By SARIT LASCHINSKY

Special to The Press

The active adult residential community proposed for the former Strawberry Acres orchard became a point of conversation during courtesy of the floor at the May 3 North Whitehall supervisors’ meeting.

Resident Dan Nemeth asked the board whether a 2016 ordinance had any effect on the unit density of an AARC.

He also asked whether the township’s drafting process for zoning amendments was flawed.

According to the township’s ordinances, the 2016 amendment changes a 2006 ordinance regarding AARCs by subtracting stormwater retention/detention areas from gross site area considered for maximum density, provides a maximum of two units per acre on slops of 15-25 percent, prohibits units where slopes exceed 25 percent among other changes to separation distance and sewage services.

The original 2006 ordinance allowed for four units per acre for 0-15 percent slops, three units per acre for 15-25 percent slopes, two units per acre for 25-35 percent slopes, and one per acre for slopes over 35 percent.

Nemeth said the 2016 amendment was intended to increase the requirements of acreage for density on sloped properties, “And what it allowed ... is to just add on land and just have the same density on the same piece of property, in an area that it’s not supposed to be, so it’s back to square one.”

He also said the township had previously reduced the number of units for the Strawberry Acres development to 90 units, but added even after the amendment was passed, the plan still shows 90 units.

Township Manager Christopher Garges said the two plans showing 90 units encompass different areas.

“So it’s not necessarily an apples-to-apples,” Gargas said.

He said the amendment does reduce the density based on whether a property has steep slopes.

“So, if you looked at that same piece before and after, there would have been a reduction, but they [the applicant] changed the boundary to give themselves more area,” Gargas said.

“At the end of the day, it’s the same plan as was submitted back in the day, which means, in my view, the ordinance did nothing except force the guy to take a couple extra acres he had and make a lot line adjustment,” Nemeth responded.

Garges said the property owner had the ability to make the necessary changes to achieve what was needed.

He said the township brought in outside consultants to review the plan, and also received legal counsel from Solicitor Lisa Young.

Gargas also said at their previous meeting, supervisors had authorized a motion to remove AARCs from the permitted use list for several districts.

On another topic related to Strawberry Acres, Nemeth asked what the board would do if a developer submitted an erroneous traffic study, adding information provided to the board at a previous hearing was allegedly false.

Nemeth said the developer had submitted information which showed what proposed traffic would be if the development had half-acre lots.

Nemeth, however, noted that only one-acre lots were allowed in Strawberry Acres’ zoning, and the developer had used “urban numbers” when rural numbers were available.

Township engineer Steve Gitch said the traffic study would be covered, discussed and acted upon at the land development stage, not the conditional use application.

Nemeth said it would be “too late then” and if information on generated traffic was incorrect and had a bearing on the board’s vote, then that vote could be wrong.

He asked why the developer was not asked to submit correct numbers.

Young said the state Appellate Court had directed that traffic studies be reviewed and considered as part of the land development stage, not conditional use applications, and that at the proper stage the township’s traffic engineer would review the study and call out any questionable data or errors.

Garges also said if the board denied the conditional use application and was taken to court, the courts would uphold that the board cannot make their decision based of the traffic study.

Planning Commission Chairman Brian Horwith advised Nemeth “the time to raise a ruckus” is when the land development comes in.

“Because, if you’re right Mr. Nemeth, if this is bad data or bad facts, be at the meeting ... and raise a ruckus, because that’s the time when those three guys are going to vote on that traffic study.”

Additionally, Nemeth said the developer had provided information to the township “as an expert on all items submitted,” and was sworn in.

However, he said the traffic information was stated to have been based on data from 2019 and 2020.

“[But] it was in essence from the 1980s, the 1990s and 2000, so if that’s wrong, from a practical viewpoint, what else is wrong?”

Resident Tom VanVreede concurred with Nemeth and said the developer had presented sworn testimony which residents considered to be false.

“What we’re asking you to do before you act on that sworn testimony, in total, is to determine if he made a falsehood to you,” VanVreede said.

Young said the board could assign whatever weight they felt was necessary to review any submitted materials.

Supervisor Mark Hills said when the engineer reviews the study, he will make that call and let us know.

Hills and Supervisor Dennis Klusaritz asked Young to look over the transcript and review the developer’s testimony and statements, as well as have engineers look at the traffic data and provide feedback.

Chairman Ronald Heintzelman requested the township “watch every thing precisely” when materials, studies and information is received, and get advice from legal and engineering experts when necessary.

Horwith also told Nemeth this matter was not yet “water under the bridge,” and the township is undertaking a review of its comprehensive plan, and would be looking for public comment and feedback throughout the ongoing process.

“Don’t give up,” Horwith said. “Please participate.”

During the conditional use hearing, scheduled for 7 p.m. May 27, Young said, the record is closed and no additional testimony would be taken.

She said the applicant could respond to board questions as part of the board’s deliberation process, but emphasized this would not be an opportunity for the developer to go back on the record and testify.