Two appeals filed this week in Centre County Court challenge the conditional use permit granted by the Benner Township Board of Supervisors for a proposed RV campground at the privately-owned Bellefonte Airport.
Airport owner Marina Elnitski contends that 17 of the 45 conditions imposed by supervisors Randy Moyer and Larry Lingle in approving her conditional use application are arbitrary and capricious, indefinite or impossible to achieve and were not based on evidence established in the record.
In a separate appeal, owners of five nearby properties — including supervisor Kathy Evey, who recused from the conditional use vote — argue that the campground will be detrimental to the surrounding residential and agricultural area, causing safety and traffic concerns. They also say that the application should have been rejected because of issues that were litigated when a similar proposal was denied more than three years ago.
A similar conditional use request was rejected twice by the township in 2021 and 2022, with the Board of Supervisors finding the plan did not meet open space requirements of the zoning ordinance as well as other regulations, as well as stating that credible evidence had been presented it would harm the general health, welfare and safety of the surrounding area. The Elnitski family appealed the decision, which was upheld in Centre County Court and a further appeal was dismissed by Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.
Elnitski filed a new conditional used application in May for a campground with up to 100 RV lots, camp office and internal road system on 30 acres along the northern portion of the property at 225 Snowbird Lane. Elnitski’s son John has said the campground would be intended for aviators visiting the area for recreational purposes, most notably for Penn State football games.
The property is located in the agricultural zoning district, where campgrounds and RV parks are identified as a permitted conditional use subject to certain criteria and reasonable conditions that can be imposed by the board.
After a public hearing in August, Moyer and Lingle said at a Sept. 2 meeting they were advised by township solicitor Rodney Beard that the new application corrected the deficiencies of the previous ones, met the requirements of the zoning ordinance and that if it were denied the township would likely be sued and lose. They voted 2-0 to approve the application with nearly four dozen conditions intended to address the variety of concerns raised by residents over the prior months.
Elnitski wrote in her appeal that she was never given a chance to comment on the conditions, which the supervisors only permitted to be read aloud by a citizen after they approved them.
She noted that the law requires a “condition must be related to a valid public interest that is established by evidence in the record of the application,” and that for some of the requirements no such evidence was presented.
“They cannot be based on mere speculation about a potential adverse impact,” the filing states. “The burden is on objectors to show with a ‘high probability’ that the proposed use will cause harm greater than what is normally expected.”
Elnitski also claimed that “at least one of the objectors” who “has constantly tried to stop projects at the airport and use legal means as harassment since 1988” will use the language of the conditions for enforcement “to achieve or create an unnecessary expense.”
The neighboring property owners, meanwhile, contend that the campground “will materially increase” traffic congestion and safety concerns. They argue that the campgrounds proximity to the airport facilities “puts campers and intoxicated tailgaters at risk of accidents.”
Though the Elnitskis have said they will not promote the site as a tailgating venue, the neighboring residents allege it is inevitable that is how it will be used.
“The character of the surrounding area is low-density residential and agricultural, making such an intense use unfavorable,” attorney Jordan Strassburger, who is representing the residents, wrote.
They say the conditional use application did “not correct the objective deficiencies of the preceding applications,” according to the filing.
The appeal claims that it has already been litigated from the previous application that “the location, nature and intensity of the proposed use is not in harmony with the surrounding area,” and that “there were safety concerns with the proposed use.” The law does not permit those issues to be relitigated, Strassburger contends.
While the Elnitskis say they already have a right-of-way agreement in place that will allow them to address access issues, Evey, who owns property on either side of the private Snowbird Lane, says they cannot widen the road without a new agreement from her.
No hearings have been scheduled or judges assigned to either appeal as of Thursday afternoon.
The conditional use approval is only the first step for development of the proposed campground, which will also be required to go through permitting and land development processes.
