Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff opposes vehicle‑impound lot at 1099 Elliott citing floodplain, commission recommends denial
Summary
Planning staff recommended denial of a proposed 173‑space vehicle impound lot at 1099 Elliott/1630–1650 South Cameron because much of the site lies in an AE floodplain and parts in the floodway; commissioners echoed environmental and pedestrian‑safety concerns and voted to deny the sketch plan recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Environmental Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning bureau staff recommended denial of a sketch plan proposing a large vehicle impound lot at 1099 Elliott/1630–1650 South Cameron, noting that much of the 3.03‑acre site lies within the AE floodplain and parts of the proposal would be in the floodway. Staff cited environmental risk from vehicle fluids in a flood scenario, stormwater‑runoff concerns, pedestrian conflicts at the Capital Area Greenbelt crossing, and incompatibility with the comprehensive plan’s goals for gateways and greenbelt preservation.
Applicants (represented by attorney Kevin Skogel and operator Jerry Leahy) asked for an opportunity to sit down with staff and argued the actual vehicle traffic would be limited — “3 cars a day” in the applicant’s account — and proposed screening, landscaping and compliance with floodplain regulations. The applicant said the site has been vacant for years, and they would attempt mitigation measures including arborvitae screening and a brick sign.
Commissioners raised technical concerns about how the fence and stored vehicles would behave in a floodplain, the potential for hazardous materials (including fluids and EV batteries) to enter nearby Spring Creek (a PADEP‑designated cold‑water fishery), and the need for floodplain cross‑sections and elevations. Several commissioners said they were open to meeting with the applicant but would not change the planning bureau’s recommendation; the commission voted to carry a motion for denial of the sketch plan recommendation.
The denial is advisory — applicants may revise and pursue a different site or provide additional engineering and mitigation in future applications, or take the matter to other review bodies if they choose.

