WOLF & WOLF

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

NATHAN C. WOLF
PHONE

717-241-4436

10 WEST HIGH STREET

CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
wolfandwolf@embarqmail.com

STACY B. WOLF
FACSIMILE

717-241-4437

February 28, 2014

VIA EMAIL ONLY TO:
Bob Wrightstone, Chairman
Jonathan Reisinger, Vice-Chairman
JR Barrett, Supervisor
Dickinson Township
Board of Supervisors
219 Mountain View Road
Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065
Re: Application of Goodman-Birtcher to Amend Zoning Map
Dear Board Members:
In the wake of the joint meeting with Carlisle Borough Council, I believe there needs to be a
final, critical reminder of what is at stake when you convene on Monday, March 3, 2014 to
potentially take action on the request to rezone the Shaffer and Rocky Meadows tracts from B-R to
B-I. Based on the information you have heard and based on the clear statements made by each of
you on Monday night, I submit the only appropriate exercise of your discretion, should you take
action on the request at all, would be to vote no to rezoning the property.
Each of you has said that you would not support this proposal if access for trucks is on
Ritner Highway rather than Allen Road. Considering your discussion with the council members, it
appears they want an opportunity to work with you to find another, better use for the property
rather than seeing another warehouse development there. Their remarks suggest they do not
support changing their ordinance or permitting access to Allen Road from warehouses in the
Township. So, as of Monday, it is clear you have no guarantee access will be available from Allen
Road or that you can keep trucks from accessing on Ritner Highway.
It is clear that without having the access question resolved by Monday, you will are not in a
position to take action on this application unless you are voting it down. You should vote it down
and show you are responsive to what you have heard in these proceedings. It would be totally
irresponsible and contradictory to approve this plan where your own statements indicate access to
Allen Road is essential.
Despite Attorney Courtneys claim to the contrary, Goodman-Birtcher would not be
guaranteed access to Allen Road across Borough land. The authority he relies upon rests upon
obtaining subdivision approval from Carlisle as a precursor to even laying out a private road.

Wolf & Wolf, Attorneys at Law

Dickinson Twp. BOS
February 28, 2014
Page two

Borough Council would certainly have a valid basis for denying such approval. As I have explained
to you before, the act of amending the zoning map does not permit you to impose conditions, so
once the decision is made, you are stuck with the result. Stated another way, you cannot approve
this change and validly impose a requirement that access be secured from Allen Road. Doing so
would likely enable the developer to force you to approve access onto Ritner Highway. Everyone
agrees this result would be unacceptable.
You should also take this opportunity to reconsider the impact of this vote on Ritner
Highway should the developer proceed in West Pennsboro Township. While you have all said
publicly you do not want to see more trucks on Ritner Highway, changing the zoning in Dickinson
paves the way for the West Pennsboro portion to proceed, putting more trucks on Ritner Highway
and through the intersection of Ritner Highway and Allen Road.
The developer tried to manipulate the numbers by taking away one-third of the anticipated
truck trips Monday night, presumably to assuage your concerns and implying the impacts of West
Pennsboro Township would not happen. They had the opportunity to commit to you then that
they would not proceed in West Pennsboro even if both Dickinson and Carlisle Borough approved
their proposed zoning changes. They did not make such a commitment, but they instead skewed
their presentation to keep you from evaluating the full impact of the complex.
The DEP application for attainment does not mean that the air in Carlisle is now clean and
we have nothing to worry about from diesel PM 2.5. Has it gotten better? Yes. Does that mean
that the Carlisle area is now within a safe threshold? Absolutely not. One must merely look at
Table I-2 in the DEP application to understand that our 24 hour concentration as of 2012 is nearly
double the attainment threshold of 15g/m3 that the DEP mandates. Of particular importance to
your consideration is the location of the DEP air monitoring equipment. That equipment is located
on North Mountain and is nowhere near the Allen Road corridor. By simply reviewing the basis for
the setback recommendations from the California Air Resources Board report, one can easily see
how diesel PM 2.5 disbursement in the area near Allen Road is not being accurately measured by a
device at least two miles away.
You have heard from Dr. Rebecca Bascom, a nationally-recognized expert in the field of
inhalation toxicology who has told you in precise terms that adding to the Carlisle areas existing
pollution burden places all of us at additional risk. She has further told you that permitting this use
will create even greater risks to the health of people who reside near this property. These facts have
been offered by a licensed professional who is has specialized education, training, knowledge and
experience in this field. Stated another way, she is an expert. You can justifiably base your decision
to deny this application on the opinions she provided. Likewise, Dr. Krebs observations about the
increases in the cases of asthma and other respiratory problems seen in his practice since the
explosion of warehouse development occurred in the area is tangible proof of the impacts of this
type of development here.

Wolf & Wolf, Attorneys at Law

Dickinson Twp. BOS
February 28, 2014
Page three

The developer did not present any information to you about the specific impacts of a
warehouse versus highway traffic to contradict Dr. Bascom. Why? Because there is no such
information. The developer did try to disprove the scientific basis for the setback recommended
by the CARB report upon which Dr. Bascom relied. The developer did not offer any information to
you to contradict Dr. Bascoms opinions with regard to the cumulative impacts of a localized 24
hour concentration from an additional point source when the pollution burden in the community is
already unacceptable. And there has been no information presented, by anyone, to substantiate your
expressed belief that Interstate 81 contributes more diesel particulate matter to the Allen Road
corridor than that which is generated by the trucks visiting existing warehouse locations already
there.
Nonetheless, your questions of the physicians suggest that the residents objecting to the
change must meet some sort of burden of proof to disprove unsubstantiated claims of the developer
or your opinions formed based on your casual observations and common sense. It is patently
unreasonable to do so rather than placing the burden on the developer to reliably demonstrate that
the adverse impacts raised by your constituents will not be realized. Is an attempt to minimize the
concerns of residents instead of challenging the claims of the developer doing your due diligence?
Certainly, it is not.
I submit to you that that only thing that the developer could do to try to change the
discussion on air quality was to look at a countywide analysis that suggests air quality has become
incrementally better. Your focus must be on what the developer is not able to do. They could not
present a medical professional to you to say that Dr. Bascom, Dr. Krebs or even Dr. Jurgenson were
wrong. These individuals have devoted their lives to studying and healing the sick and injured.
They provided a service to you in their effort to educate you on the impacts this facility would have.
Denial of this application is the only appropriate result on Monday night. However, if you
are still not convinced that the plan should be denied based on what you know now, you have one
other option available to you. You could table the application until you have done your due
diligence and gather sufficient information to know precisely the consequences of approving the
request. Approving this request now, disregarding the intended or unintended consequences to the
Township, is an unacceptable exercise of your discretion that will be subject to close scrutiny by the
court.
Remember that changing zoning to benefit one landowner and putting on blinders as to the
needs of and risks to the community is spot zoning. It is the antithesis of zoning. You must look at
the neighboring properties as they are now and understand that rezoning this land is treating it
differently from every property around it, except the small piece in South Middleton. With
commercial, institutional and agricultural uses on each side, you would be giving specialized
treatment that would benefit one property owner at the expense of others. Critically, such an action
would be inconsistent with not only the unanimous recommendation of the Townships Planning
Commission but also the Comprehensive Plan. This is not an argument to be dismissed lightly and
is another area of scrutiny to be reviewed by the court in the context of a land use appeal.

Wolf & Wolf, Attorneys at Law

Dickinson Twp. BOS
February 28, 2014
Page four

I hope that you, like those of us in the audience, heard Chairman Wrightstones statement
that based on the information that has been provided during the course of these proceedings, he has
changed his mind and would not vote to rezone the property. He is to be commended for taking
the courageous step of changing his mind and retracting his support for the application. Now, this
community is watching to see if either Mr. Reisinger or Mr. Barrett has heard the voices of the
plurality of the residents of the Township who feel that we already have enough warehousing and
distribution centers in our community.
It is important to remember that it takes strength of character to admit that, based on new
information you have changed your previously announced position. While each of you expressed
approval of this request in December, you have been provided with more than enough information
since then to justify denial. Conversely, you still do not have enough information to justify approval.
I hope that with time and effort, this dispute will have served as the basis for a new
atmosphere of cooperation between the Township and Carlisle Borough and that everyone will
benefit from the results. Monday night, vote to deny the plan. Table the request if you must until
critical questions can be answered. Do not rezone this land.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Feel free to contact me with any questions or
concerns you may have.
Very truly yours,

Nathan C. Wolf