Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Camp Security Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present Camp Security master plan; residents urge protections for archaeology and wildlife
Summary
Consultants told Springettsbury Township supervisors that a draft master plan for the 173‑acre Camp Security site prioritizes archaeology, ecology and phased public access; residents urged starting small to avoid harming burial sites and habitat, and consultants recommended grant applications and a community implementation team.
Consultants presented a draft Camp Security Park master plan to the Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors and urged a phased approach that preserves archaeological resources and the site’s ecology while expanding safe public access.
Brandy (Speaker 3) introduced landscape architect Sean Gerrigan and recreation planner Ann/Anne Toole, who said the plan reflects more than a year of outreach, two design workshops and an online survey with more than 770 respondents. "We are incredibly proud to present to you the culmination of over a year of of dedicated work on this master plan," Brandy said at the start of the presentation.
Presenters described the study area as roughly 173 acres in total while noting the township currently owns an 11‑acre park core. Consultants emphasized the site’s ongoing archaeological investigation, saying recent digs by Friends of Camp Security may be close to locating stockade remains and recommended design treatments that protect identified archaeological zones. "There is ongoing archaeology plan for the site," Sean Gerrigan (Speaker 4) said, and presenters recommended limiting intrusive construction in sensitive areas.
Key recommendations include opening a modest network of trails—one proposed trail would run parallel to the creek—creating a second, small parking lot and access point off Locust Grove Road, and building an interpretive walkway that would terminate at a vista overlooking the archaeological area for school groups and programming. Consultants framed the plan as a 20‑year roadmap to be implemented incrementally and supported by partnerships. Anne/Ann (Speaker 5) urged forming an implementation team and applying for low‑match grants in year one to maintain momentum and avoid the plan becoming a "shelf document."
Public commenters split between support for the plan’s habitat and education goals and cautions about scale. Eva Shipley (Speaker 10) urged a more restrained baseline, arguing parking, pavilions and other built amenities could impede ongoing archaeology and wildlife: "Once it's developed, it's gone," she said, and she told the board she had found "literally like 200 and something graves on that property." Vee Myers (Speaker 17) praised meadow and wetland conservation in the draft plan and said peripheral trails could improve habitat. Brad Kesler (Speaker 16) asked about buffer widths and again urged careful attention to adjacent property impacts.
Board members asked consultants about funding and higher‑level designations. Consultants said the plan was developed with partial funding from a Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) grant and that DCNR staff and local county tourism/economic‑development officials have been engaged with the project; they advised starting with township ownership and a "light touch" while pursuing grant packages and partnerships rather than pursuing immediate transfer to state or national park status.
No formal action was taken on the master plan at the meeting; presenters and residents were asked to continue discussions and staff to pursue grant opportunities and the recommended first‑year actions. The board said it will continue public engagement and additional review before any implementation steps are authorized.
