Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-33342 How this Plan was Developed The Carlisle Planning Program contained four major phases, rich the involvement of citizens throughout each phase. OPPORTUNITIES ANO GOALS CITIZEN INPUT PLAN PREPARATION ACTION PROGRAM a Background St'udies - Detailed information vas collected on the physical, economic and social aspects of Carlisle. This information was analyzed and mapped to fully understand the Borough's characteristics and trends. a Concerns, Opportunitioa and Goals - The background studies and the numerous [ntervlews with citizens, merchants, indus- tr[alists, institutions and interest groups helped the Carlisle Planning Commission determine where Carlisle~s greatest potential is and what issues and concerns should be addressed. Goals were created to direct the Plan prepara- tion. a Plan Preparation - A preliminary comprehensive plan was prepared and presented at many public meetings of the Planning Commission and groups. Adjustments were continually made along the way to respond to public comments and new information. A final plan was prepared for further public review and Borough Council adoption. a Action Program - This Plan summarizes a series of actions that should start immediately to carry out the Plan, including updating the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision and Land Development ordinance. Note: The detailed background reports and memos prepared in this planning process are available for public use at Borough liall. History Over two hundred and fifty years ago) a man named James LeTort crossed the Susquehanna River at a place where the city of t{arrisburg now stands. Ne seCt[ed beside a small creek about eighteen miles from the river shore. LeTort located his Indian trading post and home there. , In 1751 william Penn's Lieutenant Oovdrnor, James Hamilton, chose the site of Carlisle to be the county seat for the new county of Cumberland. The settlement was named Carlisle after the town of Carl~sIe~ En8land. Hamilton and his surveyors lald ou~ Carlisle in I751. The plans included a park-llke center square bounded by NorCh~ Sou~h~ East and ~esL Streets. These street names remain unchanged and the square is s~[l[ the heart of Carlisle. In 1753, fiv~ d~ellings foxed the nucleus of the ne~ Co~n with a ~emporary log buildin~ as the courthouse. The [o~n ~as officially incorporated as the Borough. of Carlisle 1782. The Carlisle Barracks~ curren~ location o~ ~he United SCares Army ~ar College, was o~ hls~oric importance as early as 1753 when Benjamin Franklin negotiated for peace with the Indians. ~is efforts ~ere unsuccessful and nine years of French and Indian wars ensued. During ~his Cime~ Carlisle became a sanc- tuary for frontiersmen and cheir families ~ose hoses had been burned by Indian raiders. During ~he Revolucion~ the people of the area supported the DeclaraCion of Independence. ~o local companies were part ~he F-irsC pennsylvania l~iia~n~ of Riflemen ~ho came ~o ~he assistance o~ ~ashinicon a~ Cambridge. Carlisle~s Janes was a representative Co ~he Continental Congresses and later chief framer of the C~sCitu~ion, In 1860, Carlisle residents loyally supported ~he Union and saffered the consequences of invasion and shelling ~hen the Confederates rode through Cumberland valley on ~heir ~ay Battle of Carlisle is rich in the history o~ Pennsylvania and ~erica, The Borough continues today as a Chrivin8 county sea~ and a resional hub of commerce~ [ndUs~ry~ education and culture. Carlisle still exhibi~s cradiCional small ~o~n charac~erisCics includins a variety of people and neighborhoods. The continues ~o sro~, People In late 1986, Carlisle's population reached an estimated 19,800 people. As of 1980, five percent Of residents were Black, while one percent were Hispanic. Growth during the 1970's was relatively modest (235 persona), but growth from 1980 to 1986 was an estimated 1,500 persons. Much of Carlisle's population is mobile--27 percent of Carlisle's residents in 1980 had moved here from outside of the County since 1975. Much of this mobility is the result of the large numbers of students--an estimated 1,800 Dickinson College students and 350 Dickinson School of Law students live within the Borough. Also, many of the 300 Army War College students live within Carlisle. Dickinson College students are required to live on the campus, unless they receive special permission to llve elsewhere. The age breakdown of Borough residents is close to the Penn- e.ylvania average, if Law School and Dickinson College students are not considered, floweret, there is an unusually high per- centage of persons over age 65 (17 percent in 1980). Carlisle has a well-educated population--in 1980, 24 percent of adults had completed at least 4 years of college, compared to only 14 percent for the rest of the State. ~ Regional Cooperation Carlisle no longer is a self-contained community. Approximately the same number of people live in the areas surrounding Carlisle as live within the Borough. The futures of the Carlisle area municipalities are intertwined. The significance of planning jointly for the future must be better recognized by every Carlisle area municipality. Coordination of land use and development strategies and the achievement of efficiencies in transportation and public facilities and services will preserve and protect this region's special quality of life. Conversely, the lack of communication and cooperative decision-making may cause serious problems and the loss of opportunities for community improvement and economic progress. THE CARLISLE REGION Mlddlaten Middlesex T~wnship Township aouth Mlddleton Mt. HOlly Springs Form a System of Linked Open Spaces Throughout the Region. There are limits to how much open space Carlisle can provide because it has relatively limited undeveloped land. Efforts are needed on a regional scale to preserve land for recrea- tion, for agricultural preservation, for visual relief and to help maintain natural balances. Promote Further Municipal Cooperation on a Continuing Basis. Communities must realize how interrelated they are with their neighbors. Cooperation will result in greater efficiency in providing services. Many of the communities share the same problems and can benefit from exchanging ideas. A regional planning concept should be explored to provide a forum for a wide range of issues and cooperative solutions for area-wide land use, public utility and trans- portation concerns. Regional Cooperation Should Focus on Compatible Zoning and Development Rexulatlons Among Adjacent Communities. For example, Carlisle neighborhoods are sometimes bordered by South Middleton Township. These areas currently allow almost all industrial and commercial uses. Progress has been made by the Carlisle and South Middleton Planning Commissions toward resolving potential land use conflicts. Work With Neighboring C~unities to Plan Efficient Street Patterns and to Protect and Improve the Appearance of Major Entrances tO the Carliele Area. Industrial outside storage and truck parking areas should be screened from view and landscaping required. Street trees should be planted along major roads and sign controls (especially billboards)are necessary. Attractive wooden signs surrounded by landscaping should be added at certain key entrances to the Borough. TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS CarlisLe has a fixed primary street system, a product of olden days. Congestion occurs on streets such as Hanover and High', and use of these streets is increasing. High volumes of tractor-trailer traffic are a c.oncern, especially along North Hanover Street. A few intersections and the Carlisle Plaza Mall area exhibit safety hazards as well aa congestion, but conges- tion is the main problem. Options for improving traffic flow through and within Carlisle Borough are severely limited because of space and cost. Carlisle's traffic congestion can only be remedied by a well- planned area-wide transportation system involvinS Carlisle Borough and adjacent townships. Pedestrian and bicycle travel are important to Carlisle residents because parks, schools, the Downtown, the College and Law School and places of employment are relatively close to home. In 1980, 21 percent of employed Carlisle residents reported that they walked to work. Pedestrian and bike travel should be given greater consideration in the planning and design of streets, alleys, parking areas, sidewalks and plazas. a Recognize that State and Federal Fumda for Road Improve- meats are Limited. Fully financed major new highway con- struction should not be expected. Instead, municipalities often must contribute a share of the highway costs to existing State roads. Often, an improvement to a Scats road will not be seriously considered for f~ndlng unless a munici- pality funds a professional traffic study of the problem. Because fundinS is Limited, it ia essential to stress improvements with modest costs. Key bottlenecks and problem areas are prime ~'xamples. Reduce tbs Severe Coogeation Problems Along Trlndle Road. The most severe congestion problems are along Trlndle Road, near Spring Garden Street and York Road. A comprehensive traffic study of the corridor :is,needed to develop cost- effective solutions. A bypass is planned around the South side of this* intersection to connect York Road and Sprln8 Garden Street. Another bypass around the north side should be planned to connect Trlndle Road with East North Street. Study, Deslga an4 Carry Out Improvmonta for Key Traffic Problem Areas. Problem road segments include South Hanover Street south of 1-81, North Hanover Street, Walnut Bottom Road and the intersection of West High and Orange Streets. Direct Truck Traffic Around the DoVntown. Heavy truck traffic is especially a concern along residential areas of North llanover Street and at the intersection of High and Hanove;. Streets. The staff should contlnue to urge indus- 3 tries to require their truck drivers to use the most appro- priate routes, such as the I-gl/Allen Road interchange. Better signage alo6g Route Il North would help prevent trucks from entering the Downtown by mistake. Also, to direct trucks off North Hanover Street, the intersection of North Hanover and Clay Streets misht be widened and a short new road built to Connect Clay Street to the Masland plant, through Masland's truck parkinS area. · Consider Uae of the i[ailroad Line, if ,Ever Abandoned, for a Bypass of the Downtown. This [sa lons-~erm solution that could allow most of the traffic, especially trucks, that travel between the northeast and .the western parts of Carlisle to avoid passing through the Downtown. The Downtown could then be more pedestrlan-orien~ed. The new street could connect North Hanover at Carlisle Springs Road to Cherry Street just north of West High Street. Use Street Patterns and Controls to Reduce Speeds Along Ree[den~al S~ree~e and Near Schools. In new develo~encs, stree~ pa~erne should be des[shed ~o discourage h[~her-speed ~hroush ~ra[[[c from u~[ns res[den~iai areas. A~ the Carlisle border, no industrial or co~erc[al traffic and'only carefully I[mi~ed amounts of res[den~[al ~raff[c should be allowed ~o enter [n~o a res~den~[al area. COntrol Access Aloa~ the R~ner Highway. Few additional driveways should enter onto R~ner Highway. Inter[or roads should enter onto Rou~es II and 46~ a~ a few key ~n~ersec- ~[ons ~hat ~uld even~ually be s[$nalized. ~[s road system should be ~oord[na~ed w~h Sou~h M~ddlecon Township. Accel- eraS[on and deceleration lanes will allow smooth and safe entrances and ex~s from ~he R[~ner Highway. The h[$hway should evenS'nelly be w~dened ~o provide an alterna~[n~ pro~ec~ed lef~-~urn lane in ~he cenSer'of the highway. ~ork e~b ~ei~hbor~n~ CommUnities ~o Plan for Lon~-Te~ ~e~onal Road Needs. As par~ of a re$[onal transportation plan, a bypass around ~he n0r~h and west sides of Carlisle might be planned, using a comb[na~ion of upgraded roads and new road Connections tha~ developers would be required ~o build or se~ aside as par[ of new developments. EnCourage ~rea~er Use of Public Bus and Flex~ble Mi~bus Services and Improve Bus Service ~i~h~a C~rl[sle. The presen~ bus ~o Harr~sbur$ mish~ be able ~o mke a lar~e~ loop w~h~n Carlisle ~o make i~ useful-~o persons So[n~ ne[$hborhoods ~o ~he D~n~o~, Dickinson College, ~he and Carlisle STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCESS O FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNALS PROBLEM INTERSECTIONS --") DIRECTIONS OF ACCESS FROM PROPERTIES TO MAJOR STREETS · ONLY OPEN STUB STREETS TO LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT · · * PEDESTRIAN LINKS TO FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TRAFFIC PREFERENCE FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATIONS ~ EXPRESSWAY ARTERIAL COLLECTOR ~ LOCAL .... PROPOSED STREET (Conceptual) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4 Carlisle has a strong, diversified regional economy, Consis- tently the Borough's unemployment rate is signlficantly lower than the State average. A surprisingly high 73 percent of employed residents reported that they worked within Carlisle Borpugh · As of 1980, 24 percent of Carlisle residents worked in manufac- turing, which is lower than the State average. The largest industries were carpeting, rubber products, roofing materials and electronic components. A much higher than average percentage of' residents were employed in education (17%) and health care (8%). Retail trade employed 16 percent, while transportatinn and wholesale trade together employed 6 percent. Financial, insurance, real estate, legal end similar professional services employed ? percent, while 10 percent of residents worked in As of 1987, the area'e largest employers'included the Masland Corporat£on (carpets), the Carlisle Army Barracks, PPC Indus- tries (glass), Cumberland County Government, United Telephone Company, Carl isle Hospital, Carlisle SynTec Systems (roofing materials), Kinney Shoes, carlisle Area School District, Dickinson College, Carlisle Tire and Rubber, Smith's Transfer, McCoy Electronics and AMP Incorporated, Significant shifts occurred in the aorough's economy between 1977 and 1982. ~hen dollars are adjusted for inflation, retail sales increased by 23 percent, while service receipts increased by 47 percent during this per[od. ~aolesale sales fell by 13 percent and the value added by manufacturing fell by 38 percent. Carlisle's economy benefits most from a reliable labor force and excellent access to highly populated markets throughout the Eastern United States via the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Inter- state 81. Currently, many agencies and organizations are involved in economic development in the Carlisle area including: the Carlisle Economic Development Corporation, the Carlisle Area Chamber of Commerce, the County Redevelopment Authority, the Downtown Merchants Association, Cumberland County Industrial Development Authorlty, Cumberland County Industrial Enterprises and the Carlisle Area Industrial Development Corporation. Some 'coordination among these organizations is provided by a few key professionals and by overlapping memberships on the boards. · Strive to Expand Carllale's Tax Ease to Cont£uue Supportiug Quality Public Servicoa end Schools. Generally, iudustrlal and commercial uses usually provide more in tax revenues than they require ia addlt[oual services. However, the Borough should be selective about the types of industries and commer- clal developments attracted and serious attempts should be made to protect and expand the do~to~ economy. Support the Retention and Expansion of Existing Employers. Regular communication with employers is essential to allow the Borough, the County, the State, area hanks and others to assist employers with problems nod to aid in their expansion. Aselst Local Entrepreneurs in Develop[n~ New Businesses. The needs and basic business skills of persons opening new businesses should be enhanced by advisory and financial assistance ~o avoid ~he no,al h[8h ra~e of small business failures. A~rac~ Ne~ Employers, Especially L~h~ Carlisle can be somewhat selective in ~he ~ypes o[ ~ndustr[es ~ encouraSes. ~e a~ea consistently has one of ~he unemp[oymen~ ra~es in pennsylvania. Businesses should be souSh~ ~ha~ ~1[ no~ create severe nuisances or hazards and ~ha~ ~11 provide a s[Sn[f[can~ amoun~ of jobs and tax revenue. Desirable and a~rac~[ve developmen~ ~[11 help a~rac~ similar development. The H[~h~ays, Qual[~y of Life and ~ogk Force are ~ey Asse~s. 1-81 and ~he Turnpike offer Carlisle extremely desirable location for serving northeastern United S~a~es marke~s. The qua[[~y of life and amenities of ~he area ~11 a~crac~ businesses ~ha~ have'a ~[de choice location. Employers also are attracted by ~he high qual[~y of ~he ~ork force. Develop a L[~h~ Iudue~rla[/Of[[ce C~pus in ~he ~ee~ern Par~ of Carlisle, This should be coordinated ~[~h bus[ness development in South H[ddle~on and possibly Dickinson ships. The area is close ~o ~he 1-81/Allen Road interchange. Open space, landscaping and screen[u~ of s~ora~e areas should be required. Ne~ residential developme~ should uo~ be emphasized ~n ~hese areas because ~hey are remo~e from Carlisle's schools~ parks and shopping areas and ~he area ~st suited ~o quality develo~en~ for ~plo~en~ purposes. Encourage ~he Redeve[opmeu~ of Older industrial Areas. This includes land north of Carlisle Plaza Mall and North Street Ex~euded. An in,er[or road system should be built and ~he land resubd[v~ded [n~o ~rke~able parcels. Clar[~y ~he Roles of the Hany Ecou~[c Develo~en~ Or~an[- zaZ[one. The exist[ag fragmentation and overlap economic developmen~ efforts should be stud[ed and certa[~ ~roups should ~ restructured as subgroups ~o one or more key or$an[zat ions. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION Nearly 600 housing unite were built in Carlisle between 1980 and 1986. A total ot 500 apartment units are subsid~zed in the Borough and there are six major nursing and personal care cen- ters for older citizens. A substantial increase has occurred persons retiring in the Carlisle area, especially by semi- retired persons who were in the military. In 1980, 36 percent of Carlisle's housing units were single family detached houses on their own lots. T~ins, rowhouzes and ~o~nhouses ~de up another 26 percen~ of housing, ~h[[e 39 per- ce~ ~ere apartme.n.~, Abou~ 51 percen~ of Carlisle's units ~ere ren~ed~-a characteristic e~milar ~o o~her b~roughs and sma[[ c[~e8 ~n south central Pennsylvania. The percentages of homes sold in Carlisle in 1~85 ~ere in ~he (24X); $~0-$60,000 .(34~); $60-$80,000 (t6~); $80-$100,000 (6X); and Above $100,000 (~1~). C~p~red ~o the average percentages in the eno{re Harr~sbur~ region, CarlisYe had a substantially higher percentage of homes sold in ~he $30,000 ~o $60,000 range, a substantially lower percentage sold i~ the $60,000 Co $99,000 fan,ge and a higher percentage so[~ in the $100,000 and above range; · Control the Conver~on~ of Rouses Inc'o Apartments. This [mporCan: ~o preven.C negative changes in the character neighborhoods. The Borough should cont{nue the standard of maximum of three unrelated persons l[vln~ {na dwelling unit. · Target Housln~ Rehabilitation Funds ~o ~ere They Can do the Most Good. Because public funds are lie[ced, they must be spen~ ~[sely. 'This usually ~ans concen~ra~[ng efforts for several years at a time on a neighborhood chat has the most potential for improvement. Al,so, houses in highly visible locac[ons should be rehabilitated.co establish momen- tum for improving entire areas. ~e Borough receives Federal funds each year for community develo~ent. Much of funding is u~ed for housing rehab[l~Ca~[on with the Cants of the County Redevelopment Authority. Noceable housing rehabilitation efforts have also been accomplished by the nonprofit Carlisle Opportunity · Continue and ~xpaad AffordabIe Houein~ Affordable housing {s housing chac 10~er and lower middle income persons can afford. This especially includes senior citizens on fixed incomes and young families. Carlisle should continue providing housing of all types and at many price ranges. It may be advisable to support acquisition by che County Housing Authority of existing low income housing, such as a single room occupancy hotel, to ensure that such housing is made available to those who need it, and that the housing is well-managed. a Make Sure. That All Housing iu Carl[.sle Meets Basic Minimum · Standards. Even the 'lowest cost housing should meet certain basic minimum standards for liveability. A syste- matic program of code enforcement, involv£ng an additional staff person, should be seriously considered. This action will stlmulate neglectful absentee landlords to, make needed improvement s. a Encourage Housing for Senior Citizens. It is important to provide housing that meets the specific needs of older persons, including security, ac~[v~[es and reduced ~euance. Creation of such housing will ~ke other housing Carlisle available for families. · Promote ~he use of Planned Residential Developments (P~) Sou~h o~ ~he E~uer H[gheay and eaa~ of Valley Meadows. PRDs are developments ~ha~ include a m[x~ure o[ housing ~ypes, areas of common recreation and open space and some- ~[mes [[Eh~ commercial uses mainly [n~ended ~o serve residents. The developments are built accord[n~ ~o an over- ali coordinated ~ster plan. This is a ~ood way of prov~d[n~ for ~he hous[n~ needs of senior citizens, buffering ou~ ~he R~er Highway [rom me~ residents and eusur[u~ a'coord[na~ed s~ree~ system w[~b a limited number o~ s~reets entering the R[tner Highway. · Tar~e~ the Neighborhood Northwen~ of the Do~to~ and Do~- town Apartments for Concentrated Code Enforcement. Requiring building o~ers co ~ke basic, essential repairs will encourage further rehabilitation by o~hers. These er[orca Should concentrate on ~he areas between North P[~, B and College S~reeCs. 5 Historic Preservation Carlisle's many historic buildings are not only beautlful, they are important as symbols of Carlisle's rich history. They attract residents and businesses seeking e unique They, along with Ca'rllsle's total image of quality, can lure many ,vls i:ors. · Continue to Uecogniae and Protect Carlisle's Hi·[eric Treasures. Carlisle has plenglful architectural resources, from famous historic buildings ~o neighborhoods that appear much ~he same as they did 100 years ago. Character. ~ighin ~h[s Disgrlct, all exterior alterations visible [rom a public s~ree~ ~ ~ reviewed by ~he Architectural Review Board a~d ~hen approved by Borough Council. This ensures gha~ buildings are only altered or constructed- in a hisgorically sensitive ~n~er and do no~ intrude on ~he hisgoric character of an area. This Plan urges continued s~rong suppor~ of ~he Historic District. However, ~ny of Carlisle's mos~ valuable archtrec- ~ural ~rea~urers are not w~h[n the existing Dts~rict. A possible expansion of the Historic Dis~r~cr should be s~udied and considered. In 1986, ~he County His:or,cai S~[e~y sraf[ completed a s~udy of older buildings rhroughou~ ~he Borough. Based upon Chis s~udy, ~he sra[[ suggested ~har the Hts~oric District be expanded [~o three major areas: northwest of the Do~ro~, · long College S~ree~ ~s~ si ~he D~n~o~ and ~o the nor~heas~ of ~he Down~own (especially east si North Hanover S~ree~). Serious consideration should also ~ given go adding ~he Old Carlisle Cemetery and ~he Ashland Cemetery to ~he historic The existing Historic Dis~rict ~undsries and ~be expansion suggested by ~he Hts~orical Society s~udy are sho~ on the [oIlowing HISTORIC DISTRICT AND POSSIBLE EXPANSION IExisting Historic District ............... '.' Su~ested Historic ................ "' District Expansion* * ¢oun~ Historical Sodety Study Natural Features Host of Carlisle's land is very flat with few natural limi:·- :ions :o development, Development should only occur in a manner :hat carefully respects the natural features of the land, · Acknowledge the Major Natural Limitation· of Limestone Geology. This geology is present throughout the Great Valley. Sinkholes are a concern. Underground caverns and sinkholes can cause polluted storm water runoff or septic system wastes to flow directly into the groundwater without being filtered by soil. The polluted groundwater can ~ke ,sells unsafe and can pollure creeks. New development should ~ake ~hese conditions into ac:sung. s ~:ontlnue to Li=it Building in the lO0-Year Floodplain. :gave:al areas have been identified as vulnerable ~o flooding tn:ins ~he verst flood expected in a lO0-year period. all of ~hese areas are along the Letor~ Spring R~, including are'as east of Sedford and sough o[ Sou~h Streets and areas between :he Lerorg and Spring Carden S~reet. Other areas are along the Molly Crub, which is partially underground. Currently, building is prohibited in :he floodway ~hi'ch includes areas that would actual~ly c·rry floodwaters, in the adjacent "floodway fringe",.buildlng must be floodproofed. These policies should be continued. · Protect the Water Quality and Recreational Value of the La[art Spring Run and the Conodoquinet Creek. The Letort Spring Run is a nationally renown wild brown trout stream. The Letort through Carlisle as of 1987 is expected to be de,tigris[ed by the State as a '~fodifled Recreational River" and the Conodoquinet provides the water supply for Carlisle. Both watercourses require extreme care. The La[art Regional Authority has been authorized by Carlisle ·nd area govern- manta to oversee the protection of the creek. · Certain Principles Will Help Avoid Storm ~/ater Problems: -Minimize the amount of land covered by buildings p·vlng to allow rainwater to naturally be absorbed by the ground instead of running off. - Minimize removal of natural vegetation. -Keep natural drainage channels in open space. - Setback all buildings and paving from creeks and drainage channels.. -use the lO0-year storm as the basis for storm water · Resolve Rxisting Storm Water Problemz As Funds Allow, Several areas and streets have occasional moderate flooding during heavy storms. Some of these problems can be solved modeet expense, ~hile the cost of others will be prohibitive. · Frotect the Letort, Conodoquinet and Croundwater from Polluted Storm Water Runoff, Runoff usually carries serious pollutants, such as oi18, greases, heavy metals and pesticides. Some of these pollutant· enter the Later: from the BoroughOs storm sewers. Proper design will protect fish in the creeks by preventing storm water runoff from parking lots from raising the temperature of creeks during the Public Facilities & Services Wnter & Sewage Disposal Use CarlizleO· Water and Sewer Capacity to Guide Area-~ride Development. The ability to serve large amounts of new development and redevelopment with utilities, especially public ·everrF--/e "a-m·'jor ·fe'et~-~hlo--provldeo advantage over mny competing areas ~haC has ~e available sewer and waker capacity. As sewer service, and possible wa~er 8ervEce, ~s ex:ended ~nco ~he ~sCern parc of Carlisle, [~ may be very eff~cien~ for ne~shbor[n Coge~her ~o ex~end service ~n~o ~he eastern edges of D~ck[n- son and WeaC Pennsboro T~nsh~ps and North Middle,oh's large ~ndus~r~ally zoned areas. Recreation · Develop the Parkland in the Western Part of Carlisle. This includes 18 acres of undeveloped lend that would make an excellent 2wi[i-purpose park. These facilities are important because many of the present recreational facilities owned by instltutions and businesses may not be available in the future. e Make the Fullest and Best Use of th~ Public School· and Other Public Facilities for Recreation. · Continue Carlisle's Exce'llent Recreat£onal Activity Pro- greme, · Develop a Safe and Interconnected Network of Pathways for Walking, ~ogging and Bicycling. This should include · combination of trails through parks, smooth shoulders along ma~or screens and stde~alka and ocher rou~es connecting Carlisle ~i~h o~her co~un~r[es in the area. · Consider ~ay~ si ProZecging ghe Recreational Values LeCorg Spring Run. This Plan does no~ race,end condemns- glen of land along the LeCor~. ~ever, tn the long-~e~, may be desirable go voluntarily purchase a [e~ key parcels along the creek ~o provide public access. Also, purchase the abandoned railroad righr-Of-~ay ·long the LeCor~ should be considered for use as a biking, ~alking and jogging Many landowners along ghe Le~or~ are engering [nco "Con- servation Easements' in ~h~ch they voluntarily limit uses of ~he[r lend in re:urn for Federal ~ax bene[[~s. · Preserve ~ey Areas si Open Space, ~here Opporcuhi~iee Ex[sC. This especially includes por~tons of lends dense, ma~ure ~rees, such as areas east of Spring Ca:den S~reet. Preservation should also be achieved ~[~h key por- C~ons si green space along Clay S~reec beside the Nasland plant, near ~he ~am[lcon School and other similar areas ~he Borough. Fire Station Consider constructing a New Fire Station in the ~estern Portion of Carlisle. A new station may be needed to serve existing and future indus[:les along Ri[net Highway and new homes north of Hottingham. Such a station might replace an existing station. LAND USE PROPOSALS 6 This Land Use Plan acknowledges existing patterns of use throughout the Borough and provides direction for the most appropriate reuses of built-up areas and the development of vacant land. This plan perpetuates and protects the existing character and scale of Carlisle New commercial uses are encouraged to locate in the Downtown and other key existing retail commercial centers. Strip commercial development is discouraged along major highways. Light industrial and office development is directed to the western part of Carlisle along the Rimer Highway. Existing neighborhoods are to be ' preserved and new residences are encouraged to locate within and adjacent to existing neighborhoods near parks, schools, other public services, shopping and employment places. II II EXISTING MAJOR STREETS PLANNED MAJOR STREETS EXPRESSWAY RESIDENTIAL AREAS Low Denst~ Residential - These areas provide exclusively for single-family detached houses at a maximum of 3.5 homes per acre Medium l~nslty Residential - These areas provide for single family detached houses, twin houses and townhouses at up to 8 dwellings per acre. High Denslt~ Residential. A wide range of housing types are appropriate in these areas, including garden apartments and townhouses at up to 14 units per acre. This includes the older "Town Center" areas. Off'Ice Residential - This area mainly allows for small offices, while protect- ing the character of existing houses. INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE AREAS Light lndustrlal/Ofl3ce C~ttmpus - These areas provide for offices and for most types of industries in a campus'like setting. Heavy industrial and heavy commercial uses are not encouraged. ~eneral Industrial - A wide variety of industrial uses are possible here, pro- vided that certain performance standards are met. ::1 north U.S, ARMY WAR COLLEGE / / / 7 COMMERCIAL C,~ntral Bmshw~s District - In the downtown, a balance of residential, sor- vice, retail, office and public uses is important, but highway-oriented uses are not encouraged. Shopping C~nt~r Commerelal. This includes the two existing shopping' malls in Carlisle Borough. G~ueral Commercial- In these areas, a very wide variety of corn mercial uses could be appropriate, especially for larger space users and highway-oriented activities. Neighborhood Co,,,--erchd. These areas are close to existing neighborhoods and historic areas. Only small-scaled, convenience types of commercial uses should be encouraged. PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AREAS PubUe, 8~mi. PubU¢ ~nd Con~s~'atloa - These areas include public buildings, schools and parks. Areas along the Letort Spring Run are i~tended for conser- vation purposes. Institutional Um- These include the many institutions that are extremely important to the quality of life and economic health of Carlisle, including Dick- inson College, Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle Hospital and the Army War College. Although this Plan does not recommend specific land areas for any expansions by these institutions, it recommends that their special needs be recognized as they arise. Through cooperative planning between the institutions, the Borough and neighbors, reasonable expansions can be accommodated in ways that protect the liveability of neighborhoods while meeting institutional needs. Also, institutions should realize their duty to help support important municipal services by continuing to make donations in place of taxe~ This is especially important because of any expansion in land area by an institution means that the land is not available for a taxable use. ' DOWNTOWN PROPOSALS Downtown Carlisle is a special place with great potential. Like mOst similar downtowns, Downtown Carlisle suffered the loss of several major retailers in the 1960's. The Downtown has since rebounded through, historic restoration, streetscape improvements and special events. Promotional efforts are being led by the Carlisle Economic Development Center and the Downtown Business Association. The Downtown continues to shift its emphasis from everyday retail needs to specialty retail stores and personal and business services. However, improved and additional housing, along with more employees downtown, will likely increase the demand for daily convenience goods. Attractive commercial buildings, strong historic residential neighborhoods and unrealized property reuse opportunities are special components of Carlisle*s downtown. This Plan for Downtown Carlisle is based on the arenas prevalent historic character and on present and prospective revitalization efforts. The fronts of key retail commercial blocks should continue to be attractions for pedestrian activity. The parking areas behind buildings must take on the historic and quality design character of the streetscape. The use of parking spaces should be managed so that the best parking spaces are constantly turning over to allow their convenient use by Uses Maintain a Balanced Kix of Uses in the DOWntown. The Down- town needs retail, service, office, residential., public and semi-public uses to remain as the activity center of the Carlisle area. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that office and public uses do not overcome prime locations for retail and personal service uses. These prime locations are the areas of the first floors of buildings that front on the first two blocks of North Hanover Street, and to a lesser extent, the first block of West High Street and the first block of South Hanover Street. Retail and personal service uses benefit from being concentrated together. These uses provide active storefronts that encourage people to visit the Downtowff. Substantial opportunic/es [or offices ~ould remain on ocher blocks, on upper stories and in ~he rears and sides of buildings. Al~ouEh- :his Flan- s~ron8ly encoura8es recait"'~n~ ~V~e uses on the firsC floor o[ the iron,s of key blocks in the Do~n~o,~n, iC does no~ rec~end chic this be required, lC is recotnized chat office and public udes are an essenCial parc of the D~nto~*s balance, and that they are extremely impor.7 ~ant in providinE customers [or D~n~o~ businesses. Preserve and Perpetuate Prime Retail Space pn the Major Shopping Streets. Retail stores and business services depend upon their close proximity to draw customers to a common area. This is a principle that makes modern shopping centers successful, The street level spaces fronting on the first two blocks of Hutch Hanover, the first block of South Hanover and the first block of West High should be strongly encouraged for such uses as retail stores, banks, places serving food and beverages, hotels and theaters. If prime retail locations continue to be occupied by offices or other non-retail uses, ney retailers-'may not be able to'find suitable Do~nto~ra locations. Downtown Retail and Personal Service Uses Should Stress Markets Where They Have Advantages Over Businesses in Other Areas, This includes emphasizing goods and services not available elsewhere and stressing the quality of goods and the personalized service available to customers. Downtown Businesses Should Commit to Staying Open Longer on Weekdays and All Saturday Afternoon. Businesses mhst be convenlenc for persons who work during the day, including working couples. A substantial number of businesses must be open to attract people to the Downtown after work and on their days off. Aggressively Recruit Needed and Desired Types of Busi- nesses. This should include a committee of local officials and businesspersons who travel to other communities and meet~ with successful entrepreneurs to discuss the opportunities available in Downtown Carlisle. 8 Upgrade Apartments in the Downtown. It is important to provide liveable conditions for many types of Downtown resi- dents. Downtown living offers unique living spaces and the conveniences not available elsewhere in the Carlisle area. More and improved housing will increase the market support for Downtown retail and service businesses. A certain amount of upper, story space in the Downtown is now unused for housing and could be improved for additional housing. More persons living in the Downtown will make it more active and secure in the evenings and weekends. Design Respect and Perpetuate on the Downtown*s Special Historic Character and Scale. The Downtown has a rich texture of bdildings and features that is scaled to the pedestrian. All new buildings and alterations should be consistent with this scale, guildings that are oVerly bulky, overly modern or have blank featureless fronts should be avoided. Auto- related uses, such as service stations, are not compatible with this urban fabric. Any parking that fronts onto Hanover or High Streets should be buffered from the street by land- scaping or red brick walls. Extend the Character of the Downtown into the Alleys and Perking Lots. This can be done through landscaping, paving patterns, better lighting, wider sidewalks, brick walls, improving the backs of buildings and by developing rear entrances to businesses. These improvements will make it more attractive and convenient for people to use the Dow~- town, Programs · Improve the Sense of Security in the Downtown. The Down- town should be a place where positive activity is encouraged in the evening. Persons causing nuisances in the evenings should be discouraged through a concentrated effort to enforce all existing laws including noise, alcohol and motor vehicle laws. At 'a minimum, during warm weekend nights, a policemen should be assigned on foot patrol to establish a stronger police presence. Also, privately-owned problem parking lots should be well-lighted and chained.off during Develop Stronger Linkages Between Dickinson College and Dickinson School of Law end.the Downtown. Student-oriented businesses and promotions are necessary to attract college students and parent trade. Continue the Excellent Program of Special Events in the Downtown. Visiting or shopping in the Downtown needs to be an exciting personal experience. Special events attract existing residents, new residents and visitors who might otherwise not know the Downtown and what is available there. Opportunities Promote Tourism. A formal visitor's center should be established at the Chamber of Commerce or another prime business location. Exhibits should be shown, eventually developing into a small museum. This might include materiels on loan from local institutions and residents. Joint promo- tions should be explored with Harrisburg, Gettysburg and Hershey. .: Package and Promote Major Opportunities for Investment. Some examples could include: - A farmer's market in the old County prison. - A food court with a movie theme in large portions of the Carlisle Theater. - A regional arts center in the Carlisle Theater. - A hotel/small conference center with a quality restaurant in converted existing buildings, the Bo~man tract or on West High Street, - An office condominium building with shared services and underground parking on the Bowman tract. le ,g 9 Parking Change Parking Space Management Pollclea to Meet Parker Heeds. The Downtown contains an adequate number si spaces, but the spaces should be ~anaged to ~aximlse the use and con- ven[ence for 8hor~-~em, ~dera~e-Kem and all day parkers. Manage Parking ~o Crea~e H~Sh Turnover si the Boo~ Parking Spaces· This especially includes spaces around ~he Co~r~- house Square and on Hanover and H~gh S~ree~8. To encourage Kurnover, ra~e8 should be increased, ~Lme l[m~s should be posted, enEorcement should be increased and higher fines imposed. Persons could easily park in [ron~ si bus~nesses and near ~he Courthouse for conven~en~ quick Encourage Longer-Term Parker~ CO Park in Private LoOn, Portions of Hun~c~pal Lo~e tn Lees Demand and on S~ree~n. Huu[c[pa~ park[ns tn ~hese areas should remain lo,-cost. Hecers on certain underuae~ s~ree~a (such as second b~ock of South P~ S~reeC) or underused porc~onn of municipal lo~s should be removed. Longer-~e~ parkers m[nly include public and private ~ployeea. Initiate a Naj~r Public A~areneaa C~pa~gn on Parking.. A campaign should include a brochure showing parking locations and rates and attractive signs directing people to the lots. Every business should let their customers know of the most conven£ent perking areas for their business and should require Cheir employees to park away fro~ prime customer spaces. t~ork with Owners si Private ~ark~u~ Co Trade Underused Municipal Space~ ~or Prime Areas Used for Employee Parking. Locations within very easy walk,nE distance of D~to~ bu~tnesses ~hould not be used for long-~e~ employee park[nS. Protec~ ~he Historic Character si the Do~to~ by Pre- vent~n~ Removal of SKreet Fron~ Build,sSs for Parking. recommended ~o provide park[ns. Nonh[s~oric and dilapidated build'sss beh['nd sCreec[ron~ ones and sarasen and accessory buildings along alleys could be selecK[vely removed to provide addi=tona~ parking. Encourage Owners of Parktn~ ~hind Butldin~n ~o Design and Coordinate Their Lots for More Efficient Use. Plan for' and Eventually Develop a Municipal Parking Lot in ~he Southeast Quadrant of ~he Downtown. Presen=ly, a parking deck anywhere in ~he D~n~o~ would be financially in~eae~ble ~cause of high conn~rucK[on and °PeraK[nS conks, moden~ demand and ~he inability or unwell[assess si the ~rkeC ~o pay necessary parking deck fees. DOWNTOWN PLAN I t J t W. NORTH ST. · E. NORTH ST. C E. LOUTHER ST. W. HIGH ST. E. HIGH ST. W. POMFRET ST. W. SOUTH ST. 3 ! I RESIDENTIAL ' '.' '.'.'.'.' HIGH DENSITY ., ...,'.,,'.' "TOWN CENTER" ........ RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS RETAIl/SERVICE CORE  OFFICE COMMERCIAL t ..t~ , .11! jjjlJJ,ilj LIGHT COMMERCIAL/ jiljl{,,lj[hi!.' RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC "'""" AND INSTITUTIONAL PARKING . [ j PRIVATE AND SEMI- PRIVATE PARKING MUNICIPAL PARKING NOT~ The mote deUiled and larser official map is available for reference in the Borough Offices. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Prevent OvarhuAldAug of le~a£1 Space. This PlAn strongly supports the revitalization of the Do~nto~ as a service and re,ail center. As a condition for any shopping cen~ers a ~rke~ study should be required ~o show ~ha~ ~here is auf[~c[en~ demand ~o j~[fy another cen~er. Major co~erc[al develo~en~ should only be approved 'acceptance of a professional ~ra~[[c s~udy. 'The developer should be required ~o ~und all a~ree~ and signal improvements necessary ~o resolve ~raff[c impacts of ~he develo~en~. ~[ another shopping cen~er ~uld ~ bu~l~, ~he ~st appro- priate location would ~ a~ a ~ra[~[c signal entering ou~o York R~d, across fr~ ~he Carlisle Plaza Mall. Avoid S~r~p Commercial DevelopRee~. The number of volume driveways entering once arterial s~ree~o should minimized ~o preven~ ~ra[f[c hazards and congestion. Also, s~rip commercial developueflC negacAvely impacts a larse amoun~ o~ bordering reslden~[al land and causes flare con[us ion ~o 10 Allow Limited Office Uses Along Allen load In Homes. This provides an option to persons who own homes along this road, while avoiding strip couunerclal uses that' ~ould force residents to leave. Avoid SignificAnt Increases in ~be lnCeus[~y si Uses Oarl~lle Fa[rgroundJ. ~[s Plan encourages ~he activities si the Carlisle Fairgrounds ~o con~[nue within ~he region. The use si ~he Fairgrounds should be expanded [, only if ~he severe ~ra[[[c con,espies problems can be resolved. This migh~ include grea~er use o~ remo~e near interchanges o~ ~-81 and ~he Turnpike, vi~h bases. ~ ~he Fairgrounds uses should in ~he [uture be ~ved ~o sissy UijOF expafls[ons, ~h[a Plan rec,~ends ~hat a loca- tion be chosen within the Carlisle area ~hac [0 near a T,rup[ke or ~-81 ~n~erchange. Medium density housing should be ~he ulcima~e use of ~he Fairgrounds ~rac~ ~o [n~egra~e ~ w~th ~he surrounding ne[~h- hothead and ~o ~e~ ~he ~row[n~ need for housing in locations conven[en~ ~o [n~o~ services. RITNER HIGHWAY/I-81 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT · Treat the RitnAr WlghvAy Corridor AS the Critical Area of New WAll-Planuad Develo~aent. The Ritner Highway Corridor includes hundreds of acres of prime developable land within Carlisle And South Middleton. The land stretches between Hither Highway on the north, Nottingham and other residential areas of Carlisle on the east, Interstate 81 on the south and lands along Route 465 to the west. · Acknowledge Very Limited Highway Access ~o ~he Lands Sou~h ~iddleton. A large per,ion o~ ~he u~developed lands are in Sou~h Middle,on alongside Interstate 81. [~ would be ex~remely d[fficul~ for these lands ~o gals suitable access to nearby highways wi~hou~ the cooperation of ~he Carlisle Borough, · Avoid Conflicts Between Heevy Industrial and ~seo. Very at~racc[ve and desirable residential hoods, including ~he ~o~[flgham and Valley Meado~s develop- manta , exist in Carlisle adjacent Co the undeveloped lands South Middlecou. R~ever, the regulations si So,Ch Middlecon Township as si 1988 allo~ almost any industrial or c~mercial use co be built near ~hese homes. This could include a chemical or asphalt plafl~, a hazardous waste land[ii1 or other noxious uses. · Realize. ~~Aal for Cooperation Between Carlisle and · - .~-Sout~ ~e~on'.- The R[~ner Hi~h~ay poCeflC[a[ CO be an extremely attractive and economically successful area chac could be ~ell-lncesraced with the surrounding are(a, benefitting bach the,Borough and T~shlp. · Develop the Bulk of ~he Laud aa a Ligh~ lndus~r~al/O[fice Park, This should involve a campus-like sec~n$ ~ichin the Richer Highway Corridor with careful controls on the types ~ndustr[al uses. C~ercial uses should ~inly be those needed Co serve ~ployees and vla[Cor8 o~ the indus- tries and o~[ces. Landscaping and areas si open space should be required. Carlisle's zoning ordinance si 1988 provides for Chis type si development in ~he area. · Use ~ell-Designed DevelopRen~ To At,race Here Development. The lands in ~h[s Corridor have great poten- tial because si the Boroush's ability co extend se~er and ~acer service and the closeness Co 1-81. Ii an attractive environment can be maln~C.a[med, ic ~i~l help attract other desirable companies ~hac are seeking a prestigious' ~ ·' Provide for a Smoo~h Transition Between [uduocrlal amd Residential Uses. CompaCibil[~y can be achieved chrough'a process of "stepping up" the intensity si ~he uses si land. Near Nottingham, a progression of single-family detached houses would be built and then clustered to~nhouses with open space would occur towards the business/office/research park area. Setbacks and evergreen screening would be provided between industrial and business uses and the medium density residential areas. The setback areas could allow parking for vehicles other than heavy trucks and could include detention basins for storm water control. Offices and very light industries should be provided on lots nearest any homes, with a wider variety of light industrial uses, business and offices in all other areas toward Route /*65. A Provide A Coordinated Road Network. As illustrated on the conceptual map below, a road system must avoid the placement o[ many new intersections and driveways on Routes 11 and 465. This can be accomplished by an interior road system that accesses onto Routes 465 and 11 at only a few key (possibly signalized) intersections. C~mercial and indus~rlal must be.kept out of residential areas and residential streets should only be opened co serve limited amounts si residential traffic. · Achieve ~he Developmen~ Principles Illustrated on ~he Developmen~ Concep~ Map. The map shows one of [our con- cep~s ~hat have been d[scassed, with officials si ....... .--H~ddleton at.. various ~t~n~a TB~ ~chemm~-~[Ef~rad amount and types of residential develo~enC suggested. How- ever, the development ~oncept sho~ here is preferred by the Borough of Carlisle. · Connlder a Joint Recreation Syetem. Any residential areas adjacen~ co Nottingham would be desirable because of their closeness ~o quality neighborhoods, parks, places o[ worship, places 9f employment and services. Carlisle is currently planning the development of an 18-acre park east of Valley Meadows. The T~nship and the Borough could work together to develop' a linked system of parks and open space ~o serve residents and employees of the RiCher Highway/I-81 Corr[dor. Consider the Improvement o~ the Existing Access Road Alon; ~-81. Thls road migh~ be able Co be improved co provide access co s~r[ccly residential developmen~ in South Niddlecon adjacent Co Nottingham. I~ could provide a princ[pal through-route ~o ~hese homes chac would avoid a~d[ng traffic Co ~he existing local residential streets in the area. also might be able Co eventually provide a new through-route '~rom Walnut Bottom Road Co the R[Cner Highway (with truck craf[lc ~roh[b[~ed) ~hac would hel~ rel[eve the traffic Belvedere SKreec. RITNER HIGHWAY/I-81 CO"~,RIDOR Illustrative Development I PRIORITIES. FOR ACTION AN INITIAL ACTION PROGRAM A comprehensive plan contains a wide range of recommendation8 at various levels of detail. Some recommendations Can be implemented immediately at little or no cost. Others must he approached in stages, taking years to achieve at higher costs. This initial action program includes high priority actions especially designed to start the process of implementing the comprehensive plan. ~any of the actions require Borough government's leadership as a partner with other governments, nonprofit entities, associations, financial institutions, large cor- porat£ons and small businesses. ADMINISTRATIVE & ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS Update the Borough zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance in accordance with the goals, land use recommendations and design principles expressed in the comprehensive plan. Initiate discussions with adjacent to,wnahlps to achieve a cooperative planning effort leading to an area-wide comprehensive plan acceptable to all munici- palities. Initiate discussions among existing economic development groups to determine their respective roles and responsibilities and the proper organizatlonel struc- ture and staffing requlred for preparing and implementing a detailed Carlisle economic development program'. Implement a detailed parking management program to better serve the needs of short, moderate and longer-term parkers in the Downtown, and to strictly enforce parking regulations. Form a committee of Downtovn merchants and financiers to participate in preparing a Downtown retail business opportunities package and to participate in visiting already successful entrepreneurs to attract them to Downtown Carlisle. · Include an immediate past member of the Borough Planning and Zoning Commission on the Zoning Hearing Board at all times. · Submit an annual comprehensive plan status report from the Planning Commission to the Borough Council and conduct joint briefings of the Planning Co~mieeion and Zoning Hearing Board. FINANCIAL INITIATIVES Make greater use of nonprofit development corporations to help provide affordable financing and/or package and develop needed projects initially in the Downtown and in other areas of the Borough. · Create a financing program designed exclusively for Downtown retail business St~r~mVps. expansions and the rehabil~.retail storesi ~ · Create a below market interest rate funding program for attrectlve and functional building'entries, facade improvements and private parking behind buildings on the main Downtown shopping streets. PROMOTIONAL & INFORMATIONAL EFFORTS Identify the specific types of firms and retail businesses that Carlisle should actively pursue to locate in the Borough. Develop a perking awareness campaign featuring a parking brochure showing parking opportunities, costs and regulations and including a slgnage project to conven- gently direct parkers to and fram the lots. Each municipal lot should be named and a large, well-designed sign placed at each entrance. SPECIAL STUDIES AND PLANS Identify buildings and underutilized sites which have rehabilitation or new development potential. Select the most promising properties and show investors how success can be achieved with good planning and financing. Prepare a sketch lot layout and traffic circulation plan to demonstrate how remaining vacant land should be developed along the Ritner Highway corridor. Conduct more detailed studies of traffic and traffic engineering solutions to solve traffic congestion and remove haaards in the Carlisle Plaza Mall area. Work with PennDOT to improve s£gnage in the area of the Pennsylvania Turnpike exit to direct truck traffic not destined for Carlisle away from the Borough. Prepare a unified downtown management program that comprehensively addresses safety and security, promotion, merchandising, recruitment and financing. The program should seek a consensus among Downtown merchants regarding common hours of business, opening longer on weekdays and Saturdays, and opening on a common evening during the week. Prepare a municipal parking lot and landscape design plan to demonstrate how the attractiveness and pedestrian atmosphere of Downtown streetfront areas can be extended behind the stores and to parking lots. The area and parking lot east of North Hanover Street between East High and East Louther Streets should be the sub~ect of this demonstration. Prepare a feasibility study on providing municipal pa'~klng in the southeast quadrant of center square in the vicinity of the Courthouse. · Develop an economic strategy plan, as a supplement to this Comprehensive Plan. This should.include strategies to attract desirable light industries and offices to the Ritner Highway Corridor, and to further strengthen the Downtown. A series of financially viable and imaginative proposals should be designed to attract active use and reuse of the old County prison, the Carlisle Theater and the Bo~nuan tract, Engineering & Related Services 369 East Park Drive Harrisburg, PA t7111 (717) 564-1121 FAX (717) 564-1158 VIA FAX & REGULAR MAIL March 28, 2002 Mx. Ken Womack, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough 53 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Re: Truck Trip Generation Estimates and Traffic Impacts General Services Technology Corporation 1700 Rimer Highway Site (46 Acres) Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, PA Dear Ken: With reference to the above, we are submitting the following information for discussion at the March 28, 2002, Carlisle Borough Planning Commission Meeting relative to General Services Technology Corporation's Special Exception Application for the development cfa warehouse/distribution facility on the subject site. The project proposes a 600,000 square foot building on approximately 46 acres with access to U.S. Route 11 at one location. The proposed use is estimated to provide employment for approximately 150 to 175 local employees. Summar~ HRG believes that, based upon the information contained in this report, the project is feasible given the limit of 200 tractor-trailer trips per day and that the project, as conceived, Mil'not create serious traffic impacts w/thin the Borough of Carlisle. Compliance with Tractor-Trailer Trip Limitations The primary use contemplated by General sermces Technology Corporation is a facility for warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution of products. Because that use, and that use only, has a restriction on the average number of tractor-trailer trips per weekday, General Services Technology Corporation has asked us to analyze and report on whether such a use could comply with that restriction. Of course, there are several unknowns in this process ~ven that neither the ultimate user nor the nature of their use has been specifically identified. Furthermore, it has not been determined whether the facility will be a single tenant or a multi-tenant facility. Accordingly, at our client' s request, we have provided available information based upon multi-building studies to estimate the average range of tractor-trailer trips predicted from this facility. hrg®hrg-inc.com l[ www. hrg-inc.com Harrisburg E Lancaster I~ State College E Gettysburg E Pittsburgh ~ Stroudsburg Mr. Ken Womsck, .Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page :2 Pursuant to Section 255-178(46)(d)of the Borough's Zoning Ordinance regarding average tractor-~ailer trip generation, we have compiled an investigation relative to the proposed use and offer this information for consideration by the Borough. The investigation, as with other information previously presented to the Borough, consisted of the review of empirical data obtained from w~rehouse/dis~bution facilities owned by Opus East, LLC; a review of an existing traffic impact study for a recent project in the immediate vicinity of the subject site; a study by Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. of two Central Pennsylvania warehouse/distribution facilities; and a review of a Fontana, California study contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, which prov/des information relative to trip generation rate for trucks and tractor-trailers. Based upon a previous analysis of existing Opus East, LLC facilities, a total of four warehouse/distribution facilities were analyzed for buildings with gross leasable areas rang/ng from 70,000 to 321,600 square feet. Based upon an analysis of these facilities~ it was determined that t~ical tractor-trailer ~p generation averaged approximately 0.15 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Applying this rate to a 600,000 square foot facility, it is estimated that ~actor-trailer u-ips would be approximately 90 trips per day. This would va~ slightly based upon tenant mix, the number of shifts, specific operations and the like; however, it can be seen that the resulting tractor-trailer trip rate is expected to be much lower than the 200 trips per day. The following table outlines the data that was collected for the existing Opus East, LLC facilities: EXHIBIT 1 TRACTOR TRAILER TRIP GENERATION DATA OPUS EAST, LLC FACILITIES JANUARY, 2002 :;l~acility : : i.~ .:, L ' !:, :: i~king ~f :~railer~ ' ~a~ , , ' ',~mplgyee~p ' ~ Name Location 'Tenant : GLA Shifts ~ ·Spaces 'Arrivals/ ~ruck,: · : ' Provided D,~partUr~=: Ae.tivI~:, : Fort Crossings I Upper Macungie, PA ~ames/DSC 315,000 2 8 10,$ 15 2 -4 PM Logistics Airport I Hanover, MD AMS 321,600 2 200 day/70 2~$ 70 7 AM night Arundel IV Odenton, MD Ryder Logistics 156,000 1 35 426 22 5 - ~ PM Arandel 6 Odenton, MD Domino's 70,000 3 50/shift 150 24 9AM- ! 1 PM Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, inc. Mt. Ken Womack, Zozfing Officer Carlisle .Borough March 28, 2002 Page 3 We have also recently reviewed a current Traffic Impact Study for the Cumberland Logistic Park (Demody Properties) that was prepared by the Transportation Resource Cyroup, Inc. The study included a trip generation study of several existing facilities to dete~iine counted trip rates for warehouses as specifically requested by the Township. The purpose of the study was to determine actual measured data for warehousing projects due to the Unrealistically high trip rates for warehouses using square footage as the independent variable as determined from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (6t~ Edition, 1997). As such, three warehouses in Pennsylvania were used to identify trip generation characteristics on a typical workday for employee and truck traffic. The following three warehouses selected for the study, as agreed to and approved by the Township Engineer, were as follows: · CDC Logistics 415,000 square feet · LTG Logistics 507,000 square feet · Hershey Foods 597,200 square feet As concluded by the study, the following composite weighted trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet of warehousing facilities were detem~med: TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE GROUP, INC. STUDY CUMBERLAND LOGISTICS PARK NORTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP FEBRUARY, 2001 COMPOSITE WEIGHTED TRIP GENERATION RATES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET Rates ~.~Peak ~ ~ : P~P.e~l~onr:: ~ i *~g;,.Dai!Y Employee 0.077 0.017 0.094 0.028 0.079 0.107 Track 0.015 0.010 0.025 0.018 0.024 0.042 1.07 Total 0.092 0.027 0.119 0.046 0.103 0.149 Using the above thp generation rates and a proposed 600,000 square foot warehouse facility, it can be seen that the estimated total average daily traffic (two-way traffic) from the facihty would be approximately 642 vehicles. Utilizing relative truck percentages derived from the AM and PM peak hour, total truck lrips would be expected to be in the range of 135 to 180 trucks per day. Additionally, in early February, 2002, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. obtained dispatch information from two of our clients who own and operate warehouse/distribution centers in central Pennsylvania. At the request of these clients, we are not pecccfitted to reveal their specific identity due to the highly competitive nature of their businesses and due to confidentiality agreements with them, but we have provided the relevant information for this study as follows: Herbert, Rowiand& Grubic, inc. Mr. Ken W0mack, Zonint Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page 4 Warehouse A $??,000 SF 450 3 105 0. 182 Warehouse B $75,000 SF 418 Variable, 24 53 0.092 Hour Operation t Toals 1,152,000 SF 868 158 0.137 ^vg. Using this information, it can be seen that the average tractor-trailer trip generation rate is 0.137 trips per 1,000 S.F..of gross floor area. Applying this to a 600,000 S.F. facility, it can be seen that the projected average number of tractor trailer trips per day would be approximately 82. Furthermore, based upon the iTE Tr/p Generation Handbook, March 2001 (Appendix A), Table A.4 for daily track trip generation rates for warehouse facilities, a copy of which is attached to this letter, it can be seen that a total of approximately 0.21 to 0.27 four to six axle tmclcs (tractor-trailers) per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area can be expected. For a 600,000 square foot facility, this would equal approximately 126 to 162 track trips per day. Conclusions As suggested by the research, we believe that based upon the development of a 600,000 square foot warehouse facility, it is highly likely that a warehouse/distribution user could operate well w/thin the restrictions of Section 255-178(46)(d) of the Borough' s Zoning Ordinance and that the owner, as compelled to comply with this Ordinance provision like any other Ordinance requirement, could certainly obtain such a user or users for this project. As such, we believe that the requirement to meet the additional, restrictive standards in Section 255-178(45) for truck terminals should certainly not apply to this project. Overall Traffic Impacts Section 255-177 D(3) requires that, for special exceptions, generated traffic shall not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic bayard or serious traffic congestion. In response to this portion of the Zoning Ordinance, we have rev/owed a Traffic Impact Study prepared by Trans Associates for Exel Logistics for a proposed warehouse/distribution facility located within the Borough of Carlisle. The Carlisle portion of the project proposed approximately 1.5 million square feet of warehouse/distribution facilities with one access point onto Route 11 (Rimer Highway) and one access point onto Allen Road (S.tL 0465) opposite Shearer Drive. This project was approved as a Special Exception for a Planned Industrial Development by the Borough of Carlisle. Using existing 1999 l~affic volumes for the Route 11/Allen Road intersection and the Route 11/Shearer Drive intersection with an annual 2.2% growth factor and adding projected Exel traffic, the 2002 traffic volumes for the respective intersections for both the AM and PM peak hours are estimated as follows: Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, inc. Mr. Km W'omack,, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page $ . Route 11/Allen Road 1,485 ~ 1,74:5 Route 11/Shearer Drive 1,009 ~ 1,085 Utilizing this as a baseline condition, we conducted a preliminary trip generation calculation using the 1TE Trip Generation Manual for a 600,000 square foot warehouse/distribution facility with approxirnately 175 total employees. AM and PM peak hour volumes for a facility of this type will be approximately 90 and 104 vehicles, respectively. Further assuming that all of the traffic frown this development reaches the subject intersection (a condition which is unrealistic, but very conservative), it can be represented that the increase in traffic occasioned by the subject project represents only a small perc~tage increase at the subject intersections. Furthermore, we offer that as part of a Highway Occupancy Permit process w~th PENNDOT in order to gain access to Route 11, any substantial impacts to offsite facilities would likely need to be fully mitigated to acceptable levels of service, thereby addressing any issues pertaining to significantly contributing to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. If you have any comments or questions or require further information in this regard, please feel free to contact me. We will be present at the March 28, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting in order to present our report and provide any additional testimony or answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have in th/s regard. Thank you. Sincerely, Herbert, Rowland ~. Si. Snyder, p.E~ -'-Vice President JSS/ss 2684.001 Enclosure C: Dylan Painter Dayton, Esq., Saul Ewing, LLP Mr. Daniel T. Ladenberger, SPX Corporation Mr. Kevin Burke, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc~ Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, inc. Table A.4 Weekday Dally Truck Trip Generation Rates (Fontana, California) LAN~ U~E INDEP. VARIABLE 2- & a-AXLE TRUCKS 4- TO 8-AXLE TRUCKS ' ~ ALL TRUCKS LJght 1,000 gaf Heavy 1~000 gaf industrial ~ Light 1,000 gsf Heavy' 1,000 gaf Heavy" Acre industrial Park 1,000 gaf T~uck Terminal Acre Tmok Sales & Leasing 1,000 gaf * Re..mit~ based on only two data points. 0.17 0.21 0,38 0.10 0.27 0.38 0.33 0.27 0,60 0.19 0,38 0.57 11.90 8.63 20.53 0.21 0.15 0,36 7,34 28,47 35.81 8.95 1,79 LAND USE Table A.5 Weekday Niorning Adjacen~ Street Peak Hour Truck Trip Generation Rates (Fore, aha, California) Light Heavy industrial Light Heavy* Heavy* industrial Park Tru=k Terminal Track ~aies & Leasing INDER VARIABLE 1,000 gaf 1,000 gaf ,000 gaf ,000 gaf ,OOO gaf Acre ,000 gaf * Resttlts based on only two dam points. 2- & 3-AX. LE TRUCKS 4- TO 6-AX[.E TRUCKS 0,01 0,02 O.D3 0.01 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,05 0,00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0,01 0,00 0.01 0,39 0,92 i ,31 0.64 0.11 Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 on tine [15] for 1016 i40RKSRV2 printed BOOACSBB on 05/02/2002 11:15AM * Po 2/7 MAY 82 2E~2 11:;32 FR SERS 717 238 4622. 717 238 4622 TO 37~4~014787W7E~6 P.02/0~ .go-{-{ Hearing ~o~d Borough of Carli.!~ Came No. - 01 of Decisioa 7/$/2001 : InI~e: GENBILAL 8ToI~rAL : TBc~nvoLooY CORPORATION challenge to Proccdural and 8ubstautlvc Validity : of(~lrlisle Boroush Ordiizsnc,~ BTunlber 1932 STIPULATION AND T~'~_._q $~AT~ON AND AGI~F.W~.NT (here{n, "STIP~O~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~y po~ ~ o~ at ~ W~t So~ ~ ~i~!~ P~y~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ h~ ~m S~e O~w~e, ~ o~ ~ ~I~ C~ To~, 7401 W. 129~ S~e~ Ov~I~ F~ ~ ~2~ ~ .~~, O~ ~ ~ o~= ora ~ ~ of 1~ ~ of ~ ~e l~ ~ ~ I-2 L~ ~ ~ug Di~t ~ ~e ~OP~); ~ ~e ]932"); ~ ................ ~ uom ~ ~ Il, 20~ ~ 3~y 13. 'WItNI~AS, au April 6, 200I, the BOROUOI~s l~I~,,~_'.,q~7.a,ifl~/C_.ode Office refused to accept ~ ~ling of the PLAN because me thc pmlffotlions sct forth in Ordin~noe 1932; and Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 on line [151 for 1016 WORKSRV2 printed BOOACSBB on 05/02/2002 11:15AM * Pe 3/7 r~qY 02 2~2 11:~2 FR SERS ?17 238 4622 717 P38 4G22 TO 3784~t014787~780G P.O3z0~ 'Received 07/05/2001 O~.,3CPH fn 02.,32 ~ line 9] for 3'~4 UOR~SRV2 printed BOOSFA77 o~ 0T/05/2001 1~:$3;# * pg 3/? JLI_ ~ ~1 1G:3~ ~ ~ I~Jll,~/ 215 ~2 1932; ~_REAS. on M~F 8 & I5, 2001, fl~c BOROUGH published not/ce ola publ/¢ h~a~Jm§ ammdmcnts w..~c m~ginaUy scheduled for ~ 25, 2001, bm upon conv,~-~ the hearh~ Borough Cotmcfl cont[nuecl i~ lmtfl 3vns 28, 2001; ~nt *WI]~E/~E.4~, on ~une 28, 2001, tbs Borough CouaSl ag~n continued the public headng and ~fion~mt~! Jtl~ I2, 2001; ~a_ dut/c~ and obli~t/ons erhiz~ oux O/'me ~: agnmnent ~oac~!_-_S thci~ respective fights, NOW. 'Ill. FORE. ~ part/e~ hereto, htc~/ng to bo le~Uy bo,_~ hereby, agree as folIm~: 1. Th~ mbove ~c~ ~ made a pm h~f~d h~t~ by ~f~ ~. ..... ~ .... ,~y ~ ~g ~ ~a ~ ' ....... ~ ~1~ ~ _ a~t ~ file ~ P~. m ~n ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~y, ~n~ to 4. ~ or be~m Ju~ 12, 2~I, ~ ~ ~ ~e H~ p~ ~ ~s ~ z, ~cn ~p~on s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BOROUGH l~ ~e re~d~d~ h Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 ?__ti_ne_.[15]__f_or 1016 UORKSRV2 printed BOOACSBB on 05/02/2002 11:15AM * Pg 4/7 I'IAY 02 2E~2 11:32 FR ~-N5 YLY 2,~U 4622 ?17 2~8 4622 TO 37EI41~01478?W780G P.04/07 .- 'Received O?/O~/ZO01 04:301~1 fn OZt32 on Line I~] for 370/, ~O~KSRV'Z print~e~..~B~O_OSFA77 ~ 0~'./,0.5/Z001 04;33P1~ ' P9 4/7 Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 on tine [15] for 1016 ~/ORKSRV2 printed BOOACSBB on 05/02/2002 11:15AM * Pg 5/7 MRY 02 2~2 11:33 FR SERS 717 2~8 4G22 717 238 4622 TO 3%~)4~t014787~806 P.05/07 Recei~ O~/O~/20Ol 0~=~ ~ OZ:~ on Lf~ [~J f~r ~ ~R~ ~t~ BOO~ ~ OZ/OS/2OOl O4:~H * P~ ~ ~ of d~uled ch~ m~d tl~ ft is not to bc consUued ns ~ ~ of ..~ ~ tq~P~ ~ ~0~0~ ~d ~e ~~ 6 · ~ whom l~ k ~iy ~ · O~ ~ ~ W~ ~ ~ B~ ~ it h~ ~11 ~ ~ ~= a ~ 1932 ~ it s~~O~. .- Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 on tine [15] for 1016 ~ORKSRV2 printed BOOACSBB on 05/02/2002 11:15AM * Pg 6/7 MAY 8~ 2882 11:~'~ FR SERS 717 2~8 46~2 717 2J~8 46PP TO ~704~0147871~806 P.06/07 Received 07~/0~/2~.~1__~,_:30~ ~n 07.;32 on tine [3] for 3~0~ ~13RKSRV2 l~r~nted BOOSFA?7 mt 07/05/2001 0~33P~ * p= · . .~. em ~I 181~ P-R ~ EWIHG 215 99v'2 ~ TO 171~ P,E~,,'~ 6/?' .Gmcral Signal T~ohnololl~/Corpcralion Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 on line [15] for 1016 WORKSRV2 printed B00AC5BB on 05/02/2002 11-15AM * Pe 7/7 MAY 02 2802 11:33 FR SERS 717 238 46~2 717 2J~8 4G~2 ~0 ~4~014787~780~ P.07/0~ - R~ef~d 07/05/2~10~=30PH in 02:32 on Line ~] for 3704V~l~KSRv'2prfnt~ed_OO~FA77~07/~/2001 · , J1,L 05 _.~t SG:~SFR S~UL EWIHG 215 9",~ 'rr,~ TO 171~'~86~- ' P.O?~B~ ~:HB C~o. _-01 : ~I~OHlsTOLOG~' (~:A~BOBA~ON · of ~--,~fllslo ]~o~,o~;h ~ ~-vmb~r 193~ M~dmd D, R~d -- Dwte:, TOTAL PAGE.O?~o~ Received 05/02/2002 11:12AM in 02:20 on line [15] for 1016 ~VORKSRV2 printed BOOACSBB on 05/02/2002 11:15AM * Pg 1/7 MAY 02 2~2 11:~1FR SERS 717 238 4622 ?17 2~8 4G~ TO ~4~014787~.8~ P.01/07 FACSIMH,E COVER SHEET Penn National Ix~uranee Plaza 2 NorH Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604 From: DYLAN PAINTER DAYTON Pages ('including cover): Client/Matter #: User #: 3704 Date: 7 014787.75069 May2, 2002 Direct Phone: (717) 257-7526 Direct Fax: (717) 257-7586 To: Name George Asimos Fax Number 610-.40~q~02 Phone Number CC: Name Fax Number Phone Number Comments: Re: GS Electric - Stipulation and Agreement ~ The Origin_a! will be sent by regular mail. [~] ~ Ori~_inn! will b~ ~eAlt by ov~night delivery. //] No Ori~.~l will be sent. IMPORTANT NOTICE This tr~n~;lon is intended only fOr the addressees -~med above and may cOntain informal/on that h privileged, eo~d~tlal, or otherwise prott~ted from d/selosure to anyone else. Any review, d!~mination or use of th~ tl~n~m;~ion or its contents by per~ons other than the addressees is strictly prohibited. If you have rece/ved this facsimile in evrer, please telephone us immediately at (717) 2S7-7S00 and return the original to us by mail at the addre:z~ stated above, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL SPX CORPORATION SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT May 2, 2002 SPX Corporation CSPX"), successor by merger to General Signal Corporation, owner of the subject property on Rimer Highway, has applied for a special exception to establish a "planned industrial development" ("PID') within the 1-2 Light Industrial zoning district. It is clear that the ordinance provisions of the 1-2 District that regulate the PID envisioned the PID as a "layout" or "site design" for a large tract of land (over 10 acres) and not as a specific "use" of the land itself. For in.qtance, the 1-2 ordinance envisions that "most uses" would be developed "within" a PID or a planned mixed-use business park. 8 255-87. The stated intent of the ordinance is to "promote the most desirable use of land and pattern ofbuiMing development .... ' 8 255-86 (emphasis added). No uses for land over 10 acres in size are permitted in the 1-2 District unless a PID or Planned Mixed Use Business Park is first approved. 88 255-89 and 255-88. The PID must be approved as a special exception. 8 255- 91.A. 1. However, once the PID itself is approved, the ordinance lists 43 separate uses that are permitted by right. 8 255-89. I. SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS A PERMITTED USE The standard of review of a special exception by a zoning hearing board is one that has been legislatively directed by the Borough Council. The courts of the Com_monwealth have repeatedly pointed out that a "special exception" is a "conditionally permitted use, legislatively allowed if the standards are met." Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa. Commw. 1980). "A special exception is not an exception to the zoning ordinance, but rather a use to which the applicant is entitled unless the zoning board determines, according to the standards set forth in the ordinance, that the proposed use wouM adversely affect the community.' East Manchester Township Zoning Hearing Board v. Dallmeyer, 609 A.2d 604, 610 (Pa. Commw. 1992). The question to be answered in this special exception application is not whether the proposed internal uses of the PID are the "appropriate development" for the Borough -- that decision has already been made by the Borough Council. "[A]n applicant, by showing compliance with the specific requirements of the ordinances, identifies the proposal as one which the local legislation expressly designates to be appropriate in the district and therefore presumptively consistent with the promotion of health, safety and general welfare .... "Bray, at 911. See also, Appeal of Baird, 537 A.2d 976 (Pa. Commw. 1988). The Legislature in providing for special exceptions in zoning ordinances has determined that the impact of such a use of property does not, of itself, adversely affect the public interest to any material extent in normal circumstances, so that a special 580270.1 $F2/02 exception should not be denied unless it is proved that the impact upon the public interest is greater than that which might be expected in normal circumstances. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Darby Township v. Konyk, 290 A.2d 715, 718 (Pa. Commw. 1972). By directing that a PID is permitted by a special exception and by listing warehousing, storage and distribution within the peri,fitted uses of a PID, the Borough Council has determined that warehousing, storage and distribution is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because this application is for a special exception, the zoning hearing board is limited to considering: (1) whether the proposed PID meets the specific, objective requirements of the Ordinance for the special exception and (2) whether the PID would have an impact greater than the governing body expected under normal circumstances. East Manchester Township, at 610. SPX' application meets these requirements. II. ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY WITH PARTICULAR STATEMENTS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS NOT A VALID BASIS FOR DENIAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION In the "Memorandum for the Zoning Hearing Board" dated April 26, 2002 provided to the Zoning Hearing Board from the Zoning Officer, a question was raised regarding whether SPX' special exception request meets the special exception standard, listed in § 255-177.D.2., that the proposed PID "shall not be substantially incompatible with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.' ~ Specifically, the Zoning Officer expressed "concern" regarding potential impact on abutting residential lots. SPX shared this concern for the residential lot owners and addressed the concern effectively with the substantial berm and landscape buffer occupying a 120 foot wide area along its boundary. While it is the Zoning Hearing Board's prerogative to interpret the zoning ordinances and to determine whether SPX' application satisfies the specific standards of the special exception, the subjective question of "substantial incompatibility" with the comprehensive plan is a very narrow one. First, the standard within the ordinance is not whether this plan is "substantially compatible with' the comprehensive plan, but rather whether the plan is substantially incompatible with the comprehensive plan. Thus, SPX is not required to prove its compliance with every statement within the comprehensive plan, but only that its proposed use is not substantially irreconcilable with the comprehensive plan. Substantial testimony has been presented regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan. Note that under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC") Section 917, 53 P.S. § 10917, the comprehensive plan applicable to SPX' special exception application is the comprehensive plan in effect at the time of the filing of its special exception application, not the newly revised comprehensive plan adopted by Borough Council on Februa~T 14, 2002. 580270.1 5/2/02 -2- For example, SPX has testified that the proposed tenants and use of the land will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the use will be "light industrial" as outlined in the land use proposal under the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, SPX' PID location ensures that the light industrial uses will be located away from the downtown retail area and that any truck traffic will use the 1-81/Allen Road interchange, as suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. SPX' testimony has demonstrated consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Second, the Board may not deny SPX' special exception application on the basis of an alleged inconsistency with vague expressions within a comprehensive plan such as the goal for encouraging an "appropriate mix of industries" or a "campus-like" development. A comprehensive plan is only a guide to the governing body for the enactment of ordinances. As such, it is inherently vague and subjective. [Al recommendation set forth in the comprehensive plans but not legislated into the Ordinance cannot defeat the granting of a special exception. It is axiomatic...that comprehensive plans do not have the effect of zoning ordinances but only recommend land uses which may or may not eventually be provided by a legally enforceable zoning ordinance. Schatz v. New Britain Township Zoning Hearing Board, 596 A.2d 294, 297-298, citing, FPA Corporation Appeal, 360 A.2d 851,854 (Pa. Commw. 1976). See also,East Manchester Township Zoning Hearing Board v. Dallmeyer, 609 A.2d 604 (Pa. Commw. 1991). In this case, the Zoning Ordinance does not define "campus-like,' set a maximum lot size, or a required specific number of lots within a PID. The Ordinance does regulate area and bulk requirements in § 255-92 such as minimum lot size, maximum impervious lot coverage, maximum building coverage, yard requirements, and setback requirements in § 255-93 -- all of which SPX has met. In addition, SPX has outlined in detail its compliance with the specific standards of the PID outlined in § 255-95. Finally, as part of its initial burden, SPX has also demonstrated that the uses proposed in the PID are among the 43 uses already legislated as appropriate by the Borough Council. Thus, SPX has demonstrated compliance with the specific, objective requirements of the zoning ordinance and that the proposed development is not substantially incompatible with the comprehensive plan and therefore must be approved. III. SPECULATION OF POSSIBLE TRAFFIC IMPACT IS NOT A VALID BASIS FOR DENIAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION The second issue raised in the "Memorandum for the Zoning Hearing Board" is whether speculation on traffic impact of future development within the adjoining township of West Pennsboro can be considered by the Board. While the question of the PID's potential impact on the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood with regard to its traffic is a legitimate one, it must be limited to the application proposed and the evidence presented. A denial of a special exception based upon a concern regarding its impact must based on substantial evidence in the record and the alleged impact must be a matter of high probability, not mere speculation. In re Appeal of Brickstone Realty Corp., 2001 WL 1517585 (Pa. Commw. 2001). In addition, the burden of demonstrating to a high degree of probability that substantial evidence exists regarding detrimental impact rests on the objectors to the application. Once the applicant for a special exception shows compliance with the specific requirements of the ordinance, it is presumed that the use is consistent with the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare. The burden then shifts to objectors to prove that the proposed use is not, in fact, consistent with the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare. Brickstone, at *5 (internal citations omitted); see also, Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa. Commw. 1980); Abbey v. Zoning hearing Board of the Borough of East Stroudsburg, 559 A.2d 107 (Pa. Coz~maw. 1989). In Brickstone, a "residential inn developer" applied for special exception and presented testimony from a traffic engineer that the proposed use would generate less than 2 % increase in traffic at peak hours and that the anticipated traffic would be less than that generated by other pecmitted uses on the property. Brickstone, at *7. Protestors at the special exception hearing raised health, safety and welfare concerns related to traffic congestion and impact and "dangerous left-turns" onto a main highway near an existing intersection. However, the Commonwealth Court found that the objectors did not present any concrete evidence of a high probability that the inn would generate traffic that would be abnoi-mally higher than that generated by the same type of use nor that any such abnormally high traffic amount would also threaten the health and safety of the community. Thus, the Commonwealth Court found that the zoning hearing board committed an error of law in rejecting the special exception application on the concerns regarding traffic and that an increase in traffic near an already dangerous intersection is not sufficient to deny a special exception when the proposed use would contribute less traffic than a "normal use" of the same type. Brickstone, at *8, citing, Orthodox Min_yan of Elkins Park v. Cheltenham Townshi Zonin Hearin Board, 552A.2d 772 (Pa. Commw. 1989). ' Substantial evidence of abnormal and adverse traffic effects requires some form of objective testimony, rather than a generaIized statement that the traffic will increase. "Proof of adverse traffic effects usually requires a mixture of proof in the fo~m of traffic counts, accident records, and expert evidence.' Bailey v. Upper Southampton Township, 690 A.2d 1324, 1327 (Pa. Commw. 1997). Speculative concerns of "what might happen' in the future cannot be used to defeat a special exception that meets the requirements of the ordinance. 580270.1 5/2/02 Indeed, to defeat a special exception on the grounds of traffic conditions, there must be a high probability that the proposed use will generate traffic patterns not normally generated by that type of use and that such "abnormal" traffic will pose a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community. Bray, at *8 (underlining added.). See also, Bailey v. Upper Southan~pton Township, 690 A.2d 1324 (Pa. Commw. 1997) (conditional use can be denied only if there is high probability of abnormal traffic which threatens safety). The special exception must be granted, because SPX' testimony has demonstrated that SPX has met all objective criteria within the ordinance, and because there is no substantial evidence in the record of a high probability that the use will generate traffic not nocmally generated by the type of use nor that any such abnoi-mal traffic pattern (if it did exist) would threaten safety. G Esquire Atty. Id. 49275 Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-257-7500 ~80270.1 5t2/02 -5- 8 Opinion and Decision of Zoning Hearing Board May 2, 2002 Zoning Hearing Board Borough of Carlisle ZHB Case No. 04 -02 Date of Decision May 2, 2002 Re: General Services Technology Corporation, Applicant Request for special exception for a Planned Industrial Development at 1700 Rimer Highway, a property located in an 1-2 light industrial district. OPINION AND DECISION OF ZONING HEARING BOARD BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE After proper advertisement, the Board held a public hearing on Thursday, May 2, 2002 in the Carlisle Borough Municipal Building located at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania at 6:30 p.m. Four of the five members of the Zoning Hearing Board were present, they being Chairman Ronald L. Simons, Jeffrey H. Benjamin, Jeffrey G. Bergsten, and Jane Rigler. Absent were member Jason H. Gross and the alternate member of the Board who is Wayne Crawford. In addition, present were Planning/Zoning/Codes officer Kenneth W. Womack, Director of Public Works Michael T. Keiser, and acting Solicitor Stephen D. Tiley with stenographer Ms. Jill L. Roth. Applicant sought a special exception to approve a single lot Planned Industrial Development at 1700 Rimer Highway in an 1-2 light industrial district and proposes to erect on that lot what is characterized as a single building, warehouse/distribution center, containing 600,000 square feet. The property is the site of the former GS Electric manufacturing plant. A motion was made to approve the application. On a vote of two in favor and two opposed, the motion failed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant is the owner of subject property at 1700 Rimer Highway which is located in an 1-2 light industrial district. The Applicant has since been merged into a corporation known as SPX Corporation. engineer. Applicant's witness Brian L. Fishbach, PE is an expert witness as a civil 3. Applicant's witness James S. Snyder is an expert witness in the area of traffic planning and analysis and is a registered professional engineer. 4. Applicant's proposed project involves the building of a single large structure of 600,000 square feet, it being a rectangle 500 feet deep by 1,200 feet wide. 1 of 4 The building will be 40 feet high. The large structure will have 172 tractor-trailer docks and may operate 24 hours per day. The project may generate as many as 180 tractor trailer trips per day. The facility will involve the use of dispatchers and may involve the storage of goods for as brief a period of time as 48 hours. 5. The proposal is for a single warehouse/distribution structure to be erected on a single lot. The single lot is the entire amount of property owned by the applicant at this location. Applicant testified that the warehouse could be made available to multiple users through the use of internal partitions. 6. The Carlisle Zoning Ordinance does not contain a definition of "warehouse," nor does it contain a definition of"distribution center." 7. The Applicant failed to identify the tenants of the proposed building. 8. North of the property which is the subject of the application is U.S. Route 11. East of the property is a long established, single family, residential neighborhood known as Valley Meadows. The Valley Meadows neighborhood includes a church and playground. The Valley Meadows neighborhood is zoned Medium Density Residential. In between the Valley Meadows neighborhood and U.S. Route 11 to the north is an area zoned neighborhood commercial. To the south of the property is land in South Middleton Township which is industrially zoned under the zoning ordinance applicable to that Township. West of the property is land in the Borough zoned Light Industrial, the same as the subject property. 9. A large contingent of neighbors in the abutting residential district appeared at the hearing to object to the grant of the special exception. Approximately 10 neighbors spoke specifically in opposition to the Planned Industrial Development. The position of the neighbors is that the proposed Planned Industrial Development would have an adverse impact on their neighborhood. Among the reasons given by the neighbors were the following: (i) increased traffic congestion from track traffic, (ii) fumes from diesel tracks while moving and while stationary, (iii) noise from diesel trucks while moving and while stationary, (iv) light pollution, and (v) a negative impact on the value of their property. 10. Applicant asserted that the Planned Industrial Development would comply with Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 (concerning noise, vibration, air pollution and odors, and light, glare and heat), but did not offer specific evidence in support of those assertions. 11. The protestants established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Planned Industrial Development would negatively affect the desirable character of the existing residential neighborhood, as a result of creating excessive amounts of air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, adverse visual impacts, and significant traffic impacts. 12. Borough Ordinance provision 255-177(D)(2) incorporates the applicable Comprehensive Plan for purposes of special exception application, requiring that such 2 of 4 uses not be substantially incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the separation of industrial and residential uses with buffer areas and with a transition from industrial to residential uses such as by developing areas between those uses with business/office/research park uses. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for this area to be developed in a "campus-like setting." (See page 10 of Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit A-7.) 13. No person spoke in favor of Applicant's request for a special exception other than the Applicant's witnesses. 14. The Applicant's plan calls for a 12 foot earthen berm or mound to be erected between the building and its macadam parking and driving surface, and the residential neighborhood to the east. The Carlisle Ordinance would require a mound of 6 feet. The mound will also have trees planted on it, pursuant to the Ordinance. Even with the earthen berm, significant noise, light and fumes will be present in the adjoining neighborhood. Even with the earthen bem~ the building and its lights will be visible from the second floor of homes immediately adjoining the property and visible from the ground level of homes further away. 15. The Carlisle Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board deny the application for special exception. 16. The Applicant did not submit a complete traffic study for the proposed development. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Applicant has the burden to prove that the proposed Planned Industrial Development satisfies the criteria, specified by the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance, for a Planned Industrial Development. If Applicant satisfies its burden of proof, then the neighbors objecting to the grant of the special exception have the burden of proving that the proposed Planned Industrial Development will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. 2. The Applicant failed to prove that it met the criteria for a Planned Industrial Development for the following masons: a. The proposal is for a single lot and single building rather than for multiple lots, or multiple buildings, or multiple users. The Standards for Approval of a Planned Industrial development clearly envision a multiple lot development. (See 255-95 and the definition at 255-12.) b. Borough Ordinance provision 255-177(D)(2) is an express incorporation of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan into the Zoning Ordinance, for purposes of a special exception application. The proposed use is entirely incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and its specific provisions for development of this area such as a "business/office/research 3 of 4 park" area to serve as a buffer between the residential neighborhood to the east and the other light industrial uses envisioned further to the West. In addition, the plan does not propose a "campus-like setting." c. The Applicant failed to provide a full traffic study resulting in a failure to establish sufficient evidence that the Planned Industrial Development will not result in a serious traffic hazard. (See 255- ' 177(D)(3).) d. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(5) is not satisfied because the plan would significantly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. e. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(6) is not satisfied because the plan fails to provide adequate design methods to avoid serious negative influences on adjacent uses. f. A proposal consisting of a single building 1,200 feet wide and 500 feet deep, with an unbroken flat roof, fails to satisfy Borough Ordinance section 255-96(A) which states: "Long, unbroken facades are discouraged." g. The Applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to support a conclusion that the provisions of Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 will be met. ORDER OF THE BOARD The application is denied. Date ~/~"~ L- // Anyone aggrieved by this decision of the Board has the right to appeal to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days from the day of this decisi°n~7 Rontld L. Simon~ Je~ro~/l~. Benja~ Date J ~t ~0.~._ 2vOO~ Je[~r~y ~;. Bergsten Jane Rigl/gr . Date F-e//a/~ ~.... 4 of 4 OVERSIZED DOCUMENT Cumberland Count, Pennsylvania A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CARLISLE Carlisle- A Special Place Carliele~ pennsylvania' is a treasure that deserves respect and careful treatment. Today, unlimited financial resources, unusual patience and creativity, and a very long tlme Period would be necessary to develop a community l;hat resembles Carlisle. The Carlisle community exemplifies both the traditional and modern-day characteristics and.values of small to~ra living-- opportunities to play, learn, shop and work close to home; renowned institutions of higher learning and a quality hospital which are usually available only in larger cities; and a diverse mix of age, income and OCCUpation groups. Carlisle has an identity all its o~n--an identity that dis- tingulshes it from other to,ns. Carlisle is historic. It has a human scale. It is attractive and clean. This community is responsible and proud. Igill Carlisle continue to be a special place to llve and a vital hub of commerce, industry, education, culture and public services? The choice ia ours. The challenge also is ours to preserve and protect this community~s asae~s, positively address its coocernst and realize its future potential. This Comprehensive Plan is the genesis of a new era in Carlislets preservation and development. The Plan will help us make Carlisle an even more special place. What is the Comprehensive Plan? Carl lsle's growth and preservation over the next IS to 12 years. It: includes community goals and specific actions that can ensure a desirable and achievable future for Carlisle. Recommendations are made on how small to~m values can be retained, how the do,m- town can be further energized, how downto~m parking can be managed, how remaining vacant land should be developed and other topics. Carllsle's Comprehensive Plan is: · A basis for allocating scarce resources and for spending money in ways that will produce the most benefits for the Borough and its citizens; a commitment to spend money wisely when money is spent and to direct public and private funds toward desired community objectives. A statement of confidence ia our community and in our ability to deal positively with change and to prepare for the future. A guide for a greater community betterment partnership between governuent and the private sector. Everybody is responsible for implementing the plan; the Borough govern- meet, property owners, merchants, corporate leaders, institutions and civic organizations. · A report wi~h maps, physical projects and much more; it also contains programmatic recommendations pertaining to organizatlon, management, promotion and financing. · A coordinated ee~ of proposals, some of which can be accomplished immediately at no coat and others that will be more costly and may take years to accomplish. Some proposals will save money and make money. · A...r.&~LoneL. gu~.d&..io=...~tkin$. ~housh~[ul decislona-.as problems and opportunities arise, and for making improve- manta a step at a time 'when resources ere available. MAJOR GOALS The future character and success of this community depends upon our commitment to pursue and our ability to achieve these goals: Development Community Purpose Protea~ end enhance Carlisle's identity and image as an ou~- standing example of traditional small town living ~ Maintain and strengthen Carlisle~s role as the residential, business, corporate and cultural center of the area, with a continuing mix of these functions in the Borough . ,Strengthen the role and. improve the function of the downtown as the multi-purpose, diversified business and service center of the Carlisle Area ~ Retain a wide range of age, income, household and occupation groups in the Borough ~ Encourage cooperative area-wide planning among the Borough and adjacent Townships to ensure appropriate and compatible land uses, traffic circulation and public utilities ~ Protect and enhance Carllsle~s natural and man-made beauty Preservation Protect and enhance prop.arty values end neighborhood stability ~ Preserve and promote Carlisle's heritage and outstanding historic architecture ~ Prevent declining building conditions and overcrowding of housing units..:~ Acknowledge the benefits and needs of community institutions such as Carlisle ltospi~al, Dickinson College, Dickinson $~hool of Law and the Carlisle Barracks/War College, blended with the characteristics and needs of surrounding neighborhoods ~ Preserve and enhance the highway entrances to Carlisle and the streetacapes and public areas in ~he Borough $ Preserve existing vegetation, street trees, parks and natural areas such as LetOrt Spring Run Make better use of underutilized buildings and sites to fill in and to improve the function of developed areas :~ Encourage the use of the limited remaining undeveloped areas for highly selective purposes most consistent with the' Borough*s goals, the feasibility of providing public services and the compatibility with nearby areas within and adjacent to the Borough ~ Pvovide incentives for people to invest in projec'ts and improvements that are consistent with community preservation and development goals :~ Attract more retailers, small business owners, profes- sionals and corporate offices into the downtown ~ Diversigy the industrial base with selected new employers while assisting in the continued success of present companies :~ Expand the range of owner and rental' housing types while preserving the present small scale of residential buildings ~ Create more housing opportunities for young couples and for couples whose children are no longer living with them , Support Services Preserve and upgrade the tax base to ensure continuation and expansion of quality public facilities and services :~ Colltinue providing opportunities for residents to play, learn, shop and work close to home ~ Minimize the impact of vehicular traffic on the community and create more opportunities for safe walking, jogging and bicycling ~ Participate jointly with other communities to develop an efficient area-wide highway network and to coordinate existing and proposed streets in adjacent municipalities ~k Manage downtown parking spaces to best meet the needs o~ short, moderate and tong-term parkers ~ Improve people's sense of safety and securiCy in the do~Co~ and co. unity-wide IN RE: APPEAL OF SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Appellant FROM THE DECISION DATED MAY 2, 2002 OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-3334 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAND USE APPEAL PRAECIPE TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Borough of carlisle Zoning Hearing Board. Please accept the filing of the accompanying Record pursuant to the Writ of Certiorari dated July 12, 2002. The Transcript which was to be attached as Item 6 was not available at the time of filing and will be filed uponii~s receipt by Appellee. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July ~ ], 2002 St~pheff'D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D. #32318 IN RE: APPEAL OF SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Appellant FROM THE DECISION DATED MAY 2, 2002 OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-3334 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAND USE APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the Record in the above referenced matter upon the Applicant by sending the same by first class mail, postage pre- paid, addressed as follows: George Asimos, Jr., Esquire SAUL EWING LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Appellant, SPX Corporation Date: 't~. [) 2002 Stephen I~. Tiley. Esquire Attorney for Appellee Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Attorney I.D. 32318 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2002-3334 Civil Term SPX CORPORATION (Successor by merger to General Services Technology Corporation) VS. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RECORD INDEX Writ of Certiorari General Services Technology Corporation Notice of Appeal, July 12, 2001 Public Notice Proof of Publication for Public Notice Zoning Officer Memorandum to Zoning Hearing Board, April 26, 2002 Transcript of Proceedings, Zoning Hearing Board, March 7, 2002 Index of Exhibits Opinion and Decision of Zoning Hearing Board, May 2, 2002 1 Writ of Certiorari SPX OORPORATION Successor by merger to A~.llant zoNiNG ~AR~NG BOARD or THE BOROUG~ OF CARLISLE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-3334 CIVIL WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) : SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) TO: ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between SPX CORPORATION Successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TEflqONOLGGY CORPORATION Appallant vs ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUG~ OF CARLISLE Appellee pending before you, do comnand you that the record of the action aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges of our Court of C(~¥,]~3n Pleas at Carlisle, within 20 days of the date hereof, together with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Con~nonwealth. WITNESS, the Honorable George E. Hoffer P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 12th day of JULY , ~ 2002 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD ~n Testimony wlmreot, I here unto set my hano IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: APPEAL OF: SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Appellant From the Decision Dated May 2, 2002 of the ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE Appellee : Civil Action cz Land Use Appeal -. NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL 1. Appellant, SPX Corporation (hereinafter "Appellant") is a corporation with offices located at 7401 West 129th Street, Overland Park, KS 66213 and, as successor by merger to General Services Technology Corporation, is the owner of real property located in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at 1700 Rimer Highway (the "Property"). 2. Appellee, the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Carlisle ("Board"), with an address of 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, is a Board duly constituted by the Borough of Carlisle, established under, and having jurisdiction granted by, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 10101 et seq. 3. This action is an appeal of a land use decision by the Board rendered under Article IX of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. §10101 et seq., involving a parcel of land located in Cumberland County; therefore this Honorable Court has IRUE COPY FROM RECORD m Testimony w~reof, I here unto set my hanc jurisdiction and venue under Section 1002-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. § l1002-A. 4. The Property is an approximately 46 acre parcel of land improved with an existing, vacant manufacturing building. 5. The Property is in the 1-2 Light Industrial zoning district according to the Borough of Carlisle's official Zoning Map. 6. The Zoning Ordinance of the Borough of Carlisle pemfits warehousing, storage and distribution uses in the I-2 Light Industrial zoning district, but only upon approval of such uses by the Board as part of a "Planned Industrial Development" under Zoning Ordinance Sections 255-87.A, 255-89, and 255-91.A. 7. On or about July 12, 2001, Appellant filed an application (the "Application") with the Board requesting approval of a Planned Industrial Development to be comprised of a warehouse, storage and distribution facility. 8. A hearing on the Application was held on May 2, 2002. At the hearing Appellant presented evidence, through expert testimony, plans and other exhibits, supporting its Application and demonstrating conformance of its Application with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Only four of the five members of the Board were in attendance at this hearing. 9. After deliberation, a motion was made and placed before the Board to approve the Application. This motion failed to pass due to a tie vote by the Board. No other motion was made. 5~287~. 1 7112/02 -2- 10. Thereafter, the Board prepared and executed a decision on Appellant's Application, which was mailed to Appellant on June 14, 2002 ("Decision"). A tree and correct copy of the Decision is attached to this Notice of Land Use Appeal as Exhibit "A'. 11. Appellant hereby appeals the Decision and Order of the Board on the basis that the Board committed errors of law and abused its discretion as set forth below: a. Insofar as the Board deadlocked in its vote at the hearing and therefore reached no conclusions, it was error for the Board to issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision and such findings of fact and conclusions of law must be stricken. b. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by substantial evidence on the record. Rather, the findings and conclusions defy credibility as well as applicable legal standards insofar as they contradict the extensive testimony provided by expert wimesses and, in addition, improperly rely upon the unsubstantiated and unfounded general expressions of concern, and assertions of negative effects, by residents. c. The Board applied an improper standard for the determination Of entitlement to special exception approval by, among other things, citing general and subjective criticisms of the Application as a basis for concluding that Appellant had not met the specific and objective criteria for approval of a Planned Industrial Development under the zoning ordinance. d. Contrary to the evidence presented, the Board concluded that the express standards for approval of a Planned Industrial Development as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance had not been met by Appellant in the Application and the hearing. e. The Board's conclusion that the Application should be denied for failure of Appellant to submit a complete traffic study was an error of law insofar as the Zoning Ordinance of the Borough does not require submission of a traffic study. Furthermore and in the alternative, Appellant did submit substantial expert testimony on the subject of traffic and, in so doing, demonstrated compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to traffic. f. The Board concluded that the zoning ordinance required more than one lot in a Planned Industrial Development when, in fact, the zoning ordinance does not have a' minimum lot number. Furthe,more and in the alternative, Appellant provided testimony that the facility proposed in the Application was designed to accommodate multiple tenants and thus satisfied even the Board's strained (and erroneous) interpretation of its ordinance. g. The Board denied the Application on the basis of several findings pertaining to the relation of the Application to the Borough's Comprehensive Plan notwithstanding that a Comprehensive Plan is not a municipal enactment that rises to'the legal status of an ordinance and thus may not be relied upon to deny an application for special exception where, as here, such application meets the expressed objective requirements for approval set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Furthem~ore and in the alternative, expert witnesses and other evidence demonstrated that the Application is not "substantially incompatible" with the Comprehensive Plan. h. The Board denied the Application for its alleged non-compliance with "design guidelines" in the Zoning Ordinance notwithstanding that the guidelines are only "adviso~~ (according to the Zoning Ordinance itself), too vague to form the basis for the denial of Appellant's property rights, and clearly precatory. i. The Board concluded that Appellant failed to provide adequate evidence of compliance with the zoning ordinance sections 255-157 through 255-160 and 255-177(D)(6) (regarding noise, vibration, air pollution, and light) when, in fact, Appellant provided clear expert testimony that its use of the property would comply with such Zoning Ordinance requirements and no evidence to the contrary was, or could be, presented. Wherefore, Appellant requests that this Honorable Court reverse the Order of the Board and grant Appellant's special exception application. Date: July /~- , 2002 Geo~Asimos, Jr., Esqu~ Attorney I.D. No. 49275 Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 76438 Saul Ewing LLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorneys for Appellant SPX Corporation ~237~. I 7112/02 '5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire, hereby certify that on this l~/day of July, I served a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Land Use Appeal via First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following:: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee Date: July /~., 2002 Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board 53 W. South Street Carlisle PA 17013 Appellee GE6R~/C~ASII~IOS, ESQUIRE/~ Attor~ I.D. No. 49275 ~/ DYLA-N PAINTER DAYTON, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 76438 Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Attorneys for Appellant, SPX Corporation 38287~.1 7112~2 -6- Zoning Hearing Board Borough of Carlisle ZHB Case No. 04 -02 Date of Decision May 2, 2002 Re: General Services Technology Corporation, Applicant Request for special exception for a Planned Industrial Development at 1700 Rimer Highway, a property located in an I-2 light industrial district. OPINION AND DECISION OF ZONING HEARING BOARD BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE After proper advertisement, the Board held a public hearing on Thursday, May 2, '. 2002 in the Carlisle Borough Municipal Building located at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania at 6:30 p.m. Four of the five members of the Zoning Hearing Board were present, they being Chairman Ronald L. Simons, Jeffrey H. Benjamin, Jeffrey G. Bergsten, and Jane Rigler. Absent were member Jason H. Gross and the alternate member of the Board who is Wayne Crawford. In addition, present were Planning/Zoning/Codes officer Kenneth W. Womack, Director of Public Works Michael T. Keiser, and acting Solicitor Stephen D. Tiley with stenographer Ms. Jill L. Roth. Applicant sought a special exception to approve a single lot Planned Industrial Development at 1700 Rimer Highway in an 1-2 light industrial district and proposes to erect on that lot what is characterized as a single building, warehouse/distribution center, containing 600,000 square feet. The property is the site of the former GS Electric manufacturing plant. A motion was made to approve the application. On a vote of two in favor and two opposed, the motion failed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant is the owner of subject property at 1700 Rimer Highway which is located in an I-2 light industrial district. The Applicant has since been merged into a corporation known as SPX Corporation. engineer. Applicant's witness Brian L. Fishbach, PE is an expert witness as a civil 3. Applicant's witness James S. Snyder is an expert witness in the area of traffic planning and analysis and is a registered professional engineer. 4. Applicant's proposed project involves the building ofh single large structure of 600,000 square feet, it being a rectangle 500 feet deep by 1,200 feet wide. 1 of 4 The building will be 40 feet high. The large structure will have 172 tractor-trailer docks and may operate 24 hours per day. The project may generate as many as-180 tractor trailer trips per day. The facility will involve the use of dispatchers and may involve the storage of goods for as brief a period of time as 48 hours. 5. The proposal is for a single warehouse/distribution structure to be erected on a single lot. The single lot is the entire amount of property owned by the applicant at this location. Applicant testified that the warehouse could be made available to multiple users through the use of internal partitions. 6. The Carlisle Zoning Ordinance does not contain a definition of "warehouse," nor does it contain a definition of"distribution center." 7. The Applicant failed to identify the tenants of the proposed building. 8. North of the property which is the subject of the application is U.S. Route 11. East of the property is a long established, single family, residential neighborhood known as Valley Meadows. The Valley Meadows neighborhood includes a church and playground. The Valley Meadows neighborhood is zoned Medium Density Residential. In between the Valley Meadows neighborhood and U.S. Route 11 to the north is an area zoned neighborhood commercial. To the south of the property is land in South Middleton Township which is industrially zoned under the zoning ordinance applicable to that Township. West of the property is land in the Borough zoned Light Industrial, the same as the subject property. 9. A large contingent of neighbors in the abutting residential district appeared at the heating to object to the grant Of the special exception. Approximately 10 neighbors spoke specifically in opposition to the Planned Industrial Development. The position of the neighbors is that the proposed Planned Industrial Development would have an adverse impact on their neighborhood. Among the reasons given by the neighbors were the following: (i) increased traffic congestion from truck traffic, (ii) fumes from diesel tracks while moving and while stationary, (iii).noise from diesel trucks while moving and while stationary, (iv) light pollution, and (v) a negative impact on the value of their property. 10. Applicant asserted that the Planned Industrial Development would comply with Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 (concerning noise, vibration, air pollution and odors, and light, glare and heat), but did not offer specific evidence in support of those assertions. 11. The protestants established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Planned Industrial Development would negatively affect the desirable character of the existing residential neighborhood, as a result of creating excessive amounts of air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, adverse visual impacts, and significant traffic impacts. 12. Borough Ordinance provision 255-177(D)(2) incorpora~tes the applicable Comprehensive Plan for purposes of special exception application, requiting that such 2 of 4 uses not be substantially incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the separation of industrial and residential uses with buffer areas and with a transition from industrial to residential uses .such as by developing areas between those uses with business/office/research park uses. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for this area to be developed in a "campus-like setting." (See page l0 of Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit A-7.) 13. No person spoke in favor of Applicant's request for a special exception other than the Applicant's witnesses. 14. The Applicant's plan calls for a 12 foot earthen berm or mound to be erected between the building and its macadam parking and driving surface, and the residential neighborhood to the east. The Carlisle Ordinance would require a mound of 6 feet. The mound will also have trees planted on it, pursuant to the Ordinance. Even with the earthen berm, significant noise, light and fumes will be present in the adjoining neighborhood. Even with the earthen berm the building and its lights will be visible from ' the second floor of homes immediately adjoining the property and visible fi.om the ground level of homes further away. 15. The Carlisle Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board deny the application for special exception. 16. The Applicant did not submit a complete traffic study for the proposed development. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Applicant has the burden to prove that the proposed Planned Industrial Development satisfies the criteria, specified by the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance, for a Planned Industrial Development. If Applicant satisfies its burden of proof, then the neighbors objecting to the grant of the special exception have the burden of proving that the proposed Planned Industrial Development will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. 2. The Applicant failed to prove that it met the criteria for a Planned Industrial Development for the following reasons: a. The proposal is for a single lot and single building rather than for multiple lots, or multiple buildings, or multiple users. The Standards for Approval of a Planned Industrial development clearly envision a multiple lot development. (See 255-95 and the definition, at 255-12.) b. Borough Ordinance provision 255-177(D)(2) is an express incorporation of the provisions of the'Comprehensive Plan into the Zoning Ordinance, for purposes of a special exception application. The proposed use is entirely incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and its specific provisions for development of this area such as a "business/office/research 3 of 4 park" area to serve as a buffer between the residential neighborhood to the east and the other light industrial uses envisioned further to the West. In addition, the plan does not propose a "campus-like setting." c. The Applicant failed to provide a full traffic study resulting in a failure to establish sufficient evidence that the Planned Industrial Development will not result in a serious traffic hazard. (See 255- 177(D)(3).) d. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(5) is not satisfied because the plan would significantly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. e. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(6) is not satisfied because the plan fails to provide adequate design methods to avoid serious negative influences on adjacent uses. f. A proposal consisting of a single building 1,200 feet wide and 500 feet deep, with an unbroken flat roof, fails to satisfy Borough Ordinance section 255-96(A) which states: "Long, unbroken facades are discouraged." g. The Applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to support a conclusion that the provisions of Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 will be met. ORDER OF THE BOARD The application is denied. decision~/~. Date Anyone aggrieved by this decision of the Board has the right to appeal to the' Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days from the day of this 4 of 4 2 General Services Technology Corporation Notice of Appeal July 12, 2001 ZONING HEARING BOARD BOROUGH OF CARLISLE NOTICE OF APPEAL t1~ JtJL t .~,~ ~, ,~.i ~_..~ LLgi (1) (We) General Services Technology Corporation of 1700 Ritner ~;vc.~trnsle, IA, by its (NAME) (ADDRESS attorneys, Stephen S. Aiehele, Esquire~ and Dylan Painter Dayton~ Esquires c/o Saul Ewing LLP, Penn National Insurance Plaza~ 2 North Second Street~ 7th Floor~ Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717-238-7671) (ADDRESS) request that a public hearing be held and a decision be issued by the Zoning Hearing Board on the following matter: [] An appeal of a determination by the Zoning Officer issued on [] A special exception. ' [] A variance relating to: [] Area [] Frontage [] Yard [] Height [] Use [] Which pertains Article XIII Article XIII Article XIII Article XIII Article XX to the Carlisle Borough Zoning Ordinance: Section 255-87 Section 255-89 Section 255-91 Section 255-95 Section 255-177 Paragraph Paragraph 34 Paragraph A(1) Paragraph A(1) - (10) Paragraph A-F The description of the property involved in this appeal is as follows: Location of property: 1700 Ritner Highway, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County Zoning District: I-2 Light Industrial District Present Use: GS Electric Building Proposed Use: Warehouse~ storage and distribution~ as permitted under Carlisle Borough Zoning Ordinance Section 255-89.A(34) (see alt_ached site plan) Owner of Property: General Services Technology Corporation Relationship of applicant to property: [] Owner of record. [] Party to a sales agreement, [] Party to a lease agreement. Attach the following: [] Statement of why the Zoning Hearing Board should approve the request. [] Site plan - required for area and bulk variances. St~ S. Aichele, ~Es~ui,~ DyMn Painter Dayton, Es~lfiire Attorneys for General Services Technology Corporation Date Hearing Advertised Fee $150 Fee Paid Do not write in this space. For official use only. Appeal Number Receipt No. Cost of Transcript 829922 7'12/01 P A i D J bL 't 5 21101 STATEMENT OF WHY THE ZONING HEARING BOARD SHOULD APPROVE THIS APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AND USE A WAREHOUSE, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION BUll JHNG IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-2) DISTRICT Applicant Name: General Services Technology Corporation (hereinafter, "General" or "Applicant") Date: July 12, 2001 Re: Application for a Special Exception for the installation, construction and use of a warehouse, storage and distribution building at 1700 Ritner Highway, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. I. Introduction Applicant seeks permission to construct and use a 600,000 square foot ("s.f. ") warehouse on the property located at 1700 Ritner Highway in Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, tax parcel 8-579-2 (the "Property"). The Property is located in the Light Industrial (I-2) zoning district as described by the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the current zoning map promulgated thereunder. The proposed use of warehousing, storage and distribution is a permitted use pursuant to Section 225-89.A.34, provided that the use is within an approved planned industrial development. Section 255-91.A. 1 requires any proposed planned industrial development to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Hearing Board through a special exception. Pursuant to Sections 255-87 (planned industrial developments), 255-89 (uses permitted by right), 255-91 (special exception uses in the I-1 District), 255-95 (standards for planned industrial development), and 255-177 (special exception), General hereby seeks approval of a Special Exception to establish a planned industrial development to allow warehousing, storage and distribution on the Property. II. General's proposed use should be granted since all elements of the Ordinanco concerning requirements for the proposed use and a planned industrial development are met. Section 255-177 of the Ordinance governs special exceptions. Specifically, subsection D delineates the standards of a special exception. As outlined in detail below, General's special exception application complies with the standards of the special exception use listed in Section 255-177(D) and in Sections 255-87 and 255-91. Accordingly, General's special exception application should be granted. 82921.2 7/12,'01 Section 255-177(D) Special Exception Standards (1) Other laws: shall not be in serious conflict with other borough ordinances or state or federal laws or regulations that the Zoning Hearing Board has clear knowledge of. Applicant's proposed use will not be in serious conflict with other borough ordinances or state or federal laws or regulations. (2) Comprehensive Plan: shall not be substantially incompatible with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's proposed use is not substantially incompatible with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Although the Comprehensive Plan originally envisioned the Property as a business/office/research park, such a use depended heavily upon the surrounding lands (in both the Borough and South Middleton) being developed in a comparable manner. Since the Comprehensive Plan was drafted, both Carlisle and South Middleton Township have approved warehousing/storage/distribution uses in the areas surrounding the Property. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the "staff should continue to urge industries to require their truck drivers to use the most appropriate routes, such as the 1-81/Allen Road interchange." The development of the Property as warehousing/storage/distribution will ensure that trucks use the most appropriate routes, such as 1-81/Allen Road, rather than through the downtown area. Furthermore, the use of the Property as warehousing/storage/distribution will ensure that the industrial development in Carlisle continues in the western edge of Carlisle, with minimum impact on the downtown area. Accordingly, the development of the Property as warehouse/storage/distribution is not substantially incompatible with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (3) Traffic: shall not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. Applicant's proposed use will not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. Applicant has designed a facility and use that will not generate an average of more than 200 truck trips a weekday. In addition, the location of the Property and the design of the site ensures that the truck traffic will have minimal impact on the remainder of the Borough. (4) Safety: shall not create a significant public safety hazard, including fires, toxic or explosive hazards. Applicant's proposed use shall not create a significant public safety hazard. 82921.2 7ll2/01 -2- ~' (5) Neighborhood: will not significantly negatively effect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. Applicant's proposed use will not significantly negatively effect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. Indeed, as described below and in the attached site plan, Applicant has provided a large earthen berm with a maximum height of 15' and significant evergreen screening to protec! the residential neighborhood to the east. This landscaping exceeds the Borough's requirements and is ~imilar to other warehousing/storage/ distribution plans approved in the surrounding areas. (6) Design: will involve adequate site design methods, including evergreen screening, setbacks, berming and traffic control to avoid serious negative influences on adjacent uses. As discussed above and as outlined in the site plan, Applicant's design involves significant evergreen screening, setbacks, berming and traffic control to avoid serious negative influences on adjacent uses. Section 225-92. Area and bulk regulations. Applicant's proposal, as described in the attached Site Plan, meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of this Section, including: (1) minimum tract size of 10 acres within the Borough. As outlined in the attached site plan, applicant's tract size will be 46.276 acres. (2) minimum lot area of an acre. Applicant's lot area will be over 46 acres; (3) building front setback of 5O feet (except 40feet when adjacent to an expressway or arterial street such as Rimer Highway). Applicant's front setback will be 40 feet; (4) minimum paved setbacks of 75feet from any arterial streets, 25feet from any other public streets, 5feet from any other property line, except 25'from a property line abutting a residential use, and screening in accordance with Section 255-11. Applicant's paved areas and screening meet or exceed these requirements. (5) lot width minimum of 150' or 350'. Applicant's lot width is 1,404 at the right-of-way. (6) building coverage of 60% maximum. Applicant's building coverage will be 30%. (7) impervious coverage of 75% maximum. Applicant's impervious coverage will be 55 %. (8) rearyard: 25'. Applicant's rear yard will be 25 feet. (9) side yard of 25'. Applicant's side yard will be 25 feet. (10) Building height of 40' maximum. Applicant proposes to build only a 40' building. 82921.2 7112/01 -3- Section 225-93. Setbacks from dwellings and residential districts. In addition to the requirements of Section 225-92, Applicant's proposed use is likely subject to the additional requirements of Section 225-93.A(3). That Section directs that any area "routinely used for the movement, parking, storage, loading or unloading of tractor-trailer trucks or trailers of tractor-trailer combinations or any refrigerated trucks" requires a setback of two hundred (200) feet from any lot line of a residential lot and from any residential district boundary. However, subsection B provides for a reduced setback of 120', provided an earthen berm to particular specifications is built. Applicant has provided the reduced setback of 120' as permitted by this Section. As demonstrated on the attached site plan, Applicant proposes to provide an earthen berm with a minimum height of six (6) feet and a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above ground level on the residential side of the berm, a maximum side slope of four to one (4:1), appropriate evergreen plantings in excess of the requirements of Section 255-171, and which is designed for easy maintenance. This screening is similar to other plans approved in the surrounding areas. Section 255-95. Standards for approval of a planned industrial development (1) Minimum tract size. Ten (10) acres of land area with the borough is required. (See the definition of "tract" in Article II). Applicant's proposed 46 acre tract meets the definition of "tract" in Article II, Section 155-12. Specifically, the entire tract includes an individual "lot" within the requirements of the I-2 district as permitted by section A of the "tract" definition. In addition, the tract includes a well-defined internal circulation system and limited points of access to arterial streets. The land is owned by one corporation. The tract is entirely within the Borough of Carlisle and the measurement of the land area within the tract was calculated by totaling the lot area. (2) Site plan. A generalized preliminary site plan is required. (See Article XXIV). A generalized preliminary site plan in accordance with Section 255-223.C.6 (requiring a "reasonably accurate description of the additions or changes intended to be made") is attached to this application. In particular, the site plan indicates the location and size of the existing and intended improvements. 8292127/12/01 -4- - ~ ' (3) Information. The applicant shall present whatever information is available on the types of tenants or uses that are intended or expected in different portions of the development. Applicant intends to use the building as a warehouse/storage/distribution center for a business with no more than an average of 200 tractor-trips per weekday. (4) Relationship to surroundings. The applicant shah show how the development will be coordinated with access and utilities of other portions of the I-1 and 1-2 Districts and with Interstate 81 and areas goned for industry in adjacent municipalities. As demonstrated in the attached site plan, Applicant's access to the property will be coordinated with access and utilities of other portions of the I-1 and I~2 Districts and with Interstate 81 and areas zoned for industry in adjacent municipalities. (5) Open space and landscaping. The application shall show an overall plan of open spaces and landscaping. This plan shall be carried out through a system of deed restrictions on each lot. The site plan shows an overall plan of open spaces and landscaping. No deed restrictions are necessary for the landscaping or open spaces on this lot, since there will be only one lot in the Planned Industrial Development, and that lot will be governed by this Special Exception application and decision and any subdivision and land development site plan required. (6) Access. (a) Coordinated access. Any planned industrial development shall make the absolute maximum use possible of interior streets, as opposed to numerous driveways entering onto an arterial street. Since only one lot is proposed in this Planned Industrial Development, that lot will make the absolute maximum use of possible interior streets, and indeed the site plan shows only one access onto Route 11. (b) Access to other than arterial streets. street. Inapplicable. Applicant does not intend to have any access to any non-arterial (c) Easements for access. Inapplicable. Applicant has only one lot within one tract.. 82921.2 7/12/0[ -5- (7) Staged construction. Inapplicable. Applicant does not intend for development to occur in progressive stages. (8) Lot regulations. Addressed above. Applicant intends only one lot which, as described above, complies with the lot and area regulations of the district. (9) Information on covenants. Inapplicable. Applicant intends only one lot within the tract which shall be regulated by the subdivision and land development plans approved for the planned industrial development. The use of deed restrictions and/or covenants is unnecessary and over burdensome. (10) Highway access points. The minimum distance between access points within a planned industrial development from the development to an arterial street shall be five hundred (500) feet. Applicant satisfies this section because only one access onto to Ritner Highway is proposed, and that access is more than 500' from any other access onto Ritner Highway. Section 255-96 Design Guidelines. A. Long, unbroken facades are discouraged. To the extent reasonably possible, Applicant will use its best efforts to design a warehouse in compliance with this design guideline. B. The exteriors of all buildings that are visible to an expressway, expressway ramp or arterial street should be finished with attractive materials such as masonry, brick, stone or similar attractive materials, as opposed to tin, steel, aluminum or cinder block. To the extent reasonably possible, Applicant will use its best efforts to design a warehouse in compliance with this design guideline. Section 255-97. Additional requirements. A. Enclosure. All manufacturing and processing shall occur within completely enclosed structures. No manufacturing or processing is anticipated with the use of the warehousing, storage or distribution. B. Parking and loading. All parking and loading requirements shall meet the requirements of Article XXI. See attached site plan. 82921.2 7/12,'01 C. Performance standards: see Article XIX. Applicant shall comply with any applicable performance standards. D. Regulations for specific uses: see Article XX. Section 155-178(46). Warehouse or wholesale. (a) See off-street loading requirements in § 255-194. The attached site plan demonstrates compliance with the off-street loading requirements of Section 255-194. § 255-194. off-street loading. A. General requirements. Each use shall provide off-street loading facilities sufficient to accommodate the maximum demand generated by the use, as determined by the Zoning Officer or another applicable review agent for the borough, which facilities comply with the regulations contained in this section. For the purposes of this section, loading shall include unloading and vice versa. B. Standards for loading facilities. All off-street loading and unloading spaces shall meet the following standards: (1) at least one (1) space shall be of sufficient dimensions as determined by the zoning officer to easily accommodate the largest vehicle that will be used for loading and unloading. In most cases, the minimum dimensions should be 12 x 55feet wide. (2) loading facilities shall have paved surfaces. (3) areas required for loading and unloading areas shall not also be used to meet off-street parking requirements. (4) an appropriate means of access to a street or alley shall be provided that the maximum width of driveways, measured at the street lot line, shall be 35' and that the minimum width shall be 20'. (5) No such facilities shall be designed or used in any manner so as to constitute a nuisance, a hazard or an unreasonable impediment to traffic. (6) Each space shall have sufficient maneuvering room separate from other parking and loading areas to avoid traffic conflicts within the lot. 829212 7/12/01 C. Location. (1) No loading facility shall be located between the improvement setback line and the cartway line or within any required paved area setback. (2) No loading facility shall be located more than 300'from a building entrance. (3) Each space shall be located entirely on the lot being serviced and be so located that each space and all maneuvering room is outside of required buffer areas, off-street parking setbacks and street rights-of-way. (b) Truck or rail access and operations shall not conflict with the convenience and safety of auto traffic and parking. The attached site plan shows truck access and operations which shall not .conflict with the convenience and safety of auto traffic and parking. (c) No storage of solid waste, explosive or flammable materials, hazardous or highly toxic substances, radioactive substances, animals, animal carcasses or similar items shall be permitted. No storage of solid waste, explosive or flammable materials, hazardous or highly toxic substances, radioactive substances, animals, animal carcasses or similar items is intended in the warehouse, storage and distribution building. (d) Uses that would involve the serving of the use by an average of more than two hundred (200) tractor-trailer trips per weekday shall be required to meet the additional standards in this section for a truck terminal. Applicant does not intend a use that would involve the serving of the use by an average of more than two hundred (200) tractor-trailer trips per weekday. (e) See requirements in Section 255-179(D) (1) for commercial or industrial outdoor storage or display. As will be explained through testimony at the special exception hearing, Applicant will comply with the requirements of Section 255-179(D)(1) regarding commercial or industrial outdoor storage or display. § 255-179(D)(1). Commercial or industrial outdoor storage and display. (a) location, shah not occupy any part of the existing or future street right of way, area intended or designed for pedestrian use, required parking area or part of the required paved area setback. 8292t 2 7/12/01 -8- ':' ~ (b) no outside industrial storage shall be located on land with an average slope in excess of 15 %. (c) No outdoor industrial storage or area routinely used for the storage of 4 or more tractor-trailers, or detached trailers of tractor-trailers shall occur within 200' of an existing dwelling or a residential district or an expressway or arterial street existing right of way, unless the storage is buffered from view by buildings or a 20' wide buffer yard and screening within the requirements of Article XIX. (d) outdoor storage of any type shall not be permitted unless such storage is part of the normal operations conducted on the premises, subject to the design and performance standards for the prevailing zoning district. (e) all organic rubbish or storage shall be contained in air-tight, vermin proof containers which shall also be screened from public view. All such storage shall be located behind the minimum front yard setback line. 09 Any establishment which furnishes shopping carts shall provide clearly marked areas within the required parking space areas for storage of said carts. III. Conclusion General requests that this Application be considered favorably by the Zoning Hearing Board. Please contact the undersigned know regarding the scheduling of any hearing or if you have any questions or require any further information. Submitted by: Stel~n S. Aichele, E~e Dylan Painter Dayton, ~Esquire Saul Ewing LLP Penn National Insurance Plaza 2 N. Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7526 Attorneys for Applicant, General Services Technology Corporation 82921.2 7112101 -9- 3 Public Notice NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY PROVIDED that the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board will meet on Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall of the Municipal Building, 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, at which time and place testimony will be taken and a complete hearing held on the following case: A request submitted by John K. Murphy on behalf of HFL Corporation/Uni-Marts, Inc. for variances at 680 N. Hanover Street (C-4 Neighborhood Commercial District). Section 255-77 of the Cadisle Zoning Ordinance limits maximum impervious coverage to eighty percent (80%) and requires a minimum paved area setback of twenty (20) feet from an arterial street and ten (10) feet from any other public street. Applicant proposes to demolish the current structure and construct a commercial convenience store with associated parking and improvements which results in impervious coverage of eighty- two percent (82%) and paved setbacks of zero (0) feet along Hanover and Clay Streets (arterial streets). A request submitted by General Services Technology Corporation for a special exception to construct a six hundred thousand (600,000) square foot warehouse within a planned industrial development at 1700 Ritner Highway (I-2 Light Industrial District). Section 255-89 of the Cadisle Zoning Ordinance permits warehousing, storage and distribution as a use permitted by right within the I-2 District provided the use is developed within a planned industrial development or a planned mixed use business park. Section 255-87 of the same ordinance requires that a planned industrial development be approved as a special exception by the Zoning Hearing Board. KENNETH W. WOMACK Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 4 Proof of Publication for Public Notice PROOF OF PUBLICATION State of Pennsylvania, County of Cumberland. Sherry Clifford, Classified Ad Manager of THE SENTINEL, of the County and State aforesaid, being duly sworn, deposes and says that THE SENTINEL, a newspaper of general circulation in the Borough of Carlisle, County and State aforesaid, was established December 13th, 1881, since which date THE SENTINEL has been regularly issued In said County, and that the printed notice or publication attached hereto is exactly the same aa was printed and published in the regular editions and issues of THE SENTINEL on the following dates, viz Copy of Notice of Publication July 19 and 26, 2001 Affiant further deposes that he is not interested in the subject matter of the aforesaid notice or advertisement, and that all allegations In the foregoing statement as to time, place and character of publication are true. July 31, 2001 Sworn to and subscribed before me this 31st day of July ,2001. Notary Public My commission expires: I NOTARIAL SEAL 1 SHIRLEY O. DURNIN. Notary Public Carlisle Bo~o.. Cumberland County M~' ~ Expires Aug. g, 2003 5 Zoning Officer Memorandum to Zoning Hearing Board, April 26, 2002 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Cornmitted To Excellence In Community Service~ April 26, 2002 MEMORANDUM FOR THE ZONING HEARING BOARD Borough of Carlisle Zoning Officerf~J~ FROM: SUBJECT: A REQUEST BY GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND (600,000) SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE WITHIN A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1700 RITNER HIGHWAY (I-2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT). Section 255-177 B (4) of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance states: The Zoning Officer should, prior to the next Zoning Hearing Board Meeting where the application will be discussed, review the plan to determine compliance with this chapter and submit a report to the Zoning Hearing Board. This memorandum is submitted pursuant to the guidance above. Background The applicant seeks a special exception to construct and use a 600,000 square foot warehouse, storage and distribution facility at 1700 Rimer Highway (1-2 Light Industrial District). Section 255-89 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance permits warehousing, storage and distribution as a use permitted by right within the 1-2 District provided the use is developed within a planned industrial development or a planned mixed use business park. Section 255-87 of the same ordinance requires that a planned industrial development be approved as a special exception by the Zoning Hearing Board. Section 255- 95 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance provides the standards for a planned industrial development in the 1-2 district. Following approval of a special exception, the applicant may make application for land development approval under the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The applicant submitted the initial application to the Zoning Hearing Board on July 12, 2001. The application includes a statement of why the Zoning Hearing Board should approve this application for a special exception. Section 255-177 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance proscribes the procedure and the criteria for approval for special exception uses. The Zoning Hearing Board shall approve any proposed special exception use if it finds adequate evidence that any proposed use will meet: 1. All of the special exception standards listed in § 255-177 D of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. 2. All of the specific standards for the proposed use listed in §§ 255-178 and 255-179 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. 3. All other applicable requirements of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422; FAX (717) 249-5587 In granting a special exception the Zoning Hearing Board may require such reasonable standards and conditions and safeguards, in addition to those expressed in the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 255-87A of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to "provide advice" to the Zoning Heating Board on special exception applications for a planned industrial development. The Planning Commission initially heard testimony on this application on August 23, 2001, and voted 5-0 to continue the hearing based on a request by the applicant in order to provide more traffic data. The minutes of this meeting are at Attachment A. Based on a number of issues, the Planning Commission did not meet again on this issue until March 28, 2002. Additional traffic data was provided to the Planning Commission at this meeting (Attachment B). At this meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the Zoning Hearing Board deny the application for the special exception as requested by the applicant. The Planning Commission minutes of the March 28, 2002, meeting are at Attachment C. Compliance with Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. The proposed plan appears to comply with the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the following: 1. Special exception standards listed in § 255-177 D of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance (refer to pages 2-3 of the applicant's statement): (2) Comprehensive Plan: shall not be substantially incompatible with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Officer concurs with the applicant's assessment that the current comprehensive plan envisioned less intensive uses around the subject property and that other uses in the vicinity have been developed as warehousing, storage and distribution centers. However, the relevant Comprehensive Plan has as stated goals for the Ritner Highway/I-81 Corridor Development: "Avoid conflicts between very heavy industrial uses and residential uses;" "Develop the bulk of the land as a light industrial/office park;" and, "Provide for a smooth transition between industrial and residential uses." The issue of"substantial incompatibility" is a determination for the Zoning Hearing Board in its discretion. The Zoning Officer remains concerned that this development as proposed will impact the abutting residential district and that this remains so despite prior and proposed development on properties adjacent to this tract which does not specifically comply with the Comprehensive Plan. (3) Traffic: shall not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion~ The applicant states that the proposed development will not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion and that the use will not generate an average of more than 200 truck trips per day. Subsequent to the initial application, the applicant provided additional data on tractor-trailer trips and overall traffic impacts (Attachment B). With respect to tractor-trailer trips, the applicant concludes that based on the development of a 600,000 square feet warehouse facility, it is "highly Ii ..... kely that a warehouse/d~stributlon user could operate well within the 200 truck trips per day limit. With respect to overall traffic impacts, the applicant provides information in Attachment B that the increase in traffic associated with this project represents only a small percentage increase in traffic at the key intersections along Route 11 and that any substantial impacts to offsite facilities could be mitigated to acceptable levels of service. Section 255-175B of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance requires a traffic study at the time of any plan review required under the zoning ordinance with the scope of the study described in 255-225 B (8)(d) of the zoning ordinance. The Zoning Officer and Borough Engineer reserve the right to request additional traffic information should the Zoning Hearing Board determine that sufficient information is not currently available to fully address traffic concerns. 2. Specific standards for the proposed use listed in §§ 255-178 and 255-179 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance (refer to pages 7-9 of the applicant's statement): Section 255-178 A. (46) Standards for specific permitted uses, conditional uses and special exception uses. }Farehouse or wholesale. Paragraph (d) of this section of the ordinance states: Uses that would involve the serving of the use by an average of more than two hundred (200) tractor, trailer trips per weekday shall be required to meet the additional standards in this section for a truck terminal. The staff has concerns that a 600,000 square feet warehouse with 172 loading dock spaces and an additional 91 trailer parking spaces will generate more than 200 tractor-trailer trips per day. As mentioned above, the applicant has provided information on the overall traffic impact to include the estimated number of average tractor-trailer trips per weekday and concludes that the proposed project can comply with this provision of the ordinance. Section 255-179 D. (I) Standards for specific accessory uses. Commercial or industrial storage or display. The proposed site plan appears to meet all of the criteria in this section. The issue of buffering for the storage of tractor-trailers and detached trailers of tractor-trailers should be addressed along with the overall screening and landscaping requirements discussed above. The applicant has stated he will address these issues in further detail at the special exception hearing. 3. All other applicable requirements of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance: Sections 255-12 and 255-89. Planned lndustrial Development. Section 255-12 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance defines Planned Industrial Development as: .~ln area of land controlled by a single landowner and developed as a single entity for a number of industrial firms and planned and approved within the requirements of the I-2 District. Section 255-89 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance states that in 1-2 Districts, land or buildings shall be used by right only for the principal or accessory uses identified, provided that they are within an approved planned industrial development. Among those uses identified is "warehousing, storage and distribution." The proposed development as described in the attached site plan contains only one industrial firm and therefore does not meet the definition of a planned industrial development or the intent of the ordinance to promote a suitable mixture of stable industrial, commercial, retail and distribution development, protect the character of industrial/commercial areas and nearby districts, conserve the value of land and buildings and promote municipal tax revenues. The intent of the ordinance is clear on requiting tracts over ten acres to be developed as either a planned industrial development or a planned mixed use business park. The proposed planned induslxial development contains only one rather than a number of industrial firms and therefore does not meet the requirement for a planned industrial development. Section 225-93. Setbacks from dwellings and residential districts (seepage 4 of applicant's statemenO: The site plan provided indicates the proposed development appears to meet the requirements of this section. As noted above however, the size of the proposed warehouse and the associated activity are such that the strict provisions of this section of the ordinance may be insufficient to avoid negatively affecting the desirable character of the existing, abutting residential neighborhood. The Zoning Hearing Board should include any additional conditions which it believes will mitigate the effects on the abutting neighborhood. The applicant's proposal to increase the height of the berms can reduce this negative effect on the abutting neighborhood. Section 225-95. Standards for approval of a planned industrial development (see pages 4-6 of applicant's statement): The staff concurs with the information provided by the applicant. However, should the Zoning Hearing Board require more detailed traffic data, it may be required as indicated below: (2) Site plan. A generalized preliminary site plan is required. (See Article XXIV). The applicable section of the zoning ordinance governing a site plan for a special exception is § 255-177 B. (3) which refers the applicant to § 255-232 of the zoning ordinance. This section states the following: .4 site plan submittal shall be required for every nonresidential principal use or principal building and for every expansion greater than twenty percent (20%) in the total floor area of a principal building, except as specifically exempted by this section. This specifically includes every new or expanded industrial, office, retail, service or place of worship principal building and for animal husbandry .... The requirements for a site plan are included in § 255-232 E. and shall be included on the plan unless waived by the Zoning Officer or the Borough Engineer as not applicable or necessary. This development will require a traffic study if submitted as a land development plan; The Zoning Officer and Borough Engineer reserve the tight to request additional traffic information should the Zoning Hearing Board determine that sufficient information is not currently available to fully address traffic concerns. Attachments: A. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting, August 23, 2001 B. Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Letter to Zoning Officer, March 28, 2002 C. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting, March 28, 2002 Attachment A BOROUGH OF CARLISLE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Thursday, August 23, 2001 Members Attending: Harry Herb, Linda Witmer, Phillip Mock, Debra Cornelius, and Tim Hoy Members Absent: John Auger and Joseph Kroon. Borough Officials Attending: Kenneth W. Womack, Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager. Harry Herb called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Items Reviewed bF the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission considered a preliminary subdivision/land development plan submitted by Brehm-Lebo Engineering on behalf of Project Share (Carlisle Area Religious Council) for a free food storage and distribution facility and associated improvements to be located in the west 100 block of Locust Avenues (R4 Town Center Residential). In addition, the Planning Commission may consider recommending waivers for the subdivision/land development application fee, dedication of land for recreation purposes of fee in lieu, and building permit fees. The applicant proposes to construct a 5,833.77 square foot warehouse to be used as a free food storage and distribution facility by Project Share on a lot located in the west 100 block between Frederick and Locust Avenues. The proposed plan calls for the subdivision of property owned by Steven C. Boyer at the northeast corner of N. West Street and Frederick Avenue with a small tract (81.47 square feet) of this property being added to the primary Project Share tract for a total new development tract size of 7,876.88 square feet. In addition, the plan calls for abandoning portion of a sewer lateral from the Boyer property which crosses the Project Share property and replacing it with a new sanitary sewer line located in the Frederick Avenue right of way. A free food distribution facility is not a use specifically regulated by the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to § 255-8 B of the ordinance, a use not specifically regulated can be allowed as a special exception or variance by the Zoning Hearing Board. On August 3, 2000, the Zoning Hearing Board approved a variance to allow operation of a free food distribution center at the proposed location. For "Other Pemtitted Uses" in the R-4 Town Center Residential District, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks of five (5) feet, ten (10) and twenty- five (25) feet respectively. Maximum building coverage allowed is fifty- percent (50%) and maximum impervious coverage allowed is seventy-five percent (75%). The proposed plan meets all requirements of the ordinance except minimum lot size, front yard setback, side yard setback, building coverage and impervious coverage. On August 3,2000, the Zoning Hearing Board granted the following variances: A variance for a minimum lot size of 7,964 square feet (lot size is 7,876.88 square feet). A variance for a zero (0) front yard setback along Frederick Avenue (the plan meets the front yard setback of ten (10) feet along Locust Avenue). A variance for side yard setbacks of two (2) feet. A variance for building coverage of seventy-five (75) percent (building coverage is 74.06%). A variance for one hundred percent (100%) impervious coverage. Conclusion: The Planning Commission, upon motion by Debra Cornelius and second by Timothy Hoy, unanimously recommended approval of the plan subject to staff's conditions as listed below. On a motion by Debra Cornelius, seconded by Linda Witmer, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 against a motion to recommend Borough Council waive the subdivision /land development application fee. The Planning Commission, upon motion by Timothy Hoy and second by Debra Cornelius, unanimously recommended Borough Council waive the recreation fees. Pursuant to § 226-19 A (5) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the plan shall show the name, address, signature and phone number of the applicant(s). Two (2) copies of the plan shall be signed by the owner or applicant. b) Pursuant to § 226-19 A (7) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the plan shall show the name, address, telephone number, signature and seal of the professional engineer, architect or landscape architect certifying the plat and the professional land surveyor certifying the accuracy of the plat perimeter survey. Two copies of the plan shall be signed by the engineer/surveyor. c) Pursuant to § 226-19 A (12) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the plan shall show all existing water mains. d) Pursuant to § 226-19 A (19) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the plan shall show the general location of proposed water mains, sanitary sewers, electric, gas, telephone, cable television and stormwater catch basins and lines and the size of each line. Pursuant to §§ 197-2 and 255-174 C of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, the applicant shall modify the plan to include proposed water and sewer connections for the proposed warehouse and the properties of Chris J. Bistline (P.O. 203, Page 686). The applicant shall modify the plan to reflect a 6-inch PVC sewer line vice an 8-inch line or in lieu, replace the entire 6-inch clay pipe with 8-inch PVC sewer line. e) Pursuant to § 226-19 J (1) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the applicant shall provide, for review and approval by the Borough Solicitor, a deed or deeds of consolidation when the plat involves consolidation or changes in existing lot lines of existing tracts, parcels or lots. Pursuant to § 226-19 K of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the applicant shall provide a final erosion and sedimentation control plan pursuant to all applicable statutes, regulations or rules, and evidence that a complete application has been subniitted for any required erosion and sedimentation control permit. Pursuant to § 226-23 A (3) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the applicant shall ensure that private streets (streets not offered for dedication) will meet all the design standards and improvement and construction requirements of this chapter. Applicant shall provide sufficiently detailed paving specifications for "V" channel swale to be constructed on the alley to the north of the site. The Planning Commission may provide advice to the Zoning Hearing Board on a request by General Services Technology Corporation for a special exception to construct a six hundred thousand (600,000) square foot warehouse within a planned industrial development at 1700 Rimer Highway (1-2 Light Industrial District). The applicant seeks a special exception to construct and use a 600,000 square foot warehouse, storage and distribution facility at 1700 Rimer Highway (1-2 Light Industrial District). In order to grant the special exception, the Zoning Hearing Board must determine that this use will meet the criteria listed is Section II above. Following approval of a special exception, the applicant may make application for land development approval under the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a statement of why the Zoning Hearing Board should approve this application for a special exception (attached). In addition, the applicant has provided a site plan (also attached). This staff analysis will provide comments based on the applicant's attached statement which addresses the criteria listed above. /. On the first page of the applicant's statement of why the Zoning Hearing Board should approve this application for a special exception, the applicant states: "General's proposed use should be granted since all elements of the Ordinance concerning requirements for the proposed use and a planned industrial development are met." Section 255-12 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance defines Planned Industrial Development as: Iii An area of land controlled by a single landowner and developed as a single entity for a number of industrial firms and planned and approved within the requirements of the 1-2 District. Section 255-89 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance states that in I-2 Districts, land or buildings shall be used by right only for the principal or accessory uses identified, provided that they are within an approved planned industrial development. Among those uses identified is "warehousing, storage and distribution." The proposed development as described in the attached site plan contains only one industrial firm and therefore does not meet the definition of a planned industrial development or the intent of the ordinance to promote a suitable mixture of stable industrial, commercial, retail and distribution development, protect the character of industrial/commercial areas and nearby districts, conserve the value of land and buildings and promote municipal tax revenues. The intent of the ordinance is clear on requiring tracts over ten acres to be developed as either a planned industrial development or a planned mixed use business park. The proposed planned industrial development contains only one rather than a number of industrial fimss and therefore does not meet the requirement for a planned industrial development. Special exception standards listed in § 255-177 D of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance (see pages 2-3 of the applicant's statement): Borough Staff concurs with the applicant's comments on these criteria with the following exceptions: (2) Comprehensive Plan: shall not be substantially incompatible with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that the current comprehensive plan envisioned less intensive uses around the subject property and that other uses in the vicinity have been developed as warehousing, storage and distribution centers. However, the current Comprehensive Plan has as stated goals for the Ritner Highway/I- 81 Corridor Development: "Avoid conflicts between very heavy industrial uses and residential uses;' "Develop the bulk of the land as a light industrial/office park;" and, "Provide for a smooth transition between industrial and residential uses.' While the issue of "substantial incompatibility" is a determination for the Zoning Hearing Board in its discretion, the staff's analysis is that this development as proposed is substantially incompatible with the abutting residential district and that this remains so despite development on properties adjacent to this tract which does not specifically comply with the Comprehensive Plan. (3) Traffic: shall not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. III. The applicant's statement that the proposed use will not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion and that the use will not generate an average of more than 200 truck trips per day has no supporting documentation. This application for a special exception required the submission of a site plan in accordance with § 255-232 of the zoning ordinance. Paragraph E (22) of this section implies a traffic study is required if it would be required under the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. In addition, § 255-175 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance requires a traffic study at the time of any plan review required under the zoning ordinance with the scope of the study described in 255-225 B(8)(d) of the zoning ordinance. Finally, paragraph E (24) allows the applicant to estimate the amount of tractor-trailer traffic that will be generated. The applicant has failed to provide any industry comparison, comparable use comparison or other supporting documentation for this estimate. (5) Neighborhood: will not significantly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. and (6) Design: will involve adequate site design methods, including evergreen screening, setbacks, berming and traffic control to avoid serious negative influences. At issue here is the overall impact a warehouse of this size and associated activity will have on an abutting residential neighborhood. The applicant's proposal for an earthen berm and screening appears to exceed the zoning ordinance requirements for a buffer on the abutting residential district. However, the large size of the proposed warehouse may require more extensive efforts. It appears the applicant has increased the size of the berm in places. Staff recommends as a condition of any special exception approval that any be.n and associated landscaping is sufficient to fully screen the proposed warehouse visually from the abutting residential district. It appears from the site plan that the proposed berm may do this but this should be confimaed. All of the specified standards for the proposed use listed in §§ 255-178 and 255-179 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. Section 255-178 A. (46) Standards for specific permitted uses, conditional uses and special exception uses. Warehouse or wholesale (Seepages 7-8 of applicant's statemenO: The proposed site plan appears to meet all of the criteria in this section except for subparagraph (d), which states: Uses that would involve the serving of the use by an average of more than two hundred (200) tractor-trailer trips per weekday shall be required to meet the additional standards in this section for a truck terminal. As stated above, the applicant has provided little documentation on whether or not the proposed use will generate more than an average of 200 tractor-trailer trips per weekday. The staff has concern that a 600,000 square feet warehouse with 172 loading dock spaces and an additional 91 trailer parking spaces will generate much more than 200 tractor-trailer trips per day. Industry standard transportation statistics indicate that a "warehouse" use of this size could be expected to generate in excess of 2,900 vehicle trips per day, and a substantial number of these would be tractor-trailer trips. Should this be the case, this use would be governed by the additional standards for a truck tem~inal which state in part: Any access roads, loading area or truck or trailer storage area shall be a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from a dwelling or a residential district. The use shall be located within three thousand (3, 000)feet of an interchange of Interstate 81, measured along the centerline of public streets. All truck or trailer parking, outdoor storage or loading/unloading areas shall be set back a minimum of four hundred (400) feet from any existing dwelling or a residential district. The proposed development does not meet these criteria if indeed they are valid based on a determination of the number of tractor-trailer trips per weekday. Section 255-179 D. (16) Standards for specific accessory uses. Commercial or industrial storage or display (See pages 8-9 of applicant's statement): The proposed site plan appears to meet all of the criteria in this section. The issue of buffering for the storage of tractor-trailers and detached trailers of tractor-trailers should be addressed along with the overall screening and landscaping requirements discussed above. IV. All other applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Section 225-92. Area and bulk regulations (see page 3 of the applicant's statement): The staff concurs that the proposal as described in the attached site plan appears to meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this section. Section 225-93. Setbacks from dwellings and residential districts (see page 4 of applicant's statement): The site plan provided indicates the proposed development appears to meet the requirements of this section. As noted above however, the size of the proposed warehouse and the associated activity are such that the strict provisions of this section of the ordinance may be insufficient to avoid negatively affecting the desirable character of the existing, abutting residential neighborhood. The applicant's proposal to increase the height of the berms can reduce this negative effect on the abutting neighborhood. Section 225-95. Standards for approval of a planned industrial development (see pages 4-6 of applicant's statement): The staff concurs with the information provided by the applicant with the exception of the following: (2) Site plan. A generalized preliminary site plan is required. (See Article XXIV). The applicable section of the zoning ordinance governing a site plan for a special exception is § 255-177 B. (3) which refers the applicant to § 255-232 of the zoning ordinance. This section states the following: A site plan submittal shall be required for every nonresidential principal use or principal building and for every expansion greater than twenty percent (20%) in the total floor area of a principal building, except as specifically exempted by this section. This specifically includes every new or expanded industrial, office, retail, service or place of worship principal building and for animal husbandry .... The requirements for a site plan are included in § 255-232 E. and shall be included on the plan un/ess waived by the Zoning Officer or the Borough Engineer as not applicable or necessary. This development will require a traffic study if submitted as a land development plan. Given the uncertainty over the amount of potential tractor-trailer truck traffic and the need to make a determination to ensure compliance with other aspects of the zoning ordinance, a detailed traffic study is required. In addition, the estimate of the tractor-trailer truck traffic (§255-232 E. (24)) should also provide some industry comparison, comparable use comparison or other supporting documentation for the estimate. (4) Relationship to surroundings. The applicant shall show how the development will be coordinated with access and utilities of other portions of the I-1 and 1-2 Districts and with Interstate 81 and areas zoned for industry in adjacent municipalities. Of particular concern to the Borough is the use of a current on-site sewage system. The Borough currently requires all new land development to connect to public sewer. The site plan does not address the location of the nearest public sewer and how the proposed development will be coordinated with the existing public sewer. Mr. David Hagan of Keystone Property Trust said that his company plans to build a warehouse and then seek a tenant(s). He stated that the previous plan submitted allowed for more overhead doors and docks than his company usually proposes. He said that they may change the plan to eliminate some of the overhead doors, as well as decrease the paved area. 7 The Planning Commission expressed concern about the anticipated increase in traffic, the number of trucks entering/exiting this property and the impact this development will have on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The applicant replied that they plan to install at 15-feet high berm and plant white pines on top of this berm. The applicant said he intends to exceed the requirements of the ordinance in order to appease the residential neighborhood. Mr. Jim Kane, a Valley Meadows residents, expressed concern relative to the amount of truck traffic and the impact that the surrounding warehouse developments are having on Valley Meadows Development. He asked the Planning Commission to please take into consideration the residents of this neighborhood. After some further discussion, the applicant asked the Planning Commission for a continuation of this meeting. The applicant will try to have some traffic input to bring back to the next meeting. Conclusion: The Planning Commission, upon motion by Phillip Mock and second by Debra Cornelius, unanimously recommended to continue this meeting until the September 27, 2001 meeting. There being no further items on the agenda, the Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth W. Womack Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager KWW/lah Attachment B Engineering & Related Services 369 East Park Drive Harrisburg, PA ! 7111 I717) 564-1121 FAX (717) 564-1158 VIA FAX & REGULAR MAll. March 28, 2002 Mr. Ken Womack, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough 53 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Re: Track Trip Generation Estimates and Traffic Impacts General Services Technology Corporation 1700 Rimer Highway Site (46 Acres) Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, PA Dear Ken: With reference to the above, we are submitting the following information for discussion at the March 28, 2002, Carlisle Borough Planning Commission Meeting relative to General Services Technology Corporation's Speyial Exception Application for the development of a warehouse/distribution facility on the subject site. The project proposes a 600,000 square foot building on approximately 46 acres with access to U.S. Route 11 at one location. The proposed use is estimated to provide employment for approximately 150 to 175 local employees. Summary HRG believes that, based upon the information contained in this repo~ the project is feasible given the limit of 200 tractor-trailer trips per day and that the project, as conceived, will not create serious traffic impacts within the Borough of Carlisle. Compliance with Tractor-Trailer Trip l,lmitations The primary use contemplated by General Services Technology Corporation is a facility for warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution of products. Because that use, and that use only, has a restriction on the average number of tractor-trailer trips per weekday, General Services Technology Corporation has asked us to analyze and report on whether such a use could comply with that restriction. Of course, there are several unknowns in this process given that neither the ultimate user nor the nature of their use has be~n specifically identified. Furthermore, it has not been determined whether the facility will be a single tenant or a multi-tenant facility. Accordingly, at our client's request, we have provided available information based upon multi-building studies to estimate the average range of tractor-trailer trips predicted from this facility. hrg~hrg-inc.com · www. hrg-inc.com Harrisburg · Lancaster · State College · Gettysburg · Pittsburgh · Stroudsburg Mr. Ken Womack, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page 2 Pursuant to Section 255-178(46)(d) of the Borough's Zoning Ordinance regarding average tractor-trailer trip generation, we have compiled an investigation relative to the proposed use and offer this information for consideration by the Borough. The investigation, as with other information previously presented to the Borough, consisted of the review of empirical data obtained from warehouse/distribution facilities owned by Opus East, LLC; a re,new of an existing traffic impact study for a recent project in the immediate vicinity of the subject site; a study by Herbert, Rowland & Gmbic, Inc. of two Central Pennsylvania warehouse/distribution facilities; and a review of a Fontana, California study contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, which provides information relative to trip generation rate for trucks and tractor-trailers. Based upon a previous analysis of existing Opus East, LLC facilities, a total of four warehouse/distribution facilities were analyzed for buildings with gross leasable areas ranging from 70,000 to 321,600 square feet. Based upon an analysis of these facilities, it was determined that typical tractor-trailer trip generation averaged approximately 0.15 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Applying this rate to a 600,000 square foot facility, it is estimated that tractor-trailer trips would be approximately 90 trips per day. This would vary slightly based upon tenant mix, the number of shifts, specific operations and the like; however, it can be seen that the resulting tractor-trailer trip rate is expected to be much lower than the 200 trips per day. The following table outlines the data that was collected for the existing Opus East, LLC facilities: EXHIBIT 1 TRACTOR TRAILER TRIP GENERATION DATA OPUS EAST, LLC FACILITIES JANUARY, 2002 Crossings I Upper Fo~ Jme~SC 315,000 2 8 104 !5 2-4PM Macungie, PA Logistics Ai~o~ I Hanov~, MD ~S 321,600 2 200 day/70 285 70 7 ~ ni~t ~ndel IV Odenton, MD Ryder Lo~stics 156,000 I 35 426 22 5 - 8 PM ~ndel 6 ~enton, MD Do~no's 70,000 3 50/shffi 150 24 9~ - 1 PM Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Mr. Ken Womack, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page 3 We have also recently reviewed a current Traffic Impact Study for the Cumberland Logistic Park (Demody Properties) that was prepared by the Transportation Resource Group, Inc. The study included a trip generation study of several existing facilities to determine counted trip rates for warehouses as specifically requested by the Township. The purpose of the study was to determine actual measured data for warehousing projects due to the unrealistically high trip rates for warehouses using square footage as the independent variable as determined fi.om the ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition, 1997). As such, three warehouses in Pennsylvania were used to identify trip generation characteristics on a typical workday for employee and track traffic. The following three warehouses selected for the study, as agreed to and approved by the Township Engineer, were as follows: · ODC Logistics · LTG Logistics · Hershey Foods 415,000 square feet 507,000 square feet 597,200 square feet As concluded by the study, the following composite weighted trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet of warehousing facilities were determined: TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE GROUP, INC. STUDY CUMBERLAND LOGISTICS PARK NORTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP FEBRUARY, 2001 COMPOSITE WEIGHTED TRIP GENERATION RATES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET E~s~loyee 0.077 0.017 0.094 0.028 0.079 0.107 Track 0.015 0.010 0.025 0.018 0.024 0.042 1.07 Total 0.092 0.027 0.119 0.046 0.103 0.149 Using the above trip generation rates and a proposed 600,000 square foot warehouse facility, it can be seen that the estimated total average daily traffic (two-way traffic) fi'om the facility would be approximately 642 vehicles. Utilizing relative truck percentages derived fi.om the AM and PM peak hour, total truck trips would be expected to be in the range of 135 to 180 trucks per day. Additionally, in early February, 2002, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. obtained dispatch information fi.om two of our clients who own and operate warehouse/distribution centers in central Pennsylvania. At the request of these clients, we are not permitted to reveal their specific identity due to the highly competitive nature of their businesses and due to confidentiality agreements with them, but we have provided the relevant information for this study as follows: Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Mr. Ken Womack, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page 4 .Warehouse A 577,000 SF 450 3 105 0.182 Warehouse B 575,000 SF 418 Variable, 24 53 0.092 Hour Operation Totals 1,152,000 SF 868 158 0.137 Avg. Using this information, it can be seen that the average tractor-trailer trip generation rate is 0.137 trips per 1,000 S.F. of gross floor area. Applying this to a 600,000 S.F. facility, it can be seen that the projected average number of tractor trailer trips per day would be approximately 82. Furthermore, based upon the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, March 2001 (Appendix A), Table A.4 for daily truck trip generation rates for warehouse facilities, a copy of which is attached to this letter, it can be seen that a total of approximately 0.21 to 0.27 four to six axle tracks (tractor-trailers) per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area can be expected. For a 600,000 square foot facility, this would equal approximately 126 to 162 truck trips per day. Conclusions As suggested by the research, we believe that based upon the development of a 600,000 square foot warehouse facility, it is highly likely that a warehouse/distribution user could operate well within the restrictions of Section 255-178(46)(d) of the Borough's Zoning Ordinance and that the owner, as compelled to comply with this Ordinance provision like any other Ordinance requirement, could certainly obtain such a user or users for this project. As such, we believe that the requirement to meet the additional, restrictive standards in Section 255-178(45) for truck terminals should certainly not apply to this project. Overall Traffic Impacts Section 255-177 D(3) requires that, for special exceptions, generated traffic shall not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. In response to this portion of the Zoning Ordinance, we have reviewed a Traffic Impact Study prepared by Trans Associates for Exel Logistics for a proposed warehouse/distribution facility located within the Borough of Carlisle. The Carlisle portion of the project proposed approximately 1.5 million square feet of warehouse/distribution facilities with one access point onto Route 11 (Rimer Highway) and one access point onto Allen Road (S.R. 0465) opposite Shearer Drive. This project was approved as a Special Exception for a Planned Industrial Development by the Borough of Carlisle. Using existing 1999 traffic volumes for the Route 11/Allen Road intersection and the Route 11/Shearer Drive intersection with an annual 2.2% growth factor and adding projected Exel traffic, the 2002 traffic volumes for the respective intersections for both the AM and PM peak hours are estimated as follows: Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Mr. Ken Womack, Zoning Officer Carlisle Borough March 28, 2002 Page 5 Route l 1/Allen Road / 1,485 [ 1,745 Route 11/Shearer Drive [ 1,009 / 1,0'85 Utilizing this as a baseline condition, we conducted a preliminary trip generation calculation using the rYE Trip Generation Manual for a 600,000 square foot warehouse/distribution facihty with approximately 175 total employees. AM and PM peak hour volumes for a facility of this type will be approximately 90 and 104 vehicles, respectively. Further assuming that all of the traffic fi.om this development reaches the subject intersection (a condition which is unrealistic, but very conservative), it can be represented that the increase in traffic occasioned by the subject project represents only a small percentage increase at the subject intersections. Furthermore, we offer that as part ora Highway Occupancy Permit process with PENNDOT in order to gain access to Route 11, any substantial impacts to offsite facilities would likely need to be fully mitigated to acceptable levels of service, thereby addressing any issues pertaining to significantly contributingto a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. If you have any comments or questions or require further information in this regard, please feel free to contact me. We will be present at the March 28, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting in order to present our report and provide any additional testimony or answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have in this regard. Thank you. Sincerely, "'-~ice President JSS/ss 2684.001 Enclosure C: Dylan Painter Dayton, Esq., Saul Ewing, LLP Mr. Daniel T. Ladenberger, SPX Corporation Mr. Kevin Burke, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Table A.4 Weekday Dally Truck Trip Generation Rates (Fontana, California) LAND USE INDEP, VARIABLE 2- & 3-AXLE 'rRUCK~ ~ 4- TO 6-AXLE TRUCK~ W~rehoume Ught Heavy industrial Hght Heavy* Heavy* industrial Park Tru~k Terminal Tmok Sales & Leasing 1,000 gsf 1,000 gsf 0.10 0.17 0.21 0.38 1,000 gsf 0.27 0.38 0.33 0.27 0.60 1,000 gsf 0.19 0,38 0.57 ~ 11.90 8.83 20,53 1,000 gsf 0,21 0,15 0,36 Acre 7,34 28.47 1,000 gsf 6,95 1,79 35.81 * l~esnlts based on only two dam points. Table A.5 Weekday Morning Adjacent Street Peak Hour Truck Trip Generation Rates (Fontana, California} LAND USE Warehouse Ught Heavy inda~rial Light Heaw* Heavy* industrial Park Truok Terminal Truck Sales & Leasing INDER VAR~LE 2- & 3~AXLE T~UCK$ '~- TO 6-AXLE TRUCKS ALL TRUCKS ------------- 0.00 0.01 Acre 0,39 ~ 0.92 1.31 1,000 gsf O.64 * Resulu based on only two d~m points. 1,000 gsf 0.01 ~ 0.02 0.03 1,000 gaf 0.01 --------.-.-- 0,01 0.02 1,000 gsf 0.03 ~ 0.02 0.05 1,000 gsf 0.00 ~ 0.02 0.02 Acre 0.00 0.03 0.03 1,000 gsf 0.01 Attachment C BOROUGH OF CARLISLE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Thursday, March 28, 2002 Members Attending: Harry Herb, John Auger, Debra Cornelius, Linda Witmer, and Phillip Mock. Members Absent: Timothy Hoy. Borough Officials Attending: Michael T. Keiser, Public Works Director and Kenneth W. Womack, Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager. Harry Herb called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Debra Cornelius made a motion to correct the minutes from the February meeting to include the original transcript of Mr. Hoy's motion relative to the Key Real Estate plan. Linda Witmer seconds the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The original transcript reads as follows: "I'll make a motion to get this off the dime. I am not convinced that we can find, or that the Zoning Hearing Board can find, that this use will not significantly, negatively affect the desirable character of the existing residential neighborhood, so, for that and other reasons, I would move that we recommend that the Zoning Hearing Board not approve the request." Items Reviewed by the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission continued a hearing opened on August 23, 2001 to provide advice to the Zoning Hearing Board on a request by General Services Technology Corporation for a special exception to construct a 600,000 square foot warehouse within a planned industrial development at 1700 Rimer Highway (1-2 Light Industrial District). Dylan Dayton, Counsel for G. S. Electric, stated that the last time she was before this board relative to this property, most of the concerns were with the impact on the residential neighborhood, as well as the traffic concerns. Mr. Herb asked for a clarification on whether this plan meets the requirements of a Planned Industrial Development because it is considered one entity and one firm. Ms. Dayton said that, in her opinion, this plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, she said the Borough Solicitor has not formed an opinion on the borough's interpretation of this argument. Ms. Dayton continued to say that' she feels it is in the hands of the Zoning Hearing Board to determine whether or not it does indeed meet the definition of a PID. As far as the applicant is concerned, this plan meets the PID requirements because the buildings are built to accommodate multiple tenants. Mr. Auger asked the applicant to explain why the Planning Commission should approve this larger warehouse over the smaller warehouse that the Commission voted down last month. Ms. Dayton felt that the smaller warehouse should have been approved. The only reason that she can remember that the Commission did not approve the smaller one, was the impact on the residential neighborhood. A lot of testimony was given on how the applicant would alleviate the impact on the residential neighborhood by constructing a landscaping berm. The applicant will provide, on the average, a 15-foot high landscaping bem~ with plantings on top. Mr. Auger's feeling is that this warehouse has even more impact on the residents than the previous plan. Ms. Dayton asked which impact on the residents is of the most concern for the Planning Commission? She stated that anytime you have an industrial use next to a residential use, you will have some impact. There are a lot of uses allowed under the Borough's ordinance that would have impact on the residential neighborhood. What is it, in particular, that the Planning Commission would like to see addressed to alleviate the impact? Mr. Herb said that the Planning Commission has never yet been assured of what is going into this warehouse, what's coming out, hours of operation, etc. Everything is too vague. Mr. Herb feels that the significant truck traffic in itself will affect the residential neighborhood. Ms. Dayton said the applicant has tried to give an explanation of what is going in this warehouse. It is businesses who do warehousing storage and distribution. There could be a wide range of companies or users who potentially could use this building. There could be a wide range of shifts. It is impossible to specifically identify a tenant at this time. Ms. Dayton explained that the applicant is marketing this building to people who want to store retail goods and possibly light manufacturing. Ms. Dayton pointed out that if the applicant would split the property into four different lots, which they can do under the ordinance, and put a manufacturing facility on each lot, there is no limitation on how many trucks or cars or how many employees that can come into and out of that property. The impact on the residential neighborhood is going to be there no matter what use is on this property. The best that can be done is buffer the residential district as well as can be done. Linda Witmer asked if there would be multiple firms located in this building? Ms. Dylan stated that the building's themselves are designed to have an ability to have more than one entity in the building. Ms. Dayton said that the only requirement is that the Planned Industrial Development is controlled by a single land owner and developed as'a single entity for a number of industrial fians. [Ms. Dayton questioned if this is a requiremem, since it is in the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance.] She stated that there is no requirement that the applicant have a specific number of lots on the property or that the lots have a maximum size, or more than one building. There are minimum requirements and the applicant feels they have met them with this proposed plan. Mr. Mock said that the intent was not multiple fmms that are all doing the same thing, i.e. warehousing and trucking. Ms. Dayton asked what the difference is if you have four lots owned by the same owner with four different buildings, for zoning purposes, if they are all rented by the same tenant? It makes no distinction between having one building or four buildings. She feels it is not proper for a municipality to base its zoning on the ownership of the property, unless for example the use is not pea,fitted by the ordinance. Mr. Herb asked to go back to the track traffic. The traffic engineer stated that there would be less than 200 tractor-trailer trips per day, however, the borough estimates, in the Policy Briefing Summary, that there could be up m 2,900 trips per day. Mr. Keiser, Borough Engineer, said that that number does not differentiate between trucks and cars. It includes ALL traffic. Mr. James Snyder of HRG, on behalf of General Services Technology Corporation, explained that in the report submitted to the Planning Commission the study was conducted on a building of 582,000 square feet, which is essentially the same as the proposed building at 1700 Rimer Highway. Mr. Snyder said that he has looked at lot of information for existing warehouse distribution types of uses and made reference to existing traffic impact studies prepared for this area for warehouse distribution projects. They also obtained additional information from several clients who own and operate warehouse distribution facilities and have looked at ITE trip generation data for several studies that looked specifically at tractor trailer trip generation. His conclusion is that as you look at the range of trips that can be generated, based on square footage, this project can certainly comply with the borough's requirement for no more than 200 tractor trailer trips per day. Mr. Jack Zaengle, 1502 Hemlock Avenue, expressed concerns relative to pollution, water and PCBs stored on this property. He is concerned about the water mn-off and potential flooding of the neighborhood. He also expressed concern with tractor-trailer traffic congestion and the smoke that comes from the trucks. Ms. Dayton explained that as far as the water mn-off, it is the responsibility of the developer to develop the site in accordance with the Borough's subdivision/land development regulations, as well as DEP regulations. As far as the smoke from the track traffic, once again, any use that occupies this property will generate some impact to the residential neighborhood. As long as the macks are in compliance with the state emissions laws, there is nothing the applicant to do to control the smoke. The PCBs would have to be dealt with under DEP's requirements and regulations. Mr. Auger asked what the landscaping would do to mitigate problems. Mr. Brian Fischbach, representing the applicant, explained that what the applicant is proposing to do relative to landscaping meets and exceeds the Borough's ordinance requirements. The applicant proposes a 15-foot high berm between the east side of the building and the residential neighborhood. In tem,s of the landscaping, there will be more plantings on top of the berm than what is required by ordinance. Paul Walters, 1530 Terrace Avenue, expressed concern over the height of the proposed berm. He stated that most of the time when a warehouse is built, the ground is leveled off and most of the time the ground is higher than what they originally started with. Todd Weidner, 1517 Hemlock Avenue, is saddened that the sense of community has been lost. He feels this warehouse will have a significant impact on the residential neighborhood. He expressed concern with possible hazardous chemicals that could be stored and/or used within the proposed warehouse. Steve Willhide, 1526 Terrace Avenue, expressed concern relative to the quality of life, pollution (noise, light, air), truck traffic and the construction of the proposed berm. He does not want warehouses in his hackyard and he does not want to look out his back window at a tractor-trailer parking lot. Barbara Degaetanu, 1520 Terrace Avenue, stated that at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting that addressed the Key Real Estate proposal, there were 80 residents in attendance to speak against the plan. She also stated that there are no storm drains in the streets of Valley Meadows. Brian Fischhach said that the applicant would address the storm water mn-off in accordance with the Borough's subdivision/land development ordinance. He stated that storm water retention ponds will be constructed and the applicant is not allowed to discharge any more water after development than what currently discharges from this property. Mr. Mock recommends that the Zoning Hearing Board deny this plan because it does not comply with the ordinance and is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan as stated in the staff Policy Briefing Smnmary. If the Zoning Hearing Board would go another direction, he recommended that the additional caveats in the Policy Briefing Summary be included as part of the recommendation. Ms. Dayton asked if the summary from the staff says that it does not meet the ordinance requirements for an industrial development, in that it only includes one fiim, rather than a number of firms. She asked Mr. Mock if this was included in his motion. Mr. Mock said he would leave out the last phrase and just simply say that it does not meet the ordinance requirements for a planned industrial development. Conclusion: Phillip Mock made a motion that the Zoning Hearing Board deny this plan because it does not meet the ordinance requirements for a Planned Industrial Development and that it is incompatible with the (1988) Comprehensive Plan. Debra Cornelius seconds the motion and the motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Ken Womack clarified if the Planning Commission was also sending forward to the Zoning Hearing Board the alternative suggested by borough staff?. Mr. Mock said yes, there is very precise wording on the staff recommendations if the Zoning Hearing Board takes the alternative. The Planning Commission all agreed with this alternative. Ms. Cornelius further interjected that she really does believe that at the base of the motion, and what she's hearing from the Planning Commission, is the concern with the substantial incompatibility of this proposed use with the abutting residential neighborhood. We hear from the developer that any use is going to have an impact. The Planning Commission continues to hope that a use appears which is more compatible with the abutting residential neighborhood. There being no further items on the agenda, the Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth W. Womack Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager KWW/lah Transcript of Proceedings, Zoning Hearing Board, May 2, 2002 7 Index of Exhibits List of Exhibits Zoning Hearing Board No. 13-01, Special Exception Request by G. S. Electric May 2, 2002 e 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Property Deed, March 16, 1968 Certificate of Ownership and Merger, General Signal Corporation into SPX Corporation Page 1 of General Services Technology Corporation Site Plan, 7/11/01 Page 2 of General Services Technology Corporation Site Plan, 7/11/01 Page 3 of General Services Technology Corporation Site Plan, 7/11/01 Page 4 of General Services Technology Corporation Site Plan, 7/11/01 Carlisle Comprehensive Plan, Adopted by Carlisle Borough Council, 5/11/88 Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Letter to Carlisle Zoning Officer, 3/28/02 Stipulation and Agreement between the Borough of Carlisle and General Signal Technology Corporation, 7/5/01 Memorandum of Law prepared in Support of General SPX Corporation Special Exception Application for A Planned Industrial Development, 5/2/02 Received 05/02/2002 09:55AM in 01:14 on line £10] for 1016 WORKSRV2 printed BOOACS?O on 05/02/2002 09:57AM * Pg 2/3 ~a~-02-02 IO:O0~m Fr~m-^rGher I Greiner 856-?96-08?4 T-670 ._~.~0~/00~ F-908 BETV/E~N DONALD A. SH-F..Juq.ER ,nnc~ ARLXNI R. S~-AP~R, his wife, 3899 Willowbreok Lane, Live~'~ool, New York, hm.'~inafcer ¢&ll=fl 375 Pa~k Avenue, N~u Yo~k, Ne~ York. Ninmty ~o Thou=a~ ~d 00/100 ($92,000.00). Su~eyor on Mn~h 8, L968, a~ BEGI~I~G aC a ~lnr in thc ce~l~ of C~ a~r Highwa~ also : kno~ a~ U. S. ~uCe No. ~l :henc~ b~.land nov or'levelLy of J~a - Sco~%, ~.nL., Sou~h O0 teirees D2 mfnu~s 10 smco~ ~e~: L126.~6 flec .co & st~.c~nc~ by land nov o= fox.fly of Ia~ ~y~=, South 51 da~e5 lq m~nuC~s 30 s~cu~s W~C 88L.~7 fe~C co a st~u at a posc~ feet =o a ~ca~; ~hencm by la~ nov or fo~ecLy of Jo~ hipporc, No.ch .- by la~ no~ or fo~ly of Repubttc ~elo~nC Co~o~cion, Noah 69 deK~e= ~5 m~uc~s ~ast 259.77 E~t.C Co an i~n pin; c~nce by C~e ~. . North 20 d~es 2~ minuCe~ ~est 2~.tl fmmc Co a point in :hm center of tht Ii,nit Highvay; t~en~ by ~ ~encer of chin liC~r }lig~ayt No~h '69 deg~es ~0 minuc~ IAsC 1~LL.89 f6it to ~hc Pl~e of BE~I~ING. CO}~AINING a6.307 Acres. BEING the ssme prop6rty uhich ~o, 8 conve~g co DonaLd A. Shcat~r Grid .Arlin~ R. S~a~e~, ~im wif~, by ~o~s A. Shen~r and M..Viola S~ma~r. his w~e, by Deed dated J~e 1, ~967 an~ ~eo~=d ~n ch~ offic~ Of ~ RecoVer Of Dmmd~ for C~be~%m~ CohnCy in ~ed Gook "R", Vo~. ~, 944 Receiv~ 05/02/2002 09:55AM in 01:14 on tine [10] for 1016 ~RKSRV2 print~ BOOAC570 on 05/02/2002 09:5~M * Pg 3/3 May-02-02 10:0Ta; Froa-Archer a Grelner 8N-?QS-0574 T-S?0 F-Q08 pos~ of£~ce a~re~a o~ ~he w~th~ orantee &z 37~ ?~r~ AVenue, New ."At:o~ney £or Or~R~ - Received 0§/0;~/200;~ 12:12PH in 03:12 on tine [15] for 68 I40RKSRV2 printed BOOACSEE on 05/02/2002 12:16PH * Pg 9/11 NRY 0~ ~002 ]~:~3 Prl FR TO 2340l~77777~73800 P.09 0Z0~77575 - 0E72214 (.~.~TIFICATE O~ O~HI~ AN~ GBNF.,_RAL SIGNAL CORPORATION SPX CORPORATION Purmmm ~o S~/on 253 of' the (hme~al Corporation Law of Delaware SFX Corporation, a ~tton ot~-~ ~-~ ~ximhg un,er ~he law~ of ~he ~e of Delaware (this "Corix~tion~), DOE~ I-I~R~BY CERTIFY: FIleT: That ~ls Corporation was incorporamd on the 9th day ofF,binary 1968, pur~umt to the O~neral Coq~rat/on Law ofthe Stale of Delaware. SvCOND: That tt~ ~ owns all of~e ou~am/ing dmres of common s~o~k, par valu~ $0.01, of G~m~al $igmd Corporation, a corporation in~orpora~ o~ th~ 13th day of Fei)mary 1998, purm~nt to the Gemoml Corporation Law of tho $tate of Delaware. THIRD: That thl, Corporation, by ~hc r~olu~/o~$ of its Boa~xl of D~o~ h~ ~ ~ A, d~y ~ at a ~ ofi~ m~b~ on ~e 2~a ~y of Au~ 2001 ~d fil~ ~ ~ ~ ~k offs ~~ ~ ~ m~ ~al Si~l ~fion ~ ~ ~ ~s ~o~fion. IN WITNESS WH]/RP. OF, the uaderdSr~ has mined this Certificate to be ~ by Chd~p~ J. Ke~ney, it~ Vi~e President a~/Secretary, this 31st day of December, 2001. SPX CORPORATION /s~ Chri .~. ~J. Ke~neV V/ce President ~,~d Secretary Received 05/02/P002 12:12PH in 03:12 on tine [151 for 68 gORKSRV2 printed BOOAC5EE on 05/OZ/ZO02 12:16PH * Pg 10/11 MAY 0~ ~00Z I~:~ PN FR TO ~401~777771~7~800 p. 10 Exh/bit A P.~SO~ONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRE~R$ SPX CORPORATION Memer of General S;~--! Comorafion with and/mo WHEREAS, SPX Corpom~on, a Delawn~ ooqxmU/on, (th~ '~.k, iiipany") i~ lhe record and benefit/al ownee of ail of the issued and outstand/ng ~mre~ of eontmon slx~k, ~ value $0.0! per share (the "Gene~-a! $igmd S/~.Jff'), of Ge~,-~al Si_~*! Corpol~ion, a Delaware oorporation ("C,~n~,,~ WHEREAS, the Company 4~ires to merl~ ~ S~m-! ~ and into Ihe Company, which skall be ~he sutwi~g corporation (st~h eorporat/on in i~ OnlX~/ty ~ ~d~ ~twivin~ company being herein~_~ sometimes ~alled the"Survivlng Corporation") pmzuant to provisions of section 253 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (lhe ~Merger'~. NOW, THERF_~)I~ BE IT RP-~OLVED, th~ e'/feotive upon the 61~n$ of an _al~ropriate Ca~ific~ of ~p and Mera~r embodvin~ · ,,,~ ,,-,-~ ~,~= o~ueiaw~ ira, ~ md time of the "Effec//ve T/me"), tl~ Company shall mer~ C, eneral $isnal with and in~o thc Company in aeoordan~ with the Delaware General Corporation Law. RI/SOLVED, m_~t the terms and condit/o~ of the MerEer are as fallows: (1) At the Efl%cflve Time, (a) the oeffifiea~ of incorporation of the Company shall be lhe certificate of hcorlx~ion of t~e Surviv/as Corporatlo~ umil then~er ~ or -----~-~ ~ am~ to) me di~-eWrs of the Company shall be the direotors Survivi.~ C~poralio~, a~l the offfoers of the Company shall be the ofl/ce~ of the S~vivin~ Co-'lx~ratton, in each case until ' maturer ~'ovided by the celt%ate of incorporation snd bylaws of the Sareiving Corporation as otherwise provided by law. or Received 05/02/2002 1Z:12PH in 03:12 on line [15] for 68 ~ORKSRV2 printed BOOACSEET~n 05/02/2002 12:16PN * Pg 11/11 M~4Y 0~ 2002 ~2:24 PM FR ~40~77777~7~B00 p. ! ! (2) At thc l~ffective Time, bY ~irtt~ of the Merger _.~_.~ withou~ any action on the part of ~he Compa=¥, ~o SurHving Co~or~tio= or General $i~-L ~ ~=s=ed and outsta~h,S shsre of General Signal $~k _~., be c~neeiled and rcfirc~ assume and be subject to all Ibc dcbts and ~.hiliti~ of each of the col~tuc~ corporaiion~ i~ the s~rne manner as if the Surviving Corporation hsd itself incurred al,em, all with the eft-eot set forth in the Delaware General Corporation Law. · -,-,,/~.=.,,=m ~v~ oe necessary, ap~mlma~ or advisable to carry out and ~o =ffect t~ pu.,po~ and iatent of the forego.~ resolutions and to complete the lransactions contemplated thereby. u~oy al~ rau~xed, conm'med anti approved in all respects. TOTAL PAGE. I 1 ** IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: APPEAL OF: SPXCORPORATION, : No. (~-- 53~/~ successor by merger to : GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY : CORPORATION Appellant Civil Action From the Decision Dated May 2, 2002 of the Land Use Appeal : ZONING HEARING BOARD OF : THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE : : Appellee : NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL 1. Appellant, SPX Corporation (hereinafter "Appellant") is a corporation with offices located at 7401 West 129th Street, Overland Park, KS 66213 and, as successor by merger to General Services Technology Corporation, is the owner of real property located in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at 1700 Rimer Highway (the "Property"). 2. Appellee, the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Carlisle ("Board"), with an address of 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, is a Board duly constituted by the Borough of Carlisle, established under, and having jurisdiction granted by, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 10101 et seq. 3. This action is an appeal of a land use decision by the Board rendered under Article IX of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. §10101 et seq., involving a parcel of land located in Cumberland County; therefore this Honorable Court has jurisdiction and venue under Section 1002-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. § l1002-A. The Property is an approximately 46 acre parcel of land improved with an existing, vacant manufacturing building. 5. The Property is in the I-2 Light Industrial zoning district according to the Borough of Carlisle's official Zoning Map. 6. The Zoning Ordinance of the Borough of Carlisle permits warehousing, storage and distribution uses in the I-2 Light Industrial zoning district, but only upon approval of such uses by the Board as part of a "Planned Industrial Development" under Zoning Ordinance Sections 255-87.A, 255-89, and 255-91.A. 7. On or about July 12, 2001, Appellant filed an application (the "Application") with the Board requesting approval of a Planned Industrial Development to be comprised of a warehouse, storage and distribution facility. 8. A hearing on the Application was held on May 2, 2002. At the hearing Appellant presented evidence, through expert testimony, plans and other exhibits, supporting its Application and demonstrating conformance of its Application with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Only four of the five members of the Board were in attendance at this hearing. 9. After deliberation, a motion was made and placed before the Board to approve the Application. This motion failed to pass due to a tie vote by the Board. No other motion was made. 10. Thereafter, the Board prepared and executed a decision on Appellant's Application, which was mailed to Appellant on June 14, 2002 ("Decision"). A true and correct copy of the Decision is attached to this Notice of Land Use Appeal as Exhibit "A'. 11. Appellant hereby appeals the Decision and Order of the Board on the basis that the Board committed errors of law and abused its discretion as set forth below: a. Insofar as the Board deadlocked in its vote at the hearing and therefore reached no conclusions, it was error for the Board to issue the trmdings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision and such findings of fact and conclusions of law must be stricken. b. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by substantial evidence on the record. Rather, the findings and conclusions defy credibility as well as applicable legal standards insofar as they contradict the extensive testimony provided by expert witnesses and, in addition, improperly rely upon the unsubstantiated and unfounded general expressions of concern, and assertions of negative effects, by residents. c. The Board applied an improper standard for the determination of entitlement to special exception approval by, among other things, citing general and subjective criticisms of the Application as a basis for concluding that Appellant had not met the specific and objective criteria for approval of a Planned Industrial Development under the zoning ordinance. d. standards for approval of a Planned Industrial Development as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance had not been met by Appellant in the Application and the hearing. Contr to the evidence presented, the Board concluded that the express e. The Board's conclusion that the Application should be denied for failure of Appellant to submit a complete traffic study was an error of law insofar as the Zoning Ordinance of the Borough does not require submission of a traffic study. Furthermore and in the alternative, Appellant did submit substantial expert testimony on the subject of traffic and, in so doing, demonstrated compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to traffic. f. The Board concluded that the zoning ordinance required more than one lot in a Planned Industrial Development when, in fact, the zoning ordinance does not have a minimum lot number. Furthermore and in the alternative, Appellant provided testimony that the facility proposed in the Application was designed to accommodate multiple tenants and thus satisfied even the Board's strained (and erroneous) interpretation of its ordinance. g. The Board denied the Application on the basis of several findings pertaining to the relation of the Application to the Borough's Comprehensive Plan notwithstanding that a Comprehensive Plan is not a municipal enactment that rises to the legal status of an ordinance and thus may not be relied upon to deny an application for special exception where, as here, such application meets the expressed objective requirements for approval set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore and in the alternative, expert witnesses and other evidence demonstrated that the Application is not "substantially incompatible" with the Comprehensive Plan. h. The Board denied the Application for its alleged non-compliance with "design guidelines" in the Zoning Ordinance notwithstanding that the guidelines are only "advisory" (according to the Zoning Ordinance itsel0, too vague to form the basis for the denial of Appellant's property rights, and clearly precatory. i. The Board concluded that Appellant failed to provide adequate evidence of compliance with the zoning ordinance sections 255-157 through 255-160 and 255-177(D)(6) (regarding noise, vibration, air pollution, and light) when, in fact, Appellant provided clear expert testimony that its use of the property would comply with such Zoning Ordinance requirements and no evidence to the contrary was, or could be, presented. Wherefore, Appellant requests that this Honorable Court reverse the Order of the Board and grant Appellant's special exception application. Date: July /~- ,2002 Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 76438 Saul Ewing LLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorneys for Appellant SPX Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire, hereby certify that on this }'~"clay of July, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Land Use Appeal via First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following:: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee Date: July /~. ,2002 Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board 53 W. South Street Carlisle PA 17013 Appellee Attorney I.D. No. 76438 Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Attorneys for Appellant, SPX Corporation Zoning Hearing Board Borough of Carlisle ZHB Case No. 04 -02 Date of Decision May2, 2002 Re: General Services Technology Corporation, Applicant Request for special exception for a Planned Industrial Development at 1700 Ritner Highway, a property.located in an I-2 light industrial district. OPINION AND DECISION OF ZONING HEARING BOARD BACKGROUND ANDPROCEDURE After proper advertisement, the Board held a public hearing on Thursday, May 2, 2002 in the Carlisle Borough Municipal Building located at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania at 6:30 p.m. Four of the five members of the Zoning Heating Board were present, they being Chairman Ronald L. Simons, Jeffrey H. Benjamin, Jeffrey G. Bergsten, and Jane Rigler. Absent were member Jason H. Gross and the alternate member of the Board who is Wayne Crawford. In addition, present were Planning/Zoning/Codes officer Kenneth W. Womack, Director of Public Works Michael T. Keiser, and acting Solicitor Stephen D. Tiley with stenographer Ms. Jill L. Roth. Applicant sought a special exception to approve a single lot Planned Industrial Development at 1700 Rimer Highway in an 1-2 light industrial district and proposes to erect on that lot what is characterized as a single building, warehouse/distribution Center, containing 600,000 square feet. The property is the site of the former GS Electric manufacturing plant. A motion was made to approve the application. On a vote of two in favor and two opposed, the motion failed. FINDINGS OFFACT 1. Applicant is the owner of subject property at 1700 Ritner Highway which is located in an 1-2 light industrial district. The Applicant has since been merged into a corporation known as SPX Corporation. engineer. Applicant's witness Brian L. Fishbach, PE is an expert witness as a civil 3. Applicant's witness James S. Snyder is an expert witness in the area of traffic planning and analysis and is a registered professional engineer. 4. Applicant's proposed project involves the building of'a single large structure of 600,000 square feet, it being a rectangle 500 feet deep by 1,200 feet wide. 1 of 4 The building will be 40 feet high. The large structure will have 172 tractor-trailer docks and may operate 24 hours per day. The project may generate as many as-180 tractor trailer trips per day. The facility will involve the use of dispatchers and may involve the storage of goods for as brief a period of time as 48 hours. 5. The proposal is for a single warehouse/distribution structure to be erected on a single lot. The single lot is the entire amount of property owned by the applicant at this location. Applicant testified that the warehouse could be made available to multiple users through the use of internal partitions. 6. The Carlisle Zoning Ordinance does not contain a definition of "warehouse," nor does it contain a definition of"distribution center." 7. The Applicant failed to identify the tenants of the proposed building. 8. North of the property which is the subject of the application is U.S. Route I 1. East of the property is a long established, single family, residential neighborhood known as Valley Meadows. The Valley Meadows neighborhood includes a church and playground. The Valley Meadows neighborhood is zoned Medium Density Residential. In between the Valley Meadows neighborhood and U.S. Route 11 to the north is an area zoned neighborhood commercial. To the south of the property is land in South Middleton Township which is industrially zoned under the zoning ordinance applicable to that Township. West of the property is land in the Borough zoned Light Industrial, the same as the subject property. 9. A large contingent of neighbors in the abutting residential district appeared at the hearing to object to the grant 0fthe special exception. Approximately 10 neighbors spoke specifically in opposition to the Planned Industrial Development. The position of the neighbors is that the proposed Planned Industrial Development would have an adverse impact on their neighborhood. Among the reasons given by the neighbors were the following: (i) increased traffic congestion from track traffic, (ii) fumes from diesel trucks while moving and while stationary, (iii).noise from diesel tracks while moving and while stationary, (iv) light pollution, and (v) a negative impact on the value of their property. 10. Applicant asserted that the Planned Industrial Development would comply with Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 (concerning noise, vibration, air pollution and odors, and light, glare and heat), but did not offer specific evidence in support of those assertions. 11. The protestants established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Planned Industrial Development would negatively affect the desirable character of the existing residential neighborhood, as a result of creating excessive amounts of air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, adverse visual impacts, and significant traffic impacts. 12. Borough Ordinance provision 255-177(D)(2) incorporates the applicable Comprehensive Plan for purposes of special exception application, requiring that such 2 of 4 uses not be substantially incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the separation of industrial and residential uses with buffer areas and with a transition from industrial to residential uses such as by developing areas between those uses with business/office/research park uses. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for this area to be developed in a "campus-like setting." (See page l0 of Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit A-7.) 13. No person spoke in favor of Applicant's request for a special exception other than the Applicant's witnesses. 14. The Applicant's plan calls for a 12 foot earthen berm or mound to be erected between the building and its macadam parking and driving surface, and the residential neighborhood to the east. The Carlisle Ordinance would require a mound of 6 feet. The mound will also have trees planted on it, pursuant to the Ordinance. Even with the earthen berm, significant noise, light and fumes will be present in the adjoining neighborhood. Even with the earthen berm the building and its lights will be visible from · the second floor of homes immediately adjoining the property and visible from the ground level of homes further away. 15. The Carlisle Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board deny the application for special exception. 16. The Applicant did not submit a complete traffic study for the proposed development. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Applicant has the burden to prove that the proposed Planned Industrial Development satisfies the criteria, specified by the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance, for a Planned Industrial Development. If Applicant satisfies its burden of proof, then the neighbors objecting to the grant of the special exception have the burden of proving that the proposed Planned Industrial Development will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. 2. The Applicant failed to prove that it met the criteria for a Planned Industrial Development for the following reasons: a. The proposal is for a single lot and single building rather than for multiple lots, or multiple buildings, or multiple users. The Standards for Approval of a Planned Industrial development clearly envision a multiple lot development. (See 255-95 and the definition- at 255-12.) : b. Borough Ordinance provision 255-177(D)(2) is an eXPress incorporation of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan into the Zoning Ordinance, for purposes of a special exception application. The proposed use is entirely incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and its specific provisions for development of this area such as a "business/office/research 3 of 4 park" area to serve as a buffer between the residential neighborhood to the east and the other light industrial uses envisioned further to the West. In addition, the plan does not propose a "campus-like setting." c. The Applicant failed to provide a full traffic study resulting in a failure to establish sufficient evidence that the Planned Industrial Development will not result in a serious traffic hazard. (See 255- 177(D)(3).) d. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(5) is not satisfied because the plan would significantly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. e. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(6) is not satisfied because the plan fails to provide adequate design methods to avoid serious negative influences on adjacent uses. f. A proposal consisting of a single building 1,200 feet wide and 500 feet deep, with an unbroken flat roof, fails to satisfy Borough Ordinance section 255-96(A) which states: "Long, unbroken facades are discouraged." g. The Applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to support a conclusion that the provisions of Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 will be met. ORDER OF THE BOARD The application is denied. Anyone aggrieved by this decision of the Board has the right to appeal to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days from the day of this decision.y // Jel~ro~. Benj arl~ Date Jane Rigl~ / 4 of 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-3334 CIVIL WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) SS. TO: ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUG~ OF CARLISLE We. being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between SPX CORPORATION Successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TEC~CNOLOGY CORPORATION Appmllant V~ ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUG~q OF CARLISLE Appellee pending before you, do co~and you that the record of the action aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges of our Court of Co.non Pleas at Carlisle, within 20 days of the date hereof, together with this writ; so that we may further cause robe done that which ought to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Conmonwealth. WITNESS, the Honorable George E. Hoffer P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 12th day of JULY , ~ 2002 SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee : NO. 02 - 3334 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : LAND USE APPEAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TERM COURT ORDER AND NOW this 5TM day of ~On,.t~. y ,2002, upon consideration of the attached Petition to Intervene, a rule is hereby issued on Appellant SPX Corporation and Appellee Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board whereby they are directed to Show Cause why the Petitioners should not be allowed to intervene in this action· This Rule is returnable 20 days from date of service of a copy of this Petition, with Appellant SPX Corporation and Appellee Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board directed to file an Answer to the Petition to Intervene within said 20 day time limit if they oppose such intervention. CC: BY THE COURT Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Stephen D. Tiley, Esqnire Attorney for Appellee Borough of Carli~le~ning Hearing Board Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire George Asimos, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Appellant SPX Corporation SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02 - 3334 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAND USE APPEAL PETITION TO INTERVENE Petitioners as set forth below, by their attorneys Broujos & Gilroy, P.C., set forth the following Petition to Intervene pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2326: 1 Petitioners are a group of forty individuals who all reside in the Valley Meadows area of the Borough of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, with the listing of the names and addresses of each Petitioner being set forth on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 The Valley Meadows area is a residential development that is zoned residential. 3 The above captioned appeal involves action of the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board (Board) whereby the Board denied a special exception request filed by SPX Corporation, successor by merger to General Services Technology Corporation (SPX), on land located at 1700 Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Property). 4 The Property is located immediately adjacent to the Valley Meadows residential development and, pursuant to its special exception request, SPX desired to establish a Planned Industrial Development. 5 The Board held a hearing on the special exception request of SPX on May 2, 2002, at which time a number of exception request. the Petitioners appeared and testified against the special 6 The Board denied the special exception request of SPX, and SPX filed the above captioned appeal. The Petitioners are not party to the above captioned appeal and desire to intervene as parties for the following reasons: A. Because of the nature and scope of the proposed industrial use on the Property, the Petitioners will be adversely affected as a result of a negative impact on the property values of their residences and the negative impact the proposed industrial development will have on the quality of life enjoyed by the Petitioners in their residential neighborhood. B. In the Board's denial of the special exception request, the Board relied a great deal on the testimony of the Petitioners at the hearing (see Finding of Fact No. 9 and 12 and Conclusions of Law No. 2D and 2E). 7 If Petitioners were allowed to intervene, Petitioners would not file any specific pleading in connection with the Notice of Zoning Appeal filed by SPX. Petitioners' actions would be to file a brief in support of the June 14, 2002 Decision of the Board with Petitioner's legal counsel appearing at Argument Court. Petitioners would also desire their counsel to be involved in all matters relating to the case that may take place pursuant to applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code at 55 P.S. §ll01-A, et seq. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for leave to intervene in this action and request that the Court issue a rule on the current parties to show cause why the Petitioners should not be per~itted to intervene. Respectfully submitted, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esqu~e Broujos & Gilroy, P.C_/Z 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-4574 NAME ADDRESS I Greg A. Wells 1516 Terrace Avenue 2 Mark W. Golightly 1514 Shirley Avenue 3 Lindsay M. Bailes 1510 Hemlock Avenue 4 Robert Weimer 1542 Hemlock Avenue 5 Doug Martin 1511 Hemlock Avenue 6 Paul H. Harbach 1510 Terrace Avenue 7 John L. Zaengle 1502 Hemlock Avenue 8 Duane Otten 1501 Terrace Avenue 9 Reginald Johnson 103 Meadow Blvd. 10 Wendy Blacksmith 1518 Hemlock Avenue 11 Robert C. Moyer 1516 Hemlock Avenue 12 Shari W. Bernard 1504 Terrace Avenue 13 Larry Butler 1511 Shirley Avenue 14 Matt & Becky Berrier 104 Meadow Blvd. 15 Gary & Susan Love 200 Meadow Blvd. 16 Judy Grzymski 1513 Hemlock Avenue 17 Darlene Whisel 1511 Terrace Avenue 18 Dale Gilbert 1510 Shirley Avenue 19 John Jerosky 1509 Hemlock Avenue 20 Steve Willhide 1526 Terrace Avenue 21 Virginia Willhide 1520 Hemlock Avenue 22 Evelyn Barrick 1503 Shirley Avenue 23 Harry P. Bucher 1504 Shirley Avenue 24 William Everett 1518 Terrace Avenue 25 Walter Nickel 1502 Terrace Avenue 26 Todd Weidner 1517 Hemlock Avenue 27 Paul Walters 1530 Terrace Avenue 28 Owen Meals 1501 Shirley Avenue 29 Nancy Stout 1524 Terrace Avenue 30 Don Maurice 1519 Terrace Avenue 31 .Ianice Nell 1519 Hemlock Avenue 32 Tom Jones 1514 Terrace Avenue 33 Jim & Arlene Kane 1521 Terrace Avenue 34 Donna Lemon 1500 Terrace Avenue 35 Deemer Morrow 1506 Hemlock Avenue 36 Joseph Poster 1508 Hemlock Avenue 37 Judith Rudd 1517 Terrace Avenue 38 Dennis M. Fry, II 1515 Hemlock Avenue 39 William & Linda Pipp 201 Meadow Blvd. 40 Carl E. Jumper 1528 Terrace Avenue ALL ABOVE ADDRESSES ARE AT CARLISLE, PA 17013 EXHIBIT "A" SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 02 - 3334 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : LAND USE APPEAL .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition to Intervene was served on the following by sending the same by first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5358 George Asimos, Jr., Esquire Saul Ewing, LLP 1200 Liberty Ridge Road, Suite 200 Wayne, PA 19087 (601) 251-5050 Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire Saul Ewing, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Date: ~~~ulre Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-4574 park" area to serve as a buffer between the residential neighborhood to the east and the other light industrial uses envisioned further to the West. In addition, the plan does not propose a "campus-like setting." c. The Applicant failed to provide a full traffic study resulting in a failure to establish sufficient evidence that the Planned Industrial Development will not result in a serious traffic hazard. (See 255- 177(D)(3).) d. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(5) is not satisfied because the plan would significantly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. e. Borough Ordinance section 255-177(D)(6) is not satisfied because the plan fails to provide adequate design methods to avoid serious negative influences on adjacent uses. f. A proposal consisting of a single building 1,200 feet wide and 500 feet deep, with an unbroken flat roof, fails to satisfy Borough Ordinance section 255-96(A) which states: "Long, unbroken facades are discouraged." g. The Applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to support a conclusion that the provisions of Borough Zoning Ordinance sections 255-157 through and including 255-160 will be met. ORDER OF THE BOARD The application is denied. Anyone aggrieved by this decision of the Board has the right to appeal to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days from the day of this decision.y Date Je~r~y Date Jel~ro~4~. Benjan~ Date Jq~ ~.00~ Date 4 of 4 SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant, ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-3334 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAND USE APPEAL APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO INTERVENE Appellant SPX Corporation ("SPX"), by their attorneys, Saul Ewing LLP, does hereby respectfully submit this Response to the Petition to Intervene, filed on July 31, 2002, as follows: 1. Specifically denied. The testimony of the hearing involved in this case has not been transcribed. Also, the Petitioners are represented by counsel; accordingly, no direct inquiry had been made, addressed to any of the Petitioners, concerning their residency. Accordingly, based on investigation believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the Respondent/Appellant is without sufficient info,mation to fo~iii a belief concerning the veracity of this averment. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied, as stated. It is admitted that the Zoning Hearing Board conducted a hearing concerning a special exception request submitted by Appellant SPX corporation on 583848.2 8/14/02 May 2, 2002. Because the transcription of the testimony in other proceedings has not yet been made available, the Respondent is without sufficient reliable information upon which to formulate a response to this factual averment. Accordingly, after investigation considered reasonable under the circumstances, this allegation is specifically denied. By way of further answer, it is acknowledged that some individuals participated in the referenced proceedings; however, it will be necessary to review the transcript in order to determine whether any number of the Petitioners "appeared and testified". 6. Admitted in part; denied in part.. It is admitted that the Zoning Hearing Board denied the special exception request submitted by SPX corporation, and that the Applicant fried an appeal. It is also admitted that the Petitioners are not parties in this appeal. As to whether any of them desire to intervene, and the reasons for such desire, this allegation is specifically denied. By way of further answer, each of the Petitioners is represented by counsel; therefore, no direct inquiry has been made to any of the Petitioners concerning their desire to intervene as parties in this proceeding or any reasons they may have to request permission to intervene. Accordingly, after investigation considered to be reasonable under the circumstances, the Respondent is without sufficient information to formulate an answer to the factual averments concerning the Petitioners. Based on this, the Appellant specifically denies the allegations concerning the Petitioner's intentions with respect to intervention, and the basis of their desire to intervene in these proceedings. As regards the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6(A), it is specifically denied that there will be an adverse or negative impact on the property values of the Petitioners' residences or their quality of life. Further, the record which is to be reviewed by the Court in this case does not establish that the Petitioners, individually or collectively, 583848.28/14/02 2 would be affected in any way, if the Court were to reverse the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board and grant the zoning relief, in the form of a special exception, authorizing the land use proposed by SPX. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6(B), it is respectfully submitted that the Zoning Hearing Board's decision speaks for itself, and any inference concerning the evidence upon which the Zoning Hearing Board relied requires drawing a legal conclusion. 7. Specifically denied. Respondent has no way of knowing what actions Petitioners intend to take in this proceeding. Given the fact that the Petitioners are represented by legal counsel in this proceeding, no inquiry can be made of the Petitioners on this subject, in the course or preparing this pleading. By way of further answer, it is respectfully submitted that the Court should carefully consider whether some or all of the Petitioner's can properly participate in the pending statutory appeal, because none of the Petitioners are believed to have formally requested to be recognized as parties in the proceedings conducted by the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board, and the Zoning Hearing Board did not acknowledge or detemdne that any of the Petitioners were parties in the proceedings conducted before the Board. The Respondent will need to review the transcript of the Proceedings conducted before the Zoning Hearing Board, in order to determine whether any or all of the Petitioners requested to be recognized as parties. WHEREFORE, Respondent/Appellant SPX Corporation respectfully submits that this Honorable Court should carefully review the record produced before the Zoning Hearing 583848.2 8/14/02 3 Board of the Borough of Carlisle, in the course of addressing the merits of this statutory appeal, and detei-mine that the pending intervention petition should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 14, 2002 JOHn. MAHONEY, ES RE Attort~/ey I.D. No. 32946 L/ MICHAEL A. FINIO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 38872 DYLAN PAINTER DAYTON, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 76438 Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7t~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Attorneys for Respondent/Appellant, SPX Corporation 583848.2 8/14/02 SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant, Vo ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-3334 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAND USE APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Response to Petition to Intervene was served upon the following by placing the same in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid this day to the following: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Brojous & Gilroy 4 North Hanover Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Petitioners to Intervene Robert G. Frey, Sr., Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Date: August 14, 2002 MICHAEL A. FINIO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 38872 DYLAN PAINTER DAYTON, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 76438 Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7m Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Attorneys for Respondent/Appellant, SPX Corporation 583848.2 8114102 IN RE: APPEAL OF SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Appellant FROM THE DECISION DATED MAY 2, 2002 OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-3334 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAND USE APPEAL TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: Please accept the filing of the accompanying Transcript of Proceedings as part of the Record pursuant to the Writ of Certiorari dated July 12, 2002. The Transcript was unavailable at the time that the other portions of the Record were filed, by Praecipe on August 1, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August iq, 2002 Stepher(D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D. #32318 IN RE: APPEAL OF SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Appellant FROM THE DECISION DATED MAY 2, 2002 OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE Appellee : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA i NO. 2002-3334 CIVIL TERM _. : CIVIL ACTION : : LAND USE APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the Transcript of Proceedings, as part of the Record in the above referenced matter upon the following, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: George Asimos, Jr., Esquire SAUL EWING LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Appellant, SPX Corporation Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. 4 North Haonover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Intervenors Except that delivery was made to Hubert X. Gilroy by hand delivery to his office, at the address provided above. Date: August /~,2002 ~&--,~ Stepheff'D. Tiley. Esquire Attomey for Appellee Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Attorney I.D. 32318 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINS.,. CARLISLE BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD CLrMBERLA_ND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: GS Electric TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Before: Date: Place: RONALD L. SIMONS, Chairperson JEFFREY H. BENJA24IN, Member JANE RIGLER, Member JEFFREY G. BERGSTEN, Member WAYNE C. CRAWFORD, Alternate KENNETH WONiACK, Zoning Officer STEPHEN D. TILEY, Solicitor May 2, 2002, 6:53 p.m. 53 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania APPEAR3tNCES: SAUL EWING, LLP BY: GEORGE ASIMOS, JR., ESQUIRE FOR - APPLIC~LNT Jill L. Roth Court Reporter-Notary Public Reporting Services · 717-258-3657 · 717-258-0383fax courtreporters4u @aol. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 FOR APPLICANT Brian Fischbach INDEX TO WITNESSES EXAMINATION By Mr. Asimos By Ms. Rigler By Mr. Benjamin By Mr. Tiley By Mr. Womack By Roseanne Walters By Jack Zagel By Bob Weimer By Gordon Nell By James deGaetano By Bill Everett Larry Butler Lindsey Bailes James Snyder By Mr. Asimos By Mr. Bergsten By Ms. Rigler By Lindsey Bailes By Bob Weidner By Bill Everett By Mr. Simons By Mr. Tiley By Steve Willhide DIRECT TESTIMONY Bill Everett Bob Weimer Virginia Willhide Todd Weidner Examination By Ms. Rigler Lindsey Bailes Jim Cane Greg Wells Steve Willhide PAGE 6/9 36/48 39 45 49 56 57 63 67 68 70 71 73 79 93 99/112 105 107 109 111 113 114 PAGE 134 136 138 138 143 144 145 146 147 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION Photocopy of Deed Certificate of Ownership & Merger Site Plan, 1 of 4 * Site Plan, 2 of 4 * Site Plan, 3 of 4 * Site Plan, 4 of 4 * Copy of Carlisle's Comprehensive Plan HRG letter Re: Truck Trip estimates Stipulation & Agreement Document Memo of Law for SPX Corp. PAGE 6 6 9 10 11 11 32 80 148 148 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 * Exhibits not attached * 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS MR. SIMONS: Next on the agenda is the General Services Technology Corporation. If you'd like to come forward, please. MR. ASIMOS: I'm George Asimos with the Saul Ewing Law Firm representing the applicant. And we're ready to proceed. MR. SIMONS: Go right ahead. MR. ASIMOS: This case, members of the board, involves a special exception application for the property commonly known as GS Electric, a property that is occupied by a manufacturing building that has been closed now for a couple of years. And the proposal is for a planned industrial development in the I-2 zoning district in which the property is situated. And the details are not only set out in the original application, but also will be laid out in our testimony. So unless you have any initial questions about our application, we'll be glad to begin submitting our exhibits and having our witnesses testify. MR. SIMONS: MS. RIGLER: MR. SIMONS: Go right ahead. Mr. Simons, may I ask a question? Yes. MS. RIGLER: I'm looking -- I don't know if this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is on or off. I guess it's on now. I guess I'm looking at your application dated July 12th, 2001. MR. SIMONS: MS. RIGLER: MR. ASIMOS: MS. RIGLER: Yes. Mr. Asimos. Yes. And I'm looking at the second page and the reference to 255 177(D). Do you agree that the applicant bears the burden of persuasion with regard to those six factors? MR. ASIMOS: As a general rule and as a matter of case law and special exception, the burden on the applicant must demonstrate first that the use which is proposed is one which is allowed by special exception; and second, the objective criteria must be satisfied. And there are a number of them in the ordinance. These that you're referring to are more in the nature of subjective criteria, though we will address each one of them. MS. RIGLER: But do you bear the burden of persuasion? Do you agree that it's your burden? If it's a closed case, do you bear the burden -- MR. ASIMOS: Any that are considered subjective by the court, which is a difficult decision, the burden of persuasion is not on the applicant but on the protestant. MS. RIGLER: Got it. Thank you. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. ASIMOS: The burden of persuasion is only on the applicant for the objective criteria. MS. RIGLER: Thank you. MR. ASIMOS: I just have two initial exhibits for your solicitor's interest just to show standing. I have a copy of the original deed, the deed to the property, and also a document pertaining to the merger of the corporation. The owner of record was merged with another corporation since the time that the original was filed back in December of 2001, and now is a corporation called S?X corporation which would be the applicant in this case now by virtue of the merger. I have a multitude of copies. I'll keep one of each of Exhibit A-1 which is the deed, and A-2 which is the document of merger, and hand down the rest to you which you can distribute any way you like. (Applicant's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 were marked.) MR. ASIMOS: And with that I'd like to introduce Brian Fischbach, our first witness. BRIAN FISCHBACH, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION (On Qualifications) 25 BY MR. ASIMOS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Brian, could you describe your place of business and your profession for the board. A. Sure. I'm a professional registered engineer in the State of Pennsylvania since 1999. I work for the engineering firm Rettew Associates in their Camp Hill office, hold the title of project manager in their land development service area. Q. Are you professionally trained in civil engineering? A. Yes. Q. And where were you trained? A. Penn State University. Q. And have you practiced in the course of civil engineering in the preparation of land development and other plans pertaining to the construction of industrial and other buildings on real property? A. Yes. Q. Have you testify before under oath in zoning hearings? A. Yes. Q. Have you testified before this zoning hearing board before? no Not for an applicant but against. As an expert or as a party? As public interest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ASIMOS: Well, in any case, if there's no objection, I'd like to offer Mr. Fischbach as an expert in civil engineering and land development. MR. SIMONS: I don't know, what's the attitude of the board as an expert? MR. ASIMOS: Yes. Licensed professional engineer, trained at Penn State. MR. SIMONS: How many years on the job do you have, Mr. Fischbach? THE WITNESS: be 13. Tiley? MR. SIMONS: I graduated in 1989, so that would What's your attitude on that, Mr. MR. TILEY: I think his qualification we'll allow him to testify as an expert. I'm not sure that everything he testifies there's a foundation that he has expertise -- everything that he will testify to there's been a foundation that he has expertise. If there is a concern on that, if we get to a point of testimony that you believe is outside of the foundation of expertise proffered so far, then I think we should ask at that time for additional qualifications. For example, we have an engineer here. Clearly if you have a professional engineering license, you have some expertise in surveying and laying things out. Do you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have some expertise in landscape design, maybe and maybe not. That's just by way of example. I don't know if that's relevant. MR. ASIMOS: That will be fine. If the board has any questions as we go forward regarding his specific expertise, we'd be happy to answer them. MR. SIMONS: Thank you, Mr. Tiley. EXAMINATION BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. Brian, are you familiar with the subject property, which I'll call the GS Electric property? A. Yes, I am. Q. And have you prepared or have there been prepared under your supervision land development or at least zoning plans for that property? A. Yes. And do you have those with you today? Yes. MR. ASIMOS: you can go over to them. Could you point out -- if you wish, And I guess I should ask the board, is that a convenient place for us to have our -- MR. SIMONS: people in the audience. MR. ASIMOS: I think it's convenient for the We have copies here. And I have extras if you'd like. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 3 was marked.) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. Brian, I'll ask you to start with Exhibit A-3 and tell the..board what it is. And just go through each one of them and describe what they are so that everyone will know what exhibit. (Whereupon, the court reporter asked for a clarification.) BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. Brian, would you please go through each of the plans relatively quickly just describing for the board and everyone here what plans you have prepared. is this? MS. RIGLER: MR. ASIMOS: Among the ones we have, which one The first one that will be presented with this exhibit -- MS. RIGLER: Top of our packet? MR. ASIMOS: It's called sheet one of four, lower right corner, that's labeled Exhibit A-3. They're all dated July 11, 2001. MR. TILEY: MR. ASIMOS: MR. TILEY: MR. ASIMOS: MR. TILEY: Are all four pages Exhibit A-37 No. Just the first page? They'll be in sequence, yes. Thank you. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 4 was marked.) 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. that is. A. So A-3 is sheet one of four. And describe what It's the cover sheet of the zoning plan consisting of site data, zoning data, some general notes, other borough requirements, and a site location map. Q. Flip that board over you should find Exhibit A-4, which is sheet two of four. MR. SIMONS: Mr. Fischbach, would you mind standing on the other side. THE WITNESS: Sure. Exhibit A-4, sheet two of four in your packet, is the existing conditions plan. It also shows proposed demolition of site features if this were to move on through this process. (Applicant's Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6 were marked.) BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. And your next board you have sheet three of four which has been labeled Exhibit A-5. A. Sheet A-5, sheet three of four, shows the proposed warehouse distribution building as proposed. Q. What is Exhibit A-6 on the reverse side of that sheet four of four? A. This sheet provides additional details as required by borough ordinances, features such as grading 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan, how storm water's going to be handled, utilities, water and sewer as well as landscaping for the site. Q. Now, since A-6 seems to have the most level of detail on it, let's stay with that for a few minutes. Can you describe generally speaking what is proposed by this application to be installed at the GS Electric property? A. Essentially what's proposed is a 600,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility with one access off of Ritner Highway immediately adjacent to the American National Red Cross property. There will be two storm water retention basins to handle storm water runoff from the site, the associated parking for the employees in accordance with the ordinances as well as dock bays and additional trailer parking stalls for the primary use. Q. What is the proposed use of the building that's shown on A-67 A. Warehouse distribution facility. Q. Is that building capable of being or designed for division into a multi-tenant facility, that is different companies could lease and occupy different parts of that building? A. Yes. I understand it could be partitioned off in to a number of spaces. And that's the purpose of showing so many doors along each side of the building, at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 least to the north and south face, so those partitions are easily moved and available for X number of truck spots. Q. Can you describe for the board what the existing uses and structures are on the immediately abutting property, subject property. A. There is existing residential and commercial uses to the east, and light industrial manufacturing to the north, and under construction is warehousing to the west and to the south. Q. And as you've described, the proposal is to demolish the existing manufacturing building? A. Yes. Q. In the ordinance Section 255-12 describes the term planned industrial development. Have you had an opportunity to review that definition? A. Yes. Q. In your opinion does the plan which you've shown and what you've prepared depict a planned industrial development? A. In my opinion with the capability of the building being partitioned, yes. Q. There are a variety of specific ordinances that have to be satisfied for a planned industrial development for a use within that category, in particular Section 255-92 -- the ordinance actually says 266, but that's a 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan. if it's plainly shown. A. I can go point by point. minimum tract size requires 10 acres. acres. acre. typographical error. In paragraph A of that section there are a series of what we commonly call bulk and area requirements applicable to this use. Could you take a minute or two and describe in general the applicability and compliance of your plans with these requirements? A. Sure. Q. If you can, you can mention where it's on the It's not necessary for you to describe it in detail Item A-i, under 255-92 We have 46.276 A-2 requires lot area of 43,560 square feet or one Again, we're providing 46.276 acres. Front building setback line adjacent to a arterial street, which Ritner Highway is, requires 40 feet. We're providing 40 feet. A-4, minimum paved setback requires 75 feet from an arterial. In this case our paving would begin 215.65 feet from the right-of-way of Ritner Highway. Lot width, is item A-5, requires 150 feet minimum. I believe we have 1,404.65 feet. Building coverage is a maximum of 60 percent. We're proposing 30 percent. Item A-7, impervious coverage, maximum of 75 percent. We're proposing 55. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 each yard. that's a minimum of 25 feet. item A-10 is building height. we are proposing 40 feet. Item A-8 rear yard requires 25 foot minimum for We are providing 25. Side yard is A-9, again We're providing 25 feet. And Requirement is 40 feet, and Q. So does your proposed plan satisfy all the bulk and area requirements of Section 255-929(A)? A. Yes. Q. There are also some additional detailed provisions in Section 255-171. That's the section called design standards for major uses and buffer yards. Would you take a moment or two, please, and describe the conformance of the proposed plans to these requirements. A. First requirement would be B-l, no driveway or street service in use subject to the provisions of this section shall be located within 40 feet from the intersection of any street right-of-way lines. I believe the closest intersection would be Industrial Drive. And we're well over 1,000 feet from Industrial Drive. Item B-2 discussing the fact that borough council have the right to review driveway plans for access more than 10 parking spaces. Q. Would that be done during the land development stage, assuming that the special exception is approved? A. Exactly, yes. I believe that would be the case 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in all of these sections. Q. Is it your opinion that with regard to those remaining sections of 255-171, including for example (C) and (D) and all the subsections, that the plan is drawn in such a way that at land development approval stage the applicant will be able to satisfy all these requirements? A. Yes. Certainly if they would be required at this time, they would have appeared on this plan. Q. Let's turn now to Section 255-93. Section (A) and Section (B) deal with the setback issue. And for certain uses there is a minimum setback of 200 feet from any lot line of a residential lot. Can you point out on any of your plans, presumably A-6, where if in any place any of the buildings or the parking areas, regardless of whether they're subject to this 200 foot requirement, are closer than 200 feet to the property line with a residential lot? A. There are no portions of the parking lot or the building closer than 200 feet. Put it this way, yes, there are portions of the parking lot and the building within 200 feet of the residential lot line; however, Section (B) allows for the reduction of that setback with the implementation, construction of an earthen berm landscaped in accordance with the ordinance that's at least six feet or higher. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Amd where on the plan does any of the parking area or building approach closer than 200 feet to the residential lot lines? A. It's probably this portion right through there (indicating). MR. SIMONS: BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. A. Q. What portion? Describe that. Southeast corner of the building and the lot. What is the closest distance of any portion of the building or proposed parking or loading or driveway areas approaching to the residential lot lines? A. At this point shown on this plan it's 120 feet. Q. There's nothing closer than 120 feet? A. Not in terms of building or paving. Q. What have you done on this plan to meet the requirements for approaching closer than 200 feet? A. We've provided an earthen berm landscaped in accordance with the ordinance which reaches a maximum height of 15 feet. ordinance? A. /tn earthen berm of 15 feet in height? Yes. Nine feet higher than what is required by the In most locations along that berm, yes. It does 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vary in height, but we've tried to maintain 15 feet. Q. Would you give us an idea how much that variation might be. point? Probably minimum of 12 feet. So'it won't be any lower than 12 feet at any A. Correct. Q. Does the landscaped berm -- you described it as a landscaped berm. How is it landscaped in addition to it being built up as an earthen berm? A. It's a double row of evergreen planted across the top of the berm. Q. Is it your plan that that double row of evergreens would form essentially a complete visual buffer between the abutting lots in addition to the berm if itself? A. Pretty much from the start of the project or as soon as they're planted, that is, the requirement is to plant those trees double row alternating six feet on center. So essentially you'll have a tree every three feet if you're looking at it. 7tnd considering they have to be at least four feet high, that's going to provide a pretty decent visual barrier. Q. What would be the average height of these planted pine trees? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I believe we're proposing six feet. Q. So that would be an aggregate height of 12 plus 6 in the lowest case or 18 feet; or 15 plus 6, 21 feet at the highest point of the berm? A. Correct. Q. So in your view does that satisfy the requirement to reduce the setback to 120 feet under this Section 255-93? A. Yes. Considering that the berm is also in four to one side slopes. MS. RIGLER: THE WITNESS: I didn't hear that. Also taking into consideration B-4, that the berm is constructed with four to one side slopes. BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. So it's a very gradually sloping berm? A. Right, which should provide easier maintenance. Q. Will that berm, at a four to one slope, be able to be mowed? ao it not? Yes. In other words, cut by a lawn mower? Yes. That is entirely on the GS Electric property, is A. Yes. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I'd like to call your attention now to Section 255-95 which contains some specific requirements for planned industrial developments. You've already addressed A-1 which is minimum tract size, so we can skip that. And you have presented site plans, have you not, A-3 through A-6 which described in some detail the proposed project? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any information on the type of tenants or uses that are intended other than your statements that a warehouse or distribution use would be the occupant? A. The only information provided to me that they would be, those firms would be engaged in warehousing and distribution. Q. To your knowledge are there any leases or other identified tenants at this point in time? A. Not that I know of. Q. A-4 of 255-95 refers to relationship to surroundings particularly in the area of utilities. Can you describe what the proposed utility service would be for this PID? A. To date we've simply shown water and sewer connection to tie in to the utilities on Terrace Street as well as the two storm water retention basins I mentioned earlier. I'm sure electric and gas and telephone and 21 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 cable, whatever is needed, will be provided for at land development. Q. Are there other areas zoned industrial abutting the subject property? A. Yes, light industrial to the west and to the south. Q. Both sides? A. Correct. Q. Does your Exhibit A-6 have a general landscaping plan for the project? A. Yes. Q. In addition to the berm that you've already described? A. Yes. Q. In general what have you proposed there obviously subject to land development review if the plan is approved by special exception? A. I believe we've provided essentially what's required by ordinance. I don't think we've provided anything more at this point. Q. What do you have shown on the plan in the way of additional landscaping? A. Besides the double row of evergreens on the berm, we're providing an evergreen screening along the south edge, evergreen screening again of the employee 22 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parking lot to the west as well as deciduous trees among the parking lot as well as along the front of the property in order to sort of screen the building from Ritner Highway, sort of break the facade. Q. 255-9587 talks about staged construction. Will that be necessary for this project? A. I don't believe so. I think they build that in one shot. Q. Do you believe this lot, based on your previous testimony, will conform with all of the lot and area regulations of the I-2 zoning district? A. Yes. Q. And to your knowledge is the applicant proposing any covenants to govern the property, that is a private deed covenants to cover the property? A. No, I'm not aware of any. Q. Paragraph 10 in 255-95(A) refers to highway access points being 500 hundred feet, minimum distance that is. Is that requirement met by this application? A. I don't believe it's applicable to the fact we only have one access drive. Q. Thank you. To your knowledge does the plan require or call for any manufacturing or processing to occur outside of the building? A. No. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And have you examined the borough zoning ordinance in regard to minimum parking and loading requirements? A. Yes. Q. Have you designed this plan in such a way that it complies with those requirements? A. Yes. Q. Let's take a look at 255-178 subparagraph 46. MR. BENJAMIN: May I interrupt you for a second. We're going to make some noise. MR. TILEY: Would you repeat the reference to where we're at. MR. ASIMOS: 255-178. That's the section which contains a series of specific uses and the special requirements that apply to each use. Looking at 46, which is warehouse or wholesale. And I was going to ask Brian to review a couple of those that are in his area of expertise. BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. I believe you've described the off-street loading requirements as having been satisfied by your plan, and that's mentioned in paragraph A. Is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now (C) refers to storage of solid waste, explosives and other potentially dangerous or noxious substances. To your knowledge will there be any storage of 24 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these substances here other than what complies with law? In other words, are these uses particularly for the storage or disposal of any of these types of substances? A. I wouldn't think they'd be stored there. Q. Other than as permitted by law? A. Correct. MR. SIMONS: Excuse me. How do you deal with that? Do you put that in your leases, is that how you deal with that? MR. ASIMOS: Yes, you would. All the leases would require that the occupants adhere to all environmental and other laws and would have enforcement provisions on the landlord's part if there's any nonconformance with that. Of course there might also be governmental agencies as well which is why the landlord would do that. MR. TILEY: Would you agree to a condition that the property not be used for those uses set forth at 255-178(A), 46(C)? MR. ASIMOS: Except to the extent they might be on the premises in a manner that complies with law. The reason I mention that, not to be tricky, but there are some chemicals that are in small quantities are normally used and kept in all kinds of facilities that 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 might fall under this category, cleaning chemicals for example and that sort of thing. There's all kinds of things that in proper quantities and safe packaging is fine. But we can't prevent that. But certainly if it is tied to and in conformance with applicable law, absolutely. It might be a federal law, it might be a state law; we would have to comply with any of those, and we'd agree to that. MR. TILEY: The question is really then whether this goes beyond the federal and state law to be another regulation. I agree with your concern, and I think that a way can be found to address it. Obviously a truck has a diesel fuel tank and brings that on site. And I think we'd all agree that that's not contemplated by the prohibition here. But that is a explosive or flammable material that if you stored somehow in excess of normal on-site use, and maybe that's where we're at. MR. ASIMOS: I have a couple thoughts. One obviously is storage of these items only in conformance of law. Another might be that the occupancy of the premise won't be primarily for the purpose of storage of those types of items which might be helpful, other than with the approval of the zoning hearing board. Perhaps we can do something like that. In other words, the primary purpose 26 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 of the storage facility wouldn't be to store explosives or 2 anything like that. I'm sure we can draft something along those lines... MR. TILEY: Nothing in the building stored other than for use within the building. MR. ASIMOS: I can't say that there won't be some of these items. Let's for example you have a department store or like a Wal-Mart, and they're shipping for example ammunition. They sell ammunition at their stores. They might have boxes of that, for example in a storage building. And as long as they're properly and safely stored in compliance with law, that would be normal. That's just one example. There's various things that might be considered, as you said like gasoline and so on that might be considered toxic if not properly stored. So the best I can say for sure is conformance with law, absolutely. Perhaps there would be a reasonable condition might be that the primary purpose of the storage wouldn't be -- in other words, the storage facility as a whole wouldn't be to keep for example solid waste. Everyone has solid waste in their building until the garbage man comes. But the primary purpose wouldn't be the storage of solid waste, for example. We might be able to work out something along 27 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 those lines. MR. TILEY: Well, I suppose we're going to leave that issue for now and think about it for the board. But I would suggest that I think that this ordinance would prohibit the storage of, for example, ammunition and hold in wholesale for distribution and then resale. MR. ASIMOS: This particular section or some other provision of the ordinance? MR. TILEY: This section. I suppose if you have a rifle in your office for your own personal use, I'm not sure that this provision would speak to that. But if you've got six cases of ammunition or 60 or 600, I think maybe that would meet the technical prohibition of this. MR. ASIMOS: At this time I'm definitely asking for a variance for these requirements. So if that is the proper interpretation of the ordinance requirement, then that is what the applicant will have to live with unless they come and get a variance. I didn't necessarily read this to determine what might be limited by it, but it seemed offhand like a reasonably common requirement, and one which I'm sure they could live with in normal circumstances. MR. TILEY: Let me just beat it to death just a little bit more and say if the applicant can live with 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this, then you would agree to a condition that the applicant~will and the property will remain in conformity to this provision, whatever that may be. I don't know the history. As you know I'm not -- I haven't served for many years. I don't know the history of the enforcement of that provision, but that we can condition the approval if granted on no violation of that provision. MR. ASIMOS: Naturally we can't change what's in the ordinance anyways, so a condition of what's in there certainly would be consistent with the ordinance. It occurs to me you could maybe add to that without the permission of the zoning hearing board. That way if somebody wanted to do that, they'd have to come back to you first. MR. TILEY: Thank you. BY MR. ASIMOS. Q. And I guess E describes commercial or industrial outdoor storage or display. But as you previously testified, there's none of that proposed. There are, Brian, some other performance standards in the ordinance, some of them are very general in nature. And I'm sure the applicant can comply with them, but a couple I wanted to mention specifically if you have any thoughts. For example, 255-157 refers to noise -- 29 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. RIGLER: you skipped 46(D). MR. TILEY: MR. ASIMOS: Mr. Asimos, before you go forward, And (B). Yes. I intend to address -- let me make sure before I answer this. 46(B) and (D) I intend to have Mr. Snyder comment on because they are traffic related. THE WITNESS: That's where I'm not the expert. MS. RIGLER: Forgive me for interrupting. MR. ASIMOS: I should have mentioned it. I have another witness coming up. BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. With regard to 255-157 there are a number of actually very specific criteria for noise limits on behalf of the applicant. Is it your belief and your expectation, and according to your design, is it a possibility that this project will be able to satisfy and remain below these sound level limits? A. I would expect that the facility could be operated within these limits. MR. TILEY: Excuse me for interrupting. Do you have any expertise in acoustics? THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. There are further requirements in the ordinance 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pertaining to in 255-158 vibration and 255-159 air pollution and odors. In your experience with land development projects generally, do you anticipate a project of this type not being able to conform with any of these performance standards? A. No. Q. There is also a discussion of light, glare, and heat in 255-160. Will there be a lighting plan prepared at some point in the approvals process? A. Yes. And when would that be done? At the time of land development plans are A. prepared. Q. In your experience will there be any difficulty of the applicant in conforming with the lighting standards set forth in the ordinance when and if that plan is prepared and submitted for land development review? A. Taking the setbacks into account, there shouldn't be a problem at all. Q. When you do those plans, do you then do an actual lighting plan that shows the location and the power wattage of the lights and the extent to which those lights spread outside and around the light fixture? A. Yes. Q. Do you believe you'll be able to design this 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project in such a way that there will be no light projected off of the property, and in particular and most concern, the boundary~with the residential lots? A. Yes. I typically try to design for zero foot candles with the property line. The ordinance allows 2/10ths. So I don't think that would be a problem. Q. In 255-177(D) there are some general special exception standards I'd like for you to comment on. Tell me when you get there, so you can read it. In (D) I there's a reference there to conformance with other laws or serious conflict with other laws. In your experience in land development, do you believe there's anything about this facility as designed which would not be able to conform to or that would be in serious conflict with any ordinances or laws? A. I'm not aware of any such conflicts. Q. This is a very typical sort of facility for a warehouse, is it not? Yes. Can you comment on the conformance of the proposed plan with the comprehensive plan of the borough. And I should point out I'm specifically referring to the comprehensive plan that was in effect when the application was made and not the one which has been adopted since that time. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I guess to make it easier for the board, I have some copies of the comprehensive plan I'm referring to. I'm labeling it A-7. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 7 was marked.) BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. 255-177(D)2 says comprehensive plan: Shall not be substantially incompatible with the adopted comprehensive plan. Just comment, if you would. Have you reviewed the comprehensive plan now Exhibit A-77 A. Yes. Q. Please then comment on whether the proposed plan will or will not be substantially incompatible with that comprehensive plan. A. It's a little tricky but it's substantially incompatible with most objectives, which I'm sure everybody has an opinion. From what I've seen on page 10 of the comprehensive plan to the Ritner Highway/I-81 corridor development, this particular section calls for a business office research park. What's being proposed is not that. But it's something, in my opinion, that is more compatible than other uses that are permanent in the I-2. MR. SIMONS: What would that be? THE WITNESS: You can have a manufacturing facility and might generate more noise, more pollution, 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more vibration. Those other items that we had just gone through; might generate more employee trips per day that might be heading into Carlisle versus truck trips heading out 1-81 past the additional industrial lands, just as examples. BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. Recognizing the subjectivity of the word substantial, would you say in your experience that the proposed plan is substantially incompatible with the plan you're showing on page 10 of Exhibit A-77 A. No. We are providing a buffer which it certainly calls for that open space and buffer area between the residential and the business office proposal in the comprehensive plan. In that respect we meet it. So, no, I wouldn't say it's substantially incompatible. Q. Are there any other areas in the comprehensive plan A-7 that indicate compatibility or incompatibility between this project and the plan, whether you would refer to to show compatibility or incompatibility? A. I don't believe so. I think we're directing traffic out to Ritner Highway. Q. Is that compatible with what the plan shows? A. That's compatible with the comprehensive plan. Q. Is there any reason to believe that this plan, this warehouse, will not meet requirements of Section 4 of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 255-177(D)? It refers to safety, any significant public safety hazard such as fires, toxic or explosive hazards typically be~associated with a project of this type? A. No, shouldn't be. Q. And have you satisfied yourself with regard to paragraph six there on the design that the plan involves adequate site design methods including those that are named there? A. Yes, it can certainly design, can take all those into consideration adequately. Q. Can you say generally are you satisfied with the way you've designed this plan it will be able, the normal amount of tweaking that goes through the land development process to meet and satisfy the land development review standards of Carlisle Borough under their ordinances? A. Yes. MS. RIGLER: May I ask, in your opinion does there exist a residential neighborhood right next to this site? THE WITNESS: MS. RIGLER: Yes, Valley Meadows. Thank you. Residential neighborhood as defined in the ordinance? THE WITNESS: That's a good one. I would have to look at the definition for residential neighborhood. MS. RIGLER: I'm seeking your opinion. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: In my opinion it's a mix. some commercial, there's a church and such with it. MS. RIGLER: Thank you. presume? There's MR. BENJAMIN: A~nd in the comprehensive plan, I THE WITNESS: I would say so. BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. I guess the southeastern boundary you described there are both residences and other uses, are there not, such as the church? A. Correct. Q. Are there any other uses that are not used as residences per se on that boundary? A. I'm not aware of any. I believe out on Ritner there's commercial uses. Can't think off the top of my head what that is. Q. That's on the southern boundary as well? MS. RIGLER: THE WITNESS: MR. ASIMOS: Northern boundary. Northeastern boundary. But there's no denying that there are some residential lots directly abutting the property line? MS. RIGLER: A~nd as he said a residential neighborhood. THE WITNESS: Further to the east, yes. 36 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ASIMOS: I don't have any more direct questions. MR. SIMONS: Does the board have any questions of the applicant? BY MS. RIGLER: EXAMINATION Mr. Fischbach, am I saying your name correctly? Yes. Q. I believe your testimony was this warehouse distribution center in your opinion meets the ordinance's definition of a planned industrial development in part because it can be partitioned. Is that accurate? A. Yes, it's a single entity. Q. It is a single entity, but you said because it can be partitioned it meets the ?ID requirement? A. I think it meets the intent of the requirement, yes. Q. If it could not be partitioned, would it then be your opinion that it did not meet the ordinance's PID requirement? A. Yes. Q. And would you explain to me again what you mean by saying it can be partitioned. A. There's a possibility or potential for this building to be constructed with temporary walls, 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 essentially like an office building would be for business purposes to create 10-by-10 office squares essentially. This can be taken in to six 100,000 square foot facilities essentially or simply divide it right down the middle with two 300,000 square foot. Q. And you described this as a warehouse and/or distribution facility. What's your definition of warehouse? A. Same as the borough's ordinance. Q. There isn't one, so what's yours? I think I'm right in saying there isn't a definition of warehouse in our ordinance. When you use the term warehouse, what were you talking about? A. My definition of a warehouse would be a facility that is not in the business of bringing materials in to be immediately transferred to another truck to be shipped out to the road again. Q. That is not in the business of that? A. That would be not in the business of that. In the case of a warehouse, it would be a situation -- Q. Tell me what it is then. If that's what's not, what is it? A. My opinion? Q · Yes. They bring materials to the door. They unload 38 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 it. They store it in an area until it's needed by a 2 facility at another time. It's long-term storage of items. 3 Q. And how long is long term? 4 A. Pick a number. I'm sure -- 5 Q. I'm seeking your opinion. 6 A. I'm sure it can be multiple days to months, a 7 year; who knows. 8 Q. But more than 24 hours? A. More than 24 hours. Q. Not necessarily more than 48 hours? A. I would say in many cases, yes, more than 48 hours. MS. RIGLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. SIMONS: What's the difference between that and the distribution facility? Is that all one in the same in your opinion, Mr. Fischbach, just in different terminology? THE WITNESS: Yeah. I think that's probably why it's classified as a warehouse/distribution. They're probably synonomous with one another. ordinance. MS. RIGLER: MR. ASIMOS: MS. RIGLER: MR. SIMONS: Distribution is defined in the Yes. But warehouse isn't. Excuse me. Mr. Benjamin, do you have any 39 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions? EXAMINATION BY MR. BENJAMIN: Q. What is your background or expertise in the management of rain water runoff? A. In terms of credentials? Licensed civil engineer. I've been doing storm water management planning probably for the last 8 years. I've served as executive director for the LeTort Regional Authority here in town for the last five years. I review storm water reports for many developments within this water shed. Q. So you're familiar with whatever the requirements are and also just what makes sense? A. Better than sense. Q. What works. Then on the east side of the property you've constructed a barrier that will have presumably some runoff as'storms happen to the east, correct? If I did a rough calculation, maybe 90,000 or 100,000 square foot of sloped land heading to the east. Is there any plan to manage that rain water runoff? A. We have not prepared a storm water management plan to date for this site. If the borough requirements show that we must manage water coming off the side of the berm, it will be managed. My guess is though there's 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 already water flowing in that direction, and creating that berm is not going to add any impervious to that area, and therefore the net result will be zero additional runoff. Q. You're suggesting that the slope today goes toward the east? A. Yeah. Certainly there's a section there that slopes towards Valley Meadows. Q. And so you see no issue with that roughly 100,000 square feet sloping toward the residential properties? A. If there is an issue during the land development planning process, it will certainly be addressed. If I need to create a swale or provide inlets to catch that water to run it through the basins, that's what we'll do. Q. You testified earlier that -- this is a different avenue. You testified earlier that your design interests are to have zero foot candles at the property line. Does that mean that if I were a resident standing on the property line or living next to this facility, that I wouldn't be able to tell it was there with respect to the light? A. If you're able to see the light pole, which I can only tell you that we would meet the requirement in terms of height which I believe in this zone would be 60 feet high, I don't see why they would have to be that high, 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but if that's what's allowed placed, I'd say no you'd be able to see the light. Obviously if you're looking at a light, you'd~be able to see it. Whether or not that light was shining on the property line is the issue. Q. Right, right. A. But I'm sure the lighting can be designed with features to direct the light to the ground, certainly not going to be projecting upwards so you would be able to project the night sky. Q. So I'm imagining this, if I'm not facing the facility and the lights get turned on in the dark night, I wouldn't be able to tell? A. That's a good question. I don't know. I would expect that by the time this would be built with the additional warehousing back there, I don't know what that will add to the total light in that area as a whole, whether you're looking at 180 degrees whether you'd be able to know there's light behind you. Q. In the comprehensive plan submitted, and it's the one that was in effect when this application was offered. The bullet points on page 10, I think you were looking at when you said this is consistent. The third bullet point'talks about avoid conflicts between heavy industrial and residential uses And specifically refers to 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Valley Meadows. Do you see any conflict in your proposal and this third bullet point? A. I think with the creation of a higher berm and the landscaping that the impact is minimized, at least from the visual, the sound. I've done site line plans to see what the visual impact would be for those homes along that line, that property line. A few of the homes won't see the buildings, other homes will see the tops of the facilities. They certainly won't see any of the trucks that would be parked there. I'm not an expert in noise, so whether or not they can hear trucks coming in at that distance or whether it would be any more substantial than the other uses that would be permitted there in terms of a business park, and my worrying was there wouldn't be any -- it's not completely incompatible with what's, substantially incompatible, you know, with the plan. Obviously a comprehensive plan is a planning document, and you take it for that. And it is zoned light industrial, and they're permitted uses. In my opinion, that can cause more conflict with that neighborhood than this use. Q. I understand that subjectivity. I was interested in your answer. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The seventh bullet point refers to a smooth transition achieved through a stepping-up process. Do you see this submission as consistent with this seventh bullet point? A. It's consistent with the fact that the landscaped berm is there. Obviously if you're trying to go to warehousing in the portion that's described as light industrial park, and you want this proposed use there, no, it's not stepping up. But like I said, there could be other uses that are permitted that would provide more of an impact to the neighborhood than this use. MR. ASIMOS: Referring to the manufacturing uses that are allowed in the same district? THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. BENJAMIN: Q. Also my assumption is that you could assume this is going to be a 24 hour operation, maybe seven-day-a-week operation? A. You could assume that. Q. Depends on who the clients are, the lessee I guess, right? A. Right. MR. ASIMOS: I think Mr. Snyder his testimony in his letter cover some other projects he's looked at. Some do have more than one shift of operation and some don't. 44 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A~d we can see some samples with his testimony. BY MR. BENJ~4IN: Q. Will this be constructed with a division, in the dividing wall in the interior or multiple dividing walls? A. I would expect that at least some point before occupancy that the walls would have to be in place or if they wouldn't get an occupancy permit from the borough. Whether or not it's constructed when the whole shell roof system goes up, I don't know. I'm not sure whether it's being built on spec or they're going to wait to have tenants before they start construction. Q. And it seems like a small issue to me, but does that perhaps modify your answer with respect to a single shot of building? A. No, because t think the planned industrial uses or planned industrial development is based on the use of site, has multiple users. You're not going to have multiple users until it is partitioned, until an occupancy permit was granted. MR. BENJ~/~IN: Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Mr. Bergsten. MR. BERGSTEN: I don't think I have any. MR. SIMONS: Mr. Tiley. MR. TILEY: Thank you. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 EXAMINATION BY MR. TILEY: Q. Just a technical question. I wasn't sure I heard it correctly. You said the closest building or the closest that the proposed building would be to the nearest residential lot would be -- I wasn't sure if it was 125 or 150 feet, something of that nature. Do you recollect that figure? A. 120 feet is the building setback line. We essentially have the parking lot -- the parking lot and the corner of the building approaching that 120 foot setback. Q. Thank you. You said you had not been made aware of any leasing efforts. Do you know of any efforts to lease or not to lease this building by the applicant? A. I've been told that that site has had no offers on the existing building and has had no offers on any other use other than warehouse. Q. Do you know of any leasing efforts concerning this proposed building? A. No. Q. You have no knowledge whether or not they have -- you have no knowledge of their -- No. -- potential users? That's really none of my business. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you have any knowledge of any proposed deed covenants for this lot? A. None that are proposed by the applicant, no. Q. Do you know that the applicant has not proposed any? A. I do not know that they've not proposed any. MR. ASIMOS: Just to short cut to the point. The applicant has not proposed any because there's only one lot and the purpose -- the covenants in our view is if you're going to divide up into.multiple lots, then you want to have continuity in between them, and the covenants serve that purpose. So we're not actually proposing any unless any arrives during the land development process that we haven't anticipated. There is no proposal for that. BY MR. TILEY: Q. On the light you said that the ordinance permits I think it was 2/10ths of a -- unit of measurement again? A. Foot candle. Q. Foot candle. Thank you. And you are saying that at the property line there will be zero? A. I said I typically design for zero, but the ordinance allows 2/10ths. It allows one foot candle at other hours of the day as well. But if you're going to meet one without having a separate type of lighting system, you essentially meet the other. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard? A. light, no. Q. Q. If someone a mile away can see the glow of lights from an industrial building, is not there something in addition to zero foot candles that they are observing? A. Yes. Zero foot candle requirements at the property line shown on the ground measured at a one foot square by a light reading instrument has nothing to do with whether you can visually see-- MR. SIMONS: Looking down not looking up. What shows on the ground. THE WITNESS: Now, the light standard itself can be designed with cut off fixtures to direct the light down and not up. Will it bounce off the surface and up, that's a possibility. BY MR. TILEY: So in your opinion zero is an obtainable At the property line, yes. Directly under the It's not what you're trying to achieve. Do you know how long it takes typically to load or unload a truck for warehouse distribution purposes? A. No. I'd just be able to provide a guesstimate. Q. How did you arrive at planning for 172 doors? Did you come up with that figure or were you instructed either generally or specifically? A. Generally instructed to place as many stalls 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 happen. A. along each side of north and south face of the building as possible taking into account the borough's requirement of 12 by 55 foot spaces. Q. In your opinion would it take more than half a day to unload and reload a truck? A. No. Q. So if you are able to unload and reload a truck in 12 hours, then is it possible with 172 doors that you would have more than 200 truck trips per day. Is that correct? A. I don't know that. Q. Isn't that just math? A. That's assuming you have a truck waiting for a door the minute one pulls out. Q. What you don't know is whether it will actually But the question is whether it was possible. I guess anything's possible. MR. TILEY: MR. SIMONS: MS. RIGLER: I don't have any further questions. Mr. Womack. I have a question based on a question Mr. Tiley asked. EXAMINATION BY MS. RIGLER: Q. I think in response to Mr. Tiley's question about whether you had any knowledge of proposed tenants, 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you said you had no such knowledge of proposed tenants. Do you know who would have such knowledge of proposed tenants? A. I~would expect the real estate agent and the owner, maybe the attorney. Q. ~-nd do you know whether he or she or they plan to testify this evening? A. As to whether or not they -- Q. Do you know whether any of those three plan to testify this evening? A. I know the owner's not here and the real estate. Q. Mr. Asimos is the attorney? MR. ASIMOS: I don't believe there are any tenants. MS. RIGLER: Right. proposed or possible tenants. MR. ASIMOS: MS. RIGLER: MR. SIMONS: But the question was BY MR. WOM_ACK: I don't know that either. Thank you, Mr. Simons. Mr. Womack. EXA/~INATION Q. I just want to clarify one or two things you said with respect to visual barrier. It obviously meets the ordinance requirements for six feet above ground level. At one place I thought I heard you say that the proposed barrier would provide a complete visual screen. Then I 5O 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thought I heard one of you say it would not provide a complete visual screening for everyone. Is it possible to construct that barrier such that it would provide a complete visual screening for all the residents in Valley Meadows; and if so, would the applicant be willing to consider that as a condition? A. I don't know if it's possible. I've only run site lines from six locations, these six properties here, actually these six here. Further into Valley Meadows I don't know what the topography is. We assumed six foot high individual, five and a half foot eye level standing either at the house or side of the house and visually looking at whatever angle they would be. Q. So at those houses it would be -- A. These two houses based on our drawings show that with the trees in place and the berm, their line of site would be above 40 foot high building. As you progress this way with these four, they get more and more visible of the building. I'd say it goes from maybe five feet here to maybe 10, 12 feet down here. Maintaining the four to one side slopes and without the construction of some very expensive retaining walls, probably not. I don't think we'd be able to get another 10, 12 feet out of that. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So what you are doing is based on four to one you are building it as tall as you can build it? A. CQrrect. If we have a waiver of four to one, it could go to three to one. It probably would be pushing it to go to two to one, but again maybe three or four more feet out of that. Q. I have one question with respect to -- I don't mean to beat this to death either on the PID. Your assessment is then if a major chocolate manufacturer comes in here and leases the whole thing, this building does not qualify as a PID? A. My interpretation, no it would not. Q. So I couldn't issue one certificate of occupancy. I would have to at least issue two at the beginning to make this legal?' A. I think that's how you would enforce it. MR. WOMACK: I have no questions. MR. SIMONS: I'm sure that would be easy enough to resolve, Mr. Womack, just lease out the other square foot. MR. WOMACK: I guess. But the concern is if there's one lease -- MR. SIMONS: That's a very good point. You understand that obviously. MR. ASIMOS: Yeah, actually I have a different 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpretation than that. MS. RIGLER: witness? Different interpretation than your MR. ASIMOS: Yes, I do. I had no objection to him answering the question, he's an engineer. He was reading the ordinance as written the way he 'reads it. But legally I put a different interpretation on it. And this is not a matter we can really resolve tonight. Our intent was to show the ability to comply because I think that's all we have to do. But my interpretation of that requirement is that it's descriptive and recommendatory. It's not intended to be mandatory in the sense that if you read the language, it appears to be a generic description of what a PID is. But it is regulating something that's really not regulatable. In other words, it doesn't really matter any planning sense how many occupants there are of a building or really how many buildings there are on a property. What you really look at is the planning related impacts on those cover areas, where the setbacks are, how many trucks and cars are generated, what acconunodations have to be made for utilities and so on. I don't think that it's generally within the municipal powers to regulate ownership. So you're really talking about regulating something that's not regulatable. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So in light of that, my interpretation is that language is what we would call preparatory. It's an expression of a wish or a generic description, but it doesn't say that you must have more than one berm. You could cut it so fine it would be meaningless which is another reason. For example, you have two corporate subsidiaries of the same company lease two halves of the buildings. One could be a chocolate company, the other could be -- one could store Reese's cups and the other could store Hershey's Kisses, right, and what difference would it make really to anybody. But it could be two firms so to speak. So when you parse over it as far as I have any way, I think it's more precatory or just generally descriptive rather than something that's intended to be enforced by a number. That's my interpretation. I think it's important to note can it be complied with in this most strict interpretation, it can. So PID follows from that. But whether that's actually how the zoning officer would enforce it in the future, it just would have to be discussed, I guess. MR. SIMONS: Thank you. Your comment, Mr. Fischbach, you said if you had a three to one ratio over there on the eastern boundary, there's a likelihood that you wouldn't see any of the property, the residents on the 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 east side of. Is that -- A. No, no. I said I could gain a few more feet out of the height of the berm, but I don't think enough to visually block. Q. Even if it went to a three to one? A. Even if it went to three to one. Q. In other words, just impossible topography, the tract next door the best you can offer is what you have on the table? A. Without moving the building further from the building setback lines described by the ordinance. Q. Pulling it towards the west. A. To the west, and increasing the height of the berm with the additional property there, no. Q. You're saying you could do that if you had the opportunity to have a little restraint from the setback to the -- in other words, if we can move the lines on the one side, you can make it higher than the other side; but you'd need a variance on that? Pull the building down to the west. A. All things being equal with the building where it's at, 120 foot setback to the increase height of the berm, we would need a variance or a waiver depending on staff's interpretation of the four to one side slope. That causes some problems with getting in to the maintenance of 55 1 the berm. That's something that the applicant would have 2 to look at. 3 GQing to three to one obviously you have a 4 steeper slope, you go higher and the same amount of width. 5 I'm estimating just eye-bailing it maybe three to four 6 feet, maybe five feet at that lower end where there'd~still 7 be a six to seven foot visual impact based on the site 8 lines that we've drawn. 9 MR. ASIMOS: There is a time component though. 10 Don't forget that the top six feet are pine trees, once 11 they're established will probably grow about a foot a year 12 based on my nonprofessional but general observation. I'm 13 not a landscape architect, but I play one on TV. 14 In time, for what it's worth, in time the actual 15 visual buffer would not only widen as the trees grow and 16 thicken, but they will get taller and maybe even a great 17 deal taller. Let's say for the sake of discussion, if they 18 did grow a foot a year, just using that simple, 19 approximately how many years will there be a complete 20 visual buffer even including the top of the buildings from 21 a person standing in one of the residential lots? 22 THE WITNESS: 10 to 12'years for that most 23 southern property. 24 MR. ASIMOS: For those few lots that don't have 25 a complete visual buffer in the first year. 56 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMONS: Thank you. Are there any questions in the audience of the applicant? ~ ROSEA2NNE WALTERS: I'm Roseanne Walters, and I live at 1530 Terrace Avenue which is right next door. EXltMINATION BY ROSEANNE WALTERS: Q. When you're talking about standing in somebody's yard and looking out on what you can see, are you aware that our house has a second floor deck on the back? Would we not be able to see anything when we're sitting on our deck or looking out our kitchen window? A. Yes. You would be able to see more of the building. Obviously the higher you are, the more sight line you would have. Q. And this whole buffer zone wouldn't keep the noise from drifting into our yard, would it? A. To what extent I'm not sure. But it's certainly going to assist with whatever noise transfer there would be with the required six foot high berm. MR. ASIMOS: THE WITNESS: BY ROSEANNE WALTERS: Q. house is. Meaning better. Or a setback of 200 feet no berm. So it doesn't make a difference how high your You think you're still in compliance then? 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yeah, we're in compliance with the ordinance in terms of the construction of that berm and the setback requirement. ~ Q. At one point when you were talking about compliance, I thought you said we weren't in compliance but this is better than some other things. And you sort of lowered your voice, so I wasn't quite sure how we ended that if we are or are not in compliance with the overall plan. Do you remember? A. No, I'm not sure. I can tell you with this plan we're in compliance with the zoning ordinance in my opinion. And it can be in compliance with land development process when we start that process after the borough has a chance to review that submission. ROSEANNE WALTERS: Thank you. MR. SIMONS: JACK ZAGEL: 1502 Hemlock Avenue. Fischbach. Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Jack Zagel. I live at And I have a couple questions for Mr. BY JACK ZAGEL: EXAMINATION Q. In the article, the ordinance codes 255-177, under article (D) 5 it says: Should the impact on a residential area. Are you aware of that? A. Yes. 58 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Are you aware of how many families live in that development? A. Exact number, no. Q. Would you agree it's almost 70? A. If you say so. Q. Good. I wasn't certified as an expert, so I have a couple of questions for you. you know which way it comes from? A. Q. northwest. expert. Wind in that area, do My guess is from the west. You should check a little bit. It's from the So I live there, so that makes me more of an You're going to bring 200 trucks in there in a day or 24 hour time period, do you think that the diesel smoke of that many vehicles will have any impact with the northwest prevailing winds to our development of a negative? A. Considering what else can go in to that 47 acre site and the number of traffic, the amount of traffic that could be generated from that. Q. We already know how much traffic. We're almost talking 200 trucks. now. You're comparing it to zero right now. Comparing it to the quality of the air there 59 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 smoke. Right now, right. Right now. I',.d say, yeah, you have the potential for more Q. Can you give me an estimate of how much more 200 trucks would generate? A. No, I can't provide that. Q. According to the sound barriers, can you give me an estimation when we talked about filling or loading the trucks up and down, can you give me an estimation of how bad the sound alarms for backing up tractors are going to affect our development compared to what it is now? I have no information on that. You will agree though that it will be much worse? A. Q. A. now, yes. Q. Than zero right now? Yes. It has the potential to be greater than right Two trucks would be greater than it is now. Is that right? A. Q. A. Q. One truck would be greater than what it is now. So 200 would seem to be quite a bit more. (Shaking head in the affirmative.) I don't see anything on there for fire 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 suppression. Are they going to hook up the borough water authority and run some type of four inch or six inch pipes into that building to do fire suppression, or are they going to build a tank as they've done on the other ones? A. Not sure what they're doing for the building. We've assumed a loop around the building for a fire water line and public water supply for the building. At the time of land development based on pressure and water usage and the design requirements of the building itself would warrant whether or not a fire protect system's required. Q. Would a half million square foot building under the fire codes alone, will that pipe be enough for fire suppression for that building or are they going to need a tank? A. Not sure. I'm not an expert in fire protection. Q. Are you aware of hydrology of water? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree it runs downhill? A. Yes. Q. We have a berm here that you're going to build a lake out of when the water runs off, the water should -- during a heavy storm as we had this afternoon maybe two, three, four inches; maybe two, three, four feet. Will that water weight have any impact on us living down stream from there? 61 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. As I've mentioned at the planning commission meeting, all water from this building will make its way into this basin which would discharge to the north side of Ritner or come back and enter this system which then gets routed all the way back around into that system. The only water that can make its way right now if it's allowed by borough ordinances would be this side of the berm. Q. Water retention, is that a sealed container or is the water allowed to go down through the ground? A. No. It will infiltrate. Q. So if it was infiltrating at one inch or six, seven inches or six feet would make a definite impact on the water volume downstream from where that is, right? A. Yeah. There's more water generated on the site. It's released over a longer period of time. Q. Are you aware of the pollution on site? A. No, I have no knowledge of that. Q. If there is pollution and it's proven that there is pollution in there, are you aware of what GS manufactures, in their manufacturing plant what do they make in there? A. I don't know that. Q. Would you think GS Electric they made motors, electric motor of all sizes? 62 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I assume so. They could have. Q. Do you know if there's a storage facility on site that PCB's or carbon tetrachloride that they used to clean and make their motors? A. Wouldn't surprise me that that was involved in that process. Q. But it wouldn't surprise you that if you go digging up that ground and you put those PCB's carbon tetrachloride in the water system, and the water runs downtown, that's Carlisle, you're going to put that in the system and run it down through the whole town, agreed? A. If it's not cleaned up prior to construction. JACK ZAGEL: Check on it because it's there. Thank you, Mr. Simons. MR. SIMONS: Thank you. Relative to that comment, had you had an environmental phase done at all, just as a matter of fact? I'm just curious. MR. ASIMOS: I don't know. I honestly don't know. work -- have one. have one. I haven't been involved in any of the transactional MR. SIMONS: I suspect eventually you'd have to In order to put a building up you'll have to MR. ASIMOS: I'm sure of it. If there is a 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question of contamination, I'm sure that we can address that before any construction takes place and provide the borough with~.whatever information we had. MR. SIMONS: BOB WEIMER: Hemlock Avenue. BY BOB WEIMER: Are there any other questions? I'm Bob Weimer. I live at 1542 And I kind of took a couple of notes. EXAMINATION Q. Sir, you did say during your testimony that this was not the best possible use of this property, did you not? I think you referred to the fact that it could be used as an office park and research facility, did you not? Did I hear you correctly? A. There's a number of permitted uses, and the comp. plan calls for that transition zone or recommends that zone. Q. And being an engineer if we were building or if a research facility were to be built there, approximately how tall would that building be, in general? Would it exceed 40 feet, would it exceed 20 feet? A. Depends if it's multi-story or not. I'm sure that a two- or three-story building could be placed there that could approach the 40 feet limit. Q. In your expertise have you ever seen a research 64 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building in an industrial park per se setting exceed one story or two stories? A. I ~don't believe so. Q. Let's go on to the number of doors and your comments about partitioning. If I heard you correctly you testified that there are 172 doors proposed. Those are truck doors. How many personnel doors are designed into the facility? A. What's shown on the plan right now are stalls. There may be a door there, there may not be. I don't think the architecturals have been done to show what the building is going to look like from a profile. There could be a door every third space right now. Those are the number of stalls against the building based on a 12 foot by 55 foot long stall. Q. So at this point you don't know a ratio between truck doors and personnel doors? A. No. Q. So it's conceivable there that there would be one or two personnel doors primarily designed for emergency egress, the balance of them used for the operation of unloading and loading freight. Would that be a fair statement? Ao I would think that since we're providing parking on both ends of the building, you'd have multiple 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 employee/pedestrian access points at those ends of the building as well as additional pedestrian doors among the bays themselves. Q. And how long is the building? A. Pretty long. 1,200 feet long by 500 feet wide. Q. And you've got parking at both ends of the building, correct, for employees? A. (Indicating). Q. If the building were partitioned, and let's say your office happened to be in the middle, would you be willing on a cold, snowy, raining winter day to park at one end and walk half of that distance to get to an office? A. I would expect that they laid it out they put an office in this corner and an office in this corner. Q. So the rest of it is just going to be plain warehouse? A. I can't say that. It can be partitioned. BOB WEIMER: It can be. Okay. I think some of our neighbors have already handled a lot of the questions about noise. But I'd like to bring one or two things that you may not be familiar with just to your attention that when our neighbors General Mills were operating a manufacturing facility about twice the distance from that location away, their paging system was very audible. And it was a simple paging system. 66 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ail I'm trying to do is reinforce Mr. Zagel's comments about the number of times we're going to be bothered by the reversal of a truck backing up into a truck dock with the morning alarm, which as I understand is a requirement on every commercial vehicle. But let's talk about the lighting a little bit. You talked about foot candles, and I'm fairly much aware of those. Are you aware that there is a recreational facility on the east side of the Valley Meadows development which is currently operated by Dickinson College? Are you aware that at night there are recreational softball leagues that play during the summer? And are you also aware that from our development in the evenings when those activities are taking place, one can practically read a book from the amount of light that comes from that when you're standing on the east side of the development? Guess not. The only thing I would say to the people assembled here and the only plea that I would make is I'd really like you to think about the dollars and the potential dollars, revenue dollars that we may be passing up, tax dollars, by allowing a simple one-unit warehouse, another warehouse to be installed there in lieu of several smaller buildings where we can attract research, office type facilities. I think you'll agree that those would 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably develop more tax reuenue than a building of this type. MR. SIMONS: Thank you. I would ask, please, that you would maintain your statements to after the testimony's all been given. What we're doing right now is just asking questions of the applicant. No more statements at this time, please. BOB WEIMER: MR. SIMONS: statement at the close. Mr. Fischbach. I apologize. You'll get an opportunity to make a Right now we',re just dealing with So if you have a statement, I'm going to ask you to sit down. to stand up. GORDON NELL: BY GORDON NELL: If you have a question, I'll ask you Gordon Nell. EXAMINATION Q. Along that same line that Bob was talking, has anybody ever made a survey to see if the warehouses already there are operating up to capacity? A lot of warehouses there now, are they operating to full capacity? If they're not, why bring in another warehouse. A. I've not conducted such a study, no. I'm not aware of one. Q. Is it possible we're overbuilding warehouses when they build a lot of office buildings for office space? 68 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Don't know. Q. You don't know much about the existing warehouses that are already there, whether they're full capacity, partial capacity or what's the warehouse capacity in there? A. I can only tell you from what the market demands in this area is hot for warehouses. JAMES deGAETANO: James deGaetano, d-e-G-a-e-t-a-n-o. I live at 1520 Terrace Avenue. EXAMINATION BY JAMES deGAETANO: Q. My question, sir, when you were laying this all out and developing it, are you aware of the water flow through Valley Meadows at the present time? Plans indicate that water does drain in that direction. Q. Are you aware of the flooding problems that Valley Meadows has had over the last several years? A. I'm not aware of those. Q. Are you aware of all the land in South Middleton Township, which would be right behind where you're building, all flows directly to Valley Meadows? A. No, I'm not aware of that. JAMES deGAETANO: I'm not trying to put you on the spot. My point is Valley Meadows is flooded 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continuously and has been since they built the park. And any other development out there without storm sewers to carry the waker underground and away will continue to swamp 70 houses. And I think that's a point before they build anything, that has to be addressed. I'm sorry. MR. ASIMOS: It's a fair question. I don't mean to make a comment. We can take that as a question. I think Mr. Fischbach can answer how those issues are addressed and if see Mr. deGaetano's concerns are -- THE WITNESS: Our preliminary planning like I stated earlier is to direct the majority of this site's storm water to the system in Ritner Highway, or at least to the north side of the Ritner Highway. I'm sure that come land development process and when we get into storm water planning that we can see that this site will not add to your problem and may in fact assist in alleviating some of your flooding now. The creation of that berm certainly is not going to let water flow in that direction naturally. J~MES deGAETANO: Valley Meadows has no storm sewers or whatever, so any added burden that will come on there will automatically cause more houses to flood than what are now when we get the storms. MR. SIMONS: The lady in the back, do you have a 70 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question? You were up there for a moment. JANICE NELL: My name is Janice Nell, and I live at 1519 Hemlock Avenue. I was just going to ask you if the borough would provide us with the storm sewers if the warehouse would be put in there. He addressed my question. Avenue. MR. SIMONS: BILL EVERETT: BY BILL EVERETT: Yes, sir. Bill Everett, 1518 Terrace EXAMINATION Q. You testified with regard to noise limits that you could operate at the facility within the ordinance. A. I would expect that the people that were to lease that building would in fact have to meet those requirements. Q. When you talk about the facility, are you talking about the building and the contents of the building? Are you including the trucks, the back-up signals, and the PA system that may be on the building? Refrigeration units, are you putting those? Or are you just testifying with regard to the facility itself? A. No. I would expect that the ordinance pertains to the activities of the site so that would be the trucks and whatever other factors are involved producing noise 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would have to adhere to that requirement. Q. Are you an expert on truck noise? A. NQ. Q. Air pollution. I know you addressed air pollution. I heard the question about wind being from the west or the northwest. Is there anything in your testimony to address air pollution? A. Nothing more than, yes, there will be trucks there that will produce fumes. Q. Are there any steps that can be taken as a professional to reduce -- A. From a building standpoint, yes; from an articulate matter, yes, but not from VOC's and such vehicles. BILL EVERETT: Thank you. LARRY BUTLER: Larry Butler, 1511 Shirley Avenue. EXAMINATION BY LARRY BUTLER: Q. A building that size, what would be the expected revenue over a years' time? A. I don't know. Q. Second question. What would be the expected salaries that they're going to pay out to people that would be working there? Is there going to be ten people in a 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building that size, 15 people? You also made the statement that warehouses are hot for this~.area. Why are they hot for this area? A. I'm not sure on the number of employees or salaries. I'm not privy to that information. As for the warehousing, it's the transportation corridor that this area has to the northeast, to the south, east, west. Q. A building that size might have 20 employees in it. Everybody's dancing around the issue. Manufacturing. That building was manufacturing before. Does it have to be a warehouse? A. It doesn't have to be. It could be any one of the uses in the ordinance. The only thing that has been made known to me is that nobody's made an offer on that property for that building as it stands or for any other use other than warehouse. Q. When that building starts to outlive its usefulness and it starts to break down and degrade, are they going to tear it down or are they going to let it be an eye sore? A. Can't answer that. You have that situation right now with that building. LARRY BUTLER: We have to live with it. It's not in your backyard. We have to. So let's put something there that people can use. 73 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sorry about the statement. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. L~NDSEY BAILES: Lindsey Bailes. A month or so ago we were here. I believe the engineer testified in your place stated that in the construction of the building there would be no dynamiting required. Am I correct, I believe? SIMONS: There was comment relative to that, yes. EXAMINATION BY LINDSEY BAILES: Q. I notice the large warehouse that's been built down towards the Sheetz. They're doing a lot of dynamiting. That ridge of rock runs right up through that development. They're using bulldozers to pull it out of there by the ton. Are you planning on dynamiting or not? A. I can't say yes or no to that. But I agree that there's an outcropping that runs right out through that site. Q. So if we start dynamiting, which in my unprofessional opinion you're going to have to do, there's going to be damage down that rock cavity caused by the blasting all down through the neighborhood. 74 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Down in the street now in front of Mr. Zagel's house there's a low spot already, probably a sink hole or something that developed from the sewer because of the water flow down through there. You keep mentioning the fact that the berm will prevent water. The water goes underneath the ground. I didn't have any water come in my basement through my windows or through the doors, it came in under the ground six feet down. That's where the water is down there and it comes up. You understand? A. Yes, I understand that. Q. Do you think that by this construction there wouldn't be any damage to that neighborhood whatsoever at all? A. I would hope we would design that site to impact your neighborhood as little as possible. Q. Sir, I didn't ask -- A. I can't answer that. Q. Thank you. A. We can approach those storm water basins in two ways. We can try to promote as much ground water infiltration as possible and deal with the potential sink hole development on our own site or we could line them with clay and get the water into the borough system and handle it that way. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's going to be through the 1.and development process that's worked out. L~NDSEY BAILES: I'll make a point that the large building that's being built below, they're putting a water retention place down next to the Sheetz. Guess where they're running the overflow, across Route 11 directly towards that neighborhood, over 456. Guess what their basements are going to be like. MR. SIMONS: the applicant? JACK ZAGEL: Are there any other questions of This will be my final question, Mr. Simons. It is a multi-part question. The young man testified that he's going to put a half million square foot building to the west of me. But you are aware of the other buildings going to the south of our residence. Are you aware of that? THE WITNESS: Yes, on the south -- JACK ZAGEL: If that's the case, do you think the value of my home will go up because there's warehouses all around me? Do I look like I live on an Air Force base? Do you think they'll go down? MR. ASIMOS: With due respect to the gentleman, I don't think Mr. Fischbach is an expert on values. I don't think he could offer an opinion that would be of -- JACK ZAGEL: Mr. Fischbach is not an expert on a 76 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot of things, but he still gives an opinion. That's all I ask. Mk. ASIMOS: Only in areas of civil engineering, but not in areas on appraising -- JACK ZAGEL: Sir, I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked for his. He designed the building. MR. ASIMOS: With due respect, I guess what I'm saying is I object to the question because it's not an area where he's an expert, so his answer is -- JACK ZAGEL: Have Mr. Fischbach object to the question. Mr. Fischbach, can you speak to me and tell me you object? MR. SIMONS: Let me say this, Mr. Zagel, I don't think it's Mr. Fischbach's quite frankly in his place to answer that. I can answer that. go up. JACK ZAGEL: MR. SIMONS: JACK ZAGEL: MR. SIMONS: I'll accept that. I would say it would definitely not I think we agree on that. And I would ask that you respect these witnesses. They may not give you the answer you're seeking, they're just here to give what they're required to give. So I would hope now we can maintain an order of respect for any other witnesses brought up here. 77 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I recognize your concerns. And we're certainly glad you're here. But I would hope you would also respect the witnesses, that come up here. They may not give the answer you're looking for, that's not what they're here for. They're here to give their testimony to the best of their ability. So I don't want to have any more outbursts in this hearing. Thank you. MR. ASIMOS: I have no more questions for Mr. Fischbach. So we are finished with him. We'll go on with our next witness. MR. SIMONS: We're going to take a break before we bring on the next witness. Yes, ma'am. JANICE NELL: My name is Janice Nell and I live at 1519 Hemlock Avenue. And just let me ask if this isn't the case. We are looking for a high quality of life in our development and you're looking for revenue as well. So couldn't we work something out so that both sides are happy? Seems to me there are enough people here that somehow we can reach a compromise. Is it not more desirable to fill in the industrial areas with hi-tech industries such as a crystal plant, a GS Electric. We're not certainly against industry at all. And there would be no need for road construction or new storm sewers. We wouldn't have the harmful air 78 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pollution and/or we wouldn't have very possible lawsuits in the future or possible deterioration of health in our area. We all know ~hat's a threat. So couldn't we possibly come to an agreement here where we can live with whatever you put beside us. MR. SIMONS: Thank you. We're going to take a recess here for ten minutes before you call up your next witness, Counsel, if that's all right. MR. ASIMOS: That would be fine. (Witness excused.) (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken from 8:47 to 9:02.) MR. TILEY: I do not believe I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to announce that I recognized at least one of the questioners from before the break as a client of our law firm. MR. ASIMOS: If Mr. Tiley feels that he can execute his tasks as solicitor without any change of view on account of that fact, I have no objection to him being solicitor. ahead. MR. TILEY: MR. SIMONS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tiley. Go right MR. ASIMOS: Our witness is James Snyder who 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be sworn in now. J.D,MES S. SNYDER, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION (On Qualifications) BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. Jim, would you just describe your place of business and your profession. A. I work for Herbert, Rowland & Grubic consulting engineering firm in Harrisburg and other locations throughout the State of Pennsylvania. I'm vice-president And I'm a registered professional of the company. engineer. MR. ASIMOS: Mr. Chairman, Jim Snyder testified at previous hearings before this board and was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and traffic planning. Would you like me to short-cut the process? MR. SIMONS: MR. ASIMOS: BY MR. ASIMOS: I would take him as an expert. Thank you. EXAMINATION Q. Jim, are you familiar with the proposed PID that's the subject of these hearings? A. Yes, I am. 80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I have a document here signed by you. It's a letter dated March 28th, 2002 I've marked Exhibit A-8. Is this document your work product? A. Yes, it is. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 8 was marked.) BY MR. ASIMOS: Q. Can you describe generally what your assignment was with regard to this project? A. Yes. We were requested by our client to study the proposed project with respect to traffic generation, number of truck trips generated from the facility, and also whether there would be any significant traffic impacts caused by this facility and whether they could fit within the restriction of the ordinance relative to the 200 trips per day, tractor-trailer trips per day. Q. What general sources of information or research did you do before forming your opinions? A. Of course we were familiar with the site. We've done a lot of work in this area. We've reviewed the site plans that Mr. Fischbach had testified to. We also in close coordination with the applicant, the developer, understand the proposed use at this location. We also reviewed existing traffic studies that were conducted in this vicinity recently for other approved projects. Again we viewed the site plan in detail. We 81 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also provided or obtained empirical information for other warehouse distribution facilities as part of that study. Q. I~ that empirical information set forth in Exhibit A-87 A. Yes, it is. Q. Could you take a few minutes and describe the information that you gathered in this letter of yours, March 28th, 2002? A. Certainly. There were other areas that we looked at. Recently we obtained tractor-trailer trip data from several Opus East, LLC facilities, and that was contained in our study. There were four locations, four different facilities with square footages ranging from 70,000 square feet to 315,000 square feet with multiple shifts and parking spaces and so forth. Q. Were these warehouse distribution facilities similar to the one that's proposed here? A. Yes, they were. We also reviewed a traffic impact study for the Cumberland Logistics Park, which is a project proposed by Dermody Properties on Route 641. And the significance of that study was that that study also looked at three independent warehouse distribution facilities in terms of empirical truck trip generation and traffic generation from that facility. We used that data as information in our 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 report to make likely projections of truck traffic for the proposed use. W~ also obtained in February of 2002 information from two of our own clients who have developed and own and operate warehouse distribution centers in central Pennsylvania; those facilities ranged in size from 575,000 square feet to 577,000 square feet, again different employee counts, variable shifting type of operations, looked at tractor-trailer trips that were generated from that facility on average and used that data to make some projections with the proposed use. We also looked at ITE Institute, the Transportation Engineers trip generation handbook of March of 2001. knd we looked at that information relative to a specific study for truck trip generation rates for several warehouse facilities, and again took that information into consideration in terms of projecting what the traffic trips may be for a facility of this nature. Q. Do you consider these studies in this research you've done to be a reliable predictor of the performance of the proposed facility? A. Yes, I do. Q. Why's that? A. First of all a lot of the data is actual counted data from tenants, variety of types and sizes of tenants 83 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that would typically occupy a facility of this nature. Also the traffic studies that were referenced were done by reputable fi~ms. They're local traffic studies that have been reviewed either by the borough or by other municipalities, also reviewed by PennDOT. $o we've concluded they are credible reports. Q. How do you take data from so many different size buildings and make them applicable to predict the size of this approximately 600,000 square foot building, since they're all different sizes and with different numbers of employees? A. What we have done is looked at the variety of square footages and the truck trips that are generated from those facilities and looked at the range of number of truck trips generated per thousand square feet of the floor area and apply that ratio or percentage, if you will, to the proposed use. Q. Since you have taken samples of buildings of different sizes, would your prediction also be true if this building was divided into multiple tenancies of different sizes? A. Yes. Q. Can you answer one sort of summary question for us. And I'll read it to you. It pertains to the specific ordinance requirements for a warehouse requiring that uses 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that would involve the serving of the use by an average of more than 200 tractor-trailer trips per weekday shall be required to ~eet the additional standards in this section for a truck terminal, which due to the location of this property could not be met. A. Yes. Q. This is Subsection 46 of Section 255-178. Can you comment on whether your studies show that the proposed building is likely or unlikely to exceed that tractor-trailer trucking? A. I think our study clearly suggests that it is likely that this facility can operate within the range of 200 tractor-trailer trips per day. Q. And can you give us a range of what your study figures show? Although the written report is more detailed, can you give us an idea of what the range of predicted tractor-trailer trip traffic would be per day? A. Certainly. Going back to the Opus study, those four buildings and using again the ratios per thousand square feet of gross area would predict a number of trips of about 90 trips per day. The traffic impact study for the Cumberland Logistics Park, which is the Dermody property facility, would suggest a range of trips of about 135 to 180 trips per day. The information that we obtained from two of our 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existing clients of over a million square feet of warehouse distribution facility would suggest trips of about 82 per day. And th9 ITE generation data which is based upon multiple studies would suggest trips at about 126 to 162 per day. So I believe the low range was 82 and the high end was about 180. And again it has to be understood that the ordinance, the 200 is an average number. Certainly our data suggests it would be less than that. Q. Have you heard the testimony and seen the plans that show there will be I believe approximately 170 loading spaces capable of being utilized on this building assuming that all of them are constructed in accordance with these plans to have a loading space with a door in each of those locations. Have you heard that testimony? A. Yes, I have. Q. Does that influence your conclusions in any way? A. It doesn't really. Our experience with warehouse distribution facilities is that they're planned for either single or multiple tenants in those buildings. And there is a possibility that -- or they're planned for a number of possible door locations. Some tenants may use a fraction of those doors, some tenants may use all of those doors. But it's very likely that all of those doors would not be used by the occupants of that building. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Are you saying that the actual number of doors is not the determining factor in the tractor-trailer trip generation? ~ A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Would you say that the buildings that were used in your studies generally had similar door layouts? Yes. At least in enough cases to be statistically important? A. Yes. The buildings are planned for doors every 12 and a half feet or every 12 feet, whatever it may be. In all likelihood, they're not necessarily used on a regular basis by the applicant. Many of them are for used trailer storage, many of them are used for trucks at locations waiting to either receive products or unload products. Q. Calling your attention now to Section 255-177(D), those are general special exceptions standards. Do you have a copy? I have one here. Paragraph four under (D). I'm looking at the wrong -- three under (D) pertains to traffic, and it says that the facility shall not result in or significantly add to a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. Let's take the first one. Is there a serious traffic hazard based on 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conventional traffic design engineering standards in the vicinity of the subject property? A. We.'re aware of none. Q. Have you done any particular inquires to come to that conclusion? A. We have. We have reviewed accident data at several intersections in that area. That information does not necessarily suggest that there's a trend or hazardous condition. We've also looked at the site relative to access to Route 11 in terms of site distance. There seems to be adequate site distance to get traffic in and out of that facility. So we don't believe there's any serious traffic hazards that presently exist at that location. Q. There's also a statement in paragraph three regarding serious traffic congestion. Can you describe how a traffic engineer determines whether or not serious traffic congestion exists? A. Typically traffic congestion is really looked at in terms of the level of service. Level of service really speaks to how efficient or how congested an intersection may be, what type of delays result as a matter of traffic moving through those intersections. We've looked at a couple of intersections in the vicinity of the project, most notably Route 11 and 456 which is Allen Road. 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Why is that road important to look at, that intersection I mean? A. I think that's the major intersection that's closest to the site, and it's also the likely path of any trucks that are leaving this facility and heading towards interstate 81 which is the main corridor of distribution. Q. What were your findings in regards to that intersection? A. We looked at one of the prior traffic studies that I referenced before which used 1999 data, and we projected that through to 2002 in terms of volumes. We also superimposed on those locations improvements that Exel would be making as part of their project, signalization, additional lanes, so on and so forth, and found that those intersections presently or in 2002 scenario operate at acceptable levels of service; that many of them were I think level of service C which is certainly acceptable for signalized intersections. I believe we also looked at Shearer Lane or Drive, that was operating at a higher level of service than C. Q. Better level of service? A. Better level of service, yes. And we also looked at Industrial Drive which I believe was operating at a level of service A. So presently in terms of the metric, if you will, to gauge traffic congestion, that's really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what we looked at in terms of is there failing conditions out there now, and our ~nalysis indicates that they are not. Q. In other words, while there may be congestion at times, your study indicates based on conventional standards there's no serious traffic congestion? A. Correct. Q. I guess it would be fair to say just basic grammar it's not possible to significantly add to serious traffic hazards or serious traffic congestion, it can be either of those conditions exist now? A. That's correct. Q. There's also a requirement that the proposed facility not result in a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion. Have you had the opportunity to consider that? A. Yes, we have. We've done some trip generation from this facility assuming approximately 175 employees, looked at those, that traffic being superimposed over those intersections. Amd preliminarily we see no significant, again, hazard or pedestrian created by that. The other element that has to be understood is that as part of a land development process for this project, we also have to apply to PennDOT for a highway occupancy permit for access to Route 11. And part of that 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 occupancy permit will be a detailed traffic study that not only looks at the present year but also a design year that's typically projected out for ten years. And if there is any increase in delay or decrease in level of service, it would be the responsibility of the permittee to mitigate that in terms of the traffic impact study. So there's another measure that can be looked at in terms of serious traffic congestion. If there were some increase or some problem at one of those intersections, it would be the applicant's responsibility to fix that. Q. You mentioned the Exel project, what is that? A. Exel project is a warehouse distribution project that I believe was approved in 1999 or 2000 by the borough as a planned industrial development for approximately 1.5 million square feet warehouse distribution facility. It's presently under construction. It's located very close to this project if not adjacent to it. It's at the intersection of Route 11 and 465. Q. Are they required to do certain transportation improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and 465, for example? A. They were, they were. I believe they're proposing or they're required to install approximately a million dollars worth of improvements. They're required to 91 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make improvements of the ramps to 81, to the intersection of 465 and Route 11, and also the signalization of a new driveway off.of 465, and also where that driveway or roadway ties into Route 11 and Shearer Drive. Q. What effect will that have on the current traffic conditions? A. Again it's like any other development project where this project needed to project traffic to analyze what the impacts are, to mitigate those impacts so that was the nature of those improvements to offset any of the impacts that were created by them. Q. So can you conclude whether or not the proposed facility will result in a serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion? A. It would be my opinion that it would not. Q. Is it possible that the traffic from this proposed facility would impact on the immediately abutting residential neighbors? A. No. Q. And why's that? A. The plan as proposed and described earlier is proposing a driveway location which is approximately 1,000 or 1,200 feet away from the residential property. So the truck access to Route 11 is really nowhere near that residential area. In all likelihood, the majority of the 92 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 truck traffic from this site will be headed towards Interstate 81. $o any impact to that residential neighborhood..will be minimal. Q. Trucks will likely be headed away from the residential area. A. Yes. Q. And away from the downtown borough area? A. Yes. Q. Will the street access, in your opinion, create significant traffic hazards or any other danger to public safety when it is installed? A. No. Q. And how can you be sure of that? A. Again this is proposing access to a street roadway. The traffic studies will need to be conducted in order to get the permits from PennDOT. And also the traffic study would need to be reviewed by the borough as part of the land development approval process. So that level of analysis of study and design would require that not have a significant impact. Q. Has this plan maximized the use of interior streets and minimized the accesses onto existing public streets? A. Q. Yes. And is that by simply having one access proposed 93 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the present time? A. There is full circulation around the building. There is only one access proposed to Route 11. Q. And is there any access to anything other than arterial streets? A. No. MR. ASIMOS: Pardon me just a moment. (Discussion held off the record.) MR. ASIMOS: I have no more direct questions for Mr. Snyder. MR. SIMONS: Does the board have any questions of the applicant? MR. BERGSTEN: I do. EXAMINATION BY MR. BERGSTEN: Q. Mr. Snyder, you said the traffic impact study was conducted in 1999, that you were referring to? A. The counts were taken. Q. The counts were taken. A. The date of the study, and I think this is the most recent study, is April 14th, 2000. The counts were taken in '99. Q. And you said that they're acceptable levels of service C or above which does fit the criteria for an acceptable level of service under the highway capacity 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 manual? A. Q. Yes. Is that an a.m. or p.m. level of service C? A. Well, they varied. Q. But they were all acceptable? A. They were all acceptable, yes. Q. A~d that's an overall level of service, not a level of service by movement? A. Correct. Q. Were there any failing movements? A. Not to my recollection there were not. Q. Or unacceptable movements -- A. No. Q. -- of level of service D, E or F which would be characterized as unacceptable by the highway capacity manual? A. this file. Q. A. If you bear with me, I think I may have them in Okay. Route 11 and Shearer Drive, they were all A's, B's or C's with an overall of A in the a.m. peak hour. P.m. peak hour overall level of service B: Two A's, two C's. Route 11 and 465: Three C's and a B with an overall of a C, that's the p.m. hour. Route 11, 465 in the a.m. peak hour: Three C's and a D with an overall of a C. And 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Route 11, 465 a.m. peak hour: Ail C's with an overall of a C. ~d Industrial Drive was much better. I think that was in the A-B classification. Q. Actually my concern was Allen Road, Route 11. A. D~nd we believe also with the superimposed traffic that with timing and so forth, those existing levels of service can certainly be met. Q. So when you projected the volumes from -- you take the 1999 count, you multiply them by a growth factor percent and you come up with the 2002 volumes, that's what your analysis is based upon whether it would be acceptable. But there's no current future build analysis, for example? A. Correct. Q. In what year would this facility be built? A. Correct. We took the 1999 counts, we grew them at 2.2 or 2.5 percent for three years, ran the analysis; and then simply looked at this facility and said what would be generated in terms of peak hour traffic coming from it. And we were in the 90 to 104, I believe, range and then looked at taking that traffic and comparing it to the existing base level traffic volumes. We looked at that as a percentage of increase, found that it was in the single percentages. I think it was 6 to 9 percent increase area. And we also looked at what, again conservatively 96 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 because all the traffic, would go to those intersections, and then looked at what the impact of that number of trips would be on those intersections, and found that level of service was acceptable. Q. Okay. A. The brief analysis. Q. So what year was that analysis performed for? A. 2002. Q. How long would it take to construct this development? What year would that facility actually be open and running? A. Again the assumption is that with this approval you would move quickly in to land development approvals. Once the land development plan was approved and all the requisite permits were obtained, construction would start. There's assumptions there that the tenants are in place and so forth. But I suspect that 2003 may be a realistic date for that facility to come on line. If for some reason that was delayed, of course that would have to be reflected in not only the design year but also -- not only the base year but also the horizon year, the opening year plus ten years. So that could vary somewhat. And we would have to take that into consideration. In all likelihood, we're going to recount them because when you go to PennDOT, those 1999 numbers are 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 too old. So, again, we're not to the point of a detailed traffic impact study. But we're looking at existing data projections from that and indications of what our development is going to generate and what the relative impact is going to be solely to answer the question: Is it going to have a substantial impact on hazard or congestion. A_nd that's the purpose of the analysis. Q. By chance did you run a calculation to determine using those same growth rates in what year that intersection would fail? A. We did not, no. Q. My question is with regards to the circulation, on-site circulation. A. Um-hum. Q. If I'm looking at this correctly it looks like there's no full circulation connecting pattern; in other words, you can't go either clockwise or counterclockwise around the entire facility. A. Typically when traffic at a facility of this nature, if traffic were to come in the entrance and let's say go to the back of the building, those trucks would back into spaces against the building. And those truck ports would be big enough to accommodate turning of that vehicle to get back out the same way they came in. They came in 98 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the front, they would simply repeat the same movement. So there's enough room for circulation of those trucks without the need to go the whole way around the building. That would require putting an access road or ring road over towards the residential side. Q. I have seen other developments that do not have an access road or ring road around the entire facility, that they have some type of brick paver or something that could be easily driven on by a fire truck in the event of an emergency. And I just wanted to point out that this does not exist on this plan. A. Again in all likelihood, the level of the plan that you have before you is not a land development or a construction document, And that type of thinking normally does go into that level of design. And I've seen that o before too, and that's typical to at lease provide circulation for emergency vehicles around the building, fire protection, so on and so forth. Q. By judging from this plan if the building is kept the same size, it doesn't look like there really would be any room to install those brick pavers for emergency use. A. I can't speak to the details of that. Q. I guess I am concerned because what if there is a problem, say, in the southeast corner of the building. 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And at the same time there's a problem there, this one and only access road happens to be blocked. That would cause a very seriousproblem in my opinion. A. And that's a common argument that we hear in terms of reviewers when you have these simultaneous catastrophes, if you will, what if this happens, that happens. Although that's somewhat unlikely, you raise a good point that again in the final versions of this plan if there's some way for that traffic to get through, even a narrow passage, that's something that can be considered. I think the plan as it's laid out presently meets the ordinance in terms of that situation. It's something to be considered. MR. ASIMOS: Is it feasible to find a location for an emergency exit or emergency entrance in the case of fire vehicles or an~bulances? THE WITNESS: MR. BERGSTEN: BY MS. RIGLER: I would think so, yes. I'll let somebody else. EX3%MINATION Oo tractor-trailer trips repeatedly. tractor-trailer trip? trip? Mr. Snyder, you've used the expression How do you define A. Focusing on the term tractor-trailer or the term 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Trip. said that -- A. Q. As I understand the ordinance, you've The ordinance defines -- -- you can't have more than 200 tractor-trailer trips. A. Q. A. And how do you define a tractor-trailer trip? I think the ordinance defines the trip for you. No, it doesn't. How do you define it? Well, the trip is one movement into the site. That would be a trip. Q. So if I lived next door, and a truck goes by and goes onto the site, unloads and comes back out, is that one trip or two? A. That's two. Q. That's two. Even though it's the same truck? A. Correct. Q. Thank you. And with regard to I think you've said if, in fact, there are 200 or more tractor-trailer trips a day at this site, you would not be complying with the ordinance. How would you suggest somebody go about monitoring whether, in fact, there are 200 or more tractor-trailer trips a day? A. Well, I think of course endorsements, like any other zoning ordinance, is the responsibility of the borough. Q. So the borough should what, station its zoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 officer out there and count? ae NO, no. MR. SIMONS: THE WITNESS: There's things that cross the road. If there were a problem, it would be the responsibility of the borough to investigate that and monitor that. The applicant or the occupant of this building is responsible to comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance just as they're to comply with the use or building height or coverage or setbacks of that nature. And if there were some violation per se, then the borough has the full ability to enforce the ordinances and all of the provisions that go with that. So in the event that there was a problem or perceived problem, the traffic could simply be counted. And if there was a pattern or an occurrence a number of trips were exceeding 200, then that would be a violation of the ordinance. BY MS. RIGLER: Q. How much does such a routine traffic count cost? A. I don't have a feel for the cost of that. Q. Directing your attention to your letter to Mr. Womack of March 28th on the second page, and your reference to Opus East facilities and your chart at the bottom. A. Yes. Q. A/nong the tenants at one of these facilities is 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dominos? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Um-hum. This is a warehouse operation? Yes. What does Dominos do at this warehouse? I believe that's Dominos as in Dominos Pizza. That's what I assumed. Stores a variety of their products in the warehouse space. Q. And it's storage? A. Boxes of sauces, whatever, warehouse. Warehousing distribution from that point they distribute to a variety of locations. Q. And what is B_MS? A. I'm not familiar with what AMS is. That is the name of the tenant. Q. And do you know who any of these other tenants are? A. I do not. MR. BERGSTEN: I think I actually have a question for Ken. If this facility were to be fully occupied, and if someone went out and conducted traffic counts, and if that number of vehicles traversing in and out of the driveway exceeded 200 or more trips on several occasions 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and it was-concluded that they're in violation of the code, what type of endorsement or what could result? MR. WOMACK: The ordinance allows send an enforcement notice which would be identified to the landowner, the address, the violation, provision of the ordinance being violated. Our ordinance allows seven days for appeal. If it were appealed, I think the law allows operation to continue pending the outcome of the appeal. knd they would be in here talking to you about whether or not it was 200 tractor-trailer trips a day. MS. RIGLER: But assuming we found that there were more than 200, what happens then? MR. WOMACK: Then they would have to cease the operation or bring it into compliance somehow. I don't know how they'd work that out. MR. ASIMOS: MR. WOMACK: guilty, yes, sir. MR. SIMONS: Or possibly pay a fine. There are provisions if found I would think you could probably lay those things across the road that when you go across them, you see them everywhere, that would be a counter. you thought that there was -- if somebody violated it. That's easy enough. THE WITNESS: Or physically stand there and If 104 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 count one, two, three. MR. BENJAMIN: facility. THE WITNESS: There are also logs in the Exactly. Most of these -- a very good point. Most of these warehouse distribution facilities have a dispatcher who know how many trucks come and go very precisely each and every day. MR. SIMONS: Do you have another question, Mr. Bergsten? MR. BERGSTEN: So would there be any way of obtaining that information so you would know how many trucks are going in and out of the facility? THE WITNESS: You mean once it's occupied? MR. BERGSTEN: Right. THE WITNESS: I don't know the answer to that. MR. ASIMOS: I would think the only way that you could possibly get it would be to subpoena it in the course of a hearing regarding the existence or lack of existence in violation. BY MS. RIGLER: Q. Let me go back to March 28. trips here, is that based on logs? A. Q. A. These numbers on Those are based on physical counts. Somebody standing there? Yes. 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. And let me -- you were referring to which page? It's on several pages. Some of it was physically counted. The information on page four was based upon dispatch information. Q. Four is dispatch, warehouse A and warehouse B? A. Yes, precisely how many trucks arrive and precisely how many leave that facility every day, even shift specific. MR. SIMONS: MR. TILEY: MR. SIMONS: of the applicant? Mr. Tiley. I have no questions. Any other questions from the board applicant? the audience? Mr. Womack, do you have any questions of the MR. WOM_ACK: MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. BY LINDSEY BAILES: No questions. Is there any questions only from EX/tMINATION Q. In reference to the traffic studies, was any of them done during time frames when Route 81 was closed due to accidents which overflows Carlisle with trucks? A. Not to my knowledge, no. 106 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Second one you referred to all the trucks or most of the trucks on 81. A. Y~s. Q. There are numerous trucks from buildings there now, and I live in the neighborhood so I know, that go directly through Carlisle to reach the turnpike. Instead of taking 81 around, they go through Carlisle. How many of your trucks are going to do that? A. Well, I can't give you a specific number, but I can suggest that just by location our assumption is that most of that truck traffic will move in a westerly direction towards 81. And in terms of looking at the numbers of trips to those intersections, we assume that it will all go there. If some go towards the borough, that would reduce the amount of traffic at some of those intersections, but we made the assumption that all of it would go there just for purposes of the exercise. I think in terms of trucks, you'll find that most of the trucks would head westerly on Route 11 to 465 and to interstate 81. case as from buildings out there. A. I agree. Q. That some go through. You know and I know that that's not always the My other point is the 107 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lady was talking about how we enforce this and what happens, and one said the borough police. RQute 11 is a US state road. Does the borough police have authority on that road or is it the state police we have to refer to? Ao I think the question was relative to the conformance to the use, not to the access to the state highway. But I would defer to Ken. MR. WOM3tCK: I was talking about enforcement from the standpoint of the 200 tractor-trailer trips per day, not police enforcements. LINDSEY BAILES: They got to get in there, so someone's got to enforce them. Is it going to be the borough police or is it going to be the state police that's going to enforce that? THE WITNESS: I think there's really two issues. One is the number of tractor-trailer trips per day, that would be the borough enforcement, a zoning issue. If there were a vehicle code issue, that would be a police issue. But I think most of the discussion was focused around the nurmber of tractor-traile~ trips per day which is the borough zoning ordinance enforcement issue. LINDSEY BAILES: Thank you. BOB WEIMER: Bob Weimer, Hemlock Avenue. EXAMINATION 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BY BOB WEIMER: Q. I think you answered this, but I think I missed it. In your..description of the Exel expansion, did you say that they would be, for lack of a better term, improving the current intersection at 465 and 117 A. Yes, they are. Q. Thank you. Taking your numbers of, I believe your worst case was 180 and your best case was about 82 truck trips a day. A. Yes. Q. Would I be correct in assuming then that we can expect one truck trip about every ten minutes. Is that a correct calculation or did I miss something? A. No. I think that those trucks would be distributed over the course of a day. So you would have to do the math for me. Q. That's kind of what I did. Do I have the concept of a truck trip correct so that we'd be looking at about six per hour? A. I think that's correct, yes. Q. Or about one every ten minutes? A. Could very well be either entering or exiting the site, yes. And let me just further clarify that. That would be depending upon the specific tenants that could be 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in that facility, that could be distributed over a day or some of that could be distributed over one shift. So there will be some~variation that there could be more than -- Q. But I guess what I'm saying is, I just did a mathematical average, and that's a fair number? ao I think so. BOB WEIMER: BILL EVERETT: BY BILL EVERETT: Thank you. Bill Everett. EXAMINATION Q. Your traffic survey had to do with 11 and Allen Road or 465? A. Yes. Q. Did you look at 465 at 81, exit 127 A. We did not, no. Q. You did not. Are you aware of any exit 12 survey that's going on right now with traffic problems there? A. Yes, I am. Q. How can you look at Allen Road and 11 and not look at exit 127 A. The purpose of the study or the analysis was not to go to the level of a full detail traffic impact study. To do that is something that we would address as part of land development activities. And as part of land 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 development we would look at multiple intersections, driveways, nearby industrial -- Shearer, 465, the ramps at 81; all of that has to be analyzed in terms of what the impacts would be. For purposes of this study we just picked the two closest intersections for representative purposes and said if the traffic, knowing that all of the trips have to pass through those two intersections just to give some relative impact at those locations. It wasn't intend to be an exhaustive study of all of the intersections under a normal impact study. Q. But you did say that you assumed all the traffic would be going to 1-81, exit 127 A. We assumed that all of the traffic would pass through the Shearer intersection and the 465, Route 11 intersection. Of course the further out you get from a site, the more the traffic is dispersed. So there's a possibility that again some of that traffic, some of that peak hour traffic would go right out of our site to the borough. People coming to work and leaving would go right. We assumed that it go would left. Once it got to Route 11, 465, there's a possibility that some of those cars would go straight, some would make a right turn, some would make a left turn, so on and so forth so that the 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number of those trips is diminished as you get further out. For purposes of this exercise at those two intersections, assumed that all the traffic would pass through them. Q. But you did not look at exit 127 A. Correct. Exit 12 is currently being studied in detail again at Gannet Flemming, the engineering firm. Gannet Flemming has been retained to do a preliminary design study for that location. So there are planned improvements at some point in time in that whole corridor. EXAMINATION BY MR. SIMONS: Q. You indicated earlier that Exel was spending a million dollars for off-site improvements. Was that attributed to exit 127 A. Now I use that as a round number. I'm not sure. Q. I'm just saying to answer his concern, was that attributed to exit 127 A. There were several improvements that I'm aware of. Signalization of the ramp at exit 12 was part of their requirement. There was -- Q. Both? A. Both north and southbound. There's a proposed traffic signal at their entrance off Route 11. There's also a proposed traffic signal off of Route 465. And I 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think they're adding a lane at the main intersection. Q. I think that's what Mr. Everett was concerned about. A. So there's numerous amounts of improvements they're responsible for. MS. RIGT~R: MR. SIMONS: BY MS. RIGLER: Mr. Simons. Go right ahead. EXAMINATION Q. Mr. Snyder, when GS operated this site as a manufacturing facility, do you know how many employees there were? A. I don't know that specific. I've heard some numbers thrown around, but I can't say how many employees were there. Q. Do you know how much traffic may have been generated when GS operated this as a manufacturing facility? A. Q. as a manufacturing facility was the same or near where the proposed ingress or egress is? A. I'm familiar with the existing site line plan. I think it's in close proximity to the proposed driveway. MS. RIGLER: Thank you. NO. Do you know whether the ingress and egress to GS 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMONS: MR. TILEY: Rigler's question. BY MR. TILEY: Mr. Tiley. If I may just follow up on Member EXAMINATION Q. If you were estimating using your manuals, the traffic from the GS facility in existence, would it be greater, the same, or less than a warehouse distribution facility that you have estimated? A. I can't answer that because I didn't do the study of GS Electric. Q. Do you have a manual that shows per square foot of manufacturing facility what the projected traffic would be? A. Yes. If you know square footage of the building, you could go to the tables. More importantly, if you knew the number of employees and so forth, you could make a prediction that way. So the study could be done. Q. Do you have that manual with you? A. I do not, no. MR. SIMONS: I don't think we have any more questions for your witness. MR. ASIMOS: I have no more. STEVE WILLHIDE: I have a question. My name is Steve Willhide. I live at 1526 Terrace Avenue. 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY STEVE WILLHIDE: Q. Sir, did you take into consideration that they're proposing to build or buy more warehouses on the Newvilte Road for your traffic study? A. Are you talking about Route 6417 Q. Yes. A. The Dermody project? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. So you really have no idea how much truck traffic is going to be created, correct? A. The way the traffic impact studies are conducted formerly is that you take into consideration existing traffic, growth rates from those existing traffic volumes. You also take into consideration the existing approved development such as the Exel facility and other types of warehouse distribution centers that may be approved quote/unquote real projects. The Dermody project is not approved at this point. They do not have PennDOT occupancy permits. They're still in the design study phase. Assuming that that project would be approved at some point in time prior to a detailed study, those volumes would have to be taken into consideration as well as any improvements that they 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would make to the roadway system. Q. That's going to be another question, how are they going to improve that road there on 465 with all those homes there? That's another question later on. A. That would be for Dermody to answer to PennDOT. Q. They're also proposing, unless it's changed, on the Bear farm (phonetic) they're going to build another warehouse. A. I'm familiar with that. And similar type of logic would apply if the project is not approved, it doesn't exist; if it is approved, then that traffic and the corresponding improvements would be factored into the impact study for any subsequent projects. MR. ASIMOS: Do your background traffic increases, that you included in your study, take into account growth of a natural nature, though, in the vicinity around an intersection? THE WITNESS: It does. It takes into consideration normal incidental background growth. It doesn't take into consideration large projects. BY STEVE WILLHIDE: Q. So you also took into consideration the traffic that comes from Shippensburg, Newville, all the regular traffic, correct? A. Whatever passes through those intersections when 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they're counted are the volumes that are used. And they're studied over the course of a day so that the peak volumes can be identified both in the a.m. and p.m. And they're good for a snapshot in time. Like I referenced before, they were done in 1999. Typically what was done is that those volumes would be taken and then you would apply a growth factor that PennDOT would recommend because they study traffic volumes over the course of time. And those growth rates would be applied to those volumes to get current day volumes. Q. Another question is: How can you propose or estimate 200 truck trips a day when you don't even have an individual going in there to rent it? That might create more than 200 truck trips. A. Or less. Typically what is done is when a project of this nature is proposed, many times when the engineering is done, the tenants aren't in place. Whether it's going through land development approvals and estimating water usage and sewer usage and things of that nature, it's based upon empirical, typical data that facilities of this nature generate. Just like I've demonstrated in the study, if you look at multiple studies of warehouse distribution facilities, you know how many employees they typically have 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the average. You know how many tractor-trailer trips they generate, how much car traffic is generated and other types of data, and that's applied to the project. You don't necessarily have to have a tenant in place when you go to the approval processes. MR. SIMONS: I don't think we have any more questions of your witness. What I'd like to do, Counsellor, is have the audience have the opportunity to make any statements. And then I will provide you the opportunity to have a closing statement, if that's acceptable to you. (Witness excused.) MS. RIGLER: Mr. Simons, may I ask Mr. Asimos one more question, if that's appropriate? I think when we began I asked you a question about the burden of persuasion. ~und I think -- correct me if I'm wrong. I think you said, and maybe my question wasn't particularly artfully phrased. But from your perspective with regard to the objective factors for a special exception, you and your client, the applicant, bear the burden of persuading us that you satisfy them? MR. ASIMOS: Yes. MS. RIGLER: With regard to the subjective factors on our ordinance, and to me the most obvious one is -- but there are others of course -- whether in fact 118 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your proposal would significantly adversely affect a residential neighborhood, that from your perspective the protestants bear the burden of persuasion on that issue. MR. ASIMOS: Yes. MS. RIGLER: Do you have any particular legal authority that you can cite for us that would support your assertion that the protestants do bear the persuasion? MR. ASIMOS: Yes. One of the exhibits that I was going to hand to the board when I closed was a memorandum of law which I prepared which has several of the pertinent cases, really the case on this was Judge Craig's opinion in Greg which really describes for the first time how to logically break down, how to proceed through a special exception and the basic standards for that which were cited. More or less I think as I answered your question, there have been subsequent cases also dealing with the level of proof involved in a very recent one called Brickstone involving the traffic implications involved with a hotel proposal and similar situation that would be very similar I think to what we have here in terms of balance of the evidence and the nature of the opposition and the nature of the proof that was presented. So I'm happy to provide that. In fact, I can give you these other exhibits if you like or if you can -- 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. RIGLER: If I might ask one more question. Then from your perspective you've put on your case. MR. ASIMOS: Yes. MS. RIGLER: As you understand the law in this matter, the burden is now on the protestants to seek to persuade us that you haven't met the objective criteria or that in fact this would significantly adversely affect the residential neighborhood, and they bear the burden of persuading us that it would. Is that an accurate statement or relatively accurate? MR. ASIMOS: Relatively. The one thing that I would add, one, I'm not sure the way you stated the mere fact that there is some impact is not enough. It would have to be an impact that would be greater than that which would normally be associated with the types of use that is proposed, not just the use that's proposed, but greater than what was normally associated with that type of use. In addition to that, the standard that you look at would have to be something stated in the ordinance, not just it impacts me in some way not stated in the ordinance, but it would have to be an impact that was recited as one of the subjective standards. And the last thing is as the cases lay out the evidence presented has to be something authoritative, it can't just be general protestations about traffic or 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whatever. verified. It would have to be something specific and MS. RIGLER: Thank you. MR. BERGSTEN: Along those same lines of the objective criteria, I just want to make sure that we were not presented with a plan or a study with regards to lighting which could be measured in foot candles which I assume would be considered objective criteria. MR. ASIMOS: It would be objective, and it's kind of amazing that it is when you think about it. But what the summary of the testimony would be and the applicant's would be, this is a matter of very much for regulation and land development. I think Mr. Fischbach's testimony was he perceived not only no difficulty of meeting the .2 foot candle limit that the ordinance sets out as well as height limits for the lights, he would propose to exceed that. And he felt that he could certainly on a residential side come down to zero foot candle level and a lighting level that would not be where the luminary itself would not be directly visible; that is to say it would be shielded or cut off, is the word he used, so you wouldn't be able to see the lights even from the side. And of course you can do that with the placement of the lights and you can also do that with the shields on 121 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the lights. And the lighting plan specifically is a rather detailed item and would be something that the applicant would have t~ do at the land development stage, and if approved, would propose to do it. MR. BERGSTEN: I just want to confirm that his intentions would be to do those things, but the board has not been presented with a plan that approves those plans. MR. ASIMOS: That's correct. A~nd I would have suggested that they prepare one if I thought that was a specific criteria for approval. I think that that's a level of detail that really goes beyond zoning and is very appropriate for land development. A condition however regarding compliance with those requirements would be most appropriate for zoning. MR. BERGSTEN: thinking applies to noise. decibels. criteria. And I guess my same line of You can measure noise levels in MR. ASIMOS: Right. MR. BERGSTEN: Which I would consider objective And we've seen no study or no plan in front of us that shows what the noise levels would be, noise contours. I'm not sure exactly how they're presented. Also Mr. Snyder indicated that if this would get approved, some traffic engineer would conduct a traffic impact study that would take counts in the current year and that would 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 look at current approved development projects, and that wo~ld have possibly a no-build and a build comparison to the existing~comparison in some future year; but that that traffic impact study has not been presented here this evening. It's merely Mr. Snyder's professional opinion, which I do respect and I think that he may be correct and assume that there's no significant impact given the information that he currently has. But if he were given other information, i.e., existing traffic counts today and look at the types of improvements that are going to be made in the future as a result of the development and looked at the approved developments and surcharge that adjacent development traffic onto the roadway system, and that that type of study has not been completed. MR. ASIMOS: The ordinance calls for a fuller traffic impact study at the time of land development approval. I'd rather let Mr. Snyder comment on whether he thinks the results of that would yield a different conclusion. Certainly some of the things you mentioned will change with time. So at any point in time there's always a chance there's a study done at a later point in time. We yield a different result based on the project's approved. Perhaps he can answer whether he thinks he has 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 enough information now to come to the conclusions that he came to. I assume he wouldn't have answered questions if he didn't. MR. BERGSTEN: Right. I'm saying PennDOT would require Mr. Snyder to have more information that he's currently presented to the board. MR. ASIMOS: MR. SNYDER: MR. ASIMOS: Would you agree with that? Yes. That's our understanding. And there's no question about that that's a future obligation. Our only position is it won't yield a different result in regards of the impact and use, only in terms of how -- perhaps there's some methods used to mitigate it that would actually practically be implemented as required. I think you also mentioned noise. That's an interesting one. I don't mean to be flippant, but we don't have anything to measure at the moment. So I don't think there's any way to actually measure the impact of this project specifically. However, the zoning ordinance actually has a very specific -- better than really almost any ordinance I've ever seen which usually discusses noise in so vague a way that's not measurable for enforcement purposes. This ordinance actually has specific decibel levels, specific times of day that tie with those, and also 124 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific limited uses that are given exceptions, none of which, by the way, are things that are proposed to be done here; in other words, tractor-trailer back up noises are not excluded from the zoning ordinance noise level limitations. And I suspect that the borough can and probably does, based on my general familiarity with how boroughs operate, enforce noise criteria by decibel level with measuring devices, which are available, and certainly would enforce it. MR. BERGSTEN: I think it would be possible to project an approximate noise level for a given facility of a given size with a given number of tractor-trailer trips. I would imagine some noise engineer out there could come up with a professional estimate of what the noise level would be. MR. ASIMOS: I don't know. I mean, there's a 15 foot earthen berm which is almost three times the height of a person. It's taller than one story of a building, almost two stories of a building. The trees on the top may or may not have a noise impact, but certainly the berm will. So I honestly don't know how you could specifically measure what would actually happen there. I think it's fair to say that whatever happens there of an industrial nature or manufacturing nature or warehouse nature in the I-2 zoning will generate some 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 noise. The berm is an effort -- very extraordinary berm, nine feet taller than what the ordinance requires and really quite.expensive, is a sincere effort to deal with the obvious concerns the neighbors would have. If either the building was put back 200 feet and had no berm or if it only had a six foot berm at 120 feet. And the only thing we can say is the noise is going to be mitigated I think obviously a substantial degree. We don't know how much. MR. BERGSTEN: I guess what I'm getting at is that just as with the traffic projections, we won't know exactly how many trips are going to be there. MA. ASIMOS: No. MR. BERGSTEN: Until the development goes in and you count them. MR. ASIMOS: That's right. MR. BERGSTEN: And I think the same thought process could be applied to noise. And we've been presented with no information to indicate that that noise level will be less than what's required. MR. ASIMOS: Only the belief of the experts that it's possible to comply. But again that's a professional opinion and not a measurement. MR. BERGSTEN: Right. And not objective. And along the same lines of storm water management, we've been presented with no plans or studies 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 showing that ground water would not increase. You can measure ground water in terms of cubic feet per second, and that would be objective criteria. But we've been shown no plans or studies that will indicate that residents will not be further impacted by the development of this property. MR. ASIMOS: Same answer. You'd get actually a lot of answers from Mr. Fischbach regarding the storm water impact and what the proposal is to prevent any impact. A~nd so unless there's some evidence that it's going to create more impact than any other development, then the burden is carried. It is definitely a land development issue to deal with storm water. Storm water management law in Pennsylvania also requires that there be no increase in grade of flow or volume off of one's property on to another property as a result of development. That's a very strict standard. So the mechanisms are in place, but one really can't design those things such as you're talking about presenting, such as you're suggesting are not presented until you actually go to your land development stage. And you don't do that until you have your zoning. MR. BERGSTEN: We've been presented with no numbers, no estimates. MR. ASIMOS: Correct. MR. BERGSTEN: And same thing with odor or air 127 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pollution, there's been no estimates made as to how much additional air pollution is going to be produced by this facility. MR. ASIMOS: MR. BERGSTEN: Correct. Over the air pollution that already exists in that area. MR. ASIMOS: Yes. MR. BERGSTEN: And we've been presented with no objective data with regards to the level of toxins in the soil relating to environmental issues. MR. ASIMOS: That's not a matter for zoning regulation of any kind. And it's definitely a matter for state and federal regulation, but not a subject matter for this board. MR. BERGSTEN: So would you agree that all of these items that I've listed here are essentially objective criteria? MR. ASIMOS: a zoning hearing, no. They are not objective criteria for They are objectively measurable items with the proper technology and proper equipment, but they are to be measured at the proper time and place and not -- they're not criteria for approval of a special exception. MR. BERGSTEN: So how would we as a board be able to determine whether there's significant negative 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impact to the adjacent neighborhood if we have not been presented with this type of objective criteria? MR. ASIMOS: Well, first you look at the specific objective requirements in the ordinance which is why I went through each one very deliberately and had all the questions answered. Then when you get to the more general criteria, what you're talking about, you're looking for an objective answer to a subjective question. And there are two answers to that, depending on which one of those you refer to, noise, storm water, whatever. One is if the protestants do not present objective testimony of an impact greater than what would be associated with this use normally, then the special exception must be approved. The burden is not on the protestant to produce evidence to demonstrate he's met a subjective standard. And furthermore, some of these are not even zoning matters, they're really land development matters, and under the municipalities planning code would be left to resolution by the borough staff, planning commission, borough council before land development was granted. In other words, it's not possible for the zoning hearing board to essentially sort of co-op the whole land development process by demanding production of a wide variety of objective information that's not specifically 129 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 called for in the zoning ordinance. MR. BERGSTEN: I guess I'm just grappling with this objective and subjective because I think often times the subjective is based upon objective or subjective thoughts are based upon objective experiences. MR. ASIMOS: But think about it from the landowner's point of view, which is why the law was created. It's kind of like saying it's not possible to prove a negative. No amount of objective information is going to tell you whether something is subjectively correct or incorrect. MR. BERGSTEN: It's not. MR. ASIMOS: The subjective/objective issue that is regularly raised pertains to the question that's asked in the ordinance, not the answer. That's where you look to see whose burden is it. MR. BERGSTEN: I'm not suggesting that there's a formula for coming up with whether something is going to significantly impact, negatively impact. MR. ASIMOS: That's precisely why you can't put the burden on the landowner because that's basically requiring the land owner to prove something that is an indeterminate standard. Which means basically a landowner will never know whether he's going to get approved. My client is beginning to feel a little bit like 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's the case. That is how it works. MR. BERGSTEN: But we can expect to see proof in terms of the.objective criteria? MR. ASIMOS: Yes. MR. BERGSTEN: And I guess at this point I don't feel like that's been proven to me on those subjective areas. MS. RIGLER: Maybe it would be useful, Mr. Asimos, and maybe if we read your memo, maybe that would save us time. When you use objective criteria, you're really I suspect referring to height and bulk and area and those types of -- could you direct our attention to the specific section of the ordinance that delineates those objective criteria. MR. ASIMOS: The best example I can think of, I'll point out to you here. and subjective criteria. get there. 255-95 has a mix of objective I can give you an example when I MS. RIGLER: And you're saying you bear the burden of persuasion with regard to satisfying those things listed in 255-95? MR. ASIMOS: Not actually all of them because some of them are kind of subjective. For example, there's a mix here. Minimum tract size, objective. Number 4, for example, applicant shall show how the development will be 131 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coordinated with access and utilities. That's kind of a borderline issue. But you can show coordination, but there's nothing that says that is coordinated and this isn't. Open space of landscaping, it's really not a requirement, per se, it's just showing an overall plan. Access to arterial streets, that's a general statement of issues for this zoning hearing board to consider. If you flip back now to the first thing we went through 255-92, area and bulk regulations, minimum tract size, lot area, front building setback, minimum paved setback; every single one of those is an objective criteria. Same thing with the design standards that pertain to the minimum setback of the movement area of the trucks which require 200 feet or can be reduced to 120 feet if a 6 foot berm with a four to one slope is installed. That's an objective criteria. Another criteria we have the burden of proving is that actually a planned industrial development which is a use allowed by special exception which is why we gave testimony on that at the outset. But if you go through and see words that you in your reasonable judgment couldn't say a person could actually measure, an engineer could actually measure, there's a good chance that that's a subjective requirement 132 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 as to which the burden's not on the applicant. Many times I don't even present that evidence, but it's not.our client's burden. But I do feel in the interest of discussion and anticipate peoples questions and criticisms, we answer a lot of them anyway. MR. SIMONS: I can see a lot of these items that Mr. Bergsten mentioned to you throughout the planning process you may very well be subject to, a very detailed analysis for each and every one of those items in order to get a plan approved. MR. ASIMOS: Arguably a plan once approved here as to use could fail land development approval for failure to meet a lighting plan requirement or something, could be turned down by borough council if it fails to meet those requirements. A_nd I think that the board should have a great deal of confidence that the process, assuming approval of special exception, has a long way to go; and that very competent people will be looking at it with a fine-toothed comb on all these other criteria. We haven't gotten to the subdivision land development requirements, which I'm sure 'ou're 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ASIMOS: No, no I consider it subjective. And there's another issue with that as well, and this is in my memo as well. This is one of the two subjects I covered in my memo. The law places a clear distinction between the power of the comprehensive plan in the law and between the ordinance. Comprehensive plan is a planning tool. It's general guidance, and it is what is used to create a good ordinance. And a good ordinance should follow a comprehensive plan. There is a presumption that an ordinance follows a comprehensive plan, and that it is not possible under the case law to turn down a fully ordinance-compliant plan simply because it doesn't conform to the comprehensive plan. The reason for that is because that would elevate the comprehensive plan to the level of an ordinance. But a comprehensive plan isn't an ordinance, not written like an ordinance, not passed in the same way that an ordinance is. And so it's not possible to, by using that as a criteria, effectively turn down a plan for you to raise it to a level of being something that it just simply can't be. So it's on exceedingly weak grounds on which to choose to attack a special exception. MR. SIMONS: Thank you. We'll still let you 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have an opportunity to close. MR. ASIMOS: I won't repeat any of the things I've said because I'd like to go home too. MR. SIMONS: Those of you I'm sure would like to make a statement, you're welcome now. Upon raising your hand, you may make a statement. MS. RIGLER: Mr. Simons, might I ask if they have any witnesses they would like to present or expert testimony, would now be the appropriate time to present that. MR. SIMONS: MR. TILEY: That would be the appropriate time. I think we can consider these statements witnesses and may or may not be experts, but they are witnesses. BILL EVERETT, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY BILL EVERETT: Just for a general statement, and I appreciate the fact that the zoning board is concerned about a lawsuit that you have pending right now. I hear the conversation about objective/subjective. I would ask the zoning board consider the solicitor's opinions. Questions I've heard thus far were of the applicant's opinion. And I'm sure he comes well armed with 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 subjective/objective. Keep in mind that objective can obviously be proven by numbers; subjective by their nature cannot. They are a gut call, and that's what we're going to ask you to do tonight. The applicant comes first with a planned industrial development with possible subdivision of a building. Planned industrial development will not work with only one tenant, we all know that. So there's a very big issue here. We're also aware of the fact that the board is under legal action regarding the decision of the Key Real Estate thing from a month and a half ago. My personal opinion is that was done to intimidate the board. Please don't react to the intimidation. I didn't hear anything different here tonight than what I heard a month and a half ago. And the board chose unanimously a month and a half ago to turn the applicant down. I think they should have the same decision tonight. I base that again upon your own ordinances, 255-177(D)5 to be granted a special exception, and I think you all have read this and are familiar with it, the applicant must meet all six of these requirements. And obviously it does not meet section five. Neighborhood will not significantly, negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This to me will offer us air pollution, light pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, everything out there. So I~ask you not to be intimidated by pending court action, not to be intimidated by applicant's attorney, but to make the same decision you made a month and a half ago. BOB WEIMER, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY BOB WEIMER: Bob Weimer, 1542 Hemlock Avenue. Basically what we have here is an NIMBY. And those of you not familiar with the acronym it's, not in my backyard. But it goes a little bit further than that. A lot of the issues that were brought up tonight when you really take a look at them are superficial, superficial from the standpoint that lighting can be overcome, that noise can be overcome. The one issue that really bothers most of us in this neighborhood is the quality of life that we have come to enjoy living in that neighborhood. And that quality of life is about to be affected. We're being encroached from all sides. Some of it is residential, and that's accepted; in fact, it's welcomed. Others we've kind of had to put up with because we didn't have a whole lot of control over it. But I think the one main key issue here that 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 ~3 ~4 really has most of us concerned and what I'm speaking cf here are those of use who were present back in 1972 is the issue of water. We were all, all of us flooded out in 1972 during Agnes. knd that was described to us at the time as an anomaly, something that was only going to happen once in a lifetime, except today the current water table notwithstanding. You can go to most of the residence on the back street, which is Terrace Avenue, and ask them if it's not an annual anomaly. They're constantly pumping water when we have a normal season. The thing that concerns us more than anything else is what a couple more gallons of water are goino to do to that neighborhood. And it's like my neighbor Lind~ey said, the water didn't come in our basement windows, it came up through the floors. In some cases it cracked floors, broke them right up. That's what concerns us. The one thing that I would ask you as a bmard to consider, is it worth the risk, is it really worth ti ? risk to really inconvenience 70-some families? Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Anyone else in the audience wculd like to make a statement? VIRGINIA WILLHIDE, called as a witness, being 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY VIRGINIA WILLHIDE: Open land in the borough is scarce. And in my opinion the better use of the GS tract could be had by the neighbors and the citizens of Carlisle other than warehouses. Now, I don't want to swear to this, but I want to ask the attorneys on the board if they heard this. I heard this this week, maybe I just misunderstood. Rut the US Supreme Court recently ruled that people have the right to protest if their way of life is altered by certain land developments. Now I heard that on the radio. I don't know if you attorneys know about that or not. Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Thank you. Yes, sir. TODD WEIDNER, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY TODD WEIDNER: 1517 Hemlock Avenue. I'm sure the company can build a building that's going to meet the codes. And I'm also sure the city can enforce its own codes to make sure that they do build a building that meets codes. 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The issue before us tonight is to try to keep the rabbit in the hat before it does negatively affect our own communitz. From what I understand you're asking for a special exception; in other words, to apply new law upon us that will negatively affect our community. We know that it's not going to improve the cormmunity. No one has made any such argument it's going to. we know it's not going to keep it the same, so we do know it's going to negatively impact the community, the question is by how much. We don't know who the buyer for the building's going to be. Amd no matter who the buyer is, that could change hands tomorrow or next week. That buyer could be a manufacturer, and with manufacturing they could have people coming in and around the neighborhood cutting around street lights. It could be 200, 300 people working in a manufacturing facility over time in there and what that impact will have on our neighborhoods. We know that the area's commercially zoned. And with com/nercial zoning I understand that I guess we should be happy you can't build a nuclear power plant or a waste facility in the neighborhood. But there are still real hazards to our neighborhood. And the best example I can give you is a couple years ago a mile from our neighbor, the Giant manufacturing plant, which was just storing green 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beans and bananas over there, had a major leak a half mile away, and our entire neighborhood had to be evacuate. That's over a half mile from us. Now you're talking about a potential manufacturing business that could be maybe 150 feet from someone's back door. People store chemicals or something else that could pose a real health hazard to our families and our children. I don't get any comfort from the fact the things you can't do because of a place the way it's zoned. There are still real hazards that come with manufacturing and even something that's as benign as warehousing 150 from our back door. There's no doubt there's going to be noise in our community. On a cold winter night maybe 25, 50 trucks idling waiting to get into some stall in the middle of the night. And that noise building up we're going to hear it, and I don't care how high you build the wall. But 50 trucks idling on a cold winter night waiting to back in is going to affect our neighborhood negatively. We have other businesses' PA systems. We hear them constantly. There's no guarantee that some other business couldn't put a PA system in there as welt under the current zoning laws that would negatively affect our community. There's going to be truck fumes, we just don't 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know how many trucks fumes. But it could be manufacturing fumes, but we don't know how many manufacturing fumes. That's going~to affect the community and the public park as well. I don't know what one candle light is compared to two candle lights or three candle lights, but any warehouse I've ever seen at night there's a glow coming off it, and we're going to see that glow every night in our neighborhood. And we don't know what the traffic impact's going to be. There's all different types of traffic studies, it's just a matter of to what degree or what way the traffic's going to flow. Could that traffic flow through our neighborhoods when kids are riding the bikes down the streets? I think there will be a real negative impact on the community with this project. I guess if I was going to make an argument for the defense, GSI, I would say that you people built your home in a commercially zoned area. You probably paid less for your homes because you built it in a commercially zoned area. And you're probably going to get what you deserve building in a commercially zoned area. And I can respect the property owner's right to make a profit. And I think us here don't even oppose the fact that some day someone's going to build a building over 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there, but we're just hoping it's not going to be a warehouse or a truck terminal. One man's warehouse is another man's truck terminal. Of course someone's going to build there someday. Let's try to find something that's going to work with our community a little bit better than a warehouse facility. I guess the question I think before you tonight is not to what degree shall we build it or not. It's a matter to what degree are you going to allow this to affect the community. Because we all know there's going to be an impact. Does it meet the threshold enough to prevent it or not. I guess the last thing I would say is since I lived here, the old GSI plant -- driving down the road on the old electric plant, and the one thing I can tell by driving by, I can remember the old company picnics GS Electric used to have. You see the family picnic in front of the building down there. So I guess it used to be a good company. And I hope somewhere they find it in their heart to care a little bit about the community like they did their own employees years ago. Thank you. MS. RIGLER: Mr. Chairman, may I ask this witness a couple of questions? EXAMINATION 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. RIGLER: Q. I'm asking you just because I should have asked them earlier~and I neglected to. A/~d I don't know if you're going to be the last witness or not. But we've heard some testimony earlier this evening that there are approximately 70 families that live in Valley Meadows? A. I assume so. I never counted them. Q. Do you know how many people? When you say 70 families, that means about 70 houses? A. I assume so. I know there's a lot of children in the neighbor. It's certainly not an old con~nunity with an older retirement community because I see three or four bus runs at different times at different times during the day going through the neighborhood. And I know there's a tremendous amount of children in the community. Q. But you don't know the number of people? A. I couldn't tell you the consensus of how many have families, but I would say about probably over 50 percent of the families have children. Q. And is there also a church in this neighborhood? A. Yes, there is. Q. So it's homes and a church? A. Right. Q. I heard some testimony earlier this evening 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about softball fields operated by Dickinson College. there not also a park? Ao summer. Q. A. Is Yes. It's called Valley Meadows Park? And the city ran a playground up until this past Borough of Carlisle facility? Borough facility MS. RIGLER: Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. LINDSEY BAILES, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY LINDSEY BAILES: Just north of us we have a highway called miracle mile which belongs to I think Middlesex Township. So the Borough of Carlisle does not have to worry about it. You're going to have one, ladies and gentlemen. It's going to be just south, Ritner Highway, exit 12, 81. Valley Meadows development is going to be right in the middle of it. It's going to be another miracle mile. That is a prediction, and that is a true statement. Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Are there any other statements? 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JIM CANE, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY JIM CANE: My name is Jim Cane. I live at 1521 Terrace Avenue. Across the Ritner Highway to the north there's a large distribution complex going all the way to the Allen Road. Right now there is under construction by Exel to the west of us a large distribution center complex which is going to be constructed now and is in the process of being constructed now. Exel also has the option and a plan to and the approval to build an even bigger distribution center to the south of us in the Royer tract. That means that the residents of Valley Meadows are going to be completely surrounded by truck distribution centers. I would ask the members of the board to put yourselves in the position of the residents of Valley Meadows. How would you like to be surrounded by truck distribution centers. Obviously you would not. And I think the primary concern of this board should be to protect the interest of the residents of the borough. And the quality of life is of utmost importance. And there's no question from what you've heard tonight that this will have an adverse affect on the quality of life of 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the residents of the borough. So I ask that you consider this and consider the interests of~the residents when you make your decision. Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Anyone else? GREG WELLS, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY GREG WELLS: Greg Wells, 1516 Terrace Avenue. know the attorney here has asked us to present expert testimony that would persuade you to go with their argument. And my opinion is we've got expert residents. We know what it's like to live in a residence and we know when something adversely affects us. I'm not a traffic study expert, but I know heavy traffic when I see it, and I drive in it every day. I know what's happened to exit 12 over the last ten years because I've seen warehouses built in that general facility, and now they all utilize and bunch up at that exit 12 has now made it almost impossible for four-wheel vehicles and people that are commuting to and from work to use it in a safe manner. I'm not an expert in noise, but I know heavy noise when I hear it, and I hear it nightly because of all 147 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 additional traffic and construction going on in the area now. So I ask you to consider us as experts as being a resident and~a taxpayer and consider that in your persuasion and argument. Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. STEVE WILLHIDE, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONY STEVE WILLHIDE: 1526 Terrace Avenue. I've heard a lot of testimony tonight, pros and cons; good points, bad points, a lot from the residents. I feel again I'm going to reemphasize a lot of things that have been said. And I really have nothing more to add but to say what they said, quality of life issue. Whoever builds another warehouse, they're going to build their warehouse and they're going to go. But us as residents are going to have to put up with the stuff, again the pollution, name all of them. We're going to have to deal with the traffic. Our quality of life will go down greatly. The question I ask you people would you like it in your backyard? Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Anyone else? 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 close. Counsellor, we'll give you the opportunity to (Applicant's Exhibit Nos. 9 and 10 were marked.) MR. ASIMOS: Thank you. I have two exhibits here, one is the memorandum which I spoke of earlier A-10, and another called A-9 which is a document called stipulation and agreement. It's between the borough and the applicant. I'd like to recount for the board a brief chronology of where this property has been since GS Electric or formerly called General Signal Corporation, SPX corporation, made its decision to no longer manufacture this property. That decision was made publicly about two years -- well, it was two years next week. Within about a month of that time interested buyers began to approach the borough. A~nd by August a contract was signed to sell that property, a company by the name of Higgins. By Decen~ber that contract had been terminated in large part because the borough imposed moratorium on development in the industrial district. Subsequently moratoriums were held to be illegal in Pennsylvania, and frankly they always were, it just took a court to make it formal. And again the development process was attempted. Another company by the name of Keystone signed a contract for sale. Again, in large part due to the difficulty of 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 securing any clear commitment as to what could be done on this property, that contract was lost. A.third company came before the board about a month ago and was turned down by this board for approval to develop a warehouse and distribution facility on this property. It's been two years. It's a fact that it's been two years since my client has been attempting to market this property. I will tell you that the price has gone down substantially since that time in large part due to the difficulty of finding out what can get approved on this property. Now, we do have the right to protest, but we also have rules. And the rules pertaining to zoning give to a landowner a right to know what a landowner can do on a property so that a landowner can sell his property. If he can't get approval to do something, you can't sell a property. That's a fact. If you can't sell a property, you're being deprived of your property rights. Two years GS Electric has been involved in this process without results. Now, how is it that this company and other landowners get their rights? You should be able to look at an ordinance and figure out what they can do. And in fact you can. This property is zoned I-2. It's been zoned I-2 for a long time, a very long time. And in I-2 there's a 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 list of uses that are permitted, none of which will fail to change the quality of life of the residents. They are entitled to, and we can indeed agree that they may well perceive there to be a change in their enjoyment of their properties as a result of the use of this property. That is a perception that they're entitled to. And there's no way you can tell a person that they're wrong because they are entitled to their opinion. The difficulty is when you as a result of that tell the guy next door he can't do anything with his property. The broker on this property has been involved from the very beginning. He has had no expressions of interest to buy this property, of any offers that were going to use the property except for warehouse. There isn't a market for the other uses that are permitted in this ordinance; and even if they are, there would be people saying that the transition of this property from a farm field, which effectively it is now, to a commercial or industrial or manufacturing warehouse -- go down the list -- that's permitted in the borough zoning ordinance would not change the quality of life as they perceive it. They're entitled to that perception. The way the procedure works, where democracy comes in is where borough council passes the ordinance. They made this an industrial district. They created special exceptions. 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They listed the uses. These are permitted uses. Special exceptions, PID, is a permitted use if you can meet the objective criteria. And the list of uses are all permitted use. Frankly, my client has had two years of a complete inability to market his property because of resistance by the borough to doing what is one of the listed uses. ~und you can imagine this is a matter of very grave concern, I'm talking a seven figure concern here. This is a big issue. One of the residents made I thought a very eloquent statement. One made a particularly eloquent statement, she said wouldn't it be nice if we could find something that would make both parties happy. Absolutely it would be. To my knowledge the only thing that can make GS Electric happy is the ability to sell their property. And they have a right to sell their property. But they can't sell it if the borough continues to turn down the uses that they're entitled to. So they're not going to be happy. Is there a way to make both sides happy. I don't know. The only process that's available is to go through the hearing process, propose a permitted use, demonstrate compliance and see where you go. You already know where you've gone in the last case. We've already lost two buyers over the last two years. Patience is right 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- and I think you can understand that, I'm sure that you can understand that. Is there another use that's possible. I don't know. We haven't found it. We've tried for two years. This is a permitted use. Another resident made a statement that the primary purpose of this board is to protect the residents. Certainly sounds nice, but it's not true. The protection of the residents is in the ordinance. Borough council passes the ordinances. They made an I-2. ?hey listed the uses. That's where the protection is as are the land development regulations to protect against storm water runoff, the parking requirements to protect against problems associated with parking on streets; and the PennDOT highway occupancy permit process to make sure the accesses are safe. All those processes are in place. Pennsylvania is about the most regulated state when it comes to land development of the 50 states. There's hardly a chance that any serious public impact is going to happen when this process is done. The only impact so far is that this is still a farm field and GS Electric can't sell it, And that really has to come to an end at some point. The real and primary purpose of the zoning hearing board is to implement the ordinances as written, like it or not. That is a message which should in fairness 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 be stated to the residents. This board does not have the authority to just make a Democratic vote. More percentage of the people present in today's room wanted it turned down, therefore it's turned down, huh-uh. It's just not right, it's not the way it works. We can go out and count all the people that aren't here tonight. That's why it doesn't work. The principal objective and task and legal responsibility of the board is to approve the application if it meets the ordinance requirements. A_nd I don't see any basis for turning down the application. I truly hope that you will take the opportunity to solve the problem that we have. A reflection of that problem is in that stipulation settlement agreement. When this client challenged the validity of the moratorium, which by the way they were right about, they agreed and the borough agreed in this stipulation agreement to step back from their fight over that issue to release the borough from liability for what they did. And the borough agreed in return to accept review of this application which had been pending since way back in 2000, a sketch had been prepared to be submitted which the borough originally refused to accept because of the moratorium. And the borough agreed to give a good faith 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 review of this application. What I am asking you to do today and what I do believe is your legal obligation today is to approve this special exception because it's what the ordinance requires, because it's what a good faith review requires and what the rights of the property owner require. There's no way I can reverse the fact that a residential district abuts an I-2 district. We have attempted to mitigate it with the berm. I can unr!~rstand that that is considered insufficient by some fol~<, at least those abutting it. But I believe that it is illegal or that it does not meet the minimum standards of the ordinance. For those who are troubled by that, I apologize. But there is not much we can do to use the property as the ordinance allows. And as I said, I hope that you will take the opportunity to approve this and put the turmoil and agony of trying to sell this property to an end in a leca!ly correct way. And I thank you also for your patience in listening to me. MR. SIMONS: Thank you, Counsellor. We always enjoy your outstanding presentation. I'm going to close the record. You're welcome to stay in your seats if you would like while we 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deliberate. MS. RIGLER: more question? MR. SIMONS: Yes, you may. MS. RIGLER: If we were to approve your application for a special exception tonight, is it realistic -- I'm going to describe it as a proposal for 600,000 square foot warehouse. I will reveal my ignorance about land development and lots of other things. But is it at all realistic for us to maybe think that you might ultimately, what you build on this property, might be smaller than 600,000 square feet? Certainly it could be no larger than 600,000 square feet or is that unrealistic? MR. ASIMOS: Well, I think it's correct to say we would have to adhere to the plan that we proposed. It could be smaller if during the course of land development review it's determined it needs to be in order to meet any of the requirements, either the detailed zoning ordinance requirement that we talked about. There's also always the possibility for trade-offs between the owner and the borough in the course of that approval process. A_nd I can't give you any assurances that something would result smaller, but the process isn't over. MS. RIGLER: Thank you, Mr. Simons. Before you do that, might I ask one 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the record MR. SIMONS: You're welcome. I will now close (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10:52 p.m.) 157 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the within proceedings, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same. Ji!!_. L~ Roth, Court Reporter-Notary Public The foregoing certification does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter. SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to General Service Technology Corporation, Vo Appellant ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CiVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02-3334 · CIVIL TERM LAND USE APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE MATERIAL FACTS TO SUBSTITUTE SUCCESSOR Key Ritner, L.P., by and through its attorneys, Stevens & Lee, and Larmore, Scarlett, Myers & Temple, LLP, hereby files this Statement of Material Facts to Substitute Successor as follows: 1. This Statement of Material Facts to Substitute Successor is brought pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 2352(a). 2. Key Ritner, L.P., is a Pennsylvania limited partnership with address of 701 East Baltimore Pike, Suite A-2, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348. 3. By deed dated January 23, 2003, Key Ritner, L.P., purchased from SPX Corporation, the property located at 1700 Rimer Highway, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (the "Property") which is the subject of this appeal. The deed of record referencing this transaction has been recorded on February 12, 2003, at the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County at Deed Book 255, Page 3765. 4. As part of the purchase of the Property, SPX ~orporatlon assigned to Key (--~ · Ritner, L.P., all of SPX Corporation's rights and interests in the captioned appeal (the "Assignment"). 5. As owner of the Property and pursuant to the Assignment, Key Ritner, L.P., is now the "successor" to SPX Corporation since Key Rimer, L.P., has, by operation of law, SLI 334761vl/65730.001 election and appointment, succeeded to the interests of SPX Corporation as Appellant in this appeal. WHEREFORE, Key Rimer, L.P., hereby becomes the appellant in this proceeding, as the successor to SPX Corporation. Respectfully submitted, Date: //~ ,~ , 2003 STEVENS t(o~ardM? Lucas Attorney I.D. No. 18343 Chiles M. Su~ Attorney I.D. No. 72923 4750 Lindle Road P.O. Box 11670 H~sburg, PA 17108-1670 (717) 561-5,242 Date: ~{~ ,2003 LARMORE SCARLETT MYERS & TEMPLE By ~. Peter~ple Attorney I.D. No. 17573 P.O. Box 384 Kennett Square, PA 19348 (610) 444-3737 Attorneys for Key Ritner, L.P. 2 SL1 334761vl/65730.001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, CHARLES M. SUHR, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Statement of the Material Facts to Substitute Successor upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Date: ~t~' [ r~, 2003 ' Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Brojous & Gilroy 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Petitioners to Intervene Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee, Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Charles M. Suhr SL1 334761vl/65730.001 3 SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant Vo ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 02-3334 : : CWIL ACTION : : LAND USE APPEAL PRAECIPE TO AMEND CAPTION TO REFLECT SUCCESSOR TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly amend the above-referenced caption to reflect Key Rimer, L.P., as successor to SPX Corporation, successor by merger to General Services Technology Corporation, in the above-referenced matter in accordance with the Statement of Material Facts to Substitute Successor, filed on April 7_ q ., 2003. The caption should read as follows: KEY RITNER, L.P., Appellant Vo ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARISLE, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-3334 CWIL ACTION LAND USE APPEAL SL1 334859vl/65730.001 Dated: A~;, 2003 Respectfully submitted, STEVENS &/I~E Ro s Attorney I.D. No. 18343 Charles M. Suhr Attorney I.D. NO. 72923 P.O. Box 11670 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1670 (717) 561-5204 Date: )t/Z3 ,2003 ! LARMORE SCARLETT MYERS & TEMPLE By (~/2~t~ /LJ Peter 2{e~ple Attorney I.D. No. 17573 P.O. Box 384 Kennett Square, PA 19348 (610) 444-3'737 Attorneys for Key Ritner, L.P. 2 SLI 334859vl/65730.001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, CHARLES M. SUHR, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, I served a certified tree and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Amend Caption to Reflect Successor upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Brojous & Gilroy 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Petitioners to Intervene Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee, Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Date: ,2003 Charles M. Suhr SLI 334859vl/65730.001 SPX CORPORATION, successor by merger to GENERAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Appellant Vo ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKETNO. 02-3334 : : CIVIL ACTION : : LAND USE APPEAL PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW/ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the appearance of John J. Mahoney, Esquire, Michael A. Finlo, Esquire, Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire and Saul Ewing LLP, as the attorneys for appellant, SPX Corporation, successor by merger to General Services Technology Corporation, in the above-referenced matter, and enter the appearance of Ronald M. Lucas, Esquire, and Charles M. Suhr, Esquire and Stevens & Lee. Dated://~,) 5> , 2003 Respectfully submitted, l~onald~l: ~ucas A~omey I.D. No. 18343 Chmles M. S~r Attorney I.D. N'o. 72923 P.O. Box 1167(} H~sb~g, PA 17108-1670 (717) 561-5204 SAUL EWIN~G LLP -~ _ J?~J. M~thoney - ,~ Attorney I.D. No. 32946 Michael A. Fin~, Attorney I.D. No. 38872 Dylan Painter Dayton Attorney I.D. No. 76438 2 North Second Street 7th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 257-7500 1 SLI 334745vi/65730.001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, CHARLES M. SUHR, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw/Enter Appearance upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Brojous & Gilroy 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Petitioners to Intervene Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee, Borough of Carlisle Zoning Heating Board L. Peter Temple, Esquire Larmore, Scarlett, Myers & Temple, LLP P.O. Box 384 Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348 John J. Mahoney, Esquire Michael A. Fir/o, Esquire Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire 2 North Second Street 7th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Prior Attorneys for SPX Corporation Date: ,2003 Charles M. Suhr SL1 334745vl/65730.001 2004 KEY RITNER, L.P., Appellant BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD, Appellee GREG A. WELLS, et al., Intervenors IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-1784 CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAND USE APPEAL KEY RITNER, L.P., Appellant BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-3334 CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAND USE APPEAL AND NOW, this y ,2004, upon Stipulation of Counsel, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Appeal at Docket Number 02-3334 be merged with the Appeal at Docket Number 02-1784 under the caption of Docket Number 02 1784. The decisions of the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board are REVERSED and the Special Exception, as modified by the Stipulation of Counsel, incorporated herein, is hereby GRANTED. BY THE COURT: