Dickinson supervisors table agriculture-security addition after residents raise worries about food-processing residuals

Dickinson Township supervisors on July 15 unanimously tabled consideration of Resolution 2024-07, which would add land owned by West Cumberland Partners LLC on North Dickinson School Road to the Township’s Agriculture Security Area, after a contested public hearing and multiple residents urged caution over food-processing residuals, or FPRs.

Chairman Rob Kole closed the hearing at 7:18 p.m. and moved to table the resolution after Supervisor Jen DeGaetano asked for more time to meet with the applicant and review petitioned concerns. “If there is no intention of spreading then there could be some agreement on the deed of not spreading FPRs in perpetuity and the residents would be satisfied,” Kole said. The motion to table passed unanimously after the board directed Solicitor Matt Boyer to contact the applicant about an enforceable agreement.

The hearing drew written objections and a 45-signature petition presented to the board, and several residents spoke in person. Opponents cited proximity to North Dickinson Elementary School and reported repeated strong odors, ponding and apparent runoff they attribute to recent spreading operations nearby. “You can’t open the windows or sit out on the porch,” resident June Standora told the board, describing the smell she said differs from typical manure.

Supporters of preservation described the Agriculture Security Area designation as the first procedural step toward permanently preserving farmland. Vice Chairman Robert Line summarized the county review: “This farm is not using FPRs,” and Cumberland County reviewer Elizabeth Grant concluded the application is to preserve the parcel, not to authorize FPR spreading. Public Works Director Glenn Kelso told supervisors the owner, Mr. Wilson, told him that he “spreads no FPRs” and declined to attend the meeting because he had already told the Planning Commission the same.

Solicitor Boyer and other board members cautioned the supervisors on legal limits. Boyer said the Right to Farm Act includes nuisance protections that can restrict some local nuisance lawsuits against recognized farming practices and that the Township cannot, by ordinance alone, categorically ban “normal farming practices” without a statutory basis. “There is nuisance protection in the statute,” Boyer said. Board members discussed whether a voluntary, deed-based restriction offered by the applicant could be enforceable and whether asking for such a condition could expose the Township to litigation.

Supervisor DeGaetano said she would not second a motion to adopt the resolution without more direct engagement with the applicant and additional clarifying information about the partners and land use. The board instructed the solicitor to contact the applicant to arrange a meeting to discuss a potential written pledge or deed restriction and to report back before the county’s statutory deadline (the board noted an approximately 180-day review window extending into September).

What’s next: The board officially tabled Resolution 2024-07 and directed staff and the solicitor to pursue a meeting with the property owners to explore a voluntary agreement. The township said it will provide an update after that meeting; no change in land use or preservation status occurred at the July 15 session.

(Reporting based on Dickinson Township Board of Supervisors minutes, July 15, 2024.)