Category Archives: Lower Macungie Township

Lower Macungie Township is a township in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, in the United States. It is a suburb of Allentown, Pennsylvania, in the Lehigh Valley region of the state. As of the 2010 Census, the township had a population of 30,633.[1]
Lower Macungie is the fastest growing area of Pennsylvania in terms of total population growth[citation needed] and is undergoing rapid suburbanization. Some fast-growing areas of the township include Ancient Oaks, Brandywine Village, Brandywine Village 2, Hills at Lock Ridge, Millbrook Farms, and Shepherd Hills. Its villages include East Texas, Minesite, New Hensingersville (also in Berks County,) Weilersville, and Wescosville.
In November 2007, township voters elected to make Lower Macungie a first class township in 2008.

Lower Macungie Meeting Agenda 10/17

Posted on by

FYI – This is a practice I started and will continue as a member of the BOC. With these previews while I may indicate a voting inclination, it in no way means my mind is made up on any issue. Back during a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner once spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong.

My hope is this opens the door for conversations before public meetings. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was people 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 and my thoughts on issues before they come to a vote  in front of the board. This is one mechanism to do that.

Plan approval for Spring Creek Properties Settlement Subdivision
It’s well documented I have opposed the Jaindl rezoning through the whole process starting in 2010. This deals with approving the settlement otherwise known as Plan ‘B’. Plan B which I supported as an alternative to not being able to stop and reverse the shameful rezoning of 700 acres of farmland to commercial, industrial and residential. I supported plan B since it represents a reduction of intensity of the project. The agenda detail for this item is massive. The resolution itself being 15 pages.

 

I would grudgingly vote yes for this item despite the plans not getting approval from the planning commission at this point. Why? Because the negotiations for plan B were in good faith.  Also the planning commission in their letter indicated they were only hesitant to approve because there were still issues to hammer out. They correctly stated they felt they couldn’t forward a plan to the Board of Commissioners they felt had some question marks. I believe on Thursday staff will announce an opinion that the issues have been resolved. If that’s the case my vote would be yes. Planning Commission concern dealt primarily with Jaindl guarantees to build his part of the Sauerkraut extension.


Please note, I am not in favor of the extension nor have I ever been throughout this whole process going back to 2 years ago. As a potential Commissioner I would be inheriting this terrible plan. I never felt it was appropriate to create a new costly arterial connecting what will be a warehouse district to our main residential areas. I remain fearful of the truck traffic further “bleeding” into our residential heart. Additionally the punch through will cost Lower Macungie and school district dollars. Specifically for Lower Mac, we must pay for a new “T” intersection near Quarry Rd. Additionally, perpetual maintenance of new signals and the roadway itself will be shouldered by the township. I am generally opposed to construction of new roads (taking on new liabilities) until cost and benefit analysis has been conducted and presented to the public. This is one reason I considered plan B somewhat a success because of a concession by Jaindl to keep the furthest westward expansion of Sauerkraut as a private road. This means the township will not be responsible for perpetual maintenance of a new road created almost solely to serve Jaindl’s development.

 

Here are the following questions I would ask during the hearing:

 

1. What are the total township liabilities being assumed in dollars immediately and over the course of multiple lifecycles. This includes new T intersection, down the road improvements and perpetual maintenance of new roads and signals.

 

2. What are the financial obligations of the school district? What does this mean in terms of the school budget? Note the district is responsible for a large section of “new Sauerkraut”.


3. What is:
a. Planning justification if any for the new road.
b. Engineering justification of the new road.

 

4. How exactly is it forecasted tractor trailers will get into and out of the new warehouse development.

 

Resolution 2013-27 – Estates at Millrace.
Another inherited project. I would support the recommendation of the planning commission and planning and zoning committee.
Other items of note:
ARLE Grant Work – This is a grant we rec’d from the Automated Red Light Enforcement program in Philadelphia. (there may be other cities as well)
Money made from fines is distributed in the form of grants. I support utilizing this money to further enhance Willow Lane walkability. Specifically the placement of a permanent “stalker board” and textured crosswalk at mid-block location at wheatland drive. I do not know if these are being considered but this would be my input.
There is a recommendation for Ms. Pandl (our planning director) to attend the next zoning hearing board meeting. I support this. I support almost all of the recent variance requests for Allen Organ and Hamilton Crossings. There are some sign variance requests I have issues with for Hamilton Crossings and I will attend the ZHB meeting to voice them.
Request for clarification of tree tenders recommendation for the EAC. 
I read that the next General Administration committee meeting is canceled. This is an issue because the EAC has been looking for direction on this issue since July now. It is now being put off again til late November. I have a problem with this. It’s time to address this issue.

Lower Macungie Trick or Treat 2013

Posted on by

Lower Macungie Trick or Treat is Oct. 31st 6-9pm

FYI – Trick-or-Treat Night in Lower Macungie Township is October 31st from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.  If you live in a neighborhood with a homeowner’s association check with your individual HOA for additional or alternate dates inside your neighborhood.

Remember, It’s a cold hard fact… On average, children are more than twice as likely to be hit by a car on Halloween than on any other day of the year. But it is COMPLETELY avoidable! –

Halloween Safety Tips from safekids.org Top Tips

  • When selecting a costume make sure it is the right size to prevent trips and falls.
  • Decorate costumes and bags with reflective tape or stickers and, if possible, choose light colors. Since masks can sometimes obstruct a child’s vision, try non-toxic face paint and makeup whenever possible.
  • Have kids use glow sticks or flashlights to help them see and be seen by drivers.
  • Children under the age of 12 should not be alone at night without adult supervision. If kids are mature enough to be out without supervision, they should stick to familiar areas that are well lit and trick-or-treat in groups.
  • Popular trick-or-treating hours are 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. so be especially alert for kids during those hours.

OTHERS:
Upper Macungie will hold Trick or Treat Night on Friday, Oct. 25, keeping with the tradition of holding the event on the Friday prior to Halloween.

Emmaus Trick-or-Treat Night is Thursday, October 31, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. There is no rain date.

Latest Mcall article on proposed Lower Macungie property tax

Posted on by

I am adapting this from a Facebook post I made this AM where I posted a link to the latest Mcall piece by Pat Lester. In it all seated Commissioners weigh in. (Pat by the way who does a great job of covering local Lower Macungie Issues)

I provided Pat a quote at his request for the article but it didn’t get included. Likely my fault. I was asked for 1 or 2 sentences and provided a paragraph. The short answer is ‘No’ I do not want a local property tax. I do not want ANY of my taxes to go up. No one who owns a home does.

The problem however is this issue deserves more thought then a boilerplate quote. It’s much more complicated due to unique circumstances here in LMT. I won’t be an elected official who waters down complicated issues to get a quote in the paper. Some issues lend themselves to that, some like this issue do not.

Below is the quote I provided. I’m unwilling to commit the township to another period of hyper growth to put off a property tax another 5 years. Not only will this hurt our quality of life, but one time windfall revenue associated with hyper growth does not make a sustainable financial policy. As the article outlines, we were able to eliminate the tax because of the large reserve fund that was the result of 40% growth over 2 decades. (Going from roughly 15,000 when eliminated to over 31,000 residents now)

Long term, sustainable low taxes are my goal. While I respect Commissioner Conrad’s opinion that taxes will inevitably be raised if we open the doors again, I respectfully disagree. We can have a stable low tax rate without fear of it rising. I don’t always see eye to eye with Ryan, but generally we’re in the same ballpark and he has been commenting about the subject on his social media and engaging residents which I always appreciate.

So how do we ensure that if we enact a tax we can keep it low? The answer is smart growth. Financial sustainability is precisely what smart growth is all about. Growing in a way where revenue exceeds liabilities and demonstrating this by conducting lifecycle cost benefit analysis of proposed zoning changes is critical. I have been consistently advocating for this for a little over a year.

This will be one of the first items I propose if elected in January. That any proposed up-zoning of open space or farmland be accompanied with a cost benefit analysis of the potential impacts. Remember, farmland and open space costs the taxpayers very little if anything in liabilities. It generates no traffic, it creates no crime, it puts no new students into our schools and it contributes positively to the tax base. We have no obligation to up-zone any property unless there is a financial benefit to the community.

Also of note I do echo Conrad’s call for the township manager to provide the BOC with a list of alternative tax/fee options to the proposed. 33 mill real estate tax. The First Class Township Code and the Local Tax Enabling Act provide several different tax/fee options that can be considered as alternatives to a real estate tax. These and all options should be explored.

The only option I personally will not support in any way shape or form is initiating another period of “hyper growth” through en masse zoning changes to artificially keep taxes low. That strategy is selling out the future. Relying on one time building permits, real estate transfer tax or the selling off of township assets does not make a sustainable or responsible fiscal policy. We’ve been playing with fire for a decade. It’s time to stop gambling and start planning. The fund balance policy was a fantastic start.

With smart growth yes, we can maintain a low sustainable tax rate. If we bury our heads in the sand and sell the township to the highest bidder for near term cash we will bury our future under a mountain of liabilities. Blindly up-zoning large swaths of agriculture protected land in the western portion of the township to industrial and commercial uses is doing just that. We cannot continue to swap short term gains for long term liabilities. The smart growth plan reinforces the need to encourage growth in locations where we get a return on investment since infrastructure will already be in place to handle impacts. Namely the Hamilton Corridor. Projects like Hamilton Crossings. (without the public funding aspect..)

Here was the quote I provided:

“The tax issue goes hand in hand with poor growth decisions. We’re now much closer to needing our own police force while our infrastructure obligations continue to grow. Over the years we’ve swapped near-term cash for long term obligations. This has hurt our quality of life and put us in an unsustainable financial position. On the horizon is a time-bomb of unfunded liabilities. No one wants to initiate a property tax but due to poor development decisions the luxury of having a choice may soon be taken away from us. If we don’t control growth now the tax we face now will be nothing compared to what we face in 10 years. “

Lower Macungie Township Budget Proposal and Managers Powerpoint

Posted on by

Each year the budget proposal is first prepared by staff under the direction of the Twp. manager. This years budget includes a request for a 0.33 mill property tax. This would be the townships first property tax in over a decade.

The .5 mill property tax was eliminated in 2003. – Mcall archive article

The property tax request and full budget will be reviewed over the next few months. There will be multiple opportunities for the public to weigh in BEFORE the BOC votes on the budget. This is the first step in a long process.

Below is the budget proposal cover letter and accompanying power point.

What’s next:

Over the next few months the seated Commissioners will debate the proposed budget. There will be a series of Budget Workshops (open to the public) where the budget will be vetted line by line. Big picture items such as the proposed property tax will also be discussed at length.

The current Commissioners will vote on the 2014 budget in December. (I will not be voting on this budget. New Commissioners take office on January 1st. However, I will be attending all budget workshops and will blog about key issues)

Township Managers – Budget Proposal Cover Letter (page 1)

Township Managers – Budget Proposal Cover Letter (page 2)

Township Managers Budget Proposal Powerpoint from 2nd Sept BOC Meeting.

LMT Board of Commissioners 9/19 agenda

Posted on by

FYI – This is a practice I started 2 weeks ago and will continue as a member of the BOC. With these previews while I may indicate a voting inclination, it in no way means my mind is made up on any issue. Back during a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner once spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong.

My hope is this opens the door for conversations before public meetings. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was people 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 and my thoughts on issues before they come to a vote  in front of the board. This is one mechanism to do that.

9/19 AGENDA DETAILS HERE

Executive session: Clerical Union Contract review. I believe Ryan Conrad and Manager Fosselman are representing the Twp. in labor negotiations.

Hearings and Approvals
Lehigh Country Club –  This is a good example of an appropriate usage of the new administrative review procedure to streamline the process for very small scale development projects. As you may recall I had (and still have) issues with this process based on the guidelines definition of “small”. The procedure allows expedited review of projects up to 10,000 square feet. A 10,000 square foot development is not a small project by most definitions. Picture a small bank or pharmacy with that footprint. 10,000 square feet is a little bit bigger then a baseball diamond to put it in perspective.

This particular project deals with an addition of an 1800 sq. ft mens lounge, 500 square ft. pantry and some relocation of walkways. This is a very small project and I have no problem with an administrative review. My vote would be yes on this resolution. 

Act 537 plan revision – I’m not sure what this item is specifically. A summary of Act 537 the sewage facilities program is below. I think this is just an update on progress toward compliance from the engineer? This is state mandated.

The Act 537 Program
Act 537 was enacted to correct existing sewage disposal problems and prevent future problems. To meet this objective, the Act requires proper planning in all types of sewage disposal situations. Local municipalities are largely responsible for administering the program. To assist local municipalities in fulfilling this responsibility, DEP provides technical assistance, financial assistance, and oversight.
The Planning Process
Municipalities are required to develop and implement comprehensive official plans that provide for the resolution of existing sewage disposal problems, provide for the future sewage disposal needs of new land development; and provide for future sewage disposal needs of the municipality. This official plan is sometimes called the “base” plan or the “Act 537 plan.” When a new land development project is proposed, municipalities are required to revise their official plan (unless the project is exempt from planning).

 

Macungie Borough Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment.
I attended a couple meetings of the Macungie Borough Planning Commission
to hear about their proposals. I think overall it’s a great update of their zoning and maps. If I were seated on the board now, at this agenda item I would ask our director of planning for her thoughts on a few items.

1. Brookside Country Club Zoning. This is a concern as we should plan for a disaster scenario where the club goes under and development pressure comes to this large parcel. The club and golf course is adjacent to and in some areas within the township.

2. Tyler Pipe. Due to it’s proximity to the township.

3. Commercial signage regulations. I would encourage if they aren’t already for the Borough’s commercial signage ordinance to match or exceed ours.

I would motion to forward comments based on our professional planners comments to my questions above.

Public Works & Facilities – Bid award for new meeting room. I am going to pay close attention to this item. I’m not totally convinced we need a bran new meeting room. I want to see the cost. We do need technology upgrades and better mechanisms for presenting agenda items to those in the audience. No doubt about that. For  example a better projector system for viewing of development plans by residents. Residents should see the same information commissioners see. However, I am not convinced the amount of money being spent is justified by rationale to move the room altogether. (to the ballroom) I am admittedly not completely up to date on these plans. I will be listening to this item with interest.

As a side note, 2 years ago I disagreed with elevating the township solicitor onto the Dias with the elected officials. As you may recall the Twp. secretary used to sit on the Dias with Commissioners. I had no problem with this as it was the best seat in the house for the secretary to perform her duties. Elevating the solicitor, especially at a time when the township was involved in legal actions defending a developer was inappropriate in my opinion. It’s all about messages you are sending to the public.

Elected officials represent the community and they oversee professional staff that works for the community not vice versa. I have less of an issue with this if we would elevating all senior staff members onto a Dias. That may be the plan. But what is the cost of what would be a massive Dais?

Perception matters and we shouldn’t place more emphasis on our solicitor over say our professional planner or our township manager. Both of whom opinions I place higher emphasis on then our lawyer whose job is to offer legal advice. This isn’t a knock at all on our extremely capable solicitor. Just that good management and planning should be considered first, then legal advice after planning and management context is given.

Tree Tenders Ad Hoc Committee
5 township residents attended Tree Tender training a few months ago. This item deals with EAC’s request to formalize a subcommittee tasked with forming recommendations to the BOC dealing with public trees. I am supportive of this. It doesn’t go as far as a shade tree commission (No quasi judicial authority) but it would forward recommendations to the Board for consideration. I support populating this subcommittee with a trained arborist, our planner and other appropriate staff and those who compete tree tender training. This would be a subcommittee of the EAC.

BOC August 15th – Agenda and thoughts

Posted on by

If elected I plan on posting each agenda to my blog as a preview along with my thoughts on each item before the meeting takes place. Julian Stolz does this on his blog.  Although I disagree with him from time to time, I do admire that he takes the time to do this. I think it’s a great service and I think all local officials should consider the practice. (Julian took the idea from US Rep. Justin Amash who outlines EVERY single vote he casts with detailed explanation on his social media)

Please remember, if elected In these previews while I may indicate my voting inclination, it in no way means my mind is made up. 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 felt. That was wrong.

I hope this opens the door for important conversations before public meetings. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was people 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 and my thoughts on every critical issue that comes in front of the board. This is one mechanism to do that.

Lower Macungie Township – Board of Commissioners August 15th 2013
Here is the agenda with supporting documents 

Hearings and Approvals:

What: This has been discussed at previous meetings. This involves the township applying for state grant money on behalf of Hamilton Crossings specifically to deal with infrastructure and remediation of mine wash.

Thoughts: All board members have indicated their support of this for weeks. My thoughts are while I have some philosophical problems with state funding of local infrastructure, (It’s one element of the growth ponzi scheme) I will never cast what I call an “activist” vote. If an elected official has a problem with state or federal grants then the focus should be on fixing what you feel is a broken system. Statements shouldn’t be made by turning down money for the community you were elected to represent.

Secondly, I have an issue with the grant cooperation agreement calling this project a “mixed use” project. I outlined this here. Words have meanings. This is not a mixed use project and I object to it being called one.

Despite the two above concerns, my vote for these two items would have been YES. Although I would have spoken to my above concerns during Commissioner discussion. I would also continue to actively engage state officials on elements of the “ponzi scheme”, why I think it leads to unsustainable fiscally irresponsible growth and contributes to sprawl.
(note this item passed unanimously, Commissioner Conrad was absent)

Planning:

  • Approval of Junk Yard License Renewals. 

Thoughts: This is a yearly housekeeping issue. I’ve seen this done two years now at meetings I’ve attended. Absent of any resident concerns which there were none this is a YES vote.  Passed Unanimously.

Public Safety

  • Approval of Lehigh Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan

Thoughts: Hazard Mitigation is planning to reduce long term risk to residents and property from hazards. The mandated plan was approved by PEMA and FEMA. Each county and municipality now adopts. It is required to be a part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Obviously, it’s important for Lower Macungie to be a part of that program. My vote would be Yes. This passed unanimously.

  •  Approving amendment to the LMT Emergency Operation Plan

Thoughts: This goes with above. My vote would be Yes.

General Admin

  • Approving revision to audit advisory by-laws.

Thoughts: This revises by-laws allowing the audit advisory board to appoint it’s own chair. Although I disagree with the recent separate administrative decision to take away the vote of the planning commission chair in appointing new members. (leaving only the BOC members on that committee to vote), this is a good administrative move. It makes sense for this board to approve it’s own chair.  My vote for this would be ‘Yes’. My vote for the planning commission appointment update would have been ‘No.’ This passed.

New Business

  • Approving the commercial fire inspection ordinance.  

Thoughts: When this issue first came up I shared Commissioner Conrads concern with the potential for adding more burden on local business owners. Do we need to to regulate fire safety? Is this over-regulating. To address those concerns I met with Brent Mcnabb assistant Chief of the LMT fire dept. He made a strong case in support of this ordinance. The public safety commission also recommends adoption. If any business owner would have made an opposing case against this, I would have seriously considered any arguments made and motioned for tabling until concerns were addressed if they weren’t right away. None were made. My vote would have likely been yes with strong reservations. I would have wanted to know more concrete details about the fee schedule above and beyond assurances  it would be revenue neutral.

Additional questions from LWV candidates night

Posted on by

I asked the League of Woman Voters for copies of questions we weren’t able to get to that were submitted at the candidates forum. Here are my answers to about half. I will post my answers to the second half next week. I’m inviting my opponents to do the same so that all the questions from the night can be answered.

What is your occupation?

I’m a local small business owner. My two business partners and I went to high school together. All three of us grew up in the area. Our business is a wedding entertainment, photography and film company. We primarily do weddings, but we also do all types of events including corporate, Bar and Bat mitzvahs and sweet 16‘s. Our film department also does some commercial work. We have an office on Main St. in Macungie. We’ve been in business for 3 years. Prior to starting the business I worked in Higher Ed. Administration.

 

Most residents agree that Jaindl “Plan B” is an improvement over the plan initially approved by the BOC. Do you think that Plan B would have been offered if there were no challenges and litigation?

No, ‘Plan B’ was the result of residents speaking out against the project. I can say that with absolute certainty. Without the litigation, there would be no plan ‘B’. With out plan ‘B’ we’d have double the houses, double the strip commercial, you’d have to drive through warehouses to get to the park and a wide interior road that will be pounded daily by tractor trailers (increasing the frequency of maintenance) would be the responsibility of taxpayers instead of the landowner.

 

Walmart is becoming a significant drain to our state police force and creating ever increasing crime statistics that is ruining the rural character of our quiet township. What steps would you immediately apply to force Walmart to correct this significant problem?

I believe businesses that become a consistent nuisance in terms of calls to police should be assessed an impact fee. I’m not sure what is and is not allowed in PA. I’ve reached out to Gary Cordner the gentleman conducting the police study about options.

Once we double the amount of warehousing in the western portion of the township you can bet it will add additional strain on police services. (yet another argument why quarry would have been better…) Just look at the number of calls certain distribution centers generate in Upper Macungie. Upper Macungie Township pays millions for police protection. This is a good question for the developer of the Costco and Target. I will be sure to ask how the developer hopes to alleviate the impact of calls to the state police for shoplifting and other petty crimes associated with a large shopping center.

 

Do you believe remaining open space in LMT should be made a priority to preserve? Such as purchasing development rights?

Absolutely. The answer is transferable Development Rights Programs. (TDR) This is one of the centerpieces of my platform and something I’ve advocated for at many township meetings. With a TDR landowners can voluntarily sell their development rights to another landowner or a real estate developer for use at another location. A municipality faciliates this by creating a land bank. This is a market based solution for land preservation. It’s voluntary. Landowners get compensated at market value. Developers can purchase density to apply it to appropriate locations and the community gets valued farmland/open space preserved. Everyone wins.

 

The township Act 537 sewer system requires on site sewer systems to be pumped at two year intervals. Do you believe this normal household maintenance should be regulated by the government? 

No. I do not. This is over-reacting and over regulating. I would consider a non-intrusive inexpensive visual inspection at 5 year intervals but absolutely not a mandatory pumping. This shows a complete lack of understanding how these systems function. You can actually damage a systems by pumping it to frequently. Yes, we need a way to address malfunctioning systems. But 2 year inspections is over regulation at it’s finest. Major issues can be identified with a visual inspection of a drain field.

My position on the Kratzer Farm open space

Posted on by
Position Statement Kratzer Farm
Importance/overview: The Kratzer Farm is centrally located in Lower Macungie Township. It’s strategic centralized location makes it immediately accessible to thousands of township 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 making it a potential township “Central 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.
3. Proceeds from sale. If the house/barn and driveway are sold after a comprehensive evaluation of all potential uses of the property and specifically the driveways role in future greenway as either a trail section or entrance to a trailhead, then the proceeds should be earmarked for park improvements on the Kratzer farm.

Church Lane Bridge to remain Closed

Posted on by

Church Lane Bridge to remain Closed

Officials in Lower Macungie aren’t sure when the Church Lane bridge in their township will reopen after getting notice from PennDOT to keep it closed.

Bill Erdman, the township’s engineer, said Thursday night that PennDOT issued a directive to keep the bridge closed.

Township commissioners in April announced they were closing the one-lane span due to an influx of traffic during construction on the nearby Spring Creek Road bridge.

 

MCall.com

Variance requests tonight for Hamilton Crossings Costco/Target

Posted on by
The developer for Hamilton Crossings will be requesting dozens of variances tonight at the 7:00 pm zoning hearing board meeting.

This is the second version of the plan to come before the board. The first was scrapped due to the discovery of mine wash on the property. The developer claims the faulty soil has “forced us to reorganize the site plan in a relatively significant way,”.

Residents should who live in the area of the proposed center should attend the hearing tonight. There are a couple requests of note:

1. Request to increase maximum impervious coverage to up to 80%.

2. Request to increase maximum building coverage to 22.5%

3. Request to eliminate certain planted islands

4. Requests to allow higher screening fencing

I believe these items are important to scrutinize very thoroughly given our townships flooding issues. The max impervious, buildling coverage and requirements to plan tree’s and shrubbery in parking lots all contribute to a developments stormwater management. Remember, to be granted a variance the developer must present “true hardship on the property owner”. They must show why the increase in impervious is necessary and what measures will be taken to counter the increased stormwater issues.

To view a complete list of the variance requests (as of noon today the agenda for tonight’s meeting is not on the township website) you can view the BOC agenda from 11/15. The requests are exhibit BB.

Friends for protection of Lower Macungie Township will be monitoring the progress of this development. We’re dedicated to keeping residents informed about land use/development issues. For more information visit our website or join our mailing list. Also I write about local development issues here on my blog.