en en en en tr en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en
After almost four hours of testimony about a controversial proposal for a convenience store, gas station and car wash south of Williamsport, the Washington County Zoning Appeals Board upheld the planning commission's approval of the site plan late Wednesday night.
Four Williamsport-area residents had appealed approval of the site plan. The zoning board previously determined two of those appellants were not aggrieved parties. Numerous community members also have expressed concerns about the concept actually being a truck stop and what that could mean for traffic, safety, and crime.
Approximately 65 people were in the audience Wednesday night at the Washington County Courthouse. Several left before the zoning board voted 5-0 around 11:15 p.m. to support the site-plan approval.
Susanne Donaldson, who lives southwest of Williamsport, said developer Don Bowman tried to get that site developed for truck services about 17 years ago but his plans were derailed.
Bowman's plans in 2001 included a trucking service station with a gas station for trucks and cars, as well as truck parking and a convenience store, according to Herald-Mail Media archives. Bowman didn't seek a special exception hearing then, Donaldson said.
Bowman should have had to go through the special exception process, with a public hearing where residents could raise concerns, for this site plan, Donaldson testified.
The planning commission doesn't typically allow public comment at its regular meetings, but it did last June for the Bowman case. Several residents shared concerns about traffic and safety then and again on Wednesday night.
About a dozen people, including representatives of the two remaining appellants, testified in opposition to the site plan. Two people testified in support.
Opponents' concerns included the increase in tractor-trailer traffic, traffic safety and crime such as drugs and human trafficking.
Supporters said the required road improvements will make the intersection safer.
Attorneys for the remaining appellants and Bowman dissected the zoning ordinance's definitions of truck stop and convenience store during the hearing.
Appellants' attorney William C. Wantz said the zoning law's definition of a truck stop could be interpreted to mean the site plan includes a truck stop because part of the plan is for dedicated space for truck parking and fueling. If the plan includes a truck stop, then the developer has to go through the special exception process, which it did not, he said.
Engineer Fred Frederick said there are only four parking spaces for large trucks.
Bowman attorney Jason Divelbiss said by that interpretation every gas station that has one diesel pump could be considered part of a truck stop, an "absurd result."
The appeal also claimed the planning commission erred in approving a site plan for a convenience store because the proposal exceeds the maximum 5,000 square feet permitted by the zoning law's definition of a convenience store.
Zoning law states the 5,000 square feet includes the area used for gas sales.
Divelbiss said the use on the approved site plan wasn't for a "convenience store" but for "mixed use food sales/retail/office/fuel sales." Even if the proposal is considered a "de facto convenience store," the amount of square footage for the convenience store portion is less than 5,000 square feet, he said. It remains less than 5,000 when adding the fuel pumps.
The square footage of the canopies over the fueling stations shouldn't be factored in and that one of them alone exceeds 6,000 square feet, according to Divelbiss and Frederick.
Don Bowman had no comment on the appeals board's decision.
In a written statement emailed Thursday morning, Bowman Development President Rob Ferree said the project has been on hold for quite a while. Once they get the zoning board's formal decision and determine there won't be more legal challenges, the company will start to consider the next development phases. That includes getting public utilities to the site and doing state-required highway improvements.
Ferree thanked the various boards for taking the time to study the project and consider everyone's concerns "to make sure this project is done right."
Donna King, daughter of the late appellant Ned Amsley, said that hearing the decision was "very emotional." She said she doesn't think the proposal is safe.
King said she didn't know if she would appeal the board's decision.
George Hatcher, who represented his mother-in-law Jane Hershey, the other appellant, had no comment after the decision.
Careers Staff Directory Accessibility Site Map Legals Our Ethical Principles Terms of Service Privacy Policy Your California Privacy Rights / Privacy PolicyDo Not Sell My Info / Cookie Policy
Contact Us Support Local Business Advertise Your Business Advertising Terms and Conditions Licensing & Reprints Help Center Subscriber Guide My Account Give Feedback