Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Sewer Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rapho Township adopts water and sewer allocation policy and denies two large developer requests
Summary
The Rapho Township Board of Supervisors on May 7 adopted Resolution 2026-8 establishing a water and sewer capacity allocation policy and denied two requests totaling 433 EDUs (90 and 343), saying allocations must be sought during the land development process.
The Rapho Township Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2026-8 on May 7 to establish a township policy governing allocation of water and sewer capacity and denied two separate developer requests that together sought 433 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs).
Chairman Lowell Fry said the new policy applies to both the Manheim Water and Sewer Authority and the Mount Joy Authority and gives precedence to properties inside existing sewer and water service areas. The board voted unanimously to adopt the resolution (motion by Mark Erb; second by Randy Fox).
Representatives for Oak Tree Development (David Miller Associates) — attorney Claudia Shank of McNees Wallace and Nurick and consultant Bill Swiernik — requested allocation of 90 EDUs for a Donegal Square proposal of two five-story apartment buildings totaling 90 units. The board denied that request and told the applicant it may reapply as part of a formal land development submission.
The board similarly denied a request from Vistablock Chiques Crossing, LLC for 343 EDUs for a proposed Chiques Crossing development; the board again noted the applicant may reapply during the land development process.
During public comment, Bruce Haigh, a member of the Mount Joy Borough Council, urged the board to advertise and adopt the policy as an ordinance rather than by resolution and asked the board to delay allocation decisions, asserting the process violated the Sunshine Law. Chairman Fry responded that the township solicitor drafted the policy. The board proceeded to adopt the resolution and then voted on the allocation requests.
Board members said the policy is intended to prevent speculative or premature assignments of capacity by tying allocations to the land development review process. Applicants denied on May 7 were told they may renew requests when a land development plan is filed.
No additional actions were taken on the two denied applications at the meeting; the denials were unanimous (Erb motion; Fox second).
