CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. Tentative Agenda

Transcription

1 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Tentative Agenda The next meeting of the Cumberland County Planning Commission will be held on Thursday, June 21, 2018, 7:30 A.M. at 310 Allen Road, Carlisle, Pa. 1. Call to Order: Pledge of Allegiance/ Moment of Silent Reflection 2. Minutes: May 17, Public Comment 4. New Business A. Ordinance Amendments (Action) 1. Hampden - Zoning Map change Apartment-Office-Limited to Commercial-General, Trindle Rd and St. Johns Church Rd., 6.37 acres B. Ordinance Amendments (Information) 1. East Pennsboro Zoning text change Medical Marijuana regulations 2. East Pennsboro Zoning text change Sign regulations 3. Hampden Zoning text change - Industrial Business Center signs 4. Middlesex Zoning text change - CH zone frontage and height requirements for warhouses/distribution centers C. Subdivision and Land Development Plans (Information) D. Sewage Modules 1. Lower Frankford Jeffrey & Tina Weyant, 1 commercial use, McClures Gap Rd (holding tank) 2. Upper Allen Canterbury Estates trunk sewer replacement, 8 line to 12 line (public) E. Commissioners Liaison Report (Information) F Planning Program (Information) G. Other Business 5. Adjournment To: July 19, 2018

2 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting May 17, 2018 The monthly meeting of the Cumberland County Planning Commission was held Thursday May 17, 2018 at 7:30 a.m. at 310 Allen Road, Carlisle, PA. Roll Call CCPC Members: John Epley, Jack Showley, Rick Trynoski, James Ross, Heather Sweitzer, RJ Fisher, Chris Knarr and Jim Hertzler (Commissioner Liaison replacing Gary Eichelberger) Absent: CCPD Staff: Other Staff Applicants / Representatives: Guests / Residents: Press: Barb Wilson Kirk Stoner, Jeff Kelly and Stephanie Williams Vince McCollum, Conservation District; Mary Kuna, CAEDC. Bob Gill, Bill Baker, and Dearan Quigley, East Pennsboro Township; Andy Giorgione and Ken Tuckey, Cumberland County Industrial Development Authority; Charlie Courtney, McNees, Wallace, and Nurick; Jim Snyder, Snyder, Secary, and Associates; Craig Mellott, Traffic Planning and Design; Andrew Mele, Trammell Crow Company Christy King, Alicia Coble, Karen Kostelak, and George Kostelak residents of Summerdale in East Pennsboro Township. None 1. Call to Order: Pledge of Allegiance/ Moment of Silent Reflection John Epley called the meeting to order at 7:30 am. John reported to the group that Ra Kligge passed away last Friday. The group observed a moment of silence in Ra s honor. 2. Minutes: March 18, 2018 Jack Showley made a motion to approve the April 19, 2018 minutes. Rick Trynoski seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. Public Comment Commissioner Jim Hertzler provided public comment. Mr. Hertzler extended his condolences for loss of Board Member Ra Kligge and recognized his service to the County. He commended the Planning Commission for their support of new Comprehensive Plan and their letter to the Cumberland Valley School District opposing condemnation of the McCormick Farm. Lastly, Commissioner Hertzler provided comments in opposition to the East Pennsboro Township text amendment, as written, citing inconsistency with the County Comprehensive Plan, specific community opposition to a potential warehouse use, negative impact to residential development and preservation of the historic Longsdorff house. He indicated his comments represent his opinions and not necessarily the opinion of the full Board of Commissioners. 1

3 4. New Business A. East Pennsboro - Zoning Text change Allow Light Industrial uses as a permitted use in the Commercial Park Limited zone. (Action) Charlie Courtney provided an introduction to the proposed text amendment. The Trammel Crow Company has proposed a text amendment to the Commercial Park Limited (CPL) zoning district in East Pennsboro Township. The text amendment would allow a variety of light industrial uses in the CPL zone and provides a variety of specific use standards that would be required for light industrial uses in that zone. Andy Giorgione provided a background and summary of the IDA s role in Summerdale Project. The IDA was awarded $3M in state grants to promote the development and utilization of the Summerdale site. He addressed the historic Longsdorff House noting that discussions had occurred to disassemble the house and relocate it to another location or use the materials on site. Transporting the house to another site may not be feasible given the condition of the house. Andrew Mele reviewed some of the development challenges of the Summerdale property including topography, a creek bed, traffic/access, PennDOT shed and the shift in market conditions. He then reviewed a conceptual site plan which included two industrial buildings, 121,000 square feet and 362,000 square feet in size, with traffic entering from Route 11/15. Truck activity will be facing inward to mitigate negative impact to surrounding neighborhood. Other proposed retail on the site could include convenience gas station, hotel, and bank. Trammel Crow s intention is not to build large scale warehouse facility. Traffic generation will be less than the larger retail and office building previously suggested development. See attached presentation. RJ Fisher inquired if there had been consideration to dividing the largest building into two smaller buildings, which may decrease truck traffic. Mr. Mele responded that does not present an optimal design and suggested that smaller building may not result in less traffic. Traffic is more dependent on the type of occupant. James Ross inquired what is the office to warehouse space ratio? Mr. Mele responded on average 15-20% office. Mr. Ross further inquired what is proposed ceiling height? Mr. Mele indicated 36 foot clear, with wall height of feet. Jack Showley inquired what the building height would be with respect to street view. Will there be a berm or fencing on First Street? Mr. Courtney indicated a berm would be included as part of the project. Charlie Courtney summarized that the East Pennsboro Township comprehensive plan recommends the property for commercial use which includes a permitted use of light industrial and this proposal is consistent with that plan. Mr. Courtney further indicated that the County Comprehensive plan depicts the area as commercial and cites that light industrial uses would be appropriate. RJ Fisher inquired why does the proposal not include maximum building size restriction as the project site could be arranged to support one large warehouse as opposed to the two smaller buildings? Mr. Mele indicated that could be considered, it was not included due to the configuration of the lot. 2

4 Christy King, 207 First Street, Summerdale, expressed concerns that the project will negative property values and enjoyment of their property and would not improve the quality of life of the community. Ms. King also expressed concerned of potential truck traffic impacts and number of signal lights on First Street. Her vision of the property would be green space. Alicia Coble, 309 Fourth Street, Summerdale, expressed opinion that the Summerdale community is opposed to light industrial. She cited the lack of need for the proposed retail facilities, which could put other existing enterprises out of business. She also expressed concern of the proposed building height would be out of character of the surrounding area and would be visually unappealing. Ms. Coble expressed safety concerns for pedestrians who currently walk in the Summerdale neighborhood. Air, water and noise pollution were also listed as concerns. Ms. Coble cited the county s comprehensive plan survey in opposition of warehousing and need for additional agricultural and green space. George Kostelak, 5510 Westbury, Summerdale Expressed concerns about traffic associated with light industrial. Kirk Stoner provided staff insight on the proposal. The East Pennsboro Township Comprehensive Plan is 13 years old and currently under update, thus the goals and objectives included in the plan may no longer be relevant. The Cumberland County Comprehensive Plan shows the Summerdale tract as an opportunity area that may need public sector support for its future development. The CPL district does not allow future residential development, thus the site was intended for some sort of nonresidential development. Its strategic location lends itself as an attractive place for future development. The county plan specifically mentions certain light industrial uses that would be appropriate in the Commercial Character Area. Warehousing and distribution uses are not specifically listed in the Commercial Character Area but rather are listed in the Industrial Character Area. The text amendment does not sufficiently define light industrial uses nor does it establish practical limits on building size, floor area, or community impacts. Without further definition, a light industrial use could grow to the point where it becomes a more intense general industrial use that would conflict with the surrounding neighborhoods. The text amendment includes decreased buffering standards for light industrial uses without clear justification for the lower standard. James Ross indicated that the proposed warehousing and distribution use is not the right fit for the site. The proposal would have a negative impact to residential neighborhood. Mr. Ross also expressed concerns about traffic and signalization. James Ross made a motion to deny the text amendment, seconded by Rick Trynoski. Chairman Epley asked for additional discussion. RJ Fisher cited consistency with local plans and proximity to local highways. Mr. Ross further indicated the proposed use is not consistent with the character of the area and potential for negative impacts. Rick Trynoski asked if the ordinance would provide for a truck stop? Kirk Stoner responded that such a use would be subject to interpretation by the township. Mr. Trynoski further suggested that text could be tightened to indicate warehousing must be related to processing and assembly and not be a standalone use which could be more intense. John Epley expressed concern with the timeline and pressure associated with approving the proposal to take advantage of the state grants. 3

5 Action: Jim Ross made a motion to recommend disapproval of the text amendment to East Pennsboro Township. Rick Trynoski seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 4-1 vote with RJ Fisher opposing the motion. Jack Showley left the meeting before the vote was taken. Chris Knarr abstained from discussion and voting on the amendment as his employer is actively involved with the project. B. Ordinance Amendments (Information) 1. Shiremanstown Zoning text change Sign regulations Shiremanstown Borough is proposing a revision to its sign regulations. CCPD staff reviewed the proposal and had numerous comments that were forwarded to the Borough. The Borough indicated receipt of the comments and they were working on a revision of the ordinance. 2. Silver Spring Comprehensive Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Plan Silver Spring Township updated its Comprehensive Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Plan. CCPD staff provided minor administrative comments and recommended approval of the plan to the township. C. Subdivision and Land Development Plans (Information) 10 plans were reviewed by staff in May. There have been 15 fewer plans submitted for review YTD in 2018 as compared to See attached summary. D. Commissioners Liaison Report (Information) None. E Planning Program (Information) None. F. Other Business None 5. Adjournment To: On a motion by Ricky Trynoski and seconded by RJ Fisher, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 am. The next CCPC meeting will be on June 21, Respectfully Submitted, Stephanie Williams Planning Manager 4

6 Cumberland County Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 2018 Statement of Jim Hertzler Cumberland County Commissioner Members of Cumberland County Planning Commission, good morning. First of all, let me take this opportunity to extend to you my deepest sympathy over the loss of your Planning Commission colleague, Ra Kligge. I didn't know Mr. Kligge, but our hearts go out to his friends and family, and with our gratitude for his service to our county. In addition, I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for standing tall in support of our county's updated comprehensive plan -- which you all had a hand in crafting -- by echoing and supporting the position taken by our Board in objecting to the Cumberland Valley School District's condemnation of the preserved, 100-plus acre McCormick Farm property in Silver Spring Township. While none of us delight in taking a position contrary to one of the finest school districts in the state, the fact is that this proposed use of eminent domain, unnecessarily, in our opinion, pits one public purpose or public interest against another-and as you noted in your letter to the school district on March 20 "is inconsistent with the goals and objectives" of the comprehensive plan and future land use map which designates the McCormick Farm as Agriculture/Prime Farmland and as a historically significant site. Your letter, as is the letter previously and unanimously approved by the Board of Commissioners, and several others, including one from our county's Agricultural Land Preservation Board, is included as an attachment to an "Amicus", or friend of the court, brief that we've filed in the case in Cumberland County court, along with Natural Lands Trust, objecting to the school district's taking of the McCormick property. So, again, thank you for your support of keeping the McCormick Farm a preserved farm and in maintaining the integrity of the comprehensive plan that we all supported and approved. I have taken the time to be here this morning to ask for your help in maintaining the integrity of another part of the county's comprehensive plan, and with respect to maintaining the public trust concerning a 50-acre tract of land, the so-called Summerdale Property, in my hometown of East Pennsboro Township. But, before I continue, I want to be clear. I am here, representing myself, as one of your county commissioners, and not necessarily on behalf individually of either of my commissioner colleagues or the Board as a whole. The truth is that I do not know the position of my colleagues on this issue. I am also here as a 40-year citizen and taxpayer of East Pennsboro Township, where -before my first election as one of your county commissioners in had served for 22 years as an East Pennsboro Township Commissioner, the vice president of the board for many years, and, before that, as a school board member. I am here today to personally ask you NOT to recommend approval -without substantial changes - of the so-called "text amendment" to East Pennsboro Township's Commercial Park Limited District that would permit warehousing in a district where we never wanted to see warehouses.

7 -2- And I make this request as someone with some historical and institutional knowledge pertaining to this property, as acquired from the state, in conjunction with an agreement between the parties, by the Cumberland County Industrial Development Authority and East Pennsboro Township many years ago. At the outset, let me emphasize that as a township commissioner at the time, we had re-zoned the Summerdale tract from Industrial (when the state owned it and which would have permitted warehousing) to Commercial Park Limited precisely because the people of East Pennsboro Township and our Board did not want to see warehousing, and all of the associated detrimental noise, pollution and disruption of tractor trailer traffic directly abutting the residential neighborhood of Summerdale. In fact, the whole reason the township entered into the Memorandum of Understanding between the Cumberland County Industrial Development Authority and the township to acquire the site from the state in April of 2007, 11 years ago, was because a previous proposal by Crossgate Management for the development of the site as "Tech Port West" had fallen through, and we were convinced that acquisition would allow us to better control the development. That MOU stipulates, very clearly, that "one of the primary goals of the CCIDA and the Township is to ensure quality development of the Summerdale Project in a manner that prioritizes the best interests of the Township." And by the best interests of the township, we meant the people who have made East Pennsboro Township and, in particular, the Village of Summerdale, their home. Simply stated, there were three primary objectives: 1/ No warehouses; 2/ save the historic, 206-year-old Longsdorf home on the property, the birthplace of Enola Miller, whose first name became the name of a rail station and later the name of an entire community; and, 3/ make sure traffic was mitigated and sufficient buffer was provided to shield the residential area of Summerdale from the development. And while I appreciate, and I really do, all of the efforts of CC IDA and the township staff in advancing prospects for development, the proposed text amendment "as is" is unacceptable. The definition of "Light Industrial" slips in the word "distributing", i.e. warehousing; along with "indoor storing or wholesaling of materials," i.e. warehousing. That's a far cry from the permitted uses in the Commercial Park Limited District of hotels, restaurants, professional offices, retail, banks, residential, automobile service stations, medical and dental clinics, and the like. What's more, contrary to the assertion you may hear today, the county's most recent comprehensive plan identifies the Summerdale tract, as I read it, correctly as a Commercial Character Area - which does not allow for warehouses - from the previous county comp plan that identified the tract as a "Highway Interchange Character Area" which would have allowed warehouses.

8 -3- It would seem to me that, in fact, the county's most recently approved comprehensive plan, again, contrary to what you may hear from the proponents of this text amendment, played catch up with the Commercial Park Limited Zoning as that zone exists today, and has for many years, without any changes. So, I will conclude with this. I know there is intense pressure to get this project done. But -- and I don't say this lightly -- it's more important than ever that the project gets done the right way, than when. And ask yourself, as I've been asking myself, why do we go through all of the zoning and planning and comp plans if we just turn around and change the rules to suit a particular developer or development project? That's what would be happening here, if this zoning change - as is -- is approved. Folks, doing this the right way, to me, is keeping faith with the public who've entrusted us to serve. And that means, no warehouses, saving the historic Longsdorf home from being turned into a pile of rocks and lost forever, and doing our best to mitigate any adverse consequences of development on the existing residents of Summerdale. And after 35 years of having the honor to serve in a local elected capacity, first, the people of East Pennsboro Township and now Cumberland County as a whole, I've always tried my level best to uphold the public trust. I hope you will join me in that endeavor. Thank you for your time. ###

9 Hello. My name is Christy King and I live at 207 First Street in Summerdale. When we moved to Summerdale in 2006, we were excited about owning our first home and living in Summerdale. We enjoy being a part of the Summerdale community. We participated in the centennial activities in 2009, walk around the town yard sale more to talk to our neighbors than to buy things, support our local firehouse chicken BBQ twice a year, and yes, we even like having a post office box rather than a mailbox at our house. The news of a zoning change to allow light industrial uses to be located on the First Street land is like an earthquake that has rocked our community and become a major life stressor. When we heard the news, we began to investigate moving as we do not want to live on a street where tractor trailers are constantly travelling. The challenge is we have put thousands of dollars into our now 100 year old house so that it will continue to stand for another 100 years and be a symbol of the pride we have in our community. Unfortunately, the value of our house has not increased above what we have put into it. This means that we will lose money if we sell our house now. We are stymied as to what to do. We could try to sell now before the value decreases, but still lose money on our investment, or stay and watch the value of our home decrease and then not be able to sell it when we can't stand living here anymore. The development of the land and proposed zoning change has caused us many sleepless nights, anxiety, despair, and we are struggling to take pride in our home in simple tasks like cutting the grass which we have previously enjoyed. Why do I tell you this? Because the purpose of zoning laws are to regulate the impact of land use that may not be in the best interests of the people. This includes things such as protecting the value and enjoyment of properties by separating incompatible land uses and minimizing their potentially negative impacts upon each other. It baffles me how changing the zoning of the Summerdale property will protect the value and enjoyment of the residential properties on First Street as residents will no longer enjoy living there and I have been informed by a reputable realtor that our home values will decrease. In thinking about the zoning change, it would seem the applicants must demonstrate that the

10 proposed zoning change will improve the quality of life for the citizens who will be affected. In the submitted narrative and at the East Pennsboro zoning meeting on May 10 th, I have not heard how light industrial uses will benefit the residents of Summerdale. What I have heard is that the only option for the property at this time is light industrial. Yes, the hope is that light industrial uses would generate revenue for the township and the county, but it does not improve the quality of life for the citizens of Summerdale. The applicants indicate that changing the zoning is aligned with the county and township plans, that light industrial uses is the only option left, and that since the grant money is running out that action needs to be taken now. I'm concerned that this is not the entire story. In the applicant's narrative, references to the county and township plans are made in regard to supporting the zoning change. I'd like to focus on how the traffic situation is not fully addressed in the narrative. Traffic is also a major concern of the Summerdale residents. What is not said in the narrative is that traffic will be coming out directly onto First Street which is zoned residential and is lined by people's homes. So while the narrative cites support from the county and township plans as the development of the land is in proximity to major arteries and highways, what is omitted is that all traffic from this property, as currently proposed, will be coming out onto First Street which is zoned residential on the other side. At the zoning meeting for East Pennsboro Township on May 10 th, I inquired as to why the traffic graphs do not include what the traffic is now. When the applicant replied, the response was that in essence it doesn't matter what the traffic is now, that "People don't understand" and that this proposal is better than the original proposal. The speaker later stated that he would rather live by their proposal than the original proposal. However, it was not stated that he would want to live by the current proposal. So, let's expand on the traffic concerns. I wonder how many of you have been to Summerdale and walked around? Have you observed how much traffic is there now? If you have, you might be thinking what traffic. That is my point. When

11 considering whatever is developed on that property, we need to consider the impact it will have. Not showing what the traffic is now is a misrepresentation of the facts and the impact the zoning change will have. If we want to talk about the original plan though, let's remember that there would have been minimal tractor trailer traffic, that most of the traffic would have been 8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday with minimal weekend or holiday traffic. In addition, the original meeting that was held at the Summerdale fire hall, I believe before the land was even purchased, discussed how the desire was to preserve the Enola Miller house, i.e. the house at 200 First Street, AND to keep traffic off of First Street. The challenge was that the owner of 200 First Street was not willing to allow that to happen. However, that would eliminate the traffic on First Street and a lot of the concerns that residents have. However, let's say traffic from this light industrial development is going to go down First Street. It is proposed that 2-3 traffic lights will be needed in a 2.5 block span on First Street which is about a third of a mile. That is not very far especially considering there are no traffic lights on First Street now. That is quite a change. In addition, the traffic will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Tractor trailers will be stopped waiting for the lights to change along First Street in front of residential homes and most likely rattling the windows in the front of our houses. In addition, it is planned to go from two lanes on First Street, one in each direction, to possibly two lanes coming in from Valley Road and three lanes, two left and one right, going from First Street onto Valley. While the developer states the hope is to widen the road towards the Summerdale property, it is not definitely known if that will be the end result. When I heard the proposed traffic changes on May 10 th I got sick to my stomach and still get a knot in my stomach just thinking about the impact this zoning change will have. I'm confused how this increase in traffic and changes in First Street that will occur from the zoning change protects the value and enjoyment of the residential properties on First Street. A concern brought up by East Pennsboro Township residents at the May 10 th meeting was that tractor trailers from this light industrial area will come out to First Street, see the traffic, and try to go

12 through the narrow streets of the village. The applicant's response was that this is a street regulation issue. I don 1 t disagree, however, allowing the zoning change to light industrial creates the street regulation issue. Without the zoning change, there is not a street regulation issue. Let's think beyond First Street for a moment. When my husband and I go to work, we take 81 north. Most mornings, there is some sort of backlog from 1-81 onto the ramp. Some mornings, this traffic even backs up onto 11/15. While I realize those are state roads, have you considered how this zoning change will impact the traffic flow not only on First Street, but also on 11/15 and traffic trying to merge onto 1-81? The increase in traffic will not only impact Summerdale residents, but others who come from other areas of Cumberland and Perry counties to get on 1-81 to get to work. Another concern that I raised at the May 10 th meeting was around traffic accidents. Having a traffic accident with a tractor trailer is very different than a car. If the zoning is changed to allow light industrial uses, will the police, fire, and ambulance services be prepared for the increase in not only the number of calls, but also the severity of the calls? It has not been mentioned by the applicants if there will be hazardous materials at this light industrial sight. What impact will that have on the possible fire and EMS calls that are received? Do our firefighters and EMTs have the needed training? What will the cost be to bring them up to speed and enhance any needed equipment? As this zoning change is considered, it is also important to look at the current zoning of East Pennsboro Township. From what I can tell by looking at the zoning map, none of the commercially zoned areas that would create this type and amount of traffic use a road that has residential zoning on the other side. While this one zoning change may appear as just that, one zoning change. It may set a precedent for other zoning changes. Is that a precedent that you would want to set? From what I heard the applicant say at the presentation on May 10 th and read in the submitted narrative is that due to times changing, the original plan is no longer viable and that this is the only option left. That concerns me for a couple of reasons. One, times have changed which means that options that were not viable in the beginning may now be viable. I'm not referring to the retail uses, but

13 rather residential and other possible uses which there are an infinite number of. In addition, if times have changed, why are they citing a township plan from 2005 to support the zoning change as according to the applicants times have changed? I realize that the 2005 plan is the last one, however if times have changed, typically one would not reference a document if it is out of date except for historical purposes. The proposed text amendment defines light industrial as "an enterprise engaged in processing, fabricating, assembling, treating, testing, distributing, indoor storing, or wholesaling of materials, goods or products, primarily from processed or previously manufactured materials." While this may not be the official definition of a warehouse, it sure sounds like one to me. The applicant describes similar sites that were developed and provides examples of offices, work and storage spaces for software and hardware companies providing IT solutions, printing companies, laboratories, and alternative energy equipment distribution companies. We need to remember that those are just examples and not what will necessarily be developed on the land. Another concern raised by the applicants is that the grants obtained in 2014 for the project have been given a final extension until I'm concerned that the grants were awarded four years ago and now when they are about to expire the timing is being used as a way to create pressure for the zoning change. Do not recommend the zoning change based on the need for the grants. This is a pressure technique, shows a lack of planning, and to be honest, I wonder why the applicants are not looking for more grants in case the ones already awarded expire. I have concerns about what is driving the development of the land and the zoning request. First, at the May 10 th meeting it was stated in the beginning of the meeting that the concerns of the residents of Summerdale were heard at the March 1 community meeting. However, later in the May 10 th meeting it was clarified that the only action that was taken was to speed up the process of asking Penn Dot for the ability to have an entrance into the property from 11/15. That is not a change in response to feedback, it is a step that would have been taken anyways. Another concern is that while the one -'"'

14 presenter could get 200 First Street Associates correct, he repeatedly called First Street, First Avenue. While I can overlook a slip of the tongue, repeatedly calling it First Avenue was insulting to me as a resident and tells me you are only concerned about your business and not the Summerdale Community. My third concern about the applicants is who is driving the process. This is not my full-time employment so I know there are many things that have happened behind the scenes that I am not aware of, however it seems that the interests of 200 First Street Associates is driving the process and is putting the interests of one over that of the Summerdale community. If the applicants were truly concerned about the village of Summerdale and listened to the citizens' concerns, all the traffic from the complex would not be going out onto First Street, but rather the intersection at 11/15 and Valley would be redesigned to support both the entrance and exit of traffic. In the narrative submitted by the developer it states that "In order to achieve both the community's and the Applicants' vision for the CPL District and the Summerdale site, it is necessary to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to define and permit light industrial uses in the CPL District." Hopefully, I have expressed to you that the community's vision is not represented by this zoning change. My vision of the property would be a park and green space or nothing at all. What I see represented in the zoning change is the applicant's vision and not the community's. The zoning change only exemplifies that the applicant's values are very different than that of the community of Summerdale. As this zoning change is considered, it is important to remember that the zoning laws are meant to regulate the impact of land use that may not be in the best interests of the people. This includes things such as protecting the value and enjoyment of properties by separating incompatible land uses, in this case in essence a warehouse, and minimizing their potentially negative impacts upon each other. Allowing this zoning change creates a slippery slope that will negatively impact the residents and the village of Summerdale and eventually destroy an important landmark, the Enola Miller house. As you consider your recommendation for the zoning change, I hope that the concerns of the residents are heard, that you hear not only what the applicants are saying, but also what they are not

15 .. saying. If you have not done so recently, I encourage you to visit Summerdale and imagine the impact this zoning change will have. As you consider this zoning change, I hope you remember how the the description Summerdale began from a book created to celebrate Summerdale's centennial: This little gem of a town they called Summerdale has sat quietly nestled along the base of blue mountain and next to the Susquehanna River for the past 100 years... At the beginning of the twentieth century people travelled from Harrisburg as a welcome respite from the steamy summers of the Susquehanna Valley and to swing the night away at its famous dance hall at Summerdale Park... Enola sounds like a working town and Summerdale sounds like a vacation retreat. In the beginning, that was the idea... Many were drawn to this picturesque location to work in the "yard", have the freedom of open country and enjoy owning their own home. Summerdale as a community was born. My question to you is in 2119, what will the second centennial book about Summerdale say? Thank youe. Christy King 207 First Street Summerdale, PA

16 Cumberland County Subdivision and Land Development Activity June 2018 Plat Num Municipality Plat Title Plan Type Plan Status New Lots SF MF TH ADD COM IND AG P/SP Acreage Hampden 4805 East Trindle Rd. Dental Office S&LD P/F Hampden Shomper Wertzville Rd S F Lower Mifflin Dale Barrick Lots 4, 5, 6 S F Lower Mifflin Lehman, Garman, Waltemyer S F Mechanicsburg Sun Up Market LD 2018 LD P/F Middlesex Jack Williams Tire & Auto LD F North Middleton Carlisle Christian Fellowship Church S&LD P/F North Newton Robert & Joanne Zimmerman S F Penn Paul Zimmerman Poultry Operation LD P/F Shippensburg Twp Gloria Beecher S F Silver Spring Keener Drive Lots 4 & 6 LD F Silver Spring Ridge Hill Estates/Ridge Hil Landing S P/F South Middleton George and Tessie Mallios LD P/F South Middleton Grove and Scherer S P/F South Middleton Jonietta Warner S F South Middleton Parkview at Boiling springs - Phase 3 S&LD F Upper Allen Kalbach Associates S P/F Upper Mifflin S. Wiser, K.Mentzer and The Great War Association S&LD P/F PLAN COUNT 18 TOTAL PLAN COUNT YEAR TO DATE: 79 TOTAL PLAN COUNT PREVIOUS YEAR: 95 TOTAL Friday, June 15, 2018 Page 1 of 1

17 Cumberland County Planning Department Progress Dashboard June 2018 Planning Reviews Summary Agriculture Land Preservation Program Summary YTD 2017 YTD 2018 Ordinance Amendments ASAs Sewage Modules S/LD Plans Total YTD Developed acres acres Total YTD Open Space acres acres 20,000 17,927 18,000 16,750 15,564 16,000 17,233 Acres on Waiting 14,000 15,312 16,144 List 12,000 Preserved Acres 10,000 Total 8,000 6,100 5,733 Program Cost 6,000 $47 million 4,000 2,734 2,000 3,477 3,327 Average cost 3,207 $2,700 / acre Technical Assistance Projects Municipality Project Update East Pennsboro Township West Fairview Revitalization Participated in ULI process on March 20. Lower Frankford Township Zoning ordinance Met with PC Reviewing Conditional Use chapter. Lower Mifflin Township Comp plan Provided draft, review and adoption process underway Mt. Holly Springs Borough SLDO SDLDO update underway. New Cumberland Borough Community enhancement committee Consultant selected; discussing Land Partnerships grant for plan Penn Township Comp plan and ordinance revisions Met to discuss Land Partnerships application Shippensburg Twp/Boro Revitalization Ongoing assistance in updating zoning ordinance. Silver Spring Township Historic Preservation regulations. Met with committee Developing historic features list. 1

18 Cumberland County Planning Department Progress Dashboard June 2018 Special Projects Project Description Update Municipal Training Series Provide periodic training opportunities for municipal Planning Commission University was held on 3/15/2018. A course identifying municipal officials and staff. uses for drones was held 5/21/2018. Drone class included a demonstration. Countywide Historic Plan Partner with CCHS to update their strategic plan Attended committee meeting 4/19/18. Assist in ranking nominations for Cumberland County Preservation Opportunities Watch List of threatened historic resources. Exit 48/49 Study improvement and safety options for Meeting held on 5/30 to discuss final costs and implementation options interchanges Drones Examine potential to use drones for county functions Conducted training session on 5/21. Meeting with other county departments to gauge interest. Launched electronic newsletter Developed departmental overview video and posted to web Other Updates/Information 2