Regional planners again refuse to support Upper Pottsgrove open space zoning change

UPPER POTTSGROVE — For the second time in as many months, regional planners from seven towns refused to support Upper Pottsgrove Township’s pending zoning change that would allow municipal buildings to be built in designated open space.

After what became a very heated discussion, representatives from North Coventry, East Coventry, Pottstown, West Pottsgrove, Lower Pottsgrove, Douglass (Mont.) and New Hanover all voted to table Upper Pottsgrove’s request for support, and the reasons given were similar to last month.

Upper Pottsgrove will hold a public hearing Monday, March 18 on these proposed set of zoning changes which Commissioners Chairman Trace Slinkerd said Wednesday night will “clean up some language” in several areas of the zoning ordinance.

The members of the Pottstown Metropolitan Regional Planning Committee unanimously supported the changes to the township wants to make to small areas of its zoning map in the first vote.

But on the second vote, which was on the changes to the text of the zoning ordinance, they refused and they only raised objections to one small section amidst many items — the section which spells out that the township has the specific right to constructed municipal uses, like the controversial plan for a new municipal complex on the Smola Farm in open space.

“The timing on this seems suspicious,” said North Coventry Supervisor Jim Marks, who chairs the regional planning group. “I challenge the motive behind this, I don’t trust what your motives are.”

“You’re starting to make a political argument about this. This is about consistency in zoning,” Slinkerd replied. “You’re not the judge in this case.”

“Your purpose, your duty, is limited to interpreting whether an ordinance is consistent with the regional comprehensive plan,” said Celso Leite Jr., a lawyer with the firm representing Upper Pottsgrove. “Our office will be quite befuddled if your letter ran contrary to the county’s position.”

As the discussion went back and forth, both Marks and Slinkerd interrupted each other, which each telling the other to at one point to “let me finish.”

Slinkerd argued that because the Montgomery County Planning Commission has issued a letter supporting the map and text changes, that the regional planners are not in a position to hold a different opinion. “You’re trying to put your opinion on something the county has said is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That’s not your job,” he said.

Marks replied that when the regional planning commission was formed in 2005, the initial agreement set out several reasons for its existence “and number four was to preserve open space and agriculture in the region. That is one of our purposes and one of our goals.”

New Hanover Supervisor Kurt Zebrowski said “I’m worried this is going to open up all of our municipalities to use open space for municipal buildings. I don’t like where this will go in the future. It could have an effect on our municipality.”

“In Lower Pottsgrove, open space is open space. We’re in the process of getting a new municipal building as well and we managed to avoid building it in open space,” said Tom Troutman, who represents Lower Pottsgrove on the regional planning body.

“If this matter is still in litigation,” said West Pottsgrove Commissioner Howard Shawell, referring to the lawsuit filed to prevent Upper Pottsgrove from implementing its building plan, “I’m confused about why we have all this commotion now, why don’t we just wait and let the judge figure this out? It seems like we’re putting the cart before the horse.”

Slinkerd told the other officials that all of their towns in the regional compact have similar language in their zoning that would allow them to do what Upper Pottsgrove is trying to do. He also said the language Upper Pottsgrove currently has is adequate, “but our solicitors felt we should spell it out. We’re just doing what our solicitors suggested.”

“If you’re certain the language you have is adequate, why do you want to ‘clean it up’ now, in the middle of a lawsuit?” asked North Coventry Supervisor Bill Soumis.

Larry Tietjen, chairman of the East Coventry Planning Commission, made a motion to table the matter again. “This is such an important topic, I’d like to know very specifically what we’re supporting. I don’t want to go on the record supporting something that could be misconstrued.”

“We’d prefer that it be voted on,” Slinkerd replied.

But he did not get his preference and every other municipality voted to set the matter aside for another month.

Afterward, Douglass (Mont.) Township Manager Peter Hiriak tried to make some peace. “We all have opinions. That’s why we’re here and this is the process we signed up for. We’re all entitled to our own opinions and sometimes the best move is not to make a move.”