December 14, 2000 Maidencreek Township Supervisor's Meeting
*Our Police Chief Weiser resigns effective 1/7/01. Join us in thanking him for his years of service and wishing him well in his future position.
Noise Ordinance: The noise ordinance is in draft 2. It is substantially the same as draft 1. Rather than re-print the whole thing here I'll just highlight the differences. Draft 1 is available in the October 12 meeting. Article 4 section A (1) adds the curfew hours of 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM Article 5 adds "snowmobile, all-terrain vehicles" after motorcycle. Article 8 section C (2) adds the curfew times of 11:00PM to 8:00AM to "Concerts etc."
Fee in Lieu of: Developers who want to develop land, where the township wishes to own land, will be asked to give some of their land to the Township in exchange for having their subdivision approved. This method is in fact the way Maidencreek has obtained the vast majority of its park land and "open space." The township reached the point where it decided it would rather not accept any more land from developers, but would prefer a fee in lieu of land. The fee was $500 per lot. The logic in this is that the development will cause new people to place a demand on our parks. Rather than have this anticipated demand raise costs for existing tax payers, the fee is supposed to take care of that. The Supervisors voted 2 to 1 to increase the fee from $500 to $750.
Why I voted against this fee increase: Karl Bolognese explained that should the Phillips' property develop, he (and perhaps Terry Rarick) would like to obtain some of that property for a community center. Suppose this land develops, let's look at the initial and final conditions. Initially the land is all privately owned by the Phillips widow. In the final condition the land is developed, and the township has a portion for its community center. The township has expended no tax dollars. There are several aspects to this that bother me. The first is the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The reason the 5th amendment states this is because to do any less would be theft. This practice of trading land for development is common in Pennsylvania, and to my knowledge the courts do not view it as a taking. The tax payers get "free" land for parks and community centers, but who really pays? The people who really pay are all the land owners who still own land in the township. The Phillips property is an example. Karl has said, in a public meeting, he desires part of that land for a community center. Now if the Phillips property comes up for sale, any developer (who doesn't sign his name in crayon) will know that he'll have to give up several acres for the community center (to eventually include a pool). He will offer the Phillips family proportionally less. Who has paid for the community center? Not the taxpayer, not the developer, the existing land owner. The fee in lieu of has the same effect. Suppose a tract of land (where the township planners covet no property) goes up for sale. Suppose this land can be developed into 50 lots. Our fee in lieu of increase of $250 means that developer knows he will have to pay an additional $12,500 to develop the land. Who pays? The family selling gets a $12,500 reduction in market value. The same family arguably has a $36,500 reduction in market value, compared to what it would have been if their township had no fee in lieu of. It is a fiction that the developer pays, and these costs are passed on to the new home owners. The market value of these houses is what is charged. That value is determined by many factors, but it can not be arbitrarily increased by township fees.
Schaeffer Property Re-zoning: Nothing will likely be done on this until the transcript of the public hearing is available. If you want your comments entered into the official record of this proposed zoning amendment (as Terry said at the meeting) write them down and send a letter. Comments made at the 11/30/2000 public hearing and letters received by the township will be entered into the record of the zoning amendment, but comments made at regular business meetings will not be entered into the record on the proposed zoning amendment.
There was an executive session to discuss real estate and possible litigation.
paid for by Roy Timpe