Advertisement

Township supervisors OK development plans

January 07, 2003|by RICHARD BELISLE

waynesboro@herald-mail.com

WAYNESBORO, Pa. - The Washington Township Supervisors Monday approved a 50-plus acre housing development a half-mile from the controversial Glen Afton Acres, a 169-home development that nearby residents are fighting in court.

Harry Fox of Dillsburg, Pa., plans to build 18 single-family homes in his new South Fields development on Old Pen Mar Road. Lot sizes will run from 1 acre to 10 acres, said Tom Shelly, who surveyed the development.

The plans were approved by the Washington Township Planning Commission, according to Township Supervisor Michael Christopher.

Fox bought the land, which was once an apple and peach orchard, Jerry Zeigler, township zoning enforcement officer, said.

Shelly said work on the development will begin "as soon as possible."

The site is served by city water and sewer, Zeigler said.

Zeigler said he was surprised that no one has come forward opposing Fox's development. "It's only a half-mile away from Glen Afton," he said.

Advertisement

John Blair, leader of the residents' group opposed to Glen Afton Acres, could not be reached Monday night.

The neighborhood group raised more than $9,000 to hire an attorney to fight the development on Harbaugh Church Road.

The land is owned by Mary Susan Elgin of Hagerstown. Her plans call for 133 singe-family homes and 36 duplexes.

The citizen group, which sued the supervisors over their approval of the development, claims roads in the area are too narrow to handle the extra traffic, it will increase enrollment in the local school system, put more pressure on an already stressed public water system and jeopardize the historic Harbaugh Church and its cemetery.

A three-judge panel in Franklin County, Pa., ruled in favor of the supervisors, saying the development was consistent with the township's comprehensive plan.

The citizens group, which claims a membership of about 40, has appealed the panel's ruling in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

The appeals court has not yet ruled in the case.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|