About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Friday, September 28, 2012

Hanover Zoners Approve Two Flex Buildings

Standing room only at Hanover Tp ZHB
Before a standing-room only crowd of over 70 residents, Hanover Township's Zoning Hearing Board has paved the way for two "flex" buildings on the north side of Jaindl Boulevard, Following a September 27 hearing, zoners unanimously decided to grant dimensional variances for this $25 million project. They did so despite complaints about truck traffic and noise from members of a Traditions of America (TOA) residential community for older, active adults, located directly across the street.

Located on a 49-acre tract owned by David Jaindl, the property is currently under agreement of sale with Griffin Land, a Connecticut-based land development company that has recently expanded into the Lehigh Valley. It has properties both in Upper Macungie and Bethlehem Townships. According to owner David Jaindl, Griffin is "the most neighbor sensitive developer I could find for the property."

In fact, that afternoon, Griffin President Michael Gamzon met with TOA residents, who asked him to reconfigure his plans so that truck access to the site is from Rte 512 or Township Line Road, instead of Jaindl Boulevard. Gamzon told zoners he's postponing a scheduled Planning Commission presentation, scheduled for October, to see if the plans can be revised. He also vowed to meet with residents again.

Last month, Gamzon told Supervisors that each building would produce approximately 200 jobs. That figure could go up or down, depending on the tenants attracted. At his juncture, no tenant has been identified.

"Flex" buildings, as Gamzon explained, are structures that can serve multiple commercial purposes, from warehouses to light industrial to even office space. These are permitted uses in Hanover's planned industrial business district, where they've been proposed. Gamzon testified that he hoped to attract up to four tenants for each of the buildings, but that Griffin would remain the owner and manager at the site.

"We got money and we got votes, and we're going to use both." 
Though these are all permitted uses, a variance was necessary because Griffin was proposing to place all the doors and truck bays along just one side, the rear, of each building, away from TOA. Under Hanover's zoning ordinance, these can only be placed along 30% of each of the four sides of a building. This would allow for 76 doors and truck bays along a proposed 1050' x 260' building, and for 74 doors along the 1000' x 260' building. Griffin will use less door space - 65 (front building) and 61 (rear building) - than allowed under the zoning ordinance. But concentrating them on the rear side, away from the residents, would exceed the 30% maximum for door space along each side.

Project Engineer Kevin Horvath explained that it made sense to place all the bays and doors along one side. First, it takes advantage of the topography of the area, which drops 60' from the front to the rear of the property. Second, it discourages use as a trucking terminal, where double-sided loading (front and rear) are the norm. Third, and most importantly, it provides a buffer for TOA residents across the street.

Because of the downward slope of the property, Horvath told zoners that the visual impact of the site will be minimal. From the TOA development, Horvath stated that only the tops of these 38-40' buildings will be visible. Standing on Jaindl Boulevard, you'll see the top 10-15'.

David Jaindl calls project smart growth

Some TOA neighbors are opposed to any commercial development in their neighborhood. Anthony Scaramuzzino complained that after he moved here from NYC, "You put a residential neighborhood in the middle of what you could call Times Square. He later added, "We got money and we got votes and we're going to use both."

He also sounded off on the truck traffic that already exists along Jaindl Boulevard, comparing it to Route 78. "We can't leave a window open at night," he grumbled.

Matthew Ford moved in from New Jersey, which he called the Concrete State. "I don't want to see a warehouse or a trucking facility," he flatly stated.

Mary Jane Landrieu echoed those concerns, denouncing the increased truck traffic. "You're asking for a disaster to happen," she warned.

Other TOA residents seemed satisfied by the presentation.

Nick Tibberts asked, "Why do you even need a variance for this cosmetic change? It seems to me to be a waste of time." Joyce Camm added, "I love where I live. The main concern is the entrance way." Like Camm, Rosemary Douglas stated, "I love it here. It is the best decision of my life."

While zoners deliberated, David Jaindl explained why he planned for a residential community next to a planned industrial business district. "It's smart growth," he explained. "Live here, work here, shop here."

Now that Griffin Land has the variances, the next step in this process will be the Planning Commission. Gamzon predicted that plans will probably be ready in time for a meeting in November.

Griffin is represented by Attorney Greg Davis of Saul Ewing.

Planner Vincent Horvath must have been proud to see his son, Kevin, testify as an expert witness. But he had to recuse himself and was replaced by alternate Joseph Bednarik.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

more warehouses like this are sorely needed in in these parts

Anonymous said...

screw the old farts. they won't be voting for long

Anonymous said...

I live in Traditions and these people are way off base. All they needed to do was some homework before they bought their homes. Included in our documents was the zoning classifications of the adjoining property clearly spelled out. As was explained to use Thursday afternoon these two buildings can be built and their request was to make it more appealing to us.

Talking to others after the meeting it became more apparent to me that Lower Nazareth, where the grocery warehouse is located on Hanoverville Road, has already approved 4 million more square feet of warehouses.

Should have bought early at Traditions so you'd be in the back. Move back to the concrete state!

Anonymous said...

Amazing, they move here from NY and NJ and want to tell the real LV residents what to do. Guess this is the new Lehigh Valley

Anonymous said...

6:48 - Apparently warehouses are needed as evidenced by the continued demand and construction.

22/33/78 - located centrally between Philly, NYC, Reading, Harrisburg, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre.

Trust me you are going to see more.

Anonymous said...

If they stayed in NJ and NY we would not need more warehouses in the LV.

Flex space = JOBS and in case you didn't notice, we need JOBS!

Ron Beitler said...

I've heard jaindl's assertion that his warehousevilles are "smart growth" before. In fact his lawyer made this assertion during zoning hearing board meetings in Lower Macungie Township.

It's mind numbing to hear this bastardization of smart growth principle.

Yes, Smart growth encourages mixed use neighborhoods. Meaning that in today's world you can live next to many commercial uses without it affecting your quality of life. For ex. cafe's small retail, services like hair salons, bookstores ect. ect.

SG encourages this because you can pack more into a smaller area (compact traditional neighborhood design a major tenet of smart growth) therefore the taxpayer gets more return on our infrastructure investment and we grow in a more sustainable way.

Now remember, we have our Euclidean zoning (based on the town Euclid where it was first used) because it seperates uses. Back in the day we needed a mechanism to seperate noisy industrial uses from our residential areas.

We just don't have many noisy factories anymore and SG principle states you can now put COMPATIBLE uses together.

But what we have here is the EXACT reason we NEEDED Euclidean zoning for the last 5 decades. These are noisy, unsightly distribution centers. They are QOL killers. They are EXACTLY the reason for Euclidean zoning. They are completely incompatible with residential uses. (Trucks, Noise, aesthetics)

Ron Beitler said...

Here are the universally accepted 10 principles of Smart Growth.

1. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
2. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions
4. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective
5. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
6. Mix land uses
7. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
8. Take advantage of compact building design
9. Create walkable neighborhoods
10. Provide a variety of transportatopm choices

You can CLEARLY see, what Jaindl does is he Cherry picks item number 6 taking it completely out of context while totally ignoring 1, 2, 3 & 4 (in the case of LMT), 8, 9 and 10.

Ron Beitler said...

Lastly, (sorry this just strikes a nerve with me...)
These are the bullet points. If you read up on and understand SG principle #6 mixed use in completely contingent on uses being COMPATIBLE and COMPLIMENTARY.

Anonymous said...

Someone should look up the definition of Euclidean zoning and conventional suburban development for David and share it with him.

What he is proposing is the opposite of smart growth.

Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Ron, I went to your blog and it makes a lot of sense.

http://www.ronbeitler.com

Could you please run for public office? Join up with the RenewLV people? Write an editorial to the Morning Call every now and then? Serve on or speak to the LVPC?

Keep speaking the truth, dude!

Anonymous said...

David thinks what he is doing is smart growth because it is growth and it is smart for his bank account. Case closed.

Anonymous said...

Primer in dumb growth:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0508/culture_1-1.html

Ron Beitler said...

Look in LMT I've always said.. Jaindl isn't the villain. I honestly believe that. I disagree with Jaindl's definition of community... but he's not a villain.

In the case of our warehouseville in LMT that the "Friends" group is helping to fund the appellants fighting it.... The real villains in my opinion are the elected officials who allowed Jaindl to steamroll them and facilitated a zoning change allowing 700 acres of previously ag protected land to be paved over for warehouses. (they did this mere weeks after taking office)

I've had the opportunity to meet DJ in person a couple times and talk with him. He's a nice guy, big family man and a smart, successful and SAVVY businessman.

I just can't take anymore offense to when he starts mis-using the phrase smart growth so blatantly. Whether you believe in SG or not.. Some people dont... You can clearly see and agree that you can't take a philosophy and cherry pick 1 out of the 10 tenets and say you subscribe to it. You just can't do that.

I really wish DJ would take the time to truly understand SG. As the largest landowner and one of the most powerful men in our area he really could do so much to take the lead on the whole issue.

Scott Alderfer said...

I agree with you, Ron, that David Jaindl is a smart and savvy businessman. That's exactly why I call "BS" to what appears to me to be a calculated lie of, "Live here, work here, shop here."

Mr. Jaindl, you developed a property that became a 55 and older community. How many of those active adults (and soon to be formerly active adults) will EVER work in the industrial park across the street from their retirement community? And if any of them actually chose to do so, how could they even safely walk across the road to get to/from work? And shopping? Is there any retail that is part of this Hanover Twp mega development (I don't know; maybe, maybe not)? Certainly not walkable retail if there is. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THIS HANOVER TWP PROJECT IS NOT SMART GROWTH.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Mr. Alderfer,

I can tell you that I am intimately familiar with this stretch of Jaindl Boulevard bc that is how I commute by bike to and from Hanover Tp for meetings. i consider it one of the safest roads in the LV. It is lightly traveled, very wide, and has a nice wide berm.

I am not as knowledgeable as you or Ron on Smart Growth, which always struck me as something of a con job, anyway. Suffice it to say that the time to make these arguments is when the zoning districts are created, not when a dimensional variance is sought for a permitted use, and a dimensional variance that incidentally will benefit the adjoining residential community.

I could take each of the criterion pointed out by Ron and make the argument that this actually does promote smart growth. But I see his and your points too. I'm not sure.

Anonymous said...

Weren't they talking about putting some sort of Engineering College over there at somepoint?

Scott

Bernie O'Hare said...

No, Actually, that was up Airport Road, and in East Allen Township.

Ron Beitler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron Beitler said...

Bernie, I agree with you on the point that the time to argue smart growth principle is much earlier in the process. And I've been bangin that drum in LMT for awhile now. It's a perfect example of where local gov't fails. Oftentimes the community through no fault of there own isnt aware of these projects til well after they've progressed through the planning process and hit the approval stage at the big board because thats when the media picks up on stories. Yes you can make an argument that the community needs to be more engaged... but I can tell you first hand that process is (purposely?) not user friendly.

You can go to planning commission meeting (and I'm talking LMT cause these are the ones I'm most familiar with) and unless your really familiar with the engineering jargon (which took me about a year to become proficient enough in to understand whats going on) or have looked ahead of time at agenda detail online so you can be privy to the same information the board is looking at..(physical maps/plans ect) it's nearly impossible for "joe public" to understand whats going on most of the time. What I advocate for is local governments that go out of there way to explain and provide background info for the public at these meetings. There are some locally that do just that.

But to your point, your 100% right that this isn't the time.

This just happens to be an article on a community far from mine where I heard DJ again claim something to be smart growth when in my opinion and many others it clearly isn't. I'm not super familiar with "flex buildings" but here in LMT we have straight up no bones about it distribution warehouses. The very fact these buildings are 24/7 trucking operations disqualifies them from being the compatible uses mixed use proponents advocate for. One of the people who contacts me often lives in the borough of Alburtis right next to a LMT warehouse. I've visited his place to hear the beeping/idling/constant rumble of living next to one of these buildings.

Ron Beitler said...

posted double sorry.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Ron, a flex building certainly could include a warehouse, but not a distribution warehouse or truck terminal. That's one reason why Griffin made it single-sided loading instead of double-sided. Also, there will be no heavy manufacturing with the associated noise.

Anonymous said...

Its funny to see people like Jaindl use the term "smart growth". They are so ignorant to what "smart growth" means that is actually funny. This project is absolutely positively NOT "smart growth". It is scary growth that puts the very safety of the neighbors at risk unless Hanover Township fully vets each every tenant of these warehouses as long as they are in existence. Remember Concept Sciences in Hanover Township, Lehigh County? A clear case of a municipality not properly vetting and staying in touch with uses that it permitted in flex buildings. Anyway, there is reason for concern with this project. If the Township can stay on top of the uses, no problem. If not, problem. A good example of "smart growth" is the Bethlehem Township project near Freemansburg Avenue called Madison Farms. It meets ALL of the tenants listed by the 9:57 poster.

Anonymous said...

It is truly a shame that one man Ron Beitler takes his feud with the Jaindl's to every website he can find. The residents of LMT were swayed by him to start a law suit that has costed the Township and the residents involved thousands of dollars whilre Mr. Beitler hides behind his computer keyboard. It is time for Mr. Beitler to put up or shut up... He doesn't even live in LMT but burdens us with the expense of his feud!

Anonymous said...

Wow! Anonymous 2:20 PM... I wish you had written that yesterday... By now Ron has moved on to another website to bash the Jaindl family.

LMT stop listening to this man. He does not serve our best intersts!

Ron Beitler said...

Ok "anonymous".. and "anonymous" piggy back comment exactly two minutes after the first. (aka the same person)

I love talking about issues I care about with people who make intelligent arguments. I believe it's important to try to understand why people think the way they do... and usually I don't respond to trolls.... but I don't live in LMT?? LOL. Come on man... Of course I live in LMT. Lived there my entire life with the exception of college and two years in Louisiana. Where do I live if I don't live in LMT? (this should be good...)

I also sign my name to my posts. And by the way the lawsuit you mention... we won. Wasn't frivolous wasn't without merit.

And I have no feud with Jaindl. I like him. We've talked many times. In fact I just left an Envision LV meeting he was at and we talked again. We were in a breakout session together. Alot of the conservative values he holds I hold also. I'm talking in general. Yes I disagree with him on what "smart growth is" and disagree with him on the 700 acres in LMT... But I respect him and I think he respects me.

And you also overestimate my "sway" in the township. "friends" is successful because the growth issues we care about strike a nerve with people. I can assure you, I'm not a rich guy by any stretch...Yes, I've contributed what I can (not much at all) but the lawsuit you mention has been funded by over 100 individual contributions ranging from 5 dollars to 1000 dollars. If we did not have overwhelming community support this movement would never have gotten off the ground.

Further, the BOC CHOSE to appeal the decision. They made that choice. We arent the appellants but we fundraise on there behalf. We told the BOC we would stop fundraising (not sure if the appellants could afford to keep up the lawsuit on there own) If the BOC simply withdrew from the MOU. Re-advertised this whole plan. Presented Quarry vs. fighting vs. warehouseville apples to apples. Held a series of town hall meetings and let the public have it's voice. Thats all we ever wanted. It's all we still want.



Bernie O'Hare said...

Ron, Your trolls are mild compared to mine. Wanna' trade?

Ron Beitler said...

Someone once told me if you blog and you don't have trolls then no ones reading your stuff.