Land preservation and development

Q: How can you support land preservation and still vote in favor of development plans?

A: Due to a misunderstanding of Pennsylvania law, some residents wrongly believe that supervisors can block all unwanted development. 

As supervisors, we are required to adhere to a variety of local zoning ordinances, state laws such as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, case law and even federal regulations when making a decision. Failure to comply with one or more of these subjects the township to legal liability.

Supporting land preservation does not mean opposing all development—it means working to preserve open space where possible, while also upholding the law and protecting the Township from lawsuits.

You can read more about these laws in the section titled "Pennsylvania laws on development” below.

HSS Investors proposal for Hempt Farm property

Q: What was originally proposed by HSS, the owner of the Hempt Farm property?

A: In October 2018, HSS Investors submitted a proposal to the Board of Supervisors (Lenker, Sokoloski, Konhaus Griffie, Machamer, Kotzmoyer) to rezone the 450-acre Hempt Farm property from Agricultural to I-2 Industrial—matching the zoning already in place on the adjacent property to the west.

Their concept plan included the construction of six warehouses and three commercial buildings on the site. Under this proposal, the historic Hempt family farmhouse and main barn would likely have been demolished.

The screenshot below shows a portion of that submitted plan. I added red circles to highlight the proposed access points for tractor trailers and commercial traffic onto Hempt Road—a road lined with residential homes and located directly across from the Cumberland Valley School District campus.

Q: What happened next?

A: The Board of Supervisors (Lenker, Sokoloski, Konhaus Griffie, Machamer, Kotzmoyer) did not hold a hearing on the curative amendment within the required 60-day timeframe—which effectively was then considered a "deemed denial" of the property owner’s proposal. In response, HSS filed an appeal with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, claiming the Township’s actions constituted “reverse spot zoning.”

Faced with the prospect of a costly legal battle and an uncertain court outcome, the Township opted to negotiate a more balanced solution—one that would reduce traffic and environmental impacts while generating greater tax revenue for residents.

More information can be found below:

• December 30, 2019 - Minutes from Board of Supervisors meeting

• January 6, 2020 - I was sworn is as the newly elected member of Board of Supervisors

• January 16, 2020 - Minutes from Board of Supervisors meeting

• March 2020 - The World Health Organization declares COVID-19 a pandemic

• July 23, 2020 - Press release by Silver Spring Township

• July 29, 2020 - Minutes from Board of Supervisors, Special Meeting on Hempt Property 

• August 3, 2020 - Minutes from Board of Supervisors, Special Meeting on Hempt Property 

  • Final Settlement Agreement with Exhibits
    
    

Q: How does the new plan benefit the Township compared to the original plan submitted?

A: For me personally, the original development proposal was completely unacceptable—it offered no redeeming value to our community. However, through negotiation, the revised plan represents a more balanced outcome that provides tangible benefits for Silver Spring Township:

• The original Hempt family farmhouse and main barn will be preserved, maintaining a piece of the Township’s history.

• A stream restoration project is planned for Hogestown Run, helping to restore the stream’s health.

• Over 80 acres of mostly green space along Hogestown Run and behind the homes on Hempt Road will be transferred to Township ownership, protecting open space and providing a natural buffer.

• 49 acres will be dedicated to the Township which, among other uses, will allow for a long-needed public works facility, supporting essential municipal services.

• The number of warehouses has been reduced from six to three, significantly lowering the potential traffic and environmental impact.

• Additional commercial development will generate more tax revenue while creating less traffic and pollution than the originally proposed warehouse expansion.

Q: Why did I vote to approve this new plan instead of keeping it zoned agricultural?

A: Without approving the settlement agreement, the decision of what to do with the property would have been left to a judge—someone with no connection to Silver Spring Township and no knowledge of our community. Even though there was a slight chance a judge could have ruled to keep it agricultural, my concern was that the judge would have approved the developer’s original plan outright, leaving us with no say in the outcome. I believed it was better for the Township to have a seat at the table than risk losing all control.

2022 Rezoning of the Yorlets Farm / Trindle Spring Trade Center

Q: Why did you vote to rezone the Yorlets Farm property making way for the Trindle Spring Trade Center?

A: In December 2019, the Board at that time adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that designated the parcel for future rezoning, away from residential.

A few years later, after I was elected, the Board was tasked with formally adopting the corresponding zoning changes. I—along with the entire Board—voted in favor of the changes, based on the recommendation of Township staff. That recommendation was grounded in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and supported by case law related to spot zoning.

You can read more about these laws in the section titled "Pennsylvania laws on development” below.

Zoning change for Costco Gas Pumps

Q: Why did I vote to allow Costco to install gas pumps across from Cumberland Valley High School?

A: Initially, I had concerns about installing fuel pumps near the school campus. However, those concerns were eased after learning that the School District already maintains its own fuel tanks on-site and raised no objections to the proposed pumps across the street. Additionally, the proposed pumps are located southeast of the school buildings—downwind from the campus.

Some residents were also concerned about the proximity of the pumps to a nearby field used by students. However, that field is actually a stormwater retention pond, not an official practice field. The District owns other nearby open lots that could be used for student activities, if needed.

I voted in favor of updating the ordinance language because, in my view, the original setback rule—300 feet from any school lot line—created an unnecessary technical barrier to a project that posed no known risk to student safety. The ordinance was revised to require a 300-foot setback from the fuel pumps to a habitable school building, which is a more reasonable and measurable standard.

It’s also important to note that the nearest school building is approximately 975 feet away from the proposed pumps—well beyond the updated setback. I believe this change preserves the original intent of the ordinance while removing an arbitrary restriction.

Tri-Party Agreement with UGI

Q: What did the agreement state?

A: In December of 2022, Silver Spring Township entered into a Tri-Party Agreement with Kingston Industrial Property and UGI which permitted UGI to temporarily install a mobile liquid gas facility on Kingston owned property along North Locust Point Road.

Q: Why did I vote in favor of the agreement?

A: Like many decisions I’ve made as a member of the Board of Supervisors, I voted in favor of this agreement because it took meaningful steps to protect the public interest of our Township. The primary purpose was to ensure that UGI would restore the site to its original condition once their temporary use concluded.

The agreement also required UGI to maintain the existing buffer and enhance screening with a fence, vegetation, or both to minimize the impact on nearby properties.

Importantly, this agreement was not about granting permission to UGI to use the land—the township does not have the authority to stop a utility company from moving forward with a project like this.

You can read more about these laws in the section titled "Pennsylvania laws on development” below.

Pennsylvania laws on development

Q: What is the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC)?

A: The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) is the state law that governs how municipalities in Pennsylvania manage land use, zoning, and development. Enacted as Act 247 of 1968, the MPC provides the legal framework for local governments—including townships, boroughs, and cities—to create comprehensive plans, adopt zoning ordinances, regulate subdivision and land development, and establish planning commissions and zoning hearing boards.

The MPC ensures that development decisions follow a consistent and lawful process, balancing property rights, community growth, and land preservation. It also outlines the procedures and standards that local officials must follow when reviewing land development plans, zoning changes, and related applications.

Q: How does the MPC define ways to use land?

A: In Pennsylvania, the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) defines several ways to use land, including by right, conditional use, special exception, and variance. Each involves different levels of review and restrictions.

• By Right – A "by right" use is a type of development or land use that is permitted outright under existing zoning regulations. If an applicant’s plan complies with all applicable ordinances and zoning requirements, the municipality must approve it. No public hearing is required, and the governing body cannot deny the application based on personal preferences or public opposition.

• Conditional Use – A conditional use is a land use that is allowed under the zoning ordinance, but requires review and approval by the governing body (e.g., Board of Supervisors) through a public hearing. Conditions may be imposed to ensure the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. While permitted, the use is subject to specific conditions outlined in the ordinance.

• Special Exception – A special exception is similar to a conditional use but is reviewed and decided by the Zoning Hearing Board, not the governing body. The use is listed in the zoning ordinance as allowed if certain conditions or standards are met, and the applicant must demonstrate compliance at a public hearing. The zoning board may also impose additional conditions.

• Variance – A variance is a request to deviate from the strict requirements of the zoning ordinance—typically when a property owner would face unnecessary hardship if required to comply fully. Variances are granted only by the Zoning Hearing Board, and the applicant must prove that the hardship is unique to the property and not self-created, and that the variance won't harm public interest or zoning intent.

Q: What is spot zoning?

A: Spot zoning is when a small parcel of land is rezoned differently from the surrounding properties, in a way that does not align with the municipality’s comprehensive plan or overall zoning map. It typically benefits a single landowner and may conflict with the character of the surrounding area.

For example, rezoning a single lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood for commercial use—when all adjacent parcels remain residential—can create a zoning "island". Unless there is a legitimate public interest or sound planning rationale, this kind of rezoning is often considered illegal under Pennsylvania law.

Courts have ruled that zoning must be applied fairly and consistently, and municipalities must follow the comprehensive plan when making zoning decisions. Spot zoning that lacks justification can lead to legal challenges and may be overturned by the courts.

Key Legal Note: While the Pennsylvania MPC does not use the exact terms “spot zoning” or “reverse spot zoning” in its text, Pennsylvania courts have consistently ruled on these practices through case law, focusing on whether the zoning action serves the public welfare and aligns with the municipality’s comprehensive planning.

Q: Why are elected officials sometimes required to approve rezoning requests?

A: Elected officials are required to make zoning decisions that are legally defensible and consistent with state law—specifically the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). If a property owner can prove that the existing zoning is too restrictive, inconsistent with surrounding land uses, or unfairly limits the property's reasonable use, courts may determine that the zoning amounts to illegal spot zoning or reverse spot zoning.

For example, if a parcel sits between commercial and residential zones and is the only one zoned agricultural, denying a rezoning request for a more compatible use could be considered reverse spot zoning—where a single parcel is treated more restrictively than neighboring properties without valid planning justification. That opens the Township to potential lawsuits and legal challenges.

In these cases, even if public sentiment is against the rezoning, officials may be forced to act to protect the Township from legal liability, rather than based solely on personal preference or public pressure. While it may appear that elected officials are favoring development, in many cases, they are acting to protect the Township from legal risk and ensure zoning laws are applied fairly and uniformly.

Q: What happens if the Township denies a legally valid rezoning request?

A: If the Township denies a rezoning request that is legally valid and supported by planning principles, the property owner can challenge the decision in court. If the court finds that the denial was unreasonable, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or resulted in spot zoning or reverse spot zoning, the Township could be ordered to rezone the property.

In some cases, the court may also determine that the denial violated the property owner’s rights, such as the right to reasonable use of their land. This can expose the Township to costly litigation, court-mandated changes, and even potential damages.

This is why elected officials must carefully weigh rezoning decisions—not just based on public sentiment, but also on planning law, zoning consistency, and legal obligations under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.

Q: Can utility companies install facilities on private property without permission?

A: Yes. Utility companies typically have easements, which are legal rights that allow them to access specific areas of private property to install or maintain infrastructure. Property owners cannot block access if the easement is in place, even if they haven’t explicitly granted permission—as long as the work serves the public interest.

Q: Can the Township regulate utility companies?

A: Municipalities have limited authority to regulate public utilities. They can apply zoning rules to utility buildings and require permits for utility work on public roads or alleys. However, if the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) determines a utility facility is necessary for public safety or welfare, local control may be overridden.

Q: Who regulates utilities in Pennsylvania?

A: The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulates electric, gas, water, and other public utilities. The PUC also has the power to resolve disputes between municipalities and utility companies.