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 Leaf Collection

Posted on by

From LMT Website:

Public Works – Roads – Leaf Collection

Please do not place your leaves out any earlier than the starting date. Leaves will clog the sewer system and could cause damage.

Barring complications with weather, equipment or emergencies, leaf collection will begin October 21st and go through until November 29th. Check the East Penn Press and our website, http://www.lowermac.com in late September and October for updates. We will concentrate our efforts in neighborhoods with mature trees. Areas not collected are newer developments until such time as these trees mature. We will however, check these streets regularly and collect as needed. Our contractor and the Public Works crews start at the Eastern edge of the Township and work across toward the Western boundaries. We cannot give you specific information as to when your leaves will be collected. We recommend that you have them raked out at the beginning of each week. Once we have made our pass through your street, we will not return until the next week. We usually collect once a week for 6 weeks during the fall season. Be advised that if we encounter winter weather and have to plow, any leaves in the road will be plowed. We will make every effort to get the roads cleaned up before winter. For FINAL COLLECTION the week of November 25th through November 29th, you are advised to have your leaves out on Monday morning of the final week. Once we have made our last pass on your street, we will not return.

  • Leaves must be raked to the edge of the road into long narrow rows (windrows) not more than 18 inches into the road.
NOTE: For your safety and that of the public, leaf piles placed in the road beyond 18 inches from the edge of the road are a hazard to the motoring public,school buses and emergency vehicles.

Leaves not placed as described or leaves left around parked cars will not be removed. Do not mix dog waste, branches, twigs, rocks, shrubbery, grass clippings or plastic bags in with leaves. Do not place tarps over your leaves. We will bypass them and they will not be collected. Curbside leaf collection does not apply to commercial/industrial properties, condominium developments, manufactured home communities, apartment developments or any other properties that are not part of the townships municipal trash collection.

If you wish to remove your leaves earlier or later than our scheduled pick up, you may deposit them at The Yard Waste Recycling Center located at 5536 Indian Creek Road. Hours are:

Hours are: May 1st – May 31st – M-W-F  9AM-7PM, S-S Noon to 7PM
June 1st – October 31st – M-W-F-S 9AM-7PM, S – Noon to 7PM
November 1st – April 30th – M-W-F-S-S Noon to 5PM

If you have questions about leaf removal, contact us at 610.966.4343 (x117) or Dfowler@lowermac.com

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.

Board votes to subdivide Kratzer

Posted on by

Last night the BOC voted 3-1 (Brown against, Conrad absent) to subdivide the Kratzer Farm. If you are new to this issue here is an overview.

Thoughts:

1. There is no reason to rush to sell any portion of the farm.  Working one time potential revenue into a budget calculation then seemingly counting on it…. is just wildly irresponsible. There is no guarantee it sells at all yet alone a reasonable price close to the estimate.  I think a high school personal financial management student would recognize that. This practice is amplified during a time when a property tax is on the table. How on Earth could anyone think relying on the one selling of assets is good long term financial planning? It’s akin to burying your head in the sand. Does nothing to address long term issues.

*Note right now, the property is generating revenue. The Parks board investigated this at their last meeting. The property is not costing us a dime. In fact you can say renting the house pays for a portion of maintenance on the rest of the property.

2. Solicitor Somach brought up an alternative option to advertise the house for sale before spending even more money on engineering. This way we can see if there even is a market for the house before we spend more money. We’ve already spent over 13,000 on engineering costs, appraisals ect. I thought this made sense. Why spend more money until we see if there is even a market?

3. Brian Higgins and I are both on record supporting waiting until the results of the parks plan before moving forward. This was the near unanimous recommendation from membership of not only the parks board but also the EAC and planning commission. Doug Brown is supportive of that. Ryan Conrad has been warm to the idea. So basically we have two lame ducks who are driving an unpopular decision. That is not right and is a blatant waste of money for no reason. They should understand that in a transition period you need to acknowledge a new board might go in a new direction.

Lastly, there was an agreement to wait which now seems to have just been tossed aside. This was the understanding of the Parks Board, planning commission and EAC. In fact the Parks board devoted a significant amount just one week ago working on studying the house. If they had known the board was going to plow ahead they wouldn’t have wasted their time or staff’s time.

Here is the letter the PR board sent. It contains an overview of some of the information they gathered about the house. They have done more public investigation of the pro’s and con’s of selling then I’ve seen in over a year from the BOC. That’s a problem. I attended budget workshops last year when this was discussed. I can sum it up in one sentence: “Shall we sell Kratzer? Yes, it’s a continuation of our policy.”  . . . . . 

 

BOC Agenda preview 10/3

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.

Executive session – Clerical union contract review – I believe Bruce Fosselman and Ryan Conrad (chair of budget and finance committee) are the designees to negotiate. I think this is a strength of Conrad’s and I’m happy he has this responsibility.

Hearings and Approvals

Shepherds Corner – Development project on the corner of Krocks and Hamilton Corridor. At this stage I would vote to approve this project. However, had I sat on the planning and zoning committee when this plan came in as a sketch at that point I would have encouraged the developer to consider swapping the storm water features to the front of the building and moving the parking to the rear.

If you ever drove past the medical office on Walnut St. in East Macungie near the Buckeye tavern it’s a similar look with attractive storm water features in the front. I think that a landscaped storm water basin with split rail fencing presents a very pleasant street scape. This would be something more in line with our vision for a “world class boulevard”. Something less “strippy”. To achieve this we need to encourage developers to pay attention to curb appeal. The time to do this is very early in the process.

One of the biggest things that makes a strip development a strip is locating the parking in the front so it becomes the dominant feature.  It is important to shield the parking from boulevard. Thats the difference between a “Boulevard” and Macarthur Rd. or any other strip. We have Commissioners who talk about the world class boulevard and that’s wonderful yet they keep approving strip (or strippy) projects. Shepherds Corner is not a terrible project. (I reserve that label for plan approvals like the “American Kitchens” approved plan) It could be alot better but at this point it is what it is. And that is what we need to shoot for design wise if we want to have a “World Class Boulevard” in our township. Main Street design. Not strip design with some bells and whistles.

Ideal form of Hamilton Boulevard Buildings. This emulates a classic Main St.

This would be the ideal form of commercial/office development on Hamilton Boulevard. I believe we need to start proposing a unified vision. One way to do this is to present photographs of desired “look” to developers early in the process. This would be a model I would encourage.

*Note this project is tied to (because of shared stormwater) Hamilton Crossings. It’s unlikely it would happen without Hamilton Crossings being built.

Plan approval for Millbrook farms – This is another project that has been in the “pipeline” for awhile and I would likely vote in support of. Millbrook farms is a great subdivision with a very active HOA who is currently working with the township to utilize tree-vitalize grants to enhance their public realm.

Engineering – Acceptance of roadways for Liquid Fuels Reimbursement.

What is the Liquid Fuels Tax 
A tax of 12 cents per gallon is imposed on all liquid fuels (primarily gasoline) used or sold and delivered in Pennsylvania. The tax is imposed on the ultimate consumer, but the distributor is liable for collecting and remitting the tax.

 

Portions of this tax are then distributed to municipalities. The amount we receive is based on miles of roadways and population. There is a very specific list of items the township can use this state money for.  Primarily it consists of repair and maintenance of roads.

Authorization to advertise Act 537 ordinance – See last months meeting agenda preview for an overview of Act 537.

Township Manager’s Report – Last meeting the board instructed the the manager to continue with the process to subdivide and sell the Kratzer farm house. As you might recall, I and others including the Parks board, EAC and Planning commission formally expressed concern with a previous plan to subdivide the house, barn and driveway. More information here. 

We were successful in convincing the board to explore the value of the access (driveway) and the barn for a potential future greenway trailhead. The discussion at the time was to hold off on any subdividing until the results of the parks and recreation comprehensive plan were completed and presented. At least that was mine and others understanding.

At some point the discussion shifted and the process moved forward with the house. At last weeks meeting I would have voted against an authorization to instruct the manager to move forward with an appraisal and I would have honored the previous discussions to stop the subdivision process entirely until the park plan addressed the issue.

General Admin – One item on the Gen Ad agenda is the creation of the TreeTenders AD-Hoc committee. I support this in lieu of a shadetree commission. I attended the tree-tender training and think it’s an excellent program.

 

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.

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

Posted on by

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

King George Inn Supporters Implore South Whitehall Commissioners – Mcall

Few thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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.

King George Inn Preservation Meeting Tonight

Posted on by

Those who support the preservation of the King George Inn are meeting tonight to discuss options to save the historic building which is on the national register of historic places. 

The meeting will take place at the Lehigh Valley Heritage Museum tonight at 6:30 PM . (Thursday)

Photo from Wikipedia

I had a chance to read the recently adopted (2009) South Whitehall Comprehensive plan this AM. While the South Whitehall zoning ordinance has no protections in place for historic structures, the South Whitehall comp plan encourages adoption of historic preservation protections. There is a whole 3 page section outlining a plan for protection of historic inventory.

There are four sites and structures in South Whitehall Township listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Dorneyville Crossroads of which the KGI is a part of is one along with the townships 2 covered bridges and Haines Mill.

A couple of the items outlined are mechanisms I favor for encouraging rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic structures. Remember we shouldnt be regulating protection but rather we should be streamlining the process to save buildings. Make it the path of least resistance.

The township created and adopted a great comprehensive plan. By adopting it they “bought into” the concepts laid out in it. Here is one of those moments for some followthrough. Is South Whitehall township another municipality that just goes through the motions of comprehensive planning or are they actually going to buy in and follow through.