Inconvenient truths

I would like to respond to a guest column, “The battle for the Slab Cabin Run watershed,” published on July 14. I disagree with some statements and maintain a different point of view on some issues. Although I am a Ferguson Township supervisor, opinions expressed are my own and are not stated as a position of the township.

In 2004, 26 acres of the land on Whitehall Road was rezoned from agricultural zoning to high-density residential zoning (R4). An additional 14 acres was already zoned R4. I was on the board at that time and I can categorically state that, while we were advised by the township manager and by regional planners that at there was no need to rezone on that side of Whitehall Road and that we should consider location in relation to the wells, there was not a “cacophony of warnings” to the board. The rezoning passed the board in a split vote. The combined parcel was added to the regional growth boundary by a unanimous vote of the Centre Region municipalities.

It is an inconvenient truth to opponents of the development that zoning gives the property owner certain rights, which the township has no authority to deny. On land that is zoned R4, the property owner has a right to build a development that conforms to the R4 zoning regulations. It is true that the current development plan does not meet this criterion. There is, however, an approved land development plan that provides rights unless and until the state Supreme Court were to rule otherwise. There is a reason that the plan was approved even though it does not conform to R4 regulations. The plan was submitted as a Planned Residential Development, an alternative to the underlying R4 zoning. It incorporates significantly stronger groundwater protection and includes significantly fewer residences and parking spaces than would be allowed under the R4 zoning.

The column stated that the plan does not meet requirements of the current stormwater ordinance. In fact, although it was not required by law that it meet the new ordinance, it was engineered to do so as part of the PRD conditions. The column further stated that the development presents risks to the region’s water supply, citing behind-the-scenes conversations with the water authority. While I don’t know what statements have been made off the record, I can refer to a joint public meeting of the water authority board and the Ferguson Board of Supervisors held in 2015. At that meeting, the designated water authority representative stated that the risk from this development is “minimal.” Also, at that meeting, I repeatedly asked water authority board members if they could identify any significant risk, even a small one, that would lead to this development causing damage to the water supply. They repeatedly stated either that they could not identify such a risk or that they could not answer the question.

Opponents of the development state that there are no studies specifically assessing risks posed to the wells by this development. While the word “specifically” may give a hook to say that this is a statement of fact, engineers representing the developer did perform testing that far exceeded the normal standards, at the request of the water authority and the township. The results of this testing did not indicate any problems at the site, a conclusion that has been acknowledged by the water authority.

It has been suggested that we should assume the existence of a problem on the grounds that there is no definitive proof that a problem will not develop, even though hydrogeologists have found that there is no reason to expect it based on the testing that was done and general hydrogeological principles. I suspect that the people making this suggestion would categorically reject a suggestion that we should assume climate change is not a problem, despite the claims of climate scientists, since there is no unequivocal proof that sea levels will rise over the next 20-50 years. In both cases, decisions should be based on the professional analysis of available evidence, not the lack of proof of the unprovable.

Finally, a question is raised about the legality of including 5.5 acres of agricultural land for stormwater treatment in development. While Judge Jonathan Grine did rule in favor of the plaintiffs and against Ferguson Township on this point of zoning, that ruling was overturned. The column states that the Commonwealth Court ruling was based only on timeliness of the land use appeal and not on the merits of the underlying argument about zoning. This contention contradicts their own appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is built on the argument that this particular ruling on timeliness constitutes a de facto ruling on the underlying issue and that, for that specific reason, the Supreme Court should hear the case. They also fail to mention that, despite a well-orchestrated effort to convince the public that the real issue is water quality, they did not present any evidence to the court in support of that argument. Instead, they argued the case in court based entirely on interpretation of zoning law.

This story was originally published July 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM with the headline "Inconvenient truths."