Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Land Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board says Nazareth Nest is not a minor amendment; developer must pay current recreation fee

Lower Nazareth Township Board of Supervisors · June 10, 2026

Summary

The Lower Nazareth supervisors voted 3-0 June 10 that the Nazareth Nest land‑development plan is not a minor amendment of the earlier Residences at Meadowview plan, meaning Nazareth Nest must pay the recreation fee set after June 2023. The developer executed the land‑development agreement and posted security, but the board declined a timing change for fee payment.

The Lower Nazareth Township Board of Supervisors on June 10 voted 3‑0 that the Nazareth Nest plan is not a minor amendment of the previously approved Residences at Meadowview, rejecting the developer's bid to pay a lower recreation fee.

Justin Huratiak, the Nazareth Nest representative, argued the new plan was "virtually the same" as the earlier retirement‑village plan and asked the Board to apply the lower fee. Solicitor Gary Asteak countered that "virtually the same is not identical," and the Board agreed that Nazareth Nest — approved in 2025 after the June 2023 fee change — is subject to the current recreation fee schedule. A motion by Supervisor Stephen A. Brown that the plan is not a minor amendment passed 3‑0.

Asteak cited Ordinance No. 155(8), which requires recreation fees to be paid at plan recording unless the fee exceeds $15,000, in which case payment is due at building permit application. Because Nazareth Nest's recreation fee exceeds $15,000, the solicitor said the fee is due at the time of building permit application; the Board made no motion to alter that timing. Huratiak nonetheless executed the land development improvements agreement and the solicitor noted security has been posted, allowing submission of a building permit application that must include the recreation fee.

Why it matters: the determination affects the developer's upfront costs and sets a precedent for how the township treats successor plans related to previously approved developments. The Board explicitly preserved the developer's right to appeal the determination if he disagrees. No arbitration or fee‑timing relief was granted at the meeting.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source