Save Our Rural Heritage

PLEASE ATTEND!

February 22 - 7:30 PM

Planning Commission will meet, comment and make recommendation to the board of supervisors.

March 3: - 7:30 PM

Supervisors will meet to make a final decision to approve or deny the final plans

These meetings are public and we STRONGLY encourage you to come and participate.

In 2004, the Commonwealth Court ordered the township supervisors to sign off on the preliminary plans for this now 271-unit trailer park development which are now before the planning commission and board of supervisors for FINAL approval.

For more than five years, Save Our Rural Heritage (SORH) has been monitoring this massive development and fighting to stop it. Our community has been held hostage by this developer for 10 years (A DECADE!).

We need your support NOW! Please attend these meetings, tell your friends, neighbors and anyone living in the Bermudian Springs School District that this issue affects them. If this large-scale development is approved you can bet that your TAXES will be increased. Your presence at these meetings to show your opposition to this project is extremely important. SORH has retained an attorney and he will be present to represent the community.

THIS PROJECT WILL BRING - HIGHER TAXES, OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS, CONGESTED AND DANGEROUS ROADS, DESTRUCTION OF FARMLAND AND RURAL QUALITY OF LIFE, URBAN BLIGHT, POLLUTED WATERWAYS, MORE CRIME, MORE TRASH!

CITIZENS' GROUP ASKS TOWNSHIP TO DENY MASSIVE TRAILER PARK IN BID TO SAVE HISTORIC ADAMS COUNTY FRUITBELT

YORK SPRINGS - A citizens' group formed to protect Pennsylvania's historic Fruitbelt is urging Huntington Township officials to deny a developer a further extension to build a large-scale trailer park in the heart of the state's apple-producing region.

The township planning board considers the proposal on Jan. 13 and the township supervisors will vote on Jan. 18. Both meetings begin at 7:30 p.m.

The 273-unit project, proposed by Harrisburg-area developer Robert Mumma II (operating as CACO Three Inc.), threatens to destroy an area prized for its scenic beauty and its productive farmland.

After the proposal was denied by the township in 2002, a decision supported by Adams County court, the Commonwealth Court in 2004 ruled against the township based on the absence of zoning and ordered supervisors to approve the plan.

The developer was given five years to build from the date of the supervisors vote Jan. 3, 2005, but the developer has not yet received any of the required permits. Save Our Rural Heritage (SORH) is now asking the township to deny the proposal based on deficiencies in the plan.

The 137-acre development is surrounded by active farmland in the heart of one of the nation's leading apple-producing regions. Property owners and the state have spent millions to keep this area in agriculture, including investments in stream and farmland protection programs.

This high-density development calls for a sewage treatment plant, water tower, paved roads and sidewalks. It will drain and pave acres of environmentally-sensitive wetlands, damage waterways, crowd schools, clog roads, destroy historic resources and threaten the area’s rural quality of life.

The membership of Save Our Rural Heritage (SORH) includes farmers, apple growers and families who have lived in northern Adams County for generations. For more information and background on the case, visit the links at left.

Court-Ordered Mobile Home Park Back for Approval

Township officials say developer Robert Mumma may address supervisors as early as tonight's meeting about his proposed park. They say Mumma's presentation is not listed on the agenda, but the word is he may be at the meeting.

Supervisor David Boyer said Mumma dropped off his final plans at the township building. Supervisors will likely recommend the plans go to the planning commission for review at its next meeting Oct. 26. The plans will then come back to supervisors after the commission has had a chance to review the documents.

Mumma, who headed CACO Three Inc., first proposed the park in 1998 before Huntington Township had adopted its current zoning ordinances in 1999. Current zoning would not allow for the park at the proposed location between Route 94 and York Springs-Idaville Road.

CACO submitted a preliminary plan for the mobile-home park in June 2000. Supervisors rejected the plan in September of that year. The reasons included the park being near a quarry, and no submission of a plan for a drinking-water supply.

Mumma's company appealed the township's rejection to Adams County Court, and Judge Michael A. George upheld the township's decision. Mumma, however, appealed again to Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which overturned the county court decision.

Huntington Township, in turn, appealed the commonwealth-court decision to the state Supreme Court, which, in October 2004, refused to hear the case. Huntington Township supervisors were forced to approve the preliminary plans Jan. 3, 2005.

Huntington Township building permit and zoning officer Gus Fridenvalds said there is a five-year time limit for a final plan to be approved after preliminary-plan approval. The final plan was submitted with just a few months remaining before the January 2010 deadline.

Upon preliminary review, Fridenvalds said the final plan appears to be about the same as the preliminary plan accepted nearly five years ago.

But is the township still bound to the higher court's decision? Fridenvalds believes they are. The plan itself predates the current zoning ordinance, so the plan is grandfathered in, and supervisors would still likely be bound to approve it based on the court ruling.

Boyer, on the other hand, said the higher court ordered supervisors to approve a preliminary plan, and not necessarily a final plan. But he said there are a lot of unknowns at this point, and he would save further comment until he had a chance to review the plan.

A group called Save Our Rural Heritage was strongly opposed. No one from the group could be immediately reached for comment.

Nor could Mumma be reached for comment. His secretary said he would be out of town for the rest of the week.

Huntington Township supervisors are asking PennDOT for help regarding a controversial development proposal slated to bring 280 mobile homes to the municipality.

PennDOT, Huntington officials say, has reviewed CACO Three Inc.'s 'Peakview' proposal, planned for the area of Pa. 94, near White Oak Tree Road, adjacent to Idaville-York Springs Road.

In a traffic study prepared by PennDOT, a left-hand turn lane on Pa. 94, the agency deems, is necessary for traffic to access Peakview. However, Huntington officials feel a right-hand turn lane is also warranted.

"Logic would say if you have a right turn lane," said supervisor Chairman David Boyer, at the township's monthly meeting Thursday, "you should have a left."

A group of local residents, Save Our Rural Heritage (SORH), asked supervisors Thursday to contact PennDOT and express Huntington's turn-lane concerns. Supervisors said they would write the agency a letter requesting a timely response.

PennDOT's recommendation for just one turn lane has left many citizens scratching their heads.

"With our review of the traffic study," said SORH member Harrison Fair, "I don't know how they determined the need for one turn-lane and not the other."

Plans for Peakview, a proposal submitted by CACO Three developer Robert Mumma, II, have been in the works for six years.

Development representatives were absent at Huntington's meeting Thursday. Mumma has not returned calls seeking comment.

When the developer's engineer, TRG, conducted its own traffic appraisal last year, the study said neither left nor right hand turn lanes "are warranted" on Pa. 94.

According to CACO's traffic study, the developer's engineer estimated the proposed mobile home park would generate 264 vehicular trips per day.

That estimate differs significantly from a report produced by Adams County planners.

According to the Adams County Office of Planning and Development, the mobile home park is expected to produce 1,746 trips per day. Every day, county planners predict,, Peakview could generate six vehicular trips per mobile home.

CACO Three is still seeking numerous required permits before it can submit final Peakview plans. In order for the plans to be finalized, the developer must meet both state and federal requirements.

In 1999, CACO first submitted its mobile home park plans. Huntington supervisors rejected the proposal. The developer sued, and lost its case in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas.

But CACO appealed the decision, and won in Commonwealth Court, forcing supervisors to approve Peakview's preliminary plans in January 2005.

While the members of Save Our Rural Heritage are pleased with The Sun's coverage of our efforts to halt a large trailer park project in York Springs, we would like to clarify two statements made in the story that ran April 30.

First, it is the state, not our group specifically, that has designated the entire Adams County Fruitbelt, from Peach Glen to Orrtanna, as historic. The fruitbelt was named eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission in 1994. This designation affords the area certain protections from federally funded projects or those requiring federal permits, such as wetland development in the case of the trailer park.

Second, the story did not accurately describe a provision of the eminent domain bill that has passed the General Assembly. By changing current law it would prohibit – not allow – one municipality from taking land in another municipality without approval.

Their intended target is any state or federal permit sought by the developer of a mobile-home park slated for construction in the "fruit belt" region of Adams County. Huntington Township is in the northern part of the county.

As permits wind through the approval process, residents plan to continue weighing in on the controversial development, which was approved in 2004 after a lengthy court battle. The permitting process allows for public comment before an approval is granted.

"We just have to be very, very vigilant," said Jeff King, a dairy farmer whose fields border the proposed mobile-home park. King spoke April 25 at the second annual meeting of Save Our Rural Heritage, a group formed to protect the fruit belt from development.

About 65 people, including Republican state Rep. Steven Nickol, R-Hanover, attended the event at York Springs Fire Hall.

Nickol and others at the meeting said development in the fruit belt could undermine the millions of tax dollars invested in preserving farms and fighting plum pox, a disease that threatens fruit orchards.

As for the proposed mobile-home park, critics say it is in a bad spot and out of sync with the agricultural area that would surround it. Plans call for about 280 units on farmland between Route 94 and Idaville-York Springs Road.

Residents also raised concerns about traffic and water issues. The proposed development includes a sewage treatment plant that would discharge into a creek. Such plants need permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

"We'll continue to pursue whatever channels we can to try to stop it," said Amy Worden, vice president of the group.

The controversy began in 1999 when Bowmansdale-based developer Caco Three Inc. submitted preliminary plans for the Peakview Mobile Home Park. Township supervisors denied the plans but eventually were ordered to approve them by Commonwealth Court.

Robert Mumma II, Caco's president, said his company still expects to go forward with the development.

"It's up to us to design it in such a way that it meets the township requirements at the time we got the preliminary approval, and that's what we're going to do," Mumma said.

Caco has no immediate plans to begin construction, Mumma said. He said he wasn't concerned about public comments on any permits his company needs.

Similar fights could come to other areas of the fruit belt. In the last few years, more than 1,000 homes have been proposed for the agricultural region that spans western and northern Adams, according to Richard Schmoyer, the county's planning director.

"We weren't expecting to see anything like that," Schmoyer said at the meeting April 25.

Group aims to protect Adams' fruit belt

Sunday, April 30, 2006
by Sean Hillard, Evening Sun Reporter

Charles Borowsky, president of Save Our Rural Heritage, brought home the purpose of Tuesday night's meeting and his group's purpose of preserving the historic fruit belt in Adams County.

"Now you see the blossoms, but they may not be here forever," he said, referring to increasing development pressures.

In 2004, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned a previous court decision that barred developer Caco Three from moving forward with a 275-unit trailer park on 140 acres between Route 94 and Idaville-York Springs Road two miles outside of York Springs, said Amy Worden, vice president of Save Our Rural Heritage. The Huntington Township Board of Supervisors were forced to approve the developer's preliminary plan because the township was without zoning in 1999, when the plan was originally submitted.

Save Our Rural Heritage is concerned the trailer park will overcrowd schools, lead to higher taxes, congest traffic and encroach wetlands.

The last concern, about environmental harm from the trailer park's sewage system that would have to be put in, especially worried residents at the meeting. Crystal Newcomer, water program manager for the Department of Environmental Protection, was there to respond to that concern and to others the more than 50 people present at the meeting had.

She said there are still at least two more periods when citizens can air concerns and possibly cause the development's approval to be revoked. The two periods are after the permit application is received by the DEP and after the sewage treatment plant plan is received, Newcomer said.

Worden brought up an additional point that Save Our Rural Heritage has found: a law that says developers must take damaging historic properties into account. The group says the fruit belt is a historic property.

Richard Schmoyer, director of the Adams County planning department, also spoke at the meeting. Schmoyer said he's concerned with the distances residents in the trailer park would have to travel to do things like work and shop.

"York Springs is a charming, little borough, but it doesn't have the industry of a community like Dillsburg," he said.

"I've traveled the globe extensively and I haven't seen an area more beautiful than northern Adams County," he said.

Nickol attended the meeting and said he is concerned that a decision on the trailer park has already gone beyond local government. He felt he needed to step in.

Nickol added that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved two bills Monday that say local governments can legally condemn property when it is potentially part of a problematic issue like a bad sewage system.

"I've seen this work in the past," he said, adding that York Springs Municipal Authority could condemn land adjacent to the development and kill the whole plan.

However, Nickol also said that Gov. Ed Rendell still has to sign the bill, but he didn't expect Rendell to veto it.

One of the main points of both Save Our Rural Heritage and the speakers at the meeting constantly brought home was the need for the residents to voice their concerns to their local representatives, even representatives at the municipal level.

Jeff King, a resident who owns land adjacent to the planned development, stressed this himself.

More than 40 people concerned about protecting the Adams County fruitbelt came to the York Springs Fire Hall Tuesday nighty to express their concerns and hear what others thought.

Save Our Rural Heritage (SORH) held their second annual town hall meeting last night, which included speeches from Rep. Steven Nickol, Crystal Newcomer of the Pa. Department of Environmental Projection, and Richard Schmoyer, director of Adams County Planning and Development.

The group is especially concerned with stopping the development of a 285-unit trailer park in Huntington Township. The trailer park would be located on 140 acres of active farmland.

Huntington Township originally denied the plans for the park, but the developer appealed the rejection and the Commonwealth Court ordered the plans be approved.

Nickol told the crowd that as a representative he is asked to support numerous groups that are trying to stop development. Normally he denies those requests because he feels it is up to the local government to make those decisions. He said he came out in support of SORH because the local government tried to stop it and failed.

Nickol also said he feels with all of the things the state has already done to protect the fruitbelt, allowing a trailer park in would be counterproductive.

The development's plans include the construction of a sewer treatment plant. The plant requires several permits from DEP, which have not been applied for yet.

Amy Worden, vice president of SORH, said that the fact that the permits haven't been applied for yet allows the opposition even more time to voice their concern.

"There are many more opportunities for our voices to be heard and many more opportunities to change this plan," she said.

Crystal Newcomer, water program manager for DEP, said that once the permits are applied for there are two phases that must be completed.

Phase one, which usually takes nine months, is when the developer applies for a permit to discharge wastewater into the stream. This requires a review of the flow of the stream as well as a review of the pollutant level of the stream.

Phase two, which usually takes three months, the developer applies for a permit to build the treatment plant.

A notice of application for both phases is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, and is subject to a 30-day comment period.

Schmoyer addressed the issue that development is happening all over the county. Currently, there are 108 development projects that are moving through the municipal governments. He also said that there are plans for 1,000 homes throughout the entire fruitbelt, which begins in Hamiltonban Township and extends up to York Springs.

Schmoyer said he would like all development to stay out of the rural areas, and concentrate where there is already growth. He hopes the rising cost of gas will help this idea, because people will not want to move far from commercial centers.

Jeff King, whose farm is adjacent to the site of the trailer park, put his land in preservation several years ago. Because his land can never be developed, many people thought he was ruining a chance to make a lot of money by selling to developers.

"Our family felt so strongly about preservation that we took that option off the table," he said. "This development is counterproductive."

King stressed that the group is not asking DEP or any government agency for any special treatment.

Several residents also expressed concern that if the trailer park would come in, it would have a profound effect on the farms that still exist.

One resident expressed the concern that a trailer park would ruin land like King's, because the new residents would not be easily accustomed to living in a farming community. He said he sees the farming being ruined because the residents will complain about the smell from the dairy farms and agricultural sprays. He also said many farmers use Route 94 to move their farm equipment, and drivers will complain about slow moving tractors.

Harrison Fair, who once owned the land the trailer park will be built on, said that he installed a drainage system so that the land would not flood.

"When they start putting in a sewer system what will happen to all that drainage work?" he said.

SORH members were happy to welcome members of the community to a Town Meeting at the York Springs Fire Hall.

Guest speakers included the Honorable Stephen Nickols (pictured below); Crystal Newcomer, DEP Water Program

Manager; and Richard Schmoyer, Director of the Adams County Planning Commision. Community members also had an opportunity to comment on the project and to ask questions of our Representive, the DEP, and the Planning Commission.

If you'd like more information about anything that was discussed or if you'd like to get more involved, email us at sorh@mail.com.

Planning Board meeting resulted in a forced extension.

As expected, an extension request from the developer, Caco III to the Board of Supervisors was granted by the board until April 30th with the ability of the board to act prior to April 30th.

The following deadlines were agreed upon.

CITIZENS' GROUP ASKS TOWNSHIP TO DENY MASSIVE TRAILER PARK IN BID TO SAVE HISTORIC ADAMS COUNTY FRUITBELT

Court-Ordered Mobile Home Park Back for Approval

Planning Board meeting resulted in a forced extension.

As expected, an extension request from the developer, Caco III to the Board of Supervisors was granted by the board until April 30th with the ability of the board to act prior to April 30th. The following deadlines were agreed upon.

CITIZENS' GROUP ASKS TOWNSHIP TO DENY MASSIVE TRAILER PARK IN BID TO SAVE HISTORIC ADAMS COUNTY FRUITBELT

Court-Ordered Mobile Home Park Back for Approval

As expected, an extension request from the developer, Caco III to the Board of Supervisors was granted by the board until April 30th with the ability of the board to act prior to April 30th.

The following deadlines were agreed upon.