Middletown supervisors table action on two large warehouses after residents raise traffic and noise concerns

A divided Middletown Township Board of Supervisors on Tuesday tabled a pending denial and agreed to continue talks with the developer of a two-site industrial project on East Old Lincoln Highway after residents urged the board to block the plan because of traffic and noise concerns.

The proposal, presented by Mike Malloy of Obermeyer Redmond Maxwell Hippel and engineer Paul Hughes of Kimley‑Horn, covers about 78 acres split into a northern (34.3 acres) and southern (43.9 acres) site and would place two large warehouses on the parcels. Hughes described a roughly 360,000‑square‑foot building on the northern site and a roughly 450,000‑square‑foot building on the southern site, with associated parking, trailer storage, stormwater management and a new, signalized intersection contingent on PennDOT approval.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the combined size and likely round‑the‑clock operations would add substantial truck and employee traffic to an already congested corridor and produce noise and light impacts visible from back yards. The applicant has sought variances including permission for up to 50 feet in building height; the zoning hearing board previously granted some relief that falls outside the supervisors’ authority to reverse.

What was said: Residents pressed for stronger noise mitigation and questioned materials and maintenance plans. “An 8 foot high ain’t gonna cut the sound down,” said Adam Lamon, who said his backyard abuts the north site. Paul Hughes said the applicant has specified a composite product (identified in the presentation as “BuffTech”) for an 8‑foot solid sound barrier and has added a 5‑foot earthen berm and plantings; because the loading areas sit well below neighboring yards, Hughes said the effective barrier could be 18–28 feet above adjacent pavement in places.

Traffic projections: The applicant’s traffic consultant provided conservative, worst‑case estimates for trip generation because no tenant has been identified. The study under review by the township engineer and PennDOT estimated about 73 truck trips in the AM peak and 49 truck trips in the PM peak for both sites combined; passenger vehicle peak trips were estimated roughly 675 in the AM and 630 in the PM. The consultant also cited parking counts used to estimate employee totals: about 319 passenger‑vehicle stalls for the northern site and 345 for the southern site.

Board action and next steps: After an initial motion to grant preliminary/final approval failed for lack of a second, a supervisor moved to deny the plan. The board then debated the legal and practical tradeoffs of denial (and likely appeal) versus continued negotiation and ultimately voted to table the motion to deny so staff, the applicant and residents can pursue additional mitigation. The applicant agreed to grant extra review time under the Municipalities Planning Code while talks continue. The motion to table leaves the denial motion technically pending and preserves the board’s options when the matter returns.

Other details and constraints: The applicant said it would withdraw a sidewalk waiver and install sidewalks where PennDOT and SEPTA permit connections; stormwater facilities were presented as bioretention features that will treat and infiltrate water before discharge. Township staff noted that buffer and planting requirements in the M‑1 zoning district apply and that property maintenance and graffiti issues would be addressed through code enforcement if violations occur.

Where things stand: The board did not approve or deny the project. The matter will return after further discussion between the applicant, township staff and neighbors and after continued review of traffic and PennDOT permitting. If the board later denies the plan and the developer successfully appeals, a court could order construction consistent with the approved plan; supervisors cited the cost and uncertainty of litigation when weighing options.