Jaindl Presents 'Plan B' at Community Forum

David Jaindl hopes to make more township residents aware of his new plan to develop 700 acres of farmland in Lower Macungie Township.

David Jaindl and the Jaindl Land Co. will host a forum 6-7 p.m. Tuesday at the Lower Macungie Community Center in a further effort to tell township residents about the changes he has made to the Spring Creek development plan.

The original plan, presented more than two years ago, included the construction of about 700 town homes, a commercial district and several warehouses on 700 acres of farmland in the southwest corner of Lower Macungie Township.

The new plan caps the residential development at 400 homes. Some will be single family swellings, others will be part of a "55-and-older" community which will lessen the burden on the East Penn School District, say proponents of the plan.

"Plan B" would also reduce commercial development to just over 71,000 square feet from the original 443,000 square feet. It would also provide two acres for a fire station to be built and would reduce the overall truck traffic the original plan would have generated, Jaindl says.

But Jaindl will not proceed with the new plan if the seven people who have been suing him since 2010 continue with their suit.

"We are considering these changes in an effort to assist the township in resolving all outstanding litigation which has already cost the Lower Macungie Township taxpayers in excess of $135,000," Jaindl said in a written release.

"It would be my hope that the Appellants would also prefer to put an end to the legal battle and stop the negative financial impact to the Lower Macungie Township residents," he said.

The hope is that the informal community setting of Tuesday's forum will be one at which residents feel comfortable discussing the elements of the new plan with David Jaindl, said Adam Jaindl in an email announcing the forum.

Robert Sentner February 18, 2013 at 02:34 AM
"It would be my hope that the Appellants would also prefer to put an end to the legal battle and stop the negative financial impact to the Lower Macungie Township residents," Jaindl said. and the devlopment of 700 acres of prime farm land is going to be a positive impact ???
Ron Beitler February 18, 2013 at 03:18 PM
Yes, plan 'B' represents a better alternative to plan 'A'. I havent heard one single official or resident say otherwise. I would hope Mr. Jaindl sticks with this much better plan regardless of what the appellants choose moving forward. It's interesting, plan 'B' demonstrates the following: 1. That the commissioners led by president at the time Roger Reis (who sets agenda's and speaks for the board) and current president Ron Eichenberg failed miserably at 'negotiating'. They claim the "compromise" laid out in the MOU was to avert a quarry. Ok I disagree and feel there were better options. But lets give them the benefit of the doubt. If thats the case if the result of their 'negotiations' was the terrible plan 'A'.. well then they failed. 2. If it was solely community backlash resulted in Jaindl scaling back the project well then the shame is that commissioners were so completely and utterly out of tune with the residents. And further it showed that community groups like 'friends' and the folks they supported namely the appellants who sued over this made a real difference. And that difference is stark.... -Reduction of housing by 3-400 units -Reduction of commercial by half -Swapping of the park to a location that makes more sense (won't have to drive/walk through the worse of the tractor trailer traffic to get to it. -Maintaining a major truck thoroughfare as a private road so the taxpayers wont have to pay for perpetual upgrades and maintenance.
Ron Beitler February 18, 2013 at 05:03 PM
Now here is the thing.... we will never know what went on in the "executive session" negotiations with David Jaindl. The confidential 2/2/10 and 2/4/10 "executive sessions on consensus." which are outlined here. http://www.ronbeitler.com/2013/01/02/jaindl-timeline-open-and-transparant-process-or-pre-determined-outcome/ This is a part of the problem. And why I applaud folks like Percy Dougherty and others on the ESPD school board who asked for the TIF committee meetings to be public. I'm very happy the meeting minutes are available. This way we can see without question of the negotiators... in this case the TIF committee is truly questioning the need for and terms of the TIF agreement.
Scott Bieber February 18, 2013 at 05:33 PM
Yes, Jaindl's improved Plan "B" shows the township commissioners never really bargained tough with Jaindl three years ago when they accepted his first plan. They either were scared of him or liked his original plan. It's also disappointing to see Jaindl again trying to blame the seven appellants for the township's legal costs. There would have been no lawsuit if the township had invited public input on the zoning decision iinstaed of doing it behind closed doors. And it remains to be seen in the future whether his project, if it goes through, will be a net economic benefit for the township. It all depends if residents value the extra tax revenue from the warehouses, the family homes, a small shopping district, and 70 acres of land for a new park, in exchange for the increased traffic and truck traffic congestion on Route 100, Spring Creek Road and Mertztown Road, new road construction and widening for years to come all along Route 100, loss of the last remaining large farmland/open space tract in township, more roads for township crews to take care of and more school taxes for all the new kids from the new housing. Jaindl's offer of land for a fire station is nothing because the twsp would have requested that land as condition of approving the project.
LMTnative February 19, 2013 at 01:26 PM
The quarry is looking better and better - 0 new homes, 0 new commercial, 0 new warehouses, and limited lifespan. Terminate the backdoor agreement and zoning changes. Bring back the quarry.
LMTnative February 19, 2013 at 01:29 PM
Quarry - 0 real estate commissions. No money to be made by the LMT board of realtors. That's why they will never support the quarry.
Carl W February 20, 2013 at 03:32 PM
This land has already been developed, into things we call "farms." Jaindl proposing destruction. As drought showed, we can't depend on the Midwest, or middle PA. for eastern food. We need local farms, to help assure our own food. Not a lot of traffic, redundant & ticky-tacky buildings, to bring more people to Valley, more drain on services, AND MORE TRAFFIC !!!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something