Buckingham supervisors deny 150,000‑square‑foot warehouse after public outcry over traffic, water and zoning

Buckingham Township supervisors voted July 24 to deny a land‑development application for a proposed 150,000‑square‑foot building on the DJ Alo tract after hours of testimony from the applicant, township consultants and dozens of residents.

The application, submitted by developer JG Petruci as a G3 warehouse, would have placed a single‑story building with roughly 30 loading docks and deferred parking on a 58.5‑acre parcel. The developer’s attorney, Ed Murphy, told the board, “the application in front of you is for a G3 Warehouse use, nothing else.” Traffic testimony earlier in the evening estimated the project would generate roughly 93 passenger‑vehicle trips and 45 truck trips over a 24‑hour period.

Why it mattered: Opponents and technical witnesses argued the building’s configuration — particularly its door‑to‑square‑foot ratio and operational profile — aligns with regional distribution or truck‑terminal operations, which are subject to different siting limits and conditional‑use reviews in the Buckingham zoning ordinance. Residents raised short‑ and long‑term concerns about narrow local roads, school‑bus stops, and a township reserve well located roughly 790 feet from the parcel.

What happened at the hearing: The hearing opened with procedural remarks and a contested party‑status phase; the residents’ group known as No Buckingham Warehouse (Stop the Warehouse) and multiple nearby homeowners were admitted as parties. Applicant witnesses — including civil engineer Greg Litzer (Gilmore Associates) and traffic engineer Matt Hammond (Traffic Planning & Design) — described the preliminary site plan, said they would separate employee and truck access (employee traffic via Progress Meadow Drive, trucks via Stony Lane), and discussed a package of requested subdivision waivers and ‘will comply’ commitments for final‑plan submissions.

Traffic and safety were central to debate. Traffic engineer Matt Hammond summarized the team’s study and mitigation proposals — including widening Stony Lane from the proposed access to Landisville Road and potential intersection improvements at Landisville‑Old East Road — but also noted some study area intersections would not meet the township’s higher level‑of‑service standard without improvements. Hammering numerical detail, Hammond said the 150,000‑square‑foot general‑warehouse category used in his trip estimates would produce the 93 passenger‑vehicle and 45 truck daily figures.

Residents and industry witnesses disputed the developer’s characterization. Tim, a logistics and distribution professional who testified for the opposition, said the building’s loading‑door ratio and internal layout are “designed as a terminal for regional distribution or last‑mile delivery operations, not for long‑term storage.” The No Warehouse steering‑committee chair, Mike Bitman, told the board the coalition represents more than 1,600 members and warned of risks to traffic, property values and public safety.

Township officials weighed competing technical views. Township zoning officer Rich Meyers told the board the application had been submitted as a G3 warehouse and that the plans, as presented, were consistent with that designation; township engineer Dan Gray and Planning Commission records were read into the record showing the Planning Commission had recommended conditional approval on May 1, 2024, subject to a long list of requirements.

Board decision and immediate aftermath: After extended public comment, technical testimony and deliberation, a supervisor moved to deny the land‑development plan; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the application. Supervisors cited unresolved concerns about traffic routing and safety on narrow local roads, potential impacts to a nearby township reserve well and groundwater, the proposed building’s operational profile and the number of outstanding waivers and technical items. Residents cheered and applauded as the board closed the hearing.

What’s next: Attorneys for resident parties and the applicant both flagged the likelihood of post‑decision appeals. Residents’ counsel told the board the filing had been misclassified and presented that legal argument as sufficient basis for denial; the applicant has the right to seek judicial review or resubmit revised plans if it chooses. The township recorded an agreement to extend the review deadline earlier in the evening (to allow time for the board and consultants to consider outstanding items), but the board’s denial makes a final outcome contingent on subsequent legal steps.

The vote leaves the parcel undeveloped for now; supervisors said the town will continue to review technical comments, and residents urged the board to pursue durable protections for roads, groundwater and neighborhood character.