The Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board met June 25 and 26, 2024 to hear nearly 8 hours of testimony regarding a proposed warehouse and commercial development near the Cross Keys intersection.
No final decision on the application was made Wednesday night, and the board will convene again on August 26 at 6:00 p.m. at the meeting room of the the United 33 Hook and Ladder building, 21 N. Bolton St. New Oxford, PA.
The sketch plan presented by developer NOBPA, LLC would include two warehouses and two commercial buildings on a 183 acre lot split across the eastern and western sides of Rt. 94 and Rt. 30.
The Zoning Hearing Board is tasked with determining whether the project meets the criteria for a variance and a special exception. The variance affects how closely structures can be constructed to the road and the special exception is required to construct warehouses in the commercial district where the parcels are located.
Attorney Nathan Wolf represented 29 parties who claimed they would be adversely affected if the variance and special exception were granted. The group was entered into the proceedings as the objectors. Most parties claim ownership of land or businesses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development.
Tuesday, the legal representation for the objectors cross-examined witnesses presented by the applicant previously, including Gary Bolis Jr., managing partner of NOBPA, LLC, and an engineer representing the firm that created the sketch plans of the development that the ZHB is reviewing.
Then, three of the objectors testified, including the owner of farmland abutting the property, the owner of a landscaping business near the Cross Keys intersection, and a school bus driver who travels through the Cross Keys intersection multiple times per day on her routes.
Attendees from the public filled out the audience at each hearing and on Tuesday night the final half hour of the proceedings were opened up for public comments. Everyone who testified raised objections to the development as proposed, mostly due to the amount of traffic that would be generated in the already congested intersection and surrounding area. Several carried signs that read “no special exception” and larger banners were hung in the fire hall to express objections to the project.
In Wolf’s tense cross-examination of Bolis, he tried to cast doubt on the developer’s experience developing warehouse properties and complying with subdivision and land developments ordinances (SALDO) and whether the land purchase agreements for the parcels included in the development were valid.
Bolis said he has 25 years in residential development and was a member of another legal entity that developed a warehouse project in Elkton, Maryland. They carried the project through the final approval phase and sold it prior to construction or operation by the eventual tenant. NOBPA, LLC intends to do the same for the Cross Keys project, he said.
The ZHB advised both parties to bring documents and/or witnesses to the August continuation of the hearing to bring clarity about the purchase agreement for one property referred to as the Myers estate.
The applicant claimed that the agreement is still valid because the sellers have not issued any notice of default or other communication to the contrary. The opposition claimed that the agreement is no longer valid because more than 60 days have passed since the due date of an agreed-upon deposit to extend the time period of the sale. Bolis testified that NOBPA, LLC has not paid the deposit.
If the applicant’s purchase agreements are not valid for the land which they intend to develop, the applicant would no longer have the authority to even apply for the special exception and variance before the ZHB, Wolf argued.
On Wednesday, John Schick testified as a traffic engineer representing the team who created the 900-plus page traffic impact study submitted by the applicant.
One line of questioning by the objectors concerned the estimated trips per day that would be generated by the project. Engineers preparing a traffic impact study estimate the number of trips per day generated by a warehouse based on standardized warehouse categories defined in the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
The applicant’s study uses what Schick described as the “general” warehouse definition for both warehouses because the end users who will occupy the property are unknown. He said this is standard practice.
Wolf, representing the objectors, questioned whether the traffic study should have used a “fulfillment”-style warehouse model for its estimates instead, based on the large square footage of one of the warehouses which is more than 500,000. If the traffic impact study was based on this type of warehouse, he said, the trips per day estimate would increase about threefold.
Schick said the general estimate wasn’t a “lowball,” but rather an average based on real-world data collected from many types of warehouses in post-occupancy traffic impact studies.
The ZHB questioned what measures could be taken if the project goes through and a new traffic impact study reveals that the trips per day generated by the warehouses were significantly underestimated.
Attorney David J. Tshudy, who represented the applicant, said that in his past experience, townships had imposed conditions on the approval of a project, such as a bond or financial penalty if the trips-per-day exceeds a certain threshold due to a change in how the property is used. This condition would be recorded with the property and carry over to any future buyer.
More discussion of traffic is expected during the August 26 continuance of the hearing, including testimony from the objectors’ traffic expert.
Video recording of the hearing on June 25 and June 26 can be viewed through Community Media of South Central PA’s website.
Featured Image Caption: Attorney David Tshudy, left, and developer Gary Bolis consult documents at a hearing before the Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board June 25, 2024. [Community Media of South Central PA]
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.
This article is very well written and informative. I’m following this issue, and it’s great to get facts instead of opinions. Kudos to the author.