.

Jaindl Will Use 'Plan B' When Appellants End Fight

David Jaindl will try to make sure his 'Plan B' is the one that is developed if and when the Appellants' law suit ends.

David Jaindl brought his revised plan for the Spring Creek development to the people of Lower Macungie Township Tuesday in what he hoped would be a comfortable setting at the township's community center.

His hope, he said in last week's announcement of the meeting, was that such a presentation away from the formality of a board of commissioners meeting would create an atmosphere that would allow people to speak freely about his new plan which he says provides for more green space and less truck traffic.

The seven people who have been suing him for the past two years, however, may make it impossible for him to proceed with the plan, he says.

In order to go forward with it, Jaindl needs to have the active recreation portion rezoned so he can move it to a better place, a process he cannot or will not pursue until the litigation is over, he says.

Currently the Appellants have asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear the case, but they don't know yet if they will even be heard.

He tried hard to get the neighbors to come and talk about the plan, he said, but he really wanted more.

Questions began to flow as the meeting went on.

"Plan B looks more acceptable," said Sydney Durgin, "Will you endorse it and see it through to the end regardless of litigation?"

Jaindl's voice took a somber tone.

"No," he said.

Why then, Durgin wanted to know, was Jaindl there?

"We're not the Appellants," she said.

Jaindl replied that he was hoping at least some of the Appellants would have attended the meeting to hear more about the plan directly from him.

"I think it's a better plan," Jaindl said, "I'm going to do everything I can to do that...but the litigation is preventing the land use swap."

Golden Girl2 February 20, 2013 at 05:32 PM
Interestingly the appellant’s case is not stopping Jaindl from going for the rezoning (or moving forward to implement plan A), he's just choosing not to and trying to leverage a more aesthetically pleasing plan B to get the case dropped. The case in front of the court (win or lose) would not change Jaindl’s ability to go forward with his plans (A or B) so why put the condition on changing his plan?
Ron Beitler February 20, 2013 at 06:56 PM
The tragedy here is how the Board of Commissioners were so completely out of tune with residents in 2010 and failed so completely to negotiate something closer to Plan 'B' from the get go. Better yet, why couldn't they have negotiated an alternative plan and THEN let the residents weigh in on if it was indeed better then a quarry or not? Many like myself prefer a quarry. I absolutely would. No question. Hands down. Warehousing is far more negatively impactful and destructive from a quality of life standpoint then a quarry. Ask anyone who lives near a warehouse in the township. The board knee jerked and we ended up with a much worse option. Thank goodness there was resident outcry and Mr. Jaindl was willing to reign the original plan in. There were many points over the last 2 years the Board could have acknowledged their terrible mistake and withdrawn from the MOU and let the community compare quarry vs. warehousing apples to apples. But they instead doubled down and wasted so much taxpayer money fighting residents. This fundamental failure is a huge reason why I am running for township commissioner. www.ronbeitler.com
Golden Girl2 February 20, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Please help me understand why you think a quarry is better? When I first heard about the quarry option it was to re-open the already existing quarries on the property which sounded like minimal impact and duration of mining. Last night he indicated that his plan was to quarry the 400 acres in the plan that is now the big Industrial area to be warehouses.
Robert Sentner February 20, 2013 at 08:18 PM
The large quarry would have never happened, DEP requirents, hours of operation, buried gas lines, bog turtles, spooted newts, one winged owls...etc etc. would have put a huge hurddle that a large quarry operation would have never gone thru with. Also a quarry is something that once it is mined its done. It think it was the 3 kings and Jaindls plan all along, and like I said before no reason for blaming Jaindl he's a developer and doing what developers do "develop" The 3 Kings are the ones to blame and they need to be replaced this Nov.
Ron Beitler February 20, 2013 at 08:28 PM
I put alot of time looking into this. Including visiting working quarries and also "dormant" quarries. 1. Quarries typically have set hours vs. warehouses... 24/7 365 One complaint I hear often about warehousing near Alburtis now is constant backup beeping all night long every single night. 2. Quarries have a shelf life. Then they become a lake/park/natural area 3. Rob is correct below. I've heard many smart people who understand the quarrying business tell me that the quarry option likely would have been nowhere near the 400 acres. 4. Remember, had the commissioners allowed the quarry the Agricultural protection zoning would have remained on nearly 300 acres. 5. Quarries have a rural character to them from the outside. But don't take my word for it, drive by one. There are working examples within a 15 minute drive. Look carefully though, when driving by since most are completely and totally screened from the roadways it's hard to tell they are even there.
Golden Girl2 February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Fair points about the attributes of a quarry and the prospect about one ever passing the DEP - I too don't think he ever intended to quarry I think Jaindl used that to scare the 'Kings' as you say. But - if a quarry were to be put there surely there would be the potential for environmental impact to ground water runoff, pollutants in the drinking water, air borne pollutants from the quarry process to name a few.
LMTnative February 21, 2013 at 04:13 PM
Isn't Plan B really Plan D??? Plan A - farmland as it currently is used (best option for residents). Plan B - Quarry (2nd best option for residents). Plan C - currently approved development (worst option for EPSD & residents). Plan D - Plan currently pitched as Plan B.
Ron Beitler February 21, 2013 at 04:21 PM
Exactly that is a better way of framing it. The commissioners took options 'A' and 'B' away from us. They unilaterally worked out option 'C' which was terrible. The residents spoke out and we got option 'D'. While D is better then C, it is far worse then A or B. Your exactly right and that is a better way of putting it.

Boards

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