Richland OKs development proposal

Richland OKs development proposal

There are 59 comments on the The Morning Call story from Dec 11, 2007, titled Richland OKs development proposal. In it, The Morning Call reports that:

Richland Township supervisors voted 2-1 in favor of an age-restricted development at their business meeting Monday night that would pave the way for a 402-unit facility.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Dem4U

Southfield, MI

#52 Dec 13, 2007
If I done did it - OJ wrote:
Dem4u....you really annoy me
Thank you for reading my entries (no pun intended)

Since: Dec 07

Trenton, NJ

#53 Dec 16, 2007
test
PutItToRest

Southfield, MI

#54 Dec 16, 2007
For those who will soon be bluffing about this development again, here is what the Wenger Report of Nov.8, 2006 found:

"We do not find that a court would find Ordinance 209 or the AQ District to be invalid.

It was suggested that only one person-a developer-is benefited by Ordinance 209 and that it was he that advocated the implementation of Ordinance 209. We found the potential benefit of the Ordinance to not be limited to a single property owner. Further, even if a single landowner were to lobby for passage of a zoning ordinance which would be to his benefit, such an event would not invalidate the ordinance.

It is our conclusion that a court would not find illegal spot-zoning in this case because of the following:(1) the AQ District is a new zoning district, and not a single parcel of land owned by one entity; (2) the AQ District is not a small lot or area, but a portion of the Township equaling 400 acres or more; (3) the uses allowed in the AQ District are not irrationally inconsistent with the uses allowed in the surrounding areas, and, thus, no “zoning island” was created. The elements of illegal spot zoning are simply not present.

As to any questions regarding the procedure by which Ordinance 209 was enacted, the question is essentially moot because the appeal period applicable to a procedural challenge has long since passed. Even if the Ordinance were not protected by the above-quoted statutory provision, however, we would conclude the Ordinance was properly enacted.

In summary, our opinion is that Ordinance 209 is valid both procedurally and substantively. A caveat must be entered because no case was found directly on point with this one. In the absence of specific controlling authority, one must acknowledge the possibility that a reviewing court might reach a different conclusion. Nevertheless, based upon available authority and precedent it is reasonable to conclude that the ordinance in question would survive a validity challenge."

This report was commissioned by RT from a legal expert, at taxpayer expense, to allay Supervisor Zowniriw's beliefs regarding this development. The RT BOS envisioned this as a means of acquiring revenues without adding to the property tax burden additional school age children would present if the properties in the Age Qualified Zone were developed with housing "by right" according to the then existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
Marie

Southfield, MI

#55 Dec 16, 2007
Rotting in Richland wrote "Marie, what TWT basically said was that Orloff, Tamburri, and Keller made this development possible to benefit their 'champion of the written word,' Woldow. It seems awfully coincidental that the senior overlay district includes his property. This has been a well-planned project right from day one, which included favors from his supervisor friends, and his exertion of control at The Free Press to consistantly villify their opposition, just so he can make a buck on his land-locked property.
You may cry 'speculation' on my part, but if the shoe fits ..."

Rotten In Richland: Anyone with a reading comprehension level above the fifth grade understands what The Watch Tower meant when writing: "Please request this company contact Ricky Orloff at home. A greased palm will get you anywhere in Richland Township." No intelligent person needs you to explain "what TWT basically said ". It is very clear what was written. Aren't you glad you all remain annonymous? It's easy to throw out disgusting rumors when you are not held accountable.
Stopping Rosen

AOL

#56 Dec 16, 2007
Marie

Southfield, MI

#57 Dec 16, 2007
Stopping Rosen wrote:
Anything to deflect.
Ben There

Anderson, IN

#58 Dec 16, 2007
In #54 what does this mean:
"one must acknowledge the possibility that a reviewing court might reach a different conclusion."
HangingOnByAThre ad

Southfield, MI

#59 Dec 16, 2007
Ben There wrote:
In #54 what does this mean:
"one must acknowledge the possibility that a reviewing court might reach a different conclusion."
If, somehow, a court somewhere, at some time, for some unfathomable reason, would make a decision that differs from all previous decisions that have been made everywhere that can be researched, the authors of this paper are covering their tushes.
Rotting in Richland

Perkasie, PA

#60 Dec 16, 2007
Does anyone know the proposed sale price of these units? I thought I haard around $250k a while back.

Also, what will they be taxed at? Say,$2,500 per unit? If so, that would be $1,005,000 in annual tax revenues for QCSD, which is only about 1.2% of their $82M budget! Wow! That'll save me all of $5 a month on my tax bill! Wow! A free gallon of milk a month for a year!

Thanks Rick, great job! You save me a ton of tax money and Richland will start to look like 'The Projects'! And, when it rains, I can go over to Spring Meadow next door and paddle down the streets in my canoe...It's an innovative idea: Streets that double as canals! Why didn't I think of that?
voice of reason

Anderson, IN

#61 Dec 17, 2007
Rotting in Richland,
I dont's get you. You will complain when $1.2 million is brought into the QCSD. But guaranteed you would be complaining if this project became another 100 home development which would bring more children into the QCSD.
Dem4U

Southfield, MI

#62 Dec 17, 2007
PutItToRest wrote:
For those who will soon be bluffing about this development again, here is what the Wenger Report of Nov.8, 2006 found:
"We do not find that a court would find Ordinance 209 or the AQ District to be invalid.
It was suggested that only one person-a developer-is benefited by Ordinance 209 and that it was he that advocated the implementation of Ordinance 209. We found the potential benefit of the Ordinance to not be limited to a single property owner. Further, even if a single landowner were to lobby for passage of a zoning ordinance which would be to his benefit, such an event would not invalidate the ordinance.
It is our conclusion that a court would not find illegal spot-zoning in this case because of the following:(1) the AQ District is a new zoning district, and not a single parcel of land owned by one entity; (2) the AQ District is not a small lot or area, but a portion of the Township equaling 400 acres or more; (3) the uses allowed in the AQ District are not irrationally inconsistent with the uses allowed in the surrounding areas, and, thus, no “zoning island” was created. The elements of illegal spot zoning are simply not present.
As to any questions regarding the procedure by which Ordinance 209 was enacted, the question is essentially moot because the appeal period applicable to a procedural challenge has long since passed. Even if the Ordinance were not protected by the above-quoted statutory provision, however, we would conclude the Ordinance was properly enacted.
In summary, our opinion is that Ordinance 209 is valid both procedurally and substantively. A caveat must be entered because no case was found directly on point with this one. In the absence of specific controlling authority, one must acknowledge the possibility that a reviewing court might reach a different conclusion. Nevertheless, based upon available authority and precedent it is reasonable to conclude that the ordinance in question would survive a validity challenge."
This report was commissioned by RT from a legal expert, at taxpayer expense, to allay Supervisor Zowniriw's beliefs regarding this development. The RT BOS envisioned this as a means of acquiring revenues without adding to the property tax burden additional school age children would present if the properties in the Age Qualified Zone were developed with housing "by right" according to the then existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
Enough facts on the topic to refute the false and libelous claims of the anti-Orloff/Woldow cabal? I hope so. Move on to anything positive you can come up with, please. So long.
Independent

Northampton, PA

#63 Dec 17, 2007
Marie wrote:
Rotting in Richland wrote "Marie, what TWT basically said was that Orloff, Tamburri, and Keller made this development possible to benefit their 'champion of the written word,' Woldow. It seems awfully coincidental that the senior overlay district includes his property. This has been a well-planned project right from day one, which included favors from his supervisor friends, and his exertion of control at The Free Press to consistantly villify their opposition, just so he can make a buck on his land-locked property.
You may cry 'speculation' on my part, but if the shoe fits ..."
Rotten In Richland: Anyone with a reading comprehension level above the fifth grade understands what The Watch Tower meant when writing: "Please request this company contact Ricky Orloff at home. A greased palm will get you anywhere in Richland Township." No intelligent person needs you to explain "what TWT basically said ". It is very clear what was written. Aren't you glad you all remain annonymous? It's easy to throw out disgusting rumors when you are not held accountable.
Talk about the lame duck Comprehensive Plan, that Orloff and company have given a zillion waivers to over the years...the dam thing doen't have a leg to stand on...these bozo's that you apparently want to defend have added thousands of new homes at 1.2 kids / house (that's the calculation used). There's the real reason why my school taxes have increase over 50% in the last 5 years and will continue to increase. The school board, who has made their fair share of mistakes, had no choice but to build two new elementary schools, one new middle school and modified the old middle school to try to handle the increase in students thanks to these un-checked new developments.

Read the Intelligencer article from Oct 31, 2007 entitled "Enrollment to Level off". In the article, Quakertown is single out as to "bucking the trend". Quoting from the article, "Bucking the trend is Quakertown School District, which is expected to see enrollment jump by 25% in 10 years, a leap that places it at the top in the region. To meet the growth it has expected, Quakertown spent $35 million on the Strayer Middle School in Richland,$18 million on the Pfaff Elementary School in Milford and spent $9.8 million to renovate a former school into the Freshman Center." There you have it, a 25% increase in enrollment...thanks to Orloff and company allowing every housing development be approved...variance upon variance...and yes, their buddy Woldow is a great benefactor of this...I wonder why?
Rotting in Richland

Perkasie, PA

#64 Dec 18, 2007
voice of reason wrote:
Rotting in Richland,
I dont's get you. You will complain when $1.2 million is brought into the QCSD. But guaranteed you would be complaining if this project became another 100 home development which would bring more children into the QCSD.
The point is that they are saying great things about senior housing...'no impact on the schools'...'lower taxes'...etc...

Wow! They save us a WHOPPING 1.2%

What about everything else? 402 units, with anywhere from 402 to 804 cars, 2 trips per day if both adults are working...spells a traffic nightmare and big safety issue. What about the safety of kids going to and from school with the Woldow Bypass opening?

This isn't the problem. It's the increase in student population that has caused the mess. Read the excerpt from the Intell article above.

Thank you Rick Orloff.
the people have spoken

Anderson, IN

#65 Dec 21, 2007
RIR,
since you appear to good with numbers
here's in one to remember
60% ORLOFF
40% murphy
Rotting in Richland

Perkasie, PA

#66 Dec 21, 2007
the people have spoken wrote:
RIR,
since you appear to good with numbers
here's in one to remember
60% ORLOFF
40% murphy
60% Sheeple
40% Individuals

How will the 60% react when Ofc. Matthews wins his case?
The Watch Tower

AOL

#67 Dec 22, 2007
Rotting in Richland wrote:
<quoted text>
60% Sheeple
40% Individuals
How will the 60% react when Ofc. Matthews wins his case?
How many registered voters are listed for Richland? I had heard it was almost 7,600. Take the candidate vote total and divide it by the total number of voters. That is the true percentage. Does anyone know the answers to these questions?
robb

Middletown, IN

#68 May 7, 2008
any update on front gate? they were supposed to present at a planning board meeting two months ago and cancelled at the last minute. as far as i know that appearance has not be rescheduled.
Lolita

AOL

#69 May 11, 2008
Rotting in Richland wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is that they are saying great things about senior housing...'no impact on the schools'...'lower taxes'...etc...
Wow! They save us a WHOPPING 1.2%
What about everything else? 402 units, with anywhere from 402 to 804 cars, 2 trips per day if both adults are working...spells a traffic nightmare and big safety issue. What about the safety of kids going to and from school with the Woldow Bypass opening?
This isn't the problem. It's the increase in student population that has caused the mess. Read the excerpt from the Intell article above.
Thank you Rick Orloff.
But then again we have to remember that Orloff has denied any over development time and again ... when it was convenient for him, and really happening...now he admits it really exists because it affects 'other things' such as the 24/7 police department he wants and the school board he wants to control.

This Township will quickly run out of money, services will decline and we will become another slum on the way to somewhere else...better ..via 309 and 663. How's 16 years of orloff working for you. NO taxes, how stupid. Small incremental township taxes to put in the kitty would have been wiser than shining your butt in the moonlight with no tax increases. WHERE's the money coming from Orloff??????????

I don't consider that good MONEY ( your forte) management or prudent township management. A small increase every couple of years over 16 years would have paid for your shiny new cops, it would have been paid when the school taxes were lower and would not have hurt the public wallet as much as it will now.

Jeez, HOW stupid can one person actually be.
Crill

AOL

#70 May 11, 2008
Marie wrote:
<quoted text>
You know better. Fearmongering and spreading lies and impossible scenarios is behavior that is not in the best interest of the community. If you are unable to offer constructive criticism pleasefind another cause.
Minimum age of one person :55. Minimim age of any others in each unit: 19. The only school aged inhabitants would be college students. Inhabitants would pay school taxes without adding any students to the school rolls.
HA at the rate of the superior education table we could still have kids in the school system at the age 19 or 20, we seem to have some slow/no learners. But Steppy will show them the door soon.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Willow Grove Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chemist admits stabbing coworker (Sep '09) Feb '18 Do The Time Dumbo 4
Review: iLoveKickboxing - Jenkintown (Mar '17) Oct '17 Chickagirl 11
News Sex offender law coming to town (Oct '08) Sep '17 No name 33
Old picture Ice skating in willow grove (Aug '17) Aug '17 Jared 2
News Montco sheriff gets spotlight in Allentown corr... (Aug '17) Aug '17 weaponX 1
News Matthew Fox's Birthday (Jul '07) Jul '17 Natalie Pagano 4
2 for 1 (May '17) May '17 MFF maybe 1

Willow Grove Jobs

Personal Finance

Willow Grove Mortgages