UPPER POTTSGROVE — Regional planners said they want no part of Upper Pottsgrove Township’s efforts to change its zoning ordinance to allow its controversial municipal complex to be built in any zone the commissioners choose until the matter has been adjudicated in court.
Township commissioners voted Jan. 16 to advertise several changes to the zoning ordinance and, as a matter of course, those changes are brought to the Pottstown Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission for review and comment. Typically, a letter is sought from the regional planners declaring the proposed changes to be “general consistent” with the regional comprehensive plan.
But the group — which has representatives from Pottstown, West Pottsgrove, Upper Pottsgrove, Lower Pottsgrove, Douglass (Mont.), New Hanover, North Coventry and East Coventry — was unwilling to step into the year-long public fight and lawsuit over the plan to build a new municipal complex on part of the Smola Farm, which was purchased as protected open space, by offering up an official opinion.
Their reluctance stemmed from the fact that part of the zoning change under consideration would allow that complex to be built literally anywhere in Upper Pottsgrove Township, including protected open space, the township solicitor confirmed.
“I don’t want to get into their problems,” said New Hanover Township Supervisor Kurt Zebrowski. “They’re trying to build a municipal complex on property purchased for open space protection and this proposed change would allow that to be built anywhere. They’re coming here asking us to give that our blessing,” Zebrowski said. “I’m not comfortable doing that when what they’re trying to do may be illegal.”
“We all know how red hot this topic is, this controversy,” said Jim Marks, the chairman of the Pottstown Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, who is one of two representatives from North Coventry Township who serves among the planners. “This is too premature.”
“That’s fine,” said Upper Pottsgrove Commissioners Chairman Trace Slinkerd, who attended the Wednesday planners meeting for the first time as his township’s representative. He said the township had several small zoning changes to make to clean up its books and decided to add that language too.
“We decided to do this seeing as other towns are doing the same thing, whether it’s written into their zoning or not,” Slinkerd said.
During the Jan. 16 commissioners meeting, Upper Pottsgrove Township Solicitor Eric Fry offered up an explanation of the zoning changes being proposed, noting “it’s mostly clean-up items, fixing things that are missing or inconsistencies.”
He said the proposed changes have been reviewed by and recommended by the Montgomery County Planning Commission and that a public hearing on the proposed changes will be scheduled for “February or March,” although no specific date was announced and no date for the hearing has yet been posted on the township website.
But it was not until Commissioner Cathy Paretti, who opposes the plan to build the municipal complex on Smola Farm, began asking Fry questions about another portion of the proposed zoning change that he got around to explaining how the changes would allow any “municipal use” in any zoning district.
“Right now we don’t have ‘municipal use’ defined at all. Unless it’s zoned for office, you can’t have a township building. Maybe this building we’re in right now would not be permitted where it is, or the police department be permitted where it is located right now,” said Fry. “So what we did is define it, and allow it anywhere.”
The proposed definition of “municipal use,” if approved, would include “land and buildings used and improved by the municipality for governmental purposes included, but not limited to: parks, trails, recreational facilities, parking areas, open space, administrative purposes such as municipal offices, police station, public works and fire station.”
The language goes further to note “a municipal use shall be permitted in any zoning district and land may be used and occupied for the uses contained in the definition of municipal use and/or the following uses:” spelling out several open space and parkland uses as well as “municipal buildings, offices, garages and buildings or structures housing other municipal uses.”
“So you mean (building in) open space,” Paretti said to Fry.
“I’m saying anywhere. If you want to say open space, yes, it would include open space,” Fry said. “Very good lawyer answer,” Paretti replied.
