WARWICK TOWNSHIP TO EPHRATA BOROUGH RAIL TRAIL
FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING #5 MINUTES
August 10, 2006
ATTENDEES: Present at the meeting were Rick Jackson (ELA Group), Damian Clawser (ELA Group), Lauri Ahlskog (LCPC), Dan Zimmerman (Warwick Township), Bob Thompson (Ephrata Borough), Janice Wenger (Ephrata Township), John McBeth (Akron Borough), Curt Strasheim (WRRC), Carl Laws Landis (Akron Borough), John Williamson (Akron Borough), J. Tyler Zerbe (Ephrata Township), Karen Scheffey (Warwick Township), Herb Flosdorf (Warwick Township), Dan Guers (Akron Borough), David Kratzer (Warwick Township), Paul Wenger (resident-Ephrata Township)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Zerbe, seconded by J. Wenger, the Study Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the June 8, 2006 meeting as submitted. On motion by Scheffey, seconded by J. Wenger, the Study Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the June 22, 2006 public meeting as submitted.
UPDATE ON THE “INVENTORY & ANALYSIS”: Jackson provided an update on the “Inventory & Analysis” phase of the study. He articulated that this phase is nearly completed. Jackson noted the following two outstanding issues: 1) Consultant team is waiting for a response from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission as to whether any historic resources exist within the study area. 2) Consultant team has been unable to evaluate the bridge structure over the Cocalico Creek. A consequence of such has been the inability to complete a Wetlands and Phase I ESA. Zimmerman explained that the adjacent property owner is presently unwilling to allow access to the property. Access is needed to conduct the evaluation. He indicated that Warwick Township staff will continue attempting to reach a compromise with the property owner.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY/QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS: Jackson & Zimmerman noted that survey responses continue to be received. Given such, Jackson provided an updated numerical breakdown of survey results. He also noted that roughly 2/3rds of received surveys have indicated support for the potential trail. The summary of survey results will be included in the appendix of the final report. Williamson questioned whether a similar survey should be sent directly to the property owners adjacent to the proposed trail route to gauge their support for the study. While such was noted as a good idea, the consensus of the Study Committee was to wait until a future date.
UPDATE ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/DEED RESEARCH AND AG PRESERVATION IMPLICATIONS: Jackson provided the Study Committee with a memorandum articulating the status of property ownership/deed research and the ag preservation implications. He noted the following difficulties:
· Some of the deeds are presently unavailable as a result of current efforts by the Lancaster County Recorder of Deeds to digitizing such.
· Some deeds simply cannot be found.
· Some of the older deeds are unreadable/illegible and even when readable/legible, contain ambiguities with wording.
· Some of the deeds, in the intervening course of time, have omitted all references to the rail corridor
Recognizing these difficulties and the likelihood that such will never be fully resolved by the consultant team, in the interest of budgetary and schedule constraints, Jackson articulated that such efforts should be discontinued. He noted that such were not unexpected. In conservations with Dick Wilson, an attorney specializing in STB issues, the commonality of such difficulties was stressed. Jackson explained, in the future, alternative methods of resolving the issue of ownership and the associated costs of such alternative methods will have to be considered.
In regards to determining whether existing agricultural preservation easements are inclusive of the former railroad right of way, Zimmerman suggested that letters be sent to the Lancaster County Ag Preserve Board and Lancaster Farmland Trust requesting clarification on their respective positions on the issue. Such an approach was agreed upon by the Study Committee and Thompson, as Chairperson, stated that he would draft and send such requests.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING SEPTEMBER 28TH PUBLIC MEETING: Jackson provided a handout articulating the concerns of survey respondents. He noted that it is the intent of the consultant team to address these concerns at the Second Public Meeting on September 28, 2006. In ensuring that the concerns of survey respondents were sufficiently addressed, Jackson asked for suggestions for experts in the various areas that could provide meeting attendees with pertinent information addressing such. Some on the Study Committee questioned the need to have a Second Public Meeting in September or a Second Public Meeting at all. While the consultants assured the Committee that they would be prepared to conduct such a meeting (including documentation to address public concerns and a review of the trail standards), several Committee members thought the meeting should at least be postponed until later in the Study or eliminated in lieu of the currently anticipated Final Public Meeting. A definitive decision concerning such was not reached. Guers indicated that he will contact Scott Cope, DCNR project manager, to discuss the matter.
DISCUSSION ON TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS: Jackson provided Study Committee members with schematics of accepted design standards and their potential applications to the Warwick to Ephrata Rail Trail. He asked Study Committee members to review and formulate comments on such prior to the next Study Committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
NEXT MEETING (s): September 14, 2006 at 7:00pm at Ephrata Borough Hall
Respectfully submitted,
David W. Kratzer, Jr.
Warwick Township
Assistant to the Township Manager
