(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’s 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 approval of the preliminary plan on March 1.
Attorney Tom Scott, representing developer John Gilliland, presented documentation and testimony from witnesses during the hearing.
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.
After 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.
After Scott’s 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.
She said about two-thirds of the group were township residents while others resided outside the township but were “downstream owners” with “a very strong interest in the project because of its impact on Warriors Mark Run and Spruce Creek.”?
During the meeting, Gurney expressed concerns over a process involving public input on sewage planning modules for developments Gilbrook I and Raspberry Ridge.
She said, “We have strong objections to the way the whole review process was conducted or non-conducted in this situation.”
She said her group objected as far back as November 2003 to a lack of public access to the sewage module and “improper, inadequate notice.”
She said the sewage module had not been submitted to DEP as required. Gurney also noted that according to an ordinance, “The responsibility of accomplishing what has to be done under the ordinance rests with the applicants.
“The whole thing never got heard, there was no action…nothing ever happened,” said Gurney. “I think a long time went by, in fact, maybe it was only this spring that any sewage module was submitted (to the township).”
Gurney noted that one of the developer’s 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 “strong public comment” dating back to November 2003.
Gurney explained the current plan doesn’t 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” unacceptable and incomplete” and was “inaccurate.” She said the module doesn’t disclose the stream is “a high quality, cold water trout fishery.” She said the developer needed to complete a socio-economic impact report because of the water which could be affected.
She also expressed concern about when the supervisors received the information presented to the board on Tuesday night. Gurney was also concerned about the public’s ability to comment at the appeals hearing given they were just learning of the new information that same night.
“This is not additional information, this is a revision,” said Gurney. “It should be refiled with the planning commission.”
Gurney told the supervisors her group supported the original decision to reject a fifth time extension and the denial of the preliminary plans.
In 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.
Editor’s note: (In part two of this article, read how township solicitor Larry Clapper responded to Gurney’s concerns and other details from the appeals hearing.)
