The approved Lumber Street development resurfaced during the borough’s Oct. 5 meeting as residents cited the project while arguing that concerns raised with borough officials are not always adequately addressed after council takes action.

Although the development was not on the Oct. 5 agenda, residents repeatedly referenced it during a broader discussion about communication between borough officials and the public. Several speakers cited Lumber Street as an example of what they see as a larger problem: major decisions moving forward while residents still have questions they believe have not been fully addressed.

The project received conditional approval Sept. 8 on a 5-2 vote, with council members Tom Ashelman and Megan Sell opposed. Conditional approval means the developer must still satisfy engineering, legal and regulatory requirements attached to the approval before the review process is complete.

For some residents, the debate has shifted from the development itself to whether all relevant information was available before council voted. Others continue to oppose the proposal over concerns about traffic, density and neighborhood impacts. Still others argue questions involving Green Street should have been resolved before approval was granted.

Residents originally opposed the development over concerns about traffic, development density, tree removal and council’s decision to accept a fee in lieu of recreation land. More recently, however, much of the discussion has centered on Green Street, a disputed paper street, or roadway shown on historical plans or deeds that was never physically constructed.

Residents contend the issue should have been settled before council voted because, if Green Street legally exists, it could affect property or access issues related to the development. Borough officials have not determined whether the street has any impact on the project.

Residents Wendy Horn and Brenda Decker have argued that historical records show Green Street exists and should have been considered during review of the project. Following the approval vote, they submitted deed references, survey information, tax maps and other documents they said demonstrate Green Street has appeared in historical property records for decades.

Questions about the issue intensified after residents argued they were able to locate multiple references to Green Street shortly after the Sept. 8 approval hearing, despite statements during the review process that no records of the street could be found.

The issue also drew concern from Megan Sell, who publicly questioned whether council had all relevant information before approving the project.

“I just wonder if we voted for something when we were presented with information ... if everyone would have still voted the same way,” Sell said.

Residents echoed those concerns during public comment.

Another resident urged council to reconsider the matter before the appeal period expired.

“You shouldn’t approve a plan if nonfactual information was part of that approval process,” the resident told council.

During the Sept. 21 meeting, Solicitor Patrick Armstrong told residents he would review the materials submitted to the borough, examine the history of Green Street and determine whether the issue has any impact on the approved development.

“I’ll review it ... to determine whether or not it impacts that development,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong also said he believed a condition attached to the project’s approval addressed the issue and indicated further council action could be considered if necessary following his review.

While Green Street has become the latest point of contention, it is not the only concern raised by opponents of the project.

During council’s review of the proposal, Ashelman questioned whether the project’s traffic study accurately reflected actual conditions and argued that a smaller development would preserve more trees and open space. Council ultimately approved waivers reducing tree-planting requirements and accepted a fee in lieu of dedicating recreation land, decisions opposed by Ashelman and Sell.

Resident Terry Buss remained sharply critical of the project during the Oct. 5 meeting.

“That development is going to curse the Borough of Macungie and the borough residents forever,” Buss said.

Business owner Paul Licata also questioned whether Green Street had been adequately researched, arguing that historical references to the roadway were readily available.

“It didn’t take me long to go back all the way to Dec. 7, 1931, to figure out about Green Street,” Licata said.

Armstrong has not determined whether Green Street has any impact on the development.