Dickinson supervisors deny agricultural security request amid neighbors' concerns over food-processing residuals

Dickinson Township's Board of Supervisors voted on Aug. 19 to deny West Cumberland Partners LLC's request to include a parcel in the township's Agricultural Security Area, a decision the board framed around neighbors' health concerns and unresolved questions about food-processing residuals.

The board denied the application by majority vote. Chairman Rob Kole moved to deny the request and Supervisor Jen DeGaetano seconded the motion; Vice Chairman Robert Line cast the only dissenting vote.

Supporters of denial said the parcel's proximity to a school and residents' complaints about potential spreading of food-processing residuals raised health and safety concerns that could not be resolved at the meeting. Supervisor DeGaetano said she could not support placing the parcel into the Agricultural Security Area while questions remained about the owner's intentions, what would be spread on the land and possible health effects for nearby children.

Vice Chairman Line said he feared denying the application could hinder broader farmland-preservation efforts, arguing that inclusion in an Agricultural Security Area does not by itself regulate spreading of residuals and that change should come through state legislation and DEP policy rather than local denials.

Solicitor Matt Boyer summarized conversations with the applicant's representative, Ben Wilson, saying Wilson rejected an offered condition that would bar spreading of FPRs, declined a deed restriction and indicated he would contest a denial in court. Boyer reported that Wilson told the township he does not spread FPRs now and that his stated goal is preserving the land from housing development.

Resident Diane Gill, who lives in the neighborhood across from the parcel, told the board she has difficulty breathing and said she welcomed the township’s attention to FPR issues during the application review.

The board recorded the decision as Resolution 2024-07. No further action or schedule for reconsideration was specified during the meeting.

The denial came after a lengthy public-discussion segment in which supervisors weighed competing priorities: protecting nearby residents' health and supporting farmland preservation. Supervisor DeGaetano and Chairman Kole said the unresolved FPR questions led them to deny the application; Vice Chairman Line said those policy gaps should be addressed at higher levels of government to avoid blocking farmland-preservation tools.

The denial is the latest local development in the township's ongoing attention to FPRs; Supervisor DeGaetano reported that a broader FPR Coalition’s proposed state legislation is not currently moving forward and that advocates are regrouping.