Current Conditions
35°F - CLEAR
School District of Lancaster discusses emergency center plan
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Oct 21, 2009 08:33 EST
Atkins Ave
By BRIAN WALLACE, Staff Writer

Despite concerns from Lancaster Township residents about the loss of open space and the potential for traffic hazards, a plan to build an emergency services center in Lancaster Community Park gained ground Tuesday.

The School District of Lancaster board agreed to begin negotiations with the township on a possible lease agreement that would enable the project to be built.

The township wants to build a center with a fire station, ambulance and police facilities in the northwest corner of the park abutting Atkins Avenue, behind Planet Fitness and other commercial properties that face Millersville Pike.

SDL owns the land and leases it to the township for recreational use. The terms of the 99-year lease would have to be changed for an emergency services center to be built there.

Tuesday's vote only authorizes the district to begin negotiations. Board members would have to vote again at a later date on whether to approve changes to the lease agreement. To make room for the center, Lancaster Township would have to relocate two soccer and baseball fields along Atkins Avenue to land near Hamilton Park Drive, across from Wheatland Middle School.

That would require clearing wooded areas in the park, to which several residents at Tuesday's meeting objected.

"Parkland is the scarcest resource in Lancaster Township," said Ben Stigelman of 341 S. President Ave.

The township has only about half the open space it should have, according to Lancaster County planning officials, he said, and the fire station project would gobble up more of what little land it has.

"As a Realtor, I think there are a lot of better alternatives," he said.

Other residents complained that providing an access road to the station from Atkins Avenue would create traffic hazards.

Vehicles already drive at high speeds the wrong way on the one-way street, they said. Adding fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and vehicles driven by emergency responders into the mix would make the road even more dangerous.

"Most residents of Lancaster Township neighborhoods near the site are not in favor of the fire station," said Diane Heberlein of Atkins Avenue.

The emergency center would likely replace the township's outdated Bausman fire station and could replace the township's Maple Avenue station. But residents said emergency calls have declined recently in the township, and the emergency center isn't needed.

Audience members presented the school board with a petition signed by 31 township residents who oppose the project.

School board member Marta Howell said she was dismayed that residents were complaining to the school board instead of the township.

Lancaster Township manager Bill Laudien said the project is only in the preliminary stages.

Before the township could move ahead with formal plans, it needed to know the school board was agreeable to altering the lease, he said.

Laudien assured board members and township residents that officials will seek more public input once plans for the project move ahead.

Like any other project in the township, the center will require zoning and planning approvals.

bwallace@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 23 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (WordoftheLord @ Oct 21 2009, 08:21 PM)
You think the fire station is needed.

You think that most people think the fire station is needed.

You think that elected officials should listen to the people.

The elected officials are in favor of the fire station.

What exactly are you dissatisified with ?


Sentence #1 - YES

Sentence #2 - I NEVER said that. Once again "Word" you are not reading completely or correctly. Responding to your questions is getting tiresome because every time I do, you try to imply things that I have never said. I do not propose to know what others are thinking. My comments that involve others are based off what was reported in the article. It appears clear that there was considerable opposition from those who live around that area, and yet it goes apparently ignored.

Sentence #3 - YES

Sentence #4 - Apparently so- although again, it is not about the need for the station, but the proposed location. Just because those whose lives will be effected the most by it's placement choose to speak their feelings, does not mean they are anti-firemen or think there is no need for a new station.

Sentence #5 - Go back and read. I'm tired of repeating myself to you.
JackD
I don't want to argue I just want to understand.

You say that you don't know if people are in favor of this or not. But you can draw the conclussion from the three people quoted that the supervisors are not listening to the will of the majority. How does that make sense ?

It sounds more like you have no idea if people are for this or against this or if this is the correct location or not the correct location. It sounds as if you're not sure about much. But somehow you're 100% that the Supervisor's are wrong.

If your a democrat and you want democrats elected that fine. But it is irresponsible to exploit fire services and public safety for a political agenda. Pick something else to play games with and leave the politics out of it.
QUOTE (JackD @ Oct 21 2009, 09:01 PM)
Sentence #1 - YES

Sentence #2 - I NEVER said that. Once again "Word" you are not reading completely or correctly. Responding to your questions is getting tiresome because every time I do, you try to imply things that I have never said. I do not propose to know what others are thinking. My comments that involve others are based off what was reported in the article. It appears clear that there was considerable opposition from those who live around that area, and yet it goes apparently ignored.

Sentence #3 - YES

Sentence #4 - Apparently so- although again, it is not about the need for the station, but the proposed location. Just because those whose lives will be effected the most by it's placement choose to speak their feelings, does not mean they are anti-firemen or think there is no need for a new station.

Sentence #5 - Go back and read. I'm tired of repeating myself to you.
WordoftheLord
QUOTE (WordoftheLord @ Oct 21 2009, 10:52 PM)
I don't want to argue I just want to understand.

You say that you don't know if people are in favor of this or not. But you can draw the conclussion from the three people quoted that the supervisors are not listening to the will of the majority. How does that make sense ?

It sounds more like you have no idea if people are for this or against this or if this is the correct location or not the correct location. It sounds as if you're not sure about much. But somehow you're 100% that the Supervisor's are wrong.

If your a democrat and you want democrats elected that fine. But it is irresponsible to exploit fire services and public safety for a political agenda. Pick something else to play games with and leave the politics out of it.


Again you put words in my mouth. I never said it was the "majority". But apparently it is the majority thought of those living in this area. No one was quoted as saying they were FOR the station in their back yard were they...? If you want to convince me otherwise, get the people for it to show some public support at the meeting. And again you demonstrate your inability to type correctly, let alone read correctly. I am the one saying from the beginning that the supervisors petty political B.S. is what gets us here. And for the record, I am an Independent. I am only 100% sure that the supervisors are ignoring the thoughts of the people whose back yard they want to put the station in. You really, really, really need to learn to read... and type correctly as well.
JackD
I for one did not know all this was going on, I do see why one would be opposed to it clearly from a preservation and green point. Lancaster is develop happy rather than revitalize and re-use dedicated. I do wish to apologize for Anna's dismissal of your concerns while at school board for or against. Her comment was about the expansion of a building where she has no children in attendance. Can you say desperately holding on?

The board was ignorant in my opinion as well for voting yes to start a "conversation" about a piece of land that all voting have no full knowledge of. The vote was obviously un-informed based on the number of questions of the sdol board members and the amount of clarification Frankhouser had to give them. That's how they do things though, look at the Boys and Girls Club and more.
Newsypeeps
sigh....complaining about losing "park space" that I'm sure most of these people never even use....
afsoc1981
Top Ads