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.