Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present 54‑lot 'Iron Run Estates'; planners raise stormwater, traffic and basin‑siting concerns
Summary
Dr. Horton team presented a 54‑lot subdivision proposal for Church Lane; planners and residents pressed the applicant on stormwater basin siting, maintenance access, single‑lane bridge constraints and traffic (applicant cited 572 daily trips). No vote was taken; applicants will revise plans and address technical review comments.
Developers proposing a 54‑lot single‑family subdivision called Iron Run Estates presented their concept plan to the Lower Macungie Planning Commission on May 13 and received detailed technical questions from staff, commissioners and residents about stormwater controls, traffic and basin siting.
The applicant team — represented by attorney Sean Duffy and entitlement project manager Jeff Strauss for Dr. Horton, with the project engineer — described a roughly 41‑acre site in the suburban residential district with 54 single‑family lots, private internal roads, and three stormwater lots containing four basins (three designed as infiltration basins and one lined detention basin). The plan shows four larger 'future' lots fronting on Church Lane and an extension of Jason Drive to tie into the existing residential network.
Traffic and bridge constraints drew questions: the project's traffic study estimated 572 vehicle trips per day (286 in, 286 out), which planners said would not materially change operations at the nearby single‑lane bridge; commissioners and residents nevertheless probed peak‑hour impacts and cut‑through patterns. The applicant said the traffic study was conservative and that a majority of outbound trips would head toward the bypass and commercial areas.
Stormwater was the most intensive topic. Commissioners and neighbors raised concern about the location of basins that sit at the property’s low points and abut existing backyards. The applicant's engineer said they redesigned the system since the prior submission to avoid routing emergency spillway flows over Norfolk Southern tracks, and instead propose off‑site improvements including about 950 feet of pipe through a neighboring subdivision to manage discharge rates. The applicant also said they would revisit basin slopes (moving from 6:1 to 3:1 slopes where appropriate) to provide maintenance access and buffers.
Staff and CKS engineers also discussed calculation methods: the applicant has used SCS (SCS/NRCS) methods which generally yield more conservative runoff estimates; CKS recommended checking rational‑method calculations per township preference and coordinating methods for permit purposes with the conservation district and DEP.
Residents asked whether basins might create mosquito problems and whether basins would increase runoff to adjacent properties; the applicant said infiltration basins are designed to infiltrate water and the homeowners' association would hold maintenance responsibility and remediate clogging if it occurred.
No action was taken; the applicant said they will respond to the township engineer’s comments, refine basin design and stormwater calculations, and continue coordination with township staff on sidewalk connections and possible pedestrian access to the nearby park.
Next steps: applicants will revise plans to address engineering comments and resubmit for further review; the commission did not take a formal recommendation on May 13.
