LMT’s Wiki photograph soon to be extinct

Posted on by
I never noticed this before. I’ve been to the township wiki page many times. But check out the photograph. Take a good look because it may soon be gone. The picture I believe is of the Jaindl tract. The caption states is was taken off Hilltop Rd. It’s either a small part of the tract or directly adjacent. And yes, the photo would represent only a tiny portion of the immense warehouse project. Looks to be about 20 acres. Just a small speck of the 700 acres. That’s how immense this development could be.

 

Interestingly enough this bucolic countryside scene will be plowed over and replaced with a giant warehouse, maybe a parking lot for tractor trailers or perhaps a storm water retention basin. Hilltop Rd. connects with Mertztown Rd near the Butz-Leister farm.

Maybe it’s time someone submits a new photo for our wiki entry? Since this is the last part of the township that looks this the photograph does it really make sense anymore?

This scene may disappear and become extinct in the township. And it’s solely because of a choice made by our commissioners in 2010 including Roger Reis and Ron Eichenberg who are up for re-election on May 21st. I’m hoping folks remember this when they vote and consider replacing them.

Question & Answer – TIF Funding/Hamilton Crossings

Posted on by

Rec’d this question today. I thought it was worthy of a blogpost answer.

From Facebook – William DeMauriac – Ron, what is your position on spending tax revenue on any private project like the Hamilton Crossings?

1. My position is two fold. First. The development itself is a good project, but more importantly it’s in the right location. Aside from making development pay it’s own way with elected officials ensuring projects that receive waivers and exceptions provide the community an return on investment, smart growth is guiding growth to appropriate locations. Location is everything for this massive shopping complex. Costco will attract regional shoppers, the location is ideal since our interior residential roads will not be affected by non-local traffic.

Further, the developer Tim Harrison is community conscientious. And trust me, I’ve heard the song and dance developers give in front of our BOC and Pcom many times over the last 3 years. After personally sitting down with Tim last week I am confident he is genuine in his desire to build a project not only himself but the community can be proud of. He has shown a willingness to go above and beyond.

2. Secondly we have the funding mechanism. There are questions to be answered still. What will the terms be? As you know, the TIF committee meetings which consist of reps from the Twp, EPSD and County are occuring now an ongoing. I appreciate those including Percy Dougherty and others from the EPSD who requested these meetings be public. Unfortunately, that request was denied. The argument made was that developer finances will be discussed. I’m of the mindset that when seeking public funding, your finances become the business of the public.

Moving beyond that however, one of my personal goals is to encourage growth that does not rely on the taxpayer to shoulder burden. Elected officials should be questioning the terms and conditions of the TIF every step of the way and be willing to let the developer walk if the terms and conditions do not benefit the community from a lifecycle cost benefit analysis perspective.

Too often our elected officials in LMT are all too willing to give away something (waivers, exceptions, density, intensity) for nothing. This is a fundamental focus of my campaign. I’m not anti growth I’m pro smart growth. The fact that officials argue we still need economic development after 2 decades of robust growth is proof we’ve grown in an inefficient way. After two decades we should be in pretty good shape. To indicate we aren’t by claiming we need growth is fundamentally telling. It’s time to stop and evaluate the status quo. Win or lose I hope my candidacy will force that conversation.

Thanks for your question William.

Ron

 

Development Watch: Allen Organ Rezoning on agenda this Thursday.

Posted on by

The controversial Allen Organ rezoning is on the agenda for this Thursday’s Board of Commissioners meeting. The ordinance was advertised in January and will likely be voted on at the meeting.

Currently the 36 acre parcel is zoned commercial but has multiple unique constraints that make it difficult to develop without a special new zoning district. These include floodplain, location adjacent to a railroad and a dog-leg shape. To make the project economically feasible the developer has proposed a zoning ordinance that will allow up to 200+ apartments along with a 75,000 square foot supermarket with gas pumps.

Given past statements by current commissioners including board president Ron Eichenberg (who also happens to be the Realtor of the project) the ordinance is likely to be passed. I continue to have major concerns with the traffic impact on Rt. 100 and Willow Lane.  I do not believe we should be considering zoning change requests to expedite development in the western corridor of the township. We should instead concentrate on infilling the appropriate corridors such as areas surrounding Hamilton Boulevard and the By-pass. These areas can handle the traffic impacts of largescale development without the need for costly improvements and avoiding negative impact on the residential portions of our township.

What I would have advocated for differently:

One alternative is targeting tracts for preservation west of Rt. 100 using mechanisms such as a transferable development rights program. Here landowners can be fairly compensated for their property by selling development “rights” to other developers seeking enhanced, new or special uses, greater density or intensity, or other regulatory flexibility.

The Allen Organ parcel may have been a perfect candidate for such a program. We could have allowed this development to occur but only in exchange for preservation elsewhere. These programs are in place throughout the state. Everyone wins. The developer seeking more intense uses has options to acquire them, landowners who should be fairly compensated for their development rights are, and the community at large seeking to protect our quality of life has a mechanism to ensure it.

The key ingredients for a successful TDR program are all here; a strong real estate market; community consensus for conservation, and a community willingness to accommodate smart growth. All we need are leaders willing to explore these alternative options.

Drinking water in LMT now Fluoridated

Posted on by

    

Did you know public drinking water in Lower Macungie is now Fluoridated? Township residents with public connections get their water from Lehigh County Authority. (LCA) As part of a ongoing regionalization of the water supply, LCA signed a deal with Allentown a few years ago to connect to the city’s water system. The connection was recently completed and city water has begun flowing into the LCA water system last month. The deal obligates LCA to purchase a certain amount of water from the city starting in 2013 and increasing that amount in subsequent years.

Since the city fluoridates it’s water, our drinking water supply here in LMT is now flouridated. For now, the concentration is less than in the city but this amount will increase as LCA continues to increase it’s water purchases from Allentown.

There has long been public debate over whether fluoridating the water supply is a good thing. It’s long been a contentious issue in the city since it began fluoridating in 2000.

Water Flouridation Controversy – Wikipedia article
The next Allentown water issue could be flouridation – Mcall

Another by product of the purchasing agreement is that LMT previously had mainly well water. Generally well water is considered a higher quality water source than surface water from a creek or reservoir. For years some including the ‘Friends LMT‘ organization have linked development pressure on the Little Lehigh creek watershed to the water supply quality in Allentown, since the city gets most of it’s water from the creek.

Now with the new agreement in place, LMT also gets it’s drinking water in part from the Little Lehigh Creek. Perhaps now this will open some eyes to issues surrounding the water quality of our watershed in relation to development pressure and policies by our current and previous boards that continue to put flooding, sediment and water quality pressure on the creek.

Op-Ed – Scott Alderfer Chair EAC – Residents didn’t cause polarization

Posted on by

Scott Alderfer chair of our townships EAC (volunteer position) wrote an op-ed last week about the perceived “polarization” of the township. Here’s the link.

I agree that Jaindl’s proposed Spring Creek development and questions surrounding the rezoning process have been polarizing. And Conrad seemed to try to vilify residents who exercised their First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress of their grievances relating to the township’s actions in rezoning Jaindl’s land. So it seems that the polarization has been created not by some residents suing the township but by the township commissioners preferentially listening to one powerful landowner to the exclusion of thousands of other township landowners who actually live in the township.

Further Scott gives more evidence to the fact that the Board solicited very little in terms of feedback from township volunteer bodies when negotiating the flawed plan “A”. I’ve also spoken to a former planning commissioner who expressed frustration at a lack of available information on exactly what was being negotiated in late 2009/early 2010 that resulted in the MOU to rezone hundreds of acres of prime farmland into industrial, housing and strip commercial.

I’m disappointed that these commissioners never asked their Environmental Advisory Council, on which I still serve, for its opinion on the rezoning. We would have advised that rezoning for development in the rural, western part of the township would be a catastrophic loss of open space and of the quality of life inherent in an agricultural district. We would have warned that removing the agricultural protection designation to allow development creates a dangerous precedent that could encourage other agricultural landowners to demand the same opportunity to cash in that was afforded to Jaindl. In fact, the township recently received a new request to do just that.

 

Why won’t township officials consider traffic calming measures?

Posted on by

It is by far and away the most frequent complaint the township receives. Almost monthly letters are read at BOC meetings written by frustrated residents dealing with speeding issues on their local streets. Many of these letters ask about speed bumps or speed tables. The answer the BOC usually gives is something ambiguous or vague to the effect of if they install one set they will get a request for more or something about creating more work for public works and plowing.

You cannot argue with the effectiveness of these measures that physically slow down traffic. It’s both a quality of life issue and a safety issue. Penndot actually actively promotes these measures via it’s “traffic calming handbook” publication.

The handbook outlines protocols for when traffic calming measures are appropriate. I’m beginning to research other policies local township governments in the state have in place for facilitating resident requests for traffic calming.

It’s been far too long elected officials have buried their heads in the sand regarding the fact that if they continue the growth policies they currently have in place they cannot avoid forever dealing with the negative by-products such as speeding issues, truck traffic and volume issues on our local roadways.

It’s like building warehouses without no truck zones on nearby local streets or allowing elementary schools to open without signage or 15 mph school zones.

See a pattern here? 

The past two presidents of the board have been Roger Reis and Ron Eichenberg. The President is responsible for framing issues and putting items on the agenda. There have been some major failures over the past two terms.

 

 

 

 

Request to rezone on agenda Thursday

Posted on by

The public needs to be aware that a request to rezone 7513 Quarry Road will be under consideration to forward to the planning commission this Thursday. The item is on this weeks agenda. This is SEPARATE from the Jaindl issue. This is a large tract at Rt. 100 and Quarry Roads.

This large protected farmland parcel may very well be the first additional domino to fall as a result of the Jaindl rezoning.

The request is to change the zoning from Agriculture Protection to Commercial. This is a major step to transforming Rt. 100 into Macarther Rd with strip mall commercial properties along the entire corridor.

Residents who have concerns with this should make their opinion known. Commissioners have stated “they had no choice” in rezoning the Jaindl land. What will be their stance on this property? 

1/4 Allen Organ LVPC comments letter

Posted on by
1/4/13
Board of Commissioners,
I would like to encourage you to address the recent comments by the LVPC regarding the proposed Allen Organ Ordinance. I believe this is an example of building an ordinance to accomodate a sketch plan vs.  the best interests of the township. We must not compromise on interconnectivity simply because a site has unique constraints. (the creek, dogleg shape and the railroad) Sara and the Planning Commission have done a good job but this one issue still remains. I’ve commented on this in the past.
Here is why this particular comment is so important. It’s outlined nicely by the LVPC. The County Comprehensive plan has a policy of preserving arterial capacity by reducing local trips. When we force short local trips onto our arterial roads we create congestion. This leads an endless cycle of expensive “improvements” in attempting to increase capacity. This is nothing more then a perpetual band-aid.
I would encourage the board to read carefully the LVPC street connectivity guide. As well as other connectivity formulas that are out there as examples of how to address this issue. We must stop developing in isolated pods that dump the majority of traffic directly into single large arterial intersections. This issue needs to be addressed before passing this ordinance. The negative impact on Rt. 100 and Willow lane could be a major issue moving forward with the Remington Plan. Please remember, the carrying capacity of Rt. 100 also directly affects Macungie Borough where my business is located.
Respectfully,
Ron Beitler
5540 Lower Macungie Rd

Letter to BOC – 1/8 – Lifecycle Cost Benefit Analysis

Posted on by

Letter below sent to township Board of Commissioners after attending today’s ‘curbside chat’ where Charles Marohn from Strongtowns.org advocated for developing in a fiscally sustainable way. This is one tool I have personally advocated for over the past two years.

Gentleman,

Please once again see attached “Cradle to Cradle” cost benefit analysis of the Jaindl Project and please note it was presented to the board approximately 2 years ago. I also did personally about a year ago via public comment.


This particular lifecycle analysis focused on the total costs to residents of the various waivers/exceptions granted in the MOU. In general these are the concepts that Charles Marohn talked about in today’s ‘curbside chat’. Including the ongoing costs of infrastructure and services. This strategy can and should be applied to all large scale development projects.


Simply put, usage of this tool or something simliar shows when development offers ROI on taxpayer investment and when it does not. This is the crux of what I have always questioned about the negotiated MOU and ongoing development projects in the township.


About the analysis: This was well thought out and researched but please note it does contain assumptions. The point however was to illustrate a process which was never done here in the township to my knowledge. Moving forward from the MOU this process needs to be implemented on future projects.


Please consider adding cost benefit analysis of all greenfield and large scale development projects into the scope of the smart growth review. This is one of the philosophical issues that frames the way we grow which in turn influences the patterns.


Thank you
Ron Beitler

Guest Blogged on Renew LV “Crossroads” blog!

Posted on by

Guest blogged on RenewLV crossroads blog. Check it out here! Wrote about tomorrow mornings ‘Curbside Chat’ with the Strongtowns.org organization. Renew Lehigh Valley (RenewLV) is a smart growth organization working to strengthen the region’s core communities, preserve open space, and create a sustainable and equitable foundation for future growth.

The Strongtowns message has been the foundation of my interest in smart growth. At it’s core smart growth is a fiscally conservative policy that addresses the fundamental issue of fiscal sustainability. Simply put, new development should produce a return on taxpayer investment in infrastructure and services. I look forward to hearing the message in the context of Lower Macungie Township.

What: Curbside Chat
When: Jan 9th 8am
Where: Lower Macungie Township Municipal building.