Category Archives: Smart Growth 101

Smart growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices. The term ‘smart growth’ is particularly used in North America. In Europe and particularly the UK, the terms ‘Compact City’ or ‘urban intensification’ have often been used to describe similar concepts, which have influenced government planning policies in the UK, the Netherlands and several other European countries.
Smart growth values long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over a short-term focus. Its goals are to achieve a unique sense of community and place; expand the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices; equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development; preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources; and promote public health.

CEPTA to present speaker on public pension reform

Posted on by

Last month I attended the inaugural LV Smart Growth Summit. The most valuable seminar I participated in was unfortunately sparsely attended. This wasn’t a reflection on the quality of presentation which included Gerry Cross from PA Economy League, Easton Mayor Sal Panto and Tom Baldridge. But rather the fact it was going against a program called “The Biz of the Niz”. NIZ of course still remains the hottest of hot button topics in the LV. (Today over at LVR Bernie writes about the NIZ)

The presentation was “Seeing Red: PA Municipalities & Maintaining Local Gov’t Services”. Dealt with long term fiscal sustainability of municipalities. Bottom line fiscal health of our places is why I feel so strongly about smart growth. Under our current model, it’s not a matter of ‘if’ but rather ‘when’ a municipality becomes distressed.

The overarching problem is two-fold and the presentation addressed both:

1. When tax base increases do not keep up with increases in liabilities. This is “Dumb growth”, the chasing of ratables and doubling down on the growth ponzi scheme are a huge part of this.

2. And equally important is the public pension issue.

Together they’re 1 and 1a in terms of issues facing PA gov’ts. Often in PA municiple personnel costs are upwards of 70% total expenditures. PA with our 3,200 individual local gov’t pension plans accounts for 25% of all plans in the nation. 2/3 of plans have 10 or fewer members. Most alarming is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Tomorrow night (Tue Nov. 18th) at 7pm CEPTA will have Simon Campbell speak in a presentation entitled “Public Union Reform”. This is an important conversation addressing concern number 2. Public pensions are always a contentious topic since here in the commonwealth so many benefit directly and indirectly from them. It’s institutionalized here in our state. It’s why it’s so hard to “fix”.

I am un-familiar with Campbell and I’m looking forward to hearing his thoughts on solutions. Here is the overview from the CEPTA website:

Mr. Campbell will discuss the expected increases in taxes due to the rapid escalations that are expected to replenish the underfunded public pension funds. The most recent account of the state’s two major pensions shows they are underfunded by a combined $47 billion, and this assumes the funds will grow by 7.5% annually. Funding these pensions will cause increases in all taxes, including school taxes, just to start to close this gap. Eventually every dollar of school tax increase may go just to fund pension obligations and teacher contracted raises and benefits.

Simon Campbell thinks he has a solution to the ever growing tax increases due to public employee contracted obligation. If you think your taxes are too high and want to find out how you can help control them come out and listen and ask questions of our presenter and see for yourself if it’s possible.

 

Interested in PA’s the public pension issue? Here is some more materials:

Call to local officials to attend fiscal impact analysis discussion.

Posted on by

I am so happy the presentation below is coming to Lower Macungie. Big thanks to our professional planner and staff for facilitating this. This is EXACTLY why I ran for office. I don’t like to pigeon hole myself by saying I have any kind of single agenda, but if I had to define one this would be it.

To me the fiscal sustainability of land development decisions IS smart growth. Smart growth is a big nebulous term. And people subscribe to it for different reasons. Quality of Life, Social Equity, Environmental. And yes, I think there is merit in all these conversations. But for me, none is more important for the Lower Macungie and the greater Lehigh Valley then the financial argument for smart growth.

Here in Lower Macungie that means conducting a cost benefit analysis to major development projects and all requests for rezoning of large tracts. Scattered, disconnected, low-quality sprawling growth is a wealth destroyer. The model we have subscribed to pushes off many of the liabilities of sprawl to subsequent generations. We have to break the pattern. It’s happening right now in Lower Macungie as we face the dedication of new roadways and storm water management facilities from the “growth boom”. We’re only now facing the problems of living off of one time revenue and windfall of growth without addressing financial sustainability.

The key for Lower Mac is “smart growth” on the Hamilton Corridor where we have already made key infrastructure investments and preservation of remaining open space tracts in the western portion of the township.

The quality of life case is obvious. But the fiscal argument is irrefutable. I hope this conversation gives us some more tools to start these conversations.

Nobody makes the fiscal argument better then Jim Bacon.

 

Join the American Planning Association, Pennsylvania Chapter, Lehigh Valley Section & Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for the fourth presentation in our Web/Audio Conference Series for Professional Planners, Municipal Officials & Interested Citizens

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AS A DECISION SUPPORT TOOL
DECEMBER 4TH, 2013
4-5 PM AT LOWER MACUNGIE TOWNSHIP, 3400 BROOKSIDE ROAD, MACUNGIE

DESCRIPTION:   Until recently, few jurisdictions prepared their own fiscal impact analyses to assist land-use decisions. But since the economic downturn, local governments have increasingly turned to fiscal and economic analysis as a decision support tool, particularly with an eye toward return on investment. This lecture concentrates on distinguishing between fiscal and economic impacts, understanding differences in local government revenue structures and how they influence the fiscal results from different land uses, and investigating how various communities use fiscal impact analyses to support planning and economic development decisions.  Experts from the American Planning Association will be presenting.

There is no cost to participate. To register e-mail Kathleen Sauerzopf  kms@lvpc.org or call 610-264-4544

 Hope to see you there!

 Becky Bradley – Executive Director of LVPC

85th percentile speed

Posted on by

Followup to my “Penndot in a nutshell” post.

Because context is completely ignored in the “East Texas” example the danger posed by those in the upper 15% is amplified

To try to make sure my criticism is justified I felt it’s important to understand the “85th percentile rule” or rather the way it’s applied. So I spent the AM trying to wrap my head around it. The better I understand it the crazier I think it’s application is.

What is the 85th % rule: 

The concept is rather simple: the speed limit of a road is set by determining the speed of 85% of cars that go down it. In other words, the speed limit is solely set by the speed of drivers.

 

Problems with this:

  • Drivers drive at speeds according to risk to themselves. Not other motorists or pedestrians.
  • When you have a system based on characteristics of drivers influenced by the environment, the solution is always to “change the environment” through “improvements” which are usually astonishingly expensive.
  • The 15% who exceed the 85% are the ones who… ya know. Kill people.
  • My biggest problem is the complete and total lack of taking into account neighborhood context. Meaning how does the road interact with the built environment? Is it a rural 35 road next to a cornfield or is it an urban 35 mph road next to a dense town center. Lower Macungie is no longer rural. It is urban. That ship sailed 20 years ago.

Transit blogger “Cap’n Transit” has the solution. Take the 85th percentile principle and flip it’s application.  Because context is completely ignored in the “East Texas” example the danger posed by those in the upper 15% is amplified. So flip the application of the theory. Cap’n transit suggests:

1. Decide on a speed limit based on the pedestrian, cyclist and built environment you want to see along this road. (In other words do not look at the road in a vacuum! CONTEXT matters)

2. Design the road so that 85% of drivers will feel comfortable traveling under that speed.

Voila. As “Cap’n Transit” points out “by reversing those two steps, we make safety a priority over speed, and we acknowledge the value of a safe pedestrian environment in maintaining a livable community.” Community context, in general this would leave the speed limit on the bypass where it is (where common sense says it should actually be higher…), but lower it where context dictates it.

South Whitehall should be playing Quarterback with King George Inn Preservation effort

Posted on by

Regretfully I wasn’t able to attend the South Whitehall Township (SWT) Board of Commissioners meeting last night. Sounds like the budding resident group advocating to save the historic landmark had a large enthusiastic turnout.

King George Inn Supporters Implore South Whitehall Commissioners – Mcall

Few thoughts:

First, the board is correct to state they cannot stop the demolition. As I’ve written I don’t believe in strict compulsory regulation as the best path to save historic buildings. Regulations should only be utilized in the most compelling cases. I believe in incentives.

What SWT should be doing is making preservation the path of least resistance. No, Commissioners can’t stop the wrecking ball but they can work with the developer. They should be playing quarterback in the effort bringing parties to the table. They can and should stand with residents who overwhelmingly want to see this building saved. They should also stand behind their comprehensive plan which calls for historic preservation. They have the moral responsibility to do so.

Again, here is an example. – Lower Providence adaptive reuse project resulted in preservation and incorporation of historic structure into a new development.

Working with elected officials, township staff, county planning
commission, and local interest groups, a site design and
village commercial zoning were created to save and reuse
the historic inn and allow the construction of a new
CVS drugstore. The property’s location at a congested
intersection posed many design challenges. Additionally the site had significant drainage issues. (Sound familiar?)

I know the gentleman who was a director of community development in Lower Providence when a similar activist group formed to save the Audubon Inn. (pictured above) Like SWT he was ready to sign the demolition permit. After hearing concerns he and other officials began working directly with the developer, county planners and interest groups.

No, SWT officials cannot stop the wrecking ball but they do have the moral responsibility to play the quarterback role leading the charge for preservation. Additionally the Zoning Hearing Board needs to do it’s job and put the burden of proof on the developer who must prove he has explored all possibilities to build this project without variances. Variances should be the exception not the norm. Developer must show a hardship. Based on what I’ve heard from previous meetings, the developer has made zero effort to explore incorporating the building into the development plan. This alone is reason to deny the requested variances.

 

 

First day for walkers at WLES

Posted on by

I rode my bike to WLES this AM to check out the 1st day of school. Could not have asked for a more perfect morning weather wise.

Couple observations:

  • The crossings guards I spoke with are all really great people. Talked to some working Willow/Sauerkraut and Millcreek/Sauerkraut.  They are all excited for and proud of the job they are doing. I think we really hit a homerun with the hires based on the gentleman and ladies I met today. Great job.

 

  •  I watched cars pull into the “drop zone” for about ten minutes during what I felt would be the busiest time. I timed 3 cars from the time they entered the drop off line til they exited. Once the cars made it down the driveway and entered the line the average wait was less then 2 minutes. Let’s say it doubles on a rainy day I’m guessing cars will be in and out in under 5. And this was day 1, the system should improve as they work out any kinks. Again, unscientific casual observations.

 

  •  I did see someone get pulled over. There will be a learning curb with 15mph zone. Before I rode my bike down I drove past the school. 15 MPH is VERY slow drivers do not realize just how slow until they do it once or twice. I do not think PSP were issuing tickets since the temporary signs are not technically enforceable. This I’m not positive about. I don’t think PSP should issue tickets right away unless someone is egregiously breaking the speed limit. I’m sure the minivan I saw pulled over today was, but she certainly didn’t stand out as if she was flying. I’d guess 20 in the 15? Again, just a casual guess.

 

  •  There were 2 PSP cars in the area. We were told there would be a police presence and there definitely was. The township manager and safety officer were also on hand. Fire Chief Nosal was also observing at the Sauerkraut entrance.

 

  • I’ve documented my thoughts on this issue over the last 6 months. I come from a unique perspective since walking and walkability were always big issues to me. In this particular area of the twp., WLES walking policy just amplified some items I think we should be doing in all areas of the township. (Better crosswalks, better pedestrian signage, walking paths and facilities ect.) I still do disagree with some decisions and still think arguing for certain enhanced measures was the right move however, I think what we did is working. One item I’m going to followup on is when I asked about the possibility of “stamped brick” crosswalks and outlined the reasoning why I thought it made sense I was told price was a concern. Now that the crosswalks are installed I’m going to be seeking line items of the cost. What bugs me is a big cost of the stamped walks are that you have to re-pave. Since we went with a certain type of paint you’ll notice there were crosses where we had to repave anyway. (the paint had to go on new macadam so the warranty wasn’t voided…) So I’m wondering what the final true difference in cost would have been. As I always point out the stamped walk at the entrance to Brandywine at Willow and Millcreek is almost a decade old and still in excellent shape and have so far needed 0 dollars to maintain over that time period.

 

  • Also seeing it in action today I still think enhanced signal is warranted at the Wheatland mid-block. During school drop and pickup we have the guards but a sign like below would warn motorists coming up the hill of a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Visibility is an issue here because of the grade. “beacons should be considered for use at crossing locations with significant pedestrian volumes where visibility is compromised by grades, curves or other conditions.” Wheatland crossing meets that criteria. Again, not a huge deal but these are things nice communities have. And a desire to maintain a nice community is why I do what I do.

Stamped Brick Crosswalk – I spoke in favor of these at Mid-block crossings and also on Millcreek where one is already installed.

Luckily today was one of those days where really I don’t understand why you would not want to walk. It was beautiful.

I do understand that there will be days where the weather isn’t so nice. We will definitely have to keep an eye on the issues on these days. But today everything went very well from my vantage point. Time permitting I’ll be checking out pick up. The only difference is there will be more cars on the road since I think thos corresponds with Mack Trucks shift change.

What this blog is.

Posted on by

I started this as a local news blog about 1 year ago. Really informal. Hobby. I wanted to get information ‘out there’ about the Jaindl issue. Raise awareness. First started on Patch but then wanted to catalogue my posts in one place.

At the time I wasn’t going to run for office.  I simply wanted to apply for a volunteer position at the township. After failing to get on the planning commission,  I thought I could get appointed to Parks Board (since ya know I had the support of the parks board..) and I thought it’d be cool to blog about our park system.. So I made a blog.

Fast forward to this happening….

That’s really when I decided I wanted to (well had to…) run for office. I had ideas and people seemed to think my ideas were good/interesting. The Board had different thoughts.

I wanted to see if the majority of voters agreed with my ideas. Turns out they did. At least Republicans during the primary. Gearing up for the primary campaign it was much easier to just convert my existing blog to my campaign site. I thought, heck it contains my thoughts on almost every big development issue. So I just left all the content on it and re-designed a little bit. Created the platform page and welcoming letter. I wanted a site that really dove into the issues. And my blog did that. So it made sense.

When the campaign is over it goes back. Some say it’s bad politics for politicians to blog. That it’s bad strategy. That you should be purposely ambiguous. . . No thanks.

As far as the future I’ve been lucky. The blog kind of took off. Didn’t plan it. In 1 year I had just over 5000 unique visitors of 7000 total and 21,000 pageviews. I have no idea if thats considered ‘good’ or not in the blogosphere but it’s more then I expected.

My weakness is I’m not a technically great writer. Not by any means. I write really conversationally and also oftentimes rushed. Blogging is a big time commitment. That I learned. My strength I think is that I do this cause I care about my community where I grew up. I don’t know all the answers but when I see issues I take the time to look into alternatives and read stuff written by and talk to folks with experience. Really I want to start conversations. Get people thinking about local issues and shine a spotlight on them. I think I’ve been good at that.

It’s even gotten some local, regional and national coverage and re-postings. Regionally I’ve gotten to guestblog on crossroads the Renew LV blog. One post got picked up from SmartGrowth America. Recently a nationwide conservative smartgrowth blogger reached out to do some collaboration.  There may be a conference of conservative smart growth advocates in DC I may attend. Exciting stuff.

For Manda – who puts up with my 2am blogging. 🙂

So yes, this is primarily a land use blog. That’s my passion. It focuses on the East Penn area but I also dive into interesting regional stuff. I also write about local gov’t in general above and beyond land use issues. I also write occasionally about national issues. But I try not to so much to take focus of the blog off local and land use. But I shake it up mostly as a self indulgence every now and then.

It also got me into blogging culture. I hit up my rss everyday and comment often on other local blogs. Check them all out on my blogroll to see who I read. I don’t always agree with everyone but I think the ppl on my blogroll contribute positively to the discussion. That’s what it’s all about. I think blogging is important. I think this post hits it. 

 

 

Words have meanings….

Posted on by

Last week I posted a blog after visiting my favorite mixed use project. The project is a good comparison for LMT since we’ll have more greenfield pressure here at in-fill locations. The post outlines critical ingredients that a mixed use project must have.

Throughout the last year I’ve taken issue with board members and developers giving projects certain labels that do not apply. Words have meanings. You cannot just call something ‘mixed use’ when it isn’t. Just because it ‘smushes’ two incompatible uses together on a small parcel or two totally incompatible projects are built the same time doesn’t make it a mixed use project. To label a project as something it isn’t is misleading. More harm than good is done when you lead the public to believe they are getting they aren’t.

The local media reinforces this when they regurgitate and parrot developers mis-use of smart growth terminology terms in articles. The Jaindl warehouse project is NOT a mixed use project. Despite Mr. J’s assertions. It just isn’t.

Tonight the township has a resolution to apply for a grant on behalf of Hamilton Crossings. In the grant resolution they label the project as mixed use. It is not. Again, not even close. The Hamilton Crossings project has potential, (though it should definitely not be subsidized with taxpayer money) I like the developer. Good guy. I think he’s community friendly. But this isn’t a mixed use project.

It’s a suburban strip shopping center. Perhaps the Cadillac of a suburban strips, but a strip nonetheless. You can maybe get away with calling it a commercial town center. But not mixed use. Mixed use means something.

Yesterday strongtowns posted this great new SID TV video. This reinforces what is and is not a mixed use project.

Modern zoning regulations are concerned primarily with how a property is being used. What is overlooked is how the buildings and other improvements interact with the public realm and each other.

The neighborhood in this video represents the opposite of mixed use. It is what we have in many locations here in Lower Macungie albeit ours are shinier and newer with superficial bells and whistles. You could make this same video about Caramoor Village. Or the Trexlertown Mall and apartments. Or even Hamilton Crossings. If neighbors ask for buffers you have a Euclidean segregated project. You buffer incompatible uses. If your dealing with buffers or buffering you don’t have a mixed use project. You have two incompatible uses.

Look at the neighborhood in the video then take another look at the Lancaster post. Go beyond the fact that Lancaster is ‘shiny and new’ and Brainard isn’t. Really look to form and function. How the neighborhood ‘works’. The differences are obvious.

Words have meanings and their meanings are important. Stop throwing around terms when the meaning doesn’t apply.

This is mixed use

Mixed use – Retail 1st floor, apartments 2nd floor. Intregrated design. Emphasis on pedestrians. Strong neighborhood character. Compact design. Compatability. NO buffers needed here cause everything works together.

This is NOT mixed use. 

Strip Commercial next to residential. Segregated, not compact, no neighborhood integration. Residents see backs of stores. Emphasis on buffers.

This IS Mixed use:

This mixed use development has distinct qualities. Residential and Commercial are integrated. Plenty of parking, but cars do not dominate here. No buffers needed here!

This is a warehouse adjacent to a housing development. This is NOT mixed use.

This is a warehouse development next to a housing development. Just because they were built around the same time doesn’t make it a mixed use project. This is two incompatible uses built (Smushed) next to each other requiring buffering. That is the opposite of mixed use. Emphasis on large supersized buffers.

Letter to Planning Commission 8/13 – Jaindl

Posted on by

Below is the letter I wrote to Sara Pandl our township planner and the Chair of the Planning Commission yesterday. The Spring Creek Subdivision is on tonight’s agenda. The meeting is 7pm in the township building. There are unresolved issues with the project and plenty of opportunities for the public to weigh in. Tonight is one of those opportunities. My letter focuses on defining the form/function of the landscaped berms which were a part of “Plan B”

It’s critical “watchdogs” continue to monitor this project as it progresses through the planning process. I strongly encourage anyone interested to attend tonight’s meeting. I’m guessing Jaindl will be discussed no earlier then 730pm.

Here is my letter:

Planning Commission,
Some thoughts on Jaindl prelim/final subdivision on tomorrows agenda. I really wanted to be at this meeting but I’ll be away at a conference.
Sara indicated a note about the bermed buffer areas in her letter. I believe it’s critical to define the size/scale/context/look of these berms very early in the process. We should really be pushing every step of the way for above and beyond buffering.

Below is a side by side comparison I made of two examples of landscape banking on warehouse projects. The “beefy” example is located in Quakertown. The other LMT. Our goal should be to exceed both.

Side by side warehouse landscaping

Defining the tone of this early in the process is important. Mr. Jaindl promised the community the cadillac of warehouse projects and planners have an obligation to push him to deliver. He remains and has been open to constructive criticism.
In addition to physical form, I think it’s also important to define what these berms are supposed to accomplish. In my opinion that goes above and beyond the obvious visual screening but also containing noise pollution. I’ve read multiple studies that conclude berms reduce noise by approximately 3 dB more than vertical walls of the same height. Most quarries have extensive earthen buffering. It’s my opinion distribution warehouses should be treated the same way since their impact on a community is comparable.

Those who live near warehouses in the Alburtis area cite the noise of tractor trailers backing up (beeping) as the one of the negative by-products of warehousing. 
Thank you
Ron Beitler

 

Mr. Jaindl explains plan ‘B’ at a public meeting.

Lancaster Mixed Use Development – possible model for Lower Macungie

Posted on by

I was very critical (and remain so) of the Remington Allen Organ “Dual Use” ordinance. What began as an important task of creating our townships first much needed community serving mixed use ordinance devolved into building an ordinance to suit a sketch plan and a developer. The process in my opinion was backwards and rushed. At least that was my observation as an outsider looking in.

I believe the result is a euclidean segregation of uses on an auto centric foundation. Meaning the sketch plan represents an apartment complex and a strip box commercial development smushed together. No real integration or compatibility. Not a mixed use development.

To make matters worse of course, the whole process was in my opinion sullied since the realtor of the project was a seated township commissioner. (Who at the time sat on the planning and zoning committee).

When I critique I always make it a point to give positive suggestions. In this case I sent the Board of Commissioners links outlining what I felt was a true mixed use development in Lancaster. Obviously, it fell on deaf ears. For two years now I’ve read about this development. Finally yesterday I was in Lancaster for work and I had the opportunity to check it out in person. Also coincidently google maps updated it’s streetview of the project. Here are a bunch of screen grabs.

This in my opinion represents the type of mixed use development we should be promoting. This is the type of development that will attract the coveted “young professional” demographic. This fits in line with my vision of becoming an exceptional place. Not another cookie cutter, cut and paste community.

I believe pictures tell the story. This is a beautifully designed and fully integrated mixed use community. Every detail seems to be well thought out. Everything works. Everything is contextually sensitive. The place oozes charm. People here can buy with confidence that they will maintain their property values.

One of 3 main residential sections looking towards the centralized “downtown” commercial. I LOVE the design standards of these homes.

Walking into the commercial area, there are Auto uses BUT everything is properly scaled. This bank works (even with the drive through) because of scale. Nothing in this entire development is highway geometry. Even with the auto uses, the focus was on pedestrians. We have a habit of over-engineering and supersizing everything here in LMT. This development wouldn’t work with turning lanes and supersized roads. No one would walk. It wouldn’t have any charm.
And you know what? I was here during “rush hour”. Cars somehow managed to get around. Best of all since the roads were built “right sized” traffic moved slowly. Not congestion mind you. But calmed. The foot traffic was amazing.

Walking between the Bank (outparcel also has a subway), the Mainstreet commercial with apartments above on the right and up to the left a mini mart! Again, everything works and fits together cause this design emulates a small town. Everything is “right sized”
No need for a signal here cause traffic moves at appropriate speeds so the 4 way stop works fine. (Again these are google images and before full build out, I was here yesterday during the “rush”)
And one of the Main desirable traits of mixed use, “the sell” really is traffic overall is reduced cause people actually walk places!

Between the Bank and Convenience store looking down “Main”. Here we have neighborhood commercial with apartments above.
Some of the commercial included: 4 restaurants ranging from fancy to “Faster” food.
The Charlotte Shoppe (gift shop), A spa, A doctor’s office, Spycom offices of a home security firm I think, Drycleaners, Mathnasium a tutoring facility.
The centralized walkable location of this corridor is what makes this development vibrant. It’s readily accessible to all 3 of the residential components the towns, the singles and the apartments.

Everywhere you look is beefy landscaping featuring 4 season appeal. This area will look nice in the dead of winter thanks to use of evergreens. You can tell the developer put thought into this. They didn’t just “meet the minimum requirements”
This is the parking for the “Main Street” neighborhood commercial. It’s BEHIND the storefronts. So the walk down main is pleasant since car storage is focused behind the buildings. This is parking for the commercial usage and the apartments.

The townhouse phase is still being built out and are in high demand. People WANT to live in walkable communities! This would possibly be considered a connector road but there are no reverse frontages. The townhomes feature an alley where cars are parked and homes are serviced with garbage ect. Bump outs and crosswalks calm traffic. More street facing retail.  I saw only one commercial vacancy in the whole project that featured a “coming soon” sign.

Another one bites the dust..

Posted on by

From the “Friends for protection of Lower Macungie Twp.” Facebook page posted by Friends board member Scott Bieber yesterday. Friends LMT started as a group that fundraised to fight the Jaindl rezoning. Since then they have expanded their scope to cover local issues in the entire East Penn area with a goal of advocating for smart growth and keeping residents informed. I used to be the chair of the group but stepped down to run for Twp. Commissioner.

In the following post by Scott laments the loss of another historic structure in LMT:

Another barn bites the dust as Lower Macungie leaves behind its agricultural past and moves into the 21st century.

The Morris Stine barn on Spring Creek Road at Route 100 is being dismantled to make room for a commercial development. The Pennsylvania standard barn, made of limestone and oak timbers, was probably built about 1840-1850, according to Greg Huber, a local barn historian.

Most of the timbers and all of the nice stones, especially the square corner stones, are being salvaged and will be recycled into new buildings, according to Ken Muth, who was hired by the owner to take down the barn. Muth is the region’s most prominent barn dismantler and has salvaged hundreds of barns and old buildings throughoust eastern Pennsylvania.

Muth said the Stine barn is structurally sound and in good condition.

I remember the barn being used when the Stine farm was still active in the 1960s. That was when the township was still dominated by agriculture and you could shoot a rifle in almost any direction and not worry about hitting a house.

SCB

The township loses another historic barn. This one off of Spring Creek Rd near Rt. 100.

(Photo Credit Scott Bieber)

These historic structures warrant protection. How do we do it? Do I believe we should mandate their protection? My answer is yes but no. No because in the end regulating isn’t the most effective way to protect. The solution that is best for the community but fair to the property owner is making these barns reflect their true community value through a form of de-regulation. How do we do this? The zoning code. By opening up more by-right uses of these historic structures we can make it a financially smart decision to keep these structures and rehabilitate them. Think about it, If a developer or property owner can rehabilitate these structures (like the new owner of the Lichtenwalner barn on Brookside Rd) and rehabilitation becomes the path of least resistance, then property owners are motivated to value them.

Unfortunately now, in a commercial context the path of least resistance is tearing them down and starting over with a cookie cutter strip. The problem is euclidean zoning limits what you can do with these structures. I would advocate for more permitted uses for historic barns.

So the solution isn’t regulating, but rather de-regulating. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this structure was saved because the developer/land owner could make just as much or more money turning it into luxury lofts or say a high end restaurant? Sadly, what we will get is the townships 3rd Dunkin Donuts, 5th convenience store or perhaps 4th box pharmacy in yet another characterless box.

The answer to keeping our local charm and protecting ALL our property values in this case isn’t regulating, but rather deregulating. This is what the concept of form based codes is all about. Conventional zoning tells you what you can put where. By it’s nature it’s restrictive. Form based zoning addresses the relationship between building and the public realm. It’s more flexible in use as long as the structure fits. It’s not so much the specific use, but moreso the form fits the neighborhood. This approach contrasts with conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses. It’s unlikely we would ever totally re-do our zoning into a form based code given we just spent money on updating our old euclidean code but we can incorporate some aspects. This is one opportunity.

The end result is something like this: (Which would you prefer living near?)

300 Year Old Barn Renovated Into a Modern Yet Rustic Residence

Instead of this:

Cookie cutter strip