HEADLINES
Fruitbelt News | News Archive
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.
HUNTINGTON REJECTS DEVELOPMENT
By SCOT ANDREW PITZER, The Evening Sun 03/4/2010 | Article Link
In a resounding show of solidarity, the Huntington Township Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected controversial plans for a trailer park Wednesday night, citing incomplete documents and multiple ordinance violations.
But the battle over the proposed Peakview Mobile Home Park is far from over.
Harrisburg-based attorney Charles Suhr, representing developer Robert Mumma, informed the three-person board that they’ll challenge the decision in court.
“We’ve won before – we believe we’ll win again,” said Suhr, with his client absent. “It’s very unfortunate, but the court is the ultimate arbiter.”
Board Chairman David Boyer responded that he’s “not naïve enough to think we’re not going to court.”
“If the case was tried in the court of public opinion,” Boyer said as he looked out over a crowd of 50-plus people crammed within the township’s headquarters, “you would be denied.”
After calling the session to order, Boyer made a motion to deny the final land development plans, which depict a 270-unit development at the intersection of Idaville-York Springs Road and Pa. 94, near York Springs.
The plans have generated controversy since they were first submitted in 1999, because the project is proposed for a 140-acre plot of land situated in the heart of the Fruit Belt.
Seconds following the vote and the official adjournment of the meeting, the crowed erupted into applause that rattled the walls of the township building.
“The developer has not shown due diligence…nothing has been accomplished in five years,” said Boyer.
Five years ago, a court-order forced the board to grant preliminary land development approval. Since that point, Boyer and Solicitor Bob Campbell noted that the developer made little progress on the plans, with a lack of outside agency approvals, including water and sewer permits.
Boyer pointed out that the developer has not “commenced or completed any aspect” of the final plans, and that no completion schedule has been submitted. He noted that the storm-water management plan is unfinished, and that the plans do not depict most housing units, per law.
Lastly, Boyer said that the Dept. of Environmental Protection has not issued permits for a private wastewater system, adding that “no public system is available.”
Suhr disputed the township’s arguments, indicating that “revised plans” were submitted before Wednesday’s meeting. Boyer replied that supervisors had not reviewed the documents, because they did not know they were submitted. He also explained that “all documents were due to the planning commission” Feb. 22, so the developer “missed the deadline.”
Bob Campbell elaborated: “It’s like everything else in the last 10 years, things come in at the last minute. It could have been taken care of a long time ago.”
Suhr argued that the land development deadline does not expire until April 30, and he asked the board for conditional approval, based on the developer obtaining the proper permits.
“We do not have outside agency approvals. That is clear,” said Suhr. “We cannot do this project without those approvals.”
Board members responded that Peakview had plenty of time from 2005-2010 to obtain those clearances.
In listing the rationale for the board’s denial, Boyer noted that the developer “hastily submitted a preliminary plan” more than 10 years ago, “when the township was considering 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.”
The board 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TRAILER PARK DENIAL
In works for almost 5 years, Huntington Township plan has already been at heart of one court battle.
By STEVE MARRONI, The Evening Sun 02/24/2010 | Article Link
The Huntington Township Planning Commission made a recommendation Monday that supervisors reject the final plans for a
proposed 273-unit mobile-home park off Route 94.
Supervisors have a special meeting set for 7:30 p.m. March 3 to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the plans, which have been a source of controversy for over a decade. The park would be located at Route 94 and York Springs-Idaville Road.
The township rejected preliminary plans in 2000, but Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned the township's decision in 2005, forcing supervisors to accept them in 2005.
Final plans came to supervisors after a five-year absence in October - just shy of the five-year deadline between preliminary and final approval.
Township building permit and zoning officer Gus Fridenvalds said the planning commission chose to recommend rejecting the plan because it was incomplete.
"It was a whole gambit of things for a plan that they had five years to work on that were not accomplished," he said.
Fridenvalds said the plan lacked several required state permits, a storm-water study was not complete, the owner was not identified on the plan, and the plan did not call for a left-hand turn lane from Route 94 into the projected site, which is something citizens and the planning commission thought was essential, he said.
He said it was also rejected because of its potential impact on the bordering wetlands.
Charles Suhr, attorney for project developer Robert Mumma, said approval is still pending from several outside agencies, but those approvals are in the process. He plans to make a presentation about the park to supervisors March 3, and is seeking conditional approval of the final plans, meaning the plans be approved on the condition that those approvals are met.
Nathan Wolf, attorney for the group Save Our Rural Heritage, which is against the park, was pleased with the planning commission's recommendation.
"My impression is the planning commission was frustrated at the idea that after five years, the developer failed to present a clear plan without deficiencies," he said.
Group members, many of whom are nearby landowners, were all pleased, and met the decision with a round of applause, he said.
"It's a good decision, and hopefully the board of supervisors will reach the same decision next week," Wolf said.
Preliminary plans for the project came before supervisors in 1998, before current zoning was put in place the following year. Zoning would not allow for a mobile-home park like this, but since the project was introduced before the current zoning was adopted, it falls under the old code.
Supervisors rejected the plan in September 2000. The developer appealed to Adams County Court, where the township's decision was upheld. He appealed again to Commonwealth Court, where the decision was overturned. The township appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.
Supervisors were forced to accept preliminary plans in January 2005.
Mobile Homes Coming Soon?
Huntington Twp. planning commission about to hear renewed proposal for trailer park
by STEVE MARRONI, The Evening Sun | Article Link
A group of residents oppose it, and the township once rejected it, but a higher court gave plans for a 273-unit trailer park the go ahead five years ago.
And on Monday, the Huntington Township Planning Commission will meet to discuss the revised plans for the park, called Peakview, which is proposed to go in at Route 94 and York Springs-Idaville Road.
The plans are then expected to go before the Board of Supervisors at a special meeting set for 7:30 p.m. March 3.
The project has been an issue in Huntington Township for more than a decade, though it might have seemed to fall off the radar after about five years of silence.
Preliminary plans for the project had come before the township in 1998, a year before Huntington had its current zoning ordinance in place. Current zoning would not allow for a project like Peakview and the township rejected preliminary plans in September 2000.
Supervisors at the time cited the lack of a plan for a drinking-water supply and the development's proximity to a quarry. Peakview developer Robert Mumma appealed the township's decision to the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, where the township's decision was upheld.
Mumma then appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, where Huntington Township's decision to reject the plans was overturned.
The township, in turn, appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, forcing supervisors to approve the preliminary plans Jan. 3, 2005.
There is a five-year window of opportunity between preliminary-plan approval and final-plan adoption. Nothing was heard for close to five years, but just before the deadline, the developer came back with plans in the fall.
Last month, revised plans that addressed some of the township engineer's notes were submitted. Those revised plans are up for discussion with the planning commission Monday night.
A group of residents called Save Our Rural Heritage opposed the park when it first came before supervisors, and continues to oppose it. Members say the park would harm the agricultural and rural nature of the township, overcrowd the schools and create traffic problems.
The group's attorney, Nathan C. Wolf, said the developer still needs several state approvals, which he said constitutes a technical violation that has not been corrected over the course of several revisions.
"They shouldn't be given more time to correct anything," Wolf said. "They had five years."
Wolf said too many deficiencies remain in the plan for the planning commission to recommend it for approval by the supervisors.
Mumma's attorney, Charles M. Suhr, could not be reached Friday for comment.
Even though the preliminary plans were court-ordered, Wolf believes there is enough wiggle room in the court's decision to turn down the plans if they are not up to standard.
The supervisors passed a motion last month by 2-1, giving itself until April 30 to make a final decision on park plans, but had indicated a decision could come as early as the March 3 special meeting.
Supervisor Roger Sowers voted against the extension, and said the developer has had enough time to make a plan.
IF YOU GO
The Huntington Township Planning Commission is meeting at 7:30 p.m. Monday to discuss plans for the proposed 273-unit mobile-home park. Supervisors then have a special meeting set for 7:30 p.m. March 3 to discuss the plans. Both meetings are to be held at the township building, 750 Trolley Road.
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.
Feb. 15th - Developer must submit all revised plans to the board for review.
Feb. 22nd - Planning Commission will meet, comment
and make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
March 3rd - Supervisors will meet to make a final decision
to approve or deny the final plan.
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
By STEVE MARRONI The Evening Sun, 10/8/2009
A court-ordered 275-unit mobile-home park plan that raised public outcry in
Huntington Township several years ago is back.
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.
There was a public outcry against the park five years ago.
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 asks PennDOT for
second turn-lane opinion
Tuesday, June 13, 2006 by Scot A. Pitzer,
Staff Writer for The Gettysburg Times
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.
Therefore, they're asking PennDOT for a second opinion.
"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.
return to top
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.
Contact Scot Pitzer at 334-1131 ext 247, or spitzer@gburgtimes.com
return to top
Clearing up fruitbelt story
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 • Opinion • The Evening Sun
Editor:
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.
Amy Worden, York Springs
return to top
Residents fight mobile-home park
Sunday, April 30, 2006
By Joel Berg,
for the Daily Record/Sunday News
Residents of Huntington Township in Adams County are ready to pounce.
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.
return to top
"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.
"As far as I know, permits are not based on public opinion," he said.
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.
return to top
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.
return to top
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.
Rep. Steven Nickol, R-Hanover, also noted the area's scenic quality.
"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.
"We just have to be very, very vigilant," he said.
Contact Sean Hilliard at shilliard@eveningsun.com.
return to top
Group trying to preserve county's rural character hears Pennsylvania officials
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
by Alex J. Hayes, Gettysburg Times Staff Writer
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.
"This sets it apart from any local opposition I have ever seen," he said.
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.
"This would undermine all of those other efforts," said Nickol.
return to top
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.
return to top
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.
"We are just asking them to follow the letter of the law," he said.
return to top
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.
"There will be too many complaints to work around," he said.
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.
For more information on SORH, visit their Web site at http://www.sorh.org
return to top
April 25, 2006 Town Meeting
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.
return to top
Mark Your Calendar!
Join us for the next SORH meeting
Find out what's happening
in our fight to stop the trailer park
Email sorh@mail.com for more information
|
