Category Archives: Development Watch

Development Watch is a monthly blog that outlines development and land use issues in Lower Macungie Township, Emmaus, Macungie borough and the East Penn Area

Inexplicable decisions…..

Posted on by

I commented on a proposal to preserve the Kratzer Farm property at the last BOC meeting. I’m going to capture video and post later on this week.

Read my full position here.

The board was asked if they would consider applying the 86 acre Kratzter Farm to a county conservation program that would permanently protect the open space. To sweeten the pot, the program actually pays the township to do it. $5000 /acre. So say 50 acres of farmland on the property gets accepted into the program thats 250,000 dollars directly to the township coffers. I can think of alot of ways this money could be used.

Friends LMT requested a free preliminary review of the property and it ranked very high indicating it is likely funding would be granted.

The response by Commissioners made no sense. Of the two that spoke up, Ron Eichenberg stated “We don’t have time to hold a hearing”. This demonstrates 1. He didnt understand the request, 2. He is clueless or 3. This just happened to the straw he grasped at to make the request go away. First, we only asked for the application to be filled out. It’s no different then any grant application. Second, the board doesn’t ever hold hearings before authorizing staff to apply for a grant.

Another Commissioner went on about the house, driveway and barn. They are earmarked to be sold off. My position is that the house and barn and specifically the driveway should not be sold until the Parks and Rec comprehensive planning committee has a chance to review the big picture. This issue of subdividing this 1.5 acre portion is completely unrelated to applying for permanent preservation mechanisms for the remaining 84.5 or so acres. Again, two separate issues.

Yes, perhaps it would be appropriate for a hearing once it comes time to actually take action. But for now the request was just to keep the door open for further deliberation by applying. To me it’s a no brainer that represents another failure to attempt to protect our remaining open space and farmland.

My position on the Kratzer Farm open space

Posted on by
Position Statement Kratzer Farm
Importance/overview: The Kratzer Farm is centrally located adjacent to the Village of East Texas. It’s strategic centralized location makes it readily accessible to thousands of residents easily and safely within walking distance. The park was purchased by a previous Board of Supervisors 15 years ago for the intent of land preservation in a rapidly growing township. The scenic landscape and fertile limestone soil make this a community treasure.The adopted greenway plan will further improve walking access and functionality of the park. The Kratzer Farm should be a destination, centerpiece and focal point of the greenway system preserved permanently as a nature preserve, passive park, community garden and working farm.

The Kratzer Farm – Township Owned Open Space strategically located in the center of the township

1. The house, barn and driveway should not be sold until the results of the Parks and Recreation comprehensive plan is complete. The farm specifically should be the focus of an agenda item at a future parks and recreation comprehensive plan meeting. The committee should be the body that determines whether the house, barn or driveway presents any value in regards to the overall goal of a permanent centralized large passive park.
2. The farm should be permanently preserved as soon as possible. To accomplish this goal:
A. The township should apply to sell agricultural conservation easements to the Lehigh County. The annual deadline for submitting an application is March 31st. According to a representative from the program the parcel would likely be valued a high priority since it contains fertile limestone soil. Currently the program is paying up to 5000/acre for preservation. I am estimating proceeds of selling the rights (the township still owns the property) could net up to 250,000 dollars.

Question & Answer – TIF Funding/Hamilton Crossings

Posted on by

Rec’d this question today. I thought it was worthy of a blogpost answer.

From Facebook - William DeMauriac - Ron, what is your position on spending tax revenue on any private project like the Hamilton Crossings?

1. My position is two fold. First. The development itself is a good project, but more importantly it’s in the right location. Aside from making development pay it’s own way with elected officials ensuring projects that receive waivers and exceptions provide the community an return on investment, smart growth is guiding growth to appropriate locations. Location is everything for this massive shopping complex. Costco will attract regional shoppers, the location is ideal since our interior residential roads will not be affected by non-local traffic.

Further, the developer Tim Harrison is community conscientious. And trust me, I’ve heard the song and dance developers give in front of our BOC and Pcom many times over the last 3 years. After personally sitting down with Tim last week I am confident he is genuine in his desire to build a project not only himself but the community can be proud of. He has shown a willingness to go above and beyond.

2. Secondly we have the funding mechanism. There are questions to be answered still. What will the terms be? As you know, the TIF committee meetings which consist of reps from the Twp, EPSD and County are occuring now an ongoing. I appreciate those including Percy Dougherty and others from the EPSD who requested these meetings be public. Unfortunately, that request was denied. The argument made was that developer finances will be discussed. I’m of the mindset that when seeking public funding, your finances become the business of the public.

Moving beyond that however, one of my personal goals is to encourage growth that does not rely on the taxpayer to shoulder burden. Elected officials should be questioning the terms and conditions of the TIF every step of the way and be willing to let the developer walk if the terms and conditions do not benefit the community from a lifecycle cost benefit analysis perspective.

Too often our elected officials in LMT are all too willing to give away something (waivers, exceptions, density, intensity) for nothing. This is a fundamental focus of my campaign. I’m not anti growth I’m pro smart growth. The fact that officials argue we still need economic development after 2 decades of robust growth is proof we’ve grown in an inefficient way. After two decades we should be in pretty good shape. To indicate we aren’t by claiming we need growth is fundamentally telling. It’s time to stop and evaluate the status quo. Win or lose I hope my candidacy will force that conversation.

Thanks for your question William.

Ron

 

Development Watch: Allen Organ Rezoning on agenda this Thursday.

Featured

Posted on by
Contents
  2. The controversial Allen Organ rezoning is on the agenda for this Thursday’s Board of Commissioners meeting. The ordinance was advertised in January and will likely be voted on at the meeting.

The controversial Allen Organ rezoning is on the agenda for this Thursday’s Board of Commissioners meeting. The ordinance was advertised in January and will likely be voted on at the meeting.

Currently the 36 acre parcel is zoned commercial but has multiple unique constraints that make it difficult to develop without a special new zoning district. These include floodplain, location adjacent to a railroad and a dog-leg shape. To make the project economically feasible the developer has proposed a zoning ordinance that will allow up to 200+ apartments along with a 75,000 square foot supermarket with gas pumps.

Given past statements by current commissioners including board president Ron Eichenberg (who also happens to be the Realtor of the project) the ordinance is likely to be passed. I continue to have major concerns with the traffic impact on Rt. 100 and Willow Lane.  I do not believe we should be considering zoning change requests to expedite development in the western corridor of the township. We should instead concentrate on infilling the appropriate corridors such as areas surrounding Hamilton Boulevard and the By-pass. These areas can handle the traffic impacts of largescale development without the need for costly improvements and avoiding negative impact on the residential portions of our township.

What I would have advocated for differently:

One alternative is targeting tracts for preservation west of Rt. 100 using mechanisms such as a transferable development rights program. Here landowners can be fairly compensated for their property by selling development “rights” to other developers seeking enhanced, new or special uses, greater density or intensity, or other regulatory flexibility.

The Allen Organ parcel may have been a perfect candidate for such a program. We could have allowed this development to occur but only in exchange for preservation elsewhere. These programs are in place throughout the state. Everyone wins. The developer seeking more intense uses has options to acquire them, landowners who should be fairly compensated for their development rights are, and the community at large seeking to protect our quality of life has a mechanism to ensure it.

The key ingredients for a successful TDR program are all here; a strong real estate market; community consensus for conservation, and a community willingness to accommodate smart growth. All we need are leaders willing to explore these alternative options.

1/4 Allen Organ LVPC comments letter

Posted on by
1/4/13
Board of Commissioners,
I would like to encourage you to address the recent comments by the LVPC regarding the proposed Allen Organ Ordinance. I believe this is an example of building an ordinance to accomodate a sketch plan vs.  the best interests of the township. We must not compromise on interconnectivity simply because a site has unique constraints. (the creek, dogleg shape and the railroad) Sara and the Planning Commission have done a good job but this one issue still remains. I’ve commented on this in the past.
Here is why this particular comment is so important. It’s outlined nicely by the LVPC. The County Comprehensive plan has a policy of preserving arterial capacity by reducing local trips. When we force short local trips onto our arterial roads we create congestion. This leads an endless cycle of expensive “improvements” in attempting to increase capacity. This is nothing more then a perpetual band-aid.
I would encourage the board to read carefully the LVPC street connectivity guide. As well as other connectivity formulas that are out there as examples of how to address this issue. We must stop developing in isolated pods that dump the majority of traffic directly into single large arterial intersections. This issue needs to be addressed before passing this ordinance. The negative impact on Rt. 100 and Willow lane could be a major issue moving forward with the Remington Plan. Please remember, the carrying capacity of Rt. 100 also directly affects Macungie Borough where my business is located.
Respectfully,
Ron Beitler
5540 Lower Macungie Rd

My letter to Commissioners re: Walkability Willow Lane Elementary Corridor.

Featured

Posted on by

A Stalker Board in conjunction with 15 MPH speed limit school zone. Stalker boards tell residents their speed and alert them to slow down if they are over 15MPH when the light is flashing.

Commissioners,

I’ve recently written about some suggestions for “enhanced” safety features for the Willow Lane Elementary Corridor. Specifically:
  • Considering stalker boards in conjunction with all 15mph lights and the long overdue school zone designation on roads where students will be entering the campus with priority on Willow Lane since it is a 35 MPH road.
  • Considering raised crosswalks on the interior of the school campus (This would be a EPSD responsibility)
  • Consider Lighted LED crosswalks similar to the borough of Macungie with a priority on Willow and Saurkraut.
  • Considering pedestrian refuge medians at appropriate crosswalks not located at intersections. (I believe there is one suggested by the district study on Saurkraut)

This is an opportunity to not only ensure students and parents safety but to support walkers and walkability in general. This board has on many occasions expressed support for walkable communities. There is no doubt that this corridor is very popular for bikers, walkers and runners of all types. Please consider these options when developing a safety plan for this corridor. These enhancements support the idea of our connector roads not just being mechanisms for shuttling cars but being complete streets (a tool of smart growth) that truly link our neighborhoods.

Respectfully,
Ron Beitler
5540 Lower Macungie Rd.

Dec 7th BOC will vote on Allen Organ Ordinance

Posted on by
A few months ago ‘Friends LMT‘ submitted a position statement to the planning and zoning committee (Doug Brown and Ron Eichenberg). We felt that further action on the Allen Organ property should be postponed until the results of the Smart Growth Implementation plan are adopted.

 

Remember, the purpose of spending 20,000 dollars in taxypayer money is to completely review our outdated zoning ordinance. As a part of this process residents should be given a forum to voice our thoughts on the way we should continue to grow our township. Currently a draft of the plan is being prepared with input from our planning commission.

With Allen Organ we have a developer who is requesting a special exception to our current ordinance. They’ve submitted their own rules allowing residential units in a commercial zone. Previously our planning commission was working on a “mixed use” concept. We were supportive of the effort to create a truly integrated walkable concept. It seemed we were headed in the right direction, rolling up our sleeves and working out a township serving ordinance. At some point for some reason the process was abandoned. A few months later the “mixed use” language was scrapped and we were presented with a new “duel use” ordinance with some window dressing but overall much less smart growth principle.

I suspect the board killed the previous attampt due to density concerns. With a true smart growth ordinance density should not be an issue. In fact it can be a good thing. We need density in APPROPRIATE locations with appropriate integration to the surrounding community. The market is changing, demographics are changing. Our township needs more multifamily units to balance our tax base. That being said the previous iteration of the ordinance was heading the right direction. Then it stopped…

‘Friends’ believes we should work towards TOWNSHIP serving ordinances. Here we have a developer holding up their square peg. It’s very clear they need a certain number of units, certain configuration, certain requirements to make money of the project. When we as a township consistently allow developers to write our ordinances for us then of course they are going to create a square holes for their square pegs. But what if the best interests of the township are round holes? Why are we spending money on a consultant if we’re just plowing ahead with development before the results are adopted? (we only have a few precious greenfields left, this is one of the larger.)

All too often we present rubber stamps to developers. On December 7th this board will have another chance to show it works for the residents who elected it and not the developers.

Note: Ron Eichenberg board president is the realtor on this property standing to gain a substantial windfall from it’s sale. 

It’s OK to grow! Contrasting 2 development plans

Posted on by

‘Friends LMT’ is not anti growth. We recently got some press in a couple outlets for our support of the Hamilton Crossings Development.

Even Friends for the Protection of Lower Macungie, which has been critical of some of the township’s planned development, has voiced its support for the project. Mcall

We don’t arbitrarily decide what we support and don’t. We take potential projects and apply the 10 principles of smart growth. Here is an example of 5 of the ten smart growth principles contrasting the Jaindl Development with the Hamilton Crossings Development.

(Note we look at this plan purely from a land use standpoint, we don’t take a stance on the funding mechanisms specifically the grants or TIF’s)

1. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities: Perhaps the most important criteria for our support of Hamilton Crossings. (HC) The project is being built in the designated commercial corridor of the township. This both according to county and local planning. The lions share of the infrastructure is already in place with the bypass.  It’s now all about prioritizing by seeking a return on investment to maximize taxpayer dollars. HC accomplishes this big time.

Contrast this with Jaindl. Costly new infrastructure must be built to accommodate this development on the fringe of the twp. The Jaindl development is an example of the suburban sprawl ponzi scheme.

‘No large up-front bet’
“The smart growth approach requires no oversizing, no large up-front bet with public money, no stifling congestion if the system doesn’t respond as predicted, no more building multimillion-dollar industrial parks to gamble on attracting jobs.

And remember first and foremost a fundamental principle that outlying greenfield development is NEVER smart growth. Which leads us to….

2. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas: It’s not just quality of life. Although that is a huge part. It’s a building in a  sustainable way thing.  And yes, that means both environmentally but equally important fiscally. Smart Growth dictates that you build according to a transect.

Smart Growth Transect

Smart Growth Transect – From the Urban Core to rural

What leadership did in the 80′s was correctly re-zone the area’s west of Rt. 100 to agriculture protected. This remained for 20 years without challenge (until Jaindl saw his opportunity with the current BOC) The ag zoning would have ensured that the fringes of our township remained protected. Allowing development to concentrate in the appropriate core. Jaindl will essentially blow the whole transect out of proportion. Putting an extremely high concentration of high density housing, strip malls and warehousing in the most inefficient place away from services, away from infrastructure. Who pays the price to subsidize this? The taxpayers. In contrast HC maximizes investments already made. Over the course of a lifecycle cost benefit analysis it’s highly likely that HC will pay dividends to the taxpayer for decades. (The real winner being the school district)

Of course you can also make the case that the headwaters of Creeks that provide drinking water to Allentown are environmentally sensitive areas. But the environmental argument against Jaindl development is obvious. Here we’ll concentrate on dollars and cents. Greenfield development NEVER balances out in terms of cost vs. benefit. It simply doesn’t. 

3. Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices: The Hamilton bypass corridor is currently the focus of a transportation study the results of which will be applied to the corridor to even further assure it will be able to handle the traffic generated.

The hope is to eventually provide fast, efficient public transportation options for workers who can take a bus to get to their jobs along Hamilton and industrial parks in Upper Macungie and make a pit stop at one of the various shopping centers on their way to and from work. Township officials hope it will also contribute to the revitalization of the villages of Wescosville and Trexlertown.  

Again, the Jaindl development is creating traffic where currently there is nothing but cornfields. This will most assuredly lead to tractor trailer traffic bleeding onto residential streets and gridlock on Rt. 100.

 4. Mix Land Uses: The Hamilton corridor will be a shining example of mixing uses when it offers expanded transportation choices, by creating a setting that better serves a range of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles. Residents will have be given a choice on whether or not they choose to use their cars and if they do, traffic will flow efficiently because the area was designed to handle it. This is all due to the proximity of COMPATIBLE land uses. This is a fundamental flaw with Jaindl development. Warehouses are naturally incompatible with residential development. The Jaindl development is slamming a square peg in a circle hole to maximize profit at all costs. By locating services away from the core on the fringe even if you do provide say public transportation the cost to the taxpayer is more expensive then the Hamilton corridor which is closer to the core. Also by mixing land uses as the corridor does, fire and police protection are more

5. Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective: Perhaps the biggest knock on the Jaindl development. It’s well documented the flaws in the process. A confidentially negotiated MOU, changing a 20 year zoning precedent without proper notification and without meaningful public input, a developer whose lawyer says basically ‘this development is happening regardless of the the community thinks’. This is perhaps the perfect example of predatory development.

Vs. HC and a developer that goes out of his way to work with the community. A process (perhaps amplified by the TIF application) that is clearly in the public realm. Every resident knows exactly whats on the table for this property. Perhaps no other project in the history of the township has the public been better informed on the issues surrounding it. It’s clear the developer wants to build an interesting, unique place which reflect the values of the people who reside here. They are definitely heading in the right direction. We challenge them to take it even further.

HAMILTON CROSSINGS COSTCO TARGET

Work to be done…

The Hamilton Crossings Project is not perfect. But it does have promise. Right now the project is seeking funding. Some have issues with the public funding portion. Additionally the developer is seeking dozens of variance requests. Including one serious red flag regarding maximum impervious coverage. Residents will need to monitor this carefully.

Envision LV Public Meeting Tonight 6pm Macungie Institute

Posted on by
Contents
  1.      

Residents concerned with how the East Penn region will grow over the next 20-50 years are invited to express their concerns at a public meeting tonight at 6 p.m at the Macungie Institute on Main Street in the Borough of Macungie.

“Lets determine our future by choice, not by chance,” is the guiding principle of the “Envision” meeting.

The meeting is the second of many to be held this fall throughout the Lehigh Valley to get peoples’ opinions on what kind of quality of life they want to have once the building boom is finished. The population of the Lehigh Valley is expected to keep growing at a rapid pace. Join others who want to make sure we don’t destroy our quality of life with overdevelopment, congestion and loss of our beautiful open space.

RENEW Lehigh Valley, a consortium of local officials and citizens, is sponsoring the meetings. If you care about where we are going and what we are becoming, please attend and give your input.

See you tonight at 6pm at the Institute?

FYI a second local meeting will take place in Lower Macungie on 10/16 from 7-9pm at the community center.

Envision is a partnership of the:
Wildlands Conservancy
LVEDC
LVPC
RenewLV 

DEVELOPMENT WATCH: Productive discussion last night on Lumber St. new daycare closer to reality.

Posted on by

    

Last night Borough council approved plans to relocate Lumber St. clearing the way for the construction of a daycare center on the Lumber Street property.

This is a great plan for a couple reasons aside from obviously developing a gaping whole in the middle of the downtown streetscape.

1. Upgraded Lumber St. at reduced cost to taxpayer. Lumber St. now is pretty much a gravel road that sees a fairly high volume of traffic. It’s a shortcut for anyone coming into town from Brookside who turn onto Lehigh St. Someday regardless of what happens with the lumber yard the Borough was going to have to address the situation. The potential new owners of the property, Christine and Joseph Devineare essentially contributing 1 dollar for taxpayer dollar to upgrade the street.

This is a winner for the Borough. Instead of the taxpayer coming in and having to pay the lions share of 400,000+ dollars the borough is only on the hook for roughly half. Excellent example of a private/public partnership. Win/Win.

2. The Recreation component. With a land development plan the developer must either contribute land or pay a fee. The Devines have offered to dedicate the bank of the mountain creek as open space and a pathway to the Borough in lieu of paying. This potential dedication will make an excellent addition to the borough path system. Better yet, the borough can wait and decide on whether to accept the dedication after seeing the pathway, gauging usage and value to the community. Again it’s Win/Win.

3. Business people working together. If I have one fault with this plan it’s losing 3-4 spaces on Main due to un-avoidable site line restrictions. However, I’m very happy to see all the players involved working to build more off-street parking behind Main. If there is one commodity that is absolutely invaluable to a suburban Main St. it’s parking spaces adjacent to the downtown. My one comment is I would love to see the Devines or a combination of landowners involved in the deal replace the 3 public spaces being lost with dedication of 3 public spaces on the Main St. end of the project so there isn’t a net loss of public parking.