Mission Meade Dollar General Store
146
people have signed this petition. Add your name now!
146
people have signed. Add your voice!
15%
Maxine K. signed
just now
Adam B. signed
just now
- We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Township’s three-member Board of Supervisors to not approve the subdivision & land development application/plan of the New Castle (Wilmington) DPP, LLC for the proposed construction of an approximately 12,480 ft2 Dollar General (retail) store at the intersection of Wilmington Road and Mission Meade Drive in the Neshannock Township, Lawrence County. In brief, the basis for this petition, written in plain and simple language, includes grave concerns regarding protection of the existing local neighborhood environment, inadequate vehicle parking and loading space, safety, danger/congestion related to travel and transportation, and the subject application/plan not fully complying with all set forth requirements of the “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”. Furthermore, the referenced concerns are within the purview of the Township’s Board of Supervisors, and “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”, per Sections 103 ‘Purpose and Authority’ and 104 ‘Community Development Objectives’. The aforementioned concerns, include, but are not limited to the issues identified in the following bulleted list:
- Per the subject land development application/plan, the retail store is served by a parking lot with a single accessway that only allows patrons to ingress/egress via Mission Meade Drive. Furthermore, the plan’s accessway is positioned directly opposing an existing ingress/egress accessway, on the south side of Mission Meade Dr. cartway, serving a well established and developed property owned by Walker Real Estate. As such, it is with a reasonable degree of certainty, the plan’s design will materially increase vehicular congestion, points of conflict, create additional risk and adversely impact adjacent public streets. Furthermore, the application/plan does not appear to certify that a traffic impact study has been completed, to understand impacts, risk and ill effects of the proposed design.
- The operations of the subject land development application/plan’s retail store will also result in increased commercial truck traffic on Mission Meade Drive and potentially the contiguous residential roads of the adjacent neighborhood. Sheet C9.0 (‘Truck Turning Plan’) of the plan indicates the store will be subject to receiving deliveries from a semi-truck with an overall length of 69 ft. (WB-62 - Interstate Semi-Trailer). More specifically, the plan indicates that semi-trucks entering must cross the centerline (i.e. encroach on most if not all of the oncoming traffic of the eastbound drive lane) of Mission Meade Drive in order to gain access to the site. The plan does not appear to address other large trucks, box-type or pulling trailers, that will service the proposed store, nor contingency practices, should a truck be unable to pull into the store’s lot due to vehicular congestion/backups.
- The subject land development application/plan’s proposed retail store, has a very high likelihood of significantly increasing the amount of through traffic in the adjacent neighborhood, specifically on Mission Meade Dr., Rutgers Dr., Marie Dr., Lattavo Dr. and West Englewood Ave. In effect, potentially turning the local tertiary and tranquil existing residential roads of the neighborhood into frequented thoroughfares, pseudo-corridors. It is quite reasonable to assume the increased traffic, as described above, would be due to the following: patrons of the retail store attempting to visit the store from the west (Pulaski Rd.); patrons leaving the retail store, exiting to the west, to avoid traffic congestion at the intersection of Mission Meade Dr. and Wilmington Rd; patrons of the well established First Alliance Church commuting to attend on-site events and services from the west to avoid traffic congestion at the intersection of Mission Meade Dr. and Wilmington Rd.; as well as residents of the adjacent neighborhood leaving their respective homes to conduct personal or professional business, while attempting to avoid the almost certain undue vehicular congestion at the intersection of Mission Meade Dr. and Wilmington Rd. Moreover, numerous residents have children under the age of 18 and many residents, of all ages, enjoy regularly walking, jogging or riding their bikes on the quiet roads of the adjacent neighborhood. Increases in through traffic, will almost undoubtedly increase risk and the likelihood of accidents/issues/events and change the neighborhood environment.
- The subject land development application/plan does not appear to satisfy the requirements of Section 1608.03(b) of the “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”, which requires loading berths to be screened by a six (6) foot hedge, wall or fence on all sides which face residential use or zoning district classifications. Per drawing C4.0 (‘Layout Plan’) of the subject application/plan, a 12’ x 50’ Loading Berth is located in the south east area of the proposed parking lot, but it is not fully screened on the sides that face the ‘R-1’ residential district/classification, to the west and south. It should be noted that neither drawing C4.0 or C7.0 (‘Landscape Plan’) appear to include screening for the subject loading berth.
- The subject land development application/plan does not appear to satisfy Section 1608.2 of the “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”, which, for Retail Stores, requires one (1) parking space per 200 ft2 of the net retail store floor area, 63 spaces for a 12,480 ft2 store. Further the application/plan does not satisfy the related parking variance approved by the Neshannock zoning hearing board on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, which reduces the required number spaces to 50, one (1) space per 249.6 ft2 of net retail store floor area. The parking lot layout, as proposed on drawing C4.0 (‘Layout Plan’) of the application/plan, provides 44 usable spaces. In addition to the aforementioned spaces, the plan also appears to include six (6) unusable parking spaces on the drawings, situated directly north of the permanent 12’ x 50’ loading berth. To clarify, the six (6) spaces are not usable per the section 1608.3(a) of the “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”, which states “The area used for loading berths shall not be used to satisfy parking area requirements”. In summary, the quantity of parking spaces proposed in the subject plan would need to increase by ~43.18% (from 44 to 63) to comply with section 1608.2 of the “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”, and increase by ~13.63% (from 44 to 50) to comply with the Section 1608.2 parking variance that was approved on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, by the Township’s zoning hearing board, for this specific land development application/plan.
- The density of the existing like-kind retail stores operating in the local community does not appear to lend itself well to ensuring adequate “dispersal”, which has the propensity to negatively impact the ability to enhance the development of the Route 18 corridor in a manner that is consistent with the growth policies of the Township as well as in the best interest of its residents. For example, there are (3) existing/operating Dollar General stores within ~2.3 miles of the location of the retail store proposed in the subject land development application/plan (location: corner of Mission Meade Dr. and Wilmington Rd.). The addresses of the existing stores are as follows: 2400 Wilmington Rd. New Castle, PA 16105 (~0.6 mi.), 3316 Wilmington Rd. New Castle, PA 16105 (~1.7 mi.), 1102 Highland Avenue New Castle, PA 16101 (~2.3 mi.). Many municipalities throughout the nation have implemented and enforced “dispersal restrictions”, which set limits regarding how close new ‘dollar’ type stores can be to existing ones, of which, some municipalities appear to require a minimum of two (2) miles of separation.
- The subject land development application/plan’s ‘Lighting Plan’ on drawing C8.0 does not appear to be accurate and complete. Therefore, the document may not provide the Township and its residents with a full understanding/representation of the light fixtures (luminaires), performance of the lighting design/system on the site proper nor possible light spill on to adjacent roads/properties. Per section 1608.1(i), lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be designed to reflect the light away from the adjoining premises of any residential district or use and away from roads or highways. It should be noted the lighting plan does not include a ‘site perimeter’ lighting calculation zone(s) at the boundaries of the subject lot to illustrate light spill/trespass. Further, light fixture specification/cut sheets do not appear to have been included with the application/plan to provide the township and its residents with an understanding of their physical and operation performance characteristics (i.e. beam angles, backlight, uplight, glare, fixture performance with side/back shields, etc.). Moreover, the following related items were also observed when reviewing the C8.0 ‘Lighting Plan’: the lighting fixture schedule does not include the light loss factor used for each fixture when performing the photometric analysis (i.e. calculation zone point values scattered across the C8.0 drawing); the C8.0 drawing does not include a calculation summary table that provides the average illuminances and uniformity ratios (Max. : Min. & Avg. : Min.) for calculation zone(s); a breakdown of calculation zones at the accessway, parking area, sidewalk and property boundary and their height above finished grade (or reference plane in the lighting calculation software) has not been indicated; the calculation zone on the drawing includes a value of 0.0 foot-candles at ~8 ft. to the south of the ‘HB-SS’ fixture which is located to the west of the plan’s accessway (i.e. it is reasonable to assume there was an issue with the calculation file at the time of calculation or the .ies file(s) used to model the fixture type); the spacing of the points in the horizontal calculation zone appear to be ~20’ on-center (x, y - plane) and are not located/oriented symmetrically/proportionally throughout the assumed site areas of study (i.e. calculation zone point spacing and orientation of the calculation zone(s) with respect to the orientation/layout of the site design) - therefore it appears reasonable to assume the average illuminance values and uniformity ratios associated with the walkways, parking lot and accessway cannot be conclusively determined to be adequate (i.e. safe, functional, etc.) and thereby determine the light spill at the property boundaries for a confirmed adequate (safe & functional) lighting design/system; the C8.0 drawing nor others appear to state the lighting criteria/standards used to develop the lighting design (For example - it does not appear as though the design aligns with the set forth recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America’s (IESNA) most recent cycle of the lighting handbook or related supplement publications).
- The subject land development application/plan proposes the installation of a screening solution/feature and a buffer area, which includes a 6’ high wooden fence and a row of deciduous trees along the boundary shared with the adjacent ‘R1’ (residential) property to the east (100 Mission Meade Dr.). The intent of a screening solution and buffer area is to provide a visual and protective barrier between properties, the minimum requirements are set forth in the “Township of Neshannock Zoning Ordinance”. However, it appears as though the proposed screening solution and buffer area will be ineffective due to the grading/layout of the ‘C2’ (commercial) site. An inadequate means to maintain separation between the ‘C2’ (commercial) district and ‘R1’ (residential) district is very likely to change the existing neighborhood environment. The elevation of the referenced screen/buffer area is situated a minimum of ~6.0’-8.0’ below the elevation of the finished grade adjacent to the building, loading berth, dumpster enclosure, parking lot and accessway. Moreover, the screen solution would not prevent retail store patrons/employees and truck drivers, when traversing about the site, from viewing all activities in the front yard and east side yard of 100 Mission Meade Dr., nor activity in the front yards of several properties to the west of 100 Mission Meade Dr, which would not nearly maintain the privacy the current environment offers. Additionally, the proposed screening solution and buffer area would not prevent adjacent ‘R1’ (residential) property owners/residents from having to observe all exterior activities to the south of the retail store, nor would it mitigate increased nose/sound created from store patron/employee activity, vehicles (motors, doors, horns, alarms, music, etc.), speaking/yelling, trucks loading/unloading, dumpsters (use/pick-up), etc.
A clarifying note of intent: This public purpose petition is not intended to result in the perceived defamation of character or principle of an entity or person(s), nor impede the undue rights of any individual or entity attempting to develop land, own/operate a business or work as employee or contractor thereof. The intent of this petition is to act as a means to share a united community’s concern, and in good faith/cause express sincere conviction that, as a collective, we believe the Township’s three-member Board of Supervisors approving the subject subdivision and land development plan, is not in the best interest of the Township or its residents.
Share on Facebook
Comment
See More 0