July 26, 2001 Maidencreek Supervisor's Special Meeting:

Background:

Mrs. Schaeffer sold her farm to the Maidencreek Plaza Corp. The current owner (Maidencreek Plaza Corp.) wants to develop the property, and had requested that it be re-zoned. The initial meeting was advertised for the Township Building on November 30, 2000, but two days before the meeting it was learned the crowd would likely exceed the township building capacity ( approx. 50-70 people). The township then moved the meeting to the High School Auditorium. About 300 people attended the meeting. All three supervisors voted in February to allow the re-zoning. A resident then appealed this decision, based on the sunshine law, and the fact the meeting was moved at the last minute. The zoning hearing board granted the appeal. The land owner decided to file another application for re-zoning. The purpose of this special meeting was to deal with that issue.

For a more in depth look at the issue Click here.



The Meeting started on time with much of the testimony mirroring the testimony given at the 11/30/2000 meeting. Mr. LaManna presented an analysis of the tax impact of the proposed development. With the high value of the residential homes proposed the residential portion should bring in a surplus. His analysis also included the contribution of the proposed commercial development. His bottom line is that the school district should in no way be adversely impacted by this development (assuming of course they are careful stewards of the money trusted to them by the tax payers) Comments from the residents present split about 50/50% both in favor and against the re-zoning.

The side against the rezoning presented no new arguments. I was disappointed by this, especially because in my explanation of my first vote I had made it clear why I did not find their arguments compelling.

Read my reasons for my 2/8/01 vote with the other two supervisors in favor of re-zoning


I had hoped for new arguments. I feel to deprive a land owner of his property rights requires very compelling reasons, since we're talking about using force to take away someone's stewardship over their own property. (That is the very definition of theft) Lacking a compelling reason to interfere with this landowner's property rights, I felt I had no choice but to vote for the re-zoning. Not to do so would have aligned me with the principles of every totalitarian government we, as Americans, love to hate.

paid for by Roy Timpe

email: Roy Timpe

 

Click here for the previous meeting

Back to Maidencreek Township Politics