By Ken Petrini
Special to The Press

After a quick review by North Whitehall’s planning commission in July, the proposed Walmart Supercenter appeared poised for a swift final land development approval by supervisors.
That final approval went down the drain when the issue of sewer service again surfaced at the meeting.
Throughout the planning commision review process, sewer service was a major point of contention.
Walmart appeared to have resolved the matter when it received a “wil serve” letter from the Lehigh County Authority.
Questions remained, however, as to how the LCA would serve Walmart.
A new, larger sewer plan is in the works for North Whitehall on the KidsPeace site, although final Act 537 approval is being awaited.
Instead of coming away from the Aug. 17 meeting with final approval, Walmart will need to wait until Sept. 7 or 21 for the go-ahead as supervisors voted 3-0 to table final approval for the Walmart development.
Attorney Jeffrey Dimmich, representing the citizens group North Whitehall for Sustainable Development, addressed the supervisors. Dimmich is also an elected township auditor.
According to Dimmich, North Whitehall’s ordinances require there be “detailed construction plans” for a public or central sewer rather than a promise that service will be provided.
To date, Walmart has not submitted detailed construction plans concerning this issue and has stated it is not the responsibility of the company to do so for sewer system once it leaves its property.
Attorney Erich Schock, representing Walmart, repeated that position at the meeting.
“Our plans won’t change (regardless of LCA’s plans),” he said.
Whether LCA builds a plant, expands the current plan or pumps sewage from a holding tank on LCA property is not Walmart’s concern, the retailer contended.
Dimmich disagreed and warned that if supervisors voted for approval, they would be violating their own ordinances.
Walmart has stated that approval could be conditioned on final plans as they would bear the risk of proceeding.
Without adequate sewerage, the building, if built, could not be occupied.
Dimmich advised the board not to grant conditional approval because it would cut the public out of participation.
“You can’t conditionally approve a non-compliance with your own ordinance,” he stated.
Dimmich said Commonwealth Court, in a prior appeal in the matter, said the public would have the chance to object to the plans in a final plan review.
“I’m here,” he said. “It’s a timely objection to a final plan application.”
Supervisor Ron Stahley asked Dimmich why the issue was not raised with the planning commission.
Dimmich replied that the planners do not have decision-making authority.
The approval of the Walmart plans now hinges on whether the township requires “detailed plans” for sewerage before giving final approval.
If the plans are required, Schock acknowledged they would not be available by the Sept. 21 approval deadline.
Dimmich later threw cold water on another recent Board of Supervisors decision.
Jerry Joseph teed up the issue by asking township Solicitor Lisa Young how a zoning request is placed on the agenda.
In a convoluted Aug. 3 session, supervisors approved rezoning 2.55 acres of land owned by the Schnecksville Fire Company.
With Supervisors Ron Heintzelman and Ron Stahley having potential conflicts of interest in the matter because of their roles with the fire department, the state Ethics Commission advised Young that neither supervisor should make any motions in the matter due to the conflict.
Young had previously concluded that no conflict existed and contended that the Ethics Commission had not read the legal precedents she relied upon.
Young, however, followed Ethics Commission advice and told Heintzelman and Stahley not to make any motions in the matter.
Under state law, the two could still vote on a motion because their votes were necessary to establish a quorum or break a tie.
Only Joseph was able to make a motion and he was openly opposed to the rezoning that would allow the land to be swapped with a local developer who wanted to add it to three acres already owned to allow for a more regular development lot.
Joseph sought Young’s advice about the three choices he had: either move to approve the rezoning, move to deny it or do nothing.
Joseph discarded the option of doing nothing because Young told him the rezoning request would be deemed approved in 45 days of nothing was done.
He then moved to deny the rezoning. After that failed, he reluctantly moved to approve it.
Joseph voted no but both conflicted supervisors voted in favor.
Dimmich questioned advice given by Young to Joseph.
“I could give you a hundred rezoning requests and you could throw them in the trash,” Dimmich said.
Dimmich said some communities automatically deny the requests.
“You can do it and not do it, start it and stop it,” he said.
Dimmich contended that “legislative” decisions are not automatically approved when no action is taken.
Young cited a section dealing with judicial actions rather than legislative actions in telling Joseph why the 45-day deemed approval would apply.
If nothing is done, Dimmich said, “It is deemed denied.”
“Think about it, you can’t appeal a denial of your zoning request,” he said.
Only things judicial in nature are deemed approved, according to Dimmich.
“The result may have been determined in an erroneous manner on the advice of your solicitor,” Dimmich said.
Had Joseph been advised of the law as Dimmich sees it, the outcome of the hearing would have been different as Joseph had made it clear at the meeting that he would not have made a motion to approve the matter.
While the advice led to the approval of the rezoning, it is not clear, even with a conflict of interest, that supervisors can or will do anything to correct the matter.
Dimmich also questioned whether the $2,000 fee charged by the township was constitutional under Pennsylvania law.
“That’s not due process,” he said.
Direct charges can be passed through, Dimmich said.
Going back to Joseph’s questions on procedure, Dimmich also told supervisors that they are failing to follow their own procedures and ordinances by having zoning requests automatically go to a hearing.
The ordinance appears to require supervisors to agree to a hearing in the first instance.

Reprinted with permission.

Last Tuesday, August 17, at the Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting, the board unanimously “tabled” the final approval for the Walmart development.  Attorney Jeffrey Dimmich, representing NW4SD, stated ourtownship ordinances require detailed construction plans for a public or central sewer.  Walmart has not submitted detailed construction plans concerning this issue.  If the board voted for approval, they would be violating our ordinances.

Dimmich also advised the supervisors not to grant conditional approval because it would cut the public out of participation.  He equated a conditional approval similar to approving a blank sheet of paper as their plan with the “promise” from the developer to comply with all the regulations.

A final decision on Walmart’s Land Development Plan must be made or an extension granted before the Sept. 25 deadline.  There will be two more BOS meetings before this date:

Sept. 7^th & 21^st at 7:30 pm.

Also during this meeting, Jeffrey Dimmich questioned advice given by township solicitor Lisa Young to Supervisor Jerry Joseph during the public hearing on August 3^rd to rezone land owned by the Schnecksville Fire Company from Agricultural/Residential to Planned Commercial.  Ms. Young had stated many times that this hearing was “Legislative” in nature.  When advising Supervisor Joseph of his options during that hearing, she stated if the board did not make a decision on the case, their rezoning request would automatically be approved in 45 days.  Mr. Dimmich stated that “Legislative” decisions are NOT automatically approved when no action is taken.  Concerns over a conflict of interest had rendered Supervisors Stahley and Heintzelman unable to make a motion to approve the Fire Company’s request.  That left Supervisor Joseph as the only supervisor capable of making a motion for approval.  Supervisor Joseph does not support continued “commercial creep” along Route 309.  However, after being advised by Ms. Young that the land would automatically be rezoned after 45 days, Supervisor Joseph reluctantly made the motion.  The vote was then conducted with Supervisors Stahley and Heintzelman voting “Yes” and Supervisor Joseph voting “No”.  Had Supervisor Joseph been properly advised, the outcome for that hearing would have been quite different.  This mistake has had a huge impact concerning future development along the Route 309 corridor in North Whitehall Township.

Attached to this email are audio files from the August 17^th meeting:

• “Joseph Questioning…” was at the beginning of the meeting before new business
• “Walmart Req…” was the first item on the agenda
• “Dimmich on 45…” was during the public comments at the end of the meeting

See you around the township,

NW4SD

Note: Unfortunately, we are unable to provide the audio as stated in the article. Please contact NW4SD if you wish to hear it.
MC

Agenda Item:  Public Hearing for the Rezoning of the Schnecksville  Fire

Company Baseball Field from Agricultural/Residential to Planned Commercial

Situation:

Mr. Robert Johnson has offered to swap 52 acres of his land along both sides of Old Packhouse Road for 2.55 acres of land owned by the Schnecksville Fire Company, but only if the Fire Company obtains a zoning change from Agricultural/Residential to Planned Commercial.  Mr. Johnson would like to connect the Fire Company’s land (currently a baseball field) to the acreage he already owns directly in front of the Schnecksville Fire Company.  Combined together, both parcels of land would equal approximately 6 acres of Planned Commercial property.  Mr. Johnson has stated this would be sufficient for 33,000 square feet of commercial development.

Concern:

North Whitehall Township Supervisors Ron Stahley and Ron Heintzelman both hold official positions within the Schnecksville Fire Company.  Mr. Stahley is the Fire Chief and Mr. Heintzelman is a Trustee.  Also, Mr. Heintzelman has family members who hold several official positions within the Fire Company.  If Mr. Stahley and Mr. Heintzelman vote on this deal as currently structured, these two supervisors would be placing themselves in a possible conflict of interest situation.

Alternatives:

First:  The Board of Supervisors (BOS) could decide this deal as structured places two of the Supervisors into a conflict of interest, and therefore a quorum would not exist for voting on rezoning.  If Mr. Johnson wishes to swap land with the Schnecksville Fire Company, he could do so and then come before the BOS at a later date and request to have his land rezoned to Planned Commercial on his own.  Then, neither Supervisor would have a conflict of interest.

Second:  If the BOS wishes to vote on the rezoning/land swap deal as structured, then they should make a request for an “Advisory Opinion” from the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission before doing so.  This land swap deal places Mr. Stahley and Mr. Heintzelman on some very thin ice with regards to ethics, and they should obtain approval from the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission before proceeding with a vote.  The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission has a website and the process looks quite simple to obtain an Advisory Opinion.  Here is the link to their webpage that explains how to make a request for an Advisory Opinion:

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/advisories/11219

What can you do?

Please plan to attend this next BOS meeting and let your voice be heard.  We should all expect our elected officials to conduct themselves in a manner that never brings their ethics into question.  If Mr. Stahley and Mr. Heintzelman choose to vote on this deal as currently structured without the approval of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, then both men will have brought their ethics into serious question.  NW4SD feels Mr. Johnson is asking Mr. Stahley and Mr. Heintzelman to put their ethics on the line in order to obtain his objective.  That’s just not right.  We hope you feel the same.

Please note NW4SD has a new email address:  nw4sd@verizon.net

Walmart responded for the first time to the many conditions suggested by the supervisors at their April 6 meeting.

“We went through them item-by-item, word-by-word,” Atty. Erick Schock told the supervisors, “and we have a response.”

For the most part that response was “Walmart does not agree to this condition.”

Schock set forth the legal basis for his response.  “Conditions must be supported by the underlying ordinance and evidence of record,” he said.

“If not, the remedy is for the court to strike the condition,” Schock continued, perhaps foreshadowing a legal battle, although adding “I’m not saying that is what is going to happen.”

“If it is not some standard supported by the SALDO, the board cannot impose the condition,” the lawyer asserted.  He said they could not use a standard of “a personal vision of what is good for the community.”

“A condition cannot attempt to amend an ordinance,” Schock warned the supervisors, with specific reference to lot lighting and building expansion.

In addition, he said “Conditions may not be unduly vague, arbitrary or discriminatory.”  The game-changing retailer returned time after time with the mantra that it wanted to be treated like all other developers.

Solicitor Lisa Young agreed with Schock’s position.  “Do you fundamentally disagree with anything Atty. Schock presented?” Supervisor Ron Stahley asked at the end of the presentation.

“On a legal basis, no,” Young replied.

Stahley would later confide that the requests made of Walmart were made more on a “good neighbor” basis.

Resident Lou Peters made it clear she didn’t want Walmart as her neighbor.

“I think this is a big mistake and it is going to bring us nothing but trouble,” Peters stated.

Referring to Walmart’s refusal to accept the “good neighbor” conditions, Peters said “They didn’t agree to it.  They don’t want to do it.  So don’t bring them here.”

With respect to specific conditions, Walmart reiterated that they have no intent to install wastewater holding tanks for sewage but they could not speak for the Lehigh County Authority once the wastewater leaves the Walmart site.

Supervisors had asked Walmart to agree that it would not expand the more-than-180,000 square foot building.  Walmart refused.

“We should be treated like any other developer,” Schock said.  “It arbitrarily excludes expansion.”

While the store will be a prototype supercenter, developers could always have larger plans in the future.  They would, however, likely require township approval.

The retailer also rejected the request that they not operate 24 hours a day.  That request had been added at the urging of resident Charles Knauss.

In saying “no,” Atty. Schock added “This condition was not even requested by the board.”

Resident Kathy Bryan asked why the township was powerless to impose restrictions on hours.  She said she understood from Atty. Young that hours of operation would be discussed at the land development stage.

“I don’t recall ever saying that hours of operation could be included in land development,” Young responded.

The solicitor had opined last year that the retailer would likely prevail if it challenged any such restrictions on 24-hour operation.

They would also reject other quiet time requests.

Walmart refused to agree to prohibit deliveries during the overnight “quiet hours” and said simply it will comply with the SALDO and the state law dealing with the idling of large trucks.

Schock said that Walmart employs auxiliary power units on their trucks to allow them to keep power without idling.

Walmart also would not agree to run trash compactors between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Schock said “The project’s design is intended to reduce the impact of noise caused by the compactors.”

He said they were inaudible at a distance of 50 feet.

The township asked that external lighting be reduced to 50% from midnight to 6 a.m.  Citing “liability” concerns, Walmart refused and said it would comply with all ordinances.

They also refused to limit external building construction to the hours of 7 a.m to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday with no construction on Sundays or holidays.  Walmart countered with limiting construction to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week.

“They sometimes work on weekends to get jobs done on time,” Schock explained.

Walmart did agree to work with the township to prohibit long-term parking in their lots.  Ron Stahley said that the request to prohibit overnight parking was meant to avoid “Walmart as a campground.”

The township sought $3 million for the Traffic Improvement Fund, a right turn land on Sand Spring Road and other traffic improvements.

Walmart offered $1.5 million “as an accommodation.”  In addition, they agreed to expand a traffic after-study and to contribute to synchronization of traffic lights.

Supervisor Stahley disagreed with Walmart’s suggestion that it should be credited with any contributions made by a predecessor owner to the recent widening of Route 309.

Schock countered that the NW1 project contemplated over 200,000 square feet of retail space at the site.

The Sand Spring improvements are on PennDOT’s list of projects and going into final design phase, according to Stahley.

Still, resident Joan Casari worried that budget woes would keep PennDOT from the project.

“PennDOT usually does not fail to do projects that are in final design,” Stahley said.

Supervisor Jerry Joseph explained “The real fact is that we can’t prevent Walmart from building” due to impacts on non-adjacent intersections.  “They can offer to contribute to that.”

The world’s largest retailer also rejected a request that they not seek any variances for signage.

“We can’t say we would not seek a variance,” Schock said.  The retailer will submit a sign package for township approval.

They did agree to a condition that states that the township will not maintain the roads, sidewalks or infrastructure within the property.

They also agreed in principle that “litter and debris shall be cleaned up daily.”

Walmart has a motto that “Cleanliness is key,” Schock stated but they feared being cited for “a Snickers wrapper on the ground.”

They did agree that they would not store goods in trailers on the property without first seeking permission.

They also declined to make requested special contributions for fire protection, police protection and open space and recreation programs.  In each case, they said they wanted to be treated as everyone else is treated.

Walmart will make a one-time $211,894 contribution for the Community Impact Fund, as required by the SALDO, Schock explained, but they rejected a request for $50,000 a year to that fund.

With respect to fire protection, Schock labeled the store “one of the safest buildings around.”

He also cited the record where the Pennsylvania State Police said it could provide adequate protection.

Resident Nancy Braymer countered with PSP testimony that the number of incidents seen at the Trexlertown Walmart “would be a significant impact on the township,” if replicated in North Whitehall.

They also refused to establish a conflict resolution board made up of citizens and store officials.  Schock said “Walmart has an established corporate procedure for conflict assessment and resolution of all complaints,” which would be followed.

Schock said this wasn’t “the first place they built where there was community opposition.”

Citing fairness, Walmart also refused to post a bond for site demolition if they abandon the store.  “Walmart has a division where responsibility is the reuse of any site that is no longer in use,” Schock explained.

He added “I don’t know that the community college has to post a bond” in respect to its construction.

Supervisor Jerry Joseph explained “It could be an urban legend that Walmart leaves and leaves a shell behind” to keep other retailers out.

Although his response was negative to most requests, Schock said “I hope at the very least this reflects the fact that we did engage in a lot of review, analysis, discussion, etc.”

Jerry Joseph suggested that the township go back and edit the conditions.  “That would be the best approach,” Lisa Young opined.

The revised conditions will be given to Walmart at the May 4 Board of Supervisors’ meeting with a decision being sought on the land development plan’s preliminary approval on May 18.

By  Ken Petrini  (with permission)

a version of this article appeared in The Parkland Press

North Whitehall, PA. Supervisors Give Wal-Mart A Long List of Conditions

A small town in Pennsylvania has given Wal-Mart a long list of “conditions” to meet if they want to build a superstore. Many of the items on that list should be a standard part of any agreement with a big box store including a demolition bond to tear down their building when they leave it empty.

On September 19, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart was heading to a courtroom in the community of North Whitehall, Pennsylvania.  A group called North Whitehall for Sustainable Development (NWSD) filed a legal challenge to a conditional use approval granted on August 15, 2008 by the township’s Board of Supervisors.

Sprawl-Busters first wrote about this case on September 25, 2007. Wal-Mart submitted a proposed land development plan including the construction of a supercenter and multiple out parcels to accommodate additional, unspecified commercial use. In order to construct the project, the retailer was required to obtain conditional use approval for a Planned Commercial Development (PCD).

The group NWSD told Sprawl-Busters, “Throughout the conditional use hearings for the North Whitehall Commercial Center property on which Wal-Mart proposes to build a 176,000 square foot, 24-7 mega-store, NWSD offered expert testimony and facts relating to zoning ordinance (ZO) and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) providing enough evidence to the North Whitehall Township Board of Supervisors (BoS) to reject the commercial use of the property. However, the BoS ignored and severely limited NWSD’s input and approved the property for commercial use. Therefore NWSD is appealing the decision in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County.” The appeal says that multiple” Findings of Fact “were not supported by substantial evidence, and result from errors of law.

One local resident told Sprawl-Busters, “I think our Board of Supervisors never thought we would be able to go this far.”  While this lawsuit was advancing in court, Wal-Mart moved forward with its superstore plans. On December 27, 2008, Sprawl-Busters noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed the retailer’s plans for sewage treatment, storm-water and pedestrian safety matters. Wal-Mart told local officials that its own storm water management rules are tougher than the state’s. “They’re a lot more stringent than the state requirements at this time,” a Wal-Mart spokesman said. One member of the Planning Commission said he was concerned that Wal-Mart might allow trucks and RVs to stay overnight in the parking lot—but the Wal-Mart spokesman said the company doesn’t allow RV or overnight parking of trucks in their lots any more.

The newspaper routinely refers to this project as the “controversial Wal-Mart”.  The site Wal-Mart wants is a former orchard, and the land around it has been found to contain lead and arsenic from its former agricultural uses. In this case, it’s the citizens who are trying to keep the one bad apple out of the orchard. The Supervisors gave an OK to the proposal to divide the property into five retail lots. There will be four other stores along with the superstore, all on 1 to 2 acre lots. The subdivision proposal is separate from the conditional use permit, which is already under court appeal.

North Whitehall for Sustainable Development, and resident Jerome Joseph, filed their appeal in Lehigh County Court opposing the preliminary approval of the subdivision plans. The township’s lawyer told The Morning Call that if the citizen’s lawsuit prevails, the subdivision approval would be reversed. Wal-Mart keeps telling the township it wants to forge ahead despite the citizen’s litigation.

The town has now begun a new, awkward relationship on its Board of Supervisors. Wal-Mart opponent Jerry Joseph ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors—and won. He took office last January, at a time when his lawsuit against North Whitehall was still pending. According to The Morning Call newspaper, the township has paid their lawyer more than $31,000 to defend Wal-Mart’s conditional use permit. The township could have turned to Wal-Mart to pay these legal fees, but the Board of Supervisors decided to have taxpayers in North Whitehall pay the bill.

Joseph defeated former Supervisor Terry Stoudt, who was a Wal-Mart supporter. Joseph has raised concerns that a Wal-Mart on Route 309 will lead to leapfrog sprawl. “I am worried about mega-store encroachment on 309. The only reason I am worried is it’s a development, and a type of development, which has only one path, which is more big-box stores coming in. Two-lane roads become four-lane roads, more traffic lights — it’s a never-ending process.”

The only one so far who has done well financially is the township’s  lawyer, Lisa Young, who has received tens of thousands of dollars in fees from the township. Young has told township officials that in her opinion Joseph must be excluded from any township discussion of the lawsuits he has filed. Joseph does not believe that he has to refrain from voting on ultimate approval of the store. “We’d have to analyze the situation and see what makes sense at the time,” he the told The Morning Call. “It’s hard to do a what-if scenario.”

The Chairman of the township’s Board of Supervisors said his board was ready to work with Joseph despite the litigation. “We’re going to make the best of it,” said Chairman Ronald Stahley. “I mean, it’s not something that can be changed.”

On April 6, 2010, the township’s Supervisors released a list of more than 20 “conditions’ that they want Wal-Mart to meet if this superstore is to be built. These conditions include: 1) the proposed building cannot be expanded in the future. Wal-Mart would not be allowed to return for a variance to expand 2) Wal-Mart would pay a $3 million contribution into the traffic impact fund 3) Wal-Mart would pay for the costs to synchronize the traffic signals near the project 4) No overnight deliveries would be allowed, and no idling of delivery trucks 5) No trash compactors could be used after 10 pm at night, or before 7 am 6) no trucks or campers or RVs would be allowed in the parking lot 7) At night, lighting would be reduced by 50% or a safety level from midnight to 6 am. Wal-Mart will pay $250,000 upfront for emergency services to their facility, and then $100,000 a year for training of these personnel 9) a new 8-member “post-opening conflict assessment and resolution board” would be created when the store opens, with two members appointed by the citizens group, to work out any problems the neighbors have with the store. 10) Wal-Mart will contribute $10,000 a year to the township’s open space and recreation fund 11) Wal-Mart will contribute to police coverage by paying for a 1.5 full-time police position. 12) Wal-Mart will maintain external, 24 hour security on the site, and the patrols will include litter and shopping cart retrieval 13) a demolition escrow account will be required to pay for demolition if Wal-Mart closes the store or abandons it. 14) the store would not have overnight hours of operation. On this last point, the township’s attorney argued that North Whitehall does not have the power to force Wal-Mart to close at night—but said it could happen as a  “negotiated condition”, which is essentially what all these conditions amount to: an agreement with the developer if he wishes to proceed with construction.

During the debate, Wal-Mart’s lawyer tried to get local officials to approve the superstore before the conditions were added. But supervisor Ron Stahley refused to give the project a de facto approval. The township’s lawyer, Lisa Young, was willing to go further. “It does appear that the board would be inclined to discussion conditions because they would be inclined to approval,” she told Wal-Mart. But one member of NWSD asked openly how the Board of Supervisors could approve a plan before the conditions were approved.

What you can do: The entire matter now goes before the Supervisors on April 26th. Supervisor Joseph was not at the April 6th meeting, but will be present at the next meeting when the project will be discussed. Wal-Mart Stores wants to use this 40-acre site along Route 309 in North Whitehall for a planned commercial development that will contain the superstore and four smaller retail sites. North Whitehall for Sustainable Development filed an appeal one month after the township’s ruling. NWSD hired an engineer who testified on the plans, the group submitted reports to the supervisors. NWSD says the supervisors limited and precluded his testimony.

Wal-Mart’s plans for a subdivision have been approved, but the corporation’s land development plan is now what must be finalized. Readers are urged to email Ron Stahley, Chairman of the North Whitehall supervisors before April 26th at: rstahley@northwhitehall.org with the following message:

“Dear Chairman Stahley,

The Supervisor’s list of conditions presented in April are a good start for limiting the impact of this project—but you left out one major condition that the township has the right to negotiate with the developer: the size of the store. This project is still enormous, and it comes at a time when Wal-Mart is proposing superstores in other parts of the country as small as 78,000 s.f. A smaller store would reduce many of the adverse impacts on traffic, storm water runoff, impact on neighbors, etc. The list of conditions that you have developed are reasonable, but they do not address the central issue in this case: impact on the surrounding area.

You already have 7 Wal-Marts within 20 miles of North Whitehall. Route 309 can’t handle the extra 16,000 or so new car trips that this project will generate. The superstore is the wrong size and the wrong place for North Whitehall, and is incompatible with the rural character of the township. People in North Whitehall don’t want to be saturated with big box sprawl-you can read that statement into the results of your last Supervisor’s election. Now’s the time for the Supervisors to lead growth instead of follow it. Make Wal-Mart fit into North Whitehall, not the reverse. Cut this store to below 100,000 s.f. and insist that Wal-Mart return with an analysis which shows the reduced impacts from a more sustainable store. Wal-Mart has told Wall St. analysts that it prefers smaller footprint stores because they are more efficient, cost less to operate, and can generate the same level of profits. Tell the company that size still matters in North Whitehall.”

Reprinted with permission from Al Norman.

]]> http://www.nw4sd.org/?feed=rss2&p=354 0