What are those new cameras on Hamilton Boulevard traffic signals?

So, what are those new cameras on Hamilton Boulevard traffic signals?

The cameras being installed along a sequence of signals on the Boulevard are part of the hardware package for the townships new traffic adaptive “smart” system. It’s not yet activated but will be later this summer.

They will be used by the automated adaptive system to “sync” green light and turning lane phases corridor wide. Each signal will communicate in real time via a wi-fi system to coordinate traffic flow.

Here is a very nice overview of a similar system.

#PlanSWL opportunities – Take the survey! Get involved.

1.Did you get this postcard in the mail? 
Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 9.24.08 AM
If so your participation in planning the future of Southwest Lehigh County is needed! If you got the postcard in the mail it means you were randomly selected to participate in the ‪#‎PlanSWL‬ survey.

Unfamiliar with #planSWL? Click here – What is #PlanSWL? If you got the card, please make sure go to the link and take the <10 minute survey. It’s your future, your priorities and your community. Make your voice count! 


2. If you did NOT get the card. You can STILL participate!
 (The random selection was to ensure a control group for validity reasons – please do not “stuff the valid box” – Only fill out 1 time)

To take the survey please visit www.planswl.org and click the yellow header on the top of the page that says “Click here to take Survey“.

Lower Macungie BOC Agenda Preview Jan 8th 2014

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

Hearings: NONE

Communication/Letters The agenda has 4 letters concerning Quarry Park. All expressing opposition or concern for various reasons. I have a feeling er are going to keep getting them.

One is from former Commissioner Roger Reis who I didn’t always agree with but I do on this issue. Former Commissioner Reis writes:

Bruce,

I know it’s late in the game but I would appreciate you informing the BOC that I am against spending over three million dollars for artificial turf. A property tax was enacted last year, which I did not support, because it seems there wherever more money becomes available, politicians immediately want to spend it. Three million dollars is almost 20% od the annual LMT budget. It is not a good investment.

Roger C. Reis

More letters again express the common theme that most residents aren’t against spending money on improving our parks. They are against spending money on synthetic turf. This is what I am hearing from most residents.

Here is a collection of research and answers to FAQ’s I’ve collected on a blog post.

Appointments to Boards & Commissions Lots of appointments on the agenda tonight. 1. Appoint Alan Fornwalt of Keystone Engineering as Township Engineer for 1 year.
I support this. Alan has big shoes to fill replacing Bill Erdman who was with the township for nearly 4 decades. While I do support further exploration of an *in-house township engineer and will continue to do so as long as we have Keystone I am very happy our man is Alan Fornwalt moving forward.

Overview of in house vs. outsourced engineer issue:
*Lower Macungie puts plan for in-house engineer on hold

We will also be appointing volunteers to the Building Code Appeal Board and the Public Safety Commission.(PSC) For the PSC I support re-appointing the incumbents and will recommend this as the committee chair.

For the Planning Commission in addition to supporting re-appointment for Ann Bartholomew I will be making a motion to also appoint an Ad-Hoc member from our list of applicants. Here is a memo I wrote to fellow Commissioners last night outlining my justification:

Commissioners,

I wanted to formally voice my support for Ann Bartholomew to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission. I will bring a copy of this memo tonight. 

Ann has for a long time been a very strong member and consistently brings up unique historical context to discussions. But her contributions are not limited to this alone. Jim’s original recommendation was a different direction but he has since decided to recommend Ann. I agree.

In addition to Ann I will also be recommending an Ad-Hoc member and suggesting Hillary Smith to full the role. Hillary has interviewed twice now for the position. She has a technical engineering background and brings a perspective missing on the board as the mother of school age children in the EPSD. Hillary is also in her mid 30’s. Current projects in township are and will continue to target “young professionals”. (East Texas mixed use, Grandview etc)

Currently that is a perspective missing on a board that has an increasingly high average age. Reality is often we have a senior dominated planning commission reviewing communities geared towards young professionals. This of course is a strength as we continue to review and look at policies relating to our current and future over 55 developments, but a weakness in terms of perspective relating to “young professionals”. This being a demographic we are actively seeking to attract and are competing with other municipalities who seek the same.

Based on a conversation with Chairman Keister I also worry about the possibility of losing multiple senior and experienced members of the Commission within a short time period. Since the Planning Commission is such a detail oriented and technical board I think this could hurt the dynamic. 

While it is true that our staff members very capably guide the planners in terms of carefully considering  the technical aspects of land developments and long term planning questions it’s my opinion that nothing compares to “time at the table”. Especially on such a technical board that tackles long term planning projects.

After conferring with Irv and others it is for these reasons and the fact that I also dislike turning away well qualified volunteers who have applied more than once that I believe a non-voting ad-hoc seat is very appropriate. This would be very similar to the Zoning Hearing Board and the Public Safety Commission. Both of which have alternates or Ad-Hoc members who sit at the table.

Facing the potential of losing multiple veteran members at once we have to ensure we foster a deep bench.

While of course this wouldn’t guarantee that the Ad-hoc member would be “in line” to be elevated to the board should a vacancy present itself it would be logical choice to consider. 

Ron Beitler

We will also be appointing members to the building code board of appeals, the EAC and the Zoning Hearing Board.

Budget Analysis:
Of interest in the year 2013 we collected:
660,000 in real estate transfer taxes (82.5% of forecasted)
4,951,713 in Earned Income Tax (99.0% of forecasted)
415,483 in Local Services Tax (118% of forecasted)
Totaling just over 6 million dollars. It looks like the deficiency in real estate Transfers was made up in LST. This translates to more workers in the township than anticipated and less real estate sales. But it looks like they were a wash.

Dept. Matters

Engineering
Planning
Manager
Year end report:
2014 Lower Macungie Managers Reportphoto
Solicitor
Cable Franchise Agreement

Committees

Public Safety
Budget & Finance (Conrad/Lancsek)
EAC recommendation for EIT referendum to fund open space:
The first of two proposed funding mechanisms for open space preservation remains on the Budget and Finance agenda. I am unsure where this stands. It’s been in committee for a long time. The EAC has answered all proposed questions including drafting a lengthy white paper on the issue. Considering a referendum was one recommendation of the parks and recreation comprehensive plan.

Planning & Zoning (Lancsek/Beitler)
EAC recommendation for open space funding:
This committee still has the EAC recommendation for Real Estate Transfer taxes associated with the Jaindl rezoning to be earmarked for Open Space preservation. I 100% support this and look forward to a vote by the full board on this. This is another open space preservation funding mechanism that has been brought forth.

I outline my support of this initiative here: Open Space funding proposal use Jaindl real estate transfer money

Public Safety (Beitler/Brown)

General Administration (Higgins/Brown)
Review of LMYA land use agreement.
I suggest anyone with interest in this take review the attached draft and responses from LMYA regarding the current draft of the agreement. You can find it here in the agenda detail.

Public Works (Brown/Higgins)
Authorize study for Brookside Rd. signalization project. I have alot of thoughts on this.
And I am hoping to be able to do a second blog post just on it. Basically we are choosing between moving forward a traffic signal on Indian Creek and Brookside (relatively inexpensive and already warranted and on Act 209 plan) or making improvements to the existing signal at East Texas & Brookside. (Very high price tag) If this recommendation is putting a “train on the tracks” so to speak or making this a decision to move forward one or the other I do not support it. If it just to gather more information before making a decision at a later point then I am in favor. I would like to see numbers and more information/suggestions from our engineer but at this time I favor moving forward Indian Creek signal before East Texas and Brookside. But am interested to hear rationalization for emphasis on Brookside and East Texas. They both need to be addressed but as a matter of priority I place emphasis on Indian Creek at this time since it’s closer to “shovel ready” and can be funded from additional sources. (Development)

Authorize KCE to perform survey/plan for Hamilton Boulevard bike paths: I support this. Study will allow us to “piggy back” off a future penndot resurfacing project therefore saving substantial amounts of money. The bike lanes are a recommendation of the Hamilton Boulevard corridor study. It’s one of many but represents an incremental step forward to carrying out the general theme of making our commercial corridor less like Macarther Rd. and more like a traditional Main St.

Recommendation for a Dog Park location – Basically the Parks and Recreation board has identified it’s preference for the townships first dog park. A dog park has been eluded to but is not on the official 2015 budget. I agree with the Parks board recommendation that the priority should be Camp Olympic as the location of the townships first dog park. They indicate they feel Camp Olympic should be the location of a second someday. I also agree with that.

 

The Homestead program is about the long term

Last night after a year of consideration we passed the homestead exclusion ordinance. Here is an overview. I proposed this program in January. After having to do some leg work to get it considered (initially told we couldn’t do it) the board finally adopted the ordinance last night.

One item I wanted to clarify is the program is not a reduction of the millage rate. Some statements made last night could lead people to believe that. It does reduce the tax bills for homeowners it doesn’t for renters, commercial or industrial properties. This is important to understand.

The millage rate in Lower Macungie remains at .33. There was no reduction. What we did was enact a program to lower tax bills of primary residences for those enrolled in the program.

SHORT TERM: With Homestead the reduced bill is based on a reduced assessment. The average Lower Macungie tax bill goes down 19 dollars. This is a good thing. We do our part, the county does it’s part and the school district holds the line. It all does add up. Just like small tax increases over multiple taxing bodies adds up, small overall reductions do also.

I get why some focused on the short term. Framing it as a “tax break“. Politically makes sense for those trying to justify spending 13% of our entire township budget on synthetic fields. But it doesn’t help outline long term benefits. Because focus last night was on short term political narratives the programs long term benefits weren’t explained well. The long term potential is the true value of the homestead exclusion program. To cash in we need to stay focused on that.

LONG TERM: Long term fiscal sustainability means the township must balance the books. Revenue on the positive side. Liabilities on the negative side. Lower Mac continues to build out strip shopping centers and Industrial warehouse properties. These types of land uses create massive liabilities while generating pound for pound very little in revenue/acre. (see example below) The rezoning of 700 acres of farmland (farmland generates net positive revenue – High ROI) to allow warehouses and strip commercial (Very low ROI) will cost the township more in the long run. The beauty of homestead is that if maxed out it allows us to give a 50% reduction on homeowners tax bill.

As the township balances the books as a result of proliferating low ROI land uses homeowners should not have to pay increased taxes because of dumb growth decisionsTo do this we need to:

1. SHORT TERM – Part 1: Adopt homestead exclusion. (We did this last night)

2. LONG TERM – Part 2: Adjust the millage rate and max out the homestead reduction (2015)

With homestead exclusion after we max it out a resident who owns a home in Lower Macungie should always pay a 50% discounted tax bill (via 50% reduced assessment). While we still collect 100% of revenue from industrial and commercial uses.

Residents are intelligent in Lower Macungie. I don’t believe in feeding them talking points. Yes, 19 dollars in your pocket is nice but homestead is a long term play. That’s why I proposed it. Again, I get why some hi-jacked the message and crowed about it last night. Made for a tidy narrative as they tried to justify 3.3 Million in synthetic fields. Great political play. But unfortunately since the program wasn’t really explained in detail the bigger picture benefits were glazed over. This is what’s important. The 19 dollar bill reduction was a bonus. A good thing. But my goal is much bigger. Long term resiliency.

Bottom line: After the one time windfalls of growth is gone the township will eventually need to “balance the books”. Homestead makes sure residential properties aren’t shouldering the burden created by Industrial warehouses and Commercial strip malls. 

Distribution warehouses are one of the lowest ROI land uses for a local community.

Warehouses do not generate enough revenue to cover the liabilities they create. This includes increased need for police protection, specialized fire equipment, massive road improvements and general wear and tear, and low ROI per acre of land lost.

Warehouses do not generate enough revenue to cover the liabilities they create. This includes increased need for police protection, specialized fire equipment, massive road improvements and general wear and tear, and low ROI per acre of land lost.

To address the long term in 2016 I will propose a full 50% homestead reduction with .50 to .66 mil property tax rate: (the Millage should be increased in conjunction with maxing out the homestead % but more work needs to be done to determine how much)

  • Under proposed .66 mil property tax if you own a home at the township average of around 250,000 dollars your tax liability is 165. (Remember, that is local LMT tax not school or County)
  • Under a homestead exclusion program that grants a 50% assessment reduction on a primary residence the assessed value (for purposes of tax calculation only) is cut in half to 125,000. Therefore the tax bill is also reduced by half to 82.50. (Current level)
  • Meantime Commercial properties such as a distribution warehouses valued at 24,000,000 pays the full assessed value at .66 mil which would be 15,800. This is double the 2014 bill of 7,900.00.

All this is part of a long term plan to address underlying fiscal sustainability. But we have to stay focused. Another part is farmland preservation. Want to lower taxes? Preserve farmland. #saveitorpaveit. Preserving farmland is the number one quality of life issue in the township. By committing to it among many benefits we avoid having to build more infrastructure, provide more services, and we do our part to keep enrollment in EPSD stable.

Rt. 222 bypass: Road, Street or Stroad?

I subscribe to a notion that to get the highest return on investment from roadways we should clearly define what they are supposed to accomplish. We should then design them to serve that purpose.

bypass

Pictured is the Rt. 222 Kutztown bypass. A well designed ROAD with on/off ramps and low accessibility paired with highway geometry allows for 55 mph speed limit. This ROAD safely moves automobiles quickly and efficiently through this corridor.

 

ROAD  

  • High speed by design 
  • Highway geometry
  • Low accessibility
  • A place for automobiles only. This facilitates safely moving them at high speeds.

 

 

East-Blvd-After-Dual-Left-Hard-Turn-Lane-e1357934233263

This picture is a similar representation of the Hamilton Boulevard vision outlined in the 2013 corridor study. This boulevard has Bike lanes, landscaped medians, street-trees and sidewalks to create a friendly pedestrian environment. Traffic travels at safe speed through calming measures. This means high land value for adjoining commercial properties. This STREET will generate a high return on investment for the community.

 

 

STREET 

      • Slow by design
      • Complex environment
      • High accessibility
      • A place to capture value and encourage commercial development
      • Designed for all modes of transportation. A generally pleasant environment.
      • Facilitates high value development

 




So which type is the the bypass and which is the boulevard? The argument I would make today is that they are both closer to side by side Stroads. A Stroad is a street/road hybrid. Where a futon is a piece of furniture that serves both as an uncomfortable couch and an uncomfortable bed, a STROAD moves cars at speeds far too slow to get around efficiently but way too fast to support productive private sector investment. The result is an expensive mess that really does nothing well. As taxpayers why do we spend public money on very expensive things that don’t accomplish any goal particularly well?

 

STROAD

Here is the Macarther Rd. STROAD. An obviously dangerous place for pedestrians. But despite highway geometry this does not move automobiles quickly or efficiently either. Lots of accidents. Dangerous for automobiles. Dangerous for pedestrians. Very expensive to build and maintain. Jarring environment. Not very pleasant place.

STROAD 

      • Does not move automobiles quickly or safely
      • Dangerous for pedestrians
      • Very expensive to build and maintain
      • Encourages low value development.

 







Side by side stroads is the direction we’re headed today.

STROADS are the futon of the transportation network.

STROADS are the futon of the transportation network.

On the Rt 222 bypass today we clearly have a stroad. It was built with highway geometry but because of traffic signals instead of on/off ramps we’re limited to a 45 mph. Therefore the bypass doesn’t move cars very efficiently or quickly. Because it doesn’t our increasing volume of local freight traffic reacts logically by using shortcuts and local roads. The bypass is also very dangerous. The Millcreek intersection particularly. The whole thing is quite frankly a speed trap since the posted speed doesn’t correspond to the design speed. Therefore: STROAD

On the the boulevard we have a developing stroad. As of late township staff worked hard to require higher quality development. (I acknowledge that but we still have work to do. And the bar was very low..and that we are constrained by our dated zoning code) Still, most road improvements have been of a stroad flavor. This directly conflicts with stated goals of safety, value and walkability. It also fundamentally encourages low value strip development. For ex. planned driveways off of Hamilton Crossings will be super sized and therefore super fast. That will not make it a very safe place for people. Therefore businesses will respond rationally and over build parking lots, seek oversized signage, supersized driveways ect. All this eventually compounds and you wake up one day with Macarther Rd.

To fix this we need to STOP and all get on the same page and decide once and for all what purpose we want these two roads to serve.

Keys:
Bypass – Purpose to move cars efficiently and quickly between clusters of destinations

  • Grade separation on the bypass. Get rid of the signals and build ramps.
  • Raise the speed limit to 55
  • Limit access

Boulevard – A vibrant community center. A multi-modal corridor.

  • Calm traffic using techniques/strategies outlined in Penndots smart transportation manual.
  • Transit corridor
  • Make safe for everyone. Sidewalks, landscaped medians and bike lanes
  • People oriented
  • Fix our zoning code to allow high value development (as opposed to only strip malls)
    • Neighborhood Commercial

 

How do we safely move freight in Lower Macungie/Greater Lehigh Valley?

For better or worse we’re now in the business of moving freight in Lower Macungie Twp. Much of our former agriculture land (which was at one time very high ROI, low impact and great for property values) is now or about to become warehouses. (very low ROI and extremely high impact terrible neighbors)

Moving freight is now a huge part of our local and regional economy. Because of that, local governments have to address the issue.

How do we achieve balance between the needs to move freight and safety/quality of life?

How do we achieve balance between the needs to move freight and safety/quality of life?

In Upper Macungie distribution warehouses probably always made sense due to a location directly adjacent to I-78 with direct highway access to all points N, S, E & W. In Upper Macungie they have the ability to separate the trucks from residential portion of the township. Here in Lower Macungie we are much further from interchanges. Therefore, trucks coming in and out of the township to and from the warehouses are frequently ending up on local residential roads. Day and night trucks rumble through Macungie and Alburtis intermingling with pedestrians and residential neighborhoods. In Lower Macungie we see them on local roads such as East Texas Rd, Spring Creek Rd, Sauerkraut Ln, Willow Ln ect.

In the next 10 years the amount of warehouses will double. The biggest of these mega warehouses are forecasted to generate up to 40 trucks an hour 7 days a week and 24 hours a day. The problem will only get worse.

We need answers. Moving forward how do we balance the needs of a safe, livable community with the need to efficiently move freight? I’m not sure there is a blueprint. Are there any other examples of areas that have gone this far overboard with distribution warehouses? 

Continue reading

Guest blog – Jim Palmquist: Walk this way: Lower Macungie becoming pedestrian friendly

The following was submitted by Jim Palmquist the chair of the LMT walkways group. You can view the website here. It also appeared as an op-ed in The Morning call.

Surprise, surprise. Lower Macungie Township, the place where almost everyone drives wherever they go, has a major section that is almost completely walkable. About a quarter of Lower Macungie residents live in a walkable community! Who knew?

Lower Macungie is a place where thousands of people can walk or ride bikes on walkways to a drug store, grocery store, state liquor store, medical and dental offices, banks, churches, convenience stores, restaurants and other merchants and services.

walk way

 
But wait, there’s more!. Continue reading

Time to sign kids up for playground program

Registration is May 28th for the LMT playground program! Connections to neighborhood parks create a vibrant sense of place. They are one of the quickest and most effective ways to cultivate a sense of community and improve our quality of life. The extremely successful Lower Macungie playground program has been doing this for years. I remember participating in a version of the longstanding playground program as a kid many years ago. My neighborhood playground was and still is East Texas Park. These connections to my hometown are a big reason why I decided to stay here in Lower Mac in the same neighborhood I grew up in. In fact this summer I’ll be getting married in the ET park gazebo.

How to enroll:
LMT residents may enroll children, ages 6 to 11, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Wednesday, May 28, into the 7 week summer playground program. More information here.

The cost is $110, and the program is open to LMT residents and runs from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Monday, June 23, to Friday, August 8 at the community center 3400 Brookside Road. The program offers arts & crafts, games, sports and a few pool days. Each program includes a series of special events including:

  • Special Game Days
  • Pizza Days
  • ‘Rita’ Days
  • Complete the Playground Season with a fabulous Round-Up Day.

The program is offered at the following parks: Quarry Park, Church Lane Park, East Texas Park, Wild Cherry Park and Hills At Lockridge Park.

Pictured: East Texas Park Gazebo

Pictured: East Texas Park Gazebo

Connect with Lower Macungie:
Official LMT Facebook Page
My Commissioner Page 
Follow on Twitter
Sign up for LMT email alerts

Lower Macungie Yardwaste Recycling center: Hours and information

Did you know Lower Macungie has a very successful yard waste recycling center and program? Any township resident can take advantage of the recycling program FREE! This includes both drop off of waste (we take all kinds of yard waste ranging from tree, branches, stumps to grass & leave clippings) and pickup of humus and mulch!

CURRENTLY WE ARE STILL OPERATING UNDER WINTER HOURS: The yard waste recycling center, located at 5536 Indian Creek Road, operates from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday only during winter hours.

Click here for hours and list of acceptable waste.

*SUMMER HOURS START MAY 1st

UPDATE:

2015 Loading Service available: *Every Saturday during the months of April and May we offer a loading service from 7:30AM to 11:30AM, while supplies last. There is a $15.00 fee per loader scoop. There can be no refuse drop off while compost is being loaded. Due to traffic concerns, we recommend you not come to the site until 1PM to drop off yard waste or to shovel/load mulch yourself. Cost: Starting at $15.00 (small pickup truckload or small trailer) *No drop off of yard waste during loading service hours.

THANK YOU FOR RECYCLING YOUR YARDWASTE – Remember, dumping in public open spaces is illegal.

Traffic impact fee suddenly does not apply to Hamilton Crossings.

This is extremely disappointing. First, here is an article the Morning Call posted tonight. And here is the WFMZ article which delves just a little deeper. We have two issues:

1. The fact that this just came out now. These fees have been discussed as part of the township narrative regarding Hamilton Crossings for almost 3 years. How on earth can we just be discovering now that the fees don’t apply? I am having trouble wrapping my head around that.

Was all the talk about waiving the fees purely theater by the former BOC? Was this always just a bullet point to try to convince County Commissioners LMT had ‘skin in the game’? Was this always just posturing by township officials on behalf of the developer?

2. The ramifications of the township traffic impact fee ordinance. (TIFO)  The 2009 TIFO was enacted by the first appointed BOC so that the township could address traffic issues associated with hyper growth on a global scale. The alternative is to piece-meal improvements together one development at a time. Credit should be given to Commissioner Doug Brown who was one of the drivers of the impact fee.

Traffic Impact Fees: Here is a great 101

What the impact fee theoretically should have allowed us to do was collect a dedicated fee that could be used in various township wide (the study breaks the township into two zones) to address big picture traffic problems on a township wide scale. The problem is the 2010 board never seemed to have buy-in. It should never have been waived for the Jaindl rezoning and the Hamilton Crossings deal should never have been struck without accounting for it’s collection.

As an example to how the fee works. Hamilton Crossings has to (no matter what) mitigate the traffic caused by the center to get certain required PENNDOT approvals. This is the baseline for any project. It has to happen. But these improvements rarely address the regional issues or the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.

If we would collect the full 2.7 million dollar fee from Hamilton Crossings we could use that money to address the half dozen or so “pinch points” identified in the 2009 impact study. This allows us to address not only the problems directly adjacent to the center but problems that are a result of hyper growth in general. This money could be used right away or banked for 10 years or until the study is updated. (an update which is sorely needed since we’ve grown faster then the plan predicted)

So now that apparently the impact fee is all the sudden moot, I believe this is more reason that the township should not participate in the TIF and lose 50% of the new revenue over the next 20 years. This is most certainly money we will regret giving up 10 years from now when the township is reeling from congestion issues.

UPDATE: Paraphrased from a conversation with a member of the 2008 Traffic impact fee committee.

The seeds of the issue were planted in early 2008 when the court-appointed commissioners, following the recommendation of Commissioner Doug Brown, started the process to generate a transportation impact fee. I think that the intent to establish the fee may have been advertised, but a resolution creating the Transportation Impact Fee  Advisory Committee (TIFAC) was never presented or passed. The responsibility for this major error was never assigned to the Commissioners, nor to the then solicitor, (Blake Marles) Interim township manager or the paid TIFAC consultants.  After the advertisement of the ordinance in March 2009, Atty. Zator discovered the error, and all of the previous action of the TFIAC and township was nullified.As a note, this fee then was much larger than the one now in place. The township scrambled to restart the process correctly by creating the committee anew on April 16, 2009, but before it could, many development plans flooded in during the window of opportunity, thus avoiding any future impact fees. I was not aware that Hamilton Crossings plans was among them.