LOWER MACUNGIE TWP., Pa. — Lower Macungie Middle School could be getting new neighbors soon — a lot of them.
The proposed Mill Creek Pointe apartments, which came before township commissioners Thursday, would put 180 units across 30 six-unit structures and a community center across the street from the school.
The nearly 46-acre lot on former farmland at 6300 Lower Macungie Road sits only a few minutes away from the busy commercial centers on the Trexlertown stretch of Hamilton Boulevard.
According to township documents, the development would occur in two phases: first constructing 10 apartment buildings and a community center, then the following 20 apartment buildings.
Floodplain and detention pond work would occur in both phases.
The plan shows 552 parking spaces, storm water basins and driveway access from Lower Macungie Road and Spring Creek Road.
Conditional approval for the project was put on hold Thursday after the legal representation for the developer raised concern of a potential conflict of interest over the board's intention to retain Eastburn and Gray as special legal counsel to the township in opposition of the project's application.
A lawyer for the applicant said the firm previously represented the developer during the process, and absent a waiver it may be an illegal conflict of interest.
"I just heard about this today," solicitor David Brooman said. "So I've got to look into it. If you notice the board has not yet voted to accept Special Counsel and there's a motion on the table. So we will do a redo, if you will.
"Sorry you came out tonight. But that's just the way sometimes these things happen."
Council President Brian Higgins encouraged the developer's attorneys that if there were any similar issue in the future, to contact them in advance as soon as possible so the agenda could be adjusted for the public.
To have time to review, and allow the property owner to get necessary documents in line, the hearing will be continued to the April 4 meeting "to make sure we have all bases covered," Higgins said.
Crowd opposes development
More than 30 people came to the meeting intending to protest the development.
Some said they were concerned over the environmental impacts over loss of open space and its potential impact on flooding, and others frustrated with the continued developments in the increasingly less-rural township.
"You can't keep putting cement on top of ground and expect our environmental to stay safe and that's all there is to it," resident Toni Torpey said.
"You have to look at more than just the apartments and build on existing land sites.
"Use those foundations that are already established instead of building brand new."
In response to a concern about flooding along Spring Creek Road made during public comment, Higgins noted the township's low property taxes, limiting the expansiveness of what could be done.
But he said the township is keeping its "nose to the grindstone."
"They just keep building, I don't think they care about the residents because it's all about the money," said Laurice Padilla, who lives near the development.
She came to the meeting to voice opposition to the developer based on flooding and traffic.
"That's all they want is a quick fix," Padilla said. "People don't even live here that build the property, and they live somewhere else and we're the ones having to struggle to get to work. "
Denying developments has the potential to kick off a lengthy and costly legal battle with property managers, as seen in the last year in Lowhill Township as officials attempt to stop the construction of a set of proposed warehouses.
Lower Macungie Township recently rejected a 44-unit apartment complex near its township offices, noting flooding and traffic concerns.
The proposed development is currently within the township's Urban Zoning District, where high density development in close proximity to high traffic-volume corridors is permitted.
Conditions set by the township
The planning commission ensured the developer had some limitations, attaching 17 proposed conditions along with their recommendation.
They included requiring a buffer between the project and Lower Macungie Road, requiring a new hearing if the remaining farmland on the site is to have a change of use, and requiring concurrence from the East Penn School District regarding traffic signal and infrastructure redesign so as to not interfere with school bus and student pickup needs.
The project was recommended by the township's planning commission in November.
A traffic engineering review was conducted by Heinrich and Klein Associated, listing the anticipated traffic impact fee from the developer is listed at $246,176 to the township. It estimates 1,229 vehicle trips per day during the weekday from the site.
The study also requests a sidewalk or walking rail along the property near Lower Macungie Road, Spring Creek Road and Mill Creek Road. It also calls for a widening of Lower Macungie Road at the site access driveway for turn lanes,
Developers have so far shown plans for a trail along Lower Macungie Road and Spring Creek Road, but not for road widening.
The project will come before the board again at a later date with a land development plan before construction can occur.
