SEAN SAURO | Staff WriterContinuing his push for permission to construct a 40,000-bird duck barn, a local farmer filed suit in county court last week seeking to force Colerain Township zoning officials to reverse a recent decision to block the project.
In the appeal, filed on the behalf of Dwayne Peifer and his living trust, the farmer accused members of the local zoning hearing board of not providing proper evidence to back their reasons for denying a special exception, required in order for him to construct the barn.
That’s in addition to alleging numerous other flaws with the zoning board members’ Sept. 9 decision.
“The board committed an error of law and abused its discretion by rendering a decision with findings that were not supported by substantial evidence, improperly considered and relied upon public comment and were based upon hearsay, speculation and the board’s own subjective and personal opinions,” reads a portion of the appeal filed Oct. 12 in Lancaster County Court.
The filing is troubling to a group of several dozen township residents opposed to Peifer’s proposal, said Mary Dziedzic, who lives near the site that would be home to the duck operation.
Those residents claim such a large duck operation would lead to bad odors, noise and manure-related pollution that could threaten health and air and water quality. They’ve also worried aloud about a related decrease in property values and quality of life.
“It’s devastating, just the concern about what’s down the road if this actually happens,” Dziedzic said.
However, she admitted that she and other duck barn opponents -- who have organized under the name Colerain Cares -- expected the appeal.
“It’s not a surprise,” she said. “It’s very concerning, and it just doesn’t seem very neighborly.”
Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Peifer said he would not comment on the appeal because of the widespread attention and criticism his duck barn proposal already has received.
Peifer’s attorney -- Susan L. Bucknum of Bucknum Law PLLC, an agricultural law practice -- did not return phone messages left for her Monday and Tuesday.
Peifer wants to build the barn atop farmland that he owns near the intersection of Liberty Lane and Mount Eden Road.
There, a planned 63-foot-wide by 640-foot-long barn would house meat birds, which he would grow as a contractor for Joe Jurgielewicz & Son Ltd., a major duck producer based in neighboring Berks County, he said last month.
Farming the ducks, he’s said, would create a new revenue stream to offset a downturn in the dairy industry that has threatened the profitability of his existing 220-cow operation.
Though the area is zoned for agricultural uses, a special exception is needed before the barn can be built because it’s deemed a “concentrated animal feeding operation,” a designation that refers to the large number of birds that would inhabit the space.
The project’s opponents cite published studies of concentrated animal feeding operations to back their claims about expected odor, pollution and quality of life outcomes.
And last month, members of the local zoning hearing board took a similar stance in issuing their denial of the requested special exception. J. Lloyd Kreider was the only board member to vote in favor of granting the needed exception, with his colleagues Bob Stanley and Douglas Eaby voting to deny.
After the decision, Stanley said he voted to deny the exception because he believed that Peifer and his representatives failed to submit documents that proved the operation would not be detrimental to neighbors and the surrounding area.
And Eaby added that his vote was driven by concerns about duck manure storage as well as the wellbeing of the ducks that would be housed in the barn.
“Industrial farming is inhumane for the animals,” Eaby said.
A document issued in mid-Sept. explaining their decision reads, in part:“The proposed special exception will substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property and from the character of the neighborhood.”
It continues, “The applicant has the burden of proving that the (concentrated animal feeding operation) will be safely operated and that neighboring properties are safeguarded from the stormwater runoff and pollution. The applicant has not met his burden of proof.”
Weeks prior to that decision, Peifer had said he intended to comply with all environmental permitting and regulatory requirements -- an assurance that’s repeated in the newly filed appeal.
“Appellant Peifer presented sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed (concentrated animal feeding operation) is a ‘normal agricultural operation’ as defined and regulated under state law,” the appeal reads.
Scott E. Shoemaker, chairman of the township board of supervisors, confirmed that a copy of the appeal had been received by Colerain officials Monday via mail.
Shoemaker said he was reluctant to discuss the situation further, especially because the members of the zoning hearing board -- not the supervisors -- will have to deal with the appeal.
On Tuesday, Eaby said he’ll be watching to see how the court rules in the case, though he’s not optimistic that the denial will stand.
“I’ve told people from the get go that if they did appeal it, they would more than likely win,” he said.
Attempts to reach other zoning hearing board members for comment were unsuccessful. And the board’s solicitor, Thomas L. Goodman, did not return messages.
The case is assigned to County Judge Margaret C. Miller, according to a court website. The case’s timeline is unclear.
Residents in opposition of the plan are exploring what options they might have to continue their efforts to block Peifer’s duck barn, Dziedzic said.
That includes asking that the issue be added to the agenda of a township supervisors’ meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. today.
“We are just trying to find out what we can still do, if anything,” Dziedzic said. “We are in limbo here.”
But Shoemaker said the duck barn will not be an official talking point at the upcoming meeting.
“I understand they don’t like it,” Shoemaker said. “But we just have way too much on the agenda.”
