BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP, PA — The Buckingham Township Planning Commission on Wednesday night voted to table action on preliminary land development plans for a proposed 150,000-square-foot warehouse in the township.
The planners did not say when they would be resuming the discussion and taking a vote, but encouraged residents to watch the township's website for information. The next scheduled meeting of the planning commission is March 6 at 7:30 p.m.
A standing-room-only crowd greeted the commissioners as they considered plans for the 30-dock facility, which is proposed to be built on the DiGirolamo Tract bordered by Cold Spring Creamery Road, Burnt House Hill Road and Progress Meadow Drive.
The warehouse would be located on 25 acres on the east side of the property on Progress Meadow Drive. The remaining part of the property fronting on Cold Spring Creamery Road would be placed in a conservation easement and will continue to be farmed.
At times during the meeting, the discussion got emotional as residents spoke out against the land development plan, raising concern over traffic and noise from the 18-wheelers that would be rolling down their streets.
Find out what's happening in Doylestownwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
A warehouse is a permitted use in the P1-2 Planned Industrial Zoning District. The applicant, however, is asking the township for a number of waivers including from the installation of bicycle and pedestrian paths on Cold Spring Creamery Road and from widening or reconstructing streets that are an inadequate width or condition to meet township requirements.
If the waivers are granted, the money the developer would have paid for the required improvements would be directed to another off site improvement agreed upon by the township and the developer.
The project is being proposed by J.G. Petrucci Company of Asbury Park, New Jersey, which was represented at the meeting by land development attorney Ed Murphy, engineer Greg Glitzer from Gilmore and Associates and Matt Hammond, a consultant with Traffic Planning and Design.
According to Glitzer the building would set back 1,095 feet from Cold Spring Creamery Road and would include two parking areas - one for trucks on the west side of the building and one for employees and visitors on the east side.
All truck traffic would enter and exit the site from Stony Lane and a new 2,000-foot roadway that would be built between the warehouse and Stony Lane. Employees and visitors would enter the warehouse site from a separate entrance at Progress Meadow Drive.
Hammond said the truck traffic would enter and exit the site by using a right-hand-only turning movement onto Stony Lane and a left hand turning movement into the site. To access Route 611, the trucks would use Stony Lane, Landisville Road, Old Easton Road, and Research Way.
"We would be looking to force all the truck traffic out to that route, out to 611 providing signage and requiring the drivers accessing the facility to take that route back out to 611," said Hammond. "We feel that's the most appropriate and shortest route to get to 611 and not impact the larger residential areas."
Residents at the meeting weren't buying it. They said the truckers would use GPS, which they said will direct them down Cold Spring Creamery Road from Swamp Road (Route 313).
"They are going to come down Swamp, make a turn onto Cold Spring Creamery and then come down Stony," yelled out one woman. "Don't tell me their GPS is going to take them down by the Wawa. You tell me how that's going to work," she said.
"All of us - Church School Road, Cold Spring Creamery. We're all going to have to live with trucks all day long and all night long," another woman yelled out.
"There is no truck that is going to follow that route," said another resident.
At several points during the meeting, the shouts from the crowd overwhelmed the meeting. Township engineer Dan Gray managed to bring some order back, encouraging residents to wait until the formal part of the presentation was over to make their comments.
When public comment began, resident Bob Eberle was the first to speak.
"We're talking about 30 bays. That's got me concerned for these old roads," said Eberle, who lives on Old Easton Road several doors down from Stony Lane. "These are little roads that are designed for horse and buggies not 18-wheelers," he said. "If we get all these 18-wheelers we won't be able to live here."
One resident asked, "Don't we have the ability to say no trucks allowed on certain roads?"
Larry Woodson of Landisville Road in neighboring Plumstead Township which will feel the impact of the project said he is concerned that trucks will overwhelm the local roads, including the one he lives on. "My concern is the amount of traffic and the size of the road."
As part of the project, the developer is planning to improve the intersection of Old Easton Road and Landisville Road. The intersection would be improved and realigned to provide improved site distance and safety, said Hammond.
At one point during the meeting, Gray pointed out to residents that the township is "obligated to provide for industrial uses. We selected this area many, many years ago before anyone up here was on the commission, before any of the houses along Creamery Road were built ... We have to provide for it just like we have to provide for mobile home parks - everything. We selected this. It has been on the books and tweaked over the years. This has always been our industrial zone in the township."
"Yes, the land is zoned industrial," responded one resident. "But the local road infrastructure has not been constructed for the size of operation that this would bring in ... this warehouse is way to big for where it is proposed. The in and out access is absolutely ridiculous."
Gray pointed out that under the law, Buckingham can't require a developer to widen all the roads. It can only require them to improve roads along the frontage of its property.
"So what is our recourse?" asked a resident. "Do we have to go to Harrisburg and say, 'Our roads are too small for 18-wheelers?"
Another resident took aim at the developer's list of requested waivers, asking, "Should Buckingham compromise public safety for developer cost saving? We must insist that this developer fully complies with all safety ordinances without any exceptions," he said.