2,200-HEAD FARM

Foes of a proposed hog farm in East Hopewell Township are vowing to continue their opposition, despite a revision to the farmer’s plan that reduces the ability of officials to block the controversial project.

Farmer John Marsteller Jr., who originally sought approval to build a 3,300-head hog farm on Round Hill Church Road, this week changed his proposal. He is now seeking permission for 2,200 hogs instead, to be confined to a large barn on his current farm.

The change is significant because it means the farm would no longer be a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), the official label given to large facilities critics call “factory farms.”

That means it will not be subject to the township’s CAFO ordinance and will no longer need a zoning special exception or a
permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Essentially, township supervisors will be able to consider the only same factors they do for any other development—typically traffic and engineering issues—when they review Marsteller’s revised land development plan next month, and the farm will be a use “by right.”

“It’s a very different process to get a land development plan permit for a use approved by right versus a land development plan by special exception,” township solicitor William Poole said yesterday. “If it’s not a CAFO, there are no special requirements for this use versus any other use.”

But residents opposed to the farm, who organized the Stewartstown Regional Alliance for Community Action, say the smaller number of hogs doesn’t allay their concerns about the farm’s impact on their water supply, air quality and property values, and their president said yesterday they will keep up their opposition.

“I feel like he won a battle or two, but the war’s not over until it’s over, and they’re going to have to blow both my legs off to keep me from fighting,” said Warren Braverman, who lives a half-mile from the proposed hog operation.

Marsteller did not return a call for comment yesterday.

Denial: Until Wednesday night’s meeting, when township supervisors learned of the revised proposal, Marsteller’s plan was likely headed for a denial. Though he argued it was not a CAFO—he has enough land that it didn’t meet the animal density threshold in state law, a law that will soon change—both the township and the DEP claimed otherwise.

Supervisors were considering only his land development plan, though their ordinance requires a special exception from the zoning hearing board for CAFOs, and Poole said that plan would have likely been denied.

“My expectation would have been they would not have approved the plan until he got a special exception approved, and that would have been my recommendation,” Poole said.

With 1,100 fewer hogs, though, supervisors need only approve the land development plan, and they 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.

For Richard Seitz Jr., chairman of the township board of supervisors, it means the supervisors could be compelled to approve the plan. Though they have until mid-November before the plan is considered automatically approved, he said the board could vote on it Oct. 6.

“If it does qualify, then he must get it,” Seitz said.

“We’re trying to do the best for the people of the township, but they have to realize there are guidelines and laws we must follow,” he said. “I understand where they’re coming from, and if I was in their shoes I would probably be doing the same thing.”

Water issue: However, opponents say their main concern remains the impact the farm would have on water supplies in the area, where everyone gets their water from wells.

Marsteller had a hydrogeologic study done, which his attorney told supervisors showed the aquifer could easily support water for 2,200 hogs.

But Braverman questions that survey and pointed out it was not conducted at the site, but on a computer in an office.

“I think it needs to be researched much more than some guy on a computer 70 miles away. They need to come out and do a water test,” he said.

Although supervisors could hold off approval for water reasons, Seitz said he believes the hydrogeologic study is accurate.

“If the people that made that report put their seal on it and signed it, I’m sure they’re 100 percent behind it or they wouldn’t have put their seal on it,” Seitz said.

Still, he said if the residents wanted to commission their own study, he would be willing to hold off on the vote until November.

Other issues: Other than water, Braverman said he still has plenty of concerns about the impact the farm would have, even with fewer hogs.

“I’m sure they’re not going to smell as bad, because it’s 33 percent fewer hogs, but I’m sure it’s not going to smell good,” Braverman said.

He acknowledged, though, that options are limited. The group has been working with Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, a statewide environmental organization, for assistance. Jan Jarrett, spokeswoman for PennFuture, also said the drop from CAFO status limits those options.

“We’re going to do what we can, but it poses more significant problems and it raises some of the weaknesses of the current regulatory system. He will fall through the cracks,” Jarrett said. “There will be no oversight of this operation.”

Reach R. Scott Rappold at 854-1575 or rsrappold@yorkdispatch.com