CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS - 2024

February 5, 2024 

BL Companies [Developer's Project Engineer], on behalf of the applicant Panattoni Development Company, submits preliminary/final plans for the Trindle Spring Trade Center, a 1,205,280 sq. ft. warehouse and all associated site improvements, to be built upon the property of 401 Mulberry Drive (Parcel ID# 38-08-0567-013) and 107 Texaco Road (Parcel ID# 38-08-0567-014).

• One (1) check in the amount of $4,915.00 made payable to Silver Spring Township (Preliminary/Final Plan Application Fee)

• One (1) check in the amount of $1,890.00 made payable to Silver Spring Township (Preliminary/Final Plan Application Fee) – difference in fee from 2023 to 2024

• One (1) check in the amount of $3,000.00 made payable to Silver Spring Developers Fund (Escrow Fee)

• Two (2) copies of the Silver Spring Township Plan Checklist

• Two (2) copies of the Application for Subdivision and/or Land Development Plan

• Two (2) copies of the Application for Consideration of a Waiver

• Two (2) copies of the Sanitary Sewer Planning Module Exemption Docs

• Two (2) copies of the Traffic Impact Report

• Two (2) copies of the Phase I Archaeological Investigation

• Two (2) copies of the Above Ground Resource Documentation (Historical Features)

• Two (2) copies of the PNDI Review Receipt

• Two (2) copies of the Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report

• Two (2) copies of the Carbonate Assessment Report

• Two (2) copies of Post Construction Stormwater Management Narrative

• Sixteen (16) copies of the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan

February 22, 2024

Cumberland County Planning Commission issues its Subdivision and Land Development Review Report

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision and Land Development Review Letter #1

February 23, 2024

Cumberland County Conservation District - Completeness Notification Letter

March 5, 2024

Traffic Planning & Design [Developer's Traffic Engineer] - Notice letter to Silver Spring Township for application to Pennsylvania DEP for Chapter 105 General Permit 11

March 7, 2024

Planning Commission meeting: Presentation of the Trindle Springs Trade Center (2024-1) Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan. Discussion/action is tabled at the request of the applicant.

March 15, 2024

Email @ 9:35 AM
From: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
To: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Subject: RE: Keener land development subdivision settlement agreement

I have reviewed every plan from John Keener since the 80’s. In my research there is no evidence or mention to a settlement agreement. After that review, I called Jim Hall to confirm and he indicated that there was no settlement agreement, rather there was a disagreement between the Yorlets and the Keeners when Keener Drive was privately owned. Jim believes that the road was stopped short of the Yorlets property line due to the disagreement of price and maintenance share. According to the LD 99-12 John Keener plan (below, first snip)  that made the industrial side of the development it appears the road was supposed to be taken to the property line. In the aerial photo (property mapper second snip) it appears to be short however,  Keener has been a public road since 2017. The resolution above (2016-22) has us taking full length of Keener, so to me that means to the property line. As long as the any of the improvements on Keener meet the TWP specs the Yorlets would have access rights to Keener. Of course if anyone believes I’m missing something please let me know and I  can continue to research. Also, if you would like us to send to Sean we can ,however this seems pretty straightforward. 

March 20, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Traffic Impact Study Review Letter #2

April 1, 2024

BL Companies submits a request to table discussion for the Planning Commission meeting on April 4. 

April 4, 2024

Planning Commission meeting: Discussion/action is tabled at the request of the applicant.

April 5, 2024

BL Companies submits a response letter to the comments provided by the Silver Spring Township Community Development Department in a Land Development Plan review letter received on February 29, 2024.

• Sixteen (16) copies of the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan

• Sixteen (16) copies of the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

• Sixteen (16) copies of the Truck Movement Plan

• Sixteen (16) copies of the Roadway Plan (prepared by TPD)

• Two (2) copies of the PPL ROW Agreement

• Two (2) copies of the revised PCSM Narrative

• Two (2) copies of the revised Waiver Request Letter

April 15, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Trindle Spring Run TS&L HOP Review Letter #1

April 16, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Floodplain Impacts Review Letter #1

April 17, 2024

Traffic Planning & Design [Developer's Traffic Engineer] - response letter to HRG's [Township Engineer] Traffic Impact Study Review Letter #2

revised Transportation Impact Study

Noteworthy item in response letter

The 2017 Silver Spring Township Capital Improvements Plan outlines a long term plan to widen Route 114 to four lanes from Carlisle Pike to Texaco Road. Since over half the traffic is distributed along this section of roadway, provide a roadway segment analysis between Carlisle Pike (SR 11) and Texaco Road in order to confirm that each segment can accommodate the development traffic [§402.05.6.c].

April 24, 2024

Board of Supervisors meeting:  No official discussion/action related to Trindle Spring Trade Center

April 25, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision & Land Development Review Letter #2

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision & Land Development - Driveway HOP Plans Review Letter #1

April 26, 2024

Email @ 12:21 PM
From: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
To: Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]; Greg Holtzman; Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
Cc: Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center CLOMR

As the applicant, we agree to satisfy the comments listed in the Floodplain Impacts Review Letter #1, prepared by HRG, dated April 26, 2024. Please accept this email as our qualifying statement and provide the signed Overview & Concurrence Form so we may upload the files to FEMA.

TIME UNKNOWN
Set of FEMA MT-2 Forms signed by Chelsea Leiby, Zoning Officer

May 2, 2024

Planning Commission meeting: Discussion/action is tabled at the request of the applicant.

May 13, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Traffic Impact Study Review Letter #3

May 14, 2024

Email @ 8:11 AM
From: Nathan Phillips [Permits Section Chief, PA DEP, Waterways & Wetlands Program]
To: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
Cc:: Kevin McGarvey [BL Companies-developer's engineer], Mike Lubinsky [Cumberland County Conservation District]; Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Chelsea Leiby [Township Zoning Officer], Kathy Stump [Township Assistant Zoning Officer]; Scott Williamson
Subject: RE: PAD210116 Trindle Spring Trade Center Remaining Technical Deficiencies  

The District and the DEP have completed the review of the response documents for the subject application and have identified remaining deficiencies.  In accordance with the DEP Permit Review Policy, the application is in the Elevated Review stage of the permit review process.  Attached is the Elevated Review Letter outlining the remaining items.  Please let me know that you are able to view the document; hard copies will not be sent unless requested.

May 16, 2024

BL Companies submits the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan package

• Sixteen (16) copies of the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan

• Sixteen (16) copies of the revised Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

• Sixteen (16) copies of the revised Truck Movement Plan

• Two (2) copies of the revised PCSM Narrative

• Two (2) copies of the Geotechnical Letter

May 22, 2024

Board of Supervisors meeting: Consent agenda item 5(c): Approved motion for a Plan Review Time Extension #1 for Trindle Spring Trade Center from June 5, 2024 to August 31, 2024.

May 29, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision & Land Development Review Letter #3

May 30, 2024

Email @ 8:05 AM
From: Nathan Phillips [Permits Section Chief, PA DEP, Waterways & Wetlands Program]
To: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
Cc: Kevin McGarvey [BL Companies-developer's engineer]; Mike Lubinsky; Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]; Scott Maldonado; Chelsea Leiby [Township Zoning Officer], Kathy Stump [Township Assistant Zoning Officer], Scott Williamson
Subject: PAD210116 Trindle Spring Trade Center Remaining Technical Deficiencies 2

The District and the DEP have completed the response review of the subject application and have identified remaining technical deficiencies.  The remaining deficiencies are as follows:

1. Technical deficiency 5 from DEP’s technical deficiency letter dated 4/5/24 has been adequately addressed however a new deficiency has been identified.  Details for the berms and outlets for the sediment basins that support the information provided on the E&S worksheets could not be located. Revise accordingly.  [25 Pa. code §102.4(b)(5)(viii)]

4/19/24 BL Response: Details for the berms and outlets for the sediment basins that support the E&S worksheets have been added to the Erosion and Sediment Control Details Sheet (EC-6), including the Sediment Storage Dewatering detail and Emergency Spillway detail. 

5/14/24 District Response: The detail provided for dewatering the sediment basin is to dewater the sediment storage zone.  The dewatering of these basins should be for the dewatering zone and stop at the top of the sediment storage zone.  This system should also be top dewatering to be ABACT for EV.  Revise accordingly.

5/22/24 BL Response: The detail for the basin dewatering facilities has been updated to a “skimmer with stone landing berm detail attached to a temporary riser a barrel with sediment storage facility”. (EC-6) This temporary dewatering facility includes an ABACT skimmer system that dewaters from the top of the dewatering zone and stops at the top of the sediment storage zone.  The E&S narrative has been revised to include skimmer calculations (App B).  Please note that the skimmers were sized to exceed the dewatering rates of the pumps, so that the pumps will act as the actual dewatering device.

Current Remaining Deficiency: The detail provided for the skimmer and stone landing berm does not provide the clean out/top of landing berm elevation.  Revise accordingly.

2. Technical deficiency 7 from DEP’s technical deficiency letter dated 4/5/24 has not been adequately addressed.  Channel 1 does not appear to provide the required freeboard according to worksheet 11.  Revise accordingly.  [25 PA Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii)]

4/19/24 BL Response: Response: Channel 1 contours have been updated to provide the required freeboard according to worksheet 11 on the partial erosion and sediment control plan stage 1 sheet (EC-1.2).

5/14/24 District Response: E&S worksheet 11 for the channel 1 still does not provide the required 0.5ft of freeboard.  Revise accordingly.

5/22/24 BL Response: Channel 1 contours have been updated to provide the required freeboard according to worksheet 11 on the partial erosion and sediment control plan stage 1 sheet (EC-1.2).

Current Remaining Deficiency: There is an E&S worksheet 11 in the PCSM narrative that has not been updated with the revised values.  Ensure the information throughout the application is consistent.  Revise accordingly.

3. Technical deficiency 19 from DEP’s technical deficiency letter dated 4/5/24 has not been adequately addressed. Revise the plan to clearly show the existing FEMA floodway and ensure the hatching is consistent between plan sheets. The DEP notes that unless the proposed alterations to the floodway and floodplain are approved, the existing floodway is what is currently regulated. Chapter 105 approvals are needed prior to earth disturbances within the existing floodway. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(3)] 

4/19/24 BL Response: The PCSM Plan has been revised to reflect the current FEMA Floodway and Floodplain limits on the Existing Conditions Plan sheets. (EX-0 thru EX-10) Additionally, the proposed Floodway and Floodplain limits are now shown on the PCSM Plan sheets based upon the Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis associated with the submitted CLOMR application, as noted within the legend. (PC-0 thru PC-10) Please note that the limits are depicted in color to aid in plan legibility. 

5/14/24 DEP Response: As noted in the 4/5/24 deficiency, unless the proposed alterations to the floodway and floodplain are approved by FEMA and FEMA provides an updated flood map that shows the new regulatory floodway, the existing FEMA floodway is what is currently regulated by DEP. Revise the plans to reflect the current FEMA floodway and floodplain versus the proposed, not yet approved, floodway and floodplain. References to a revised or proposed FEMA floodway and floodplain should be removed throughout the application and plans. 

5/22/24 BL Response: As discussed with the DEP in our phone conversation on 5/6/24, the PCSM Plan and E&S Plan have been revised to remove the anticipated FEMA floodway and floodplain information based upon the submitted CLOMR information on all plan sheets with the exception of a new plan sheet titled, Floodplain Exhibit (FE-1) located as sheet 22 of 37 within the PCSM Plan set.

Current Remaining Deficiency: As noted in the 4/5/24 deficiency and reiterated in the 5/14/24 Elevated Review Letter, references to a revised or proposed FEMA floodway and floodplain should be removed throughout the application and plans.  Remove Sheet 22 of the PCSM plan set, in addition to removing reference to an anticipated, revised, or modified floodway and floodplain in all other application documents (i.e. PCSM Report, Section 5.0).  A separate, stand alone, not labeled PCSM, plan sheet could be submitted showing the calculated floodway and floodplain that is a part of the CLOMR package.  

Unless the District prefers an alternate method, provide 1 hard copy of any revised or additional documents to the District by 4 pm, June 6, 2024 or the application may be withdrawn.  Also upload an electronic copy of any revised or additional documents to the DEP’s Public Upload (https://greenport.pa.gov/ePermitPublicAccess/PublicSubmission/Home).  For ease of review, the DEP requests a single upload with multiple files versus a single upload with one large document.  Please do not upload ZIP files.  Use the following Submission Information:

Resubmittal – Yes; Reference No. 213599, PIN 182722

June 6, 2024

Planning Commission meeting: Discussion/action is tabled at the request of the applicant.

June 13, 2024

BL Companies submits the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan package

• Sixteen (16) copies of the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan

• Two (2) copies of the revised PCSM Narrative

• Two (2) copies of the Opinion of Probable Cost

• Two (2) copies of the NPDES Permit

• Two (2) copies of the Sewage Planning Module Exemption

June 15, 2024

Email @ 7:41 AM
From: Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]
To: Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Maitlin Greiner [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: Trindle Spring Trade Center - Yorlet Property - CLOMR-F

The applicant’s engineer submitted revised plans for the Yorlet property on Friday afternoon. I received a phone call afterhours asking if the Township would sign the MT-1 form associated with the CLOMR-F.  If we do, I believe we should condition it in the same manner as when they asked us to sign the MT-2 associated with the prior CLOMR.

Let me know what you think.

Email @ 2:38 PM
From: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
To: Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]; Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]; ; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Maitlin Greiner [HRG-Township Engineer
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center - Yorlet Property - CLOMR-F

Hmmmmm. I don’t think we should sign until we review the new application. That said, many of the same conditions would likely still apply, so I’m in agreement with you.

I checked and I didn’t see the CLOMR-F in the submission. Do you know if they plan on submitting soon?

June 28, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Floodplain Impacts Review Letter #2

Email @ 9:39 AM
From: Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]
To: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]; Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Maitlin Greiner [HRG-Township Engineer
Subject: Trindle Spring Trade Center - Yorlet Property - CLOMR-F

Lindsay just sent the Trindle Spring Trade Center review letter. Are you okay with me sending the email to Joe agreeing to sign based on satisfaction of the Township Engineers comments.

They called first thing this morning, asking again.

Email @ 10:25 AM
From: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
To: Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]; Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]; ; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Maitlin Greiner [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center - Yorlet Property - CLOMR-F

Yep. Shouldn’t be an issue!

Note: they are not excavating in the floodway, only the floodplain. Because of that, and despite the naming convention, this would not qualify for floodplain restoration credit (need both), so we didn’t include anything in the letter about following PADEP standards for this work. We wouldn’t get any MS4 credit even if they did.

Hope that helps.

Email @ 10:33 AM
From: Chris Guarino [former Township Land Planning & Development Manager]
To: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]; Greg Holtzman [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer] ; Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
Cc: Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: Trindle Spring Trade Center CLOMR-F

With regards to your request on the Trindle Spring Trade Center CLOMR-F. We ask that you agree to satisfaction of the Township Engineers comments, with a qualifying statement stating that you agree, upon said agreement, the Township will follow up shortly with a signed Overview & Concurrence Form.

July 5, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision & Land Development Review Letter #4

Chris Guarino is fired from his position as the township's Land Planning & Development Manager. 

July 11, 2024

BL Companies [Developer's Project Engineer] response to HRG  [Township Engineer] Floodplain Impact Review Letter #2

Meeting @ 6:30 PM

Planning Commission meeting: Discussion of the Trindle Spring Trade Center starts at 4:25 mark
AUDIO ONLY OF MEETING - NO VIDEO WAS AVAILABLE

July 12, 2024

Email @ 8:15 AM
From: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
To: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist], Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Cc: Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]; Greg Holtzman; Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]; James Strong [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center CLOMR-F

Based on our previous meetings/conversations, it is my understanding that the proper clarifications and determinations have been made relative to the fill placement zoning comments in the attached letter. Assuming my understanding is accurate, what are the next steps to get the concurrence letter executed by the Township so we can submit to FEMA? As was heard last night, the Township PC and presumably Board would like to see further progress with FEMA and we cannot provide that until the concurrence letter is executed.

PDC is in a position to accept the condition of adhering to the comments from the Township relative to the CLOMR-F, subject to removal or acknowledgement that Comment #1 under TOWNSHIP FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS (415-219) in the attached letter has been adequately addressed and is NOT part of this acceptance of conditions.

July 15, 2024

BL Companies [Developer's Project Engineer] response to HRG [Township Engineer] Traffic Impact Study Review Letter #3

• revised Transportation Impact Study

Email @ 10:10 AM
From: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
To: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Cc: Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor] ; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]; Greg Holzman; Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]; James Strong [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]; Tyler Fairchild; Jarred Neal [TPD-Developer's Traffic Engineer]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center CLOMR-F

Not sure if we are in the correct email thread, so I am attaching the one from Friday for everyone and adding Jarred. I can make myself available Thursday morning, and I will ask that the design folks (Jarred and Greg) do the same, but I ultimately defer to them on their availability. I do not think the attorneys necessarily need to look at traffic conditions, but defer to you and the group if you feel differently.

This thread is specific to the CLOMR-F and getting the concurrence form executed by the Township so we can submit to FEMA. Is there any update on that end?

July 17, 2024

Email @ 11:30 AM
From: Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]
To: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Subject: Notification of Residents/Businesses Regarding Trindle Spring Trade Center

We discussed that at the very least residents and businesses immediately adjacent to the parcel to be developed should be notified of an upcoming meeting. The Planning Commission meets on August 1st which is only two weeks away. I've created several maps showing parcels that should receive notification. It's a lot and unfortunately, identifying them in this way is about the only help I can render. Too much else going on...sorry.

First is a shot of the entire Yorlets farm with red pins in the parcels that should be notified. Then I have attached four other screenshots showing the parcels magnified somewhat.

Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification.

July 18, 2024

BL Companies [Developer's Project Engineer] submits the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan in response to HRG [Township Engineer] Subdivision and Land Development Review Letter #4

• Sixteen (16) copies of the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan

• Two (2) copies of the revised PCSM Narrative

BL Companies [Developer's Engineer] submits the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan to Silver Spring Township Authority

• Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan

• Two (2) copies of the Sewage Planning Module

• Two (2) copies of the Sanitary Sewer Opinion of Probable Cost

July 22, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision & Land Development Review Letter #5

HRG [Township Engineer] - Floodplain Impacts Review Letter #3

July 24, 2024

Board of Supervisors meeting: Consent agenda item 5(c) - Approved motion for a Plan Review Time Extension #2 for Trindle Spring Trade Center from August 5, 2024 to September 5, 2024.

July 26, 2024

Email @ 4:30 PM
From: Curt Helman [Township Planning Commission member]
To: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Cc: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: Trindle Spring Trade Center

I become aware of a public discussion related to this trade center. The following information seems to being interpreted as possible reasons the proposed development should be rejected. I would recommend that you look this over and are prepared to respond.

I don’t have time to analyze the contents too much and perhaps they aren’t valid (I-1?)??, however I did enter some red font as the questions this information raised in my head if it does apply.

Also – quick question – If they are proposing an I2 use but using an I1 zoned area for a parking lot to support an I2 use... shouldn’t that be considered a part of the overall I2 use? Shouldn’t they be forced to keep all the I2 and its supporting infrastructure within the I2 zone??? 

I need to head home...... Thanks!!!!

See below for what I believe was shared publicly in a discussion forum...

P 136 and 137 (109 and 111) Defines I1

SECTION 214 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (I-1) A. Purpose To permit and encourage small-scale light industrial development (this doesn’t seem to fit that) and to consolidate locations of light industrial related land uses that because of their shipping, storage and other requirements exert special demands in Silver Spring Township. New construction for non-residential uses shall be encouraged while complementing and serving the local community (doesn’t seem to fit that). The intent of the provided design standards is to encourage functional attractive sites while conserving the value of neighboring residential areas (doesn’t seem to fit that) and promoting economic development. The provided design standards (sounds like it is relying on the standards to do that as opposed to our subjective opinions?) shall regulate the intensity of all permitted uses and to minimize negative impacts for abutting residential areas and local roadways that may be affected by increased truck traffic.

Screening - A visual screen must be provided along any adjoining lands within a residential zone, regardless of whether or not the residentially zoned parcel is developed. Any lot adjoining land principally used as a residence or within a residential zone shall maintain a fifty (50) foot setback for buildings, structures, off street parking lots, loading areas, and outdoor storage areas from residentially used and/or zoned parcels. Building separation setbacks - For multiple buildings contained on the same lot, there shall be provided a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet between the closest points of such buildings. Landscaping - Any portion of the site not used for buildings, structures, parking compounds, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, and sidewalks shall be maintained with a vegetative ground cover and other ornamental plantings. A minimum fifteen (15) foot landscape strip shall be provided along property lines. Waste Products - Storage of industrial waste materials shall not be permitted, except within an enclosed building. Dumpsters used for domestic garbage may be permitted within the side or rear yard, provided such dumpsters are screened from any adjoining roads or properties. Such dumpsters shall not be used for industrial wastes. All dumpsters shall be set back twenty- five (25) feet from all lot lines and fifty (50) feet from any adjoining residentially zoned property. All trash dumpsters shall be located within a side or rear yard, screened from adjoining roads or properties, and completely enclosed within a masonry or fenced enclosure equipped with a self-latching door or gate. Required Public Utilities - All uses permitted within this zone where actual or projected sewage flows equal or exceed 1,125 gallons/day shall require the use of public sewer and public water. Industrial Operations Standards - All industrial operations shall be in compliance with any Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania and/or Federal government regulations, as required by the most recent regulations made available from these governmental bodies. (See Section 302 for a partial listing.) Outdoor Storage and Display - Within this Zone, outdoor storage is permitted, provided all outdoor storage areas are screened from adjoining roads and properties, and the outdoor storage areas comply with the setbacks imposed within this section. Outdoor display areas need not be screened from adjoining roads if they are located within the front yard. All uses permitted within this Zone shall also comply with all applicable General Provisions in Article 3 of this Ordinance. Prohibited Uses - Principal uses identified as warehousing and truck terminals shall be prohibited. (Is that why it is called a commerce center? – wonder how litigation on arguments about their use being contrary to this might play out? At what point can they successfully argue that what we see as possibly being warehousing and truck terminals is actually something else?

I2 p 138 (112)

SECTION 215 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE (I-2) A. Purpose This Zone provides for a wide range of industrial activities that contribute to the well-being of the Township by diversifying its economy and providing valuable employment opportunities. The required lot sizes have been kept small (??? This is huge???) to accommodate the start-up industries that are likely to emerge; however, larger and heavier industries have also been permitted. This Zone provides for light industrial uses as permitted by right but requires obtainment of a conditional use for

heavier and potentially more-objectionable types of industrial uses (huh – who defines this? – should this be conditional use?). These areas have been located near existing public utility service areas and along major roads. Design standards have been imposed to create attractive site designs and moderate the objectionable impacts associated with industrial uses. Substantial setbacks are used to protect adjoining residences.

Warehousing P additional provisions 304.24

P141 (115)

Industrial Operations Standards - All industrial operations shall be in compliance with any Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or Federal government regulations, as required by the most recent regulations made available from these governmental bodies. (See Section 302 for a partial listing.)

P231 (205)

304.24 Warehousing and Wholesale Trade Establishment Warehousing and wholesale trade establishments are subject to the following criteria: A. No building on the subject property shall be within two hundred (200) feet of any residentially zoned land; B. All access drives onto the site shall be paved for a distance of at least two hundred (200) feet from the street right-of-way line. C. The owner and/or operator shall be responsible for removing any mud from public roads caused by persons traveling to and from the wholesaling facility; D. The applicant shall be required to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading so as not to require such parking or loading on or along any road, nor upon adjoining property. If, at any time after the opening of the facility, the Supervisors determine that parking, loading or traffic backups are occurring on adjoining roads, and such are directly related to the lack of on-site facilities on the subject property, the Supervisors can require the applicant to revise and/or provide additional on- site parking and/or loading space. In addition, the Supervisors may require an unimproved grassed overflow parking area to be provided for peak use periods. Such overflow parking areas shall be accessible only from the interior driveways of the permanent parking lot. Overflow parking areas shall contain fencing to prevent vehicles from crossing adjoining properties or directly accessing adjoining roads; E. The applicant shall furnish expert evidence that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the use of adjoining properties due to hours of operation, noise, light, litter, dust and pollution (did we get this?); F. Soil erosion, sedimentation and storm water runoff shall be controlled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations; and, G. The applicant shall submit and continuously implement a working plan (did they?) for the cleanup of litter and their debris. H. The applicant shall provide a detailed description of the proposed use (did they? – they may argue they can’t when they are building a spec building... but are we compelled to grant them relief because of that??? – not sure) in each of the following topics: 1. The nature of the on-site activities and operations, the types of materials stored, the frequency of distribution and restocking, the duration period of storage of materials, and the methods for disposal of any surplus or damaged materials. In addition, the applicant shall furnish evidence that the disposal of materials will be accomplished in a manner that complies with State and Federal regulations; March 2022 205 Silver Spring 19 Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2. The general scale of the operation, in terms of its market area, specific floor space requirements for each activity, the total number of employees on each shift, and an overall needed site size; 3. Any environmental impacts that are likely to be generated (e.g., odor, noise, smoke, dust, litter, glare, vibration, electrical disturbance, wastewater, storm water, solid waste, etc.) and specific measures employed to mitigate or eliminate any negative impacts. The applicant shall further furnish evidence that the impacts generated by the proposed use fall within acceptable levels, as regulated by applicable laws and ordinance, including but not limited to those listed in Section 302 of this Ordinance; and, 4. A traffic study prepared by a professional traffic engineer, according to Section 402.05. of the SLDO.

July 29, 2024

TIME UNKNOWN
Set of FEMA MT-1 Forms signed by Ray Palmer [Township Manager]

Email @ 7:15 AM
From: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
To: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Curt Helman [Township Planning Commision member]
Cc: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center

If you wanted to give us a call to discuss that will be best. This has been reviewed by the TWP solicitor for going on 2 years.

Email @ 9:10 AM
From: Curt Helman [Township Planning Commission member]
To: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center

OK – I have a fairly full plate today, but will try to give a call later.

Quick question – when I was looking at the latest plans Friday afternoon I noticed that it looks like they may have interpreted the Zoning line in a way that doesn’t seem to align with the map we have online. What I observed is minor, but appears to have their building a little further East than it should be. I hesitated to mention it knowing how much this has been reviewed, but then I realized that we should be prepared to answer a question about that from

the public. So, in the interest of that....

Two things I noticed.

1. The I1/I2 line close to Mulberry appears to be drawn to the wrong property corner. Appears it should be to a corner that is slightly to the west of the corner to where it is drawn.

2. The I1/I2 line by Keener looks like it should be drawn to intersect the property corner along the west side of Keener and not the center of it.

If you compare these two images (attached) with the plans I think you will see what I mean. I drew a straight line on the plans to see the impact to the building if my interpretations were correct.

Email @ 10:35 AM
From: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
To: Curt Helman [Township Planning Commission member]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center

Just looking at this I can see a slight difference/ deviation on the corner toward mulberry that is de minimis and wouldn’t get them any more building (but, yes we can ask them to confirm the zoning line). As for the Keener Drive, the intent was to straddle the center of the road for the zoning designation.

Email @ 2:44 PM
From: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
To: Curt Helman [Township Planning Commission member]; Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor]; Ray Brown [Chairman Township Planning Commission]; Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]; Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Carl Machamer [Township Supervisor]
Cc: Maitlin Greiner; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center

Copying the whole team on this email to keep the discussion cohesive. Also will address multiple email questions here so my responses aren’t spread out everywhere! List below; let me know if I miss anything or if you have any other questions I can help with:

Regarding zoning boundaries on the plan vs. the Township’s online map, the rule of thumb is to defer to the plan boundaries when discrepancies are de minimis. This is because GIS files through online portals are notoriously inaccurate (see Cumberland County Property Mapper’s property lines as a good example). For example, the GIS files laying out all of this on a Township-wide basis are not usually georeferenced to any actual survey benchmarks, so even if there are no mistakes in the GIS files themselves, they often don’t line up with the right boundaries when placed on an aerial overlay. Additionally, for the sake of expediency and cost, most municipal GIS files for planning purposes (like a zoning map) are based off of two sources of data: County GIS databases (which we already know are inaccurate) and literal tracing of property lines, so the GIS file itself is usually laden with minute discrepancies that don’t affect the designation of overall zoning districts but may show small differences from actual property boundaries on a lot-by-lot basis. Throw in that nearly ever property in the Township is “surveyed on an island” and therefore almost all have unresolved survey discrepancies of a few hundredths of a foot, and you end up in a scenario where the GIS-based zoning map is a general reference and not an exact measure of boundary delineation. Of course, these problems could theoretically be resolved when creating a zoning map, but it would require a few million dollars of survey, deed, field, and other groundtruthing/reference work!

In the case of the warehouse property, you can see that this isn’t just a theoretical discussion; many of these inherent data issues in zoning map creation appear in this plan. For example, compare the property lines for the Mulberry property boundary. In the zoning map, the I-1 property juts southeast and ends in a weird triangle shape approximately halfway through the boundary of the next-southern property; the actual deed plot of the property boundary shows this area ends in a normal triangle tip at Mulberry, though, and at the eastern property corner of the I-2 property. This is something that can’t be known at the time of zoning map creation due to the above technical challenges (at least not without spending the aforementioned millions of dollars), so it then has to be resolved at the time of plan submission when hard survey data is provided by the applicant.

When these discrepancies are found, designers should be consulting with the Township to receive the GIS files

for the zoning map and any other local info needed to inform map interpretation. That local info is extremely

important, and it shows in this case. As Scott mentioned, the express intent was for this zoning boundary to go to the middle of Keener Drive, so I believe the northern zoning boundary was located correctly by the applicant. Another goal with the zoning map revisions from a few years ago was to eliminate unnecessarily split-zoned properties. Because of that, and because of the error in County GIS property boundaries showing a property boundary that doesn’t exist in reality, I also think the applicant selected the correct zoning boundary at Mulberry by drawing it to the eastern property corner; the western property corner with the incorrect property line would have resulted in a few hundred square feet of split-zoning, which definitely was not something the zoning map revisions sought to enact. Image below showing the issue and why I believe the correct discrepancy resolution was selected by the applicant.

All that is to say that this is actually a very complicated topic, and while we usually defer to the plans due to their inherently higher accuracy compared to the zoning map, we still do review the boundaries. In that review, I believe they selected the correct resolutions to the discovered discrepancies. 

Of course, there are other MPC issues involved. Specifically, any conflicts or vagueness in SLDO/ZO regulations (including the map) should be interpreted in favor of the applicant. In this case, there isn’t any material effect on the zoning boundary interpretation; for devil’s advocate’s sake, see image the below with the Mulberry boundary redrawn to the other (western) property corner and how it interacts with warehouse placement (red line mine, noting graphical line thickness plays a role here). Because of that, even if our review concluded that there may be an error caused by zoning map issues, I don’t believe there was a fight to be had from a technical perspective. Of course, this is just a theoretical argument, because overall I believe they actually resolved the discrepancies appropriately, but still thought it was worth pointing this out for future review purposes.

Finally, on the note of overall process, I believe SST is following industry standard. These zoning map data issues are present in literally every municipality I’ve been involved in, because like SST, no one wants to spend millions of dollars surveying all property boundaries in the Township that coincide with zoning boundaries, doing deed research, resolving any discrepancies found in that deed research, providing hard georeferenced benchmarks for the GIS file to connect to, etc. It’s much cheaper (and I would guess legally defensible since literally everyone does it!) to simply use the best-available data (in this case, County GIS) to create a zoning map and then letting developers pay for the hard survey on a plan-by-plan basis to help resolve any discrepancies. You guys are in line with everyone else!

Regarding the I-1 zoning citations from the public, I’m not 100% sure what their goal is since the warehouse is in I-2. While a warehouse doesn’t meet the express goals of I-1, that’s why the structure is located in the I-2 zone. If it’s to argue against the use of the I-1 zone for an accessory use (parking lot) of an I-2 property, I understand and sympathize with their argument, but I don’t believe that endgame is technically correct. Because of this, I won’t respond to the specific goals of the I-1 zone, but will respond to any downstream arguments about compatibility with accessory uses in I-1 as they pop up.

Also note that I don’t believe the “Trindle Spring Trade Center” naming is an attempt to skirt the ordinances with word trickery. They very clearly call the use a warehouse throughout the plan, so the name is likely just chosen to sound good from a marketing perspective and not an attempt to exploit a legal loophole. Some plan snippets provided below to hopefully help with any heartburn on this topic.

Regarding lot sizes, I don’t believe this section means that lot sizes must be small. It’s discussing that the minimum lot sizes for I-2 properties have been made small so that emergent small businesses could still build in I-2 even if they don’t have a mega property that would befit a warehouse. This is backed up by the regulations having a minimum lot size of 1 acre, which is small relative to most other I-2-equivalent zoning in other municipalities.

Most other ordinances have 5-10 acres as the minimum lot size, and because of this difference from industry standard, EPD likely felt the need to call out in the zone description why they chose a smaller required lot size. NOTE: I believe SST made the right planning call on this, because making a 5-10 acre minimum lot size wouldn’t stop warehouses anyway; it would only hurt small businesses that can’t afford those property sizes in the I-2.

Also, even if my interpretation of the explanation is incorrect (I don’t think it is, but there’s a chance I’m wrong), the next line in the ordinance states that larger/heavier industries are also permitted, so I don’t think this is a provision that could be leaned on to deny the plan, change the proposed use, or force a smaller building.

Regarding who determines whether a conditional use is needed for heavier/objectional types of uses, that would be the BOS and, to a lesser extent, the PC at the time of zoning ordinance adoption. Their determinations are then listed in the uses table for I-2. I can’t question the wisdom of what should and shouldn’t be permitted by right or conditional use, but I can say that the BOS/PC did not determine warehousing to be worthy of the CU designation by its listing in the table. Thus, I don’t believe the listed text of the zoning ordinance provides any process leverage to force the warehouse to change course.

Regarding the relationship of off-street parking and traffic backups on adjoining roads, that regulation is specific to parking lots being filled to the point that entry into the property isn’t possible and thus causes backups onto roads. It’s not related to general traffic issues, so unfortunately I don’t believe this citation gives us any extra leverage either.

Regarding expert evidence that the use will not be detrimental, we have this via different pieces of data provided by the applicant. This requirement is very wishy washy, though, so I’d be wary of leaning on this too hard. Since warehousing is permitted by right, we can’t cite this section to stop a warehouse doing standard warehouse things from being built. I’m 99.99999% confident in my amateur non-legal experience that we would be taken to task by a court for citing truck traffic and diesel fumes, for example, as a reason to deny a warehouse, because we are then de facto banning warehousing when de jure it is permitted by right by the ordinance. I think we could only truly rely on this for warehouse operations that are drastically out of the norm, like making an applicant prove that a nuclear waste storage and logistics facility wouldn’t give neighbors cancer. Because of all of these issues and since the ordinance provision doesn’t provide exact engineering specifications, I’ll defer final conclusions to Sean, but unfortunately I don’t think this citation is as strong as it would at first appear.

Regarding a working plan, this is also likely a Sean question. They have provided some data that I would say amounts to a disparate working plan, but it’s hard to say whether that satisfies the legal obligation of providing a working plan or what a working plan actually is.

Regarding a detailed description of the proposed use, also likely a Sean question. That said, since the warehousing industry operates on a tenant basis, I am unsure of the enforceability of this. For example, does “warehousing” and general descriptions of overall warehouse operations suffice as a detailed description of the proposed use? My understanding is that it does, and that denial of warehouses based on lack of a known tenant has failed in court quite a few times. I only know of one recent case that was won on this issue, and it was only won in an unpublished (non-precedent-setting) opinion. That’s about as far as I’m comfortable opining, so I’ll stop there and let Sean take over!

Regarding using the I-1 zone as supporting an I-2 use in an I-2 zone, I believe this is kosher. As Scott noted, Sean has been involved in many of these zoning determination issues for the last few years, and in those discussions I believe we determined this was OK. My understanding is that because the accessory parking lot in I-1 would be allowed for any other bona fide I-1 use as well, we can’t deny the plan simply because it proposes an allowed accessory use for something else in a different zone. I’ll let Sean confirm, though, so don’t take this as gospel.

Regarding truck stacking in the left turn lane from Texaco onto Keener, this is actually a quirk of warehouse traffic operations that, at least per the ITE & PennDOT standards, appears to be correct. This is because truck operations are usually constant and spread throughout the day rather than concentrated during the peak hours. Here are the projected truck numbers from the TIS:

During the peak hour, they are projecting 19 trucks entering the site, and for the whole day, they are projecting 362 trucks entering the site. This amounts to roughly one truck every three minutes in the peak hour and one truck every four minutes throughout the day, meaning there shouldn’t be much truck stacking in the left turn lane – if any at all. I say “shouldn’t”, because I can’t guarantee that’s how it will work out. They could get a different tenant than the projected use and operations could change this count in reality, but they’ve committed to doing a post-opening traffic study to confirm this and make sure everything works as intended. Additionally, while the turn lane can stack two trucks, the overall distance between Keener and Stevens should allow even more stacking than that (approximately 5 trucks total) before entrance to Stevens would be interrupted. Overall, they’ve followed traffic modeling standards, so I think they’re good to go here excepting any future changes in tenant type.

Regarding use of the Eichelberger’s driveway as the main entrance, this is definitely the better option from a traffic standpoint should they be able to acquire more ROW. Happy to help with this if needed.

Note that there are some important dimensional constraints to this ROW, though, so we’ll need to be prepared to address those if we want to get directly involved. An expanded ROW (via property purchase) will push back setbacks for neighboring property owners; those pushed setbacks will likely enter into their existing structures (tanks and buildings), creating non-conformity issues that will limit future expansion of those structures. There is also a parking lot and what appears to be a pump station at the exit of this ROW to Texaco Road, so those may need to be relocated. There is also a gas line that would need to be relocated to accommodate a properly-sized access drive, which may be extremely expensive. These challenges aren’t overcomeable with enough money and time, but I want to make sure we understand what we’re up against if we want to pursue this. Screenshot below showing some of these constraints that would need to be solved:

Regarding a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of Stevens, this is a great idea from a traffic perspective. However, if I understood it correctly, Doug McDonald didn’t like this idea at the PC meeting due to the location of an existing fire hydrant on Stevens and because it would make Stevens a single-access street, thus limiting emergency vehicle access if there is an accident at the neighborhood entrance. Because of this, the applicant agreed to use flexible delineators to make Stevens a right-only at the intersection with Keener, making it extremely undesirable for any warehouse traffic to use Stevens as a cut-through. The flexible delineators can still be pushed over by a fire truck, though, if access to Stevens from the south is necessary. Up to you guys and EMC what you want to do; I can execute whichever!

Regarding utilizing the (mostly) vacant parcel to the north as an access for the warehouse, this would also be a better traffic solution than Keener. Our challenge is that this property is likely worth a few hundreds of thousands of dollars or possibly even millions, but if that could somehow be resolved, I’d be happy to coordinate review and design with the applicant.

Regarding the berms, I’m reading the crystal ball a bit here, but I believe they are proposing 5’ berms as that’s the minimum in our ordinances. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask for taller berms, though the applicant may reject such a request on strict ordinance grounds.

Regarding alerting residents of the Mechanicsburg Terminals plan, totally up to you guys! Can assist however you need.

I think that’s it! Like I said, if I missed anything, let me know and I’ll look to address that as well.

Email @ 3:07 PM
From: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
To: Curt Helman [Township Planning Commission member]; Ray Palmer; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor]; Ray Brown [Chairman of Township Planning Commission]; Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]; Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Carl Machamer [Township Supervisor]; Harry Kotzmoyer [Township Supervisor]
Cc: Maitlin Greiner; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center

Adding Harry to the conversation based on meeting attendance. There are now three supervisors on this email chain, so please be aware of Sunshine issues.

Email @ 5:32 PM
From: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]
To: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Subject: FW: Notification of Residents/Businesses Regarding Trindle Spring Trade Center

Do you know if letters went out to all the neighbors of the Trindle Spring Trade Center?

July 30, 2024

Email @ 7:07 AM
From: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
To: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]
Cc:  Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Subject: Re: Notification of Residents/Businesses Regarding Trindle Spring Trade Center

This plan is by right and would not require notification to the residents. I suggest not doing this because it will set precedent for every plan for us to spend a lot of time and money on postage.

Email @ 9:09 AM
From: Kathy Stump [Township Assistant Zoning Officer]
To: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni];  Greg Holtzman [BL Companies-developer's engineer]
Cc: Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Subject: Trindle Spring Trade Center

Our copy of the "Trindle Spring Run CLOMR 2024-4-9", will not open.

Could you please forward me a clean copy asap.

Attachment: Appendix A - MT-1 Form_For Town Signature.pdf

Email @ 9:30 AM
From: Greg Holtzman [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]
To: Kevin McGarvey [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]
Subject: FW: Trindle Spring Trade Center

See below

Email @ 9:34 AM
From: Kevin McGarvey [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]
To: Kathy Stump [Township Assistant Zoning Officer]
Cc: Greg Holtzman [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center
Attachment: Appendix A - MT-1 Form_For Town Signature.pdf

Here’s the pdf again.

I don’t have any issues on my end.  Did you save it to your machine and then try opening it?   If you still can’t open it, can you send me a snip of the error message that you receive?  Or does it just not open at all?  It’s a large file, so it may just take some time.

Email @ 9:40 AM
From: Kathy Stump [Township Assistant Zoning Officer]
To: Kevin McGarvey [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]
Cc: Greg Holtzman [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
Subject: Re: Trindle Spring Trade Center

This isn't the file.

It's labeled "Trindle Spring Run CLOMR 2024-4-9" It was sent to us in April.

Email @ 10:00 AM
From: Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
To: Kathy Stump [Township Assistant Zoning Officer]; Kevin McGarvey [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]
Cc: Greg Holtzman [BL Companies-Developer's Project Engineer]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Subject: Trindle Spring Trade Center
Attachment: Appendix A - MT-1 Form_For Town Signature.pdf

Kathy – perhaps the confusion is in the dates you are referring to. In June, we switched from the concurrence form MT-2, which would have been in the April file you are referencing, to the MT-1 concurrence form, which Kevin attached and I am attaching again. It was provided as part of the No Rise Study submission on June 14, 2024, as appendix A. That study can be shared again, if need be. Please let us know if there is anything else we can provide. Thank you.

Email @ 10:52 AM
From: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
To: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Subject: RE: Notification of Residents/Businesses Regarding Trindle Spring Trade Center

Scott & I spoke, they have not been sent when “by right”, however in hindsight we should of announced on the website this plan, ( which has been in the public) is coming, even though it does not require, we should of sent out some announcement, given the scope and impact, that is the learning…

Email @ 3:10 PM
From: Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
To: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]
Cc: Sean Shultz [Township Solicitor]; Joe Peters [Development Manager for Panattoni]
Subject: Panattoni - Trindle PC Meeting

We are in the process of scheduling a meeting with residents who live along Steven Drive. We hope to meet with them in the coming weeks and think it would make more sense to return to the Planning Commission after we meet with residents. That being the case, we ask that the Planning Commission table Panattoni's plan this Thursday.

I will still attend the meeting to answer any questions about tabling the plan, but we do not intend to offer any presentation will not have any of our design team present.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with this approach.

Email @ 6:46 PM
From: Ray Brown [Chairman of Township Planning Commission]
To: Ron Secary; Randy Duncan; Curt Helman; Doug McDonald; Peter Sandys [other Township Planning Commission members]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Kathy Stump; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Carl Machamer [Township Supervisor]; David Lenker [Township Supervisor]; Harry Kotzmoyer [Township Supervisor]; Nancy Konhaus Griffie [Township Supervisor]; Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]
Subject: August PC meeting
Attachment: PCAgenda2024.08.01.draft.docx

PC Members,

I have attached the agenda with my notes for the meeting on Thursday.  I will not be able to attend and as you know Art has resigned, so Curt has agreed to run the meeting.  You will see on the agenda the need to approve a temporary Vice-Chairman for this meeting.  Someone will need to make a motion and a second to elect Curt as the temporary Vice-Chairman for this meeting.  We will elect a permanent Vice-chairman at the September meeting when everyone is there, so this is just for this meeting currently.

We are expecting a big crowd, so plan for a long meeting.  Three items will be tabled, and I believe two will be presenting.  I think Curt is planning to reverse the two plans presenting to allow Carstar to go first.

Both Ron and I will not be able to make the meeting, so that will leave four PC members at the meeting, so we will have a quorum.  Please let us know as soon as possible if someone else will not be able to attend.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Notes from Chairman Ray Brown [typed in red on the email attachment]

They will be coming back this month and I believe will be looking for a recommendation because we do not believe they will give a time extension.  Please see Aaron’s comments that I sent you in a separate email before the meeting.  We believe the Stevens Road “leader” will try to be organized with a possible power point presentation of their concerns.  There have been many more people reach out besides these residents, so I am not sure how many people will speak.  Doug had expressed a desire for them to get an answer on the CLOMR application before we voted, but that will not be possible.  The Township has not signed off on the permit yet, so it will just be submitted in the next couple of days. Our solicitor said we can place the permit approval as a condition on the plan, but we can’t hold it up waiting for the process to go through.  As I stated, I don’t believe that they will grant a time extension, so they will want to go through to the supervisors.  We can forward with a recommendation for approval, we can forward with a recommendation for denial, or we can forward with no recommendation.  Also not below that all waivers had been previously approved at the last meeting.

July 31, 2024

BL Companies [developer's engineer] response to HRG [Township Engineer] Floodplain Impact Letter #3

August 1, 2024

Email @ 2:26 PM
From: Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]
To: Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
Subject: Re: Trindle Spring Trade Center

I was in Google maps for another reason and I noticed that the "vacant" lot actually has a couple of small buildings added. I'm thinking that the images in Google are probably more recent than the ones in Property Mapper so just wanted you to have the complete information. Looks like there would still be room for an access road.

Email @ 3:14 PM
From: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
To: Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]; Aaron Moyer [HRG-Township Engineer]
Cc: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]
Subject: RE: Trindle Spring Trade Center

Yes and sold for multiple millions of dollars, recently…

Meeting @ 6:30 PM
Planning Commission meeting: Discussion/action is tabled at the request of the applicant.

August 5, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Floodplain Impacts Review Letter #4

August 6, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Traffic Impact Study Review Letter #4

August 23, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer] - Subdivision & Land Development Review Letter #5 (Revised)

August 28, 2024

Board of Supervisors meeting: Consent agenda item 5(a) - Approved a motion for a Plan Review Time Extension #3 for Trindle Spring Trade Center from September 5, 2024 to October 5, 2024.

September 4, 2024

Email @ 4:08 PM

From: Ray Brown [Chairman of Planning Commission]
To: Curt Helman; Randy Duncan; Doug McDonald; Ron Secary; Peter Sandys [other Township Planning Commission members]
Cc: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Carl Machamer [Township Supervisor]; David Lenker [Township Supervisor]; Harry Kotzmoyer [Township Supervisor]; Nancy Konhaus Griffie [Township Supervisor]; Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]
Subject: September PC Meeting

PC Members,

I have attached the agenda for the meeting tomorrow night with some of my comments.  I do expect this to be a long meeting with many residents in attendance.  I will do my best to try and keep it moving along.  One wildcard is I have heard that the Stevens Drive residents raised some money and hired an attorney and an engineer to look at everything with the Trindle Spring Trade Center development.  We do not know if they have come up with any challenges or if they will attend the meeting.

Curt has agreed to be the Vice Chair if the PC would like to appoint him.  I will ask for ay nominations, and if someone on the PC supports his appointment, please make a nomination for Curt to be the Vice-chair.  We have also set up interviews for next Monday with people interested in being on the PC.  The plan is to have the Supervisors appoint someone at their September meeting and for them to start at Our October meeting.

I know Doug will not be able to attend, so if anyone else will not be able to attend, please let me know as soon as possible.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Email @ 4:55 PM
From: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
To: Ray Brown [Chairman of Planning Commission]; Curt Helman; Randy Duncan; Randy Duncan; Doug McDonald; Ron Secary; Peter Sandys [other Township Planning Commission members]
Cc: Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist]; Carl Machamer [Township Supervisor]; David Lenker [Township Supervisor]; Harry Kotzmoyer [Township Supervisor]; Nancy Konhaus Griffie [Township Supervisor]; Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]; Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]
Subject: September PC Meeting

TWP Solicitor Sean Shultz will be in attendance also.

September 5, 2024

Planning Commission meeting: Agenda item #3, listed under Old Business: Trindle Spring Trade Center (2024-1) (9/5/24): Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan; Parcel ID: 38-08-0567-013 & 38-08-0567-014; Address: 401 Mulberry Drive & 107 Texaco Road

Proposal: Construction of a +/- 1,205,280 SF warehouse facility as well as associated improvements.

Waiver(s):

i. [SLDO 402] - Preliminary Plan – Approved at 7/11/24 PC Meeting

ii. [SLDO 402.02.3] - Plan Sheet Size – Approved at 7/11/24 PC Meeting

iii. [SLDO 602.182.3.g] - Minimum Tangential Arc – Approved at 7/11/24 PC Meeting

iv. [SWMO 301.C] - Minimum Pipe Size – Approved at 7/11/24 PC Meeting

v. [SWMO 304.L.2] - Facility Bottom Elevation – Approved at 7/11/24 PC Meeting

vi. [SWMO 305.D.1] - Maximum Gutter Flow Depth – Approved at 7/11/24 PC Meeting

During public comment, Attorney William Cluck makes a formal request to hold a public hearing to introduce expert evidence for the record regarding this proposed project.

A motion to recommend the plan be denied is made by Peter Sandys. The motion dies with no second. No further motions are made. The plan will move onto the Board of Supervisors with no formal recommendation by the Planning Commission.

September 11, 2024

The Board of Supervisors of the Township of Silver Spring hereby gives public notice that it will hold an in-person Public Hearing on September 26, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. at the Cumberland Valley High School Performing Arts Center, 6746 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg to consider and vote on the proposed Trindle Spring Trade Center project.

September 12, 2024

FEMA cover letter and comment document to Silver Spring Township.

September 13, 2024

Email @ 11:46 AM

From: Ray Brown [Chairman of Planning Commission]
To: Carl Machamer [Township Supervisor]; David Lenker [Township Supervisor]; Harry Kotzmoyer [Township Supervisor]; Nancy Konhaus Griffie [Township Supervisor]; Laura Brown [Township Supervisor]
Cc: Curt Helman; Ron Secary; Randy Duncan;; Doug McDonald; Peter Sandys [other Township Planning Commission members], Ray Palmer [Township Manager]; Cheryl Neidig [Township Assistant Manager]; Scott Maldonado [Township Lead Land Development Specialist];
Subject: September PC Meeting

Township Supervisors, 

I apologize this is late, the past two weeks have been busy for me as 9/16 is the extended due date for Partnerships and S Corporations and I have had a lot of late filers this year. I know four of you were at the meeting, so I wasn’t too concerned about getting this out late.

We had a large crowd that exceeded the 100-person limit under the fire code, so some people were out in the hallway. As expected, they were almost all in opposition to the new warehouse plan for Trindle Spring Trade Center. I have attached the agenda with my comments. Let me know if you have any questions.

Randy and I also interviewed five applicants for the open PC position on Monday and we both agreed that we recommend Kelly Palmer be appointed to the PC at your September meeting. Laura and Harry were also involved in the interview, so they can provide their thoughts as wella t [sic] your meeting. If you have any questions for me, please let me know

Notes from Chairman Ray Brown on attachment for Trindle Spring Trade Center

The plan was forwarded with no recommendation from the planning commission.  There was one motion to deny, but it died due to no second.  No other motions were made.  There were some questions from the PC regarding what traffic improvements were proposed and if the developers had met with the residents from Stevens Drive since the last meeting and if they had made any changes related to the Stevens Drive access.  We were told they had talked to a couple of the residents but not in a large group and they had made no changes to the plan.  The PC also asked about the CLOMOR-F application and we were told it had been submitted, but they have not yet received approval.  They were hoping for approval in the next couple of weeks.  There were a lot of residents who spoke opposing the plan.  The first was an attorney who some residents had hired to look at the plan.  He brought up the issue that several right to know requests had not been answered and he had major concerns with traffic and said there were math errors in the Clomor F application.  He was asking for a hearing to be able to present their experts who he said would come to different conclusions than the Townships experts did.  Other residents spoke and their concerns were safety, traffic, noise and air pollution.  The residents of Stevens Drive would like a cul-de-sac be built at the end of their road to prevent traffic from cutting up Stevens Drive.  The majority of the other traffic concerns were related to Texaco Road and the 90 degree turns on State Road.  They were also upset about the rezoning to I2 that happened a couple of years ago.  They were also upset that this could be approved in a Floodplain and what the impact would be on area streams and other properties. 

Email @ 2:31 PM
From: Ray Palmer [Township Manager]
To: Aaron Moyer [Township Engineer], Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]
Subject: FW: September PC Meeting
Attachments: PCAgenda2024.09.05 Supervisors.docx

Since you were present, wanted you to have.

The math #’s the other attorney referenced, if incomplete or inaccurate, DEP would catch and deny correct? 

September 16, 2024

HRG [Township Engineer]  - Subdivision & Land Development Review Letter #6

Silver Spring Township - Community Development Department Comments (Updated)

Email @ 2:31 PM
From: Aaron Moyer [Township Engineer]
To: Ray Palmer [Township Manager], Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]
Subject: RE: September PC Meeting

Thanks for the heads up!

Regarding the math errors, I believe he was speaking about the CLOMR-F, which is reviewed by FEMA. FEMA should indeed find any math errors if there were any. FEMA actually approved the permit today with no technical comments, so between HRG's review (which did find a few errors that required correction) and FEMA's review, I'm skeptical of any consequential math errors being present.

September 19, 2024

All exhibits and expert reports for were due by 12:00 noon for the public hearing on September 26th. Request forms for Party Status were also due.

September 25, 2024

Email @ 11:22 AM
From: Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
To: Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor], William Cluck [Residents' Attorney]
Cc: Helen Gemmill [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys], Olivia Broy [Resident with Party Status]
Subject: PDC Proposed Conditions
Attachment:  Conditions Letter - Silver Spring Township.docx

Sean and Bill,

Attached are PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC's proposed conditions of approval. Please share the proposed conditions with your clients for their consideration.

Bill,

FYI—Come of the consitions directly affect four of your clients that live along Texaco Road at the intersections of Keener Drive and Steven Drive.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Meeting @ 6:30 PM
Board of Supervisors meeting: Approved a motion to ratify the Rules for MPC§508(5) Public Hearings as drafted by the Township Solicitor.

September 26, 2024

Email @ 12:38 PM
From: Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor]
To: Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys], William Cluck [Residents' Attorney]
Cc: Helen Gemmill [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys], Olivia Broy [Resident with Party Status]
Subject: RE: PDC Proposed Conditions

I obviously don't have any input from my Board on these yet, but please see the attached revisions along with comments and questions that may lead to further needed revision.

Email @ 4:09 PM
From: Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
To: Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor], William Cluck [Residents' Attorney]
Cc: Helen Gemmill [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys], Olivia Broy [Resident with Party Status]
Subject: RE: PDC Proposed Conditions
Attachments: Conditions Letter - Silver Spring Township - MWN 092624 (Clean).docx; Conditions Letter - Silver Spring Township - MWN 092624 (Redline with Comments).docx

Revised and attached in redline with comments and as a clean version. Thank you for your feedback.

Public Hearing @ 6:30 PM
Public Hearing minutes: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. at the Cumberland Valley High School Performing Arts Center, 6746 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg to consider and vote on the proposed Trindle Spring Trade Center project. 

Email @ 7:48 PM
From: Jeffrey Esch McCombie [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys]
To: Sean Schultz [Township Solicitor], Olivia Broy [Resident with Party Status], Helen Gemmill [McNees Wallace & Nurick-Developer's Attorneys], William Cluck [Residents' Attorney]
Subject: Fw: PDC Proposed Conditions
Attachments: Conditions Letter - Silver Spring Township - MWN 092624 (Clean).docx; Conditions Letter - Silver Spring Township - MWN 092624 (Redline with Comments).docx

I think they were discussing the original memo offering conditions, not the revised version sent earlier today that Sean referrenced.

Despite a rain-soaked evening, residents turned out in droves to the public hearing expecting there to be public comment and a final vote on the Trindle Spring Trade Center at the Public Hearing on September 26, 2024. 

Attorney William Cluck and engineering experts John Nawn, Andrew Weaver and Bruce Haigh challenged the developer's experts and the proposed warehouse plans submitted to the township.

• John Nawn, PE, PTOE, FNSPE, Nawn Forensics

• Andrew Weaver, PE, CFM, Envalue Engineering

• Bruce Haigh, PE, LTC (Ret.) USACE, Whittemore and Haigh Engineering

However, the hearing lasted more than 6-1/2 hours—well past midnight which created a potential Sunshine Law violation (if a final vote were to occur on September 27, 2024 and had not been previously advertised). Attorney William Cluck, representing the residents, brought this to the attention of the township solicitor. Furthermore, he noted that because the September 26, 2024 meeting ran so late, many residents had already left and felt they should be given the chance to participate and be heard with their public comments. 

Legal counsel for both sides conferred with the township's solicitor and the deadline for a decision was agreed to be subsequently extended—which is why there is another hearing on October 9, 2024 at 6:00 PM at the Cumberland Valley High School Performing Arts Center, 6746 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050.

September 27, 2024

During the public hearing, there were several mentions of a Memorandum of proposed conditions of approval submitted by the developer's attorneys to the township's solicitor on behalf of the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 2024—one day prior to the public hearing.  

While the Memorandum had not been made public by the township, sources said the developer had initially proposed a $1,000,000 escrow fund for "mitigation and litigation" purposes.

A Right to Know request was filed to gain access to this Memorandum—which also provided an email exchange between the developer's attorneys and the township solicitor and the redline comments of the original version.

The revised version of this Memorandum now proposes a minimum of $750,000 as Mitigation Funds. "The Mitigation Funds shall be used to provide transportation improvements and other improvements for the benefit of the owners of the Residential Parcels."  NOTE: There are 19 property owners listed on Exhibit A of the document, which includes 15 owners on Steven Drive and 4 owners on Texaco Road.

• Original version of Memorandum with redline comments 

• Emails between the developer's attorneys and the township solicitor

• Revised version of Memorandum — sent on September 26, 2024 at 4:09 PM (2 hours and 21 minutes before the start of the public hearing)

October 9, 2024

Announcement @ approx. 11:15 AM
This following announcement was posted on the township's website [6-3/4 hours prior to the Public Hearing]:

Below is the link to the Township Engineer's current draft report analyzing the claims by the objecting residents' experts. The Township Solicitor has also provided input, as indicated in the report's footnotes.

Click Here for Report 

Public Hearing @ 6:00 PM
Public Hearing minutes: The Board of Supervisors held the continuance of the in-person Public Hearing to consider and vote on the proposed Trindle Spring Trade Center project.  The public hearing started at 6:00 PM and was held at the Cumberland Valley High School Performing Arts Center, 6746 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsbug, PA 17050

After the completion of public comment, attorneys for the objectors and the developer offered their closing statements. After a brief recess, the Board began their deliberations. 

The final action was an unanimous vote (5-0) to deny the plan. 

A reporter from WHP-TV 21 Harrisburg was provided this comment by a spokesperson for the developer regarding the board's decision:

At Panattoni Development Company, we are committed to fostering positive relationships with the communities where we operate. We recognize the importance of balancing economic development with the needs and concerns of local residents, stakeholders, and governing bodies.

Regarding the recent zoning decision in Cumberland County, we want to assure the community that we are listening and take all feedback seriously. We remain dedicated to working closely with local officials, community members, and other stakeholders to address concerns and find solutions that align with the county's goals for growth while respecting the values of its residents. Our aim is to contribute to the long-term success of the region by providing developments that benefit both the local economy and community. Panattoni Development Company will continue to engage in transparent discussions with the community and local government as we navigate this process.

Please stay tuned—updates will be posted as this issue continues to unfold.

The Board of Supervisors will hold its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 6:30 PM at the Administration Building, 8 Flowers Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. The agenda may be viewed on the township's website at: https://www.sstwp.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/1890?html=true

KEY DISCUSSIONS

• Carlisle Pike Corridor - Active Transportation Study

• Land Preservation Incentive Program 

• Status of Township Projects & Financial Update

• Three new warehouses to be built on the former Hempt Farms (nearly 2 million sq. ft. of warehouse space)

• Ordinance 2024-07 Silver Spring Township Fire Code

• TRINDLE SPRING TRADE CENTER - Consideration of a motion to approve/deny/table authorizing the Chair or Vice-Chair to execute the decision denying the Preliminary/Final Subdivision and Land Development Plan for Trindle Spring Trade Center.

• Ordinance 2024-08 (R2024-1): Text Amendment – Parcel ID 38-06-0011-069; 38-06-0011-070; 38-06-0011-071, / 600, 800 & 1000 Winding Creek Blvd.

• Carlisle Pike Underpass Agreement

• Municipal Campus (Public Works & Compost Facility) 

• Carlisle Pike Underpass Agreement

• It appears the development of the former Hempt Farms property will benefit from an estimated $5 million dollar pedestrian/cyclist underpass of the Carlisle Pike funded by taxpayer dollars through PennDOT.  State Senator Greg Rothman (34th Senate District) and State Representative Thomas Kutz (87th House District) issued a joint letter to the township on July 8, 2024 promoting the public safety aspect of this project.  Both of these elected officials serve on the Appropriations Committee of their respective chambers.

• The plan of the proposed path system (below) shows the underpass location approximately 600 ft. east of the football stadium on the Cumberland Valley High School campus. Future connection points on the former Hempt Farms property include: the 432 unit apartment complex, the 250 unit townhouse neighborhood, and the proposed municipal campus along Woods Drive.

• No word on how much this will ultimately cost the taxpayers—as PennDOT is asking Silver Spring Township to take on long-term ownership once the project is complete.

• Investigative research of campaign finance reports has revealed $5,000 in contributions to "Kutz for PA" and $7,000 in contributions to "Friends of Greg Rothman" in 2023 from one individual involved with the development.

November 15, 2024

PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC files a Notice of Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12177) with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County due to the Board of Supervisors denial of the proposed Trindle Springs Trade Center—a 1.2 million sq. ft. mega-warehouse.

• View the developer's Notice of Land Use Appeal

November 22, 2024

Several residents file a Notice of Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12523) with the court to support the Board of Supervisors decision and provide additional basis for the denial of the plan.  

• View the resident's Notice of Land Use Appeal

December 6, 2024

Residents file a Petition to Intervene in PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC's Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12177).  The court has given PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC until December 30, 2024 to show cause why the relief requested by the Petitioners should not be granted.

Within this court filing, the residents' attorney states:

Petitioners have filed a separate Land Use Appeal docketed at 2024-12523 supporting the Board's decision, but pleading additional basis for denial of the Application.  In that matter, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for the Petitioners demanding Petitioners withdraw that appeal or it will seek attorney's fees and costs.

• View the Petition to Intervene

December 6, 2024

Residents file a Petition to Intervene in PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC's Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12177).  The court has given PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC until December 30, 2024 to show cause why the relief requested by the Petitioners should not be granted.

Within this court filing, the residents' attorney states:

Petitioners have filed a separate Land Use Appeal docketed at 2024-12523 supporting the Board's decision, but pleading additional basis for denial of the Application.  In that matter, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for the Petitioners demanding Petitioners withdraw that appeal or it will seek attorney's fees and costs.

• View the Petition to Intervene

December 6, 2024

Residents file a Petition to Intervene in PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC's Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12177).  The court has given PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC until December 30, 2024 to show cause why the relief requested by the Petitioners should not be granted.

Within this court filing, the residents' attorney states:

Petitioners have filed a separate Land Use Appeal docketed at 2024-12523 supporting the Board's decision, but pleading additional basis for denial of the Application.  In that matter, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for the Petitioners demanding Petitioners withdraw that appeal or it will seek attorney's fees and costs.

• View the Petition to Intervene

February 6, 2025

The Honorable Matthew P. Smith, Judge has ordered a hearing scheduled for February 13, 2025 at 1:30pm in Courtroom No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse in order for the Court to determine several outstanding motions in the Civil Action - Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12177 and 2024-12523) regarding 401 Mulberry Drive and 107 Texaco Road in Silver Spring Township.

• View the Order of the Court

February 19, 2025

After the hearing on February 13th, the Honorable Matthew P. Smith, Judge issued two subsequent Orders of the Court.  Two residents were granted Intervenor Status in the Land Use Appeal (Docket No. 2024-12177).

The Order further states "Pursuant to 11005-A and 11006-A, the Court will not limit itself to the decision of the township.  It will instead allow consideration of evidence and arguments heard only at the original township hearing..."

The Court is scheduled to hold a status conference on April 17, 2025 at 2:30 pm in Courtroom 4 in person to argue the next steps and enter a case management order at that time.

April 17, 2025

A status conference was held on April 17, 2025 in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas in the land use appeal of PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC (appellant) v. Silver Spring Township (appellee) and the Intervenors.

Interim events from previous court hearing

• March 28, 2025 - PDC Northeast LPIV JH/IM, LLC files a Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration from an Order of the Court dated February 13, 2025

• March 31, 2025 - An Order of Court is issued in response to the Appellant's Response to Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration

• April 14, 2025 - Silver Spring Township files a Response to Appellant's Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration

• April 14, 2025 - Intervenors file a Response to Appellant's Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration

Following verbal arguments from all parties, the Honorable Matthew J. Smith, Judge issued an Order of Court, which states "the parties are ordered to provide a very concise brief on the issue of whether the Court is consigned to the reasons of denial as delineated in the October 23, 2024, denial letter, or the Court can have a de novo review of the entire record. Said briefs are due no later than Friday, April 25, 2025, by close of business. The Court will then take the matter under review."

Disclaimer: The information contained on this page is within the public domain and/or has been legally obtained through Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law.