Saturday
September 7, 2024 
Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correct to reflect that supervisors Calderaio and Forest said they couldn't support the plan.
Culminating a five-hour public meeting that adjourned a half-hour into the next day, and a years-long protest by residents, Buckingham Township supervisors denied preliminary approval for a proposal for a 150,000 square foot warehouse on the 57-acre DiGirolamo tract along Cold Spring Creamery Road between Burnt House Hill Road and Stoney Lane.
Supervisors Chair Paul Calderaio said he could not approve the plan, and turned to Supervisor Jon Forest, who said he couldn’t either, causing the room to burst into cheers, with a majority against approval then in hand. Calderaio then adjourned the meeting. Previously, Supervisor Maggie Rash had noted strong interest in the significant open space in the plan, which might be lost, and a variety of concessions the developer had made since their most recent presentation.
A comprehensive, often contentious public hearing on the matter had been conducted by the township solicitor to meet a “need to dot i’s and cross t’s,” that included qualifying residents as official parties to the matter through the close proximity of their residence, or being part of a residents’ group that had been organized to oppose the proposal.
The resident group’s attorney had denied opportunity for the developer’s representatives in attendance to cross examine five members of the group who gave comprehensive presentations on various aspects of the proposal, including claiming special expertise in the matter.
Before the group representatives spoke, the developer’s representatives had given their own presentation, and answered questions from the supervisors and their staff, including various modifications they had made as a result of previous interaction with township staff. All was thoroughly noted by a professional court reporter, as is customary in public hearings; the hearing record also included comments made afterward by nine more residents.
An overarching issue was whether the proposal was legitimately presented as a warehouse, with opponents insisting instead that it was actually a proposal for a truck terminal use, with consequential safety, ecological, and zoning concerns. The township engineer and zoning officer maintained the proposal was for a warehouse use. The developer’s representatives stated that their proposal did not qualify for a truck terminal use.
Before refusing to approve the application, supervisors voted 2-1 that it was for a warehouse, and not a truck terminal, with Calderaio and Rash saying "yes" and Forest saying "no," that it “could be” a truck terminal, noting his concern a year ago about 90 truck trips per day.
Residents complained about the format of the legal-status public hearing to address the issue, preferring a simple meeting in a larger venue, while officials emphasized the need to let both sides present their case and have a record of it. Any appeal by the developer was understood to be asking a court to decide if the application for preliminary approval, as it had been amended, and how it might have been further amended, complied with all applicable township ordinances.
In a July 19 website posting – the text of which was also mailed to residents – the township explained its legal obligations, and its need to proceed accordingly. It also noted an original proposal for the tract in 2019 for an auto auction facility, for which the township was “unwilling to change its ordinance to accommodate”; and a subsequent 2021 proposal for an industrial park that the township “discouraged as inconsistent with township ordinances.”
Neither of those proposals was officially withdrawn, with the applicant claiming the latter “is still pending.” The proposal that was just rejected was first proposed in 2022, with the tract owner indicating he “had entered into an agreement of sale” for it. Another standing-room-only crowd had attended a May 1 township planning commission on the matter, with that group voting to send it on to the supervisors “with grave reservations.”
Join our readers whose generous donations are making it possible for you to read our news coverage. Help keep local journalism alive and our community strong. Donate today.
