Planning Commission Recommends Trailer Park Denial
In works for almost 5 years, Huntington Township plan has already been at heart of one court battle.

By STEVE MARRONI, The Evening Sun 02/24/2010 | Article Link

The Huntington Township Planning Commission made a recommendation Monday that supervisors reject the final plans for a proposed 273-unit mobile-home park off Route 94.

Supervisors have a special meeting set for 7:30 p.m. March 3 to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the plans, which have been a source of controversy for over a decade. The park would be located at Route 94 and York Springs-Idaville Road.

The township rejected preliminary plans in 2000, but Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned the township's decision in 2005, forcing supervisors to accept them in 2005.

Final plans came to supervisors after a five-year absence in October - just shy of the five-year deadline between preliminary and final approval.

Township building permit and zoning officer Gus Fridenvalds said the planning commission chose to recommend rejecting the plan because it was incomplete.

"It was a whole gambit of things for a plan that they had five years to work on that were not accomplished," he said.

Fridenvalds said the plan lacked several required state permits, a storm-water study was not complete, the owner was not identified on the plan, and the plan did not call for a left-hand turn lane from Route 94 into the projected site, which is something citizens and the planning commission thought was essential, he said.

He said it was also rejected because of its potential impact on the bordering wetlands.

Charles Suhr, attorney for project developer Robert Mumma, said approval is still pending from several outside agencies, but those approvals are in the process. He plans to make a presentation about the park to supervisors March 3, and is seeking conditional approval of the final plans, meaning the plans be approved on the condition that those approvals are met.

Nathan Wolf, attorney for the group Save Our Rural Heritage, which is against the park, was pleased with the planning commission's recommendation.

"My impression is the planning commission was frustrated at the idea that after five years, the developer failed to present a clear plan without deficiencies," he said.

Group members, many of whom are nearby landowners, were all pleased, and met the decision with a round of applause, he said.

"It's a good decision, and hopefully the board of supervisors will reach the same decision next week," Wolf said.

Preliminary plans for the project came before supervisors in 1998, before current zoning was put in place the following year. Zoning would not allow for a mobile-home park like this, but since the project was introduced before the current zoning was adopted, it falls under the old code.

Supervisors rejected the plan in September 2000. The developer appealed to Adams County Court, where the township's decision was upheld. He appealed again to Commonwealth Court, where the decision was overturned. The township appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.

Supervisors were forced to accept preliminary plans in January 2005.