Save Our Rural Heritage

Citizen group wants say in trailer-park case

Huntington Township group files for status in Adams court case.

By STEVE MARRONI 08/03/2010 The Evening Sun

The citizens' group opposed to decade-old plans for a 273-unit trailer park outside of York Springs filed a motion to be an official party in future court action concerning the project.

Save Our Rural Heritage filed a petition for intervention in April, and a hearing was held in Adams County court July 26.

Members of the group testified that though Huntington Township rejected the plans for the Peakview park, there were a number of issues supervisors did not cite in their decision to deny the plans. Save Our Rural Heritage does not oppose the township's rejection of the plans, but feels more should have been factored into the denial, like water table issues, traffic safety, endangered turtles and proximity of the park to waterways.

If the petition for intervention is approved by the court, Save Our Rural Heritage will have party status in the case, and can participate in future court proceedings.

Adams County President Judge John D. Kuhn will make a decision after the developer's attorney, Charles Suhr, and the group's attorney, Nathan Wolf, file their briefs arguing the motion. After Kuhn's decision on Save Our Rural Heritage's motion is made, he said the parties involved can continue with the appeals process.

The township had rejected the developer's plans in March, and the developer filed an appeal in April.

Also, while appealing the decision, the development firm CACO III filed for bankruptcy in U.S. Middle District Court of Pennsylvania in May.

Preliminary plans for the park, which was planned to be located at York Springs-Idaville Road and Route 94, first came before supervisors in 1998 - a year before the existing zoning rules were adopted. The area planned for the trailer park now is zoned as agricultural, and would not allow for a park to be developed there.

Supervisors rejected the plan in 2000, and developer Robert Mumma appealed up to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which overturned the township's decision. The state Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and forced supervisors to approve the preliminary plans in January 2005.

Just shy of the five-year deadline between preliminary- and final-plan approval, the developer came back with final plans.

Supervisors rejected these plans March 4 by a vote of 3-0, citing that the plans were missing numerous key approvals from outside agencies.

The developer appealed, saying those approvals were not necessary, and they could be approved on the condition that the necessary approvals from groups like the Department of Environmental Protection are met.

In the supervisors' rejection, and the developer's appeal, each side accused the other of acting in "bad faith."

The township's position is that now that the plans were rejected, the park no longer falls under old zoning, and under new zoning, could not be built in that area.

smarroni@eveningsun.com

Huntington Twp. developer files for bankruptcy

BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER Gettysburg Times Staff Writer Published: June 23, 2010

The developer that sued Huntington Township for rejecting a proposed 270-unit trailer park has filed for bankruptcy in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg.

Court documents docketed May 7 by developer Robert Mumma and CACO Three Inc., formerly known as McDermott Concrete, list the total amount owed to creditors as $122,083.78.

Mumma has proposed a 270-unit trailer park in Huntington Township near York Springs, at the intersection of Idaville-York Springs Road and Pa. 94.

Township supervisors rejected the project in March, but Mumma quickly filed an appeal in Adams County Court.

It is unclear if the bankruptcy case will have any impact on Mumma’s appeal.
“We don’t know — we don’t think it does,” said Huntington Township Board of Supervisors Chairman David Boyer, adding that township Solicitor Bob Campbell is researching the situation.

In addition to failing to pay creditors, Mumma has not paid the township engineering and review fees. Boyer estimated that Mumma owes the township “several thousand dollars.”

The trailer park project has drawn fire over the years from preservationists, as the development would be situated in the heart of the Upper Adams Fruit Belt. It has also been the subject of lengthy legal action. Mumma submitted preliminary plans for the development more than 10 years ago, when the township did not have a zoning ordinance. The township passed a zoning ordinance Nov. 11, 1999, which would prohibit the development from being placed atop land that is zoned for “agricultural preservation.”

Supervisors rejected the plan that year, mainly because of incomplete water and sewer modules. A long legal battle ensued in court, with a Pennsylvania judge overturning the decision. The township asked the State Supreme Court for a decision, but the court refused to hear the case.

In 2005, the township reluctantly approved the court-ordered project. Final land development plans were submitted in Sept. 2009, with a five-year statute of limitations deadline set to expire. Similarly, the three-person board rejected those plans in March 2010, because of incomplete water and sewer modules.

CACO Three took the township to court, again. The appeal is being reviewed by Adams County Court.

Highlights of Adams County's Apple Country

LATEST NEWS:

Developer appeals mobile home park rejection

BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER Gettysburg Times Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, April 17, 2010

Another legal battle is brewing in Huntington Township over plans to place a trailer park in the heart of Adams County’s “fruit belt.”

A developer has filed a lawsuit in county court, challenging the township’s March denial of the controversial “Peakview Mobile Home Park,” near York Springs.

Robert Mumma and CACO Three Inc., of Camp Hill, filed a land-use appeal this week, asking the court to overturn the March 3 decision.

The legal documents ask the court to “reverse the decision and force the township to approve the final plans...on the condition of receiving outside agency approval,” from water and sewer agencies.

Supervisors rejected the final plans, citing incomplete water and sewer plans, amongother concerns.

Developer Robert Mumma is behind the “Peakview Mobile Home Park” proposal, although court documents list Mann Realty as the owner of 235 acres of farmland along Idaville-York Springs Road and Pa. 94.

Legal counsel representing Mumma did not immediately return an inquiry this week seeking comment, although the attorney indicated that his party might be able to talk next week.

Mumma’s group has claimed that it is seeking water and sewer permits, but has not been awarded them to date.

Township leaders argue that Mumma had plenty of time to obtain the permits, especially after preliminary plans were court-approved in 2005.

But no progress was made by the developer.

The controversial plans date back to 1999, when they were first submitted by Mumma.

Those preliminary plans were rejected by the township’s three-person board of supervisors, also because of incomplete water and sewer plans.

However, the state courts reversed the decision, forcing the board to approve the documents in January 2005.

Five years later, in October 2009, the developer returned with final plans, with a statute of limitations deadline looming.

Similarly, the township denied those plans last month, citing unfinished water and sewer modules, among other ordinance violations. As soon as the vote was taken, Mumma’s attorney — Charles Suhr — informed the board that it would be taken to court, resulting in this week’s suit.

Overall, the plans depict 268 mobile units atop farmland, situated in upper Adams County.

The plans have generated controversy since they were first submitted in 1999, as they were proposed at a time when the township did not have a zoning ordinance.

Supervisors rejected the proposal. But a long legal battle ensued and resulted in the Commonwealth Court reversing the township’s decision.

Preliminary plans were OK’d in 2005, and the developer did not resurface until the fall of this year.

The plans are opposed by Save Our Rural Heritage, a preservation group featuring area farmers, neighbors and preservationists.

Peakview Decision Renews Fight
First proposed in 1999, proposed trailer park likely headed back to court.

By STEVE MARRONI, The Evening Sun 03/7/2010 | Article Link

Huntington Township supervisors this week rejected plans for a 273-unit mobile home park that has been an issue in the community for more than a decade.

Even though the proposed Peakview development was voted down Wednesday, it likely won't be the last time residents will hear about it.

The last time supervisors voted down the plan, it went through the court system for about four years before a higher court ordered the township to accept the preliminary plans.

The developer's attorney said at the meeting Wednesday that he's confident they will win in court a second time, and if the last round through the court system is any indication, it may take a few years.

The park is proposed

Developer Robert Mumma first submitted sketch plans for the park in January 1999 - while the township was working on its current zoning ordinance, which was adopted in November of that year.

Under state law, the plans could be held only to the standards in place at the time they were submitted, and not the new zoning adopted later that year.

Those new zoning rules call for land where the park is planned - in the area of York Springs-Idaville Road and Route 94 - to be zoned for agricultural conservation, a zone in which such a project wouldn't be permitted.

The developer submitted a set of preliminary plans in June 2000. Supervisors rejected those plans in September 2000, citing the park's proximity to a quarry and the developer's failure to submit details for a drinking-water supply system for the park.

The developer appealed the township's rejection to the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, where the township's decision was upheld about three years later. The developer, however, appealed that decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court where, in March 2004, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas was overturned. The court said that none of the reasons cited for the supervisors' decision justified outright disapproval of the plan.

Supervisors appealed the Commonwealth Court decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which in October 2004 refused to hear the case.

By order of Commonwealth Court, supervisors accepted the plans in January 2005. Nothing was heard from the developer until October 2009.

A second rejection

The developer's attorney, Charles Suhr, came back with a set of final plans just shy of the five-year deadline between preliminary and final plan approval.

The plan was still missing several key approvals from the state for water, sewage and more. Suhr requested a conditional approval that the developer could only move forward once those missing approvals were met.

Supervisors rejected the plan by a vote of 3-0. Suhr indicated at the meeting that an appeal and another round through the court system was likely.

"It looks like we're going to court," he said at the meeting. "We've won before, and we will win again."

Suhr could not be reached for additional comment.

Huntington Township Solicitor Robert Campbell said he is sure the developer will appeal the case to Adams County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days. It can take some time then for each side to file arguments and briefs, he said, before the court comes down with a decision.

If the court rules in favor of the township, and the developer appeals again to Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, Campbell said it's a process that easily could take a long time.

But Campbell said the township's rejection will stand through the higher court this time.

"We certainly feel confident," Campbell said. "It's been 10 years, and they're no closer to getting any of the permits, or anything, than they were the first go around."

The Commonwealth Court decision said that the developer's plan must comply with all township requirements. Since the plan is missing a number of approvals and has some incomplete sections, Campbell said the plan does not comply with all requirements, giving supervisors the power to overturn it.

He dismissed the developer's effort to seek conditional approval to allow them time to seek the missing permits.

"They had five years to do that," Campbell said. "If they were allowed to continue doing that, they would tie us up forever and ever, and that's not how the law was meant to be."

And now that the five years between the preliminary and final plans have passed with no approval, he said the plans now fall under current zoning, which would not allow for a trailer park to be placed in the agricultural area in the first place.

Save Our Rural Heritage has requested that the Huntington Township Supervisors conducted an independent traffic study to assess the need for a left turning lane on Rte. 94 at the proposed entrance to the Peakview trailer park south of White Oak Tree Rd. PennDOT approved the developer's traffic study, which did not include a turn lane, without considering the high volume of truck traffic and farm vehicles, the speed limit and the grade of the road. We strongly believe a left turn lane is necessary at what would be a very dangerous intersection.

Arcing 20,000 acres in a crescent from the southwest to the north-central part of Adams County, Pennsylvania lies the Adams County Historical Fruit Belt,
one of the most productive agricultural regions in the state.

The fragile farm-based economy, scenic rural
landscape, and quality of life treasured by residents and visitors
for a century is being threatened by unplanned urban-style development.

Huntingdon Township Supervisors found themselves in this position in 2004 when they were ordered by Commonwealth Court to approve a preliminary plan for a 275-unit trailer park on 140 acres between Route 94 and Idaville-York Springs Road, outside the borough of York Springs. The court found for the developer because a zoning ordinance had yet to be approved by the township when the plan was submitted in 1999.

Save Our Rural Heritage (SORH) is fighting to stop the trailer park because it will destroy the wetlands, ruin the rural way of life, and dramatically alter the landscape of the Fruit Belt, a region deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.