August 17, 2005
by Jaime Bumbarger
Mo Valley Bureau Chief
Reproduced with permission.

Circulation Manager:
Cindy Aughenbaugh
Phone: 814-765-5581
Fax: 814-765-5165

Call our Clearfield office at 814-765-5581 to see how you can become a regular subscriber of The Progress!

BELLEFONTE -- Despite the Centre County Planning Commission finding a proposed interchange and landfill in Rush Township inconsistent with the county's long-term plans, developers of the site still intend on moving forward with the permit process.

"This is just one step," Herb Flosdorf, executive vice-president of Resource Recovery LLC, told The Progress after the 4-1 vote. "We're committed to continuing with the process." The next step, he said, was to submit the county's comments to the Federal Highway Administration as requested. Although the CCPC found the plans for a privately-funded interchange off Interstate 80 inconsistent, Mr. Flosdorf said the FHWA can still approve the interchange as a point of access to the proposed landfill site.

"There's lots of agencies and hundreds of steps we have to go through. This is just another one." Two months ago, Rush Township was directed by the FHWA to have the CCPC issue a statement as to whether or not the proposed interchange was consistent with long-term county goals. The planning office staff completed its review and made its recommendation to the planning commission at last month's meeting. However, the planning commission tabled a vote on the matter for one month to allow its members to review the 14-page document the planning office developed.

Bob Jacobs, planning director, said his office found the plans inconsistent with land use. Because transportation is inextricably linked to land use, it too must be found inconsistent. Among the items cited in the report as inconsistent was the potential degradation of natural resources and community and economic development, as well as potential traffic impacts.

But Mr. Flosdorf disputed those findings. "Clearly we very much disagree that it is inconsistent with the county's plan," he said. Rather the inconsistencies pointed out by the planning office were with Snow Shoe Township's comprehensive plan, he said.

He disagreed the landfill would discourage tourism, affect property values in the long run or increase truck traffic in the area. He also pointed to a study conducted by the county's Solid Waste Authority that identified the proposed property in Rush Township as a "very good candidate for landfill consideration." In a letter of response to the planning commission, Mr. Flosdorf wrote the study also found that "an ideal situation would be the construction of an access ramp for landfill vehicles west of the Snow Shoe exit of Route 80."

The roomful of residents in attendance disagreed. Michele Barbin of Snow Shoe Borough said the proposal would be detrimental to the environment as well as the number of seasonal homes in the vicinity. Ken Hall, a fourth generation resident of the Mountaintop region, said that area feeds off tourism, and Harry Poinke said the tourism industry will only grow, unless a landfill is constructed there. As far as the suitability of the proposed site, Joann Gillette of Clarence said the CCSWA study was completed nearly 15 years ago, before the area promoted tourism.

Rush Township Solicitor George Test said Rush Township is the target of a report "slanted and biased towards Snow Shoe Township. Everything that was favorable was left out, and everything that was detrimental was left in," he said.

Mr. Jacobs said his office was fair and objective in its review and several benefits were cited. According to his report, some aspects of the plan are consistent with the proposed land use and interchange, such as sections encouraging proper disposal of waste to avoid pollution and increased public awareness of energy production sites.

Jack Shannon, planning commission member and chairman of the Rush Township Board of Supervisors, cast the lone dissenting vote and also felt targeted. He said there would be other venues for people to voice opposition to the landfill, but the matter before the planning commission was the POA study. Mr. Shannon said it appears as though Rush is being punished for lacking a comprehensive plan, something it has begun developing in recent months. But there has to be a starting point, he said, adding the supervisors feel Rush could benefit from the economic development in the area. "It is a project, we feel, that is very important to us," he said.

Mr. Jacobs said the county has been offering for at least five years to assist the township in the development of a comprehensive plan or zoning. He also said that the portion of Rush Township where the landfill is proposed, north of I-80, has practically been "annexed" to Shoe Show Township. "If we said it was consistent, I think we would be putting Show Shoe Township in jeopardy," he said.

However, by saying the plans are inconsistent, Mr. Jacobs said it should not be misconstrued to mean it supported use of local roads, as stated in Resource Recovery's previously published full-page advertisements in The Progress. Dave Breon of Benner Township, one of the four planning commission members to vote in favor of finding it inconsistent, also worried the planning commission's vote would be interpreted to mean local roadways are the right option.

The planning commission's recommendation will now be forwarded to the county commissioners to act. Also, the county Metropolitan Planning Organization must determine whether or not the proposal is consistent with its long-range transportation plan. The review is expected to be completed by CCMPO staff sometime next month.

In the meantime, Resource Recovery officials await those decisions, which will help determine which course of action it will take next. "We've promoted ourselves since Day 1 as doing the right thing," said Ed Abel, president of Resource Recovery, which is why the company has so fought for the interchange.

Resource Recovery representatives said they still believe the best option for everyone involved is to have access to the site from an interchange, a sentiment echoed by Rush Township and county planners. However, if the FHWA fails to approve the Point of Access study, Mr. Flosdorf said, if Rush Township is willing, they will amend the host municipality agreement to allow use of local roadways. "But I donÍt think things will come to that," he said.

George Rettew, engineering consultant, agreed, saying the FHWA could look at the POA study and approve the conceptual plans for the interchange based on it being the better of the two options. Otherwise, he and Mr. Flosdorf said, the group is prepared to move forward with requesting a highway occupancy permit for use of local roads, a cheaper and more simple process.

This site contains PDF file downloads. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you may download a free version here.

©2005 People Protecting Communities • last updated Nov 6, 2005
This site has been developed, designed and maintained with 100% volunteer work. No funds are used.
Please report problems to our volunteer WebHead, TechieR