(Editors note: This is the first of two articles on a recent appeals hearing regarding a rejected development project in Warriors Mark. Part two will appear in Saturday\u2019s edition.)
\nThe Warriors Mark Supervisors held an appeals hearing regarding the rejected Raspberry Ridge mobile home park on Tuesday.
\nSupervisors had rejected a fifth time extension and approval of the preliminary plan on March 1.
\nAttorney Tom Scott, representing developer John Gilliland, presented documentation and testimony from witnesses during the hearing.
\n Scott answered comments which were sent by the township in a letter that outlined its concerns and reasons for rejecting the time extension and preliminary plan.
\nAfter the hearing, Gilliland representative Rebecca Walter, said of 20 concerns listed in the letter only three were required as part of a preliminary plan while the others could be included in a preliminary plan but were required in a final plan.
\nAfter Scott\u2019s presentation, Clapper asked for public comment and representatives of Gilliland were allowed to respond to concerns of township citizens and a representative of non-profit Save Our Streams, Inc., Dorothy Gurney.
\nShe said about two-thirds of the group were township residents while others resided outside the township but were \u201cdownstream owners\u201d with \u201ca very strong interest in the project because of its impact on Warriors Mark Run and Spruce Creek.\u201d?
\nDuring the meeting, Gurney expressed concerns over a process involving public input on sewage planning modules for developments Gilbrook I and Raspberry Ridge.
\nShe said, \u201cWe have strong objections to the way the whole review process was conducted or non-conducted in this situation.\u201d
\nShe said her group objected as far back as November 2003 to a lack of public access to the sewage module and \u201cimproper, inadequate notice.\u201d
\nShe said the sewage module had not been submitted to DEP as required. Gurney also noted that according to an ordinance, \u201cThe responsibility of accomplishing what has to be done under the ordinance rests with the applicants.
\n\u201cThe whole thing never got heard, there was no action…nothing ever happened,\u201d said Gurney. \u201cI think a long time went by, in fact, maybe it was only this spring that any sewage module was submitted (to the township).\u201d
\nGurney noted that one of the developer\u2019s representatives, Jerry Stahlman, said during the appeals hearing, there had been a revision in response to public comment. However, Gurney claimed it was the same sewage module which had solicited \u201cstrong public comment\u201d dating back to November 2003.
\nGurney explained the current plan doesn\u2019t respond to the public objections regarding the sewage module. She said it has the effluent going into Warriors Mark Run. Gurney claimed the module was\u201d unacceptable and incomplete\u201d and was \u201cinaccurate.\u201d She said the module doesn\u2019t disclose the stream is \u201ca high quality, cold water trout fishery.\u201d She said the developer needed to complete a socio-economic impact report because of the water which could be affected.
\nShe also expressed concern about when the supervisors received the information presented to the board on Tuesday night. Gurney was also concerned about the public\u2019s ability to comment at the appeals hearing given they were just learning of the new information that same night.
\n\u201cThis is not additional information, this is a revision,\u201d said Gurney. \u201cIt should be refiled with the planning commission.\u201d
\nGurney told the supervisors her group supported the original decision to reject a fifth time extension and the denial of the preliminary plans.
\nIn addition to Gurney, the township officials and the Gilliland representatives, about a dozen citizens also attended the hearing with a few of them voicing additional concerns about the proposed development.
\nEditor\u2019s note: (In part two of this article, read how township solicitor Larry Clapper responded to Gurney\u2019s concerns and other details from the appeals hearing.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(Editors note: This is the first of two articles on a recent appeals hearing regarding a rejected development project in Warriors Mark. Part two will appear in Saturday\u2019s edition.) The Warriors Mark Supervisors held an appeals hearing regarding the rejected Raspberry Ridge mobile home park on Tuesday. Supervisors had rejected a fifth time extension and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news-in-the-tyrone-pennsylvania-area"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=42983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=42983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=42983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tyronepa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=42983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}