Public hearing on proposed Amazon site in Churchill ends after 50-plus hours of testimony

A public hearing that spanned 14 days and included more than 55 hours of testimony regarding a proposed Amazon distribution center in Churchill has concluded, meaning local officials will render a decision on the project’s future within 45 days.

A vocal group of residents has strongly opposed the project, which has been a consistent topic of debate in the community for more than a year.

Texas-based Hillwood Development has proposed building a 2.6 million-square-foot distribution and logistics facility at the former site of the George Westinghouse Research Park.

Throughout the marathon public hearing — and, before that, at borough council and planning commission meetings over the past year — residents have repeatedly voiced concerns about the development. A group of residents opposing the plan banded together to form Churchill Future, an organization that hosted protests against the proposed development and hired an attorney to represent them during the public hearing.

Residents have voiced concerns that the development would lead to increased air and light pollution, noise and traffic issues. They’ve also objected to potential safety issues relating to an influx of truck traffic on residential roads where children walk and play, as well as impacts on stormwater and home values for houses near the site.

These objections persisted despite repeated efforts by the developer to address common concerns. Hillwood Development produced studies regarding traffic, noise and air and light pollution that indicated the development would not have negative impacts on the surrounding community.

Several residents, however, have claimed the traffic study was inaccurate or incomplete and therefore could not be used as the basis for additional studies regarding sound and pollution.

Many residents also complained about the format of the public hearing, which was conducted via Zoom rather than in person. Local officials said that was a safety precaution necessitated by the covid-19 pandemic.

Twenty-two people testified during the public hearing, which began in mid-July.

Many residents who spoke during the hearing attempted to refute information provided by the developers and repeated their litany of concerns about the development. Attorneys representing Hillwood Development objected to several residents’ testimonies, noting that they were testifying on topics in which they had no formal training or experience.

Advocates for the development point out that it could bring over 1,000 full-time jobs with benefits, plus tax revenue, which would include between $600,000 and $660,000 annually to Churchill and between $2.3 million and $2.5 million for Woodland Hills School District.

The borough’s planning commission in July unanimously voted to recommend the Amazon distribution center. The recommendation does not clear the way for the project to proceed, but it will be considered when borough council makes its final decision.

In its recommendation, the planning commission outlined several conditions that would require the developer to meet certain requirements regarding issues such as traffic, parking, air quality, stormwater, noise, lighting and environmental issues, Churchill Borough Solicitor Gavin Robb previously told the Tribune-Review.

Borough council now has 45 days to render a final decision regarding the proposal. Council members may deliberate in executive session, but will be required to cast its vote on the proposal publicly, Borough Manager Alex Graziani said. A vote is expected in December.

Graziani said in a statement that the developer’s conditional-use application “must be granted (if it) demonstrates compliance with the specific standards and criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance, unless an objector presents sufficient evidence that the use would be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare.”

The borough manager added: “The mere possibility of an adverse impact is not enough. The objector must show that there is a high probability that the proposed use will generate harm greater than normally generated by that type of use.”

Graziani said claiming that the proposed development would contribute to traffic congestion is not sufficient for denying the application, based on past rulings in Pennsylvania courts.