It's been almost 24 hours since the Sept. 15 public hearing regarding Liberty Forge's proposed Conservation Park Overlay District zoning amendment commenced, and there's already been a flurry of coverage by the local media.
First, to all of you who attended last night, listened to the presentations by staff and Liberty Forge's representatives, and even expressed your opinions, thank you. I appreciated hearing from all sides of this issue, and will certainly consider all the testimony and opinions offered as this issue moves forward.
Okay, that said, we have three articles to share this evening.
First - and foremost - Chris Courogen wrote in this morning's Patriot-News:
"Roughly 200 people turned out Monday night for a public hearing on a proposal to change Lower Allen Twp. zoning laws to allow high-rise condominiums in an area zoned for single-family homes.
The township commissioners did not vote on the matter Monday, but most residents attending the meeting appeared to oppose the Liberty Forge Golf Course owners' proposal to allow developers to build up to seven housing units per acre in exchange for preserving open space. Current zoning allows one home per acre.
John J. Mahoney, the attorney representing Liberty Forge, told the commissioners their decision should come down to one thing, 'Will the community be better off if the ordinance is adopted.'..."
The article went on to describe the meeting and some of the comments made.
Then, this afternoon, the Central Penn Business Journal weighed in with its own version of the story by Eric Veronikis:
"...The project could include the development of up to 18 four-level buildings in the next eight to 10 years, said Luke Grumbine, LFGC president.
The township commissioners did not set a timeline for a vote following last night's public hearing on the project.
Vernau said 75 percent of the approximate 200 people that attended the hearing were against the development. Many in attendance said the project would degrade one of the last rural areas in the township and would increase traffic along Lisburn Road, Vernau said.
Under current zoning, the developer could put together a different project that would be worse for the area, he said.
'Someone could come in and carve it up into 95 (residential) lots. That to me is not preserving the rural character,' Vernau said.
The condominiums would be for seniors ages 55 and over. Prices would start at $400,000 and the average condo would cost $600,000, Grumbine said.
The smallest units would be about 900 square feet. Grumbine would not give an approximate size for medium to larger condos because it depends on what the market calls for, he said...."
And finally, we can peruse an extremely thorough article on The Sentinel's Cumberlink web site by Barbara Phillips Long:
"...John Titzel, president of the township board of commissioners, and other township officials emphasized that the hearing was about the proposed ordinance, not any proposed development plan.
The testimony of Dennis Glackin, who showed slides of possible development plans and statistics about the financial impact of the development, led people to comment on possible development plans instead of the zoning amendment.
The Liberty Forge zoning amendment, which, in this case, is an amendment for an overlay, which would allow a developer to follow different rules for a section in the R-2 rural residential area in Lower Allen. The amendment requires the developer to provide public water and sewer.
During the discussion of the effects of the Liberty Forge proposal on tax revenue, Glackin talked about how much more property tax income the township, West Shore School District and Cumberland County would receive. The numbers were based on a cost of $650,000 per housing unit...."
Later in Ms. Long's story:
"...Amanda Brown pressed the commissioners to assure the public that all costs for water, sewer and emergency services would be borne only by the developer.
Commissioner Dan Christ said some expenses might have to be paid by the township, but a bond issue could be used to pay for some of the costs rather than a tax increase...."
That is inaccurate. If memory servies, I recall saying that, and the attendees reacting unfavorably to, raising revenues by increasing tax rates may be a way to fund infrastructure improvements. While it would be my very last choice, it would be disingenuous to not mention a tax increase as one potential method to fund infrastructure improvements.
So, were you at the hearing? What did you think? Did you hear anything to change your mind or steel your resolve?
The comment section awaits.
XML Feeds
Recent Comments