wind Gap, Plainfield Township and the landfill are located.  Ms. Fors grew up as Adrienne Borger in Effort, and attended Pleasant Valley schools, graduating in 2003.  She now lives in Polk Township.  This would be like someone born and having lived in Plainfield Township most of their life, saying they were a lifelong resident of Phillipsburg because they lived in an apartment there for a few years.

Speaking of misrepresentation, that is the subject of Mr. Carlo's letter.  Mr. Carlo argues that Ms. Fors made multiple misrepresentations in her "opinion":

  • Plainfield Township Supervisors acted in a manner that prevented or discouraged Waste Management from holding public meetings to promote their proposal, prior to the Board considering it
  • The Supervisors erred in not forwarding the proposal to the township planning commission
  • That at the meeting at which the Supervisors held their vote, relatively few residents were in attendance or spoke - resulting in the Board not considering a deep enough body of feedback prior to making its decision
  • That the Supervisors failed to consider the monetary benefits that the landfill provides to the community
Mr. Carlo linked to both articles and official township minutes in support of his response to Ms. Fors' claims. 
  • From the June 10 BOS minutes: "All Board members were in favor of discussing the matter at the July 8, 2020 meeting. Ms. Adrienne Fors added that Waste Management would like the opportunity to meet with residents about the project, but understands that they may not have the opportunity to do so at this point. There is a video, as well as other literature on their website that explains the project and what Waste Management intends to do."   (bottom of pg 10)

    Waste Management dragged its feet since it first announced and ballyhooed its plans in February, and failed to organize a Zoom or other meeting with the public by the time Supervisors addressed the proposal months later on July 8.  The Supervisors are not responsible for this.  As Mr. Carlo stated, Ms. Fors voiced no objection to the Supervisors' plan, the creation of which she was present for.  How can she now argue that Waste Management was slighted?

  • Solicitor Backenstoe explained in detail at the July 8 meeting that in his opinion, there is no requirement to forward Waste Management's proposal to the planning commission.  If the Supervisors agreed to draft an amendment to the zoning map and/or ordinance, then a draft would have to be reviewed by the planning commission.  Since the Supervisors are not agreeing to explore a change, there is no proposed amendment to send for review.

    Here is the disputed language from the zoning ordinance Sec 27-807:

    "1. The Township may, on its own motion or by petition, amend, supplement, change, modify, or repeal this Chapter.
    2. Before voting on the enactment of an amendment, the Board of Supervisors shall hold a public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice.
    3. In the case of an amendment other than that prepared by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors shall submit each such amendment to the Planning Commission at least 30 days prior to the hearing on such proposed amendment and permit the Commission an opportunity to submit recommendations."

    Furthermore, Solicitor Backenstoe opined previously that there is no requirement for the Supervisors to even respond to Waste Management's proposal.  Note that the second item did not take place either - the July 8 meeting was not a hearing.  Again, this section of the Ordinance applies to an amendment which is being proposed by the township.  There is a procedure whereby an Applicant can force an amendment they propose to be considered - this ain't it.

    There is a potential remedy for this difference of legal opinion if Waste Management chooses to pursue it - attempt to appeal the BOS action in the Court of Common Pleas.  Not publishing a guest column in the newspaper to bitch about how unfairly you were treated.
  • Ms. Fors' complaint that an insufficient amount of feedback was considered by the Board of Supervisors at the July 8 meeting totally ignored the fact that on March 11, 2020, the Board heard feedback from several citizens at the meeting at which the proposal was formally received by the Board.  Not one citizen spoke in favor of the proposal at either the March or July meeting.

  • Finally, Mr. Carlo points out that the Board of Supervisors during its annual budget process reviews the income from the landfill, and projections of future revenue.  In the recent past, the Board has reviewed projections of the impact that the expected 2028 landfill closure will have on real estate taxes. 

    The State of Pennsylvania requires municipalities that have a landfill to fund a Trust Fund, in order to ameliorate the impact of loss of revenue (tipping fees) when a landfill closes.  The Board of Supervisors has the discretion, once the landfill closes, to draw down the Trust Fund annually at a rate of its choosing so that there is not a precipitous increase in real estate taxes.
In addition, the supervisors did have a thoughtful discussion of the proposal - on the evening that they voted against further consideration.  This was documented in an Express Times article as well as on this blog.  Long story short - the planning for a solid waste district in 1987 provided for an expansion of the landfill well in excess of its volume at the time - and now the landfill is reaching the capacity of the district.  Game over.

Does the landfill operation throw off shards of cash that are used in multiple ways in the community?  Absolutely.  Will taxes have to go up?  Quite possibly.  But landfills have a life span, and they are the number one nuisance use that a community can have.  The gravy train has to come to the end of the track one day.  Plainfield Township appears to be unwilling to roll out the red carpet to proliferate solid waste uses beyond the area that has already been allotted - and soon to be expended.  Ms. Fors promises that Waste Management will be rolling out its plan.  Will this be a new plan, will it be the same plan, seeking a "do-over"?  Will they go to court to settle a legal dispute instead of griping about it in the local newspaper?  Only time will tell.  But Ms. Fors' letter was indeed "laughable and offensive" as Ms. Robles described it - penned by someone who is a lifelong resident of an area north of the Blue Mountain - not south.


Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Plainfield Township Supervisors reject Waste Management request to expand solid waste zoning district


At this evening's Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board voted 3-0-2 to not consider Waste Management's request to expand the Solid Waste Zoning District, so that the Grand Central Sanitary Landfill can be expanded.

At the beginning of the meeting Township Solicitor Backenstoe explained to the Board and the audience - which was about 50 people well spread out in the fire company's pavilion - that in his opinion the Board had a legislative matter before it.  If the Board rejected the request, in his opinion this decision is not subject to judicial review.  Then he explained that if the Board instead chose to pursue further examination, ultimately a hearing would be scheduled for a Zoning Amendment, and at least 30 days prior the draft would be submitted to the township planning commission.  Once the planning commission reviewed it, it would be submitted to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

Supervisor Mellert then addressed the audience and Board, and explained that when the Ordinance was amended in 1988 to create the Solid Waste district, many residents were upset with the amount of land that was allotted for Solid Waste.  They felt it was far too much.  But, as Mrs. Mellert explained and the 1988 zoning amendment and map adoption hearing's stenographic record reflects, the final amount of space and boundaries were chosen to allow Fair Use and expansion by the landfill in the future.  And once that was consumed, that would be the end of Solid Waste disposal in the township.  Mrs. Mellert then added that the proposed addition of a second solid waste district/landfill, which is essentially what the proposal calls for since a state road would separate them, is far beyond what was envisioned when the land use planning was done, and would exceed what is called for by the Fair Use doctrine.  "Fair Share" came into being in zoning law in order to evaluate whether a municipality provides for a suitable range of housing needs, but it applies to all kinds of uses. For a primer on Fair Share in Pennsylvania Zoning, click this link.


Mrs. Mellert made a motion to not entertain Waste Management's proposal.  Supervisor Borger seconded the motion, which opened the floor for comments from the audience.

Numerous citizens made comments at courtesy of the floor, all in opposition to the expansion of the Solid Waste district.  Pen Argyl resident Andy Medellin who lives on Pen Argyl Street across from the Green and White ball fields stated that the odor from the landfill is horrendous, the air quality poor and often there is a lot of trash in the trees that remains there for days.  He said they often can not use their property outside the home.  He added that he has been unable to get any relief by contacting regulatory agencies.  Luther Bond reminded the Board that 100 citizens or more have an active lawsuit against the landfill for odors.  John Reinhart requested that the Board and other municipalities consider engaging with one or two agencies to do a health study across the Slate Belt to analyze the effects of all the reclamation activities that have taken place in the last 20 years - such as the landfill, tire recycling, filling of quarries, etc.

Once citizens completed their comments, Supervisor Heard stated that since the township's citizens in 2007 voted to impose an earned income tax on themselves, in order to support open space and farmland preservation, it would be a slap in their face to approve this proposal to convert farmland to a landfill.  So he would be voting against consideration of the expansion.  Mr. Heard and Mrs. Mellert voted yes, Mrs. Lambert said she was not prepared to vote yes or no because she felt she needed more information, Mr. Hurni abstained due to his connection with Green Knight, and Mr. Borger voted yes.  The vote was thus 3-0-2, and the request to consider expansion of the Solid Waste district was denied.

One citizen asked a question that revealed a difference of opinion between Solicitor Backenstoe and Waste Management counsel.  The issue is that if the Board were to deny the request (as it ended up doing), Waste Management believes it may have a right to appeal to a judicial body, because its interpretation of the Ordinance is that the Board must submit all rezoning requests to the Planning Commission.  In other words, if the township did not follow procedures prescribed by its Ordinance, the Board's decision could be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.  Mr. Backenstoe's interpretation is that the Board only must submit something to the Planning Commission in the event a hearing is to be held to consider adoption of an amendment.  Since there would be no hearing in the event of denying the request, there is no need to submit anything to the planners.

Mr. Backenstoe explained that other courses of action that Waste Management could take are:
  • Submit an amended or different rezoning request
  • File a curative amendment
  • File a substantive validity challenge*
*Per the PA Municipalities Planning Code, a validity challenge may be filed with either the Board of Supervisors or Zoning Hearing Board.  If it is filed with the BOS, it must be accompanied by a curative amendment.
Think green - greenbacks

Only time will tell what Waste Management's next step is.  As Andy from Pen Argyl said "this is a huge corporation - they don't care about us, the people that live here."   With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, it is doubtful Waste Management will just walk away and say "it's been real".  



Thursday, July 2, 2020

Grand Central Sanitary Landfill caused a home to become uninhabitable, then purchased the property, demolished the home and created Environmental Education Center from the remnants

In 1962, Robert (Bobby) Perin, Frank Fiorot and Ernest (Ernie) Albanese partnered to purchase land on Teel's Hill, a portion of which included what today is Grand Central Sanitary Landfill.

Teel's Hill in center of exerpt of 1874 map

The partners divided the land among themselves.  Perin started a small dump on a few acres of land that was on the north side "over the hill" and Fiorot and Albanese targeted residential uses for their parcels on the south side.  Fiorot's son Michael built a home on land from his father on Grand Central Road, where he lives to this day with his wife.  Ernie and his wife Sairanne built their home also on Grand Central Road, on 16 acres of land adjacent to the Fiorot's lot, and adjacent to land owned by Bobby - the latter the Albaneses would come to regret.  Ernie brought son Kim to the marriage, and Sairanne brought daughter Toni.
1992 aerial shows landfill has encroached on Albanese property
Current Fiorot property at bottom of view

Ernie and Sairanne in happy times

Ernie, Sairanne and Kim Albanese in their home on Teel's Hill

Sairanne and Toni

With grandchildren

The Albaneses built a beautiful home, and a matching detached three-car garage.  The view from the property was initially 360 degrees for as far as the eye could see, over pastoral Plainfield Township farms from the west through south and to the east, and of the Blue Mountain, Wind Gap and Pen Argyl looking from west clockwise to the east.

Sairanne in front of Albanese home on Teel's Hill - looking less cheerful than in earlier days

The small dump of Perin's that started on a few acres in former quarries below the top of Teel's Hill expanded greatly in the 1970's and 1980's, significantly degrading the ability of the Albaneses to enjoy their property.  By the time Grand Central (rumored to be named for the heavy volume of traffic to the landfill) wanted to expand in 1987, the Albaneses' lives on Teel's Hill had become a living hell.  They attempted to have setbacks enforced, but between the landfill being considered a pre-existing non-conforming use and the passage of PA Act 12 in 1988 (partly to address issues with Grand Central Sanitary Landfill) the Albaneses were prevented from obtaining even the relatively minimal relief they sought.  A consequence of state regulations preempting local ordinances is strict setbacks for solid waste uses contained in the 1988 Plainfield Township zoning ordinance passed in 1988 were reduced substantially - to the point where today the landfill can encroach within a stone's throw of the Albanese's former property as well as Pen Argyl Road.

Sairanne and Ermie explained in detail how their lives on Teel's Hill were destroyed in the transcript of the June 30, 1988 hearing at which Plainfield Township's Solid Waste District was adopted.

Today, the views from Ernie and Sairanne's former property remains much the same looking counter-clockwise from west to east, but the landfill towers 130' above the site of the homestead a short distance from the common property line - totally blocking views when looking from west clockwise to east.

View in 2020 to east from former Albanese property on Teel's Hill

View looking north northwest in 2020 - landfill outlined
Former Albanese property line is beyond treeline

Grand Central promotes its Environmental Education Center heavily, but what they fail to mention is that it occupies the Albanese's former property, which the landfill rendered uninhabitable.  The Albanese's dreamed of retiring on Teel's Hill, but instead they ended up in a lawsuit with the landfill and ultimately sold their property to the landfill in 1998.


Wilson Gum and his wife Doris owned land bordering the east of the Albaneses, and they sold their parcel to the landfill only a few months earlier.

Albanese and Gum parcels on 1971 Zoning Map at left, Current map on right

Think Green

Albanese's former three car garage, converted into Environmental Center
Note matching masonry in picture of house above
House was at the end of the walkway going to the left and also behind garage


Urban renewal in the country

Historic aerial photos show that it took only a few years for the landfill to mow down the Albanese's home.  To add insult to injury, the landfill did a hatchet job in converting the three car garage to the building today used to entertain visitors to the Albanese Property Environmental Education Center.  Ernie owned an electrical supply company named Easton Electro Construction, and to this day light standards that he had installed are dotted around the property - abandoned and repurposed to host wasp's nests or birdfeeders.

Brooks Was Here

Aerials show Albanese homestead was demolished between 2005 and 2008

Albanese house was from where picnic table is and extending to the right behind garage
landfill is to the left and not in view
Note birdfeeder on lamppost Ernie installed near garage

Ernest Albanese, a Purple Heart recipient from his service in World War II, died in 2003 and is buried not far down the road from his former home, in Plainfield Cemetery.  There is a nice view to the west from his grave, in the opposite direction of where his family's dreams were shattered on Teel's Hill.  Sairanne died in 2019.

Ernie Albanese's final resting place


Ernie sold some other land to be used for his brother Leroy's company Wind Gap Electric, but the brothers did not pursue this venture together due to "familial differences", according to a person familiar with the matter.  Leroy's son Peter is a member of Green Knight Economic Development Corporation.

Monday, June 15, 2020

Citizens speak out on zoning change that would permit Grand Central Landfill expansion in Plainfield Township - next meeting in July

At the March 11, 2020 Plainfield Township Board of Supervisors meeting, several citizens spoke at courtesy of the floor on the proposal by Grand Central Landfill to rezone land currently zoned Farm and Forest to Solid Waste.  Rezoning would permit the landfill to expand, since it is currently projected to run out of space in 2028.

Citizens spoke following a brief address by Grand Central attorney Leonard Zito, in which he referred to the owner of Grand Central, Waste Management, as the "premier waste management company" in the United States.  At least one speaker questioned the meaning of this claim, citing windblown trash in trees on lands adjacent to the landfill.  Multiple speakers mentioned odors in residential developments at significant distances from the landfill.  The BOS will next discuss and take comments on the proposal on July 8, as shown at the right margin.  Check back for updates.

The official minutes of the meeting contain summaries of what each speaker said:



Written comments were submitted to the township by residents Mark Powell and Don Moore:

Saturday, March 7, 2020

History of creation of Plainfield Township's Solid Waste Zoning District that Waste Management proposes to increase in size for Grand Central Sanitary Landfill expansion

Landfill is on land subdivided from a tract bought by three partners

In the 1980's, Grand Central was not yet owned by Waste Management.  The record shows that the landfill began as a dump in the 1950's, in response to pleas by the mayors of Pen Argyl and Wind Gap that landowner Robert Perin allow trash disposal on his property in Plainfield Township.  Mr. Perin had purchased a larger tract that included his land with two partners, Frank Fiorot and Ernest Albanese.  Albanese ironically came to rue the day that he partnered with Perin as he built his family homestead on the lands he obtained adjacent to what became a major nuisance on Perin's share of the land - the landfill (see the testimony of Mr. Albanese and his wife for how the landfill destroyed the enjoyment of their property on pp. 117-123 of the transcript below).  The landfill started under Robert, and his sons Gary, Ronald and Nolan took over from him.  DEP was known as DER in the 1980's, and the state of Pennsylvania was just coming up to speed on regulating landfills.  It may well be that some state legislation was put into place as a result of legal battles involving the landfill and its desire to expand greatly in 1986.

Landfill was relatively small when it requested a very large expansion

Testimony in the transcript below is that dumping in the landfill in the mid 1980's was permitted in a relatively small area in portions of quarries on lands in the Farm and Forest Zoning District - less than 10 acres - and that Grand Central applied for Special Exception approval to expand the area for the landfill on property it owned to three hundred and fifty three acres.  The Zoning Hearing Board approved a size of 80 acres.  A legal battle ensued over what size should be allowed.

Proposal for incinerator in addition to expansion of landfill rocks township

In the same time period, a garbage incinerator was proposed in Plainfield Township, the ash from which would be disposed of in the landfill.  Incinerators produce two kinds of ash - fly ash and bottom ash.  Fly ash is considered hazardous waste, bottom ash is not.  When they are mixed, the state of PA in the mid 1980's considered the mixture non-hazardous.  Got to love the state.  Naturally there was a lot of concern over emissions from an incinerator, and the disposal of ash.  The township placed a moratorium on new solid waste uses, while it researched whether all must be provided for.

Activist group of concerned citizens S.O.L.E. is born

Plainfield Township has had zoning since 1971.  Applicants can file a curative amendment if the ordinance can be argued to be exclusionary and as a result might be able to put a use wherever they want.  A legal consultant was hired by the township to advise on a course of action to respond the threats of solid waste uses proliferating and legal action by those promoting these kinds of uses.  An activist group named S.O.L.E. (Save Our Local Environment) was born, and it and the township were parties in the lawsuits over the landfill and the incinerator.  As a result of the moratorium, the incinerator proposal was moved into Bushkill Township, on land that borders Plainfield Township.

Plainfield Township crafts action plan in response to threat of solid waste uses expanding without bounds

Amid these battles, the township formed the Solid Waste Study Group in about December of 1986.  This group included members of S.O.L.E., township supervisors, citizens and Nolin Perin who represented the landfill.  Special council Robert Sugarman and professional planners Urban Research and Development advised and guided the process.  The objectives of this group were to research whether the township could legally exclude certain uses, and how the landfill should be provided for, yet in a controlled manner.  Their work product was hoped to be used to settle the legal disputes over the allowed size for the landfill, where landfills may be placed in the township (Farm and Forest is by far the largest zoning district by area) as well as whether an incinerator and other solid waste uses must be permitted.  The products of the Study Group were a Comprehensive Plan Supplement for Solid Waste, an ordinance amendment that would create a Solid Waste district for solid waste uses, and a Zoning Map change that defined the boundaries of the new district.  The Study Group worked for 18 months.

Adoption hearing and push back from landfill representatives

The amendment adoption hearing at which extensive testimony was taken from representatives of the landfill, citizens of the township, members of S.O.L.E., special counsel Sugarman and supervisors was held on June 30 of 1988.  The testimony reveals that legal experts had a challenge to explain to the citizenry their methodology - that they were threading a needle in order to be able to settle the legal matters, avoid additional litigation, and obtain a result with a satisfactory outcome for the township.  Representatives of the landfill threatened that the amendment could not stand legal scrutiny, and Nolan Perin was on the record stating that the township has wasted 18 months and had nothing to show for its effort and legal fees.  Naturally, the landfill wanted no local regulations to control it.

The testimony reveals that many citizens wanted the landfill to not expand at all.  Some participants testified that Plainfield Township does not need to be the dumping ground for the entire state of Pennsylvania, and trash was already arriving in significant amounts from out of state as well.  The ultimate size of the district was chosen to provide the landfill and other solid waste uses to be located in the township, and to prevent challenges that the district was not large enough.  This is known in zoning law as "Fair Share" - and is certain to be a concept of discussion in light of Waste Management's rezoning request.  Some testified that the township had already taken in its fair share of garbage and sludge - as of 1988.  The legal consultants found that a municipality does not in all cases need to provide for every possible use, and incinerators were made a non-permitted use in the township.  The fate of the incinerator proposed in Bushkill Township was that the property line of the the site in question turned out to be 175 feet east of where it was assumed to be, placing the proposed operation in Plainfield Township.  This was discovered prior to the adoption of the zoning amendment, which put the kabash on the incinerator since this use was listed as not permitted prior to the expiration of the derided solid waste moratorium the following day.

Afterward - Grand Central wields lawsuits as a weapon, 
costing Plainfield Township and average citizens $$$

A Morning Call newspaper article from 1992 itemized a raft of legal action that Grand Central and members of the Perin family took against multiple citizens as well as Plainfield Township during this timeframe.  One lawsuit was filed over a $50 DER fine.  The lawsuits against individuals and elected officials, alleging slander and libel, appear to have been dismissed.  In 1990 and 1991, the township expended over $150,000 and $100,000 respectively in legal fees.  Township supervisors may want to take this into consideration when choosing to expand solid waste uses and continue a relationship with the landfill beyond 2028, or to put an end to future potential litigation by refusing a request that they are not obligated to oblige.

1988 amended Zoning Map - new Solid Waste (SW) district in silver

The amendment turned out to be well crafted, despite the criticism of detractors and threats of legal challenges.  Here is the township's current zoning ordinance for the Solid Waste district created in 1988, in much the same form as when adopted with the exception that setbacks have been significantly reduced:

https://ecode360.com/31720486

Here is the Comprehensive Plan Supplement of 1988:


The hearing transcript:

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Grand Central Sanitary Landfill proposes Zoning Change so it can expand landfill in Plainfield Township - first township meeting March 11

Now it is known for certain why Synagro gave up its fight to locate a biosolids plant on Waste Management's Grand Central Sanitary Landfill land in Plainfield Township - Waste Management has another larger development in mind - a landfill expansion - and a protracted battle over Synagro's proposal would have interfered with the process to expand.

There is no height restriction on a landfill, other than it must remain structurally sound.  The problem is, going up vertically means less area is available due to the sloped sides of the landfill.  If the landfill wants to expand in a meaningful way, it may seek to expand horizontally, which is what Waste Management plans.  The problem is, they have run out of land that is zoned for a landfill.  They own land in the Commerical Industrial district, where their truck parking and offices are.  Then there is the landfill, in the Solid Waste district, and a small amount of land in the Farm and Forest district adjacent to the landfill.  See the map below.  An expansion typically is a five-year long process, and the landfill is estimated to be full in 2028, so this rezoning is an urgent matter.


A corporate entity named Slate Springs Farm LLC assumed title of several parcels of land owned by Gary and Linda Perin, on the precise date in late 2019 that Synagro's application was withdrawn during a Board of Supervisors meeting.  On the map indicated with red boxes are these parcels, and it is within these lands currently zoned Farm and Forest that the expansion is proposed.  Note that Pen Argyl Road would be ensconced by the landfill, as well as Evergreen Cemetery.  The expansion would be bounded by Pen Argyl, Bocce Club and Delabole Roads. The proposed route is reported to be that trucks will cross Pen Argyl Road presumably at the currently closed gate near the truck scales, and retain the current entrance and exit off of Route 512.  Here are the tax parcels under Slate Springs Farm LLC's title:

  • E8 13 1 0626

  • E8 13 15 0626

  • E8 13 6 0626

  • E8 8 16 0625

  • E8 13 10 0626

  • E8 13 16 0626

  • E8 13 7 0626

  • E9 18 1 0626

  • E8 13 10A 0626

  • E8 13 16A 0626

  • E8 13 8 0626

  • E9 18 1 0626

  • E8 13 11 0626

  • E8 13 17 0626

  • E8 14 1 0625

  • E9 9 1 0626

  • E8 13 12 0626

  • E8 13 2 0626

  • E8 15 2 0625

  • E9 9 3B 0626

  • E8 13 13 0626

  • E8 13 3 0626

  • E8 15 2 0626

  • E9 9 7 0626

  • E8 13 14 0626

  • E8 13 4 0626

  • E8 24 1 0626

  • F8 9 1A 0626

  • E8 13 14A 0626

  • E8 13 5 0626

  • E8 8 14 0626


The Express Times reports that Slate Springs Farm LLC has an agreement to sell 325 acres to Grand Central - the parcels shown depicted and listed above.  Of this, 211 acres would be rezoned to Solid Waste, which would be the area denoted "REZONING AREA".  81 acres would be used for the expansion of the landfill, and 52 acres for "support activities".  The sale is contingent on the rezoning.

It is reported that this expansion will allow the landfill to operate 20 additional years.  If the expansion is granted, will Waste Management invite Synagro to locate in the expanded Solid Waste zoning district, away from the problematic water-filled quarry that caused Synagro's previous application to receive undesired scrutiny?

In Pennsylvania, zoning variances, zoning officer interpretation challenges and special exceptions are heard by the Zoning Hearing Board.  Conditional uses, validity challenges and zoning map change requests are heard by the supervisory body.  Last week, the Board of Supervisors appointed special counsel for zoning matters that come before the board.  James Preston of Broughal and Devito, a well-seasoned and respected land use attorney who typically represents corporate clients, was selected.  Solicitor David Backenstoe represents the Board of Supervisors - who must hear the request in an unbiased manner, while Mr. Preston will represent the interests of the township and its citizens.  Those who witnessed the Synagro reviews before the Planning Commission will recognize that Jack Embick was special counsel and took hard-nosed positions, while Mr. Backenstoe was the solicitor for the Planning Commission and acted mostly as a listener and a procedural guide.

Zoning change requests are reviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the supervisors.  However, a zoning map change request is first heard by the Board of Supervisors, which may send it to the Planning Commission; an alternative is that the BOS may vote to reject the request without forwarding it for a recommendation.

At the regular Board of Supervisors meeting on March 11, 2020 at 7:00 PM, Waste Management is scheduled to make a brief presentation of the proposed zoning map change..  No official action will be taken by the BOS at this meeting.  The township has announced that the meeting will be moved to the Plainfield Township Fire Hall 6480 Sullivan Trail Wind Gap, in order for all interested parties to hear the presentation.