Large contiguous tract of farmland in Lower Macungie Township
(Submitted as LTE to LMT Patch and an abbreviated version to EPP)
Preserving open space with a balanced land use approach reduces costs for infrastructure and services, therefore over the long term reducing the need for tax increases. Farmland and open space generate no traffic, create no crime, requires no additional fire protection and brings no new students into our school system.
The township Board of Commissioners will be considering the purchase of development rights for the Shepherd Hills golf course in the near future. There have been a number of public meetings where this has been discussed leading up the final decision. Here was the first newspaper article:
New shepherd Hills Golf course owner wants to sell development rights.
The golf course was identified on the townships official map last year as a target for preservation. This was done after the loss of the Indian Creek Golf course (just one example of many in the Lehigh County) to development. Today, Indian Creek is being developed with 239 homes. To make matters worse it’s a rather uninspiring generic shoehorned plan that will greatly compound traffic issues on an already strained corridor.
What is the official map? With official map, Lower Macungie take proactive stance on land use issues
Link to Lower Macungie Official Map
One of the fairways where homes could be built.
What does purchasing development rights mean?
Purchasing Development Rights is an incentive based, voluntary action that permanently protects open space, yet retains private ownership and in this case golf course management. A landowner sells the development rights of a parcel of land to a public agency, land trust or unit of government. The conservation easement is then recorded and this limits any kind of development permanently. While the right to develop or subdivide that land is permanently eliminated, the land owner retains all other rights and responsibilities associated with the property and the property remains on the tax rolls. The owner also retains ability to sell it should they choose. The protections however, ALWAYS remain. The land can never be developed. In this case it’s similar to the farmland preservation program.
How is the price being determined?
This has been the topic of much discussion. Development rights should be based on market value. Since this involves taxpayer money this is essential. What determines that value is the actual amount of homes that could be built. In this case that’s also assuming the township would grant zero waivers or variances. Which is the assumption since it would almost certainly be the case.
Through appraisals it was determined the price per unit would be 6400 dollars. That is the market value. The initial request assumed the owner could build 145 units. That would mean the cost to preserve development rights would be 930,000 dollars. Upon review by our township engineer it was determined that number was unrealistic. (the plan could not meet the zoning ordinance without relief.)
We felt a more realistic number was 109 units. Which translated to 700,000 dollars. (this was the number in the last newspaper article) However, there was some question relating to a current requirement to only allow one cul-de-sac per development. This requirement was not in place 30 years ago when the original development was built. So the question became what institutes the development. The entirety of Shepherd Hills or the entire new development or each individual parcel (the golf course currently is spread over many separate parcels). With the most township friendly interpretation we further determine 82 units was the most likely amount.
The developer acknowledged but didn’t concede this and further reduced the price to 640,000 dollars. This would correspond to 100 units.
Other concessions agreed upon in addition to permanently preventing 82-109 new homes.
– 100% of preservation money will be re-invested in the course to ensure it remains viable. The township would hold the sale price in an escrow account. Landowner would be limited to debiting the account to make improvements to the course and facilities. Course will provide detailed quarterly accounting of improvements made until all monies are invested. Money would only be released when improvement plans verified.
– If the course closes in addition to permanent development restrictions, the course will be deed restricted to only approved recreational uses.
– The township will acquire an unused portion of the course to replace the Lower Macungie Elementary School Playground with a new pocket park.
– Course will provide public easements to complete greenway connections to and around the neighborhood.
– LMT residents would receive discounted playing fees. Course will be acknowledged as a public private partnership renamed Shepherd Hills Golf Club at Lower Macungie Twp.
My thoughts:
I believe the landowner (who is a developer by trade) wants to continue to operate the golf course. However, he is also a business man. I also know that the golf course and banquet hall are only viable businesses together. We also know this particular developer has developed courses before. (see locust valley) I also know that the impact of even the min amount of 82 houses not necessarily in a walkable location, this close to the Hamilton Corridor and also of the type that would likely generate lots of students in the school district – would present significant strain on the schools, roads and infrastructure. Not to mention the loss of 110 acres of (albeit private) open space in the heart of the twp.
I think we’ve come close to determining the actual market value based on a realistically buildable unit count. This was the sticking point in my mind. Do I want a better bargain? Of course. Always. But I also don’t want to jerk too hard and miss an opportunity to finally put this issue to rest once and for all. That meaning once and for all we know that never will this golf course be developed. That’s the opportunity we now have at a fairly discounted price. After years of intense growth, preservation of open space is a township wide goal. And we have to look to every opportunity to accomplish and take units off the table that whether it be to preserve natural areas, recreation facilities and parks and of course farmland.
One thing to remember is it’s ALWAYS more expensive to preserve property later with our back against the wall than it is to preserve a parcel today with a willing partner. That’s a tough lesson Lower Macungie has learned the hard way with our farmland. Long time residents know that this course was almost developed in 1993. The only thing that stopped it then was a judge ruling favorably on an interpretation. The township then denied a plan and the developer filed a lawsuit challenging.
I’m very interested in what residents think about this issue from now till January when it’s likely to be voted on. You know what I think, now please let me know your thoughts. Email: Ronbeitler@gmail.com
Some history (this is from the developers presentation he sent to us for inclusion in tomorrow’s agenda. The presentation will be publicly available)
Ownership history
Please take a moment to take this survey about your opinion on Shepherd Hills Golf Course. Thank you. Click here.
Clearing out my notebook on the Movie Tavern (Trexler Business Center) – I hope this is helpful for folks to understand why I voted NO. The plan passed 3-2. This one was a long slog. It was unfortunate it turned out that way. It didn’t have to be but certain developer concerns about the impact fe were raised very late in the game.
1.) First, I apologize I wasn’t able to blog more about this topic over the last few months. Problem was for the last few weeks of this issue we were under the implied threat of litigation. Unfortunately, at that point a blog meant to keep residents informed can be used against the township in a court. Once we have the threat or implication of legal action we lose some of our ability to talk freely about a subject. This is unfortunately reality. In cases of land development reviews words can be taken out of context, mischaracterized or misrepresented. I struggle with this. I’m often advised “not to blog so much”, but I fundamentally believe residents should know every piece of information I know. My blog let’s me clearly put my thoughts down “on paper” in writing. The free flow of information is critical to transparency. Unless forced to I’m not inclined to ever compromise that. Hence clearing out the notebook now.
2.) I would have voted yes on the original resolution. The original resolution left a blank space for the amount of credits granted. During the course of consideration 3 credits were agreed upon by the planning and zoning committee and the township engineer and staff. These were negotiated during the course of public meetings. I felt they were fair and I felt they honored the intent of the traffic impact fee by addressing regional issues related to the project. The problem with the resolution presented to us the AM of the vote was that additional credits were granted. These were not subject to public discussion in a meaningful way.
3.) Credits, vs. contributions vs. impact fee monies. The impact fee – “Transportation impact fees are a funding mechanism permitted by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Fees can be assessed to new development in proportion to its impact on transportation networks—the traffic the development is expected to generate during peak commuter periods. Funds collected are used to improve roadways used by development-related traffic.” PennDOT impact fee guidebook.
That is the purpose. However, I believe the program the way it’s written has some severe flaws. In light of that I am OK with credits to appropriate off site improvements. Using the same definition of off site improvements as the impact fee program. And also gaining the same amount of monetary value as the impact fee program allows. No more, no less. This is very fair and very transparent.
Again, I had no problem with crediting or contributions in liu of impact fee. My problem is we gave additional credits beyond what was agreed upon during the course of public meetings. I also had issues with the credits themselves in that I feel strongly they don’t address issues that would have otherwise been addressed by developers at some point in the future.
4.) My structural problem with the last minute credits. The last minute credits were basically to fund a new driveway across the street (north side of the blvd.) that will connect Hamilton Blvd and Grange Rd. Now, there are benefits to this and that’s the reason why have it on the township official map. But the map gives us the tools to ensure this conversation happens at an appropriate time. That is in the future when it’s actually needed. (If and when the north side develops, remember the intent of the impact fee is not to address or otherwise induce future development). The problem here is this credit is unrelated to the Movie Tavern project. Further there is no timetable when it ever gets built. And it’s something we would likely secure anyhow based both on our ordinances, the official map and realities of any commercial project built on the north side of the boulevard.
In my opinion, we gave away something that made no sense to do so at this time meaning we left money and value on the table that we should be using to fix existing issues. Not future issues related to more development. I actually believe the townships move last night will expedite and induce more “boxy” development on the north side since it will give future developers more public road frontage. I also question whether the township is obligating ourselves to essentially take ownership of what otherwise would and should be a private shopping center driveway on the north side. If this is the case it’s a strategic error.
5.) Procedural problems with the last minute credits. As mentioned above, there were a number of credits and contributions agreed upon in the course of public meetings. They were presented and vetted in public. They addressed the intent of the traffic impact fee ordinance. I had no problem with this. Issue was, that this still left an approximate 375,000 dollar hole. This hole was “plugged” apparently 24 hours before the final vote. I have an issue with that. So did my father Ronald R. Beitler. The two reasons above including both the structural and procedural issue with the “last minute” credit are why I voted NO on the resolution.
6.) The land development itself is good. I am 100% in favor of preservation and better managing growth. Problem here is this development is proposed in a location identified for growth. Other areas of the township not we are aggressively pursuing preservation strategy. And we’ve had successes. This was not a place that made financial or planning sense to do so.
I do wish this wasn’t another strip and pad project, but for what it is – much like Hamilton Crossings – it’s of a higher quality. I wanted to give specific credit to the Movie Tavern for working with us. They voluntarily upgraded many facets of the plan that will result in a better overall project. They also worked with us on a compromise regarding the tower height. Resident concerns were valid, and the Tavern addressed them. The developer also did work with us during land development although at times we had to push them a little harder. Everything was a negotiation. The Movie Tavern was easier to work with since they understood a better project was better for their business. It was less a negotiation and more working together to build something neat. They seemed to understand the vision we are trying to accomplish on the boulevard. That buy in was important.
7.) The Movie Tavern in and of itself was a good fit. While our job is not to pick winners and losers in terms of uses based on opinions. It is to vet projects based on objective criteria. In this case based on the objective criteria of traffic counts – the Movie Tavern was a much better fit than what otherwise could be built here. The reason is traffic counts generated are off peak. Nights and weekends. Again, the theater will not generate trips during AM or PM peak hours. This was a huge advantage to the township.
Last night the zoning hearing board rejected a dimensional variance that would have added 15 ft onto a tower in front of the proposed movie tavern. Movie tavern officials claimed this is a deal breaker. It remains to be seen if that is the case. It’s important to note that the Zoning Hearing Board is a quasi judicial board entity, seperate from the Board of Commissioners. Though I attended the hearing I did not get a vote.
My thoughts are this. Generally, I think our zoning hearing board gives away major variances to large scale developers much too easily. They did this in the case of Hamilton Crossings. And in the past I’ve spoken out opposing such variances both in person and in the form of letters.
However, this is not one I would have personally dug my heels in on. This is after having visited a similar Movie Tavern in Exton PA. I wrote this post a few months ago and included some photographs and video I took. Also after having seen the site line diagrams presented last night that demonstrated clearly that residents over 500 ft away from the tower in Shepherd Hills would not even see it from their backyards.
So at this point I’m nervous that if this kills the theater we will get another anchor that could very well be much more impactful. Remember, this plan is grandfathered originally submitted almost a decade ago. So the allowed uses are vested. Meaning the theater could be replaced with a big box retailer. That would mean more traffic, more truck deliveries and more parking issues. And likely a much less attractive building design. (The movie tavern really did work with us last few months agreeing to build a large plaza in front of the building with enhanced landscaping and buffers.)
The theater is a good use for this site. I’m not sure what could replace it would be. I certainly do not want to see anymore strip malls, big box retailers or warehouses. That leaves entertainment uses which is something our recent PCTI study said we are deficient in here in Lower Mac. Entertainment uses typically have much lower impacts. So a win/win for the township.
Now we wait and see. Was this a bluff? Will the tavern walk away? If so, then we need to be concerned with what replaces it.
Bottom line for me is yes, I think our zoners often give away variances much to easily on large projects. And I’m happy to see them actually challenge a request. But this is not one I would have taken a gamble on. The risk/reward didn’t make sense in this case. The reason is because the Movie Tavern is an excellent low impact fit. Now, if we lose it we could end up with something much worse. And will not have any power to stop it. We often have to play hands we are dealt and put on strategic hats. This was the case here. The Movie Tavern already addressed a number of township concerns including completely changing the color of the back of the building as to reduce glare for neighbors. They went above and beyond. Another user might not be willing to voluntarily do all the things Movie Tavern agreed to do. So at this time the tower wasn’t a fight I would have picked over 15 additional feet. Residents of Shepherd Hills will still end up having to look at the back of a very large building. But the next user might not be so community conscientious as the Movie Tavern was.
Sen. Casey – Wal Marts and other box stores strain local resources.
When you develop a property you are not entitled to unlimited or unreasonable usage (waste) of public municipal resources paid for by tax dollars.
Our Lower Mac Wal-Mart, has for years been a considerable strain on police resources. This is well documented locally. (2013 Morning Call) Wal-Mart seems to rely on police to provide basic security at considerable cost to taxpayers. While every resident and business is entitled to call police for help or to report a crime it’s obvious Wal-Mart exploits this.
Not only do we face financial impact, but safety as well. When police are spending excessive time at one business they are taken away from other duties.
Similar issue, in 2013 we instituted a nuisance ordinance for excessive fire alarms. We did this after our Fire Dept. reported ] 30% of emergency calls from commercial users were false alarms. Same principle. While every business is entitled to fire protection, there came a point where excessive calls constituted a public nuisance. After enacting the ordinance along with corresponding fines we immediately saw a drop in false alarms. I believe if Wal-Mart had to pay for excessive call volume for totally preventable retail crimes we would see the retail giant suddenly become much more proactive with prevention.
Here is what Sen. Casey had to say in a letter penned to Wal-Mart President Doug Mcmillon.
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.
#DoTheMath – Couple of takeaways from this:
1. We have a potential dark store issue in Lower Macungie. Since.
“It’s an established part of the big-box retail model that the boxes themselves be custom-built, cheaply constructed, and disposable. If retailers decide that they need a bigger space, it’s cheaper for them to leave the old one behind and build a new one.“
This is happening in Lower Mac right now with Weis. They are currently in the process of abandoning their current store to build a new one – across the street. This opens the possibility for Weis to argue the “dark store” method for calculating tax assessment.
2. Even without assessment reductions box retail isn’t a fiscal winner for local communities. The reduction strategies happening in some states just make it worse.
When eight communities in central Ohio looked at the fiscal impacts of big-box retail, they found that the stores actually demanded more public services than they generated in revenue, and created a drain on municipal budgets to the tune of a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot, or about $80,000 for a typical Walmart supercenter.
Mark my words, our increasingly boxy/strippy Hamilton Corridor will be the driver for local police and a massive unavoidable tax increase:
“Higher demand for police departments is one example. In Port Richey, Fla., nearly half of the town’s crime emanates from the area Walmart. “The taxes that come from Walmart are not even enough to cover two police officers’ salaries,” Police Chief Robert Lovering told Vice.”
It’s happening in Lower Mac today.
3. With Hamilton Crossings we are beginning from an even bigger hole. Throughout the HC discussion it was parroted that the windfall was worth the tax gimmick. The narrative was: “There is nothing now, when something is built we can tax it”. Problem is what we approved costs us much more then what’s there now – fallow open space. And the new tax revenue won’t cover the long term liabilities. Our problem is the fatally flawed short term way we look at municipal finances.
“Cities and towns continue to buy into myths sold to them by the mega-retailers themselves, that big-box stores spark economic development. In service of this myth, local and state governments across the country have granted at least $2.6 billion in subsidies to just six large retailers, including $160 million to Walmart and $138 million to Lowe’s, according toanother study from Good Jobs First. That’s without factoring in the cost of services, which as Marquette, Mich., saw, can pile up”
We got to start thinking beyond the windfall and look at lifecycle sustainability. That is: Lifecycle costs (liabilities) vs. revenue (tax base). I am not arguing for a valuable corridor to be vacant. This isn’t about NIMBY. My argument is a financial one. We need to build better. Smarter. Patterns that create positive value. But since at least with Hamilton Crossings that ship has sailed….
4. Living in reality. What’s done is done. Can’t change the fact 3 members of the current BOC opted to hand out a 20 year tax subsidy. So, moving forward our strategy has to focus on repair and triage. We accomplish that with balance. First by preserving farmland and open space concentrating on places where expensive infrastructure would have to be built and maintained by taxpayers to support greenfield growth.
Second, we encourage better/smarter growth in patterns that creates higher value in locations where infrastructure exists. We get there by fixing our terribly archaic and restrictive zoning code. By instituting aspects of a form based code we allow and even incentivize more “Main Street” oriented walkable neighborhood mixed use devleopment on Hamilton Boulevard.
The land development alternative – What does that mean? Lower Mac is working on a vision. Here is an outline: Lower Mac’s Hamilton Corridor vision study. If we adopt and follow this plan we will induce more high value growth on Hamilton Boulevard. This is essential to balance the low value. More positive growth will help balance the net negative financial development.
“Locally owned retailers provide value to a community in many ways, but one of them is to the municipal accounting books. In a study that found that big-box retail generates a net deficit for taxpayers in a Massachusetts town, the researchers also discovered that specialty retail, like Main Street businesses, are the ones with a positive impact on public coffers, generating more revenue than they require to service.”
One thing to watch is avoiding falling into the pitfalls of “smart growth light” like we have in the past. #WordsHaveMeanings.
The taxing alternative – Shift the burden off residents and onto warehouses and box stores.
I support preservation of farmland & open space prioritized by parcels with high development pressure. While debt isn’t my preferred means to accomplish this I support whatever consensus the board arrives at since I feel strongly about the long term benefits. I also understand we have a voter mandate for preservation.
*Note: I have over the past year proposed alternate funding strategies including:
1. Ear-marking developer transfer taxes for preservation
2. Creating a transferable development rights program (TDR). TDR is a free market mechanism for preservation. It involves no township money.
Unfortunately, neither got traction from other board members.
In March Commissioners Conrad & Lancsek proposed borrowing to fund preservation. While I am pleased it appears the entire board is willing to settle on a mechanism I am only cautiously optimistic at this point. Read about the proposal here.
First, let’s talk mandates. I came into office with 2. Important to remember, since both relate to preservation.
1. First keep taxes sustainably low. Meaning setting us up for long term resiliency as opposed to gimmicks. I think I’ve delivered with the homestead exclusion that rollled back 25% of the prior boards tax increase for homeowners. More importantly relating to resiliency it sets us up to capture more revenue from commercial and industrial users (strip malls and warehouses). These uses generate more liabilities than revenue. Addressing this disparity sets us up for a more sustainable long term balance sheet. High liability land-uses should carry the burden. Not residents.
2. Second I came into office with clear mandate from voters to preserve farmland and developable open space. This also relates to #1. How to keep taxes low in Lower Macungie.
So why only the cautious optimism about the bond?
I’m nervous that some might see a 10M bond as a “blank check” for whatever pet project is the flavor of the moment. With the “blank check” mentality we can get lazy. That scares me. Remember, the reason the prior BOC raised taxes in 2012 was to fund capital projects. Fact is since then, the largest single project moving forward is the 4.9 million dollar quarry park renovation including over 1.5M earmarked for turf fields. Hardly a priority and certainly not warranting a tax increase.
I’m nervous we’ve diluted a conversation about funding open space (something with clear long term financial benefits) with “other capital projects”. (Things that might not)
I’m also leery of inducing more “dumb growth” with STROAD infrastructure. While it’s important we solve existing traffic problems we have to be careful not to induce further congestion. (see graph below)
So, lets proceed but with caution. Any questions about the potential bond please feel free to email me at ronbeitler@gmail.com
The red line represents vehicle flow along a given road. Traffic steadily rises until someone decides the road needs to be widened. Then the original trend line (dotted red) gets replaced with an even greater travel forecast (dotted orange), as we’d expect by creating more road capacity. But the actual new level of travel developed by this widening (solid red) is even greater than the forecast predicted.
Couple weeks ago I posted a letter from Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in support of Rt. 222 upgrades including grade separated interchanges. (on and off ramps at Millcreek and Krocks) Today we were copied on a formal letter from state Sen. Pat Browne. These letters are in response to a letter writing/petition campaign I started in March.
The de-stroadification of the underperforming roadway would allow for a more free flowing bypass. This is critical to ensure regional traffic flows as Rt. 222 provides a critical connection between the cities of Reading and Allentown. This connection essential on a regional scale as well as local scale to ensure freight traffic can get safely and efficiently in and out of Upper and Lower Macungie. This is a quality of life, economic development and most important a safety issue.
Have you signed the petition yet? It takes about a minute.
Below check out this letter of support from State Representative Ryan Mackenzie. (and take a moment to thank him) This is a direct result of letters. You had a positive effect!
