Carr Tract

Eco-Bucks continues its efforts to protect the Tinicum community and its environment. Main Street Development, Inc. is seeking to overturn Township ordinances that protect the community’s agricultural soils, water supply, and other natural resources. Eco-Bucks is defending against these assaults, both at the Township level and in the state’s appellate courts.

At the appellate court level, Main Street is continuing its quest to develop the Carr Tract on the East side of Route 611 at its intersection with Durham Road. The tract is approximately 25.14 acres and currently contains an active farm with a single family residence. Main Street proposes an apartment complex that would consist of 192 dwelling units contained in 12 buildings, each 4 stories high.

The Township’s Prime Farmland and Agricultural Soils Overlay District requires that 75% of any prime farmland and agricultural soils on a property be protected. Based on the amount of agricultural soils on the Carr tract, there are approximately 6 acres that can be developed. Main Street’s own civil engineer has acknowledged that Main Street could build 4 apartment buildings, consisting of 64 apartment units, while still respecting the limitations on developing prime agricultural soils. Nonetheless, Main Street filed a challenge to the Township’s Agricultural Soils Overlay District, claiming that it deprives Main Street of the reasonable use of its property.

Eco-Bucks has opposed Main Street’s efforts and has defended the validity of the Township’s Agricultural Soils Overlay District. Eco-Bucks prevailed before the Township Board of Supervisors, but Main Street has thus far won on appeal, first before the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County and then before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

In June 2011, Eco-Bucks and the Township filed petitions with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking the court to review the Commonwealth Court’s ruling. Eco-Bucks has asked the Supreme Court to allow an appeal to address three questions:

(1) whether a municipality’s zoning ordinance provision can be found to unreasonably limit development where the subject property can be developed at a density of approximately three (3) units per acre in accordance with the subject ordinance?

(2) whether a developer can prevail in a substantive validity challenge even though he can make reasonable use of his property and even though the developer has not established that the ordinance has an exclusionary effect?

(3) whether the provisions of an “overlay district” ordinance may only supplement rather than supersede existing zoning district ordinance provisions?