Southern York County Life

Stewartstown could soon get a second Rutter’s Farm Store
The borough council agreed to a request for a zoning change.
By LORI BADDERS For the Weekly Record
Updated: 02/03/2009 06:25:11 AM EST

A second Rutter’s Farm Store could soon be built in Stewartstown.

The borough council, during its January meeting, agreed to a request made by Tim Rutter of CHR Corporation to change the zoning of the southeast corner of West Pennsylvania Avenue and Hill Street from industrial to commercial village.

The site is currently a stoned parking lot.

Rutter’s company holds a sales contract on the site, which is owned by SEL Properties, Rutter said.

He intends to build a 24-hour convenience store that offers prepared food, a dining area, restrooms, diesel fuel and a car wash, he said.

The existing farm store on Stewartstown’s North Main Street would remain open, he added.

Council members and residents expressed concern for pedestrian and vehicular traffic created by the proposed store, saying the intersection is already a busy and dangerous one.

“My fear is someone is going to get killed there,” resident Linda Miller said.

Rutter said he favors traffic lights, but the state Department of Transportation has said one is not warranted there.

He urged Miller and the council to contact their state representatives for help in getting a signal approved.

Is this the lot diagonal from Summers? If so that will cut into the overflow parking that we unofficially enjoy while visiting Summers. I wonder if and how much that may cut into Summers traffic. I hope Rutter’s doesn’t effect Summers and their business whether it’s a “legal” parking lot or not.

At first glance this seems like a good idea.  But I cant see it being a positive thing for the community.  The footprint of the new Rutters stores being built is much larger than the other one in Stewartstown.  Picture the one out in Fawn.  The traffic coming in and out would destroy pedestrian access to Summers.  If diesel is sold, does that imply Semi Trucks?  There is not enough turning radius there or up at 24 to support those turns as it is. 

I think a new Rutters is a good idea, but not there.  It would be far better to have good access on the pad sites at Bailey Springs, or even in the old Lumberyard property.  If the borough has any authority to prevent this from happening I would like to hear about it.

Yeah, I’m not liking it.  I’d rather have Summers and a gravel lot just like now.  I hate to say it, but the district probably gave them 3 years off from paying tax to build there.

deleted...wrong thread

It would be really cool if they built one like the one on Mt Rose Ave, it has a pizza shop in it!! THAT WOULD BE SOOOO FRIKIN AWESOME!!!

RSJ - 03 February 2009 11:04 AM

Is this the lot diagonal from Summers? If so that will cut into the overflow parking that we unofficially enjoy while visiting Summers. I wonder if and how much that may cut into Summers traffic. I hope Rutter’s doesn’t effect Summers and their business whether it’s a “legal” parking lot or not.

chrisjames_71 - 03 February 2009 07:12 PM

It would be really cool if they built one like the one on Mt Rose Ave, it has a pizza shop in it!! THAT WOULD BE SOOOO FRIKIN AWESOME!!!

Are you being sarcastic?  Another place to buy pizza?  I agree that lot does not seem to be large enough and without a red light, that intersection would be a nightmare.  Some people don’t even know how to read the signs now.  Does Gordon’s still own the lot across from the library?  In my opinion, that might be a better place for an enormous Rutter’s.

cityhillbilly - 04 February 2009 05:09 AM

chrisjames_71 - 03 February 2009 07:12 PM

It would be really cool if they built one like the one on Mt Rose Ave, it has a pizza shop in it!! THAT WOULD BE SOOOO FRIKIN AWESOME!!!

Are you being sarcastic?

Yes that is why it is in italics and the awesome part is capitalized

So many other things Stewartstown could use....A movie theater would be good… Rutters already has a store, how many rutters do ppl need…

Evidently, they feel that three gas stations in town is not enough.

I agree, that intersection is not a good place to add more traffic - the whole area needs to be widened or rerouted.  It certainly does not need tractor trailers - that’s an instant traffic jam as it is.
I am not sure how they would keep both stores open when they’re one mile apart - they would cannibalize their own revenue and lose profit margin.  If they are determined to do so I don’t have much faith in their business model.  If they’re building a bigger store, close the smaller one and sell the land off.  (Then they could build another pizza place, right?)
They also shouldn’t put a traffic light there - we don’t have one in Stewartstown and wouldn’t know how to handle it Actually, as long as they don’t put a roundabout there then I can live with it. 

Maybe if enough gas stations open we can hope for gas price wars and suck the traffic that would go to the Tom’s right off I-83 as well…

kpk33x - 04 February 2009 03:11 PM

Maybe if enough gas stations open we can hope for gas price wars and suck the traffic that would go to the Tom’s right off I-83 as well…

Then we can just build an exit ramp right from 83 to Stewartstown!!  The Shrewsbury Bypass!!

LMAO..this is all way too funny....except of course tractor trailers going thru that intersection…

Bad Idea.

party of 5 - 06 February 2009 10:15 PM

Bad Idea.

First, do we really NEED two Rutter’s?  I mean, really?  IMO, it’s a very bad idea.  A big gas station goes in there.  Car wash, eat-in restaurant, lots of gas pumps, OK.  Who bares the brunt of the responsibility for traffic control and the costs associated with the problems it causes?  The borough.  Not Rutter’s.  Eventually Rutter’s will be complaining that they NEED better traffic control in the intersection, etc.  All for a few more tax dollars.  Are we that hard up?  Fine, then put it over at Bailey Springs.  There’s more room and it’s a much easier in/out than that intersection.  As it is, it’s a small intersection and there are enough issues already, IMO, because of poor signage.  People stopping when they shouldn’t stop, not stopping when they should.  People not familiar with the intersection not knowing who has the right of way. Not even including the amount of foot traffic that goes through that intersection. 

There’s already a major traffic nightmare associated with trucks coming up Pennsylvania and turning onto Main Street.  Even the smaller trucks can’t do it without crossing over into the opposing lane on Pennsylvania, and then clogging the entire intersection to swing wide and almost take out the dog groomers building, before continuing on.  All truck traffic should have to be routed via Plank Road, so to avoid the Pennsylvania to Main St. intersection.  Instead, there’s going to be an increased problem as the truck traffic will be coming in/out of Rutter’s, making that intersection a problem also.

Surely, Rutter supports the traffic signal.  It’s the one counter argument he can use to any proposed traffic nightmare.  If he gets a signal, magically all would be better.  On paper.  For him. While we’re at it, let’s tear down the train station and add a McDonald’s, and after Summer’s is run out of business maybe we can get another grocery store on that corner.  Then we can rip out all of the houses on Pennsylvania and add a Starbuck’s, some more pizza joints and some strip stores.  A second traffic signal can follow at Main St./Penn Ave., and then we can add some big name chain stores at the old factory site.  Sound ridiculous?  Sure, maybe now.  But once it begins, it’s only a matter of time before we live in Shrewsbury Jr.  Hey, Shrewsbury wasn’t always the metropolis it is now.  It had to start somewhere!