Current Conditions
51°F - SUNNY
Taking their farms to court
East Lampeter farmers want to be inside ag security zone, but supervisors repeatedly have rebuffed them.
Lancaster New Era
Published: May 28, 2008
10:41 EST
East Lampeter
By RYAN ROBINSON, Staff
Three times farmers asked East Lampeter Township to include their properties in an agricultural security zone.

Three times they were denied.

Next week, a lawyer for 11 of the farmers will tell a county judge that East Lampeter Township has treated them unfairly and should approve their petition.

Judge Louis J. Farina will hear the oral arguments in a closed proceeding in his chambers at 2 p.m. Friday, June 6.

The farmers meet government criteria for establishing a security area in that they have viable farms on high-quality soil, and their operations are consistent with the township's comprehensive plan, according to their lawyer, James Tupitza of West Chester.

Officials must disprove one of those requirements before they can legally deny a petition for an ag security area, he contends.

"We feel supervisors shouldn't be overruling the state," Tupitza said today.

But three supervisors — Glenn Eberly, David Buckwalter and Roger Rutt — contend that zoning ordinances and right-to-farm laws already protect agriculture in the township.

Also, an ag security area near routes 30 and 23 might pose planning problems, they said.
Related Topics

In November, they voted against a proposal to put 13 farms, totaling 788 acres, in an ag security area.

Supervisor Michael Landis voted for the area. Former supervisor Wil Sollenberger was not present to vote.

East Lampeter supervisors also struck down measures to create an ag security area in 2004 and 1996.

Land in an ag security area is harder to condemn for government purposes such as schools, sewer lines and highway construction or expansion.

Ag security farms are better protected from nuisance lawsuits and regulations. The designation is also a requirement for a farm to receive county and state preservation dollars.

The 13 farms being considered for ag security are located at: 2040 Pine Drive, 674 and 702 Hartman Station Road, 2599 and 2674A Bachmantown Road in Ronks, 2083 and 2151 Forry Road, 2110 Rockvale Road, 222 Clearview Road, 231 Strasburg Pike, 200 Maple Ave. and 385A and 385B Willow Road.

They are owned by 12 farmers. All but one joined in the appeal.

All townships in Lancaster County have ag security areas except East Lampeter, Leacock, Paradise and Upper Leacock.


Staff writer Ryan Robinson can be reached at rrobinson@LNPnews.com or 481-6032.

Recent Posts
TalkBack comments about this article
Comment on this article
If I’m not mistaken only farms in an agri. security zone are eligible to sell their easements. Is that what is motivating the farmers? The prospect of getting hundreds of thousands of tax payer’s money? Say it ain’t so…..

littledutchboy
QUOTE(littledutchboy @ May 28 2008, 11:57 AM)
If I'm not mistaken only farms in an agri. security zone are eligible to sell their easements.

That would be correct. East Hempfield is currently discussing the best way to develop all their AG Security Zone farmland. All of it will be developed, how and when is yet to be determined. I guess the words AG and Security are misnomers.
They can decide to keep it suburban with 2 to 3 houses per acre or go full urban with 8 houses per acre. (Remember the failed "Independence" model. That was going to be 12 houses per acre! )
City or suburb is the question. Money and greed is obviously is going to be a driving factor for the developers as always, regardless of what they say or where the live.
Livin-in-Lancaster
I'm confused. The article says that farms in the ag security zone are harder to comdemn for government uses and they receive state preservation funds but I'm hearing above that the farms in the ag security zone in E. Hempfield will be developed.

I live next to one of these farms and I want it to remain a farm not just for my own selfish reasons but for the benefits that preserving our landscape has for the entire county. Whose side should I be on?
username
QUOTE(username @ May 28 2008, 01:58 PM)
I'm confused. The article says that farms in the ag security zone are harder to comdemn for government uses and they receive state preservation funds but I'm hearing above that the farms in the ag security zone in E. Hempfield will be developed.

I live next to one of these farms and I want it to remain a farm not just for my own selfish reasons but for the benefits that preserving our landscape has for the entire county. Whose side should I be on?


If you don't like what is going to happen to land around your's you need to buy it.

grieker
Are you sure that the land in East Hempfield is an Ag Security Zone or is it Ag holding? There is a BIG difference. Ag Holding means that it is currently in agricultural use but that it can be changed if the urban growth boundary is extended in the future. The urban growth boundary is supposed to be able to handle the expected growth for the (usually) next twenty years.It is reviewed and readjusted after the twenty years period.
To qualify for preservation, a farm has to be in an Ag Security Zone. The preservation boards prefer that preserved farms be adjacent or close to each other to maintain continueity and create as large ablock as possible. A preserved farm cannot be sold off in the future for development without paying back any funds it received.

kwf1817
Top Ads