EAST HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP

Several East Hopewell Township residents breathed a sigh of relief last night after a local farmer’s challenge to a recent ordinance was rejected.

The Zoning Hearing Board unanimously denied John Marsteller Jr.’s appeal of the township’s recent zoning amendment regulating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations—the official term for large facilities critics call “factory farms”—and establishing time limits for approvals from the board.

In December, the supervisors unanimously rejected Marsteller’s plan for a 2,200-head hog farm on his Round Hill Church Road property. Marsteller in September had cut the size of his proposed farm down from 3,300 hogs.

With fewer hogs, supervisors needed only approve the land development plan, and can’t apply provisions of their CAFO law, such as setback and fly-control requirements. Most of the land development plan requirements are general and are set by the state. Townships that deny plans for reasons beyond those provisions can face costly court battles.

While any citizen has the right to appeal a zoning change he thinks was made illegally, Marsteller’s attorney, Randall Hurst, said Marsteller is particularly concerned in this case because the new ordinance would apply to him if he resubmits his plans for a hog farm

Hurst. of the Harrisburg law
firm Mette, Evans and Woodside, argued the supervisors did not follow proper public notification and review procedures before changing the zoning ordinance in November.

‘Thirty days’ met: Hurst said a copy of the ordinance sent by township attorney William Poole Jr. to the York County Planning Commission on Oct. 4 did not meet state requirements to submit information at least 30 days before a public hearing is held.

Poole disagreed and said that the submission was valid.

Hurst, however, argued such action would have been illegal because supervisors did not authorize the ordinance to be advertised until their Oct. 6 meeting.

“The solicitor is not an agent for the board of supervisors,” Hurst said.

The zoning board’s solicitor, Attorney Charles Rausch, said that, after hearing testimony from both sides, the board found that supervisors followed the proper procedure as outlined in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.

Poole also told the board his records showed that a copy of the proposed ordinance was e-mailed to the planning commission’s secretary, Martha Miller, on Sept. 29 and reviewed by the commission Oct. 14.

No Sunshine violation: The board also ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear issues relating to Marsteller’s allegations of procedural violations of the state’s Sunshine Law, which requires certain public and legal notifications before zoning laws may be changed.

“Even if it did have jurisdiction, the board determined that a sign (posted) on the door announcing a change of time and date in the regular meeting met the standards,” Rausch said. “Under the Sunshine Law, a meeting is considered the same as a hearing.”

Ongoing dispute: Residents argue a farm that size would emit foul odors, pollute and drain their wells and lower property values. Hundreds have attended a series of township meetings on the proposal, and more than 800 signed petitions to stop the farm.