|
|||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
More Headlines Group says Adams Fruit belt endangered Adams County Fruitbelt named to state endangered list 2006 mobile home Developer hopes to Builder argues that
|
News Archive Preserving Pennsylvania: from the March/April/May 2006 issue of Preserving Pennsylvania, the newsletter dedicated to preserving PA's historic places, recently identified the Commonwealth's Most Endangered Historic Properties. Following is an excerpt from that newsletter; sorry to say, one has been named that is along the historic Lincoln Highway. Adams County Fruitbelt: Adams County is among the ten largest apple-producing regions in the nation; it covers 20,000 acres of rolling hills. This region was previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Development pressures from Harrisburg and Maryland threaten to erode the orchards and the rural character. The most imminent threat is a proposed 275-unit trailer park. What to do? What to do? If development is coming to an area near you that you want to protect, consider more joint municipal planning, the creation of local historical districts, enacting zoning ordinances or strengthening existing ordinances, as well as farmland and open space preservation programs. If there is not adequate zoning in place (even if enhanced later) when development projects are submitted, it may be too late. A few other properties along the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor that have been included in past listings, with no action taken are (and the year the property was named to the threatened list): Adams County: Franklin County: Bedford County: Group says Adams fruit belt endangered by Meg Bernhardt, The Evening Sun At least two developers are offering lucrative prices for M. Everett Weiser's 923-acre farm in York Springs, and he said if the price gets good enough, he might be forced to sell it. He said he doesn't want to; the farm has been in his wife's family since 1911 and he's worked there since 1945. But Weiser said he needs to pay the bills. It's becoming a common dilemma. As apple prices steadily decline and production costs increase, more and more fruit farmers are choosing to sell land. A statewide preservation group announced this week that growing development in Adams County puts the fruitbelt among its top-10 at-risk historic sites. Preservation Pennsylvania, a nonprofit organization, picks between 10 and 12 threatened sites every year, said executive director Susan Shearer. The fruitbelt was nominated for selection by Save Our Rural Heritage, a citizens group in York Springs. Shearer said the 20,000 acres of hills stretching from southwest to northeast Adams are threatened by development pressures coming up from Maryland and down from Harrisburg. The area is not only beautiful, but historic, she said. Developments planned in northern Adams County include a 275-unit mobile home park at Route 94 and Idaville-York Springs Road, and proposals for nearly 900 homes in Butler Township. "The fruitbelt possesses an extraordinary beauty that has remained virtually untouched since the turn of the 20th century when commercial apple production began," the group's report said. Tough business The fruitbelt, the fourth-largest apple-producing region in the United States, includes not only orchards and growers, but processing and canning plants, roadside markets and other businesses. Shearer hopes that education can help save the region. She encourages local people to get involved in land-use decisions, and said the group supports implementing and strengthening zoning, doing joint-municipal planning and preserving land. But to area farmers, the issue is just plain economics. They say the problem isn't just development, but that many farmers simply can't make a profit farming fruit anymore. They pump money into equipment and land, but fruit prices keep dropping, so eventually, they sell. Then, residential developments become interspersed between farms, threatening the ability of farms to support the other industries connected to production. "It's pretty tough right now in the apple business, and what's going to happen is anybody's guess," said Weiser, who said he considers selling his farm a last resort. Weiser had to stop growing peaches, apricots and plums after his farm was hit by the plum pox virus in 2000. Now, the only fruits grown on the farm are apples and tart cherries. And profits for selling apples for juice, applesauce or other processed products has been stagnant, and have even fallen, as competition from Chinese imports and overproduction domestically has brought demand down, Weiser and other area farmers said. Brad Hollabaugh, of Hollabaugh Brothers Fruit Farm & Market in Butler Township, said this creates a conflict between the farmer's love for the industry and the desire to stay solvent or retire. "Most fruit growers will tell you they love what they're doing," Hollabaugh said. "We wouldn't be here if we loved big paychecks and great big profits and so forth. That's not the reality. People don't understand that very well these days because everybody's looking for more all the time." But very often, as costs go up, fruit farmers are making the same or less than they were making years ago, Hollabaugh said. "When growers are saying they're feeling challenged, it's truthful," he said. "People don't understand or appreciate that part of it because what they see is orchards and land - beautiful blossoms, long branches on the trees, trucks going up and down the road." He said farmers without kids to take over their farms might have to sell in order to have any money in retirement, since farmers tie up most of their assets in land or equipment. "On the one side, you have the emotions, the heritage, the love of the land, the vocation side," he said. "And the other side is 'But I'm at a point economically where I can't stay in this business and make money any longer. (If I sell), I can travel with my wife, see my kids, see my grandkids and retire.'" Under Pressure Because of this pressure to all farmers, Shearer said the entire region is in danger. "Very often preservationists look at only specific buildings, and in this case the entire landscape is incredibly important," Shearer said. But Hollabaugh points out there are two sides to the story. He said growers who have been making investments and taking risks by growing new varieties of apples are able to get high prices in the fresh fruit market. And he's optimistic about the future of his 500-acre farm, which his family has farmed for three generations. He said their "recipe for survival" has been to rely on direct marketing, selling directly to the consumer or to someone else who sells to the consumer. Hollabaugh doesn't think the fruitbelt will be destroyed in future years - just that it will change, and possibly shrink. He expects there will be fewer fruit farmers in the future and that the geography of farms might change. He thinks some will get bigger, while others get smaller. "There is room for concern," Hollabaugh said. "It's probably not inappropriate that the Adams County fruitbelt is on the endangered list but at the same time, many farmers are hardworking, love what they do, and at the end of the day are pretty darn ingenious and find a way to do what they're doing." Contact Meg Bernhardt at mbernhardt@eveningsun.com. A CLOSER LOOK Preservation Pennsylvania members and local preservation groups nominate sites to be considered for the at-risk list. The list is narrowed to 10 or 12 with the help of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The following eligibility requirements also apply:
Adams County Fruitbelt named to Press Release: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 The Adams County Fruitbelt, the state's most productive fruit-growing region, has been named one of the most endangered historic sites in Pennsylvania. The Fruitbelt, which spans 20,000 acres of rolling hills across Adams County, is among ten threatened sites included on the 2005 Pennsylvania At Risk list selected by Preservation Pennsylvania, the statewide, nonprofit historic preservation advocacy group. The Fruitbelt, the fourth largest apple-producing region in the United States, is being threatened by intensive residential development. Among the most immediate threats is a proposed 287-unit trailer park in Huntington Township. This dense development would destroy 137 acres of active farmland and harm the rural character of the area, which is distinguished by active orchards and historic farmsteads. The fruit growing industry has been the mainstay of the Adams County economy for more than a century. The still-intact agricultural region was designated eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of its historic significance and scenic landscapes. The nomination was submitted by Save Our Rural Heritage, a citizens group formed to preserve the rural character of Huntington Township, and the Citizens Alliance of Adams County. For more information on Preservation Pennsylvania see www.preservationpa.org. For more information on Save Our Rural Heritage and for background on the trailer park case see www.sorh.org. 2006 mobile home park put on hold Developers in Huntington Township are seeking permits they need to build Huntington residents have opposed the mobile home park and have formed "The development is just a monstrosity for our area. It is just so out Story so far Developer hopes to begin work on controversial mobile home park If a developer has its way, phase one of a 277-unit mobile home park will begin in May at the intersection of Idaville-York Springs Road and Route 94 in Huntington Township. The problem is, most residents, township supervisors included, were not aware of the developer's intentions. In a traffic impact study conducted by CACO Three, Inc.—the developer behind the controversial mobile home park—a four year phasing blueprint was documented, stating that 57 mobile homes were expected to be in place by May, 2006. This came as news to supervisor chairman David Boyer. "I saw that in the traffic study—there are a lot of questions and work to be done," said Boyer. "To my knowledge, nothing further has been approved. It's already October, and they want to start something in seven months. (CACO) is far away from any final approval." After a back-and-forth battle between the state court system and the township, the development's preliminary plans were pass by supervisors last winter—but only because of a court mandate. Nine months later, the recently completed traffic study, according to several township residents, is the first significant step the developer has taken since the preliminary plans were approved. "It's news to us," said resident Amy Worden. "The developer hasn't bothered to share this information with the people who live in the area." In 2007, CACO has proposed adding another 76 units, then 67 more in 2008, and lastly, 77 mobile homes in 2009, completing the project. Township resident Jeffrey King was among the many who thought final plan consideration was several years away. To him, it seems as if CACO is jumping the gun. "This is the first that I've heard about an actual opening date. I can't see how in the world they could do that," said King. "It's just unrealistic—they haven't even acquired the proper permits yet. The best knowledge I had was that (CACO) would be lucky if the permits were even issued by next May." King and Worden are heavily involved with Save Our Rural Heritage, a concerned citizen's group against the proposed mobile home park. The group has paid close attention to CACO Three's every move. That's why Worden was shocked to hear of CACO's opening date intentions. "This is a recipe for disaster, and premature on the developer's part," said Worden. "Considering that no new permits have been issued, and that (CACO) hasn't even submitted proper paperwork, it's really just appalling. This is exactly the type of thing the developer does—doing everything out of the public eye." Builder argues that traffic impact would be minimal In the eyes of a developer's engineer, roadway improvements would not be necessary on Route 94 or the Idaville-York Springs Road, where CACO Three, Inc., has proposed a 277-unit mobile home park. Plans for the controversial development have drawn ire from hundreds of Huntington Township residents, who feel that a mobile home park on 235 acres of land between Route 94 and Idaville-York Springs Road, just north of York Springs, would seriously deter the area's rural environment. Conducted by TRG, CACO's engineer, the traffic study states that the proposed mobile home park would have a "minimal impact on the surrounding roadways," and that "safe and efficient site accesses will be able to be constructed" off of both roads, without the use of turning lanes and traffic signals. Access to the site, according to CACO's traffic study, would be provided by two private roads that will intersect Route 94 and Idaville-York Springs Road. At full build-out, the mobile home park, said the study, would generate an estimated 98 morning and 166 evening peak hour trips. On a weekly basis, 1,288 site trips would be generated. Those estimations, said township resident Jeffrey King, are unreasonably too low. "I'm concerned because I think (the traffic study) hurts the legitimacy of CACO's proposal," said King, a member of Save Our Rural Heritage—a concerned citizen's group that has fought against the development proposal from the outset. "The numbers seem terribly, unrealistically low to me. Route 94 is fairly, and sometimes heavily traveled." After being on the table for more than five years, preliminary plans for the mobile home park were passed by township supervisors last January—but not without controversy. Huntington Township initially rejected the plans; however, CACO sued, and a Commonweath Court order forced the township into approving the plans. Now that an official traffic study has been submitted, supervisor chairman David Boyer said PennDOT was likely to get involved in the process. Since both roadways are maintained by the state, PennDOT has received a copy of the traffic study, and the township is awaiting comment. "The way I read (the traffic study) was that the engineer who did it didn't think that turn lanes or road improvements were required," said Boyer. "Everything in (the study) was their numbers, and their statistics." The traffic study, said TRG, was prepared in accordance with PennDOT standards and guidelines. Average daily traffic numbers for Route 94 were found to average 3,300, while Idaville-York Springs Road generated 1,000 vehicular trips per day. Cherry Hill Road resident King thought the skeptical traffic study may entice the township into conducting its own. "I can't think the township would go on with this, because I'd bet that TRG was paid 10 times over to write what they did," said King. "The township would benefit from hiring an impartial engineer, and seeing what numbers they come up with." Access points into the proposed mobile home park, said the study, "should be built according to PennDOT standards for low volume driveways." Left and right hand turn lanes "are not warranted" at either intersection, continued the study. "You don't have to be an expert to see that road (improvements) would be needed," said township resident Amy Worden. "These roads are already busy with residential traffic, passenger vehicles, commercial traffic, and slow-moving farm vehicles. The chances of people getting sideswiped or rear-ended would increase even higher.
Mark Your Calendar! Join us for the next SORH meeting
Find out what's happening Email sorh@mail.com for more information
|
||||||||||||
