Save Our Rural Heritage - Fruitbelt News

The Huntington Township Supervisors approved amendments to the township's zoning ordinance Thursday, including changes that could give the board more leverage in dealing with plans for the 250-acre Gettysburg Equestrian Center.

The amended ordinance allows a public-entertainment facility as a conditional use in the township's Commercial Industrial zoning district. The township's zoning ordinance previously permitted an equestrian center in the district, but did not provide a definition that matched what developers of the Gettysburg Equestrian Center have proposed.

The complex would feature a 136,000-square-foot equestrian exposition arena, a 93,000-square-foot secondary arena, a 37,000-square-foot, covered outdoor arena and 1,500 horse stalls. There would also be a hotel, restaurants and other amenities, the developer has said. The complex is proposed near the intersection of routes 15 and 234.

The developer initially wanted a curative amendment to fix "deficiencies" in the township's zoning, but retracted that request after consulting with supervisors.

"The reason we wanted a definition in there was so (Equestrian Center developers) had something to react to," Huntington zoning officer Gus Fridenvalds said. "If you don't have a definition that fits them, then they come in as a use not-provided-for and you have a harder time handling it because they can try to attach whatever rules and definitions they want."

The developer has yet to officially submit plans for the complex.

Contact Tim Pratt at tpratt@eveningsun. com.

Tapping into Bendersville’s water main may cost the developer of the proposed Applewood Development money if the borough council has anything to say about it.

At a Feb. 27 borough meeting, council decided to ask its code enforcement officer to cite the development group, RAK/BLK Limited Partnership, for failing to gain proper permits before starting work on a water main replacement in Bendersville.

Last year, Bendersville agreed to sell water to the first 120 homes of Applewood, slated for Aspers-Bendersville Road and Pa. Route 34. In exchange for the water, the developer agreed to replace the borough’s water main from the town square to around 600 feet past Liberty Lane.

“We know that he tapped into our water without getting a permit and he did the same thing with regards to sewer lines,” said councilman Jim Bergolios. “I don’t think we should let it ride. I built a shed on my property and I guarantee that if I would not have got a permit, someone would have fined me.”

The action in question occurred about six weeks ago and according to borough officials, the developer, RAK/BLK Inc., was warned not to do anything without a permit.

“I think our ordinance book even has the fine in it for doing something like this,” said borough president Ricky Kime. “He never told us he was going to do that and we even told him not to do it when he was in here.”

Applewood representative Gill Clarke, last year, estimated the water main replacement would cost around $300,000. Bendersville agreed to waive tapping fees for Applewood homes up to the point that it equals the cost of the replacement.

Of the first phase homes, only two would be within Bendersville Borough lines. The remaining 120 will be in Menallen Township.

In a order for a fine to be levied against the developer, councilman Stan Lupp said they would likely have to be convicted in court after receiving the citation from the code enforcement officer.

The Adams County commissioners on Wednesday unanimously approved a program that could lead to a multimillion-dollar loan for land preservation.

"I guess to paraphrase Neil Armstrong, it's one small step," Commissioner Tom Weaver said.

The resolution allows the county to work cooperatively with Keep Adams Green, an open-space and natural-resources preservation group, to purchase easements and lock up land from development. The commissioners will now reallocate the $400,000 the county spends annually for land preservation to the new program with Keep Adams Green.

And Keep Adams Green officials will now form a committee of municipal officials, conservation groups and resource organizations. The new committee will then go to the county's 34 municipalities and request each contribute $10,000 to $15,000 a year to the preservation program through an intermunicipal agreement.

"There's still a lot of work that needs to be done, but I'm confident that over the next few months, as the committee works together to develop the message and move out to the municipalities, we'll be able to get the project under way in '07," Weaver said. "I'm optimistic that we'll be able to get it done."

Commissioners hope municipal contributions match the county's $400,000, and that the $800,000 total can be used to underwrite a 10- to 15-year loan, which could yield between $10 million and $15 million.

The project could eventually allow for matching funds from the state's Growing Greener II fund, a $650 million voter-approved bond designed by the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to preserve open space statewide.

The commissioners said they don't need contributions from all 34 municipalities for the program to work, but more land will be preserved if more municipalities participate. Commissioner Glenn Snyder said municipalities need to start working together and think on a regional basis because what happens in one municipality could "directly or indirectly affect what happens in a neighboring municipality."

Weaver formally proposed the resolution at the commissioners' July 19 meeting, but the proposal was tabled because Snyder and fellow commissioner Lucy Lott were concerned with the lack of municipal input and some language in the resolution.

Lott previously wanted a council of governments – a governing body of officials from all 34 municipalities – to form before moving forward with the resolution so the program would represent officials from the entire county.

"What we found out, though, is that a council of governments can't incur debt," Lott said. "So we couldn't use it for this purpose."

The commissioners were previously concerned municipalities might contribute money to the land-conservation program, but could become disenchanted if lands were not preserved in their immediate area. So the commissioners worked with county Solicitor John Hartzell this week to come up with an amended resolution that pleased everyone.

"Participation of the municipalities has been put in here (the resolution) several times and it's clear that they now have a voice in what's going on with the money," Lott said.

Mark Berg of the Keep Adams Green Coalition was pleased the amended resolution was approved and the coalition can now move forward to preserve more land. He said the next step is to form the committee that will lobby municipalities for funds.

Keep Adams Green previously wanted a $25 million land-preservation bond, but the commissioners balked at the deal. Berg said the new resolution could turn out to be more beneficial because the organization would have struggled to spend $25 million in the time allotted.

"Let's face it," Berg said. "We couldn't spend $25 million in one or two years. It would be kind of reckless to go out and spend it too quickly."

Weaver said he now plans to personally address municipal officials and ask them to contribute to the land preservation funds. He said the unanimous approval of the resolution by commissioners "clearly demonstrates to municipal leaders that the county's on board with this and we'd like them to strongly consider it."

"I think to go out personally to assist is also going to be helpful, and we're going to have to do that with some of the municipalities," Weaver said.

"We have a good plan here," Snyder said. "Now it's going to be up to the municipalities whether they participate or they do not and to what extent."

The Huntington Township Planning Commission on Monday was introduced to plans for a 135-acre commercial and residential development planned along Route 94, south of Route 15.

Plans for the commercial center could contain anything from a grocery store and convenience store to a bank and hardware store, while the residential district would include an unknown number of homes.

"We're not talking about a shopping center or strip mall," said Mike Barton, a representative for the development. "We're talking about a whole slew of services that are needed for this area."

The land, however, is currently zoned Agriculture Conservation, and does not allow for commercial use. Barton said he would like for the property to be rezoned to Commercial Industrial.

"There's already a certain amount of commercial that's been established," Barton said. "We're not talking about a massive thing. We're talking a 450-, maybe 500-foot corridor right along 94."

Planning commission members were concerned with sight distance on Route 94, and cited the 55 mph speed limit as a possible traffic danger.

Commission chairman Ted Decker said that a previous developer requested that the land be rezoned Commercial Industrial but was denied.

"We didn't want to make it any more dangerous than it already was out there," Decker said. But Barton said he would talk with the state Department of Transportation about lowering the speed limit. He also said traffic would not enter and exit the project directly onto Route 94, but from side roads which had "great sight distance for both locations."

The planning commission was also concerned with water supply for the unknown number of homes being proposed. But Barton said it's "way too preliminary" to estimate the number of homes that would be built on the property, and hopes to access water from York Springs Borough.

"If you can't get water from York Springs, what type of water supply for that development do you propose?" asked commission member Leroy Weidner.

Barton said the project could use a well with an underground water tank. He said the project could serve as a "village center" and provide services and amenities to the township.

"What caught our eye about this piece of property is ... with its proximity to Route 15 and with its proximity to the school district, it lends itself to a lightly intensive commercial area."

A development group hoping to establish an equestrian center in Huntington Township wants to be kept abreast regarding the municipality's forthcoming zoning ordinance changes.

Huntington's solicitor, Robert Campbell, informed supervisors Thursday that a Gettysburg Equestrian Center representative contacted him recently, expressing concern about the township's planned zoning alterations, and how those changes would affect the group's proposal.

But equestrian center representatives haven't been present at the township's two recent meetings: Thursday's monthly supervisor's session, and last month's planning commission forum.

"They're welcome to come to our meetings," said supervisor chairman David Boyer, "just like any other public entity is."

Equestrian center representatives have requested that supervisors amend their current zoning ordinanances to allow for the construction of a proposed 250-acre entertainment facility.

Plans for the site also include a hotel, campground, restaurants and horse corrals.

The complex—slated to be built near the intersection of Routes 15 and 234—has been proposed for land currently zoned for agricultural conservation and commercial-industrial use.

Campbell said Thursday the equestrian center has withdrawn one of its zoning amendment requests. He said he spoke recently, via a telephone conversation, with equestrian center attorney Steve Feinour.

"(Feinour) said they were having issues," explained Campbell, "and he wanted to know where we are with zoning changes. He didn't say what his problem was, he just said they had issues."

Campbell said Feinour would like to address "language" within the township's current zoning ordinance.

Township supervisors are specifically studying changes pertaining to a 10-year subdivision rule, as well as a statute mandating lot sizes.

Huntington resident Harrison Fair, a member of a local preservation group, Save Our Rural Heritage, asked supervisors to continue enforcing township protocol.

"It's very unusual for entities to come in here and dictate what we should do," Fair said. "We should set the standards—not the people coming in here."

Supervisors tabled approval of their planning commission's proposed zoning alterations until the materials could be reviewed further.

In other news, supervisors granted conditional approval for a Willow Lane Bridge project.

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.

Development and subsequent efforts to save disappearing farmland are a story that seemingly makes the list of top stories around here every year. And with all the developments being considered in 2005, the issue is certain to make next year's list as well.

Though some of that development might not come to fruition - a 2,000-home seniors-only development will likely have model homes ready for this summer.

Local developer David Sites submitted a proposal to turn a parking lot into 22 townhouses in Fairfield Borough—and in Cumberland Township he received permission to build and office building, gas station and bank on Route 116.

In Freedom Township, the 1,200-home Mason-Dixon Country Club that will more than double the township population still has a long way to go, but hit the ground running in 2005.

Butler Township officials put a halt to a 377-home development—one of three proposals totaling 900 homes—planning in the municipality, symbolically voting down the plan at a public meeting in the National Apple Museum.

...The "Fruit Belt" along northern Adams County continues to face intense development even if officials and citizen groups are determined to impede the way. It made the endangered list for "Preservation Pennsylvania."

Meanwhile, no one can miss the two hotels and movie theater that have sprung from the ground at routes 15 and 30, as Bob Monahan continues forward with his Gateway Gettysburg project.

Butler nixes 400-home development
[We applaud the success of the concerned citizens of Butler Township, Adams County,
Pennsylvania in defeating this development plan in a fight similar to our own]

by Jarrad Hedes, The Gettysburg Times
Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Christmas came early for several dozen concerned Butler Township residents Monday night.

A rousing ovation from meeting attendees ended nearly a year of controversy, as supervisors unanimously voted down plans for Orchard Heights, a 400-home development proposed just outside of the Biglerville borough line on Route 234.

Following comments from township planning commission member Barry Towers and numerous residents, the Snyder Development plans were denied, following a short executive session, for lack of a highway occupancy permit, lack of ground water analysis, problems with a gas line running through the property, and concern over a proposed recreation park area.

Last week, at the township is planning commission meeting, Snyder Development representative Kevin Brown said the developer would like more time to work through comments on the revised plans. On Monday, however, Brown asked supervisors for conditional approval.

“We have all the issues on the table at this point and we are looking to go forward,” Brown said.

With the rejection, Brown has the option to file a land-use appeal or re-file different plans at a later date.

“We feel there are too many questions with the plans at this point that are not being answered and urge supervisors to reject these plans tonight,” said Joan Bushey, township resident, before the vote was taken.

Towers agreed, as he pointed out several flaws that planning commission was not satisfied with as of Monday night.

The widening of Route 234 was a sticking point, as Towers wanted to see asymmetrical widening, while PennDOT felt widening both sides was appropriate.

“Widening both sides of Route 234 would mean condemning land to get that done, and people will not give up their land easily,” Towers said. “It may also be a problem because there is legislation being discussed that would make it illegal to take land by eminent domain for development purposes.”

A dangerous intersection at Old Carlisle Road and Route 234 also concerned the township.

“This development would have increased the number of accidents at this spot,” Towers said. “With up to 1,200 cars per day, a four-way stop or something would have been necessary there and the traffic study does not call for those measures.”

Brown told supervisors the study showed neither a stop sign or traffic light is necessary at the intersection, but turn restrictions to ensure the organization and movement of cars is safe would have been required.

Water supply was a major basis for denying the development according to township solicitor Wally Davis and Towers.

“The existing wells could be impacted by a development if a future drought occurs,” Towers said. “I feel that is an issue that needed to be taken care of if the subdivision process was going to go any further.”

Supervisors echoed Towers’ comments, stating that 400 homes would require a lot of water, creating a problem down the road.

Snyder’s proposed recreation area sparked much concern and debate among residents and township officials. Revised plans called for two separate parks over two acres and four acres, respectively.

At the December planning commission meeting, Brown told the board he would change the plans to include one park over five acres of land, but as of Monday night, nothing changed.

Brown told supervisors the motion to change the plan died in the planning meeting so he was left in limbo and had engineering difficulties in creating the park.

“It is evident the developer will skimp in every area unless (supervisors) keep watch,” Bushey said.

Brown went on to say he would change the drawings to a five-acre park if conditional approval was granted Monday.

“If you do make it one park over five acres, that will significantly change these drawings because homes would need to be eliminated,” Davis said. “In that case, we are essentially looking at new plans.”

“This is a serious decision today that will have a long-term effect on our future.”