Citizen Group Wants Say in Trailer Park Case

Huntington Township group files for status in Adams court case.

By STEVE MARRONI 08/03/2010 The Evening Sun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it