Carbon County reviewers flag environmental and zoning concerns for proposed PennDOT maintenance facility

Carbon County Planning Commission staff reviewed plans for a proposed PennDOT maintenance facility and recommended the commission forward technical comments and concerns to the borough, the Carbon County Conservation District and the applicant for further review.

The plan calls for demolishing an existing maintenance site and constructing a 40,104-square-foot government service building with 14,120 square feet of office space and 25,984 square feet of vehicle-repair space. Support buildings in the submission include a 2,960-square-foot truck wash, a 305-square-foot salt storage building, a 1,040-square-foot storage tank area, and a truck-wash wastewater-treatment area. The site plan shows 32 parking spaces, including three ADA spaces; staff noted the zoning code requires far more spaces for the proposed mix of uses.

The project matters because it combines industrial activities (vehicle repair and a truck wash) and bulk de-icing materials (salt and brine) near residential areas and local waterways and therefore triggers multiple county, borough and state reviews and probable zoning variances.

In a detailed review, county staff (identified in the record as Ivan) cited numerous issues the applicant must address before final approval or borough action. Key technical and regulatory items included: - Parking and setback variances: the plan provides 32 spaces but staff calculated 163 spaces would be required under the borough zoning table for the proposed uses. Staff said the developer will need zoning variances for parking counts and several setback and loading-yard locations shown in the front yard. - Lighting and glare: plan sheets show parking-lot luminaries mounted on 35-foot poles; staff cited a 20-foot mounting-height limit in the borough standard and flagged potential light trespass into nearby residences. Staff recommended that electrical feeds for lighting be placed underground and lighting be designed to meet IESNA criteria and the borough’s foot‑candle limits at property lines. - Salt, brine and truck-wash runoff: reviewers asked for detailed mitigation measures and design details showing how the truck wash, salt storage and brine handling will avoid contamination of surface water and groundwater. Staff said oil/water separators, rim and invert elevations, and details for wash‑water containment and disposal must be shown. - Stormwater and erosion control: reviewers requested FEMA floodplain mapping for nearby Mill or Mahoning Creek, stormwater basin inverts, and an approved Chapter 102/NPDES erosion-and-sediment-control plan from the Carbon County Conservation District before any final approval or building permit. - Utilities, grading and profiles: staff asked for clearer profiles, invert elevations, sanitary and water main routing and separation details where sewer is within five feet of water lines, and clarification of proposed water-meter and fire‑service connections. - Site details and permits: additional required items listed were a Borough Highway Occupancy/driveway permit from PennDOT (for the proposed access from Ninth Street/State Route 902), documentation of original signatures and seals on survey and engineering certifications, a developer agreement with the borough, and a demonstration that the project complies with the borough’s noise and storage standards for vehicle-maintenance uses.

Staff also noted the plan submission should have been filed as a preliminary plan for major subdivision/land development and that the applicant needs an unconditional preliminary plan approval (or waivers) before final plan considerations. The reviewer recommended conditional final approval only after all items and certifications are supplied and after the Borough Engineer and the Conservation District have resolved technical comments.

At the meeting the commission voted to forward the county’s comments and technical review to the borough, the applicant’s engineer and the Carbon County Conservation District for further action and review.

Next steps identified by staff include submission of an approved erosion-and-sediment-control adequacy letter from the Conservation District, detailed oil/water-separator and wash-water disposal designs, corrected survey and certification signatures, and any required zoning-variance documentation from the borough.

Speakers identified in the record included Ivan (staff member presenting the county review), Vanessa Nedrick (identified by staff as the applicant engineer at Remington and Bernick Engineers), and county reviewers who authored the written comments. Staff suggested the final project schedule and borough review timeline were not known at the time of the county’s review.

The county’s review and forwarded comments will be part of the borough’s forthcoming land‑development review and any subsequent zoning‑hearing or permitting processes.