The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on Friday reversed a decision Lehigh County Judge Michelle Varricchio made more than a year ago that invalidated the zoning ordinance that would allow David Jaindl to build a mix of warehouses, commercial buildings and hundreds of homes on 700 acres of prime Lower Macungie farmland.
In other words, the Lower Macungie Township Board of Commissioners appealed Varricchio's September 2011 decision and won, according to a story in The Morning Call.
The zoning ordinance stands as written.
Ron Eichenberg, president of the township commissioners, said the commissioners are pleased with the decision.
"Lower Macungie Township is pleased that the Commonwealth Court recognized that we acted appropriately and in compliance with applicable law in providing notice to the public of the July 2010 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. We understand and appreciate that certain residents of the township disagreed with these amendments.
"However, it is clear that all residents received the required notices and had an
opportunity to comment at public meetings prior to enactment of the amendments. ...
"With this ruling, it is our hope that we can move forward in a positive direction with respect to tha future of the township," Eichenberg said.
Others were clearly not happy.
"Friends for the Protection of Lower Macungie Township is very disappointed in the commonwealth decision," said spokesman Ron Beitler.
"Funding for this lawsuit was an overwhelming community effort by nearly 1,000 residents who signed a petition. Neighboring communities spoke out against it and smart growth advocates have condemned this zoning change as the antithesis of smart growth.
"The details of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) were negotiated confidentially and once decided unilaterally by elected officials only a few weeks were available for the public to review what could be the single largest and most destructive land development decision in the history of the township.
"The commonwealth decision is 22 pages and complex. The appellants will consider their options after the holidays," Beitler said.
The 700-acre parcel bounded Smith Lane and Mertztown, Spring Creek and Ruth roads in the southwest corner of the township is, some say, some of the best farmland not only in the state, but in the country.
Jaindl Land Co.'s plan to develop it with more than 700 units of high-density housing, warehouses and commercial establishments has been a hotly debated issue in the township since the change to the zoning ordinance was signed in July 2010.
There is an issue locally with folks (esp seniors) falling prey to con artists via mail and phone schemes. I hope your smarter about that then you are about this.
Sadly they can both probably expect to not be re-appointed when their terms are up since thats how this board operates "punishing" volunteers who who dare disagree with them public.
And may I remind everyone the MOU went far beyond simple re-zoning. It changed definitions. It waived traffic impact fees. It outlined a timeline for adoption by Jaindl's representation. Ok fast forward to after the appellants won. Again, ball in BOC's court. Again another chance to stop the litigation. 1000 signatures on a petition. 125 residents at a meeting. Friends publicly stated we would stop fundraising efforts if BOC agreed to hold a series of town hall meetings outlining Quarry vs. Warehouses. ALL the options apples to apples. So the public could weight in. We were very clear, if the public weighed in and sentiment was warehouses.. Well then we would drop fundraising efforts. All we have EVER wanted was transparency in our gov't and the ability for residents to weigh in on the largest forced rezoning in township history. Period. There were many circuit breaker built in to stop the lawsuit. Each time the BOC dug in.
Presenting these options to the public BEFORE confidentially negotiating a "memorandum of understanding" was all "friends" ever wanted. Fortunately we believe the actions were illegal which is why we supported the appellants. But before that, BEFORE the lawsuit even during the lawsuit we always made it clear. Stop the process and present the options. How can anyone argue against that? That they think the public was too stupid to understand quarry vs. warehouses? I have no idea. Impossible to speculate what their reasoning to skip public discourse and jump right into confidential negotiations were. Willet I read you comments on here often. I think your a respectful guy but I have to disagree with you that fundamental gov't transparancy is never a "dead horse". This is muni gov't. Not representative gov't. Not like electing officials to go to washington to make decisions for you. Local gov't when done right should be a different animal. It allows for DIRECT participation by residents. Here was an opportunity for an excercise is true democracy. Present the pro's and cons of 1. fight the quarry. 2. accept a quarry. 3. negotiate a zoning change that would lead to warehousing... and then initiate public discourse and finally public polling. How could they have gone wrong with that course of action?
Then to ask the question. Ok which do you prefer? I and others who prefer the likely small quarry were never given an opportunity to weigh in on this choice BEFORE the MOU was ever negotiated. Yes, residents were against a quarry. But would they continue to be once the alternative of warehousing was presented? I and others, many others cause I ask this question often would have preferred the quarry. So again JT. Would it have been better for the BOC to proceed in this fashion? I don't think I am, but maybe I would have been in the minority and folks would have indicated they prefer industrial warehouses/strip malls and more housing. I honest to god think most folks agree with me and prefer a quarry. Would the public have supported spending money on a legal battle to keep the land preserved Ag? To fight the size of a quarry? (As Lo Milford has successfully fought a developer) But regardless the question is.... presenting the options to the public. Would we be in this mess if this was done?
Some would argue commenting on every issue is bad 'campaigning'. That if I run I should leave my statements to vague soundbites like 'I support smart growth' or "I'm for lower taxes".. silly general statements that no one can really argue with. I won't do that. Won't play that game. Residents in LMT are smarter then that. Back to the issues.. I ask you this 'Michele'. Simple question. Understanding the specifics are different (procedurally.. curative amendment vs. a zoning change) but the philosophy in question being the same. Do you think the residents in Lower Milford (supported by local officials) are wrong challenging a developers quarry? (and winning so far) Yup they've spent public money. But so far they've prevented the quarry and the land in question will remain as it is. They didn't roll over. So again 'Michelle', simple question was that wrong?
You're bitter over your loss. I get it. But you lost. Stop costing the township tens of thousands in attorney fees, if you really care about LMT!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=184488904932407&set=a.184488891599075.40601.171403946240903&type=3&theater Does this document outline: A. A public process outlining for the public a choice between a quarry, fighting a quarry or an alternative plan of industrial warehouses, strip malls and housing, then inviting the public to participate in a discussion about that choice? or B. Does this outline a pre-determined outcome negotiated confidentially where bare minimum public participation required by law is observed?