I will begin my presentation with a follow up to the action items from the last BoS meeting. Namely, we were promised that the 2003 Ordinances on-line would be updated with the newer 2014 version. We requested answers to some questions, and will be expecting those answers at this meeting. If they do not have answers, we refile the complaint. complaint6_form
Next we need to clarify a few items. Who owns the road Old 22? and is there a movement to trade Long Lane for Old 22? And did the township and PennDOT come to an agreement on not changing the Long Lane intersection and on moving the Crossroads X driveway south on Rt 737.
And, what are the two PennDOT boxes posted on the Crossroads X property supposed to be tracking?
First order of business to address with the Board of Supervisors is the information provided by McMahon to PennDOT regarding traffic trips for a High Cube Distribution Center. We spent two days reviewing studies put out by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). According to the ITE most recent High Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, dated October 2016, numbers for a High Cube Distribution Center vary widely based on the tenant. A FedEx or UPS center will generated thousands of trips as opposed to an Ikea center which could generate as few as a couple hundred trips. (Read our summary paper here ITE Analysis dated Oct 2016) When we have this presentation prepared, we will be sending it via email to The Board of Supervisors, to Dennis Toomey at PennDOT and to John Wichner at McMahon. They stated 320 trips, the ITE Analysis states 792 for general analysis, 788 for low end HCW and 5,000+ for high end HCW.
The issue lies in the lack of a tenant, so we cannot be fully aware of how many trips to the warehouse. We will be filing this PETITION challenging the McMahon statement of trips. Please download page 1 and fill out to bring to the meeting, or drop it at my house in the box I have provided by my side door. petition1_36pgs
Because McMahon has stated such a low volume of traffic, PennDOT is not reviewing the driveway for traffic signalization and PennDOT clearly stated at the April 12th meeting that they do not intend to reduce the speed limit through that area where traffic will be exiting the warehouse property onto Route 737. Driveway Design Requirements. We believe the 441.8 (iv) High Volume Driveway will apply and PennDOT needs to review PA CODE 067,CHAPTER 441.9 ACCESS TO AND OCCUPANCY OF HIGHWAYS BY DRIVEWAYS AND LOCAL ROADS.
AND, considering volumes will be higher than McMahon stated, and they move Long Lane to create a new intersection, a traffic signal will be required at the expense of the developer. PA CODE 067, CHAPTER 212.5 Installation and maintenance responsibilities. Subsection (d) Traffic-control devices on local highway approaches to intersections with State-designated highways.
AND, the grade from the proposed new intersection of the driveway and Long Lane to the established intersection of Old 22 and Route 737 needs to be PennDOT reviewed per 212.11 Hazardous Grade Speed Limits and to impose a non-air brake zone so that the Noise Ordinance Imposed by Greenwich Township is not violated.
Second order of business. The intersection of Old 22 and Route 737. According to the 2015 2015 Berks County Traffic Volume Study, published February 2017, states the intersection of Old 22 and Route 737 is currently at 2,300 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) and south of I-78 on Route 737 the current AADT is 3,800. PennDOT states the intersection is an existing problem and the additional traffic is not going to require changes to the signal. We did request a traffic signal assessment study at the March 12th meeting, and he agreed to perform that prior to completing the review for the Warehouse project HOP , we will follow up! And we are filing this Petition petition2_form asking for more PennDOT reviews prior to issuing the HOP to McMahon.
Third order of business. We have received the Engineering Review, nine pages. engineer_review_march162017 Dated from November 16, 2016 (first plan submission) through March 16, 2017 (last submission). There is reference to a 44 page submission dated September 30, 2016. I have formally requested copies of this document on April 6, 2017 but have not received those pages as of April 19, 2017. The Engineering Review is not signed by an engineer. We need to challenge this. We can officially request an certified engineer (P.E.) to review the SALDO and Warehouse Plans.
Fourth order of business. McMahon stated that they had the DEP permits to cross the swamplands. I called DEP and requested a “Right To KNOW” documentation on the permit study and findings and the permit itself. I was informed by DEP that at this time there are no permits issues for that parcel of land. So, can McMahon clarify to us exactly what DEP permits they have already procured?
And so … We are compiling more complaints to be filed!!! Please download, print, sign and fax or bring to the meeting any of these complaints that you feel are relevant to you!
refile_complaint4_form Regarding Ordinance 802 Nuisances due to increased traffic
complaint5_form Regarding open items for website updates that we were promised on April 3, 2017
complaint6_form Regarding damages to property and homes
petition1_form Petition against McMahon’s HIGH CUBE
petition2_form Petition against PennDOT to do a real traffic study of the intersection of Old 22 and Route 737 in Krumsville – not at the property located north of this intersection.