Citizens Question the Lower Mac Zoning Hearing Board

The million-dollar questions aren’t usually answered at Lower Macungie Township Zoning Hearing Board meetings. Residents are often found picking at penny issues.

Take the Aug. 25 meeting in the Lower Macungie Township building. Seven people walked off the street and up to the podium, prepared to do verbal battle with the board over the Jaindl Land Co. proposal to develop 600 acres of farmland in the township.

But legal restrictions kept the questions to four substantive subjects:
-- Irrational, arbitrary and capricious decisions.
-- Improper methodology and enactment.
-- Environmental impact.
-- Spot zoning.

All other subjects go into the courts, where Judge Michele Varricchio is deciding procedural issues.

“Our decision is going to be made up somewhere in these four items,” said Zoning Hearing Board Chairman William Royer. “We have to find a violation in the municipal planning code relative to these four issues.
“In case law, we can’t consider the intent of the commissioners. We can only consider that the fact was done.”

Constance Moyer, who lives on Butz Road in the township, was the first to feel let down by the Q&A system.

“I still protest that we weren’t notified about the changes (in zoning),“ she said. “That’s very important.”

Zoning Board Council Mark Malkames explained, “that’s a procedural issue assigned to court.”

“Mr. Royer, I understand that you’re not inclined to serve subpoenas to commissioners,“ Moyer said. “Why is that?’’

Royer responded with the same answer he had given several times before.

“I don’t think it will do any good,” Royer said. “As soon as the first question is asked, it will be objected to because of legislative privilege.”

Kathryn Dixon of Spring Creek Road lamented into the microphone that “the beautiful land had been protected for the last 24 years” and now faced development.

Ann Friedenheim of Church Street said she moved to the area two years ago, and the changes to commercial and industrial zoning “were completely contrary to what we desired."

Then she wondered, not giving names, “if commissioners or people making ordinance changes have real estate interests directly or indirectly because of their work or their families' work. Can they truly honor their responsibility to the citizens with regard to developing 500 new homes?”

Royer said the commissioners themselves should answer this question.

Scott Bieber, resident of Upper Milford Township, provided a confidential time line and ended up being called to witness at a future date.

“I  think you bring up some points,” Royer said. “If (appellants) attorney (Robert) Rust would let you testify, he could bring you in as a witness.“

Deana Zosky of Orchid Place said it is a matter of public trust to find out what the commissioners knew, even if it takes a court subpoena.

“What is the downside track of asking he commissioner?,’’ she said. “There‘s no risk on asking then what happen, and the public would again have trust.’’

Robert Csandl of Alburtis expressed frustration.

“Every time we get close to the truth, there is an objection,’’ he said. “You’re hiding behind legal procedures.’’

Robert Mihok of Sweetwood Drive noted that “without full disclosure of government officials, how can you tell is there’s been a violation?’’

Jaindl lawyer Joseph Zator said the creation of zoning ordinances by non-township officials happens every day in every municipality in the Lehigh Valley and there's nothing unusual about the process.

Brian Higgins, the other hearing board member hearing the case, may have expressed the most popular answer.

“There’s one time that the little people can be heard, and that’s on election day,” said Higgins, who is running for school board. “All these people have been voted into office by the people in this township. They will be up on election day, and that’s when the people get a chance to speak.”