Category Archives: Lower Macungie Township development issues

Nice letter about Willow Lane Elementary

Posted on by

Below is a letter written by a resident about WLES. There was another couple weeks ago complimenting the crossing guards. Last BOC meeting was justifiably dominated by tax issues so I wanted to post the letter. It reflects alot of the rationale for building neighborhood schools as opposed to “sprawl campuses” that are disconnected from the neighborhoods they serve.

Yes, rollout was at times complicated to say the least. But when dealing with ensuring safe routes most of the parent safety concerns were warranted. After initial hiccups and the inevitable politicking that came during election season, from my observations the program has been a success. From my standpoint as a smart growth advocate, I agree with many of Scott’s comments below about fostering a connected community with a sense of place.

A community benefits when we build neighborhood schools. I was supportive of WLES’s location for this reason during the planning process. I think it’s a suburban walkable model located appropriately in the middle of 100’s of homes. Hindsight, I  wish the walking routes were discussed during land development so that walking was rolled out when the school first came online. I still to this day have no clue why they weren’t. I know it was late in the game that walking was postponed.

So let’s keep working through the kinks.  I have heard about speeding issues on the interior driveways leading to the school. I also still believe we need to texture the crosswalks and install “stalker boards” (radar boards that tell drivers their speed) on the corridor. Aside from that, I think the township improvements have worked out. I do think the crossing guards have done a fine job.

Anything else on the township end that we should be aware of? What do you think of the letter below? Let me know in the comments. 

Devolving Hamilton Crossings a concern…

Posted on by

Last night did nothing to alleviate concerns I have with the Hamilton Crossings project slowly but surely transforming into a typical run of the mil box project.

Here WFMZ’s Randy Kraft does an excellent job summarizing: Lower Mac planning commissioner not happy with how Hamilton Crossings is evolving

I hope any County Commissioners on the fence take the time to examine concerns planning Commission has regarding this project. There is real concern about quality. County Commissioners need to take this into account when re-considering TIF. I want this project to move forward. It makes sense from a planning perspective. This represents “smarter growth” even only in terms of getting more return on investment building where significant infrastructure improvements have already been made. This is the appropriate location for retail. Yes, I prefer more neighborhood centric. More “Main Street” in character, but fundamentally this makes sense here as opposed to building a shopping center in some cornfield out on the fringe ala the typical “Jaindly” blueprint. But I want the project we were sold. I did have issues with TIF financing, but  moving past that if it is to move forward it absolutely must be what we were promised. County Commissioners have a duty to do their due diligence we’re getting what we were promised if they choose to move forward funding. I trust they are.

Pictures say a thousand words:

Tone we were promised: This represents a “Promenade esque” walkable town center. Looking down the streetscape you see shops and attractive facades. You see a place where people can mingle, shop and relax. We were sold on the new “Gateway to the township” that we could all be proud of as a community. This is what we were promised when the developers were “selling” the project for TIF financing.

This is the rendering used to win the “hearts and minds” of residents when the developer was making a pitch for public financing.

Here is the current Costco rendering….. It’s a box. One that has been described as “cheap looking”, bland, boxy, generic.

Proposed Costco rendering for Lower Macungie Township

There are MUCH MUCH nicer Costcos as I’ve outlined in previous posts. For some reason we’re getting a “cheapo” one. We shouldn’t accept that based on what we were promised when the developer was seeking funding.

Police services study preliminary report

Posted on by

Below is the preliminary memo for the police services study. The full forum unveiling the results of the study will be presented in a public forum Nov. 12th at 7pm in the Community Center.

My detailed thoughts on this issue will be outlined in an upcoming Morning Call point counterpoint.

Pennsylvania State Police in Lower Macungie Townships primary provider for police protection.

Here is the memo:

TO: Lower Macungie Township
FROM: Gary Cordner, Consultant DATE: October 31, 2013
RE: Police Services Study

This memo is intended to serve as a preview of the police services report that will be completed by December 31, 2013. The consultant is still collecting data for the report and will participate in a public forum on November 12. Public comment at and following the forum will be incorporated into the final report.

The following “facts” and findings seem unlikely to change between now and the final report:

 

1. Lower Macungie Township (LMT) is unusual in not having its own police department. The township’s 2013 estimated population is 31,000, a 60% increase since 2000. LMT is the 22nd largest township (by population) in Pennsylvania. It is the 2nd largest township in the commonwealth that relies solely upon the state police for its police service.

 

2. LMT has a low crime rate. The 2012 estimated Part 1 crime rate of 1083.8 per 100,000 residents is about 1/3 the rate for Lehigh County and is 7th lowest among Pennsylvania’s 35 largest townships.

 

3. Over 80% of the Part 1 crimes in LMT in 2012 were thefts. Thefts increased 15% from 2010 to 2012.

 

4. The state police clearance rate in Lehigh County in 2012 (the percent of Part 1 crimes that were solved) was 32.9%. This exceeds the national clearance rate by a substantial margin.

 

5. State police activity in LMT increased from 2010 to 2012. DUI arrests more than doubled and traffic citations increased by almost 50%.

 

6. The state police do not routinely respond to a variety of types of incidents, such as parking complaints, animal complaints, lockouts, ambulance calls, and township ordinance violations.

 

7. LMT saves $4-5 million per year (about $150 per resident) by not having its own police department.

 

The “bottom line” is largely unchanged from previous police services studies. Lower Macungie Township has a low crime rate and a relatively low demand for police service, in spite of significant population growth and proximity to Pennsylvania’s third largest city. The police services currently provided are highly professional, albeit at a relatively low level.

A drawback of the current arrangement is that the residents and elected leaders of the township have little or no influence over the police services that are provided, since it is a state agency that provides those services. The benefit is that the township is not burdened with the cost of policing or the substantial administrative responsibility that accompanies a separate local police department. The final report will discuss additional options, such as a part-time police department, contracting for police services from another municipality, participation in a regional police department, and other hybrid models. All of these other options would entail some financial cost, of course. The report will not offer any recommendations, only options with associated costs and benefits. Fundamentally, the situation is one in which the township needs to decide (as it has in the past) what level of police service it wants in conjunction with how much it wishes to spend for that service. page1image20840

Sign Standards are important

Posted on by

Recently the township has asked 2 businesses on Rt. 100 to address signage issues. Wawa and Weis both utilize or have been utilizing temporary “yard signs” and banners on or adjacent to their buildings. Both types of temporary signage are not allowed under our current sign standards.

Why is this important?

When outdoor advertising is improperly placed in our commercial landscape, made too large, gaudy, too many in numbers, or illuminated late into the night, it infringes on our scenic and aesthetic values hurting adjacent property values. The impact is felt not only by the residents in the immediate neighborhood of the signage but also the community at large.

WaWA Lower Macungie Rt. 100

Temporary cigarette signage at WaWa. Enforcement notices have been sent to WaWa to remove.

Temporary Banners at Weis on Rt. 100. Enforcement notices were sent out reminding Weis these temporary banners are not allowed.

When speaking about negative outcomes of growth I hear many residents ask about “not allowing our commercial areas to turn into Macarthur Rd.” I completely agree with this notion and I also use this example often. 

Tacky and gaudy outdoor signage is one of the leading indicators of a community in decline. I truly believe that. Lower Macungie is not a community in decline, but this is one of those issues people need to pay close attention to so we can avoid becoming that!

The photograph below is what happens when businesses engage in “one up syndrome” by making signs bigger and bigger. Heading “one up syndrome” off at the pass with consistent attractive sign standards is the only way to stop gaudy signs from dominating the streetscape.

Photo from Morning Call – MacArthor Rd. strip. SIGNAGE GONE WILD!!

In PA  it is very common for the local outdoor advertising control laws to be more restrictive than the state law. This is something I am supportive of. I’ve heard that Weis may seek a variance to make their banner signage permanent. This is something I will speak out against if they do so. Both Weis and Wawa already have massive signs indicating the store is located at the location. Additional signage is certainly not a hardship and the variance and precedent should not be granted. Sign variances should only be given when there is a significant topographical issue involved. And then only on rare occasions.  There are no such issues on Rt. 100. In fact I can think of no commercial area in the township that would qualify.

Commissioners are on record that they have a desire to build “World Class” commercial zones. I agree with that. Granting exceptions to our signage regulations would be a step in the wrong direction and another step toward the photograph above.

All over the country businesses conform to community standards and do just fine. Below is a local example where a Wawa was made to utilize better looking lower lying signage at their Main Entrance. This particular Wawa is on Lehigh St. is across from the airport and that is the reason for the low sign, but I’ve seen similar signs at other WaWa’s where the limits are imposed because of aesthetic commercial standards. Despite the height restriction I guarantee no one has ever had trouble finding this WaWa or couldn’t figure out exactly what it is and what they sell!!

Here a WaWa conformed to a local restriction with a low lying sign. Somehow people still know it’s a WaWa!

We have to remember. Businesses WANT to be here. We are an attractive location. To remain that way we must be cautious with growth. It is OK for us to take pride in our community! Since businesses want to be here, they will conform to our standards. Same as they do in nice communities all over the country.

If they refuse? Well then another business who will conform will be waiting to take their location.

More examples of franchises that conform to local design standards.

It is also no secret am not a fan of the recent “LED Billboards” that have been springing up across the Valley. One in particular here in the township is shockingly bright at night. It’s a distraction and a public safety issue on top of being gaudy. You can imagine what a whole strip of that kind of signage would look like.

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.

Gov. Corbett signs Senate Bill 351 into law

Posted on by

Senate Bill 351 was co-sponsored locally by state Senator Pat Browne (R). I wrote a quick letter of thanks to him today. Synopsis here.

Senator Browne,

Thank you for co-sponsoring Senate Bill 351 allowing municipalities to create local Stormwater Authorities. Your leadership in this area is appreciated. Recently, I won the Republican primary as the highest vote getter here in Lower Macungie Township running largely on a platform of ensuring that developers pay their own way in terms of mitigating their negative impact. This includes traffic, infrastructure and of course stormwater.

As you know, Lower Macungie is one of the fastest growing in the state. This is a tool we can explore utilizing to ensure private developers are held responsible for costs to mitigate their stormwater impact. This can now be accomplished by providing incentives for private stormwater management therefore reducing costs to local governments and most importantly the taxpayers

We have flooding issues here in Lower Macungie that we have to get a handle on. This is a tool to do that. Additionally as you know the quality of our streams directly affect the city of Allentown as we are a major source of drinking water for the city and region.

Thank you,
Ron Beitler

 

How your local state officials voted on this legislation:
State Senate passed 49-1
Bob Mensch – YES
Pat Browne – YES

State House passed 135-66
Gary Day – YES
Mike Schlossberg – YES
Ryan Mackenzie – NO
Justin Simmons – NO

Commissioner Race – Glaring Policy Contrasts

Posted on by

Below are 5 of the most glaring contrasts between the incumbents and myself. There are many more. These are just the most obvious. This election is a clear choice. By attempting to pull the focus off these issues, the incumbents are playing little political games. These are the issues that matter to residents.

Land development/Growth issues

1. Jaindl – The grandaddy of terrible decision making. Dissected at length over the last 2 years and deservedly so. No need to re-hash here. For those who want to read in depth my thoughts visit here. One decision that will change the tone of the township forever. Residents never had a voice in quarry vs. over 1 square mile of warehousing once the awful MOU was negotiated. The incumbents chose the urban industrial path vs. the rural quarry path. (Quarry = 1/10th of the truck traffic)

More:
Transperancy LMT style

2. Allen Organ upzoning/conflict of interest – Here is the elevator sypnosis: Weis wants to move across the street to new store with gas-pumps. Weis thinks they can then compete with the Wegmans and Giants of the world. Ok that is fine. No problem with a private business doing what they think they need to do to improve business. They have every right to do this since previously the parcel across the street was zoned commercial. Supermarkets are allowed in C-Commercial.

Now….Fast forward a little bit. A developer wants to facilitate project. The developer can’t make money off of just building a supermarket on this parcel with it’s many constraints that make it tough to develop. (railroad, floodplain, limited frontage) So developer asks board of commissioners to change the rules so they can also build up to 250 apartments. This way the developer can make money. So board unanimously rubber stamps a bran new zoning ordinance that will allow developer to shoehorn a supermarket and apartments on a small parcel. A parcel with one major entrance/exit that will create traffic nightmares on Rt. 100. The realtor on the property? Happens to be our very own president of the board of commissioners who will cash a hefty commission check off the deal.

More:
Supermarket and up to 250 apartments proposed with new zoning ordinance.
LVPC comments on Allen Organ Plan 

Solutions: How do we do better?
Cost benefit analysis of re-zoning
Transferable Development Programs.

Refusal to deal with traffic concerns

3. A Police Department to solve traffic concerns (which would equal a massive tax increase that I do not want) is NOT the answer. The answer is traffic calming measures. Such as the ones outlined here and here. The board has consistently refused to even explore these options. Now that we’ve set ourselves down a certain path thanks to decisions by the current board we need to consider these measures to control traffic and speeding issues. Traffic calming and walkability go hand in hand. 

Pennsylvania’s traffic calming handbook

Next, truck traffic. Decisions were made to go all in on warehousing. So now what? Now we need bandaids. Instead of beefing up signage and implementing no truck zones to funnel traffic to safe routes getting them to the highways safely and quickly the board does nothing. “We don’t want to stop commerce” – Roger Reis. I do not get this statement, no one wants to stop commerce. We want to stop trucks from using local shortcuts through residential areas. These trucks are not going from warehouses delivering to our local community. What they are doing is cutting through to get to the highways. We’ve gone all in on warehouses and not we have to deal with consequences and stop burying our heads in the sand. We also must prepare for the next “bypass of the bypass” project and others like it that will cost the taxpayers dearly for terrible decisions over the past 3 years.

Over-regulating homeowners and small business

4. Three examples of new regulations the current board has indicated will pass or already passed.

A. As part of the new Act 537 sewage plan, mandatory inspections of on site sewer systems will be required every 2 years. This is regulating household maintanence. Classic regulatory overkill.

B. New mandatory inspections of all of Lower Macungie’s business owners next year may have to pay for an annual fire safety inspection of their buildings. As a small business owner, I do not believe in imposing additional costs on small businesses.

C. New Tree harvesting regulations limit the amount of trees a private resident can cut down on their property. Two parts to this, first the commercial aspect of this ordinance is great. However, I think the residential limit of certain number of trees in one year was too intrusive.

Preservation of our character.

5. There is no more bigger issue moving forward then managing growth. The biggest recent example was a missed golden opportunity to explore taking land preservation out of the hands of politicians and putting it into permanent preservation mechanisms. The Kratzer farm is the prime example. 88 acres of farmland and open space in a central location providing a positive benefit to 1000s of adjacent homes. For the some reason the board refuses to apply it to the county easement program. (A program voted on and passed by county voters 2-1) 

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.