The final session of the hearing for an embattled warehouse development application took place before the Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) Thursday, November 7.
Objectors called witnesses to testify against the granting of zoning approvals for a 621,000 square ft. warehouse at the Cross Keys intersection of Rt. 30 and Rt. 94, as proposed by NOBPA, LLC. This was the seventh time the ZHB has convened to hear testimony from the applicants and the objectors’ witnesses.
The ZHB will announce their decision on December 10, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the meeting room of the United 33 Hook and Ladder building, 21 N. Bolton St. New Oxford, PA. Before then, they will meet in closed session with their legal counsel to deliberate.
The board must decide whether to grant the applicant a special exception to allow a warehouse to be developed on the site. The way Hamilton Township’s code is written, the board may allow a warehouse land use in the commercial district, after consideration on a case-by-case basis of how that would affect the township. The applicant also seeks a variance regarding the setback of structures from the property line.
At the start of Thursday’s hearing, the applicant attempted to submit a revised lighting plan for the site into evidence. The ZHB’s attorney attorney rejected the submission on the basis that the applicant had already rested their case and could not present new evidence.
Both the township and the objectors party also objected to the submission, which they said was sent to the other parties at 2:00 p.m. the day of the hearing.
In the previous hearing, October 28, Nathan Wolf, another attorney representing the objectors, argued that the applicant’s lighting plan did not meet the requirements of the township’s zoning ordinance, and thus the applicant had not met their burden of proof needed to apply for the special exception. https://gettysburgconnection.org/developer-returns-with-smaller-plans-to-cross-keys-warehouse-zoning-hearing/
The objectors called multiple witnesses to testify, beginning with traffic engineer John A. Nawn, and followed by local residents who were recognized as parties in the hearing because they believed they would be adversely impacted if the applicant’s zoning requests were granted.
Nawn testified that he believed NOBPA, LLC’s traffic study did not meet the requirements of the township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances (SALDO) and was not accurately demonstrating the amount of traffic that could potentially be generated.
The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) recognizes different subcategories of warehouse when giving guidance for traffic engineers to estimate the amount of traffic that will be generated when a warehouse is built. Nawn argued that the applicant’s should have presented the Township with a model presenting the “worst-case” for the increase in trips day that could be generated by the warehouse.
NOBPA, LLC has testified that the developers plan to sell the project prior to construction and operation, so the end-user of the warehouse is unknown at this stage of planning.
Nawn believed the site had the potential to house some of the more traffic-intensive types of warehouse based on the sketch building plan, which included the building’s square-footage, number of dock doors, number of employee parking spaces, and height of ceilings.
He said, “We’ve had no documentation or testimony that it’s going to be this, that, or the other thing. Well, just from a professional standpoint, we need to at least generate the trips based on what that maximum use of that warehouse could be in order to have an adequate understanding of how it’s going to affect the local road network.”
Warehouse types with higher intensity could generate close to 2.5 to 4 times the amount of traffic as a “generic” warehouse, Nawn said. The applicant’s traffic study estimated that a “generic” use would generate approximately 1,020 trips per day.
The applicant’s traffic engineer had previously testified that a traffic study could be conducted after the warehouse is built and operating in order to measure the true amount of traffic generated. The township could place conditions on approval of the project requiring the owner of the facility to pay for road improvements if the actual traffic is greater than what was predicted.
Nawn felt that was an “untenable solution.” He said, “What happens if you do have four times the traffic? Are you then going to tell the people that are occupying the warehouse that they must vacate the warehouse? You’re going to lose your civic occupancy until such time as you then can build all the improvements that are necessary now to ameliorate all this adverse traffic that you didn’t account for in the first place?”
Nawn also felt that the applicant’s traffic study should have analyzed traffic at more nearby intersections where Rt. 30 and Rt 94 intersect with side roads. Those intersections will be affected by diverted trips when drivers seek alternate routes around congestion, putting more vehicles on side roads that are narrower and not constructed for high volume traffic.
If the impact on these intersections is not examined, then he argued that the applicant’s study fails to meet the requirements of the Hamilton Township ordinance, which requires the applicant to prove that “Truck or rail access and operations shall not conflict with the convenience and safety of vehicle traffic and parking.” https://ecode360.com/28405438?highlight=convenience%20and%20safety&searchId=11829671506445571#28405438
The objectors then called more witnesses, including a retired PA State Trooper who lives in Hamilton Township. He testified that he believed the increased traffic from the warehouse would also increase emergency response times.
“I would just ask you to consider what a 30-second delay could mean to you, if you’re having a heart attack. Or one of your loved ones,” he told the ZHB.
Another retired police officer and firefighter from Adams County testified that even crashes without injuries or disabled vehicles require man-hours from emergency responders. Their resources will be stretched thinner if the number of crashes increases due to increased traffic and congestion.
He told a personal story of responding to a crash on Rt. 94 near Pine Run Road, involving a tractor trailer and a car driven by a 17-year-old. The teenager died of injuries and loss of blood before an ambulance could reach the scene.
A 48-year-resident of the area, with a background in the trucking industry, spoke about the impact on side roads when semi-trucks follow GPS directions onto roads not equipped to handle them. She also shared her experiences working around different types of warehouses as a truck driver, and the disruption that their operations could bring to close-by residents, like the sounds of idling trucks and slamming dock doors at all hours, or the potential storage of hazardous materials.
Another local resident spoke about water pollution concerns, living downhill from the site of the proposed development project. He presented a map showing that runoff from the site would travel through streams that run through residential properties. He also speculated on the impact of increased traffic on Bermudian Springs school buildings, which are located on Rt. 94 a few miles from the site.
Public comment
Multiple audience members spoke when given the opportunity for public comment.
One man said there were a lot of “angry people” in the audience who felt like they had no say in what was happening in their community. It felt like government and and big business were telling residents, “You don’t count for a d*mn thing.”
One woman, a nurse, said she keeps an emergency box of medical supplies near her door because the road crashes in the area are so frequent.
In addition to traffic woes, other concerns included: the potential for air pollution from diesel to cause diseases such as cancer and asthma; the safety of pedestrians and dog walkers; the lack of facilities for truck drivers in the area, causing them to wash and take care of other hygiene needs in public bathrooms of local restaurants and gas stations; the noise from truck operations making it so homeowners could not enjoy their outdoor spaces;
David Shank of Oxford Township, who said he is the owner and operator of a trucking company and a first responder, felt there was a discrepancy in how the applicant was treated in the hearing as opposed to how a resident would be treated. He questioned why the applicant had been given so much leeway to make corrections when it seemed there were issues with sales agreements and the level of detail in the plans submitted.
“I don’t get it,” Shank said. “Deny the application, turn around, send them back to the drawing board, and tell them to try again.”
Featured Image Caption: John A Nawn, left testifies regarding the traffic impact of a proposed warehouse project near the Cross Keys intersection.
Catalina Righter, freelance reporter, lives in New Oxford. She previously wrote for the Carroll County Times and the Kent County News, covering crime, education, local government and arts. She works as a legal assistant.
I live locally, gettysburg, and travel back and forth to the Brethern Home to visit friends, walk the trails, and dine at the campus cafe. The traffic is already a nightmare at most times of the day, I can’t even imagine how horrific it would become with a project as huge as this sounds like. Also, how many considerations are being glossed over as though they won’t impact the community dramatically? It sounds like the major local community wants nothing to do with this…..so Why do it?
So many good points from those speaking against and not a single pro to allowing this warehouse in this location.
I’m a resident of Hamilton Township and have been for decades.
Vote NO. The vast majority doesn’t want it here because it will mess up traffic, add pollution, and more. It’s our lives you’re playing with. VOTE NO