ATC Drops Alpine Rose Appeal

April 2005—The Appalachian Trail Conference will not seek to overturn an intermediate Pennsylvania appellate court's decision upholding preliminary plans for a $25-million drivers' club and road course adjacent to the Trail in rural Eldred Township, near Smith Gap. That ends a three-year, $136,000 battle.

Contrary to an opinion filed by the state earlier in the case, the three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court ruled that the act and state constitution do not impose on the township “an affirmative duty…to enact legislation providing for noise regulation in or near the trail.”

The developer's faulty estimates of sound impacts from the high-performance-car resort were at the heart of the ATC case, but the appellate court upheld the common pleas court in saying that, if the Alpine Rose operations actually violate noise limits, the township can enforce them.

The Trail winds above the planned resort property, slightly below the ridgeline and out of sight of it. ATC and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association had argued that approval of the development plan, even with conditions, was contrary to a township's affirmative duty to protect the Appalachian Trail's “natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values.”

Background

Appellate Court Rules Against Trail in Car-Track Case

February 7, 2005—A three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has rejected the attempt of the Appalachian Trail Conference and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association to overturn preliminary approval in November 2002 by the Eldred Township supervisors of preliminary plans to build a $25-million drivers' club and road course adjacent to the Trail in a rural area near Smith Gap. Contrary to an opinion filed by the state earlier in the case, the judges ruled that the Pennsylvania A.T. Act and state constitution do not impose on the township “an affirmative duty…to enact legislation providing for noise regulation in or near the trail.” The developer's faulty estimates of sound impacts from the high-performance-car resort were at the heart of the ATC case, but the appellate court upheld the common pleas court in saying that, if the Alpine Rose operations violate noise limits, the township can enforce it then. It told the lower court to clarify, however, exactly where sound measurements would be taken. Trail-community leaders are discussing what steps to take next.

ATC, Pa. Residents Back in Court on Car Track

November 8, 2004—The Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association (BMPA) have asked the Monroe County, Pa., Court of Common Pleas to overturn the Eldred Township supervisors' final approval of Alpine Rose Resorts' plans for a driving course for high-performance cars in that rural area just below the Trail. The appeal of that October 5 decision, the groups' second court challenge to the resort, was filed November 4. Oral arguments on the first appeal—challenging the supervisors' preliminary approval of the resort in October 2003—were heard in Philadelphia on November 2 by three judges of the Commonwealth Court, but a decision is not expected before January. As they had argued before, the groups said that approval of the final development plan, even with conditions, is contrary to the township's affirmative duty under the state constitution and the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act to protect the Appalachian Trail's “natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values.” ATC sound experts showed in 2003 that the potential noise from the resort would have far greater impact on the experience of hiking the Trail (not to mention living nearby) than the developer asserted. The full news release (PDF) can be read here.

Court to Hear Car Track Case November 2

October 14, 2004—The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court will hear oral arguments November 2 in Philadelphia on an appeal by the Appalachian Trail Conference and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association of the Eldred Township supervisors' October 2003 approval of preliminary plans for the Alpine Rose Resort, a driving course for high-performance cars about 2,000 feet below the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap in the northeastern part of the state. A new set of supervisors, after seven months of delays to allow further analysis by planners and engineers, approved the final development plan this October 5 on a 2-1 vote. ATC's attorney, Charles Elliott, says another appeal would have merit because the final plan does not adequately protect the Trail as required by state law. Developer Richard Muller still does not have a highway occupancy permit or a state-approved sewage-treatment plan. Noise is the major concern of ATC, and the permit says noise from the track may not exceed ambient sound levels by more than 5 decibels, but a state Department of Environmental Protection lawyer in a September 15 letter questioned how the township would enforce that and how supervisors know that limit will adequately protect the community.

Car Country Club Gets Planning-Commission OK

August 31, 2004—The Eldred Township planning commission has recommended approval of final plans for the proposed Alpine Rose driving course for high-performance cars, to be situated about 2,600 feet below the Trail in northeastern Pennsylvania, but the township supervisors are not likely to act for another two weeks, local news reports say. The Appalachian Trail Conference and the local Blue Mountain Preservation Commission have pending an appeal of a lower court's decisions allowing the resort to go forward despite flawed sound studies and a state law designed to protect the Trail's scenic and aesthetic values. The commission acted Tuesday night, and the supervisors meet Wednesday night, but the township's deadline to act has been extended (for the fifth time) to September 17. Developer Richard Muller, who was still waiting for another agency's approval of his erosion- and sedimentation-control plan, first submitted preliminary plans two years ago. ATC's attorney argues that the final plans are substantially different from the preliminary ones and the commission therefore should have rejected them, but the planners disagreed.

Proposed Trailside Driving Track Decision Delayed Again

July 30, 2004—September 3 is the latest date set for a decision by Eldred Township supervisors on final plans for a proposed Alpine Rose driving course and resort for owners of high-performance vehicles just below the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap, Pennsylvania. The township's planning commission has raised a number of concerns over the developer's $15-million plans since March, when the question was first up for decision by the supervisors. Once final plans for a development are accepted there, the supervisors must act within 60 days or the plans are deemed approved. Developer Richard Muller, Jr., submitted his fourth set of plan revisions July 1, but the commission still called them inadequate. The township engineer chided the developer at a July 15 for not correcting numerous technical and editorial deficiencies. Moreover, the final plans differ markedly from the preliminary plans, said Charles Elliott, attorney for the Appalachian Trail Conference and the local Blue Mountain Preservation Association, which have a suit seeking to overthrow the supervisors' preliminary approval in 2002 pending in a Pennsylvania appellate court. Among the concerns being examined by the planners are sewage-treatment methods, storm-water diversion, discrepancies in information provided different agencies, and the amount and location of both tree-cutting and tree plantings. The planning commission has scheduled an August 19 meeting on its recommendations to the supervisors, who meet September 1. ATC contends the noise from the resort would harm the hiking experience along the Trail on that section of Blue Mountain and so approval of the development violates the state constitution, which requires A.T. protection by government agencies.

Pa. Township Slated to Decide on Road Course July 9

June 14, 2004—The Eldred Township supervisors have scheduled a July 9 meeting to decide on final plans for a high-performance car track and resort complex abutting the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap, after giving the developer a series of extensions since April. Their earlier approvals of Alpine Rose Resort preliminary plans remain before a state appeals court in a suit brought by the Appalachian Trail Conference and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association. Developer Richard Muller, Jr., asked for the delays so he could address more than 30 questions and comments raised by township engineer Jack Jolly about his plans (first reviewed in February). Among other things, Jolly questioned the site boundaries, erosion- and sediment-control plans, water-storage specifications, and open-space maintenance information. The state Department of Environmental Protection, which earlier supported the lawsuit, also has questioned aspects of the plans. ATC-contracted studies show that sounds from the track would have a major impact on the serenity of the Trail section that is just above the proposed resort.

Beleaguered Developer Seeks More Time

June 1, 2004—The developer of a proposed $14-million Alpine Rose driving course for high-end sports cars adjacent to the Appalachian Trail in Eldred Township in Pennsylvania, with the tide of public and official sentiment seeming to turn against him, has asked for an additional month to answer questions about his “final” plans for the resort. The township supervisors, who had planned to act on the plan Friday, will act on his request tomorrow evening (June 2). Developer Richard Muller, Jr., asked them to wait until July 9. The township's planning commission took no action May 20 despite three hours of discussions about his sewage-control plans and numerous concerns raised by the township's engineer. The county planning commission had advised the township not to act on the plan until its concerns were resolved, and the Appalachian Trail Conference and Blue Mountain Preservation Association have a court action pending to block the development.

Car-Resort Opponents Appeal Local Court's Decision

March 12, 2004—The Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association (BMPA) this week again asked the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to overturn a Monroe County common pleas court's rulings that threaten the nationally recognized values of the Appalachian Trail in favor of a proposed, 360-acre resort for high-performance-vehicle enthusiasts adjacent to the trail in Eldred Township.

Download the complete news release . (PDF)

Trail Loses Alpine Rose Case Again; ATC Stays on It

February 27, 2004—Monroe County (Pennsylvania) Judge Ronald Vican again ignored the arguments of the Appalachian Trail Conference and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association and approved the Eldred township supervisors' granting of a conditional, initial permit for a 360-acre driving course for high-end sports cars and associated resort facilities below the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap. Last year, after ATC appealed the supervisors' first decision, Vican sent the matter back to the township on unrelated grounds. The supervisors responded to those, ATC again appealed, and Vican ruled for the developer again February 18. The following evening, the Eldred planning commission agreed to review the Alpine Rose developer's final plans despite a number of procedural deficiencies. An ATC appeal of Vican's original ruling will now go forward before the Commonwealth Court, and both organizations and supporting volunteers are continuing to seek at the local level ways to mitigate the effects of the noisy development.

2003

Township Supervisors Again Approve Car Track Next to A.T.

October 3, 2003—Despite voicing concerns about probable noise levels, the Eldred Township, Pennsylvania, supervisors Wednesday night (October 1) again gave conditional preliminary approval to a developer's plans for a high-performance automobile country club and track adjacent to the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap. The Appalachian Trail Conference and the local Blue Mountain Preservation Association (BMPA) had sued to overturn the supervisors' first conditional approval late in 2002, and the judge in that case sent the matter back to the supervisors to reconsider three unrelated issues. ATC appealed that ruling last month, asserting more than 40 errors on the judge's part. State and local officials told the supervisors that traffic levels and likely emergency-services needs could be handled for the nearly 360-acre Alpine Rose resort. But, the supervisors warned the developer that projected noise levels for some areas were still higher than they allowed last year and he must show he can abide by that condition when he returns in two or three months to seek final approval for the $15-million development.

Auto Resort Decision Delayed

September 5, 2003—Eldred Township, Pennsylvania, supervisors have delayed until at least October 1 making a decision on basic permits for the proposed Alpine Rose Resort for high-performance automobiles adjacent to the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap. A Monroe County court had overturned their earlier approvals of the resort plans after the Appalachian Trail Conference and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association sued. The judge ordered the supervisors to consider three specific matters (none of which were highlights of the suit). At their regular meeting Wednesday (September 3), the supervisors said they were researching sound studies and seeking further information on their own.

ATC Appeals Car-Resort Decision

August 22, 2003—The Appalachian Trail Conference has appealed a Monroe County, Pa., commons pleas court decision July 22 that sent approval of a 360-acre high-speed “car resort” adjacent to the Trail back to Eldred Township supervisors. Even though invalidation of the supervisors' November 2002 decision was the goal, “the notice of appeal is necessary to correct certain aspects of the decision,” says Charles Elliott, attorney for ATC and its coplaintiff, the local Blue Mountain Preservation Association.

The judge remanded the case to the supervisors — who decided the evening of August 20 to postpone another decision until September 3 — and directed them to address issues related to traffic congestion near the planned track and possible impacts on local police and firefighting resources.

The supervisors said too much information was presented at the August 20 meeting to make an immediate decision and closed the hearing record at the meeting's conclusion. Bob Proudman, ATC's director of trail-management programs, had urged them to take the full 90 days under state law to consider the remand. He noted that the court's decision did not cite any portions of the $35,000 sound studies ATC commissioned, which showed far higher impacts on the Trail than the developer had asserted and also showed flaws in the developer's more recent sound-impact analyses. The court also had made no mention of the state's extraordinary “friend of the court” brief affirming that Trailside municipalities have an affirmative duty to protect the Trail under state law, although Judge Ronald Vican did acknowledge the mandates of the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act. Proudman also told the supervisors that the developer's most recent submission to them on noise calculations contradicts information he submitted to the court.

ATC Weighing Options After Auto Resort Decision

August 4, 2003—The Appalachian Trail Conference leadership is considering its options after reviewing a 27-page Monroe County, Pa., judge's decision to reverse Eldred Township's November 2002 approval of plans for a 360-acre automobile resort complex abutting the Appalachian Trail near Smith Gap. Judge Ronald Vican's opinion, while sending the matter back to township supervisors, brushed off detailed acoustical studies of the impact of the high-speed vehicles on the Trail, one of the first times sound-pollution issues have been raised in relation to a unit of the national park system. The ATC Board of Managers reached no conclusions Monday during a brief discussion of the ruling.

The township supervisors meet this Wednesday (August 6) and are expected to tell their constituents that further consideration of the Alpine Rose Resort matter will be limited to the issues identified by the court of common pleas on July 22. The first discussion would take place at their August 20 meeting.

ATC and its coplaintiff, the local Blue Mountain Preservation Association, effectively shredded the developer's previous sound “studies” submitted to the township, which did impose a condition on its permit approval of no increase of more than five decibels in ambient sound levels in the rural area. However, the judge ruled that, until that condition had been violated, ATC/BMPA could not properly bring a cause of action on that basis.

Instead, Vican told the township — which does not yet have zoning — to evaluate whether its roads can handle the increased traffic attracted by the proposed resort, whether increased police and fire protection at township expense would be necessary, and whether the increased noise and air pollution of the traffic — not the resort — would affect neighboring homes and the A.T. State officials, in a “friend of the court” brief in the case, advised the court that the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act imposes an affirmative duty on townships to protect the Trail and its values as a place for quiet backcountry recreation on foot. The court recognized that duty, but the developer's attorney has stated he feels the judge supported the resort and the original township decision.

Decision Pending in Motor-Track Case

June 5, 2003—A decision is expected later in this month Monroe County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania on the suit by the Appalachian Trail Conference and Blue Mountain Preservation Association to overturn the Eldred township supervisors' decision last fall to approve conditionally a 360-acre resort for high-performance car enthusiasts along the Appalachian Trail corridor near Wind Gap in northeastern Pennsylvania. The ATC/BMPA attorney was allowed to argue our position for more than an hour in court June 2, refuting the developer's new sound studies and mitigation proposals and underscoring the prevalence of the Pennsylvania A.T. Act. His previous studies were found invalid and inaccurate and withdrawn by his attorney. Township and developer attorneys argued their cases for about 30 minutes combined.

Pennsylvania Car Resort Heads Back to Court

May 30, 2003—Braced with new sound measurements of its own and an analysis of the Alpine Rose Resort's reworking of an invalid earlier sound study — itself requiring proposed substantial new sound barriers as mitigation — the Appalachian Trail Conference and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association heads back to Monroe County Court of Common Pleas June 2 to argue further against Eldred Township's conditional approval of a 360-acre resort for high-performance car enthusiasts along the Appalachian Trail corridor near Wind Gap in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Court Gives Car-Resort Developer Time to Replace Faulty Data

April 8, 2003—A Pennsylvania county judge has given the would-be developer of a “country club” for drivers of high-performance automobiles alongside the Appalachian Trail corridor in Eldred Township eight weeks to redo his studies of noise impact on the town and trail that the Appalachian Trail Conference last week showed were virtually entirely invalid. The developer's lawyer admitted in court that its engineers erred; the effect on the town would have been four times the noise projected last fall. The trail is about 2,000 feet uphill from the proposed speed course.

Monroe County Judge Ronald E. Vican earlier this year had given ATC and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association time to subpoena and analyze the suspect noise data and is allowing time for their consultant to analyze any new test data. That will culminate in a twice-postponed hearing June 2 on the ATC-BMPA lawsuit that seeks to reverse the township supervisors' conditional December approval of the 360-acre resort near Smith Gap in the northeastern part of the state. The resort opponents argue that the supervisors violated the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act, the state constitution, and their own limited land-use ordinances.

Trail proponents have asked, “What can we do to help?” Donations to defray the costs of legal representation and technical consultants are what is most needed now. Pennsylvanians might want to contact their elected state officials on the question of whether such a resort deserves $2 million in state economic-development grants, tax breaks, and loans it has hired former Lt. Gov. Mark Singel to try to secure.

State Supports Trail Community in Driving-Resort Case; Developer's Analysts Admit Sound Data Erroneous

March 27, 2003—In papers filed this week in the Monroe County, Pa., Court of Common Pleas, attorneys for the state of Pennsylvania said the Eldred Township commissioners are bound under state law to serve as trustees of the Appalachian Trail as a natural public resource.

The previous day, the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) and the Blue Mountain Preservation Association (BMPA) submitted evidence to the court that the likely noise from a proposed 360-acre country club in the rural township for high-performance automobiles would have significant negative effect on the Appalachian Trail hiking experience on the ridgeline above it, contrary to sound analyses submitted by the developer to the township. Lawyers for the developer later in the week admitted the developer's analyses were erroneous and called for further testing.

ATC and BMPA on December 5, 2002, asked the court to set aside the township supervisors' conditional approval of the resort the month before over the objections of the local planning commission. The organizations argued in two cases that the developer's plans were incomplete, inadequate, and otherwise out of compliance with a local ordinance—and that the local ordinances, which do not include zoning of any kind, themselves failed to protect the trail as required by the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act, a statute that implements in part an environmental-protection provision of the state constitution. The supervisors' action, therefore, is invalid because it violates state law, the organizations argued.

The court, consolidating the cases, allowed the parties to collect additional evidence and testimony by deposition and file additional briefs by March 24. The organization's attorney, Charles W. Elliott of Easton, Pa., questioned the developer's sound-analysis contractor and a sound-impact expert hired by ATC at length.

In a highly detailed, 157-page brief March 24, ATC and BMPA provided evidence that a contracted study of potential noise impacts on the community, used by the developer of the proposed Alpine Rose Resort in seeking township approval, was “defective, erroneous, and unreliable” in all key respects, using the professional standards of acoustical engineers.

The developer, saying it sought to keep additional noise not more than five decibels above normal levels in the area, had conceded that noise could not be buffered from going up toward the trail but argued it would be diffused in the intervening half-mile. Alpine Rose said it would construct an 80-foot-wide, 20-foot-tall, 3,000-foot long earthen wall to buffer sounds at ground level.

The developer's attorney March 26, in a letter to the ATC and BMPA attorney, conceded that the ambient sound readings at eight points (not including the purported on-the-trail readings) were “erroneously reported” by the contractor.

Virginia J. Davison, assistant counsel for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, in a friend-of-the-court brief filed March 25, left to the court to decide “whether the racing facility is the proper use for property so near the trail” but argued that the trail act “establishes the supervisors as trustees of the public resources and confers upon them the duty to protect the Trail.”

“The supervisors' duty, and now the duty of this Court, is to preserve and conserve the Trail for the benefit of all the people,” she stated.

Download the complete news release. (PDF, 9 KB)

Court Deadline Extended in Pennsylvania Car-Resort Case

February 2003—The Appalachian Trail Conference, Blue Mountain Preservation Association, and other opponents of a proposed high-performance “car resort” within earshot of the Appalachian Trail in Eldred township, Pennsylvania, are gathering additional evidence to present to a Monroe County court. About a week before a scheduled Feb. 3 hearing date, the court gave the organizations an additional 45 days to take depositions and analyze the resort's data relating to sound impacts, rejecting the developer's arguments against it. On Dec. 5, they had asked the court of common pleas to set aside the township supervisors' conditional approval of the 360-acre resort. The groups argued that the developer's plans were inadequate, incomplete, and failed to comply with the local ordinances—and the local ordinances themselves were deficient in that they provided no protection for the trail, as required by the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act. ATC, volunteers, and local activists also are briefing state officials and legislators on the matter, especially since the developer is seeking millions from the budget-strapped state to move forward with his plans.

Public Hearing Scheduled Thursday, January 23

December 2002, from the Pennsylvania Bulletin— The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing to accept comment on individual National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Application No. PAS10S119 for the discharge of stormwater from construction activities at the proposed Alpine Rose Resorts, Eldred Township, Monroe County.

The public hearing will be conducted on Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 7 p.m. in the auditorium of the Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Kresgeville. The hearing is in response to an application submitted by Richard Muller, Jr., President, Alpine Rose Resorts, Inc. The NPDES permit application proposes the discharge of stormwater from construction activities to Aquashicola Creek. The full public hearing notice is available here.

Grassroots Group, ATC Take Town Supervisors to Court over Resort

December 4, 2002—The Blue Mountain Preservation Association and the Appalachian Trail Conference have asked the Monroe County, Pa., court of common pleas to set aside the Eldred township supervisors' conditional approval of a 360-acre resort for sports-car enthusiasts within two thousand feet of the Appalachian Trail near Wind Gap in northeastern Pennsylvania.

The groups argued to the court in documents filed December 5 that developer's plans were inadequate, incomplete, and failed to comply with the local ordinances—and the local ordinances themselves were deficient in that they provided no protection for the trail, as required by the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act.

Attorney Charles W. Elliott of Easton asked the court to declare that the township has a duty to protect trail values as defined in state law and to set aside any action by the township to approve the Alpine Rose Resorts proposals.

Developer Richard W. Muller of Reading, Pennsylvania, is seeking millions in state funds to implement his proposal, and the opposing coalition plans to fight that as well as seek the overturning of the township decisions. The ATC Board of Managers in November approved legal fees to continue the opposition.

The opponents had formally challenged the township's subdivision and land-development ordinance as deficient in light of the Pennsylvania Appalachian Trail Act, which declares that municipal officials have a duty “to preserve the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of the trail.” The supervisors refused to hear that challenge.

The November 6 supervisors' decision imposed several conditions on Muller: no public-address system, no competitive racing or professionally sanctioned events, noise restrictions, improvements to a stormwater-management plan, and planting barrier trees at least ten feet tall not more than twelve feet apart.

Sound impacts are considered the major potential effect on the Trail experience there. Cars would be running at up to 120 miles an hour along the three-mile-long course, which would be bounded by a service station and car wash, recreation areas, and ultimately lodging and campgrounds.

This area below (and out of sight of) the Trail is now an undeveloped mountainside and valley environment.