Essential Character

To the editor:

Your June 20, 2000 article, "'Character' has developer stumped," on the Lincoln Meadows project in Elmwood Township did a good job of presenting this controversy from the perspective of the developer. However, there is another side to the story.

Much is made in the story of the vagueness and difficulty of the concept of "essential character" which, according to the zoning ordinance, should not be damaged by any conditional use within the AO-1 zoning. But the idea of essential character is implicit in all zoning. After all, why are landfills or factories usually not allowed in residential zoning but for the fact that they would be out of place with and detract from the character of the area? In the same way, it's clear that this 58-unit condominium development, which represents a 420% increase over the basic, by-right density of the area, is incompatible with the essential character of the Agricultural and Openspace district..

The fact of the matter is that the developer, Mr. Armstrong, made a speculative investment in some land, hoping that a compliant Planning Commission would grant him the conditional use he requires. Now that the Planning Commission has exercised their mandated responsibility to evaluate such a project and rejected his plan, he cries foul. But the Planning Commission has no responsibility, legal or moral, to ensure that developers make money. Rather, its responsibility is to plan for the future of Elmwood Township in such a way as to minimize unfunded obligations to its taxpayers, promote sensible growth and, yes, preserve the essential character of the area. We hope that the Planning Commission will act on Tuesday 27 June to protect the interests of Elmwood citizens and taxpayers, not to insure developers from risk.