June 8th 2009 Board of Supervisors Meeting Summary | June 8th 2009 Board of Supervisors Meeting Summary
Comment was heard from several members of the public on issues such as road signage, ticketing, Emergency Medical services, and more.
The BOS approved changes to ordinances and made decisions on other business that came before.
Read the details by selecting the icon to the left.
|
Exeter Township Planning Commission Meeting Summary (5/5/2009)
Planners in attendance: Unger, Shane, Bittig, Swartz, Wilson and Rush (newly appointed)
Agenda items:
1. Rite Aid Variance requests
2. Exeter School District Annexation
3. Exeter Township Elementary School (Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan)
4. Historical Area Controls
5. Discuss Locations to Plant Trees on Public Land
Rite Aid Variance Request:
9 total variances were requested. Most dealt with setback issues. Landscaping (green area coverage) was also an issue. The Zoning Hearing Board met on 5/4/2009 to hear the same variance requests and was leaving the hearing open until the Planning Commission could make a recommendation. The zoning hearing board had questions/comments concerning the variances and decided to extend the hearing with a second session on 6/10/2009. The Rite Aid store is proposed as a 14,000 ........
Complete Article to the right====>>>
|
May 5th 2009 PC Meeting |
|
April 27th 2009 Board of Supervisors Meeting News
|
Historical Commission Update: they completed an inventory of 130 properties/sites that were researched. Millicent Lowrey, who joined the commission recently has done a lot of work organizing the inventory and photographing properties. Criteria for a historical site? May be the age of the site (over 50 years) or the significance to the county or the township—it’s a judgment call whether or not the site qualifies at this point—no specific criteria decided upon. They discussed how to approach people owning these sites, and decided to send out letters informing the owners that their property qualifies to be listed as a historical site. There may be deed restrictions that apply if it is named a historical site and those restrictions would go with the property if it is sold in the future. Compliance with restrictions for current owners should not be mandatory, since they may not have been aware of the historical value when they bought it.
Farmers’ Market Update: committee has been meeting several times a month, they are quite active and have lots of good ideas. Boscov has agreed to allow the market to occupy a segment of the Boscov’s East parking lot and the time planned is for Saturday mornings from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm. Vendors are responsible for supplying everything—stands, tents, refrigeration, electricity, clean-up, etc. They will start out with about 20 vendor stands, including produce, plants, meats & dairy, etc., as well as 3 prepared food stands like hot dogs, fries, etc. There will be no crafts or flea market items for now, it will be open rain or shine, and vendors will be selected on a first come, first served basis. There is $8,000 in grant money available for advertising which will be used for billboards, local TV, Week-ender News, fliers and website space.
Individual Reports:
Solicitor: Zoning hearing board will meet Monday, May 4th @ 7:00 pm to address drafting ordinances, 8 requests for variances, at least some of which are being requested by the school board for the Amber Hill site, and potential litigation.*
Michelle K.: suggested they use some of the “tree money” from Exeter Commons to replace some “missing trees” in Farming Ridge Park.
This item led to a discussion about a list of possible sites to plant trees, which evidently has not as yet been shared with either the planning commission or the public. It was suggested that they ask the planning commission for their input, and that they put the “tree list” (possible sites where “tree money” could be used) on the agenda for the next meeting.**
Don W.: explained that PA American Water wants to raise rates again—they say they have increasing expenses for pipelines, but their water only comes from Reading anyway. He suggested that residents file a complaint with the PA Public Utilities Commission and let them know about the poor quality and over-pricing of the water supplied by PA American. You can download a complaint form from the PUC website.·
* Important meeting: zoning hearing board will decide on allowing school board requests for variances—try to attend
Monday, May 4th
** 2 more important meetings: Planning Commission meeting Tuesday, May 5th, and Monday May 11th, when the locations for trees will be discussed
|
Yet another large tax increase planned by the Exeter Township School Board!
The Exeter Township School District has had one of the highest rates of tax increases in all of Berks County over the last 5 years. Below are some excerpts from a couple of Reading Eagle articles and statistics showing the property tax millage rates since 2005 and the proposed rate hike for the upcoming school year.
Taxes us out of our homes? You Betcha!
Exeter leads school districts with tax hike: Its nearly 10 percent increase is the biggest. Antietam residents continue to pay the highest millage.
Publication: Reading Eagle (Reading, PA)Publication Date: 01-JUL-07
Jul. 1--Berks County property owners will soon receive their school tax bills for 2007-08, and the biggest shock will be felt in the Exeter School District.
Exeter's tax rate jumped 2.325 mills, nearly a 10 percent increase over last year. It was the steepest hike among Berks County's 18 public school districts.
Exeter's new rate of 25.825 mills is the fifth highest in Berks, moving Exeter up three spots from last year.
Antietam's taxes, Exeter's tax increase are the highest among Berks County school districts
7/6/2008
By Rebecca VanderMeulen
Reading Eagle
For the fourth straight year, the Antietam School District has the highest tax rate among Berks County's 18 school districts. Its rate is 31.6 mills, a 2.6 percent increase over last year. Exeter School District residents will see the steepest increase for the second year in a row - a jump of 7.59 percent. Exeter had a tax increase of about 10 percent last year.
Facts concerning Exeter Township School Taxes 2005-2009.
2005-2006 22.0 mils
2006-2007 23.5 mils
2007-2008 25.825 mils
2008-2009 27.8 mils
2009-2010 Proposed 29.463 mils
4 years = Increase of 7.463 mils = $746 for each $100K of property value
3 years = Increase of 5.963 mils = $596 for each $100K of property value.
Over the last 3 years if your house was valued at $200K, your tax bill has increased by almost $1200.
|
At the Exeter Township Board of Supervisors meeting on 3/23/2009, Supervisors Chairwoman, Dona Starr, made a public announcement in regards to the public comments portion of the meetings. The statement below was prompted by numerous occasions when comments were harsh and inappropriate and prevented the necessary flow of business at meetings. Ms. Starr explained the laws governing public comment and the guidelines that the residents are expected to follow.
Select the link to the right to continue reading this article......
|
Supervisors Chair Comments Explaining the Change in Public Comment Time during Meetings |
|
|
Supervisors Answer False Accusations
Recent editorials in local papers and accusations made by people via blogs along with aspersions from some other elected officials have suggested that the Exeter Township Supervisors have been unwilling to discuss matters of concern with the Exeter Township School District.
The comments have actually accused the Supervisors of not acting appropriately and in the best interest of the community. Some of these comments include the following:
- Not meeting with the School Board
- Not helping the School Board in its search for property on which to build
- Allowing too much housing development (intimating that the Supervisors could just say "NO")
These statements are not only false but they are also malicious.
The truth of the matter is that the Supervisors have, on several occasions over the last few years met with or attempted to meet with the School Board to discuss the housing potential and to determine if there were needs with which the Supervisors could help. There are numerous references to these meetings in official township minutes and directly from those involved.
Contrary to the second statement about not helping the School Board look for other land, the Supervisors had set up a workshop late last year in which they provided a great deal of information and the services of township employees. The Supervisors were met with animosity and an unwillingness to listen to reason by the School Board. Further, when asked to gather for another meeting, the School Board refused to consider any other options than those on which they had already decided. Seeing no possible compromise and a hostile School Board, the Supervisors offered again to consider waiving some zone restrictions in already loosened zones in the township but they balked at another meeting. From their perspective and that of reasonable individuals, there would be no point in trying to open a discussion when the other side had already decided not to compromise.
To cover the last accusation concerning the housing situation, it should be noted that ALL municipalities in Pennsylvania are required to follow the Municipalities Planning Code. The MPC is the LAW and spells out the requirements concerning zoning. The township zoning ordinance and the authority of the Supervisors to maintain and enforce it are outlined in the code. It further details the actions that can and cannot be taken by municipal officials and it would be illegal for the Supervisors to decide to stop a development without proof that it did not meet the zoning requirements. What does that mean? Simply stated, it means that as long as the requirements of the zoning ordinances are met by the developers, it would not be legal for the Supervisors to prevent the development. Accordingly, there would be no legal way that the Supervisors could have prevented the housing that has happened in our community.
Some of the Supervisors decided that it was best to discuss these matters at board meeting on 7/28/2008. The following are their statements:
‘COOPERATION IS KEY’
Mr. Kennedy read the following statement, “An editorial entitled ‘Cooperation is Key in Exeter Township’
appeared in the July 15 th edition of the Reading Eagle. The editor stated that the Exeter School Board and
Exeter Township Supervisors need to find a way to work together in locating new schools. While I firmly agree
with that statement, I strongly disagree with the editor’s claim that ‘neither side has shown any indication of
that’. Contrary to the editor’s assertion, the Supervisors have sought to work with the School District, as
evidenced by the following examples: 1) A couple of years ago, in response to the School District’s stated
need to build new schools; the Supervisors substantially expanded the number of areas within the Township
where schools could be built. Schools are now allowed in 10 of 13 zoning districts in the Township.
2) In the past year, the Supervisors made available to the School District the services of the Township’s GIS
Administrator and software to help the School District find alternative sites for new schools. Although this
process led to the identification of several viable alternative sites, including properties the District already owns,
the School Board has turned a blind eye to most of them. 3) Most recently, in conjunction with other changes
currently being considered to the zoning ordinance, the Supervisors asked the School Board for its input on
changes (e.g., increased height limits, higher coverage limits, etc.) that might make it easier or more cost
effective for the School District to build new schools in zones where they are already allowed. The School
Board’s response was that it desired no changes. Members of the School Board say they want to cooperate, but
their actions to date have been to stonewall and litigate rather than cooperate. Their ill-conceived referendum
idea is the latest example of their unwillingness to cooperate. The School Board has wasted time and
substantial taxpayer funds pursuing its no-compromise approach, but it has achieved nothing. In the meantime,
our children (including my own) attend school in crowded and modular classrooms. How disappointing that not
one member of the School Board has exhibited the courage to speak out against this nonsense. While the
Supervisors have already demonstrated that we are willing to cooperate with the School District, we are not
willing to abandon one of our core principles of attempting to preserve the precious agricultural land remaining
in the Township, when viable alternatives exist. To do otherwise would not be an act of cooperation but a
disservice to the taxpayers and residents of Exeter Township.”
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Mrs. Starr stated there had been a number of letters to the editor in the newspaper with a consistent theme that
we were not cooperating. She cited the time the School Board came to the Supervisors when a developer
wanted to build 529 townhouses at the Reading Country Club property, with a potential of 725 houses if they
took down the main building, to ask us for help because they could not withstand the addition of 1,000 to 1,200
more students in the schools. She stated the Township then made the move to take over the country club, not
only for recreational reasons; but, to help the School District. In 2005 there was a joint meeting between the
School Board and the Supervisors where we talked about enrollment and the potential for development. She
stated she was there and the Supervisors worked with them. At that time they decided they were going to build
a school behind the Lausch Elementary Building. She stated on another occasion we went to the School Board
to ask if our proposed new Skate Park would be in the way of the school building they planned to build to which
they answered no. Last October she stated the Supervisors requested a meeting and a workshop with the School
Board which was held after the election. She stated she received a call the day before that workshop from the
School Board stating they wanted to run the meeting and had their own agenda. Mrs. Starr stated the meeting
had been called by the Supervisors and the School Board had materials available for the public supporting their
position. She stated the School Board members wanted public comment and the Supervisors did not allow
public comment at their workshops; but then held a meeting at a later date to discuss the details. She stated it
was a terrible meeting with both having their agendas and it went no where. She stated the Supervisors had
planned it, had our GIS Administrator there, our Engineer Department personnel there, maps, a computer for
easy reference and all the tools necessary to have a productive workshop. Mrs. Starr stated she did not want
anyone to think the Supervisors did not cooperate because they did to the best of their ability. She stated as
Mr. Kennedy stated we made a zoning change to accommodate the need. She stated she felt the Supervisors
were set up for that workshop.
Ms. Kircher stated in the 90’s she gave to School Board member Carol Kutscher information on every
subdivision that was on the books, whether they were active or inactive to give them all the information they
needed to plan. Ms. Kircher stated they had known for years everything that was out there and did not do any
planning. She stated they never told the Supervisors about the Herbein Farm so we could help them plan, and
after that they told us all they would need was to build behind the Lausch building. Ms. Kircher stated the
Supervisors offered to give them the land where the Dunn Community Center stands that would have met all
their needs and they turned it down. She stated throughout the years, even though the members of the Board of
Supervisors had changed, they had tried to cooperate with the School District. She stated she was very
frustrated to be told we had not cooperated when we had. She stated all we said was we wanted to protect what
valuable little amount of farm land we had left because you can not replace land and we needed farm land for
our farmers to grow food. She felt there were other places to build schools.
|
|
|
Exeter Residents Keep Their Home! Judge Denies School Board Attempt at Eminent Domain of Private Citizen!
|
The following is:
The Order of President Judge, Jeffrey L. Schmehl
In the Court of Commons Pleas of Berks County, PA
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2008, after argument held and a review of the applicable case law, it appears that the Exeter School District has condemned land that is not zoned for its desired purpose. This renders the condemnation void as an abuse of discretion. The condemnation purposes of the Exeter School District viloate the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation District of the Exeter Township Zoning Ordinance. It does not appear likely that the Exeter zoning will change any time soon.
Pursuant to Appeal of Octorara Area School District, 556 A.2d 527 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1998), the ".... condemnation of an entire working farm for school buildings projected to be needed over the next 5 - 12 years" cannont be maintained and ".... is beyond the eminent domain power...." Accordingly, it is clear that the land cannot now be used for such purposes, and may possibly never be legally used for the purposes the Exeter School District desires.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Preliminary Objections of Condemnees, Jordan L. Bausher and Elizabeth M. Bausher, His Wife, to the Declaration of Taking by Exeter Township School District are hereby SUSTAINED.
Therefore Exeter Township School District's Declaration of Taking is hereby STRICKEN.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The Bausher's are very happy to be retaining their family home of over 110 years and they are placing all 150 acres of the farm into the Oley Township Ag. Security District to prevent any further attempts to take their land by eminent domain.
|
 |
| Don't have Adobe Acrobat Yet? To read the PDF Files, Get it by clicking the link. |
|
|
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
|