Debate continues over possible Amazon site in Churchill
Share this post:
In a public hearing that has already lasted over 33 hours over several meetings, a heated debate continues about a potential Amazon distribution site in Churchill.
Texas-based Hillwood Development has proposed to build a distribution center on the 133-acre parcel that formerly housed the Westinghouse Research Park. Their plans include demolishing blighted buildings on the lot and constructing a new 2.6-million-square-foot distribution and logistics facility.
Those plans and the potential impacts on the residential community have been discussed during a public hearing that has spanned eight days and is scheduled to continue on Sept. 13 via Zoom.
For several months, residents have voiced concerns, including worries related to traffic, environmental impacts and noise and light pollution. The developers have tried to address those concerns and outline mitigation measures during borough council and planning commission meetings, as well as the public hearing.
Yet many citizens – including a dozen Churchill households who have hired attorney Dwight Ferguson to represent them during the hearing – remain opposed to the potential site. Some residents have organized protests outside of the borough building in opposition to hosting meetings and the public hearing via Zoom rather than in person.
During the first day of the public hearing in July, the developers presented the results of traffic studies. The second public hearing date included testimony from experts who conducted light and sound studies.
In subsequent meetings, Hillwood attempted to demonstrate their proposed site would meet the borough’s requirements.
Joseph Sabato of Epsilon Associates, a Massachusetts-based environmental engineering firm, presented an air quality impact analysis, which, he said, proved the potential Amazon center would not cause harmful pollution.
Experts testifying on behalf of Hillwood repeatedly told residents and borough council members that the site would not negatively impact traffic, air quality, or noise or light pollution in Churchill. Some residents remain unconvinced.
During public hearings over the summer, more than a dozen residents have expressed concerns with the potential development. Several have claimed information presented by the developers or their experts was incorrect or incomplete.
Attorneys representing Hillwood Development have objected to several residents’ testimonies, noting that concerned citizens are testifying on topics in which they have no formal training or experience.
One resident, Sandra Fox, claimed that the studies underrepresented emissions and pollution because they failed to factor in exemptions that allow trucks to idle for longer periods of time under certain conditions, including extremely hot or cold temperatures.
Another resident, Elizabeth Casman, said she believed the water quality analysis was “willfully misleading.” She pointed to a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which addressed technical deficiencies – like improper design of detention ponds, unclear connection with the sewer system and using the wrong precipitation distributions in hydrologic models – in her argument against the developer’s water quality analysis.
Churchill resident Anthony Wilson, a father of six, said he was worried about what extra traffic and an influx of large trucks would mean for his son, who has to walk to the bus stop. He also echoed concerns about pollution impacting young children, particularly those with asthma.
“My dream is not to have a logistics facility in my backyard,” he said.
Ruthie Rea, another Churchill resident, said she, too, feared health implications from diesel emissions and potential pollutants.
“I’m opposed at a very basic level, because I want to live in a residential community that I can raise my children in, that’s safe,” she said. “Fundamentally, a distribution center does not belong in a residential community.”
During her testimony in the public hearing, she called upon Dr. Deborah Gentile, medical director for Community Partners in Asthma Care. Gentile noted that asthma is the most common chronic disease among children ang can cause school absenteeism. An uptick in air pollution, she said, could be detrimental for kids with asthma – and others who could be particularly vulnerable to negative effects of air pollution.
“My expert opinion is that it will decrease air quality,” she said of the distribution facility. “We already have poor air quality. You’re going to have more emissions, so you’re going to have poorer air quality.”
Ferguson also called upon expert witnesses in an effort to refute the studies provided by Hillwood and their experts.
He called upon a sound expert, William Thorton of Thorton Acoustics and Vibrations, to critique the sound study. Thorton said that studies revealed the Amazon site would be “an intrusive noise source” and argued the current plan did not provide proper sound mitigation strategies.
Proponents of the plan note that it is expected to bring more than 1,000 full-time jobs with benefits, along with tax revenue that would benefit the borough and the school district. Taxes from the development would include between $600,000 and $660,000 in annual property taxes to Churchill and between $2.3 million and $2.5 million in taxes to Woodland Hills School District, a former member of Churchill’s planning commission previously told the Tribune-Review.
During each meeting, there have been more than 100 people participating via Zoom, said Borough Manager Alex Graziani. The meetings have also been broadcast through Facebook Live.
More residents who are represented by Ferguson are slated to speak at the next meeting. Then, borough council will hear from Churchill’s tree committee and the borough engineer before allowing public comment.
After the public hearing concludes, Borough Council will have up to 45 days to render a final decision on the proposal. They will consider the testimony from the public hearing, as well as over 30 hours of public comment that residents made at various borough council and planning commission meetings over the last year, Graziani said.
The borough’s planning commission unanimously voted to recommend the proposal in July, though one member herself from the vote.
In their recommendation, however, they outlined several conditions, which would require the developers prove they can meet certain requirements regarding items like traffic, parking, air quality, storm water, sound, lighting and environmental issues, Churchill Borough Solicitor Gavin Robb previously told the Tribune-Review.
The planning commission’s recommendation is non-binding, but will be considered in the council’s decision.