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.