Advertisement

Historical Society mistakenly named as a party in lawsuit

January 14, 2002

Historical Society mistakenly named as a party in lawsuit



By RICHARD F. BELISLE / Staff Writer


WAYNESBORO, Pa. - The president of the Waynesboro Historical Society said Friday that an attorney erred when he listed the society as a party in a suit filed against the Washington Township Supervisors by residents opposed to the Glen Afton Farms Estates housing development.

The suit was filed against the Washington Township Supervisors late last month in Franklin County by Carlisle attorney Hubert X. Gilroy on behalf of five residents and the Harbaugh Cemetery Association.

The supervisors approved the project Dec. 3

The planned residential development calls for 133 single-family homes and 33 duplexes on 138 acres of land surrounding historic Harbaugh Church and its adjoining cemetery.

Kay Hoffman, historical society president, said the society owns the church but not the cemetery. She also said that while individual society members oppose the development, the society as an entity takes no official position in the litigation.

Advertisement

"The Waynesboro Historical Society does not now intend, and never intended, to be a party to this lawsuit," Hoffman said. "It was a misunderstanding. It was never discussed with the board of directors," she said.

Hoffman said Gilroy apologized for the error. She said an amendment will be filed removing the society as a party to the suit.

The suit, filed Dec. 28, alleges the proposed development is in "conflict with the Washington Township Comprehensive Plan objective of preserving prime farm lands."

It also accuses the supervisors of ignoring public opposition to the development and the recommendation of the township's planning commission to deny the subdivision.

The suit also claims the supervisors abused their discretion when they ignored the impact the development would have on neighboring historic properties.

Earlier this week, the supervisors, through their attorney, modified their response to the suit to clarify some omissions in their Dec. 3 decision approving the development.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|