Current Conditions
31°F - CLOUDY
Developer, residents clash over Cheswicke
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Nov 13, 2009 08:04 EST
Lancaster
By DAVID O’CONNOR, Staff Writer

Wisdom, attorney Tom Scott said Thursday, "is no less wise if it's somewhat late in arriving."

When it comes to the proposed Cheswicke development, eyed for one of suburban Lancaster's prime locations, "the time for moving this project forward has arrived," Scott emphasized.

Across the room, Margaret Lausch of East Hempfield strongly disagreed.

"I've lived there 16 years, and there are certain times of the day … when I cannot pull out" of Peacock Drive, where she lives.

"How you can facilitate any more traffic on Marietta Avenue I can't imagine."

The views from attorney Scott, who represents Cheswicke developer James Nardo, and Lausch and other neighbors came at a wide-ranging debate Thursday on Cheswicke, a sizable residential and commercial project eyed for land near Route 30 and Marietta Avenue.

The East Hempfield Planning Commission was not being asked to give a recommendation at Thursday's meeting.

Instead, Harrisburg attorney Scott said, "We view this (session) as a first step toward getting approval.

"We want to get your input, we want to get their (residents') input."

The eight residents who spoke mostly decried the heavy traffic in their neighborhood west of Lancaster and said Nardo's proposal would make it worse.

"I think what you're hearing is, we take pride in where we live," and want to keep it a nice area, a Dewitt Drive man said.

"And we don't want to see it commercialized to the point where we can't live here."

But the 58-acre site is, and has been, a "rural island surrounded by completely incompatible residential and commercial developments" smack-dab in the middle of suburbia, Scott said.

"It's just a loser for the owners. … You can't conceivably gain enough revenue from leasing it for farmland to pay the taxes on it."

The site is north of Route 30, south of Marietta Pike (Route 23) and west of Running Pump Road, which developer Nardo is being asked to relocate so the intersection with Route 23 is straighter and farther to the west.

The East Hempfield supervisors last October rejected his bid to rezone the 58-acre tract.

Now, instead of changing it all to local commercial, he wants to change 45 acres from agricultural holding to local commercial, and 9 acres from suburban residential to community commercial.

Nearby resident Tina House said residents "already have too much traffic. … I wish you (township officials) would've listened to the people.

"You would have found out that nobody wants it."

But Scott, who with Nardo will ask the Lancaster County Planning Commission for a recommendation to make final revisions before trying again with the supervisors, disagreed.

Nardo "has tried to work very directly with the township, and will continue to do so, but there are limits to everything, and we're probably close to them."

The East Hempfield land has been in the Nardo family for a quarter-century.

Nardo's father, Frank, had tried to get the land rezoned in 1986 for a 106-home housing development, but the township turned that down.

Frank Nardo unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the county and commonwealth courts and to the state Supreme Court.

Another developer had proposed building a sports academy on the site in 1995, but that also was denied by the township.

The Cheswicke plan is the third major plan to be discussed in East Hempfield in recent weeks. It follows the Lime Spring Farm plan farther east on 23, which received an initial rezoning approval, and a Charter Homes plan for a 275-home community south of Route 283 in Landisville, which was tabled at a recent meeting.

doconnor@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
TalkBack comments about this article
Comment on this article
QUOTE
But the 58-acre site is, and has been, a "rural island surrounded by completely incompatible residential and commercial developments" smack-dab in the middle of suburbia, Scott said.

"It's just a loser for the owners. … You can't conceivably gain enough revenue from leasing it for farmland to pay the taxes on it."


Cry me a river! The family that has owned it for "a quarter of a century" never really planned to "farm" it; a mere 2 years after they purchased it they tried to develop it. Wonder if East Hempfield needs some more ballfields? Would a park be a better use for the neighboring residents? I personally never see undeveloped land as "incompatible" with residential land. I played on a lot of "undeveloped" land as a kid!

thoughts from the east
The way I see it, "outsiders" move here to get away from the "city" (what ever that term means to them, not necessarily Lancaster) and see all the wonderful farm land and be a little farther away from their neighbors.
Then they whine about:
the smells
the animals
the traffic (including the picturesque buggies that brought them here in the first place)
the roads (usually falsely blamed on buggies and horse traffic)
the distance to services like shopping/entertainment
the time it takes for the cops to show up cause the scum bag they were running away from moved in a few blocks over and is breaking into their house.
the schools (as a product of the schools, moderately successful, I fail to see a problem)
and the end result? All they did was bring the "city" here! We didn't want it, so keep it where it was and stay there! There's no hog farms, no buggies, police are much more dense, the roads still suck (unless they ran away from Philly).

Oh, and any township that approves new development in this economy should have all the board members de-elected, because they have less brains than the banks that financed it.
solitary
QUOTE (solitary @ Nov 13 2009, 04:10 PM)
The way I see it, "outsiders" move here to get away from the "city" (what ever that term means to them, not necessarily Lancaster) and see all the wonderful farm land and be a little farther away from their neighbors.
Then they whine about:
the smells
the animals
the traffic (including the picturesque buggies that brought them here in the first place)
the roads (usually falsely blamed on buggies and horse traffic)
the distance to services like shopping/entertainment
the time it takes for the cops to show up cause the scum bag they were running away from moved in a few blocks over and is breaking into their house.
the schools (as a product of the schools, moderately successful, I fail to see a problem)
and the end result? All they did was bring the "city" here! We didn't want it, so keep it where it was and stay there! There's no hog farms, no buggies, police are much more dense, the roads still suck (unless they ran away from Philly).

Oh, and any township that approves new development in this economy should have all the board members de-elected, because they have less brains than the banks that financed it.

Thank you!! Finally . Saying what needs to be said in a way that even Money Changers and their Allies can understand!!
talonsfromheaven
Top Ads