1 - E-Library

Norman Day Associates 

in associatian with.. 

Adams County, Pennsylvania 

, ." ..\, .... ,.-.~ j.I...^._ . 

.^ ... . . 

I

I 

I_ 

k 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,l 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The development of a new comprehensive plan for Adams County began in January 1990. 

During these early months, many citizens participated in the seven regional meetings held 

at county high schools, while hundreds more residents responded to questionnaires published 

in local newspapers. The issues, opportunities, and problems identified by these early 

participants were enormously helpful in defining the scope and emphasis of the countywide 

planning process. 

Later, on two separate occasions, community leaders participated in Focal Group meetings - 

scores of people representing local governments, utilities, social service agencies, historical 

interests, and the agricultural and business communities helped to further clarify planning, 

development, and preservation issues facing Adams County. While it is not possible to 

identify each person who participated in a Town or Focal Group meeting, or individuals who 

returned a questionnaire, Adams County is indebted to many people for their time and 

efforts. 

Other individuals participated in the planning process on a regular, structured basis. These 

people, associated with five groups, are hereby recognized for their contributions: 

ADAMS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (ACPC) 

Kathryn Boyer 

Mary Furlong 

Ernest R. Shriver 

Grady Edwards 

John R. Lerew, Chairman 

J. Van Cleve Lott 

Victor Frank III 

Alan Stock 

James Behm 

Cheryl Shew and Catherine Gault served on the Commission during the early stages 

of the Plan development. 

ADAMS COUNTY OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

Richard H. Schmoyer, AICP, Director of Development, served as 

Project Manager for Adams County 

John I. Callenbach, Director of Planning 

Paul Farkas, Assistant Planner 

Anne Thomas, Administrator 

Becky Sponseller, Clerk-Typist 

.- 

L 

I

CONSULTANT TEAM 

Norman Day Associates, Philadelphia, PA, served as the prime consultant for the 

Adam County Comprehensive Plan. Norman D. Day, ATCP, provided overall 

direction during the Plan development. Joseph k Bucovetsky, AICP, served as the 

project manager for the consultant team. Supporting firms, and their respective 

persons-in-charge are as follows: 

John Milner Associates - Historic Resources 

Orth-Rodgers and Assoc. - Transportation 

Peter Benton, R.A. 

Jeffrey L Greene, PE. 

R.E. Wright Associates - Infrastructure Dr. Richard S. Greeley 

Coughlin, Keene and Associates - Agriculture Policies Dr. Robert E Coughh 

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMIlTEE (CITAC) 

Jay Mackie 

Steven Wennberg 

Steven Maitland 

Evelyn Martin 

Harry Stokes 

Cyrus Karper 

Dennis Wallick 

David Krebs 

Albert Barnes 

John Kulp 

Tim Ruth 

William Lance Landauer 

Kathy Thomassy 

Sue Tanner 

George Riser 

Robert McConkey 

Robert Eicholtz 

Mary Lower 

Ellie Bennett 

Roger Steele 

Myles Starner 

Gene Motter 

Nancy Taylor 

Susan Kiehl 

James Behm 

Margaret Elliott 

MacDonald Heebner 

Dr. Charles H. Glatfelter 

Robert Wagaman 

Thomas J. Weaver 

Raymond C. Fitz, Jr. 

Joanne Eisenhart 

Marsha Lucidi 

John Hess 

John brew 

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TRAC) 

Jean Simpson Dan Hobbs Frank Cudworth 

Richard Selby Steve Wells Jeffrey Weaver 

Janet McNally Edwin Calvert Robert Davidson 

John Straka William Smith, Jr. Tedd Rhodes 

Jacque Hoffman 

In addition to these individuals, recognition is also given to John J. Coms, Administrator, 

County Agricultural Preservation Board; Thomas R. Piper, County Agricultural Extension 

Agent; Mercedes Seman, Soil Conservation Service; Kent Schwartzkopf, National Park 

Service; and Dr. Robert Bloom, local historian, for their special efforts. Numerous citizen 

ii ,- 

-&- 

I

volunteers from Gettysburg Borough and the Gettysburg-Adam County Chamber of 

Commerce who conducted a survey of truck traffic through Gettysburg also deserve 

recognition. In addition, former Adams County Commissioners Thomas L. Collins and 

Catherine W. Cowan provided project leadership during their respective tenures in office. 

Finally, Adams County also recognizes that without the financial assistance provided by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the development of a new County Plan would have been 

difficult. Specifically, the County recognizes the Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) and State Planning Assistance Grant (SPAG) funds obtained through the 

Department of Community Affairs (PennDCA) and the Federal Transportation Planning 

Grant, obtained through the Department of Transportation (PennDOT). Ted Robinson of 

PennDCA and Jeffrey Weaver of PennDOT are recognized for the direct support and 

assistance that they provided. 

Adam County Commissioners 

iii

L 

1 

‘I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Adams County Comprehensive Plan 

List of Tables 

List of Illustrations 

Chapter One: 

Chapter Two: 

BackgrouncWlanning Process 

Existing Conditions 

Section 1: 

Section 2: 

Section 3: 

Section 4: 

Section 5: 

Section 6: 

Section 7: 

Section 8: 

Section 9: 

Section 10: 

Chapter Three: Growth Management Plan 

Section 1: 

Section 2: 

Section 3: 

Section 4: 

Section 5: 

Section 6: 

Section 7: 

Section 8: 

Section 9: 

Section 10: 

Chapter Four: Implementation Strategy 

Introduction 

Existing Land Use 

Pattern of Change 

Natural Resources 

Historic & Landscape Resources 

Agricultural Resources 

Population, Housing and 

Employment 

Circulation 

Community Facilities 

Infrastructure and 

Environmentai Systems 

General Introduction 

Goals and Objectives 

Land Use Plan 

Circulation Plan 

Housing Plan 

Community Facilities Plan 

Historic & Landscape Resources 

Conservation Plan 

Agricultural Resources 

Conservation Plan 

Utilities Plan 

Environmental Protection Plan 

Appendix 1: Peak-Hour Turning Movements - Selected 

Adams County Road Corridors 

1-1 

2-1-1 

2-2- 1 

2-3- 1 

2-4-1 

2-5- 1 

2-6- 1 

2-7- 1 

2-8-1 

2-9- 1 

2-10-1 

3-1-1 

3-2- 1 

3-3- 1 

341 

3-5- 1 

3-6- 1 

3-7- 1 

3-8- 1 

3-9- 1 

3-10-1 

4-1

1 

I 

LlsT OF TABLES 


L 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

Table # 

2.3.1 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

2.3.4 

2.6.1 

2.6.2 

Units and Lots in Recorded Subdivision Plans 

of 5-or-more Lots, by Municipality, 1980-1990 

Housing Inventory and Building Permits Issued by 

Structural Type, 1970-1990 

Housing Totals and Percent Change in Adam County 

Municipalities, 1970-1990 

Adam County Pending and Proposed Development by 

Municipality, January 1991 

Land in Farms in Adam and Nearby Counties, 

1982 and 1987 

Area in Farms and in Cropland Pennsylvania and 

Adam County, 1954-1987 

2-3-4 

2-3-5 

2-3-6 

2-3-7 

2-6-10 

2-6- 1 1 

2.6.3 

Land Use, Land in Farms, Adams County, 1974-1987 

2-6- 12 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

2.6.4 

2.6.5 

2.6.6 

2.6.7 

2.6.8 

2.6.9 

2.6.10 

Open Land by Agricultural Capability Classification 

Size Distribution of Parcels over 10 Acres with 

10% or More Open Land 

Size Distribution of Farms, Adams County, 1982 & 1987 

Types of Farms, Adams County, 1982 & 1987 

Characteristics of Farm Operators, Farms with Sales 

of $lO,OOO or More: Adams County, 1974-1987 

Characteristics of Farm Operators in Adams County 

and Nearby Counties: Farms with Sales of $lO,OOO 

andover, 1987 

Type of Farm Organization, Adams County, 1978-1987 

2-6-13 

2-6-15 

2-6-18 

2-6- 19 

2-6-20 

2-6-21 

2-6-22 

1 

2.6.11 

Economic Measures of the Agricultural Sector, Adams 

County, 1974-1987 - 

2-6-23 

I

- Table # 

2.6.12 

Comparison of All Farms with Farms Reporting Sales 

of $lO,OOO or Over 

pane 

2-6-24 

2.6.13 Agricultural Infrastructure (Numbers of 

Establishments) 

2.6.14 Agricultural Security Areas as Compared with Area 

in Prime Soils, By Municipality 

2.7.1 Population Totals in Adam County Municipalities and 

Selected Jurisdictions, 1950-1990 

2.7.2 Percentage Change in Population in Adam County 

Municipalities & Selected Jurisdictions, 1950-1990 

2.7.3 Population Density in Adams County and Selected 

J~risdi~ti~n~, 1950-1990 

2.1.4 Population Density, Adams County Municipalities, 

1980 and 1990 

2.7.5 Population by Five-Year Age Groups in Adams County, 

1950-1980 

2.7.6 Percent Distribution of Population by Selected Age Groups 

in Adams County & Selected Jurisdictions, 1970-2010 

2.7.7 Assisted Housing in Adam County 

2.7.8 Alternative Population Projections for Adams 

County, 1990-2010 

2-6-25 

2-6-26 

2-7-1 1 

2-7- 12 

2-7-17 

2-7-18 

2-7-19 

2-7-20 

2-7-21 

2-7-22 

2.7.9 

Housing Units to be Constructed in Adams County, 

1990-20 10 

2-7-24 

2.7.10 Housing Units to be Constructed by Structural Type, 

Adam County, 1990-2010 

2.7.11 Employment by Major Industry in Adams County, 

1970-1988 

2.7.12 Percent Distribution of Employment by Major Industry 

in Adams County & Selected Jurisdictions, 1988 

2-7-24 

2-7-25 

2-7-26

- 1 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


Figure No. 

- Title 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

2.2.1 

2.3.1 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

2.4.1 

2.4.2 

2.4.3 

2.4.4 

2.4.5 

2.4.6 

2.5.1 

2.5.2 

2.5.3 

2.5.4 

2.6.1 

Location of Adams County 

Work Program Schedule 

Adam County Municipalities 

Existing Land Use 

Development, 1980- 1990 

Pending & Proposed Development 

Accessibility 

Terrain 

Hydrology , 

Soil Associations 

PNDI Species of Concern Areas 

Composite Constraints 

Suitability for Development 

Landscape Character & Scenic Resources 

Historical Development, 1800 

Historical Development, 1860 

Historic Resources, 1990 

Prime and Unique Farmland 

1-0 

1-9 

1-11 

2-2-3 

2-3-9 

2-3- 11 

2-3-13 

2-4-9 

2-4- 11 

2-4- 13 

2-4-15 

2-4- 17 

2-4-19 

2-5- 19 

2-5-2 1 

2-5-23 

2-5-25 

2-6-27 

i

Fimre No. 

- Title 

psrre 

2.6.2 

Generalized Farming Types 

2-6-29 

2.6.3 

Areas with Agricultural Land Protection 

Devices, December 1991 2-6-3 1 

2.7.1 Adam County Population Profile, 1990-2010 

2-7- 10 

2.7.2 Adams County Township Population Change, 

1980-1990 2-7- 13 

2.7.3 Adams County Percent Change in Township 

Population, 1980-1990 2-7- 14 

2.7.4 Adam County Borough Population Change, 

1980-1990 2-7-15 

2.7.5 Adams County Percent Change in Borough 

Population, 1980-1990 2-7-16 

2.7.6 Alternative Population Projections for Adams 

County (1990), 1995,2000, 2005, 2010 2-7-23 

2.7.7 Alternative Employment Projections for Adams 

County (1988), 2000, 2010 

. 

2-7-28 

2.8.1 Key Roadway Comdors and Study Area 

InterSeCtiOIlS 2-8-19 

2.8.2 

Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 1972 & 1990 

2-8-21 

2.8.3 

Existing Traffic Conditions, Study Area 

InterSeCtiOIlS 2-8-23 

2.8.4 Functional Classification 

2.8.5 Study Area Intersections Accidents 

2.9.1 Schools and School Districts 

2-8-25 

2-8-27 

2-9- 13 

2.9.2 

2.9.3 

Fire Districts and Companies 

Ambulance Districts and Companies 

2-9-15 

2-9- 17 

ii

:I 

1 

I 

Table # 

- Title 

2.7.13 

Alternative Employment Projections for Adams County, 

1988-2010 

2-7-27 

b 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

2.8.1 

2.8.2 

2.8.3 

2.8.4 

2.9.1 

2.9.2 

2.9.3 

2.9.4 

2.10.1 

Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Adams County Roadways, 

1972 and 1990 

Level of Service and Expected Delay for 

Unsignalized intersections 

Level of Service for Signalized Intersections 

Study Intersections Accidents 

Adam County Public Schools 

Adam County Parochial Schools 

Adams County Municipalities with Police Departments 

Adams County Fire Services 

Municipal and Community Water Supply Systems 

2-8- 14 

2-8-15 

2-8-16 

2-8-17 

2-9-7 

2-9-10 

2-9-10 

2-9- 11 

2- 10-4 

2.10.2 

Water Yield & Storage Capacity, Municipal and Community 

Water Supply Systems 

2- 10-5 

2.10.3 

Municipal Sewer Systems - Description 

2-10-12 

2.10.4 

Adams County Municipal Sewer Systems - 

Operating Characteristics 

2-10-13 

2.10.5 

Sludge Production from Sewage Collection and Treatment 

Facilities in Adam County 

2-10-19 

2.10.6 

Sewage and Septage Generation in Adams County 

2- 10-20 

2.10.7 

Conditions for Land Application of Sewage Sludge 

and Septage 

2- 10-21 

2.10.8 

Estimated Amounts of Municipal Solid Waste Generated 

in Adams County 

2- 10-22 

iii

I-- 

Table 

# 

2.10.9 

- Title 

Survey of Trash Haulers, March 1989 

2-10-23 

2.10.10 

Types of Materials for Recycling Under Act 101 

2- 10-25 

2.10.11 

Monthly Curbside Recyclables Pick-Up Schedule 

2-10-26 

2.10.12 

Percentages of Recyclable Materials in Municipal 

Solid Waste 

2-10-27 

2.10.13 

Estimated Total Municipal Solid Waste 

2- 10-27 

2.10.14 

Types of Household Hazardous Wastes 

2-10-28 

2.10.15 

Number of Animal Farms in Adam County in 1986 

2- 10-30 

2.10.16 

Summary of Agricultural Cash Receipts in 1986 

2-10-30 

2.10.17 

Estimated Animal Wastes Produced in Adam 

County in 1986 

2-10-31 

3.4.1 

Two-Direction Evening Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes, 

1990 and 2010 

3-4-26 

3.4.2 

Levels of Service for Roadways 

3-4-27 

3.4.3 

3.8.1 

3.9.1 

Recommended Circulation Improvements Cost Estimate 

Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Agricultural 

Resources 

Choosing Appropriate Tools for Well-Head Protection 

3-4-29 

3-8-12 

3-9- 16 

1 

1 

4.1 

Implementation Strategy 

4-5 

iV

I 

I. 

ro 

L 

i 

1 

i 

I 

D 

1 

1 

e 

1 

I 

I 

8 

i 

I 

1 

a 

L 

1 

Figure No. 

2.9.4 

2.9.5 

2.10.1 

2.10.2 

2.10.3 

2.10.4 

2.10.5 

3.3.1 

3.3.2 

3.3.3 

3.3.4 

3.4.1 

3.4.2 

3.4.3 

3.4.4 

3.4.5 

3.4.6 

3.4.7 

3.4.8 

Recreation 

- Title 

Community Facilities - Institutions 

Average Annual Water Resources for Adam 

County Water Supplies 

Community Water Supply Areas 

Sewered Areas and Superfund Sites 

Limitations on Septic Tank Installations by 

Soil Associations 

Major Utility Lines 

Land Use Plan 

"Mini-Cluster" 

"Country Cluster 

"Village Cluster" 

Recommended Circulation Improvements 

Right-of-way Reserve for Future Widening 

Arterial Roads - Type of Access 

Typical Section, Rural-style County Collector 

Local Collectors 

Concept - County Collectors 

Recommended Improvements to Selected 

US Route 15 Interchanges 

Widening from Two to Five Lanes 

iii 

2-9- 19 

2-9-21 

2- 10-2 

2-10-35 

2-10-37 

2-10-39 

2-10-41 

3-3-15 

3-3-17 

3-3- 18 

3-3- 19 

3-4-33 

3-4-35 

3-4-36 

3-4-37 

3-4-38 

3-4-39 

3-4-40 

3-4-4 1

Figure No. 

3.4.9 Widening for Turning Movements and Shoulders 

on a Two-Lane Roadway 3-4-42 

3.4.10 

3.4.11 

Projected Future Evening Peak Hour Traffic 

Volumes - Existing Roadway Network 

Levels of Service, Future Evening Peak Hour - 

Existing Roadway Network 

3-4-43 

3-4-45 

3.4.12 Projected Future Evening Peak Hour Traffic 

Volumes - Future Roadway Network 3-4-47 

3.4.13 Recommended Functional Classification of 

Adams County Roadways 3-4-49 

3.8.1 

3.8.2 

3.9.1 

3.9.2 

3.9.3 

3.9.4a 

3.9.4b 

3.9.5 

3.9.6 

Municipalities in York and Lancaster Counties 

with Strong Agricultural Zoning 

Development Alternatives in Agricultural Areas 

Well-Head Protection Areas 

Adam County Water Resources 

3-8- 14 

3-8-15 

3-9-4 

3-9-6 

Potential Well Sites for Gettysburg 

Water Supply 3-9-7 

Centralized Water Supply & Wastewater Treatment 

- 1990 and 2010 3-9- 1 1 

New Housing Units Needing Water Supply 

Well-Head Protection Using Overlay Zoning 

3-9- 1 1 

3-9- 17 

Wastewater Treatment Systems for New 

Housing Units, 1990-2010 3-9-20 

iv 

E 

1 

a 

I 

I 

1. 

I 

1 

I 

' 

d I 

I

Chapter I: 

Backgroundplanning 

Process 

Adams County Comprehensive Plan

Figure 1.1 

Location of 

Adams County 

I Adams

1 

1 

m 

L 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

I 

I 

e 

L 

I 

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND/PLA"TNG PROCESS 

Introduction 

Adam County is located in south-central Pennsylvania along the MaIyland border. The 

surrounding counties are Cumberland, Franklin, and York Counties in Pennsylvania and 

Carroll and Frederick Counties in Maryland. 

The first settlers to the area, of German and Scotch-Irish origin, amved in 1734 and began 

clearing hardwood trees near Hanover, Fairfield, and York Springs. In 1764, the surveyors 

Mason and Dixon established a line between the lands of the Penns and Lord Baltimore, 

which continues today as the southern line of Adams County and the boundary between 

Pennsylvania and Maryland. 

This area became world-famous in 1863 when one of the bloodiest battles in history raged 

for three days. The Battle of Gettysburg, fought in and around the county seat of Adams 

County, proved to be the turning point of the Civil War and was the location of Abraham 

Lincoln's famed Gettysburg Address. The battle significantly influenced the destiny of 

Adams County, and particularly the Gettysburg area, giving it a prominent and permanent 

place in the nation's history. More recently, the designation of the home and farm of 

Dwight D. Eisenhower as a National Historic Site further emphasized the area on a national 

scale. 

Adams County is located on the eastern side of the Appalachian Mountains. The broad 

physical features of the county include a portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains along the 

western boundary, the famous "fruit belt" along the foothills of the mountains, a broad 

central valley dominated by the Borough of Gettysburg and the National Military Park, and 

an area of rolling hills bordering York County to the east. 

The county is divided almost equally between two major watersheds. Roughly one-half of 

the county is drained northeastward into the Susquehanna River by the Conewago and its 

tributaries, and the other half is drained south and west into the Potomac River by the 

Monocacy tributaries. Major portions of South Mountain on the west and the Pigeon Hills 

on the east are covered with forests. Large areas of forest land are owned by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Adams County comprises 526 square miles of land and ranks 44th in area among the 67 

counties of Pennsylvania. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the total population was 

78,274 persons. Adams County is divided into 13 boroughs and 21 townships, each with its 

own local government (Figure 13). 

The pattern of urban settlement in the county is an example of the classic "hub and spoke", 

with Gettysburg at the hub and numerous smaller boroughs such as New Oxford, 

1-1

Littlestown, Fairfield, Arendtsville, and Biglerville along the spokes of a long-established 

radial road system. The Borough of Gettysburg is almost completely surrounded by the 

6,000-acre National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site. Congressional 

action recently enlarged these federally-designated lands by some 2,000 acres. 

Prominent in the economy of Adam County are agricultural activities and tourism. The 

overall level of agricultural activity is relatively high but is subject to new pressures from 

urban development activities in many parts of the county. Tourism, which until recently was 

focused almost exclusively on Gettysburg and the National Military Park, is now spreading 

into the fruit belt, the South Mountain area, and into the picturesque villages and scenic 

areas of the countryside. 

Economically, the county is characterized by a low wage structure and relatively low income 

levels, especially among long-term residents. Average household income in the county is 

rising, but the increase appears to be the result of the in-migration of new residents 

continuing to work outside the county. There is a general concern for the lack of new 

economic and employment opportunities in the county and a growing concern for the 

increasing disparity of income levels between older and newer residents. 

Growth Trends and Issues 

The county has experienced a significant increase in the level of development activity in 

recent years and is now under considerable development pressure from a variety of 

directions. Land costs, development regulations, and new impact fees in the nearby 

Maryland counties are providing a strong push into Adam County fiom the southeast and 

southwest. From the east, the expansion of Hanover and York is creating new development 

pressure, and the emergence of new employment centers southwest of Harrisburg is creating 

growth pressure down along the US Route 15 corridor. Even in the western fruit belt, new 

subdivisions are popping up in response to the attractive ambiance of the area and its 

proximity to growing employment centers along Interstate 81 near Chambersburg. 

a 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

By 1990, many residents of Adams County had become increasingly concerned with the pace 

and type of development, particularly as it began to affect the quality-of-life in their 

communities. Increased traffic, loss of farmland, threatened natural amenities and historic 

resources, and strained public services are some of the present and potential problems 

associated with growth. On the other hand, many residents recognized, high-quality 

development could also serve as a catalyst for needed economic growth. 

The significant development issues and problems of concern to county residents are many 

and varied, but probably include the following: 

0 The increase in the overall pace of development in recent years in the face of 

inadequate land development controls. 

1-2

1 

I 

L 

I 

I 

1 

I 

A general feeling that growth in the county is occurring in an uncontrolled, 

shortsighted and haphazard pattern. 

Decisions made outside Adams County strongly affect the location and pace of 

development within the county. 

Sewer and water systems are inadequate to accommodate new development. 

Many of the small historic villages, as well as the scenic roads and countryside, are 

being threatened by random scattered urban development. 

The setting and quality of the National Military Park is threatened both by urban 

development pressure and by increased levels of tourism and related economic 

activities. 

The agricultural resources of the county are being threatened both by urban 

development pressure and limited economic opportunities for young farmers. 

The general lack of economic opportunities and new employment choices in the 

county for all age groups, but most especially for young adults, is leading to 

significant and unhealthful demographic changes. 

Pervasive circulation problems in a number of corridors and at key intersections in 

the county are leading to unacceptable congestion and safety risks. 

Needed - An Updated Plan 

Reflecting upon these development trends and the array of problems facing the county, it 

became clear that an update of the 1970-72 Adams County Comprehensive Plan would be 

timely. The comprehensive plan is the document intended to guide development in the 

county, but the Plan was nearly two decades old and its usefulness was diminishing. As well, 

a new-style Plan was needed, one that is more action- and policy-oriented, and which would 

place in the hands of the County a more useful instrument for guiding, directing, and 

controlling expected growth over the next ten to twenty years. In short, there was an urgent 

need to get on top of current growth pressures and to resolve emerging transportation 

problems within the county. 

A new Comprehensive Plan would need to focus on: Describing and understanding recent 

development trends; critically commenting on the consequences of these trends in the 

county; anticipating and accommodating the magnitude of growth that is expected; and 

protecting the historic, scenic, and agricultural resources of the county - while at the same 

time projecting a clear and attractive image of the future for the county. The new Plan 

1-3

would need to place more than the usual emphasis on transportation improvements, because 

of the critical nature of transportation problems in the county. By enhancing and expanding 

the transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan, and considering the county's 

future transportation picture in detail as the Comprehensive Plan is updated, Adams County 

would be able to set the stage for well-integrated and balanced planning for the decades to 

come. 

8 

1 

The 1991 Comprehensive Plan 

- The purpose in preparing an updated comprehensive plan is fourfold. First, the data base 

for the county has been brought up to date. Chapter Two incudes surveys of natural and 

cultural features, the current land-use pattern, the road system, and the systems of public 

services and utilities; analyses and projections of population, housing, and employment; and 

an examination of the types of changes in the county over recent years. Second, in Chapter 

Three's Land Use Plan element, the Plan identifies the basic direction and structure 

recommended for the future development of the county, derived from explorations of 

alternative development patterns. Third, the Plan specifies the goals, policies, and individual 

elements that will form the basis for the development (including conservation efforts) of the 

county. Finally, the Plan lays forth, in Chapter Four, a specific implementation strategy and 

program to aid the County, its municipalities, and other local groups and organizations, both 

public and private, in achieving the goals of the Plan. 

The Comprehensive Planning Process 

Preparation of the 1991 Adam County Comprehensive Plan was accomplished largely over 

a fifteen-month period from August 1990 through October 1991, with Public Meetings and 

Hearings held in late 1991. The Work Program Schedule (Figure 1.2) outlines graphically 

the process which was observed, consisting of seven phases. 

The County Commissioners were committed to substantial and ongoing citizen participation 

throughout the comprehensive planning process. In the months leading up to the 

commencement of the process outlined in Figure 1.2, several citizen participation efforts 

were pursued; including seven Issue Identification meetings held in various parts of the 

county and citizen surveys conducted through local newspapers. Over 600 residents 

responded to the newspaper surveys by completing questionnaires and mailing them to the 

County for compilation and analysis. Findings of these meetings and surveys contributed 

significantly to the early identification of issues of concern to Adams County residents (see 

"Growth Trends and Issues", previously). 

Community participation was a hallmark of the formal plan preparation process. There 

were four types of groups involved: 

I. 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1-4

I' 

1) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

C&ommittee ITA - a widely-representative 40-member 

body that served as a steering committee for the Plan preparation; 

Transuortation Advisorv Committee (TRAC) - a smaller body whose members 

focused on transportation issues in particular; 

- series of groups with specialized interests, canvassed at critical 

points in the overall process; 

General Public - 3 widely-advertised presentations were made over the course 

of the study, oriented to the public-at-large. 

The Adams County Office of Planning and Development directed the Plan preparation 

effort, with a five-fii team as technical consultants. Norman Day Associates (NDA), a 

planning and urban design firm based in Philadelphia, led the consultant team in the Plan 

effort. The other team members were: Orth-Rodgers and Associates, Transportation 

Planners; Coughlin, Keene and Associates, Planning and Policy Analysis; John Milner 

Associates, Architects, Archaeologists, Planners; and R. E. Wright Associates, Earth 

Resources Consultants. 

With the new Plan placing more than the usual emphasis on transportation improvements, 

owing to the critical nature of circulation problems in the county, an "Enhanced 

Transportation Component" was funded, in part, by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation, the staff of which worked closely with the County and the consultant team. 

--., 

Other prominent issues addressed in the Plan included agricultural resources planning, 

historic resources planning, and infrastructure systems planning. Experts in these fields on 

the consultant team brought special perspectives to the planning work. 

The first phase of the Plan preparation was primarily devoted to background data collection 

and the documentation of change in the county. Tasks within this phase included reviewing 

earlier planning documents and data, creating the base maps of the county for the study, an 

inventory of natural and cultural features and development limitations, documentation and 

projections of demographics and development activity, land use surveys, traffic counts, 

historical sumeys, surveys of agricultural activities, documentation of water and sewer 

facilities, and documentation of physical change. 

Phase B incorporated a number of different activities, all building upon the Inventov of 

Existinp Conditions in Phase A and leading towards the Preliminarv Goals and Exploration 

of Alternative Futures of Phases C and D. In Phase B projections were made of county 

population, housing units, and employment. These projections were then converted into 

potential demand for new housing units by type and to land area requirements for new 

development. This investigation provided some "ball-park estimates of required areas for 

new residential, commercial, and industrial uses over the next ten to twenty years, and 

1-5

allowed participants in the comprehensive planning process in the next phases to concentrate 

on potential locations, types, and intensities of new development. 

Within Phase B, one possible way for development to occur was explored. Although this 

type of investigation was the main thrust of activity in Phase D, Emloration of Alternative 

Futures, one alternative, which envisioned a continuation of current development trends for 

another twenty years, was outlined in Phase B. This Trend or "Base Case" alternative was 

examined to determine the traffic implications of such a scenario: What would traffic 

conditions be like at key intersections and in key road corridors across the county if 

development continued as it had been and no intersection and roadway corridor 

improvements were undertaken The results of this investigation proved sigmfkant for the 

setting of several goals and objectives of the Plan and the kinds of different directions 

explored in the Alternative5 phase. 

Phase C began with the submission of an elaborated statement of goals about the county's 

future to the ClTAC/TR4C group. An extremely important part of the planning process, 

the EXD - loration of Alternative Futures (Phase D), began with the sketching of maps 

illustrating different ways in which new development could occur over the next twenty years. 

Along with the Trend alternative presented in Phase B, these alternative views of the future 

all relied upon projections of housing units and employment made earlier. These first-round 

alternatives explored the following themes: 

I 

i 

D , 

1 

0 Trend - continuation of current development trends for another 20 years. 

0 Borough-Centered - most future development takes place in and around existing 

boroughs. 

0 New Starts - creation of several new settlements of 1,000-2,000 people each. 

e 

Country Living - most new housing units are dispersed widely across the countryside. 

0 Country Clusters - widely-distributed clusters of 10-20 housing units. 

0 Village Clusters - widely-distributed clusters of 100-150 housing units. 

e 

Single Urban Core - most future development is focused on the Gettysburg area. 

0 Legacies Preserved - development is directed away from scenic areas, the Fruitbelt, 

the National Military Park, etc. 

Eight maps displaying the themes were prepared, along with a table that outlined the 

characteristics of each theme and permitted comparisons to be made by members of 

CITAC/TRAC among the alternative development themes. 

1-6 

1 

11

In the second round of Exploration of Alternative Futures, selected themes from the first 

round were combined and refined to yield new alternatives. These were displayed in map 

form and in "fact sheets", outlining the numbers and characteristics of new housing units and 

new jobs, along with land development controls and water and sewer improvements that 

would be needed to carry out each alternative. 

Discussions concerning these alternatives by CITAC/TRAC revealed a desire to see a 

substantial portion of new development occur in conjunction with existing boroughs (Le.: 

Borough-Centered), while recognizing that some development will occur beyond the 

immediate surroundings of the boroughs. Detrimental effects of scattered development 

could be controlled, it was felt, through the creation of a few new centers (New Starts) and 

by encouraging residential clustering (Country Clusters, Village Clusters), all within a 

general framework of conservation (Legacies Preserved). 

Phase E saw the sketching of a development framework for the future growth of the county, 

based upon the preferences of CITACITRAC members in the Alternatives phase. With 

confirmation of this direction provided by the second Public Information Meeting, the actual 

preparation of the Comprehensive Plan document was begun in Phase F. This work was 

prepared as preliminary drafts, reviewed by various bodies and organizations, and revised 

to final draft form. 

Phase G encompassed the period of public reviews and hearings on the final draft of the 

Plan. Revisions were made based on those reviews and hearings and a camera-ready 

original of the Plan was prepared for printing and public distribution. 

L 

m 

b 

1-7

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 

L 

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

L 

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze existing conditions in Adams County. In 

particular, this chapter seeks to develop a clear understanding of the county’s physical, 

demographic, social, and economic conditions, based on current circumstances and historical 

development. This analysis is intended to enable the County, local governments, and county 

residents to identify potential problems, to determine future needs, and to develop necessary 

policies and strategies to respond more effectively to future growth. 

The material in Chapter Two is based on a series of background studies produced during 

the planning process. The chapter consists of nine sections in addition to this introduction: 

Existing Land Use; Pattern of Change; Natural. Resources; Historic and Landscape 

Resources; Agricultural Resources; Population, Housing, and Employment; Circulation; 

Community Facilities; and Infrastructure and Environmental Systems. 

The Land Use section provides a description of existing land use patterns and their 

implications for future development. The Pattern of Change section provides an analysis of 

recent development activity in the county. The Natural Resources section provides a 

summary of environmental factors which are capable of affecting the location and intensity 

of future development. Historic and Landscape Resources documents the cultural 

environment into which new development will be inserted. Agricultural Resources examines 

both the characteristics of Adams County farmland and the economy based upon it. The 

Population, Housing, and Employment section reviews selected socio-economic 

characteristics of county residents, employers and employees, and housing development. 

Included are population, housing, and employment projections. The Circulation section 

assesses existing conditions regarding traffic and circulation, while the Community Facilities 

section analyzes all public services and facilities serving Adams County. The Infrastructure 

and Environmental Systems section looks at the provision for water and sewer services, solid 

waste disposal, and public utilities. 

2-1-1

I 

I 

I 

0 

L 

SECTION 2: EXISTING LAND USE 

Using information from the 1980 land use survey of the county by the Adams County Office 

of Planning and Development, recent aerial photography, relevant planning documents, and 

focused field reconnaissance, a generalized full-color map of current land use in the county 

has been constructed (Figure 2.2.1). The inventory included major categories of non-urban 

uses (woodlands, orchards, and open land) as well as the traditional full range of urban land 

uses. 

The purpose of the land use survey is to assess the pattern and intensity of utilization of 

land in Adams County. Based on this assessment, it is possible to evaluate the compatibility 

of existing uses, the extent of land consumption, and to predict the direction that future 

development may be expected to take in light of existing conditions. The survey also makes 

apparent the remaining amount and location of land available for future development. 

Finally, through a comparison with the 1969 land use survey, an identification of changes 

in land use since the first Adams County Comprehensive Plan was completed may be made. 

The basic configuration of land uses in Adams County has its roots in the original settlement 

patterns, with agriculture still the predominant land use activity. Gettysburg, strategically 

located at the junction of several early routes through the region, became the county center 

of commercial activity. A steadily evolving road network gradually made most of Adams 

County accessible, with smaller settlements such as Biglemille and New Oxford developing 

at significant road crossings. The rugged terrain in the western and northwestern parts of 

the county served to discourage development there and, despite the creation of a mat-like 

road grid covering most of the county, access to some mountainous areas remains limited. 

The twentieth-century arrival of the automobile and improved roads began to permit nonfarm 

jobholders to locate residences some distance away from employment centers, and 

after World War II the rural areas began to challenge urban centers as locations of choice 

for residential development. At the same time, the traditional urban cores began to be 

rivaled as business and service centers by commercial development at the edges of towns. 

These trends led to strip residential development along rural roads and strip commercial 

activity along major highways. 

Most areas of Adams County are nonurbanized, consisting of lands under cultivation, open 

fields, orchards, woodlands, surface water bodies, and wetlands. Agricultural land 

interspersed with small wooded areas prevails over much of the county. Orchards are 

widespread in the foothills north of Fairfield and extensive woodlands cover the mountains. 

Surface waters and wetlands are mainly confined to stream valleys. 

Urban land uses are concentrated in the boroughs and along major roads. Residential uses 

predominate, comprising the major land use in the boroughs and villages as well as along 

roadways. Within the boroughs a mix of housing types and densities exists, including single- 

2-2- 1

family detached dwellings, semi-detached (twin) homes, duplexes, i;owhouses and some 

apartment buildings. Boroughs tend to exhibit a mixed-use character at their hubs, with 

close intermingling of residential, shopping, and employment facilities. Outside the 

incorporated places, dwelling units are almost exclusively of the single-family detached type, 

either conventional or mobile home units. Development densities are low in the outlying 

areas, with the exception of occasional subdivisions and mobile home parks. 

Recently, large-scale (100 units or more) residential developments lhave emerged on the 

landscape. These are especially evident in eastern Adams County, bordering McSherrystown 

and New Oxford. 

The second-home ventures of the 1960s and 1970s (Lake Heritage, Lake Meade, and 

Charnita) have made a significant impact on the landscape of Adam! County. Apart from 

their flooding of stream valleys to create artificial lakes (in the case of Lake Heritage and 

Lake Meade), these developments have also evolved into relatively dense agglomerations 

of housing units, now mostly occupied as year-round permanent residences. 

Commercial activity predominates at the cores of the major incorporated places, alongside 

major highways which serve these boroughs, and frequently between built-up areas on US 

Route 30 and on PA Route 34 north of Gettysburg. 

Industrial land uses are generally close to the urban places, but more remote locations are 

also found. Planned business parks and large industrial districts are rare - except for a small 

industrial park at Cross Keys and development in Conewago Township’s zoned districts, 

major manufacturing establishments tend to be dispersed. Government and institutional 

uses exhibit a similar pattern, with a concentration of these uses in Gettysburg. Individual 

school and church sites are scattered throughout the county. 

Expansion of the broiler industry over the last two decades has spawned growth in poultryrelated 

structures on Adams County farmsteads, particularly in the eastern half of the 

county. Food processing plants are significant uses in and near the orchards area. 

a. 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

2-2-2

SECTION 3: PA"ERN OF CHANGE 

The record of subdivision and land development reviews by the Adams County Office of 

Planning and Development, along with Census data on housing units, county residential 

building permit data, and field reconnaissance have provided information on recent 

development in Adams County. 

Since 1980, the Office of Planning and Development has reviewed and the County has 

recorded plans for subdivisions of five-or-more units totalling 3200 housing units, of which 

2800 (87 percent) were single-family detached units (Table 2.3.1). This contrasts with the 

1980-1990 residential building permit data (Table 2.33, that show permits issued for 5,863 

new units over a similar period, of which 4,258 (73 percent) were for single-family detached 

Units. 

A discrepancy between these two sets of data concerns the much larger number of building 

pennits issued for new units when compared to total number of housing units reviewed and 

recorded by the County, and the much higher percentage of single-family detached units 

reviewed and recorded when compared to the percentage of permits issued for that housing 

type. 

Two phenomena appear to be at work here. The first is the large number of lots approved 

for subdivision during the late 1960s and through the 1970s but not built upon during those 

decades. Prominent among the developments with large numbers of approved-but-unbuilt 

lots by 1980 were Charnita-Carroll Valley (4000-or-so lots), Lake Heritage (about 1000 lots), 

and Lake Meade (nearly 1500 lots). During the 1980s, the Office of Planning and 

Development apparently reviewed and the County apparently recorded no significant new 

residential developments in Carroll Valley (Table 2.3. l), but municipal building permits for 

over 350 new residential units were issued over the decade and, according to U.S. Census 

figures, 225 housing units were added to the borough over the period (Table 2.3.3). 

Many building permits were issued in the 198Os, then, for lots probably approved for 

subdivision in the 1960s and 1970s and, overall, fewer units to be created by subdivision and 

land development were reviewed and recorded in the 1980s than were built during the 

decade. 

A second phenomenon may be the tendency for developers nominally pursuing single-family 

detached housing, as opposed to other forms of housing, to seek subdivision approval when 

unit construction is not imminent, or when a specialized form of single-family detached unit, 

the free-standing mobile home unit, is actually contemplated. Single-family detached 

housing comprises 87 percent of the total units in recorded subdivision plans of five-or-more 

units approved during the 198Os, but only 73 percent of all building permits issued for new 

construction were for single-family detached housing. By way of contrast, single-family 

attached housing units involve six percent of the total units in recorded subdivision plans of 

2-3-1

five-or-more units approved during the decade, and six percent of all building permits issued 

for new construction (Table 2.3.1 and Table 2.3.2). Perhaps significantly, the total number 

of building permits issued for mobile home units, when combined with the total number of 

building permits issued for single-family detached homes, comprise a share of the building 

permits issued for all new housing units that approximates the 87’ percent of total units 

recorded by the County that were nominally for single-family detached units. 

I 

3 

sa 

d 

Both the County-recorded (Table 23.1) and U.S. Census (Table: 2.3.3) data generally 

support the trends observed in the analysis of population growth in Section 7 of this chapter. 

Municipalities with the highest number of new housing units recorded by the County, such 

as Conewago, Cumberland, Oxford, and Reading, were the leading, townships in terms of 

total number of persons added during the decade (Table 2.7.1 and Figure 2.7.2). The 

highest percent changes in total housing units from 1980 to 1990 were achieved by Oxford, 

Latimore, Conewago, and Reading Townships, and Carroll Valley ‘Borough (Table 2.3.3), 

replicating the trends exhibited in percent population change (Table 2.7.2 and Figures 2.7.3 

and 2.7.5) over the same period. 

The growth-area shift observed in Section 2 of this chapter and in the analysis of population 

trends (Section 7) from the Gettysburg area in the 1970s to eastern and northeastern areas 

of the county in the 1980s is supported by municipal housing unit growth rates, which show 

a decline in housing unit growth rates for Cumberland Township (fiom 51 percent in the 

1970s to 23 percent in the 1980s), Straban Township (38 to 19 percent), Mount Joy 

Township (54 to 20 percent), and Mount Pleasant Township (104 to 26 percent) from one 

decade to the next (Table 2.33). Total housing units in those four townships combined rose 

by 1,854 between 1970 and 1980, but by only 1,139 units from 1980 to 1990. In contrast, 

Conewago and Oxford Townships alone combined for a net gain of 1,033 housing units over 

the most recent decade (Table 2.3.3 and Figure 2.3.1). 

The Development. 1980-199Q map (Figure 2.3.1) shows that while the largest-sized 

residential developments were occurring in the eastern portions of the county, around 

Gettysburg, and at Lake Meade and Carroll Valley, the distribution of small-sized 

developments was widely dispersed, reflecting relatively low land prices, good accessibility, 

and few land-use constraints across much of the county. The effects of this development are 

outlined further in Section 5, Historic and La ndscaD - e Resources, Section 6, Awiculturd 

Resources, and Section 8, Circulation, in this chapter. 

Commercial development in the 1980s was focused on US Route 30 between Gettysburg and 

US Route 15, and off US Route 15 at Shriver’s Comers. Although already established as 

a commercial strip by 1980, activity on US Route 30 east of Gettysburg became intensified 

during the decade. This major commercial strip has produced heightened concerns locally 

with respect to its aesthetic qualities generally, and its role as a gateway to historic 

Gettysburg in particular. 

Industrial development was limited over the period under study, and confined largely to the 

2-3-2

county-line area alongside Hanover. 

The inventory and mapping of PendinP and ProDosed De velopment (Table 2.3.4 and Figure 

2.3.2) reveals that trends of the late 1970s and 1980s appear to be continuing. While most 

of the county is highly-accessible, the central-east and eastern portions have the best 

accessibility (Figure 2.3.3) and are continuing to attract the larger residential developments. 

Other factors, such as influences beyond the county borders (see Chapter l), and questions 

of water and sewer availability (see Section 10 of this chapter) also continue to affect the 

pattern of change in Adam County. 

2-3-3

I 

I 

Table 23.1 

Units and Lots in Recorded 

Subdivision Plans of 5-ormore 

Lots, by Municipality, 

2 980- 90 

II 

I 

I 

I 

I 

County Totals ~800 108 98 130 94 20 

Legend: SFD Single-Family Detached 

SFA - Single-Family Attached 

MF - Multi-Family 

MHP - Mobile Home Park 

Comm- Commercial 

Ind. - Industrial 

2-3-4 

I

Table 23.2 

Housing Inventory and 

Building Permits Issued 

by Structure Type, 

1970-1 990 

Housing Unit Inventory 

Housine Permits 

April 1970 April 1980 1980-1985 1986-195" 1980-1990 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Number Number Percent 

Single family 

detached houses 

14,083 t 

75.8 t 17,770 

12.5 1,566 

2,692 

4,258 

72.6 

Single family 

attached houses 

925 

3.8 67 

239 

306 

5.2 

Two family buildings 

1,893 

7.7 '20 

36 

56 

1.0 

Three and four 

family buildings 

3,226 t 17.4 t 

938 

3.8 91 

102 

193 

3.3 

Five or more 

family buildings 

Mobile homes 

830t 

1,219 

4.5 t 1,750 

5.0 69 

- 7.1 

- 

349 

169 

463 

238 

812 

4.1 

- 13.8 

Totals 18,571b 

100.0 24,495 

100.0 2,162 

3,701 

5,863 

300.0 

ources Adams County ONice of Planning and Development, Residential Building Permit Data U S Bureau olthe Census, Decennial Censuses of Population 

The 1990 data cover the JanualyJuly period only. 

rhis total includes 432 seasonal housing units of unknown structural type. Most seasonal units occur in single family detached S~NC~UE-S.

I 

Table 2.33 

Housing Totals and Percent 

Change in Adam County 

Municipalities, 1970-1990 

Adam County 

Boroughs 

Numher of Housing Units 

- 1970 1980 1990 

1%sll 

- 

24495 

-. 

30,141 

Percent Chaw 

1970-1980 

3 1.9 

""""e 

23.0 1 

Abbottstomr 

Arendtsvilk 

Bcmkrsviu+ 

BigJewilk 

Bonneawilk 

Carroll Valley 

Eost Berlin 

FaMekl 

WtYhrg 

Littkstown 

McSherrystcm 

New Oxford 

York Springs 

Borough Tocak 

Townshim 

Bedk 

Butkr 

concl*pgo 

Cumberland 

Frpnkli 

Fmdom 

GermSny 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

HigJlhad 

Huntington 

Latimom 

Menalkn 

Mount Joy 

Mount Pleasant 

M o d 

-ing 

StRbsn 

%Q= 

Union 

Township To& 

182 

216 

194 

346 

207 

a 

383 

191 

2392 

1,094 

770 

473 

165 

4613 

391 

SSI 

969 

1,093 

1,111 

214 

376 

357 

611 

210 

455 

350 

461 

693 

563 

566 

468 

648 

1,W 

384 

433 

11,958 

215 

233 

219 

432 

320 

417 

430 

234 

2433 

1J11 

981 

639 

200 

41M 

519 

755 

1,085 

1,652 

19542 

251 

527 

546 

668 

260 

538 

485 

267 

883 

869 

1,157 

683 

1,010 

su 

663 

14331 

230 

305 

221 

420 

447 

642 

487 

226 

27812 

1,265 

1,136 

662 

219 

9,072 

668 

9 18 

1,657 

2,034 

1409 

276 

681 

632 

756 

301 

727 

792 

338 

1,195 

1,039 

lpaj 

1,144 

1,495 

1,727 

617 

780 

21,049 

181 

7.9 

129 

24.9 

s.6 

u3 

225 

10.1 

10.7 

27.4 

35.1 

21.2 

23.5 

32.7 

35.5 

U.0 

51.1 

38.8 

173 

40.2 

52.9 

93 

23.8 

182 

38.6 

(-) 42.1 

27.4 

51.4 

104.4 

45.9 

55.9 

38.0 

36.7 

53.1 

36.6 

7.0 

3a9 

(-2 45 1 

15.8 

21.6 1 

527 

E: I 

10.0 

293 

15.6 

130 

1s - 

35.. 

19.6 

MA 

z q 

19.4 

175 

Soum 

NO& 

US Bureau of the Census, Decennial Censuses of Population. 

The estimated 1990 housing inventory for the Lake Heritage area is 502 units while the Lake 

Meade area has approximately 569 units. These areas had about 275 housing units each in1 

.cPmll Valley was not incorporated in 1970. The Adam County Ofice of Planning and Development 

estimates that there were 175 housing units in the area now encompassed by Carroll Valley. 

1 

I

I 

Table 2.3.4 

Adam County Pending and 

Proposed Development by 

Municipality, Jmuaty,l991 

I 

Boroughs 

I Units 

Lots 

'-1 

'. 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

e 

L 

I 

I Boroughs Totals I 1,006 I 204 I 119 

I 89 

Townships TotaIs 

County Totals 

1,927 

5933 

408 

612 

94 

23.3 

466 

555 

Legend: SFD Single-Family Detached 

SFA - Single-Family Attached 

MF* - Multi-Family, including nursing home units 

MHP - Mobile Home Park 

Comm- Commercial 

Ind. - Industrial 

2-3-7 

TH 

I

I 

I SECTION 4: NATURAL RESOURCES 

As part of the examination of existing conditions in Adams County, an inventory of various 

environmental factors was made. These factors are critical components in any consideration 

of future (alternatives for growth and development. 

Some of these factors may impose constraints on development, while others may suggest 

opportunities for development. It is possible for an environmental factor to represent both 

an opportunity and a constraint. 

Inventory maps have been prepared which delineate these resources, including the following: 

0 Terrain 

0 Floodplains 

0 Wetlands 

0 Woodlands 

0 Prime Agricultural Land (see Section 6) 

These interrelated, interpretive maps permit the identification of areas within the county 

requiring preservation, areas requiring conservation, and areas available for development. 

Areas requiring preservation include streams, floodplains, public parklands and protected 

areas, and other lands generally undevelopable due to physical characteristics or statutory 

regulations. Areas in need of conservation would include fragile environmental areas such 

as wetlands and areas of steep slope or subject to erosion, woodlands, farmlands, historic 

sites, and scenic features. These represent areas to be protected or conserved due to their 

environmentally- and economically-sensitive nature and to the importance of these valuable 

resources to the county. 

' 

For areas not requiring special efforts towards preservation or conservation there remain 

factors which make lands more or less suitable for development, based on the availability 

of water and sewer service, soil capacity, existing roads, and other relevant factors. 

A synthesis of these natural features was made and mapped, reflecting the relative suitability 

for future: development of all undeveloped portions of Adams County. 

2-4- 1

Terrain (Figure 2.4.1) 

Most of the county is rolling lowland underlain by non-resistant shales and sandstones. The 

western part of the county rises to an elevation of 1,800 to 2,200 feet above sea level in the 

South Mountain area, or 1,300 to 1,600 feet above the lowlands. Thle lowlands are a plain 

dissected by numerous streams. These lowlands form a part of the Piedmont physiographic 

province referred to as the Gettysburg Plain. On the eastern edge of the county, a part of 

the Pigeon Hills rise above the lowland to an elevation of 1,021 feet above sea level. Bench 

mark elevations at Gettysburg are approximately 526 feet above sea level while at 

Littlestown and McSherrystown, bench mark elevations are 635.0 antl 571.0 feet above sea 

level respectively. 

Hydrology (Figure 2.4.2) 

Adams County is located in two major watersheds tributary to Chesapeake Bay. The 

northeastern half of the county drains to the Susquehanna River and the southwestern half 

drains to the Potomac River. The drainage divide extends from the western tip of Menallen 

Township generally south and then east across Franklin and south'ern Butler Township, 

passing just south of Arendtsville. In Straban Township, the divide turns toward the 

southeast, crossing Mount Pleasant Township east of Bonneauville and. Union Township east 

of Littlestown. 

Conewago Creek, the largest stream in Adams County, drains nearly all of the land area 

within the Susquehanna River watershed. Two major tributaries are: the South Branch of 

Conewago Creek and Bermudian Creek. Tributaries of the Monocacy River in Maryland 

drain most of the area within the Potomac River watershed, including Toms Creek, Middle 

Creek, Marsh Creek, Rock Creek, and several smaller streams. 

These drainage patterns are significant in the analysis of stormwater runoff as well as in 

planning for sanitary and stomwater sewer extensions. Other hydrologic characteristics 

contribute strongly to delineating areas that are available for development and those that 

constrain development. Of major concern are flood prone zones adjacent to bodies of water 

and wetlands. 

Development in floodplains is hazardous to life and property, nut only on proposed 

development sites but in existing developed areas downstream which may be subjected to 

unexpected changes in stream channel location or in flood heights antl velocities. The 100- 

Year Floodplain areas in Adams County have been identified by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) under the National Flood Insurance Program. The most 

extensive floodplains occur in lowland areas, where stream gradients are less and the valleys 

are wider than in the mountains. Floodplains in the headwaters of the Conewago Creek are 

relatively narrow, but widen considerably in the course of the creek's meandering across the 

2-4-2 

I 

I 

0 

d 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

county. Along the South Branch of Conewago Creek near McSherrystown, for example, the 

floodplain is of si@icant width. 

Surface water area in the county is not extensive - the only lakes are the man-made Lake 

Meade and Lake Heritage - but the total area and widespread pattern of stream courses and 

their related floodplains are noteworthy. (Another man-made water body in the area is 

Chambersburg Reservoir in Franklin County.) 

I 

I 

I 

a 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

b 

I 

Wetlands are among our most valuable resource areas because they control flooding, 

improve water quality, and support a wide variety of animal and plant species. Wetlands 

are characterized generally by a high water table, poor drainage, and some degree of surface 

ponding diuring the year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has delineated wetlands in 

Adams County under the National Wetlands Inventory Project. These wetlands include 

surface wa.ter bodies, most floodplains, and other small areas. 

Adams County is dotted with hundreds of farm ponds which, according to the National 

Wetland Inventory, qualify as wetlands. 

Most hydric soils also qualify as wetlands. A hydric soil is one that in its undrained 

condition is flooded, ponded, or saturated long enough during the growing season to develop 

anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. 

According to the Adams County Soil Survey, the following soil series have major hydric 

components: Bowmansville, Croton, Dunning, Guthrie, Lamington, Melvin, Rohrersville, 

Watchung,, Wehadkee, and Worsham. Hydric soils covered 49,457 acres (14.7 percent) of 

the county when the Soil Survey was published in 1967. 

Mineral Resources 

Pre-Cambrian metamorphosed basalt and rhyolite of unknown thickness form the center of 

South Mountain. Flanking them on the west, the basal Cambrian quartzites and sandstones, 

2,000 or more feet thick, are responsible for the highest parts of the mountain. Overlying 

them is an unknown thickness of Tomstown dolomite in the northwest comer and possibly 

1,000 feet of Conestoga limestone in the southeast comer. The rest of the county is 

underlain by Triassic rocks, chiefly red, 23,000 feet thick, consisting of shales, sandstones, 

conglomerates, fanglomerates, and metamorphosed shale, and intruded by diabase or trap 

rock. 

The Triassic diabase has furnished building stone, crushed stone for concrete, and dressed 

stone (Gettysburg Granite). It is very abundant and both fine and coarse-grained. Baked 

shale adjoining the trap rock is used for road material. The triassic brown sandstones have 

been used extensively for buildings and for a few bridges. Residual clay from the limestone 

and some of the Triassic shales have been worked for brick and tile, especially the area 

southeast of New Oxford. 

2-4-3

Limestone and dolomite are quarried extensively for flux and lime near Bittinger; the 

limestones in general are suitable for road material, concrete, and rough building stone. 

The high-grade lime produced is used for finishing wall plaster and in paper manufacture. 

Roofing granules are made in the southwest comer of the county from metalbasalt 

(greenstone). 

I 

I 

Brown iron ore occurs at the contact of quartzites and overlying limestone in the northwest 

and southeast comers of the county and at the foot of the Pigeon Hills. Some of the large 

deposits of high-grade ore were mined extensively in the previous century. Although some 

workable deposits of brown iron ore may remain, they are believed to be so sporadic that 

they have little value at present. Magnetic iron ore occurs between diabase and limy 

conglomerate near Cashtown and Idaville in beds about two feet thick, and was mined for 

many years in the middle of the nineteenth century. 

Quartz veins are more plentiful in the extreme northwestern part of the county than 

elsewhere and they have been quarried there for silica used in crockery and tile 

manufacture. Quartz was formerly quarried one mile north of Cashtown. The large veins 

near Wenksville, Idaville, and Gardners offer possibilities for production of abrasive 

material or silica, if the iron content is too high for use in crockery. 

Sand and gravel occur in floodplains and on benches along many of the streams, especially 

those within and issuing from South Mountain. They are dug only for local use. Quartz 

sand derived from the weathering of Cambrian Quartzite in South Mountain, if in 

commercial quantity, might deserve attention. 

Soils (Figure 2.4.3) 

Soils information is a vital component of any natural resource evaluation because soil 

characteristics indicate the inherent suitability of an area for development, agriculture, or 

other land uses. The principal source of soils data for Adams County is the Soil Survev of 

7 

(U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967). 

Generalized soils mapping is available in the form of soil associations. A soil association 

is a landscape that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils. It normally consists of one 

or more major soils and at least one minor soil, and it is named for the major soil series. 

Eleven soil associations representing 41 soil series occur in Adams County., The Edgemont- 

Highfield and Highfield-Myersville-Catoctin associations are dominated by ridges and are 

stony. The Arendtsville-Highfield association is gravelly, while the Perm-Readington-Croton 

associations are shaly. The Montalto-Mount Lucas-Watchung association is more rolling 

than the Penn-Lansdale-Abbottstown association and has soils that are less acidic. 

Moderately deep, gently sloping to moderately steep soils predominate in the Lehigh- 

Brecknock association. 

2-4-4 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

I 

I 

b 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

The major soils in the Conestoga-Wiltshire-Lawrence association are much like the soils in 

the Athol- Wiltshire-Readington association, but farming is more intensive in the latter 

group. Finally, the Glenelg-Manor-GlenviIle association consists of shallow to moderately 

deep soils on gently sloping to moderately steep slopes. 

The potentials and limitations of the various soil series and individual soils within these 

associations with respect to land development are presented in Section 10 of this chapter. 

Woodlands (Figure 2.2.1) 

Most of the forested area of Adams County is found in association with South Mountain. 

The original forest was partly evergreen, white and yellow pine, hemlock and fir, and partly 

hardwood oak, chestnut, and hickory. Most trees were cut between 1806 and 1890 for 

charcoal. 'The land has been burned over many times by forest fires and slowly restocked 

with new growth, chiefly common jack pine, other softwoods, and some hardwoods. 

Since 1902, a large part of South Mountain has been made a State Forest. The Michaux 

State Forest is being artificially restocked with commercially-valuable trees. Fire guards 

watch from towers on Big Flat, Piney Mountain, and Staley Knob in Adams County. 

Small areas of woodlands are found along the numerous streams and on farms in the lower 

elevations. The wooded hills in this part of the county have a growth of hardwood, chiefly 

oaks, interspersed with maple, birch, and dogwoods. Cedar and locust are grown for posts 

for farm fences. 

Wildlife arid Plants 

Adams County has very few, if any, bear, but deer are abundant in the South Mountain. 

At times the deer constitute a nuisance to farms bordering the State Forest and to other 

protected areas, such as the National Military Park. Deer-related traffic accidents are 

common in the county. Other game include rabbits, squirrels, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, 

and woodcock. The State Game Commission has introduced the ring-necked pheasant. 

The Fish Commission reports native fish in Adam County as bass, brook trout, catfish, 

sunfish, suckers, shiners, pike, perch, and eels. The principal streams - Little and Big 

Conewago Creek, Little and Big Marsh Creek, Toms Creek and Bermudian Creek - have 

been stocked by the Fish Commission with black bass, sunfish, catfish, pike, perch, and 

brook trout. Fishing is reported to be good both in the mountains and in the lowlands. 

According to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, except 

for occasional transient species, no federally-listed or -proposed threatened or endangered 

species arc: known to exist in the county. Several animal and plant species on state 

2-4-5

threatened or endangered lists have been observed in the county at (dates varying from the 

1920s through 1990. More recent sightings have been mapped in an extremely general way 

by the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (Figure 2.4.4). 

Composite Constraints 

The preceding natural resource information was combined and synthesized to illustrate the 

relative level of development constraints affecting various areas of Adams County (Figure 

2.4.5). These features, including: 

0 Floodplains; 

0 Wetlands; 

e Mountainous & Hilly Terrain; 

0 Woodlands; 

0 Prime Farmland (see Section 6 and Figure 2.6.1); and 

0 Orchards (see Section 6 and Figure 2.6.1); 

represent environmentally-sensitive natural and scenic resources as well as potential 

constraints for future development. 

Floodplains and wetlands are generally precluded from development due to the flood risk 

and the substantial and still-evolving regulatory framework that contrck the degree and type 

of disturbance permitted in these areas. Floodplains and wetlands qualify as being Very 

Severe constraints for development. 

Steeply-sloped areas pose Severe constraints for most development, while woodlands, prime 

farmland, and orchards represent Moderate constraints for development. The balance of 

the county has only Slight development limitations. 

The composite pattern illustrates the prominent but controlled form of floodplains through 

most of the county, the dominance of the South Mountain tenairi on the western and 

northwestern parts of the county, and the dense combinations of the series of features 

constituting moderate constraints for development in the foothill and orchard areas abutting 

the mountains. The rest of the county exhibits a very rough mosaic of moderatelyconstrained 

areas and areas with only slight constraints. This rather blotchy pattern reflects 

to a large degree the similar mottled effect of county lands designated as Prime Farmland 

by the United States Department of Agriculture (see also Figure 2.6.1). 

Suitability for Development 

Other features influencing relative suitability of land for development have been combined 

with the Composite Constraints information. Areas may be further constrained for 

2-4-6 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

development on account of poor soil suitability for on-site septic tank systems (see Figure 

2.10.3), or the presence of such man-made factors as historic resources (see Figure 2.5.4) ' 

or property designations under the Pennsylvania Agricultural Security Law (see Figure 

2.6.3). Areas may be considered more suitable for deveIopment in consideration of their 

relative advantages in accessibility (see Figure 23.3), and locational proximity to central 

sewage treatment facilities and central water service systems (see Figure 2.10.2 and Figure 

2.10.3). 

These additional factors have been synthesized with the Composite Constraints designations 

to yield a Suitability for Development map for Adams County (Figure 2.4.6), indicating 

areas with Good suitability for development, Fair suitability, Limited suitability, and Very 

Limited suitability. Areas already developed or under public ownership are excluded from 

consideration. 

Areas with good and fair suitability are extensive, comprising 200 square miles or more of 

Adams County's 526 square miles. A broad band of well-suited territory extends 

southeastward from Gettysburg to the county line and northeasterly towards East Berlin. 

A second band of well-suited land begins just southwest of Gettysburg and extends in a 

northeasterly direction through the center of the county. The western and northwestern third 

of the county is less well-suited for development. 

As of 1990, about 40 square miles of Adams County was developed; thus the availability of 

some 200 square miles of Good and Fair lands for development constitutes a more-thangenerous 

allocation for future growth. Although the Suitability for Development analysis 

has identified areas less suited for development (and therefore potentially in need of 

protection from development) and areas better suited in a general way, the analysis cannot 

be relied upon exclusively to dictate where the expected amount of growth should occur. 

Other variables and other issues need to be considered to be able to set a more precise 

framework for future development. 

247 

-

SECTION 5: HISTORIC AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCES 

I. LandscaDe Character and Scenic Resources 

Adams County has a rich, pastoral landscape, much of which remains unspoiled by urban, 

suburban, or industrial development. While the characteristics of this landscape vary 

between geographic areas within the county, creating an interesting variety, there is no large 

portion that can be described as "unscenic." Only small concentrations of unsympathetic 

development currently impinge upon it. Figure 25.1, Landscape Character and Scenic 

Resources, shows the various geographic areas of which the Adam County landscape is 

comprised. The purpose of this section is to paint a broad-brush picture of these different 

areas and to identify some of the elements which make them distinctive. 

A most basic difference among these geographic areas is their underlying geology. The 

various geologic formations and their weathering over time have created the landforms and 

drainage patterns with which we are familiar today. The landforms, the drainage patterns, 

the soils developed from the geologic formations, and the other natural resources 

characteristic of each geographic area have played a large part in shaping the settlement and 

use of the land by man. Land use, in turn, has given shape to the rural Adams County 

landscape by establishing its spatial patterns, divisions, and degrees of accessibility, as well 

as by influencing the vegetative growth, which is constantly changing. In seeking to preserve 

the pastoral landscape of Adams County, it will be important to identify fully those elements 

that contribute to the landscape's character, and to create policies and processes that 

preserve and reinforce those elements as the county continues to grow and develop. 

The Gettysburg Plain 

The broadest characteristic landscape area in Adams County is known as the Gettysburg 

Plain. Underlaid by a geology of relatively soft Triassic sandstones and shales and infused 

with intrusions of hard diabase, it is a low landscape of rolling hills. The Gettysburg Plain 

is drained by four major creeks, all of which have their headwaters in Adams County, 

creating an upland vegetative environment with numerous small creeks, springs, and small 

patches of wetlands. The courses of the smaller creeks and streams tend to follow the grain 

of the rock. While it is a topography of rolling hills, the areas of diabase create small, 

distinctive hillocks, or round tops, as well as distinctive ridges. Many of the rolling hills in 

the central portion of the county present dramatic views toward South Mountain to the west. 

In the nineteenth century, the Gettysburg Plain was a landscape of reasonably prosperous 

farms. It remains evenly divided, with a network of major and minor roads enclosing 

irregular areas of approximately one-half to one and one-half square miles. Small historic 

villages dot the landscape at intervals of approximately four to six miles. Gettysburg, with 

its distinctive radiating network of primary roads, is situated at the center of the Plain in the 

2-5-1

south-central portion of the county. 

The Gettysburg Plain is a landscape of open country, though not so open now as it was in 

the nineteenth century. Historic photos show a characteristic nineteenth-century agricultural 

landscape with relatively few trees and a patchwork of planted fields. Today, the fields are 

larger and there are far fewer of them. Crops are planted in alternating contour strips 

rather than in rectangular patterns. Large areas of the countryside are no longer devoted 

to crops, but appear to be pasturelands. Most notable and visually scenic of these is the 

Lower Marsh Creek area. 

Throughout the Gettysburg Plain, woodlands have developed on the round tops, along low 

ridgelines, and along creeks. Hedgerows, with shrub, understory, and canopy vegetation, 

have developed along roadways, property lines, and between fields, giving a characteristic 

spatial framework to the otherwise open, rolling landscape. Many former farm fields have 

ceased to be used for agriculture and have developed into old fields and young woodlands. 

Other contributing features of the Plain include the Gettysburg National Military Park, 

Eisenhower National Historic Site, and the state gamelands. The Park, to be discussed 

elsewhere in this report, is of great importance to the county. Its legislated mission is to 

preserve the mid-nineteenth century landscape which is central to the character of the 

Gettysburg Plain. 

US Route 15 slices through the landscape and, in Adams County, is a beautiful, rural drive. 

It should be kept in mind that the landscape as seen from this highway is often a visitor’s 

first impression of Adams County. In part because of the importance of tourism to the 

county’s economy, visitor approaches require special planning consideration. Concern about 

development along US Route 15 has led to the creation of County-based interchange zoning, 

and while is it recognized that development will take place along portions of county 

roadways, it is important to the future of the county that this development be carried out 

in a manner that is sympathetic to the scenic character of the landscape. 

South Mountain and the Buchanan Valley 

South Mountain is the northern extension of the Blue Ridge Mountains into Pennsylvania. 

Rising approximately twelve hundred feet above the Gettysburg Plain along the western 

border of the county, South Mountain comprises somewhat less than one fourth of the land 

area of the county (including the Buchanan Valley). South Mountain is comprised of a 

series of tightly squeezed northeast/southwest trending ridges and knobs of Cambrian 

quartzite and Pre-Cambrian rock, often with flat tops and cut by deep, lateral valley 

corridors or gaps. 

The South Mountain area has been an important source of natural resources. In pre-historic 

times (Le., before European settlement) the Snaggy Ridge area was‘ a major regional source 

- 

2-5-2

of rhyolite, a hard, workable stone highly valued for tools and points. During the late 

eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the mountains were a source of iron ore, creating 

a number of interesting stories and historically significant sites, but little of commercial 

significance. In the nineteenth century, the mountains were also important for their supply 

of trees for lumber. Numerous sawmills lined the creeks between the ridges. Ridgetops 

were criss-crossed with lumber roads and were well cut-over, with large areas of shrub 

growth in various states of successional development and with heavy erosion of the valley 

walls. Today, though portions of the mountains continue to be harvested, most of South 

Mountain is protected as state forest. 

South Mountain has always been a barrier to western movement. The two primary valley 

corridors, or gaps, are the Cashtown Gap (formerly Black’s Gap), which is traversed by 

Route 30, and Nicholson’s Gap, traversed by Route 16 at the southwest corner of the 

county. These gaps create powerful landscapes with steep valley walls and notable scenic 

qualities. Smaller gaps to the north give access to the Buchanan Valley from the Fruitbelt. 

The most dramatic of these is the Narrows, north of Arendtsville, where the Conewago 

Creek penetrates into the Gettysburg Plain from the valley. 

Other distinctive landscapes in the South Mountain area include the stream valley 

communities extending westward into the mountains from Virginia Mills and Iron Springs. 

Small in scale, these narrow corridors are lined with interesting and well-kept residences, 

creating a strong and hospitable community character. A number of historic resources are 

found here. In several areas of the mountains, small communities, unrelated to the stream 

valleys, have developed, creating open pockets in an otherwise heavily wooded domain. 

The Buchanan Valley is a broad area of steeply rolling hills between opposing ridges. Two 

miles wide and twelve miles long in Adams County, the valley is comprised of mixed farm 

fields, orchards, and woodlands with occasional vistas at hilltops. Because of its orchards, 

the Buchanan Valley is also considered a significant part of the Fruitbelt. Scattered 

residences dot the hillsides of the Valley, but there are only two or three small community 

groupings. The entire valley, however, is a scenic entity and gives a strong sense of rural 

community. 

The Fruitbelt 

The Fruitbelt is Adams County’s most unified and homogeneous landscape. It is located 

in an area of increasingly steep foothills of pebbly sandstone marking the transition between 

the Gettysburg Plain and the high ridges along the southeast side of the South Mountain. 

The Fruitbelt’s steeply rolling carpet of carefully-organized fruit trees has a strong visual 

appeal and, aside from being economically important and vibrant agriculturally, is a 

significant scenic and tourist attraction for the county. 

The heart of the Fruitbelt is the Arendtsville/Biglersville/Bendersville area, known locally 

2-5-3

as the Northern Fruitbelt. It extends northward along the foothills to the border of the 

county above York Springs. The Southern Fruitbelt is centered around Orrtanna and 

extends south on the lower mountain slopes on the western fringe of the Fairfield Valley. 

As mentioned previously, the Buchanan Valley also has orchards and is considered a part 

of the Fruitbelt. Smaller areas of orchards are located in central valleys of the county 

mountain landscape. 

Several interesting historic villages occur within the Fruitbelt, which differ in character from 

other villages in the Gettysburg Plain. Perhaps most representative and best-kept is 

Arendtsville Borough. Its modest, attractive residences, with their small yards amidst a 

background of green orchards, present an idyllic vision of an American agricultural 

community. 

The Fairfield Valley 

The Fairfield Valley is an area bordered on the west by South Mountain and on the east 

by a series of wooded hills comprised of diabase and dividing the valley from the Gettysburg 

Plain. The northern portion of the valley is underlaid by limestone, making it agriculturally 

rich. This portion is an area of original settlement in Adams County and was historically 

known as Carroll's Delight. 

A mile-and-a-half-wide and two-miles long, and ringed with steep, wooded slopes, the valley 

has the appearance of a singular, distinct entity. The valley floor is open and relatively flat, 

with neat and well-kept farms. The openness is due largely to the character and productivity 

of the limestone soils. As in a typical nineteenth-century landscape, and in contrast with 

much of the Gettysburg Plain, there are few hedgerows, woodlots, and wooded stream 

comdors to fragment the landscape. (In limestone geology, rainwater is easily absorbed into 

the ground and flows through underground channels, resulting in fewer surface streams than 

other geologic types.) There are also fewer pastures, abandoned fields, old fields, and 

woodlands. All areas have been generally made as productive as possible, resulting in fewer 

shade-casting trees and the distinctive open landscape. 

The Littlestown/McSherrystown Valley 

At the southeast corner of Adams County, the Littlestown/McSherrystown "valley" is an area 

of relatively flat topography underlaid by limestone and bordered on the northwest and 

southeast by low ridges of quartzite. This, also, was an area of early settlement in the 

county and was known historically as Digg's Choice. Like the limestone Fairfield Valley, 

the Littlestown/McSherrystown Valley is distinctive in character. Though agriculturally rich, 

it is known primarily for its horse farms, with broad, flat, gently sloping pastures defined by 

a framework of well-maintained wooden fences. It is a prosperous area with few visual 

intrusions. Because there are fewer crops grown, there are more hedgerows and woodlands 

I 

a 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

8 

2-5-4

than in the Fairfield Valley, and thus this southeastern area has a significantly different 

scenic character. 

The limestone-associated areas north of McSherrystown are heavily quarried. Pigeon Hill, 

which forms a distinctive, wooded ridge as viewed from Route 30 and Route 94, is a part 

of a quartzite formation. 

11, Historic Resources 

Adams County is rich in existing historic resources. Over the past two-and-one-half 

centuries, since its initial European settlement in the 173Os, Adam County has experienced 

change as a gradual development and evolution of existing institutions, economic conditions, 

and way of life. As a consequence, the historic character of the county's landscape has 

remained strong. From the standpoint of historical significance, Adams County is 

predominantly a nineteenth-century agricultural landscape. By far, the predominant historic 

resource type is the nineteenth-century farmstead. Other historic resource types - mills, 

schoolhouses, churches, blacksmith shops, etc. - tend to be related to the peak development 

of the late-nineteenth-century farm economy in the region. 

In general, the historic integrity of these resources and this landscape remains strong. The 

physical condition of individual resources, however, varies widely. While some historic 

residential and farm-related buildings, for instance, are well-maintained, a number have 

been unsympathetically renovated at the expense of their historic integrity. Many other 

historically-significant farmsteads within the county are rundown, but retain their historic 

integrity. Historic buildings which have been in continuous use, such as churches, have 

generally been well-maintained and tend to be in the best overall condition. Building types 

that are no longer an active part of county life, such as the blacksmith shops, early schools, 

and mills, have either changed use or have faced neglect and have tended to disappear. 

In general, historic resources in Adams County are under-appreciated and taken for granted 

by the population and by local government. While a few outstanding historic resources are 

well-recognized and featured within the county, there is little recognition of the significance 

of the large number of "ordinary" historic resources to the social and economic history of 

the county and, most important, to the character of the landscape. 

The present challenge is to increase awareness of the importance of these "ordinary" historic 

resources within the county and to develop the policies and procedures to ensure their 

protection. As the county continues to develop, the landscape's strong historic character can 

be recognized as a framework to be preserved, reinforced, and enhanced, so that the 

qualities and resources which give Adams County its personality are not lost. 

2-5-5

Sources of Information 

The most immediately-valuable source of information related to the recognition and 

preservation of historic resources in Adam County is the Historic Sites Survey undertaken 

between 1978 and 1980. The Historic Sites Survey was sponsored by the: Office of Historic 

Preservation in the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission through Historic 

Gettysburg-Adam County, Inc., and was conducted by Preservation Associates, Inc. of 

Sharpesburg, Maryland. Organized on a township-by-township basis, the survey identified 

3,659 potential historic resources. Each resource was numbered and mapped on United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrant sheets. Figure 25.4 shows the locations of 

potential resources identified by the Historic Sites Survey. Basic idormation on each 

resource was compiled on survey "cards," including a photograph, the owner's name, the tax 

lot number, and limited information on building type, materials, estimated date, and 

alterations to the resource. 

The Historic Sites Survey was purely a cursory, visual identification of existing resources. It 

included no historical research. Because of its broad scope, it generated interesting general 

information on types, numbers, and locations of resources. The survey's most important 

value, however, is as base information for the further inventory, review, analysis, and 

classification of resources for preservation efforts at the local, municipal level. Historic Sites 

Survey cards and maps are on file both at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission and at Historic Gettysburg-Adams County. Analysis of the resources by 

building type, date, construction material, location, and other criteria is available through 

the Historical and Museum Cornmission. 

The National Park Service, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, and the 

Borough of Gettysburg have recently completed a project in which information on 150 

buildings previously surveyed in the borough was entered into the new standardized National 

Register computer program. This program is designed for use with personal computer 

systems and will enable individuals to quickly and easily obtain and process a wide variety 

of information related to the buildings included. The project is a model program that is 

expected to be in use nationwide in coming years - data on surveyed buildings in Gettysburg 

will then be accessible to researchers across the country. As it becomes more widely 

available, this program should be utilized for future county surveys. 

The major source for historical information in Adams County is the Adams County 

Historical Society, which has been active for over one hundred years. Iluring this period 

the Historical Society has compiled an impressive amount of high-quality primary historical 

information and has conducted valuable research on a variety of subjects. Under the 

auspices of the Historical Society, a history of Adam County has recently been authored 

by Professor Robert Bloom. This history gives a professional assessme:nt of the county's 

general historical development and includes bibliographical references for further 

information. The history is a much needed improvement over the previous county history 

published in 1886, and will be a valuable general source for many years. 

2-5-6 

- 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I

L 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

The Historical Society is also in possession of a number of historical maps, ranging from the 

1792 Reading Howell map to the 1872 Atlas of Adam County. The maps identify 

important roads in use in the county at the time of their publication and note the names of 

towns and villages. Most of the maps also identify the location of important mills, churches, 

and schools. Perhaps the most significant map is the 1858 Map of Adams County. This 

map, copies of which are available from the Historical Society, is the earliest to show the 

extensive network of roads existing in the county. It shows that, with only minor 

modifications, the county’s road network has changed little from the mid-nineteenth century 

to the present time. The 1858 map also identifies the location of grist mills, sawmills, 

blacksmith shops, schools, churches, and residences, along with the names of owners. The 

importance of the mills and blacksmith shops in particular can be inferred both by their 

presence on the map and by their number. Detailed insets of village plans show the 

locations and shapes of buildings then existing. The 1858 map is the first accurate, detailed 

map of the county, and when compared with the 1872 Atlas (which is even more detailed), 

modern USGS quads, and the Historic Sites Survey, insights into the historical development 

of the county may be gained. Some general information on the historical development of 

Adam County, including early roads, grants, political boundaries, and villages, is shown in 

Figures 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. 

Aside from the maps and other publications available through the Adams County Historical 

Society, the Society’s most important service is as a repository for primary historical data. 

The Society’s present collection is impressive, and the acquisition of additional materials is 

continuing. The collection includes tax records, census information, estate papers, early 

surveys, deeds, road petitions, newspapers, and photographs, among other materials. The 

Society is a primary resource for genealogical information in the region. The collection is 

vital to detailed research regarding historic resources in Adams County. 

One research project of immense interest being undertaken by the Historical Society is the 

study of the original surveys of properties within the Manor of Maske, the Penn family’s 

preserve of approximately sixty-eight square miles within Adam County. The original 

surveys have been plotted and pieced together to create a map of the area. Individual 

properties have been researched. The survey maps have been overlaid upon current aerial 

photographs, showing that lot lines, hedgerows, and woodlots existing today closely follow 

the lines established in the mid-eighteenth century. This research is further evidence that 

the historic framework within Adams County, in this case with regard to property lines and 

landscape features, has maintained its integrity over the past two and one-half centuries. 

There are numerous other subjects that await the research of interested volunteers willing 

to devote time to the Historical Society’s efforts. There is ample material to support such 

research. This work is important to historic preservation activities because it establishes the 

scholarship necessary to support preservation strategies and provides the documentation 

necessary for official designation, such as to the National Register of Historic Places. 

0 

I 

1 

2-5-7

The National Register 

Currently, Adams County has only twenty-four listings on the National Register of Historic 

Places. Three of these listings, however, are for historic districts. The largest and most 

comprehensive district is the Gettysburg Battlefield National Historic District. It includes 

contributing structures within the Borough of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg National Military 

Park, and adjacent areas. Originally established to protect Civil-War-related resources, the 

scope of the district was expanded in the mid-1980s to recognize "Gettys,burg's significance 

as a county seat representative of the architectural and cultural heritage of south central 

Pennsylvania" The expansion is an example of an increased professional and legal 

recognition of the sigdicance of the overall historic fabric existing within the county. 

Though Gettysburg is important as the center and most historically-developed area of the 

county, other portions of the county are equally significant. The othe:r existing historic 

districts in Adam County listed in the National Register are Hunterstown and East Berlin. 

The nomination for East Berlin, completed in 1985, notes that "the district has only a few 

scattered non-contributing elements, nine out of a total of 186 properties." As a drive 

through other historic villages in the county or a look at the Historic Sites Survey 

demonstrates, other villages are also well-qualified as candidates for listing on the National 

Register. 

Individual listings on the National Register include four residences, four churches, six 

bridges, two inns, one quarry, and three institutional or public buildings. While the listings 

are of high quality and are well-deserved, in a county with at least 3,659 potential resources 

identified, and with the strong integrity of the resources throughout the county, there are 

many other historic buildings which could also be listed on the National Register. Of 

particular note is the absence of thematic listings to the National Register in Adams County. 

Evidently, the sole thematic listing is €or historic bridges. There are many historical, 

cultural, and architectural themes upon which nominations could be based. These could 

include prehistoric sites (Snaggy Ridge, etc.), early settlement sites (Manor of Maske, 

Carroll's Delight, Digg's Choice, etc.), ethnic cultural settlement sites, agricultural sites 

(mills, Fruitbelt, rural landscapes), industrial and industrial archeological sites (iron ore, 

tobacco and cigar-making, camage making, canning, brick kilns, etc.), transportation (early 

roads, toll roads, Lincoln Highway, inns, railroad and railroad junction settlements, etc.), 

nineteenth-century farmhouse types, barn types, log houses, schoolhouses, blacksmith shops, 

etc. 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

The types of thematic listings that might be pursued would depend largely upon which 

individuals and entities conduct studies and what kind of financial resources become 

available. One suggestion is to enlist the assistance of the National Park Service staff and 

concentrate initially upon significant, unprotected Civil War sites, such as hospital sites, the 

engagements at Huntersville and Fairfield, significant roadways, and camping sites/staging 

areas. 

2-5-8

1 

I 

t 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1 

a 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

e 

b 

1 

The primary benefit of listing on the National Register is official recognition of the 

significance of a historic site. Listing and eligibility for listing protects a site from the effects 

of any activity involving federal and, often, state funds to the extent that a professional study 

of the impact must be undertaken. Such studies often lead to modifications to the “activity“ 

that lessen its effects upon significant resources and their contexts. When significant 

resources are to be lost by activities involving federal funds, the resources must often be 

fully documented prior to being lost. Resources which are eligible for listing on the 

National Register also receive a measure of protection from the Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission when state permits, such as permits for sewers and septic systems, are 

involved. Listing in and of itself, however, does not automatically protect a historic resource 

or infringe upon any private rights regarding that resource. Protection mav occur Q& when 

federal funds or state permits are involved, and even then actual listing on the National 

Register is secondary because all eligible resources receive such protections. 

Period of Significance 

The historic agricultural landscape of Adams County reached a peak of development in the 

late nineteenth century. The patterns of that landscape are still clearly evident today. As 

noted previously, the county’s basic framework of rural lot lines and property division was 

well-established by the late 1700s. The network of county roads existing today was 

developed between approximately 1740 and 1830, and the pattern of historic villages in 

Adams County emerged during roughly the same period. While some of these villages 

continued to grow and develop well into the twentieth century, the county’s rural population 

did not grow, but remained constant after 1860. 

The built environment of the rural landscape - the farm residences, barns, outbuildings, 

mills, churches, and schools - was also well established by 1860. Eighty to ninety percent 

of the historic resources in the county’s agricultural landscape date from the nineteenth 

century. A comparison of the 1858 map of the county with the 1872 Atlas, for instance, 

does not show a significant increase in the number of building sites. As farming methods 

changed, however, and agricultural productivity increased, earlier farm buildings proved 

inadequate and were expanded, improved, or replaced. 

By the 1890s, changes in the agricultural practices of the nation had begun to overtake the 

county’s ability to adapt and compete. Improvements in transportation established national 

markets for farm produce and created competition between distant farming regions. The 

character of farming changed as agricultural specialization increased, such as in dairy or 

poultry products. In Adams County, these changes brought the rise of fruit farming - an 

important element of the county’s economy today. But they also resulted in the decline of 

general farming and in the decline of the county’s local agricultural interdependence. 

A significant indicator of this decline was the disappearance of local mills. In 1800, there 

were approximately eighty mills listed on tax records. The county map of 1858 shows 

2-5-9

approximately ninety mills, over forty of which were grist mills. The Atlas of 1872 and 

census figures yield similar numbers. But by 1920, only six county flour and grist mills were 

listed in the Pennsylvania Industrial Directory. 

By the late nineteenth century, the built environment and the patterns of development of 

the rural landscape of Adam County were fully-evolved and were representative of a 

particular way of life. Since that time, the way of life has changed, but the patterns of the 

rural landscape and the built environment remain largely intact. It is plossible, therefore, 

to consider the late nineteenth century as a peak period of significance for the rural 

landscape of Adams County. Future change and development should recognize, preserve, 

and build upon the patterns and character 9f this period of significance.. 

Types of Resources 

Residences and Farm Buildings: The largest historic resource type in the county is that of 

residential structures, and most of these residential structures are associated with farms and 

farm buildings. The Historic Sites Survey conducted between 1978 and 1980 includes a 

report giving numerical breakdowns of the resources by township. As an example of the 

importance of residential and farm-related buildings in the county, the Survey records that 

in Straban Township, of the 219 sites inventoried, 206 included residences and 107 included 

barns. Similarly, in Mount Joy Township, of 235 sites inventoried, 193 included residences 

and 108 included barns. In Menallen Township, of 191 sites inventoried, 123 included 

residences and 82 included barns. In Freedom Township, of 73 sites inventoried, 65 

included residences and 41 included barns. The even distribution of these historic resources 

on farms all across the county is evident in Figure 2.5.4. 

I 

4 

a ' 

I~ 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

As has been previously noted, the Historic Sites Survey was a cursory inventory, and only 

the exterior appearance of the existing buildings was reviewed. From this review, however, 

the overwhelmingly nineteenth- century character of the historic resources in Adams County 

is confirmed. Of the total number of residences inventoried, only 3% were estimated to 

date from the settlement period prior to 1800. In contrast, 37% were estimated to date 

from between 1800 and 1860, and 45% were estimated to date from between 1860 and 1900. 

Only 14% of the residences inventoried were believed to date fromlater than 1900. 

1 

Considering, as has been noted, that the county's settlement pattern was well-developed by 

the late eighteenth century, there is a noticeable lack of eighteenth-century structures still 

existing. It is probable that many residences that appear to be of later date incorporate the 

remnants of earlier dwellings. The eighteenth-century residences and barns were not 

adequate to meet the needs of the nineteenth-century farms. Aside from being incorporated 

into newer structures, older buildings Could have been used as ancillary outbuildings, or 

could have been dismantled. It was common for early frame barns to be dismantled and 

the framing members reused in new barns. The fate of eighteenth-century buildings in 

Adams County is an interesting subject for further investigation. 

2-5-10

Many early buildings appear to have been of log construction. The Historic Sites Survey 

notes that as much as 18% of the residences inventoried are believed to be constructed of 

logs. This compares to 12% of the residences inventoried being of stone construction, 26% 

of brick construction, and 44% of wood frame construction. 

The condition of historic residences and farm buildings in the county varies widely. A 

number of these resources are in good condition, particularly those constructed of stone or 

brick, as well as those associated with prosperous modem farms. Some historic residences 

have been restored. There are a large number, however, that are not appreciated for their 

historic character and many of these are suffering from neglect. 

Despite their condition, even the neglected resources have retained their historic integrity. 

Loss of integrity seems more frequently due to ambitious but unsympathetic alterations than 

to poor condition. Consequently, in Adams County there is presently a rich stock of historic 

residences and farm-related resources awaiting rediscovery. 

Historic Villaees: Adams County’s historic villages are among the most important resources 

cited by respondents to the Office of Planning and Development’s recent newspaper survey. 

Eight of the historic villages were founded between 1762 and 1800. The remaining villages 

were founded by the 1830s. Growth and development in the villages has been related to 

the importance of the roads on which they are situated as well as to the nature of the 

economic activity in their vicinity. 

While the population in the farmlands of Adams County remained relatively constant after 

1860, total population in villages increased threefold between 1860 and 1920. Much of this 

growth occurred in Gettysburg, which, aside from being the county seat, is also the center 

of the county’s transportation network. Other villages that continued to grow, though to a 

lesser extent, include Littlestown, McSherrystown, Abbottsville, New Oxford, and 

Arend tsville. 

The historic character and period of significance of individual villages varies according to 

the factors influencing their development. Hunterstown, as a historic district, is an example 

of a small village with a very specific period of significance due to early development and 

limited growth. Gettysburg, on the other hand, as stated in its historic district nomination, 

has a broad period of significance, encompassing the county’s entire history and including 

many nineteenth- and twentieth-century historic resources unique to the region. Most of 

Adam County’s historic villages lie between these two extremes with regard to the specific 

nature and period of their significance. 

The historic villages in Adams County have, by and large, retained their historic character. 

Boroughs such as East Berlin and Fairfield have recognized and enhanced their historic 

character through the efforts of property owners. Villages such as Cashtown and New 

Chester have been bypassed by the major transportation routes and, though a significant 

2-51 1

local recognition of their historic character is not clearly evident, their character and 

integrity remain intact. 

1 

1 

A significant problem that occurs in many of the historic villages centers around the volume 

and speed of through traffic. The small scale and quiet ambience of villages such as 

Heidlersburg and Hampton is often shattered by the traffic, making the primary street less 

supportive for pedestrian life. Hampton has a large center square that has become little 

more than a generous roadway and parking lot. Boroughs such as Littlestown and 

McSherrystown experience similar problems - here, however, the traffic is not simply 

speeding through, but is attracted by the commercial establishments lining the streets. In 

both instances, there appears to be little lo@ interest in recognizing and drawing out the 

strong historic character of the town's faMc. The streetscapes rnay be dominated by 

unsympathetic commercial renovations, utility lines, and the needs of the automobile, to the 

detriment of those of the pedestrian. 

The problems with traffic in Abbottstown and New Oxford are similar but perhaps more 

comprehensible due to their location along US Route 30, the county's major east/west 

transportation link. In Gettysburg, the problem with through traffk on US Route 30 is wellknown 

and continues to be a major planning problem. 

A negative feature of most of the historic villages in Adams County is the lack of canopy 

trees along the streets. While historically the nineteenth-century agricultural landscape is 

known for its openness and lack of trees (note the Amish landscape in Lancaster County 

today), historic photographs show that many of the historic villages were filled with canopy 

trees. As the twentieth century has developed, the situation has reversed. With the decline 

of agriculture, there are far more woods, hedgerows, and trees in the rural landscape. At 

the same time, as the villages have grown, with the need for parking, utilities and signage, 

trees have tended to disappear from village streets. 

Trees soften the urban fabric and create outdoor spaces, giving an added sense of 

proportion to adjacent buildings. Neither Abbottstown nor New Oxford are particularly 

historically "restored boroughs, and they both experience the US Route 30 traffic problem. 

The streetscape of New Oxford, however, is far more sympathetic to human sensibilities 

because of its canopy trees. Photographs s ng Gettysburg in the late nineteenth century 

as compared to the late twentieth centu striking in this regard. 

Churches. Schools. Mills. Inns. and Other Resources: While the predominant historic 

resource types in Adams county are residential and farm-related structures, there are other 

pot.entia1 historic resources which have played an important role in community life, many 

of which have survived to the present. Chief among these are churches, schools, mills, and 

inns. 

Adams County has a strong history of religious life dating back to its earliest settlement 

period. A brief review and summary of the churches and congregations of Adams County 

2-5-12

I 

B 

was prepared in 1981 by Dr. Charles Gladfelter and is available through the Adams County 

Historical Society. The Historic Sites Survey lists thirty-eight churches in Adams County 

that it considers historic resources. Four of these have been listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

Of all of the historic resources in the county, the churches, as a group, tend to be in the best 

overall condition. This is due largely to the fact that, for the most part, they have been 

continuously occupied with the use for which they were intended. Most of the churches 

have been sources of pride in their communities and have been well-maintained. 

Congregations that have outgrown their buildings have abandoned their churches or have 

needed to make extensive alterations. When such alterations are necessary, it is important 

for congregations to recognize the historic significance of their buildings and to retain the 

building's historic integrity. 

Historic school buildings, on the other hand, have experienced the opposite extreme. 

Seventy-eight school buildings were inventoried on the Historic Sites Survey. Approximately 

ninety schoolhouses are indicated on the 1858 map of Adams County. With the rise of the 

modem school systems in the twentieth century, the early schoolhouses were abandoned. 

As is evident from the survey, many of these structures have found adaptive reuses, 

principally as residences, though some have been converted to churches and commercial 

uses. Some early schoolhouses have been lost. 

As has been noted previously, mills played an essential role in the agricultural economy in 

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Grist mills were concentrated along the 

watercourses of the central and eastern portions of the county, while sawmills predominated 

in the western, South Mountain area. Many of the county's early roads were petitioned by 

farmers to provide access to mills and by millers to open markets. The map of 1858 records 

the locations of forty-nine sawmills and forty-one grist mills; a total of ninety mills. The 

Historic Sites Survey inventoried a total of twenty-three mills still existing today. 

While many grist mills have been lost, some have been converted to residential and 

commercial uses. Sawmills tended to be structurally less substantial and, as a result, more 

short-lived than grist mills. Interestingly, however, while the use of grist mills in the 

agricultural economy faded away, some sawmills have survived to the present in their 

historic locations, and are still in use. Examples are the two sawmills at the western end of 

"the Narrows," north of Arendtsville. 

Inns and taverns were an important feature of county life in the eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries. While there appears not to have been any comprehensive study of the 

inns of Adams County, it is clear that a number of former inns have survived to the present. 

Two inns (and one residence earlier used as an inn) have individual listings on the National 

Register. Another is listed on the Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places. Inns have 

been associated with most of the historic villages in Adams County. In addition to being 

included in potential historic districts, inns and taverns could become a thematic subject for 

2-5- 13

listing on a county-wide basis. 

8 

I 

Aside from inns and taverns, resorts and hotels have played an interesting role in the history 

of Adams County. Some of these resorts were related to mineral springs of purported 

medicinal benefit. Others were related to battlefield tourism. Apparently, none of the large 

structures associated with these establishments has survived. Recognition should be given, 

however, to their sites and to the contribution hotels and resorts made to county life. 

Other significant historic resources in Adam County include bridges, cemeteries, railroad 

stations and settlements, kilns, quarries, forges, and roadside commercial structures, among 

others. The stone bridges and viaducts of the "Tapeworm Railroad" in Hamiltonban 

Township are an example of unique structures that warrant protection. Of the eighteen 

bridges that were inventoried on the Historic Sites Survey, six have been listed on the 

National Register. Thirty-one cemeteries were inventoried by the survey. While limited in 

number and often overlooked, these resources record important historical information 

regarding the county's development and are sometimes associated with unique and colorful 

endeavors. 

Roads: The development of roads has been integral to the history 0f Adams County. The 

road network existing today is essentially that which evolved in the late eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries. Roads are therefore among the oldest, longest used, and influential 

historic resources in the county. 

The oldest major roads were established by the petition of local residents to the colonial, 

and later the state, government of Pennsylvania. Copies of many of these petitions, along 

with the bearings and distances of the surveyed roads, have been collected by the Adams 

County Historical Society. Most of the early roads were established between the 1740s and 

1800. Members of the Historical Society have plotted the bearings and distances for early 

roads and found, when superimposed over modem roadmaps, that the courses closely follow 

those of roads today. 

An example of the historical development of an early road is that of the road connecting 

Deardorf's Mill, in the county's northeast comer, to Hanover. The road was originally 

surveyed in 1769 and then resurveyed in 1770 due to compiaints regarding portions of its 

course. Much of the road follows the path of today's Route 94. When superimposed over 

a modem road map, however, it can be seen that the early road is more variable in its 

course than Route 94. Much of this variation is in response to natural features, particularly 

to the avoidance of watercourses, both to minimize the number of stream crossings (there 

were no bridges) and to maximize the length of travel over the dry, level ground of 

ridgelines. At major natural features, such as the ford at the Conewago Creek, there are 

sudden jogs. 

In the early nineteenth century, turnpikes were established by private companies under 

charter from the state. A number of turnpikes were established dong major routes in 

2-5-14

1 

I 

a 

h 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1 

Adams County. Among these was a turnpike between Hanover and Carlisle, which became 

the modern Route 94. Much of the course of this turnpike follows that of the old 

Deardorf's Mill Road. However, unlike the earlier road, the course is straightened and 

improved, with less regard for dry soils and stream crossings. The new turnpike bypassed 

Deardorf's Mill and was run through York Springs. Portions of the bypassed section of the 

old Deardorf's Mill Road still exist today as township roads. In 1807, a stretch of this old 

road became the boundary between Latimore and Huntingdon Townships. Other portions 

of the bypassed road have disappeared from use. 

Another example of a historically-important road in Adam County is the Black's Gap Road. 

Surveyed in 1747, it is the earliest major east-west route across the county. The road's early 

course remains largely intact today, but it too has been bypassed by other, more widelyutilized 

routes. A portion of the Black's Gap Road has been improved as modern Route 

394. Much of the old Black's Gap Road, however, stretching between Hilltown, 

Mummasburg, Hunterstown, and the intersection with US Route 30 west of New Oxford, 

exists today as a series of township roads. 

The Lincoln Highway was the first transcontinental highway in the United States. It was 

established about 1915 and followed much of the present course of US Route 30. Though 

the road itself had existed well before it was designated as part of the Lincoln Highway, this 

designation has given it a unique historical significance. The Lincoln Highway is closely tied 

to the early history of the automobile in the United States. Today, the portion of the 

highway through McKnightstown and Cashtown, and which winds westward up through the 

gap, is largely unchanged in character from that in the early twentieth century. Like other 

historic roadways in Adam County, these examples deserve recognition and protection, not 

only to preserve the roads themselves, but to preserve the historic farms, residences, and 

villages along their courses in the landscape context in which they were originally 

established. 

The Battle of Gettysburg 

The significance of the Battle of Gettysburg to Adams County cannot be underestimated. 

The Battle of Gettysburg is probably the best-known military engagement in American 

history. For over a hundred years, it has focused national and world attention on Adam 

County and has given the word Gettysburg a recognition that is rarely matched. Even in the 

wake of the battle, the reunions, the monuments, the tourism, the trolley, the tower, etc., 

have been the subject of continuous historical study and public debate. 

Because the historical focus in Adams County has so often been concentrated upon the 

battle, an effort has been made here to stress other elements and resources which contribute 

to the county's heritage. In a sense, the battlefield and the adjacent Eisenhower National 

Historic Site are already well-protected, and increased attention needs to be given to these 

other resources. As mentioned previously, however, the mid- to late-nineteenth century can 

2-5-15

e considered the peak "period of significance" of the Adams County rural landscape. The 

legislated mission of the Gettysburg National Military Park is thie preservation of the 

nineteenth-century landscape in which the battle took place. Thus,, in focusing attention 

upon the recognition and preservation of the rural landscape character and of the many 

historic resources within the rural landscape, it is also possible to reinforce and preserve the 

county's most significant resource, the Gettysburg battlefield. Likewise, the preservation of 

the battlefield has led to a recognition of the importance of protecting the rural landscape. 

The two go hand-in-hand. 

It should also be recognized that the battle actually occurred over a much larger area than 

tha.t included within the park. The Historic Resources, 1990 map (Figure 2.5.4), shows roads 

and the general area of encampments that are sigruficant to the battle. Also significant are 

the locations of the engagements at Hunterstown and Fairfield. Recognition and further 

research into battle-related activities on a county-wide basis will increase the public 

awareness for preservation of the rural landscape ana its historic resources. A program to 

make tourists aware of battle-related resources outside of the parlk and to promote the 

county-wide si@icance of the conflict could be of overall economic benefit. 

Gettysburg National Military Park and the Eisenhower National Historic Site are 

fundamentally historic resources, not recreational facilities. A number of pressures have 

been placed upon the parks due to their proximity to the Borough of Gettysburg, including 

use of park roads for through traffic, and use of parking areas by local bikers, joggers, and 

sunbathers. 

The National Park Service completed a Boundary Study for the Gettysburg National Military 

Park in 1988, and significant federal legislation was passed by Congress in 1990, enlarging 

the park in response to the recommendations included in the study. The Park is currently 

engaged in the process of determining the procedures by which the additional lands 

authorized by Congress will be acquired or otherwise protected. The legislation also 

authorizes the Park Service to encourage conservation within the Gettysburg Battlefield 

Historic District, to provide grants and technical assistance within the Historic District to 

programs and activities that will ensure development and use of natural and cultural 

resources in a manner that is consistent with the conservation and maintenance of the 

District's historic character, and to provide technical assistance and reimbursements for 

planning costs to local and county governments within the Historic District to complement 

the values and objectives of the park. The federal government may also accept donations 

of conservation easements on land located within the Historic District. This legislation 

could be of great importance in helping to promote a cooperative effort among the Park 

Service, local governments, and landowners. Chapter 3 includes recommendations based 

upon opportunities created by this legislation. 

2-5-16 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

8 

I 

1 

8

Archeological Resources 

Archeology, and specifically prehistoric archeology, has been largely underrated arid 

overlooked in discussions of the historic resources of Adam County, except by a small 

number of local enthusiasts. A listing of archeological sites is kept in the site sukey files 

at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, where listings for Adam County 

began in 1976. At present, one hundred and eighty-five sites are listed. Only two of these 

listed sites are historic (the Getty Tavern and the Owings Mass House). The remainder are 

prehistoric. Through the early 1980s almost all of the listed sites were reported by amateur 

collectors, including approximately 75% of the total listed sites. Since the mid-l980s, the 

number of sites reported by collectors has dramatically (and inexplicably) decreased. Most 

sites listed since the mid-1980s were professional investigations and reports required by state 

and federal law for activities involving federal funds or state permits. 

Site reports by collectors include a form with the name of the collector, the location of the 

site, and a brief statement on the artifacts found at that location. Sites are also indicated 

on USGS quad sheets. Though the information usually provided in the reports of collectors 

is scant, it provides important data to state archaeologists when reviewing the potential 

impact of state- and federal-related activities on potential archeological resources. 

The most significant prehistoric archeological site in Adam County is Snaggy Ridge in the 

South Mountain area. Snaggy Ridge was an important regional source of rhyolite for points. 

Investigations have identified quarry pits, work areas, and rock shelters. C. E. Schildknecht 

has studied the Strohmeier-Olinger Collection of artifacts collected by Albert Strohmeier 

at the airport site northwest of Gettysburg and reported that 97.3% of the points were of 

rhyolite. 

In general, most archeological sites in the Gettysburg Plain are located along stream 

comdors. Approximately forty sites have been identified along the Conewago Creek. 

Twelve sites are listed along the South Conewago, ten along Plum Creek, eight along Marsh 

Creek, and six along Opposum Creek. Preservation of stream corridors and areas of hydric 

soils as open space could help in the protection of potential archeological sites. 

2-5-17

- 

1 

I 

SECTION 6: 

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

0 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

e 

L 

I 

I. Trends 

The Comprehensive Plan is concerned with both farmland and farming. The land resource 

base must remain available if agriculture is to continue to be a major activity in the county. 

But if agriculture does not continue to be an economically viable activity, it will prove 

impossible to keep land available for it. This inventory, therefore, covers both farmland and 

the farming industry. 

Adams County is an important agricultural county in the center of an important agricultural 

region. Fifty six percent of all the land in Adam County is in farms, according to the 1987 

U. S. Census of Agriculture (Table 2.6.1). This percentage is higher than the average (50.9 

percent) for all six counties surrounding it. Adams’s percent in farms is exceeded only by 

that of Carroll County, Maryland, which has 58 percent of its land in farms. For comparison, 

Adams’s percentage is also exceeded by Lancaster County, the state’s leading agricultural 

county, which has 66 percent of its land in farms. 

During the five years 1982 to 1987, farmland in Adam County declined by 9,600 acres or 

by 4.9 percent. This decline is a matter for concern. It was slightly greater than the average 

for all surrounding counties (a loss of 4.0 percent). Adams’s rate of decline was not as great 

as was experienced by York, Cumberland, and Washington counties, but it was significantly 

higher than that experienced by Frederick County. Lancaster County, a county under much 

greater pressure for urban development than Adams but with a very strong agricultural land 

protection program, had a lower loss rate (a decline of 3.2 percent) than Adams or any of 

the six counties surrounding it. 

When viewed over a longer time period, the loss of farmland in Adam County is more 

impressive (Table 2.6.2). Between 1954 and 1987, the total area in farms declined by 60,000 

acres, or 94 square miles. In 1954, farmland constituted 74.2 percent of the county; by 1987, 

it constituted only 56.1 percent. In 1987, however, Adams County still had 187,000 acres in 

farms, or about 292 square miles. For Pennsylvania as a whole, the rates of decline were 

significantly greater than for Adams County. 

Losses in Adams County farmland were recorded in each census, except for the 1982 census. 

(Apparent gains in 1978 were due in part to a change in definition of a farm). 

Cropland declined more slowly than did all land in farms. Total cropland constituted 76 

percent of all land in farms in 1987, as compared to only 69 percent in 1964 (the earliest 

year for which data on total cropland are available). Table 2.6.3 details trends in cropland, 

pastureland, and woodland in Adams County. Between 1982 and 1987, the percentage of 

farmland in cropland (excluding cropland used for pasture) increased and the percentages 

in pastureland and woodland decreased. 

2-6-1

I 

I 

11. The Land Resource 

Soil Quality 

Adams County is particularly well endowed with good farmland - the most basic resource 

on which farming depends. The Important Farmlands map for Adams County, prepared by 

the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDASCS), shows 

that nearly all of the county has land good enough to be classified in one of the four 

categories of important farmland. Data on prime farmland are also available based on the 

Agricultural Capability Classification of soils. Both systems for classifying the quality of soils 

for agriculture were developed by the Soil Conservation Senrice. 

The Prime and Unique Farmland map (Figure 2.6.1) has been extracted from the 

USDASCS Important Farmlands map. Important Farmlands includes four categories: 

% of Relative 

Acres Countv Value 

Prime Farmland 97,330 29.2 80 

Unique Farmland 

Other Than Prime Farmland 

Additional Farmland 

15,100 4.5 B.a. 

of Statewide Importance 

Additional Farmland 

125,230 37.5 59 

of Local Importance 48,860 14.7 33 

- 

Total 

286,520 86.0 

P r i m e d is defined as land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, 

and oilseed crops, and also available for these uses. (The land could be cropland, 

pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land but not built-up land or water). It 

has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained 

high yields of crops economically when treated and managed, including water 

management, according to modem farming methods. 

The 42 soil types (officially, "mapping units") that are classified as Prime Farmland 

in Adam County consist primarily of soils of Agricultural Capability Classes I and 

2-6-2 

a 

I 

I 

I 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

I 

I 

m 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

II. In addition, five mapping units are rated Capability Class 111. 

Uniaue Farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production 

of specific high-value food and fiber crops. In Adams County it consists primarily of 

land in orchards. 

Additional Land of Statewide Importance is land, in addition to prime and unique 

farmland, that is of statewide importance for agricultural production. Pennsylvania 

has defined this category as consisting of soil mapping units in Capability Classes I1 

and III that do not qualify as prime or unique farmland. 

Additional Farmland of Local Importance is defined by Adams County as land of 

Capability Classes IIIw and IVw. Much of this land has a high water table (as 

indicated by the "w") and is used for pasture or for corn, wheat, or hay. 

The relative values given in the table above are unweighted averages of the ratings assigned 

by the Adams County Farmland Preservation Board to the soil mapping units in each 

Important Farmlands classification. 

The Prime and Unique Farmlands map (Figure 2.6.1) shows that prime farmland is widely 

dispersed throughout much of the county. Commonly it occurs in relatively small areas 

separated from other areas of prime farmland or farmland of statewide or local importance. 

The major concentrations, however, are in the central plain and in the western foothills next 

to unique fannland. There, both prime and unique farmland are used for orchards. 

The second system for classifying soil quality for agriculture, the Agricultural Capability 

rating system, has eight categories: 

Class I. Soils that have few limitations restricting their use. 

Class II. Soils that have some limitations, reducing the choice of plants or requiring 

moderate conservation practices. 

Class El. Soils that have severe limitations that reduce choice of plants or require 

special conservation practices, or both. 

Class N. Soils that have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, 

require very careful management or both. 

Class V. Soils that have little or no erosion hazard but have other limitations, 

impractical to remove, that limit their use to pasture, woodland, or wildlife food and 

cover. (No class V soils have been mapped in Adams County). 

Class VI. Soils that have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to 

2-6-3

cultivation and limit their use largely to grazing, woodland, or wildlife. 

Class VII. Soils that have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to 

cultivation and that restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland, or wildlife. 

Class VIII. Soils and land forms that preclude their use for commercial plant 

production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, water supply, or aesthetic purposes. 

Table 2.6.4 shows, for each municipality, the Capability Classification for land in parcels that 

both are 10 acres or more and have 10 percent or more of their area measured as open land 

(that is, not built on or in forest). The data are from the Adams County Land Valuation 

Study conducted by 21st Century Appraisals, Inc. The parcels described in Table 2.6.4 

constitute a reasonable approximation of land in farms, because in the eastern United States 

land stays open only if it is maintained. With few exceptions, farming is the only use for 

which parcels of 10 acres or more are kept open. Open land may be either tillable or 

untillable, and correspondingly, tends to be either in cropland or in pasture. 

Table 2.6.4 follows a widely used definition of prime soils: that they consist of all soils in 

Capability Classes I- ID. Forty percent of the county as a whole consists of prime land. Over 

50 percent of the land in many townships is in prime land. These townships cover most of 

the eastern part of the county - including the areas under the most pressure for development. 

The township-wide percentages under-represent the extent of prime land in the 

western part of the county, because in a number of western townships, such as Franklin 

Township, extensive mountainous areas with poor soils counter balance significant areas of 

highly fertile land. 

Parcel Size 

In order to be valuable for fanning, land must not only be of good quality but must also be 

in large parcels. Smaller parcels generally indicate separate ownerships, higher per-acre 

prices, and the existence of non-farm uses in the farming area. Table 2.6.5 provides data on 

the size distribution of open land parcels in Adams County by municipality. The parcels 

analyzed are the same as in Table 2.6.4, that is, parcels 10 acres or more in size and at least 

10 percent open. 

Table 2.6.5 also indicates the percent of area in the “open land parcels that is actually open, 

that is, land that is either tillable or non-tillable and not wooded or in use as a homesite. 

For the county as a whole, 79 percent of the “open land was actually open; for boroughs 

it was 84 percent, for townships, 76 percent. 

Table 2.6.5 shows that 54 percent of the county’s open land is in tracts of 100 or more acres; 

74 percent is in tracts of 60 or more acres. In a number of townships, about 60 percent of 

2-6-4 

I 

I 

II 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I

the open land is in tracts of 100 acres or larger, Thus a very large proportion of the county's 

open land is in tracts of sizes most suitable for agricultural use and, unless it is subdivided, 

of relatively little value for other final uses. The dominance of large tract sizes is a resource 

valuable for the continuation of farming. 

111, The Famine Industry 

Farm Sue 

Table 2.6.6 presents data on farm size (as opposed to parcel size). It shows that 65 percent 

of the farmland in the county was in farms that are over 220 acres each and 88 percent was 

in farms that were over 100 acres each. The average size of farm in Adams County was 169 

acres. Of all surrounding counties, only Franklin had a larger average farm size (177 acres). 

Like Table 2.6.5, Table 2.6.6 indicates that farming in Adams County is conducted in 

relatively large units. 

Types of Farming 

Figure 2.6.2 provides a general picture of the dominant types of farms in various parts of 

the county. It is based on information supplied by the County Agricultural Extension Agent 

and other knowledgeable people. Dairy farms are found in most parts of the county. Poultry 

tends to be in the area of Straban, Tyrone, and Reading. Livestock farms, too, are somewhat 

dispersed. Horse farms are primarily in Conewago and Mt. Pleasant. Orchards are generally 

in a belt just to the east of the mountains. 

Table 2.6.7 presents data on the types of farms in Adams County as reported by the U. S. 

Census of Agriculture. The well known orchard farms are a major land use, accounting for 

21,000 acres. The area in orchards is exceeded, however, by the areas reported to be in hay, 

alfalfa, etc. and in corn for grain or seed. 

Characteristics of Farm Operators 

Table 2.6.8 summarizes some characteristics of farm operators that are significant for the 

continuation of fanning. The table refers to farms that had sales of over $10,000. The percent 

of farm operators for whom farming is their principal occupation has generally risen 

since 1974. As of 1987, 79 percent reported that farming was their principal occupation - 

considerably higher than the 65 percent reported by all surrounding counties as a whole 

(Table 2.6.9). 

2-6-5

For Adams County, the number of days worked off the farm has declined since 1974, again 

indicating that farming has been providing a greater proportion of the income of farm 

operators. A smaller percentage of Adams County farm operators spend time working 

off the farm than the average for surrounding counties. But 22 percent work more than 200 

days off the farm, as compared to 17 percent for surrounding counties as a whole. 

The age of farm operators shows a more complex pattern. The trend has been to a larger 

proportion of young farmers, which augurs well for the continuation of agriculture. At the 

same time, however, the percent of farmers at retirement age has increased, at least 

between 1982 and 1987. This indicates that an unusual number of farms may come on the 

market in the next few years, adding to an uncertain outlook for the continuation of farming. 

Adams County does not compare well concerning the age of its farm operators (Table 2.6.9). 

Although the percentage of farm operators 44 years old or younger had increased to 32 

percent by 1987, the average for all surrounding counties was 39 percent. Only York County 

had a smaller percentage of farm operators 44 years old or younger. While in Adams 

County 32 percent of operators are in the young group, in Cumberland and Washington 

counties, 44 percent are, and in Franklin 48 percent are. 

Adams County also has a larger percentage of farm operators at retirement age than any 

of the nearby counties. On average, 14 percent of farm operators in surrounding counties 

are in the 65 years old group, as compared to 19 percent in Adams. In Lancaster County 

only 6 percent are in the retirement age category. If retiring farmers are replaced by young 

farmers in Adams County, the prospects for continuation of the farming economy will 

improve. Alternatively, as farmers retire, farms may close and be sold to non-farm buyers, 

weakening the ability of remaining farms to continue efficiently and economically. 

Economic Structure 

Four-fifths of all farms in Adams County are owned by families or individuals (Table 2.6.10). 

This percentage has been declining since 1978, but is still far ahead of the next largest 

category - partnerships, which accounts for 11 percent of all farms. Corporations account for 

4 percent, and nearly all these corporations are family-held. 

Families or individuals own 81 percent of all farms, but only 69 percent of farm acreage. 

Partnerships and corporations account for larger proportions of acreage than of farms, but 

still, far less acreage than is accounted for by farms owned by families and individuals. 

The magnitude of the agricultural sector in Adams County is indicated in Table 2.6.11, 

which provides data on the value of agricultural products sold. In 1987, sales of agricultural 

products totaled $105,153,000. The trend had been keeping pace with inflation between 1974 

and 1982, but lagged inflation between 1982 and 1987. 

2-6-6 

.I

I 

I Table 2.6.12 indicates that, in 1987, farms with sales of $10,000 or more made up only 53 

percent of all farms in the county, but accounted for 83 percent of the acreage in farms and 

for 98 percent of total sales of agricultural products. These large farms accounted for a 

larger percentage of farms and of farm acreage in 1987 than in 1982. They are the backbone 

of commercial agriculture in the county. But the smaller farms also are important for the 

continuation of agriculture. They help secure the land base and prevent the intrusion of 

non-farm uses, which might lead to severe conflicts with commercial farmers. 

Agricultural Infrastructure 

For farming to continue as an economic enterprise, good soil, large parcels of land, large 

farm units, and young farm operators are all necessary. But in addition, the fanning area 

must be large enough to support the necessary agricultural infrastructure - the providers of 

farm supplies and services necessary to run the farm and market the farm products. Table 

2.6.13 indicates that the agricultural infrastructure of Adam County is extensive. Major 

concentrations of establishments serving the agricultural sector are in Gettysburg and 

Biglersville, with lesser concentrations in Y ork Springs and New Oxford. In addition, many 

agricultural services are available in adjoining counties. 

IV, Farmland Protection PrwamS 

Four important techniques are now being used to protect farmland in the county: differential 

assessment, Agricultural Security Areas, agricultural zoning, and purchase of agricultural 

conservation easements. 

Differential Assessment 

First, many owners of qualified farmland have been granted differential assessment for 

property tax purposes, under Pa. Act 319, the "Clean and Green Act". This program has 

been activated in the county during the past couple of years. Most farmers are expected to 

participate within the next year or two. Under differential assessment, farmland is assessed 

at its value for farm production as opposed to its value for development. The resulting lower 

assessment and tax bill reduce a farmer's annual costs and make it more feasible for him 

to continue farming economically. It does not prevent the owner from developing his land, 

but if the land is developed, tax savings over the previous seven years and interest on those 

savings must be paid. 

2-6-7

Agricultural Security Areas 

Second, many farmland owners have enrolled their land in Agricultural Security Areas. The 

Agricultural Security Areas law prevents municipalities from enacting ordinances that 

restrict no&al farming practices or structures in Agricultural Security Areas. It also requires 

state agencies with programs that might negatively affect farmers to conduct their programs 

in a manner that will encourage the continuance of viable agriculture in the Areas. It 

requires the approval of the Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board of the 

Commonwealth before the Commonwealth or local governments use the power of eminent 

domain to acquire land in an Area. Finally, the law requires that state or locally funded 

development projects in a Security Area be reviewed by the state Agricultural Preserve 

Board and the Local Agricultural Advisory Committee (in Adams County the Adams County 

Farmland Protection Bureau). Inclusion of an area is voluntary and does not prevent the 

landowner from developing his land. 

As of December 1991, 17 townships in Adams County had established 22 Agricultural 

Security Areas. They contained 699 parcels and covered 62,200 acres (Table 2.6.14). 

Agricultural Zoning 

Third, two townships have enacted agricultural zoning that strictly limits the development 

of farmland. Agricultural zoning provides relatively permanent protection of farmland from 

development, but like any zoning, it can be changed. 

Tyrone Township’s agricultural zoning district, adopted in 1979, covers 12,500 acres. 

Latimore Township’s agricultural zoning district, adopted in 1987 covers 11,700 acres. 

Agricultural zoning is common in neighboring York and Lancaster counties. In York County, 

17 municipalities have agricultural zoning ordinances in effect. They cover 159,000 acres. In 

Lancaster County, 35 municipalities have agricultural zoning ordinances, covering a total of 

268,000 acres. 

Agricultural Conservation Easements 

Fourth, Adams County is participating fully in the Pennsylvania Purchase of Agricultural 

Conservation Easements (PACE) program. Easements provide protection of farmland that 

is essentially permanent. They can be reviewed after 25 years, however, and, if both the state 

and the county boards find that the land under easement is no longer viable agricultural 

land, the development rights can be sold to the current owner. In order to be eligible for 

the PACE program, farmland must be located in an Agricultural Security Area. 

Adams County has established an Agricultural Land Preservation Board (the Adams County 

2-6-8 

I 

I 

d 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I

Farmland Protection Bureau) and appropriated $450,000 to match state payments for 

easements to prevent development on farmland. As of December 1991, acquisition of 

easements on 10 farms, totaling 1,505 acres, had been approved by both county and state 

agricultural preservation boards. 

The degree of protection increases as one goes from Agricultural Security Areas, to 

agricultural zoning, and to land under easement. The extent of areas under these techniques 

as of December 1991 is shown in Figure 2.63. 

This inventory indicates that the land base for agriculture in Adams County is extensive, of 

good soil quality, and in large parcel sizes and farm sizes. The agricultural infrastructure is 

extensive. Agricultural enterprise in the county, however, suffers from a relative lack of 

young farmers and more than average numbers of farmers at retiring age. 

Trends in the loss of farmland, though serious, are not extreme as compared with other 

counties. 

Recently, the County has initiated three programs to protect agricultural land: differential 

assessment, Agricultural Security Areas, and the purchase of agricultural conservation 

easements. Two townships, Tyrone and Latimore, have adopted strong agricultural zoning 

ordinances. 

2-6-9

Table 2.6.1 

Land in Farms in Adams and Nearby Counties, 1982 and 1987 

I 

Adams 

Pennsylvania: 

York 

Cumberland 

Franklin 

Total Adj. 

Pa. Cos. 

Maryland: 

Washington 

Frederick 

Carroll 

Total Adj. 

Md. Cos. 

No. of 

FtUlM 

1,199 

1982 

2.303 

1,174 

1,508 

4,985 

962 

1,463 

1.316 

3,741 

No. of 

Acm 

196,644 

299,879 

163,186 

249,400 

712,465 

145983 

244,03 1 

175.507 

565.521 

No. of 

FarmS 

1.104 

2,041 

1.100 

1,441 

4,582 

906 

1,439 

1,238 

3,583 

1987 

No. of 

Ams 

187,035 

278.239 

153,746 

254,428 

686,413 

137529 

236,350 

166.745 

540,624 

I of co. 

56.1 

48.0 

43.9 

51.4 

48.2 

47.2 

55.7 

57.6 

54.9 

change 

1982- 1987 

No. of No. of 

F W 

-95 

-262 

-74 

-67 

-403 

-56 

-24 

-78 

-158 

Acres 

-9609 

-21640 

-9440 

5028 

-26052 

-8454 

-768 1 

-8762 

-24897 

Percent Change 

1982-1987 

No. of No. of 

Farm 

-7.9% 

-11.4% 

-6.3% 

4.4% 

-8.1% 

-5.8% 

-1.6% 

-5.9% 

4.2% 

Acres 

4.9% 

-7.2% 

-5.8% 

2.0% 

-3.7% 

-5.8% 

-3.1% 

-5.0% 

4.4% 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

Totel Adj. 

Counties 

Lancaster 

8,726 

4,991 

1,277,986 

417.296 

8,165 

4.775 

1,227,037 

403,964 

LAND IN FARMS consists primarily of agricultural land used for crop. pasture, or grezing. It also 

includes minor arcas of woodland and wasteland that arc part of the farm optrator's total operations, 

but it does not include large acreages of woodland or wetland. 

Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1987. 

2-6-10 

50.9 

66.3 

-56 1 

-216 

-50949 

-13332 

-6.4% 

4.3% 

4.0% 

-3.2% 

I 

I 

R 

I 

1 

I 

I

I 

Li 

Table 2.6.2 

Area in Farms and in Cropland: Pennsylvania and Adams County, 1954-1987+ 

A. LAND IN FARMS 

Total 

Penna. Adamsco. 

Change sincc 

Previous Census 

Ptnna. Adamsco. 

Change as Percent of 

Previous census 

Pcnna. Adamsco. 

1954 

1959 

1964 

1969 

1974 

1978 * 

1982 

1987 

13,162.093 247.303 

11,861,727 236,931 (1,300,366) (10.372) 

10,803,983 220,805 (1,057,744) (16,126) 

8,900,767 203,575 (1,903,216) (17,230) 

8,186.378 19 1,232 (714,389) (12,343) 

8,543,661 191,909 357,283 677 

8.297.713 196.644 (245.948) 4,735 

7,866,289 187,035 (431,424) (9,6091 

B. TOTAL CROPLAND 

Pcnna. 

Total 

Adameco. 

change since 


Pmha. Adamsco. 

Change as Percent of 

Previous Ccnsus 

Penna. AdamsCo. 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1954 

1959 

1964 

1969 

1974 

1978 

1982 

1987 

1954 

1959 

1964 

1969 

1974 

1978 

1982 

1987 

7.250.246 

6,595,256 

6.042.837 

5.597.790 

5,283,094 

5,687.734 

5,545,787 

5,398.072 

n.a. 

n.a. 

151.943 

145.582 

135.36 1 

140,921 

149,996 

142.275 

C. HARVESTED CROPLAND 

Tatal 

PeMa. Adamsco. 

5,433.49 1 

4,853,664 

4,534,073 

3,687,091 

3.885.384 

4,263,952 

4,363.789 

4,080,153 

+ Notes to this Table occur under Table 2.6.3 

138,541 

125.030 

116,805 

100,504 

108.137 

114.397 

125,218 

115,748 

(552.419) 

(445,047) (6.361) 

(314,696) (10,221) 

404,640 5,560 

(141,947) 9,075 

(147,715) Cr*nl) 

change since 


Paula. Adamsco. 

(579.827) (13.511) 

(319,591) (8.W 

(846.982) (16.301) 

198,293 7,633 

378,568 6,260 

99,837 10,821 

(283,636) (9,470) 

change as Percent of 


Penna. AdamsCo. 

2-6-1 1

Table 2.6.3 

Land Use, Land in Farms, Adams County, 1974-1987 

1974 

Land in Farm 19 1,232 

Total Cropland 135,361 

A. ACRES 

1978 

19 1,909 

140,921 

1982 

196,644 

149,996 

1987 

187,035 

142.575 

1974 

100.0% 

70.8% 

B. PERCENT 

1978 

100.0% 

73.4% 

1982 

100.0% 

76.3% 

I 

e 

1 

1987 B 

100.056 

76.2% I 

Cropland not Pastured 116.178 

Pastureland 

n.a. 

Cropland Pastured 19,183 

Woodland Pasturd 

n.a. 

Other Pastureland 

n.a. 

Woodland not Pastured 

House lots, roads, 

ponds. wasteland, etc 

n.a. 

n.a. 

124.107 

32,386 

16,814 

3.592 

1 1,980 

25,590 

9.826 

132,733 

33,221 

17,263 

3,895 

12,063 

20.114 

10,576 

129.958 

27,252 

12,617 

3,228 

1 1,407 

21.348 

8,477 

60.8% 

n.a. 

10.0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

11.8. 

n.a. 

64.7% 

16.9% 

8.8% 

1.9% 

6.2% 

13.3% 

5.1% 

67.5% 

16.9% 

8.8% 

2.0% 

6.1% 

10.2% 

5.4% 

14.6% I 

6.7% 1 

1.7% 

11.4% 6-1A 1 

4.5% I 

Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1987 (Table 5) and 1978 (Table 1). 

Notes from Table 2.6.2 

LAND IN FARMS consists primarily of agricultural land used for crops, pastun, 

or grazing. It also includes minor arcas of woodland and wasteland that IUC 

part of the farm operator’s total operatione, but it does not indude large 

acreages of woodland or wdand. 

TOTAL CROPLAND consists of all harvested cropland plus any cropland used for pasture 

or grazing, cover crops, cultivated summer fallow, dc. It also includts idle cropland, 

and cropland on which crops failed. 

+Data from the 1978 Census are not strictly comparable with data from earlier Censuses. 

because the 1978 Census had improved coverage of small farms. The Bureau of the Census 

cstimatea that in the Middle Atlantic, the 1974 Census missed 39.6 percent of farms with 

sales of lcss than 52,500. 

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture. 1959. 1969. 1978. and 1987 

2-6-12

I 

L 

Table 2.6.4a 

Open Land by Agricultural Capabilily Classification 

(parcels of 10 arcs or more with 10 percent or more open land) 

A. ACRES 

All 

C h 

Clm I 

classn ClaSsIII 

Sum 141 Class IV 

Class v 

class VI 

Total Land 

Other Arca(acrcs) 

COUNTYTOTAL 

180,512 

809 

65,295 

67,239 

133.344 

31,468 

9.941 

2.217 

3,542 

335,900 

BOROUGHS 

Abbottstown 

Arendtsville 

BendersviUe 

Biglersville 

BonneauviUe 


East Berlin 

Fairfield 

Gettysburg 

Littlestorm 

McSherrystown 

New Oxford 

York Springs 

33 

228 

113 

42 

193 

317 

80 

330 

52 

315 

11 

35 

25 

0 

6 

0 

1 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

15 

118 

46 

3 

50 

115 

50 

112 

0 

133 

9 

6 

0 

10 

72 

30 

24 

109 

145 

15 

162 

52 

73 

2 

24 

25 

24 

196 

76 

28 

159 

270 

65 

274 

52 

209 

11 

30 

25 

9 

29 

32 

14 

30 

20 

13 

41 

0 

n 

0 

3 

0 

0 

3 

5 

0 

4 

22 

2 

0 

0 

12 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

15 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

335 

461 

297 

403 

62 1 

3,488 

43 1 

373 

1.024 

906 

327 

380 

128 

Boroughs Total 

1,773 

20 

656 

742 

1,418 

268 

50 

22 

15 

9,174 

TOWNSHIPS 

Berwick 

Butler 

Conewago 

Cumberland 

Franklin 

Freedom 

Germany 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

Latimore 

Liberty 

Menallen 

Mount Joy 


Oxford 

Reading 

Straban 

Tyrone 

Union 

2,104 

11,200 

4.098 

11,330 

13.186 

5,691 

4,855 

6.590 

5.819 

4,329 

11.003 

8.538 

4,853 

9,904 

12.242 

15,007 

2,881 

12,138 

15.778 

9,264 

7,769 

0 

79 

0 

54 

30 

47 

20 

53 

9 

3 

11 

32 

12 

5 

I15 

24 

8 

102 

65 

42 

79 

713 

3.300 

2.783 

2,605 

4,717 

1,738 

2,098 

3,119 

2.257 

881 

2,740 

3,030 

948 

3,862 

5.293 

6.471 

1,426 

4.765 

4.126 

3.069 

4,698 

789 

4,485 

1.024 

5,612 

4,806 

2.394 

1,337 

2.140 

2,471 

1.784 

4,161 

2,468 

2,335 

3,212 

4,061 

5,458 

811 

3,860 

7,389 

3,905 

1,995 

1.502 

7,864 

3.806 

8.271 

9.553 

4.180 

3.456 

5.312 

4.737 

2.668 

6.912 

5,530 

3,295 

7,079 

9,469 

11,953 

2.246 

8,726 

11,579 

7,016 

6.772 

423 

2,642 

230 

2.045 

2.432 

800 

980 

1,011 

507 

1.108 

2,694 

2,119 

1,027 

1,513 

1,927 

2,627 

563 

1,359 

2.884 

1,755 

554 

122 

547 

45 

584 

805 

276 

277 

1 82 

356 

359 

1.197 

657 

327 

1,056 

59 I 

3 14 

36 

8 19 

686 

400 

254 

57 

109 

0 

128 

26 1 

74 

51 

86 

95 

48 

140 

127 

76 

247 

220 

97 

36 

161 

62 

90 

31 

0 

38 

16 

302 

135 

36 1 

91 

0 

125 

146 

60 

105 

129 

10 

34 

17 

0 

1,073 

567 

2 

158 

5.184 

15,104 

6,784 

21,760 

44,687 

9,088 

6,912 

8.960 

25,574 

7.616 

16,000 

13,975 

10,oso 

27,520 

16.422 

20.130 

6.400 

17.338 

21.976 

13.824 

1 1.392 

Townships Total 

178,580 

789 

64,639 

66,497 

131.926 

31.200 

9.891 

2.195 

3,369 326,726 

2-6-13

~ Bendersville 

Table 2.6.4b 

Open Land by Agricultural Capability Classification 

@arcels of 10 acres or more with 10 percent or more open land) 

B. PERCENT OF ALL LAND IN EACH MUNICIPALITY 

All 

Classes 

Class1 ClassII Class111 

SumI-III ClassIV ClassV Class VI 

Other 

COUNTYTOTAL 

53.7% 

0.2% 19.4% 20.0% 

39.7% 9.4% 

3.0% 

0.7% 

1.1% 

BOROUGHS 

Abbottstown 

Arendtsville 

Biglersville 

BonneauviUe 


East Berlin 

Fairfieid 

Gettysburg 

Littlestown 

McSherrystown 

New Oxford 

York Springs 

9.9% 

49.5% 

38.0% 

10.4% 

31.0% 

9.1% 

18.6% 

88.6% 

5.0% 

34.8% 

3.2% 

9.2% 

19.7% 

0.0% 

1.2% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

4.4% 

25.6% 

15.5% 

0.8% 

8.1% 

3.3% 

11.5% 

30.0% 

0.0% 

14.6% 

2.6% 

1.6% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

15.7% 

10.0% 

5.9% 

17.5% 

4.2% 

3.6% 

43.5% 

5.0% 

8.1% 

0.6% 

6.3% 

19.7% 

7.3% 2.6% 

42.596 6.3% 

25.5% 10.9% 

6.9% 3.5% 

25.5% 4.8% 

7.7% 0.6% 

15.1% 3.1% 

73.5% 11.1% 

5.0% 0.0% 

23.1% 8.5% 

3.2% 0.0% 

7.9% 0.8% 

19.7% 0.0% 

0.0% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

0.0% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.4% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

4.0% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 


19.3% 

0.2% 7.2% 8.1% 

15.5% 2.9% 

0.5% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

TOWNSHIPS 

Berwick 

Butler 

Conewago 

Cumberland 

Franklin 

Freedom 

Germany 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

LatimO~ 

Liberty 

Menallen 

Mount Joy 


Oxford 

Reading 

StrabUl 

Tyrone 

Union 

40.6% 

74.2% 

60.4% 

52.1 % 

29.5% 

62.6% 

70.2% 

73.6% 

22.8% 

56.8% 

68.8% 

61.1% 

48.1% 

36.0% 

74.5% 

74.6% 

45.0% 

70.0% 

71.8% 

67.0% 

68.2% 

0.0% 

0.5 % 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.7% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

13.7% 

21.8% 

41.0% 

12.0% 

10.6% 

19.1% 

30.4% 

34.8% 

8.8% 

11.6% 

17.1% 

21.7% 

9.4% 

14.0% 

32.2% 

32.1% 

22.3% 

27.5% 

18.8% 

22.2% 

41.2% 

15.2% 

29.7% 

15.1 % 

25.8% 

10.8% 

26.3% 

19.4% 

23.9% 

9.7% 

23.4% 

26.0% 

17.7% 

23.2% 

11.7% 

24.7% 

27.1% 

12.7% 

22.3% 

33.6% 

28.2% 

17.5% 

29.0% 8.2% 

52.1% 17.5% 

56.1% 3.4% 

38.0% 9.4% 

21.4% 5.4% 

46.0% 8.8% 

50.0% 14.2% 

59.3% 11.3% 

18.5% 2.0% 

35.0% 14.5% 

43.2% 16.8% 

39.6% 15.2% 

32.7% 10.2% 

25.7% 5.5% 

57.7% 11.7% 

59.4% 13.0% 

35.1% 8.8% 

50.3% 7.8% 

52.7% 13.1% 

50.8% 12.7% 

59.4% 4.9% 

2.4% 

3.6% 

0.7% 

2.7% 

1.8% 

3.0% 

4.0% 

2.0% 

1.4% 

4.7% 

7.5 % 

4.7% 

3.2% 

3.8% 

3.6% 

1.6% 

0.6% 

4.7% 

3.1% 

2.9% 

2.2% 

1.1% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

1 .O% 

0.4% 

0.6% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.9% 

1.3% 

0.5% 

0.6% 

0.9% 

0.3% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.2% 

1.4% 

0.3% 

4.0% 

1.3% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

1.9% 

0.4% 

0.8% 

1.3% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

6.2% 

2.6% 

0.0% 

1.4% 


54.7% 

0.2% 19.8% 20.4% 

40.4% 9.5% 

3.0% 

0.7% 

1.0% 

Source: Analysis by 21st Century Appraisals, Inc. for CKA 

2-6- 14

U 

I 

Table 2.6.5a 

Size Distribution of Parcels Over 10 Acres with 10 Percent or More W n Land 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

COUNTYTOTAL 

BOROUGHS 

AbbOttStOWIl 

Arendtsville 

Bendersville 

Biglerville 

Bonneauville 


East Bcrli 

Fairfield 

Gettytiburg 

Littlestown 

McSherry stown 

New Oxford 

York Springs 


A. ACRES 

Au 

size 

Classes 

23 1,426 

43 

345 

153 

44 

290 

458 

85 

354 

149 

327 

23 

38 

25 

2,333 

10 - 

19.99 

acres 

17,266 

43 

42 

36 

18 

102 

12 

30 

18 

301 

20 - 

29.99 

acra 

I 1,443 

26 

26 

79 

44 

46 

2% 

23 

20 

25 

318 

30 - 

59.99 

acrts 

32.341 

195 

42 

73 

102 

412 

60- 

99.99 

acres 

46,004 

82 

69 

63 

65 

72 

35 1 

I00 - 

149.99 

acrts 

57.580 

117 

100 

249 

259 

228 

952 

150 - 

249.99 

acre8 

42.305 

0 

250- 350a~re~ 

349.99 and 

acre9 

10.846 

0 

Wtr 

13.641 

0 

Percent 

open 

79.0% 

76.1% 

97.1% 

73.9% 

95.5% 

66.4% 

69.2% 

94.3% 

93.4% 

100.0% 

96.3% 

45.8% 

92.3 % 

100.0% 

84.7% 

TOWNSHIPS 

Bemick 

Butler 

Conewago 

Cumberland 

Franklin 

Freedom 

Germany 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

LatimofC 

Liberty 

Meden 

Mount Joy 


Oxford 

Reading 

S&abM 

Tyrone 

Union 

2,630 

13.788 

4,588 

14.392 

19.512 

7,561 

5.408 

7,455 

9.216 

6.282 

14.161 

11.313 

7,129 

16,417 

14.306 

16,927 

3,316 

14.400 

18,951 

12,053 

9,287 

579 

1,015 

147 

1,331 

1,233 

796 

760 

481 

510 

443 

866 

965 

496 

773 

1,429 

1,012 

406 

928 

1.549 

662 

584 

285 

83 1 

I77 

696 

932 

45 1 

334 

42 1 

362 

387 

755 

669 

344 

879 

790 

1,078 

233 

375 

580 

260 

288 

429 

2.184 

300 

1,568 

1,967 

1,047 

1,141 

I, 128 

847 

482 

2,171 

1,880 

1,257 

2.465 

2.590 

2,669 

407 

1.771 

2,724 

1,458 

1,442 

290 

2,939 

747 

2.786 

2,704 

707 

1.231 

2,386 

1,058 

1.335 

3,211 

2.193 

1,260 

3.192 

3.928 

4.845 

1,244 

2,598 

2,848 

2.503 

1.651 

370 

3.457 

1,519 

3.343 

3.653 

1.690 

937 

1,979 

2,464 

1,617 

3,310 

3,401 

1,106 

2.483 

3.483 

3,681 

513 

5.872 

5.117 

3,318 

3.316 

385 

2,096 

676 

2,782 

4,416 

1.700 

1.004 

1,060 

2,455 

1,657 

1,859 

1,916 

1,376 

3.858 

2.087 

2,168 

5 13 

2,604 

4,730 

1,736 

1,227 

293 

867 

546 

573 

1,450 

619 

927 

58 1 

288 

523 

1.354 

269 

252 

1.404 

553 

347 

399 

476 

1.313 

3,156 

552 

595 

361 

1,408 

767 

1,413 

1,206 

1,563 

432 

82.0% 

81.2% 

90.6% 

82.3% 

68.2% 

75.3% 

89.8% 

88.4% 

63.6% 

68.9% 

80.0% 

77.6% 

68.1% 

63.2% 

85.6% 

88.9% 

87.2% 

84.3% 

84.0% 

78.6% 

0.0% 


229,093 

16.965 

11.125 

31,929 

45.654 

56.628 

42.305 

10,846 

13,641 

75.5% 

2-6- 15

Table 2-63 

Size Distribution of Parcels Over 10 Acres with 10 Percent or More Open Land 

B. PERCENT OF ALL OPEN LAND (read ~ 0 ~ 8 ) 

Au 

Size 

Classss 

10 - 

19.99 

acres 

20 - 

29.99 

acrw 

30- 

59.99 

Bcrc8 

60- 

99.99 

acres 

100 - 

149.99 

Bcrts 

150 - 

249.99 

Bcm 

250- 350acm 

349.99 and 

acres over 

COUNTY TOTAL 

100.096 

7.5% 

4.9% 

14.0% 

19.9% 

24.9% 

18.3% 

4.7% 

5.9% 

BOROUGHS 

Abbottstown 

Arendtsville 

Bendcrsville 

Biglersville 

Bonneauville 


East Berlin 

Fairfitid 

Gettysburg 

Littlestown 

McSherrystown 

New Oxford 

York Springs 

100.096 

100.056 

100.096 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.056 

100.0% 

100.046 

100.056 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.096 

12.2% 

23.7% 

40.9% 

0.0% 

22.2% 

14.3% 

8.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

47.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

7.6% 

0.0% 

59.1 % 

27.2% 

9.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

31.2% 

8.6% 

100.056 

52.9% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

56.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

14.6% 

0.0% 

85.7% 

0.0% 

68.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

23.7% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

23.7% 

13.8% 

0.0% 

18.5% 

0.0% 

21.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

76.3% 

0.0% 

34.5% 

54.4% 

0.0% 

73.2% 

0.0% 

69.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Ot0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 


100.0% 

12.9% 

13.6% 

17.7% 

15.0% 

40.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0%' 

TOWNSHIPS 

Bewick 

Butler 

Conewago 

Cumbcrland 

Franklii 

Freedom 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

Latimore 

Liberty 

Menallen 

Mount Joy 


Oxford 

Reading 

swaban 

Tyrone 

Union 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.046 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.096 

100.056 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

22.0% 

7.4% 

3.2% 

9.2% 

6.3% 

10.5% 

14.0% 

6.5% 

5.5% 

7.0% 

6.1% 

8.5% 

7.0% 

4.7% 

10.0% 

6.0% 

12.2% 

6.4% 

8.2% 

5.5% 

6.3% 

10.8% 

6.0% 

3.8% 

4.8% 

4.8% 

6.0% 

6.2% 

5.7% 

3.9% 

6.2% 

5.3% 

5.9% 

4.8% 

5.4% 

5.5% 

6.4% 

7.0% 

2.6% 

3.1% 

2.2% 

3.1% 

16.3% 

15.8% 

6.5 % 

10.9% 

10.1% 

13.8% 

21.1% 

15.1% 

9.2% 

7.7% 

15.3% 

16.6% 

17.6% 

15.0% 

18.1% 

15.8% 

12.3% 

12.3% 

14.4% 

12.1% 

15.5% 

11.0% 

21.3% 

16.3% 

19.4% 

13.9% 

9.3% 

22.8% 

32.0% 

11.5% 

21.2% 

22.7% 

19.4% 

17.7% 

19.4% 

27.5% 

28.6% 

37.5% 

18.0% 

15.0% 

20.8% 

17.8% 

14.1% 

25.1% 

33.1% 

23.2% 

18.7% 

22.4% 

17.3% 

26.5% 

26.7% 

25.7% 

23.4% 

30.1% 

15.5% 

15.1 % 

24.3% 

21.7% 

15.5% 

40.8% 

27.0% 

27.5% 

35.7% 

14.6% 

15.2% 

14.7% 

19.3% 

22.6% 

22.5 % 

18.6% 

14.2% 

26.6% 

26.4% 

13.1% 

16.9% 

19.3% 

23.5% 

14.6% 

12.8% 

15.5% 

18.1% 

25.0% 

14.4% 

13.2% 

11.1% 

6.3% 

11.9% 

4.0% 

7.4% 

8.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

10.1% 

0.0% 

4.1% 

2.5% 

7.3% 

8.2% 

0.0% 

1.6% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

7.4% 

4.6% 

3.7% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

10.4% 

9.1% 

16.2% 

7.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

6.5% 

5.8% 

9.9% 

0.0% 

10.8% 

8.6% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

13.0% 

4.7% 


100.0% 

7.4% 

4.9% 

13.9% 

19.9% 

24.7% 

18.5% 

4.7% 

6.0% 

2-6-16

I 

1 

,- 

Table 2.6% 

Size Distribution of Parcels Over 10 Acres with 10 Percent or More Open Land 

C. CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF ALL OPEN LAND (read across from right to left) 

10 - 20 - 30- 60- 100 - 150 - 250- 350acres 

19.99 29.99 59.99 99.99 149.99 249.99 349.99 and 

acres acres acra acma acres acra acres over 

COUNTY TOTAL 100.0% 

92.5% 

87.6% 

73.6% 

53.7% 

28.9% 

10.6% 

5.9% 

BOROUGHS 

AbboastOWn 

Arendtsville 

Bendersville 

Bigiersville 

Bonneauville 

Carroll valley 

East Berlin 

Fairfield 

Gettysburg 

Littlestown 

McSherrystown 

New Oxford 

York Springs 

100.046 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.056 

100.01 

100.0% 

100.056 

100.0% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

87.8% 

76.3% 

59.1% 

100.0% 

77.8% 

85.7% 

91.6% 

100.096 

100.096 

100.096 

52.9% 

100.016 

0.0% 

80.2% 

76.3% 

0.0% 

72.8% 

68.2% 

85.7% 

91.6% 

68.8% 

91.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

23.7% 

76.3% 

0.0% 

58.3% 

68.2% 

0.0% 

91.6% 

0.0% 

91.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

76.3% 

0.0% 

34.5% 

54.4% 

0.0% 

73.2% 

0.0% 

69.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Boroughs Total 100.0% 

87.1 % 

73.5% 

55.8% 

40.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

i 

8 

I 

1 

I 

I 

m 

TOWNSHIPS 

Benvick 

Butler 

Conewago 

cumberland 

Franklin 

Freedom 

Germany 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

Latimore 

Liberty 

Menallen 

Mount Joy 


Oxford 

Reading 

Strabm 

Tyrone 

Union 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.096 

100.096 

100.0% 

100.056 

100.056 

100.056 

100.046 

100.096 

Townships Total 100.056 

Source: 21st Century Appraisals and CKA. 

78.0% 

92.6% 

96.8% 

90.8% 

93.7% 

89.5% 

86.0% 

93.5% 

94.5% 

93.0% 

93.9% 

91.5% 

93.0% 

95.3% 

90.0% 

94.0% 

87.8% 

93.6% 

91.8% 

94.5% 

93.7% 

92.6% 

67.1% 

86.6% 

92.9% 

85.9% 

88.9% 

83.5% 

79.8% 

87.9% 

90.5% 

86.8% 

88.6% 

85.6% 

88.2% 

89.9% 

84.5% 

87.7% 

80.7% 

9 I .O% 

88.8% 

92.3% 

90.6% 

87.7% 

50.8% 

70.8% 

86.4% 

75.0% 

78.8% 

69.7% 

58.7% 

72.8% 

81.3% 

79.1% 

73.2% 

68.9% 

70.6% 

74.9% 

66.4% 

71.9% 

68.5% 

78.7% 

74.4% 

80.3% 

75.1 % 

73.8% 

39.8% 

49.5% 

70.1 % 

55.7% 

65.0% 

60.3% 

35.9% 

40.8% 

69.9% 

57.9% 

50.5% 

49.5% 

52.9% 

55.5% 

38.9% 

43.3% 

30.9% 

60.6% 

59.4% 

59.5% 

57.3% 

53.9% 

25.8% 

24.4% 

37.0% 

32.4% 

46.2% 

38.0% 

18.6% 

14.2% 

43.1% 

32.1% 

27.2% 

19.5% 

37.4% 

40.4% 

14.6% 

21.5% 

15.5% 

19.8% 

32.4% 

32.0% 

21.6% 

29.2% 

11.1% 

9.2% 

22.3% 

13.1% 

23.6% 

15.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

16.5% 

5.8% 

14.0% 

2.5 % 

18.1% 

16.9% 

0.0% 

8.7% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

7.4% 

17.6% 

8.4% 

10.7% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

10.4% 

9.1% 

16.2% 

7.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

6.5 % 

5.8% 

9.9% 

0.0% 

10.8% 

8.6% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

13.0% 

4.7% 

6.0% 

2-6-17

Table 2.6.6 

Size Distribution of Farms, Adams County, FA, 1982 and 1987 

'! 

4 

A. ACRES 

1982 

1987 

Cumulative Acreage 

AcIei Percmt 

1987 1987 

B. NUMBER OF FARMS 

1982 

-4sc 

1987 '82-'87 

Cumulative Number 

Number Percent 

1987 1987 

1 - 9A. 

10 - 49 A. 

50 - 69 A. 

70 - 99 A. 

257 

8,792 

6,411 

9,514 

309 

7,956 

5,248 

9.525 

187,035 

186,726 

178,770 

173.522 

100.096 

99.8% 

95.6% 

92.85 

68 

334 

110 

115 

1.104 

1,032 

742 

652 

100.0% 

93.5% 

67.2% 

59.1% 

100 - 139 A. 

140 - 179 A. 

180 - 219 A. 

220 - 259 A. 

18,221 

14,906 

14,055 

9,304 

15,059 

15,534 

12.204 

11.744 

163.997 

148,938 

133,404 

121,200 

87.7% 

79.6% 

71.3% 

64.8% 

158 

95 

71 

39 

129 (29) 

98 3 

62 (9) 

49 10 

537 

408 

310 

248 

48.6% 

37.0% 

28.1% 

22.5 46 

260 - 499 A. 

500 - 999 A. 

1.000 -1.999 A. 

2,000 A.or more 

48,155 

33,658 

21,662 

11,709 

46.886 

37.004 

14,695 

10,871 

109,456 

62.570 

25,566 

10.871 

58.5% 

33.5% 

13.7% 

5.8% 

139 

50 

17 

3 

199 

70 

15 

4 

18.0% 

6.3% 

1.4% 

0.4% 

Total 

196,644 

187,035 

1.100 

1.104 4 

Av. Size of Farm 

164 

169 

Note: Based on land in farms. For defmitions, see previous tables. 

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987. Table 5. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

i' 

2-6- 18

8 

m 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

Table 2.6.7 

Tps of Farms, Adams County, 1982 and 1987 

All Harvested Cropland 1,065 

specific crops: 

Hay, alfalfa, etc. 766 

Corn for Grain or Seed 708 

Orchards 200 

Apples 187 

Peaches 123 

Tart Chemes 70 

Wheat for Grain 487 

Corn for Silage or 

Green Chop 229 

Oats for Grain 237 

A. AREAS IN CROPS 

change 

1982 1987 1982- 1987 

No.Farms No. Acres N0.F- No. Ams No.Farms No. Acres 

125,218 993 

34.684 703 

38.065 588 

2 1,435 215 

15,625 202 

3,248 122 

1,472 66 

12.192 444 

8,809 199 

2.732 178 

115,748 

38,067 

26.866 

21,218 

15,598 

3,052 

1.438 

10,68 1 

8,476 

2,182 


1982-1987 

No.Farms No. Acres 

-6.8% 

-8.2% 

-16.9% 

7.5% 

8.0% 

-0.8% 

-5.7% 

-8.8% 

-13.1% 

-24.9% 

-7.6% 

9.8% 

-29.4% 

-1.0% 

-0.2% 

-6.0% 

-2.3% 

-12.4% 

-3.8% 

-20.1 % ' 

D 

8 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1E 

b 

1 

B. INVENTORIES OF ANIMALS 

Change 


1982 1987 1982- 1987 1982- 1987 

No.Farms No.Animals No.Farms No.Animals No.Farm No.Animals No.Farm No.Animals 

Cattle and Calves 689 33,360 553 28,402 (136) (4.958) -19.7% -14.9% 

Milk Cows 

Beef Cows 

183 8,856 133 7,935 (9) (921) -27.3% -10.4% 

313 4,918 258 4,144 (55) (774) -17.6% -15.7% 

Sheep and Lambs 71 3.199 64 2.871 0 (328) -9.9% -10.3% 

Horses 167 1,712 149 1,937 (18) 225 -10.8% 13.1% 

Source: U.S.Census of Agriculture, 1987, Tables 11. 15 and 28. 

2-6- 19

Table 2.6.8 

Characteristics of F m Operators, Fms with Sales of $I 0.OOO or More: 

Adams County, 1974 - 1987 

A. NUMBER 

B. PERCENT 

1974 1978 1982 

1987 

1974 1978 1982 1987 

Principal Occupation* 

Farming 

Other 

T d 

(number of operators) 

586 58 1 462 

277 343 121 

863 924 583 

465 

122 

587 

67.9% 62.9% 79.2% 79.2% 

32.1% 37.1% 20.8% 20.8% 

100.096 100.0% 100.046 100.0% 

No. days worked off farm* 

None 

Any days 

200 days or more 

Total 

327 403 302 

364 485 233 

228 290 116 

691 888 535 

313 

229 

118 

542 

47.3% 45.4% 56.4% 57.7% 

52.7% 54.6% 43.6% 42.3% 

33.0% 32.7% 21.7% 21.8% 

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.046 

Age of Operator* 

44 years or younger 

45 to 64 years 

65 years and older 

222 284 in 

502 504 327 

139 136 79 

863 924 583 

188 

290 

109 

587 

25.7% 30.7% 30.4% 32.0% 

58.2% 54.5% 56.1% 49.4% 

16.1% 14.7% 13.6% 18.6% 

100.046 100.0% 100.096 100.0% 

Average age of operator* 

(average age) 

52.6 50.9 50.9 

51.5 

Data for 1974 and 1978 refer to farms with sal- 

of $2,500 or more. 

Source: U.S.Ccnsus of Agriculture: 1987 (Table 16), 1982 (Table 16). and 1978 (Table 4). 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

8 

I 

2-6-20

Table 2.6.9 

Characteristics of Farm Operators in Adams County and Nearby Counties: 

Farms with Sales of $lO,ooO and Over, 1987 

Principal Occupation 

Farming 

Other 

Total 

A. NUMBER OF OPERATORS 

Adjacent Pa. Counties 

Adnms York Cumberland Franklin Total 

465 

122 

587 

704 522 814 2.040 

232 78 134 444 

936 600 948 2,484 

Adjnccnt Maryland Counties 

Washington Frederick Carroll Total 

507 817 

399 622 

906 1.439 

600 1.924 

638 1.659 

1,238 3,583 

All Adj. 

counties 

3,964 

2.103 

6.067 

kcaster 

3.204 

527 

3,731 

No. Days Worked Off Farm 

None 

Any Days 

Total 

313 

229 

542 

490 

380 

870 

354 

195 

549 

585 

282 

867 

1.429 

857 

2.286 

0 

277 

150 

427 

439 

172 

611 

200 days or more 118 195 75 115 385 68 91 

240 956 

186 508 

426 1,464 

96 255 

2.385 

1,365 

3,750 

640 

1,932 

1,360 

3,292 

476 

Age of Operator 

44 years or younger 

45 to 64 years 

65 and over 

Total 

188 

290 

109 

587 

287 261 459 1,007 

477 261 379 1.117 

172 78 110 360 

936 600 948 2.484 

200 241 

199 400 

60 109 

459 750 

179 620 

27e 877 

68 237 

525 1.734 

1,627 

1.994 

597 

4,218 

2,072 

1,425 

234 

3,731 

B. PERCENT 

Adam York Cumberland Franklin Total 

Principal Occupation 

Farming 79.2% 75.2% 87.0% 85.9% 82.1% 

Other 20.8% 24.8% 13.0% 14.1% 17.9% 

Total 100.0% 100.056 100.0% 100.096 100.0% 

Adjncent Maryland Counties 

Washington Frederick Carroll Total 

All Adj. 

Counties Lnncnster 

56.0% 56.8% 48.5% 53.7% 65.3% 

44.0% 43.2% 51.5% 46.3% 34.7% 

100.056 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

85.9% 

14.1 % 

100.0% 

No. Days Worked Off Farm 

None 57.7% 56.3% 64.5% 67.5% 62.5% 

Any Days 42.3% 43.7% 35.5% 32.5% 37.5% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.096 100.096 

64.996 71.8% 56.3% 65.3% 63.6% 

35.1% 28.2% 43.7% 34.7% 36.4% 

100.046 100.0% 100.096 100.08 100.0% 

58.7% 

41.3% 

100.0% 

200 days or more 21.8% 22.4% 13.7% 13.3% 16.8% 15.9% 14.9% 22.5% 17.4% 17.1% 

14.5% 

Age of Operator 

44 years or younger 32.0% 30.7% 43.5% 48.4% 40.5% 

45 to 64 ytars 49.4% 51.0% 43.5% 40.0% 45.0% 

65 and over 18.6% 18.4% 13.0% 11.6% 14.5% 

Total 100.0% 100.056 100.0% 100.0% 100.056 

43.6% 32.1% 34.1% 35.8% 38.6% 

43.4% 53.3% 53.0% 50.6% 47.3% 

13.1% 14.5% 13.0% 13.7% 14.2% 

100.096 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.096 

55.5% 

38.2% 

6.3% 

100.0% 

Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture. 1987, Table 16. 

2-6-2 1

Table 2.6.10 

Tvpe of Farm Organization, Adams County, 1978 - 1987 

Indiv. or Family 

Partnership 

Corporation 

Fnxnily held 

other 

Other* 

Total 

A. FARMS 

Number of Farms 

1978 1982 

1,040 1.046 

89 106 

35 40 

11.8. 38 

n.a. 2 

2 5 

1,166 1.237 

B. ACREAGE 

Number of Acres 

1987 

929 

121 

50 

47 

3 

4 

1.154 

Perccnt of Farms 

1978 1982 

89.2% 84.6% 

7.6% 8.6% 

3.0% 3.2% 

n.a. 3.1% 

11.8. 0.2% 

0.2% 0.4% 

100.0% 100.046 

Percent of Total Acreage 

1987 

80.5% 

10.5% 

4.3% 

4.1% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

100.0% 

I' 

a 

a 

1 

E 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1978 1982 

1987 

1978 1982 1987 

Indiv. or Family 

Partnership 

Corporation 

Family held 

other 

Other* 

Total** 

143,013 137.467 128,942 

19,507 27.277 27,388 

n.a. n.a. 29,454 

11.8. 11.4. 28.591 

n.a. n.a. 863 

n.a. 513 1,251 

191,909 196.644 187,035 

74.5% 69.9% 68.9% 

10.2% 13.9% 14.6% 

n.a. n.a. 15.7% 

n.a. n.a. 1%3% 

n.a. n.a. 0.5% 

n.a. 0.3% 0.7% 

100.0% 100.0% 100.056 

* Cooperative. estate or trust, institutional, ctc. 

++ Totals refer to total acreage reported in the county, not just the sum 

of the amounts listed above. 

Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1978, Table 4 a d 1987, Table 10. 

Type of Organization is not available for 1974. 

2-6-22

' Table 

2.6.11 

Economic Measures of the Agncultud Sector, Adams County, 1974-1987 

A. CURRENT DOLLARS 

B.INDEX (1978 = 100) 

Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold 

1 Total 548.602,000 

$68.423.000 $100,160,000 $105,153,000 

71 100 146 154 

1974 1978 1982 1987 

1974 1978 1982 1987 

Fruits, nuts, and bemes 

n.a. 

Poultry & poultry products $10.203,000 

Dairy products 

n.a. 

$15,477,000 $21,985,000 $23.689.000 

$19,496,000 $30,368,000 $34,189,000 

$9,489,000 $13,719,000 $12.761,000 

n.a. 100 142 153 

52 100 156 175 

n.a. 100 145 134 

8 Value of Machinery and Equipment 

Total 529,642,000 

I 

Consumer Price Index 

For all Urban Consumers in 

North- States 51.7 

66.2 

71 100 137 134 

95.8 116.0 78 100 145 175 

0 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1978 and 1988, Tables 1 and 2. 

Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1987, Table 778. 

1 

I 

8 

e 

L 

2-6-23

Table 2.6.12 

Comparison of AI1 F ms with Fms Reporting Sales of $1 0, aK) or Over 

1982 

Farms with sales of 

Sl0,ooO or more 

All Farms - Amount % of AU Farms 

Number of Farms 1,199 sa3 48.6% 

Area(acres) 196.644 157.316 80.0% 

Average Suo (ac.) 164 270 164.6% 

Total Sales $100,160.000 $97,911,000 97.8% 

Sales per Farm 383,536 $167,943 201.0% 

Sales per Acre $509 5622 122.2% 

1987 

Farms with sales of 

$lO.OOO or more 

All Farms - Amount 56 of All Farms 

1,104 587 53.2% 

187,035 155,843 83.3% 

169 265 156.8% 

S105,153,ooO $103,422,000 98.4% 

$95,247 $476,187 185.0% 

$562 $664 118.0% 

Acres of Cropland 149.996 122.408 81.6% 142.575 121,094 84.9% 

Sales per acre 

of Cropland $668 5800 119.8% $738 3854 115.85% 

Source: U.S.Census of Agriculture, 1987, Table 16. 

2-6-24

1 Table 2.6.13 

Agricultural Infrastructure (numbers of establishments) 

0 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

B 

8 

1 

NEARBY COUNTlES Yolk sr* 

2-6-25

Table 2.6.14 

Agricultural Secm'ty Areas as Compared with Area in Prime Soils, by Munici'iity 

I 

(as of December 1991) 

TOWNSHIP 

Agricultural Security kcas 

Number of Number of 

ASAS Owners 

Number of 

Parcels 

Number of 

Acres 

Prime Agricultural Land 

Number of ASAas % 

Acres of Prime Land* 

Berwick 

Butler 

Concwago 

Cumberland 

2 

2 

42 

19 

46 

27 

6,576 

2.600 

1,502 

7,864 

3,806 

8.27 1 

0.0% 

83.6% 

0.0% 

31.4% 

Fraakli 

Fredom 

Germany 

Hamilton 

2 

1 

1 

1 

47 

14 

16 

31 

92 

17 

19 

60 

7,783 

1,439 

1,723 

2,705 

9,553 

4,180 

3,456 

5,312 

81.5% 

34.4% 

49.9% 

50.9% 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

LatlmOrC 

1 

1 

2 

31 

26 

16 

34 

50 

31 

5,184 

5,544 

2,507 

4,737 

2.668 

6,912 

5,530 

109.4% 

0.0% 

80.2% 

45.3% 

Liberty 

Menallcn 

Mount Joy 


1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

40 

44 

35 

8 

95 

58 

54 

896 

7,448 

4,130 

5,374 

3,295 

7.079 

9,469 

1 1,953 

27.2% 

105.2% 

43.6% 

45.0% 

Oxford 

Reading 

Straban 

Tyrone 

union 

1 

1 

2 

1 

9 

6 

48 

29 

10 

6 

37 

55 

824 

833 

3.666 

2.982 

2.246 

8,726 

1 1,579 

7,016 

6.772 

36.7% 

9.5% 

31.7% 

0.0% 

44.0% 

Taal 

22 

17 township 

461 

699 

62.214 

131.926 

47.2% 

*Note that farms include non-prime soils as well as prime soils. 

Accordingly, in some townships, ASAS cover more area than prime soils do. 

Sourccs: 

ASA data: Adams County Agricultural Land Preservation Board 

Prime Soid Data: 21st Century Appraisals 

2-6-26

SECTION 7: POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT 

Population projections are an essential part of planning for future growth, in that they can 

be translated into approximations of the future need for housing, community facilities, and 

other forms of development. Many factors are taken into account in making population 

projections but these factors are constantly subject to change. The longer the time period 

of the projections and the smaller the present population, the less reliable the projections 

are likely to turn out to be. For instance, projections for individual counties are less valid 

than those for a large region or for the entire nation, and 15- or 20-year projections usually 

are less valid than five-year projections. 

Population, housing, and emp1.oyment trends and projections are'discussed in this section. 

Data for Adam County and its constituent municipalities are contrasted with regional and 

statewide data where appropriate. The demographic analysis provides a basis for predicting 

future growth and estimating residential and nonresidential land area requirements. 

Population Trends 

Population trends in Adam County were examined for the period 1900-1990, including 

detailed studies since 1950. The total county population stayed close to the 34,500 level 

during the early twentieth century, but by 1930 a growth trend had materialized that would 

continue to the present day (Figure 2.7.1). There were 44,000 residents by 1950 and 57,000 

residents by 1970. Final results from the 1990 census show that the current population has 

reached 78,000 (Table 2.7.1). The highest absolute growth and the largest percentage 

increase in population occurred during the 1970s (Table 2.7.2). 

Adam County has 13 boroughs and 21 townships. Gettysburg, the most populous borough 

and the county seat, has 7,025 residents. Littlestown and McSherrystown are the next largest 

boroughs, but they have fewer than 3,000 persons each. Gettysburg grew steadily from 1900 

to 1960, when 7,960 persons were counted, but then entered a period of slow population 

decline. Five boroughs have lost population since 1980. From 1980 to 1990 the two newest 

boroughs, Carroll Valley and Bonneauville, grew the fastest; Carroll Valley now has 1,457 

residents and is the most rapidly growing municipality in Adams County. 

During the 1980s population growth in Adam County townships was generally greater than 

in its boroughs, with Reading, Oxford, and Conewago Townships each gaining over 1,100, 

persons during the decade, and Cumberland, Latimore, and Mount Pleasant Townships 

adding between 600 and 900 persons apiece (Figure 2.7.2). The highest rate of population 

increase among townships was achieved by Latimore Township, a relatively small township 

based on 1980 populations, which gained 61 percent over the decade from 1980 to 1990 

(Figure 2.7.3). Oxford, Reading, and Conewago Townships all grew by 30 to 50 percent, and 

Huntington Township, a relatively small municipality of 1,557 persons in 1980, grew by 28 

percent through the time period. By contrast to the population changes exhibited in Figure 

2-7-1

2.7.2, Figure 2.7.3 reveals that the relatively populous townships of Cumberland and Mount 

Pleasant grew by more-modest 17 percent rates when compared to the eastern and 

northeastern townships of Latimore, Oxford, Reading, Conewago, and Huntington. 

1 

1 

Figures 2.7.2 and 2.73 and Table 2.7.2 show that although the Gettysburg vicinity continued 

to exhibit healthy population growth in absolute numbers, growth rates declined significantly 

from the previous (1970-1980) decade. In contrast, eastem and northeastern townships such 

as Latimore, Oxford, and Conewago, which experienced relatively modest growth rates in 

the 1970-1980 decade (Conewago Township lost population between 1970 and 1980), had 

much more rapid growth from 1980 to 1990. The growth impetus clearly shifted from the 

Gettysburg-centered area of the county to the eastern tier from one decade to the next. 

With the obvious exception of Carroll Valley, borough population trends generally reinforce 

this growth-area shift. Bonneauville, East Berlin, and Littlestown were the only boroughs 

other than Carroll Valley to experience population growth over 100 persons (Figure 2.7.4). 

Carroll Valley gained over 600 persons through the latest decade, putting the municipality 

in league with the second group of townships (Cumberland, Latimore, and Mount Pleasant) 

in terms of total number of persons added (Figure 2.7.2). The borough ranked first among 

all Adams County municipalities in terms of growth rates (Figures 2.75 and 2.7.3). 

Bonneaufle, located midway between Gettysburg and the eastem-tier townships, grew by 

almost 40 percent, a rate ranking it fifth overall among county municipalities. 

Other significant local growth areas include the unincorporated Lake Heritage and Lake 

Meade areas. Lake Heritage, located southeast of Gettysburg, has a population of about 

1,150, and there are approximately 1,300 residents at Lake Meade in the northeast region. 

Six counties adjoin Adams County, consisting of Cumberland, Franklin, and York Counties 

in Pennsylvania and Carroll, Frederick, and Washington Counties in Maqland. To the 

north of York County lies Dauphin County, which includes the Pennsylvania State Capital 

at Harrisburg. York is the most populous county in the group, but Frederick and Carroll 

are the fastest-growing counties by a wide margin, reflecting the rapid growth in Maryfand 

generally in the 1980s (13.4 percent). (Pennsylvania’s population rose by only 0.1 percent 

over the same decade.) (Table 2.7.1 and Table 2.7.2). 

The population density in Adams County is 149 persons per square mile (Table 2.7.3), a low 

figure when compared to nearby counties, which have population densities ranging from 16 1 

persons per square mile in Franklin County, to 459 persons per square mile in Dauphin 

County. Pennsylvania as a whole has an average density of 264 persons per square mile. 

At the municipal level, McSherrystown and Gettysburg have the highest densities, with 5,538 

and 4,391 persons per square mile respectively (Table 2.7.4). Freedom and Hamiltonban 

Townships each have fewer than 50 persons per square mile. 

2-7-2

' L 

111 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

Age Characteristics 

Age characteristics for Adams County and the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland are 

given in Tables 2.7.5 and 2.7.6. Between 1970 and 1980, Adams County experienced a 

proportional decrease in its population at the 0-14 age levels, an increase at the 15-39 levels, 

a decrease at the 40-54 levels, and an increase at the 55+ age levels. Senior citizen 

representation climbed from 10.1 to 113 percent of the total county population The 

median age of county residents rose accordingly, changing from 27 years to 30 years over 

the decade. Similar trends occurred at the state level, but the median ages are higher. 

Selected age data from the 1990 census were released in June 1991. Between 1980 and 

1990, Adams County had a proportional increase in preschoolers, a decrease at the 5-24 year 

age levels, an increase at the 25-54 levels, a decrease at the 55-64 levels, and an increase 

in the number of senior citizens. The median age of county residents in 1990 was 34 years. 

The increase in the county's median age from 27 years in 1970 to 30 years in 1980 and 34 

years in 1990 reflects general national population-aging trends, in-migration of retirees to 

Adams County from urban centers of the East, and, perhaps, the exodus of young collegeage 

adults from the area alluded to in Chapter One. 

Housing Characteristics 

There were 30,141 housing units in Adams County in 1990, an increase of 5,646 units (23.0 

percent) since 1980 (Table 23.3). By comparison, the county population increase was only 

14.6 percent for the same period. Adams County thus was following regional and national 

trends towards more rapid household formation than population growth, a phenomenon 

that, in itself, can place additional growth pressures on a locale, since even an area with a 

stagnant or declining population may experience significant demand for additional housing 

units. An area with growing population, such as Adams County, can experience 

disproportionately high levels of demand for new housing Units in this scenario. 

The two most populous municipalities have, understandably, the greatest number of housing 

units as well: Gettysburg Borough had 2,812 housing units and Cumberland Township had 

Z034 units in 1990. Biglenrille and Fairfield Boroughs are the only municipalities with 

fewer housing units in 1990 than in 1980; both communities had registered increases 

exceeding 20 percent in the previous decade. 

Adams County had 28,067 occupied housing units in 1990, with 73.3 percent owner 

occupancy and 26.7 percent renter occupancy. Vacant housing units totaled 2,074, including 

937 units for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The homeowner and rental vacancy 

rates are 1.1 percent and 3.8 percent respectively. 

Housing unit data by structural type are given in Table 2.3.2. 

Some 68.9 percent of the 

2-7-3

existing housing units in Adams County in 1990 were single-family detached houses, down 

somewhat from 1980. There were 5,863 residential building permits issued from January 

1980 through July 1990, with 72.6 percent of the new dwellings represented being single 

family detached houses. 

Assisted Housing 

According to the Adams County Housing Authority, some 900 units of assisted housing are 

distributed throughout the county. Most of these units are managed by the Adams County 

Housing Authority and/or the Interfaith Housing Corporation (Table 2.7.7). These two 

organizations operate together with a joint staff. 

A survey was made of neighboring counties in Pennsylvania to try and gauge the adequacy 

of Adams County‘s assisted housing efforts, at least relative to other nearby locales. About 

3.2 percent of all Adam County households live in assisted housing units, compared to 2.9 

percent for Cumberland County, 2.4 percent for York County, and 33 percent for Lancaster 

County. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of these numbers is not their relative 

difference, but the fact that in all these counties the overwhelming majority of households 

(96.7 to 97.6 percent) must try and find affordable housing without formal assistance. (This 

issue is discussed further in Chapter 3, Section 5.) 

Population and Housing Projections 

Alternative population projections for Adam County are explored in Table 2.7.8 and Figure 

2.7.6. All projections (except one) use the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s 1990 county 

population total of 78,274 as a base line figure. 

Alternative 1 is based on a growth rate projected by the Adams County Solid Waste 

Management Plan, adjusted to the Bureau of the Census’s 1990 base line population. A 

growth rate of 16.8 percent is projected from 1990 to 2000 and 14.2 percent from 2000 to 

2010. Total 2010 population is projected at about 104,000 persons, or 26,000 more than as 

of 1990. 

Alternative 2 presumes that growth over the 1990-2010 period will occur at the same rate 

as in the 1980-1990 decade, namely 14.6 percent per decade or 30.2 percent overall. Final 

2010 population is figured as 101,500 persons, for a gain of about 23,000 over 1990. 

Alternative 3 projects population growth at a rate roughly equivalent to the housing 

construction rate for the county, 1980 to 1989. The results here closely resemble those of 

Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 assumes a population growth rate for Adams County equivalent to the average 

2-7-4

‘I 

population growth rate for six adjoining counties (Cumberland, Franklin, York, Carroll, 

Frederick, and Washington) from 1980 to 1990. Overall, the 2010 figures fall midway 

between those of Alternatives 1 and 3 on the one hand, and Alternative 2 on the other. The 

2010 population for Altemative 4 is 102,000, an increase of about 24,000 over 1990. 

Alternative 5 follows growth rates projected for Carroll and Frederick Counties by the 

Maryland Office of Planning. For Adams County, these rates of 24.1 percent from 1990 to 

2000 and 14.6 percent for 2000 to 2010 translate into a total 2010 population of nearly 

11 1,000 persons. 

Alternative 6 resembles Alternative 4 to a degree, but in this case the rapidly-growing 

Maryland counties are omitted. The average growth rates for adjoining Pennsylvania 

counties from 1980 to 1990 are applied to Adams’s base line figure of 78,274, for a 2010 

population of 90,000, an increase of around 12,000 persons over 1990 and 15.8 percent over 

the twenty-year period. 

Alternative 7 follows a trend observed in the relationship of Adams County‘s population to 

Pennsylvania’s over the past four decades. Table 2.7.1 (at the bottom) reveals that the 

county has been taking a 0.1 percent increase per decade (more or less) of the state’s 

population over the period. Assuming a continuation in the state’s nearly flat growth rate 

and a corresponding 0.1 percent increase per decade in Adam County‘s population as a 

percent of Pennsylvania’s, the county’s 2010 population would reach 104,000 persons. This 

number closely resembles Alternative 1’s and Alternative 3’s results. 

Alternative 8 is included in Table 2.7.8, since these figures are the latest (1988) projections 

of population for Adams County by the Pennsylvania State Data Center. Their 1990 

projected county population is too low and their 2000 population of 77,400 is exceeded by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 population figures. 

The population projections from Table 2.7.8 and Figure 2.7.6 show some degree of 

convergence at a 2010 county population of around 100,000-110,000 persons. For the 

purpose of making housing projections, a 2010 population of 104,000 has been used. Table 

2.7.9 shows projected 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 county populations and corresponding 

figures, at the bottom of the table, of new housing units required to accommodate the 

projected population. For an assumed 2010 population of 104,000 and an assumed 

occupancy level of 2.4 persons per household, nearly 15,000 new housing units would be 

required from 1990 to 2010, about 750 units per year. This compares to about 11,800 units 

built in the twenty-year period 1970-1990, about 590 units per year. 

Land Area Requirements for New Residential Development 

A translation of the number of housing units to be constructed over the planning period into 

land area requirements entails making certain assumptions with respect to the kind of 

2-7-5 

L 

I

housing units that would be built. Table 2.7.10, for example, presumes that residential 

construction over the next twenty years would take place with roughly the same distribution 

of structural types that occurred during the 1980-1990 construction period (see Table 2.3.2). 

Seventy-two (72) percent of all new construction would be single-family detached units, eight 

(8) percent would be single-family attached units (twins, townhouses, multiplexes), eight (8) 

percent would be multi-family units (garden apartments, mid- and high-rise apartments), and 

twelve (12) percent would be mobile home units. 

Obviously, many other assumptions may be made with respect to the distribution of 

structural types: More of one type and fewer of another type is a distinct possibility for the 

county. Since, however, projections of county population, housing units, and employment 

are necessary steps towards establishing some "ball-park" estimates of required amounts of 

land for new residential, commercial, and industrial uses over the next ten to twenty years, 

certain assumptions have been made with respect to the distribution of housing structural 

types in the county and their relative consumption of land. If it is assumed that single-family 

detached homes are developed at an average density of 15 units per acre, single-family 

attached housing at 4 units per acre, multi-family dwellings at 8 units per acre, and mobile 

home units at 25 units per acre, a total of 8,360 acres would be required to accommodate 

this new residential development. This figure, which translates to about 13 square miles, 

should be compared to the 200 square miles of land reasonably well-suited for development 

that is available in Adam County (see Section 4 of this chapter). The land area required 

for new residential development over the next twenty years or so is relatively modest 

compared to the large amount of available land for development, but from the points of 

view of agricultural and rural open space preservation, economic efficiency, and 

environmental protection, it may still be advisable to try and build more compactly than the 

13-square-mile scenario outlined. 

Employment Trends 

Employment information is important in planning for future growth. While population and 

housing characteristics and projections can be translated into approximations of the future 

need for housing units and land for new housing construction, employment data and 

projections for a given locale can be converted into estimates of potential demand for land 

for new commercial and industrial establishments. Both kinds of projections provide 

indications as to the future need for various kinds of community facilities and services. 

Unfortunately, employment data for smaller geographic areas are not as readily available 

as population data. While the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

conducts a Census of Business every five years, the census does not cover all economic 

sectors and the data it reports are riddled with gaps because of the disclosure rules under 

which it operates. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor receives highly detailed employer 

and employee information in the course of administering an unemployment insurance fund, 

but the agency will not release information for municipalities with populations under 25,000. 

2-7-6

I 

L 

Comprehensive employment data by place of work is available at the county level from the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. They show that 35,136 

persons were employed within Adams County in 1988, up 233 percent since 1980 (Table 

2.7.11). 

Nonfarm jobs in Adams County constituted 93.2 percent of total employment in 1988, with 

private employment at 81.6 percent and employment in government and government 

enterprises at 11.6 percent. Nonfarm employment is concentrated in three major sectorsmanufacturing, 

retail trade, and services. Together they accounted for 63.3 percent of all 

employment in 1970, 60.6 percent in 1980, and 61.11 percent in 1988. Manufacturing jobs 

declined during the 1970s but rebounded after 1980. Retail and senrice employment, 

however, showed steady increases over the entire 18-year period. 

Agriculture and tourism have traditionally been important sectors in the Adams County 

economy. In agriculture, the county consistently ranks first or second among all counties 

in Pennsylvania with respect to production of apples, turkeys, peach products, and eggs. In 

1988, some 1,250 farms operated in the county and there were 2,387 employees in the farm 

sector; however farming has been declining in importance in Adams County. Travel- and 

tourism-generated employment was estimated to approach 1,200 jobs. Gettysburg National 

Military Park, the major tourist attraction in the county, has over 1.3 million visitors 

annually. 

The distribution of employment in Adams County is compared with regional and state 

employment levels in Table 2.7.12. Farm and manufacturing employment is high in the 

county, comprising nearly one-third of all employment by place of work. Government 

employment is relatively low, as are jobs in finance/insurance/real estate and services. 

Many of the service sector jobs are seasonal in nature and pay relatively low wages. A 

substantial proportion of Adams County residents commute to other counties for 

employment. Out of 31,200 county residents employed in 1980, some 10,000 persons worked 

in other Pennsylvania counties, while 1,800 persons held jobs in other states. 

Adams County experienced strong growth in the 1980s in the total number of full-time and 

part-time jobs in the county (Table 2.7.11). While the number of jobs in the county rose at 

roughly the same rate as population during the 1970s (19.9 percent population growth, 20.6 

percent employment growth), employment rose at about twice the rate of population during 

the 1980s (14.6 percent population growth, 29.2 percent employment growth, when adjusted 

for a fullten-year period from the 1980-88 data). This trend of much more rapid job growth 

compared to population growth also occurred in neighboring counties, in the state, and in 

the nation as a whole. 

There are several factors which contribute to this tendency of more rapid job growth 

compared to population growth. The first is labor force participation rates, which have been 

2-7-7 

L 

I

steadily rising, reflecting general national social changes such as greater participation in the 

job market by women and students. The second factor is the rapid rise in part-time 

employment (replacing full-time employment) in the retail trade and service sectors; 

segments that captured steadily increasing shares of total Adams County employment over 

the 1970-1988 period (see Table 2.7.11). These sectors have, in effect, substituted numbers 

of full-time employees with a greater number of part-time employees, although the US. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, the agency that provides the job counts, treats each type of 

employee equally. The total number of employees may be increasing rapidly, but these are 

not necessarily full-time employees. 

Another factor may be the division of the period (1970-1988) at the 1980 date, with the 

country heading into a recession. The 1980.employment figures may be skewed downwards 

on account of the economic climate for that year, and the pronounced economic expansion 

in the mid-1980s may likewise bias employment trends upwards for the 1980-1988 period. 

Employment Projections 

Table 2.7.13 and Figure 2.7.7 present alternative projections for Adams County employment 

through the twenty-year planning horizon to 2010. Alternative 1 conforms to the view that 

the factors which led to extremely high rates of job creation relative to population increases 

observed in the 1980s will tend to level off and that "equivalent full-time'' (discounting in 

some unspecified manner the biasing effects of part-time job growth) jobs will grow at a rate 

similar to projected population growth. For a county 2010 population of about 104,000 

persons, about 48,000 jobs would be provided in the county, an increase of about 12,000 

from 1990. 

Alternative 2 projects that the 1980-1988 job growth rate will continue to 2010. Sixty-one 

thousand (61,000) jobs are envisioned, an increase of 65 percent or about 24,000 jobs from 

1990. 

Alternative 3 uses the only U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) projections of future 

employment available for anywhere in the Adams County area. The BEA makes 

employment projections for states and metropolitan areas only, and the closest metro area 

is York, Pennsylvania. Here the BEA has projected population growth at 6.45 percent and 

jobs at 10.47 percent from 1988-2000. Applying the York 62 percent higher rate of job 

growth over population growth to the Adams County situation (and an assumed population 

growth rate to produce 104,000 residents by 2010), total county employment would be 57,350 

by 2010, an increase of 20,300 or 55 percent over 1990. 

Alternative 4 postulates that since the retail trade and services sectors are the ones 

experiencing rapid growth in numbers of jobs, owing both to the shift towards part-time 

workers in those sectors and their increasing share of the local economy, recent (1980-1988) 

growth trends in jobs for those sectors will continue. Jobs in retail trade and services 

2-7-8

' m 

b 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

comprised 29 percent of all county jobs in 1970, 34 percent in 1980, and 37 percent in 1988. 

Assuming a job-capture rate of 40 percent in 2000 and 43 percent in 2010 for retail trade 

and sewices of all jobs, a job-growth rate in these two sectors similar to the 1980-1988 

overall county job-growth rate is combined with a population-growth rate for jobs in other 

sectors to yield nearly 54,000 total county jobs by 2010, an increase of 17,200 over 1990, or 

47 percent. . 

Obviously, there are a great many potential influences on the total number of jobs likely to 

be found in Adams County by 2010. A concerted effort to attract new industry (such as 

recommended in A Targeted Economic De velopment P rowam for Adams Co untv, . 

Pennsvlvania, prepared for the Gettysburg Industrial Development Corporation and the 

Economic Development Office for Adam County in 1988) could produce results which 

would seriously affect these projections. A decline in the rate of population growth could 

reduce the expected increase in demand for retail trade and services, which usually 

accompanies residential growth. 

The primary purpose in projecting future jobs is to arrive at some general estimates of the 

land required for new commercial and industrial development. Naturally, other factors 

come into play apart from total numbers of jobs. The kinds of jobs which will comprise the 

total is a significant determinant of land needed for new non-residential development, as is 

the intensity of development (jobs per acre). 

Total county jobs are projected to be around 50,000 by 2010. Based on more detailed 

county economic sector analysis, all new jobs have been grouped under three categories - 

office (225 percent of all new jobs), retail and service (46 percent of all new jobs), and 

industrial and business park (31.5 percent of all new jobs). Office uses are presumed to use 

land at a rate of 40 jobs per acre, retail and service uses at a rate of 10 jobs per acre, and 

industrial and business park uses at 20 jobs per acre. Total land required for new nonresidential 

uses would be about 900 acres, or somewhere between one and two square miles. 

As with residential land consumption estimates made earlier, the key point here may be that 

the sigmficant impacts of potential commercial and industrial development are not so much 

in terms of total land required, but rather in terms of quality-of-life and economic well-being 

issues. 

Other employment-associated issues concern the resident labor force and the degree of outand 

in-commuting for work. "Resident labor force" describes the total number of Adams 

County residents who work - they may work in the county or outside of it. The latest U.S. 

Bureau of the Census data on resident labor force (1980) show that out of 31,257 county 

residents employed, 10,168 persons (32.5 percent) worked in other Pennsylvania counties, 

while 1,815 persons (5.8 percent) held jobs in other states. While the trend towards outcommuting 

by Adams County residents has likely increased from the 38.3 percent revealed 

in 1980, the in-commuting factor must also be taken into account, especially with respect to 

the transportation system. Of the 28,485 total jobs in the county in 1980, 19,274 were filled 

2-7-9

1 

by county residents, but 9,211 (32.3 percent) were held by residents of other counties. 

Significant out-commuting for jobs may still be matched or nearly matched by significant incommuting. 

1 

3 

Figure 2.7.1 

Population Profile, 

1900-2010 

Adams County 

1900 1910 1920 l930 1WO 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 

@rojeah-) 

Year 

2-7- 10

Table 2.7.1 

- 1960 

- 1970 

- 1990 

Population Tot& h A d a 

County Municipalities and 

Selected Jimkdictions, 

1950-1990 

Adanrp County 

SZWS 

561 

4uI 

484 

923 

&@37 

529 

79960 

2;7= 

w 9 

IPW 

384 

19,458 

54937 

552 

589 

528 

977 

819 

w 

547 

7475 

3pza 

2;m 

1,495 

467 

24134 

7w4 

559 

693 

560 

993 

w 2 

14g 

1,175 

524 

7,025 

2374 

2,769 

1,617 

557 

22 155 

Bedk 

Butkr 

cownag0 

Cumkrland 

Franklin 

Fmdom 

Qrmeny 

RamiUOQ 

Hamiltonban 

HrshlPnd 

Huntington 

Latimom 

-rty 

Meden 

M d Joy 


OdOd 

-ine 

stlaban 

Tyrone 

Union 

Towndup Tocals 

1,102 

1Jw 

39004 

zgts 

2&3 

410 

&lSl 

763 

1,779 

546 

1,491 

1,092 

724 

1,380 

2531 

Wl 

W-Q 

urn 

1,186 

1,170 

32 J48 

1479 

1973 

3431 

3,497 

29744 

555 

w 

1,w 

1p86 

662 

m 

lJ05 

1,075 

1,937 

1,795 

5724 

3,221 

v91 

1,479 

34803 

1331 

29.514 

4632 

' 5,431 

4,l26 

692 

1,949 

1,760 

1872 

815 

1,989 

2409 

938 

2,7700 

fsls 

4,076 

39437 

3,828 

495 

1829 

2,178 

sqn9 

Cumberland County 

Dauphin County 

Franlrlin County 

York County 

Carroll County 

Frederick County 

Washington County 

Couruy Totals 

22oJss 

wn 

238,336 

529785 

71.930 

9u19 

W, 513 

rS&m 

223,713 

100,833 

2729603 

69,006 

sdm 

103,829 

I, 013,088 

19597 

23740 

lt1,082 

339374 

l23J72 

150,208 

nu93 

1,288,699 

Pennsylvania 

Mayland 

11,319,366 

3,100,689 

11,793,909 

3922299 

11Sslrn 

4781iMs 

Adams County as 

Percent of 

Pennsylvania 

0.5 

0.5 

0.7 

Sou- 

U S Bureau of the Census, Derennial Censuses ol Population. 

aInrorporated from part of lMount Pleasant Township in 1%L 

bInmrporated from parts of Hamiltonban Township and Liberty Township in 1974. 

2-7- 1 1

Table 2.73 

Percent Change in Population 


Municipalities and Selected -, 

Jt~i~dictiO~~,l950-1990 

- CmarJ 

Bar_wehs 

Bedemvilk 

BIskrriur 

1950-1960 

174 

43 

443 

183 

41 

U.6 

151 

U.0 

46 

U.1 

3.0 

(-1 7.0 

iaa 

26.7 

141 

23.7 

463 

6A 

u 

20.6 

265 

63 

335 

10.6 

20.0 

19.1 

20.7 

20.7 

35.6 

325 

18.8 

23.0 

14.4 

28.9 

21.8 

1960-1970 

9.7 

(-W 

02 

9.1 

59 

4.7 

5.4 

(986 

9.8 

(-I= 

63 

21.6 

3.5 

2!L1 

168 

14.2 

19.6 

1oJ 

iai 

l3.6 

37d 

(4 5.2 

213 

(-105 

1.2 

4.5 

6.0 

30.1 

(-) 2a.Z 

14.4 

275 

34.9 

89 

244 

13.4 

1970.1980 

199 

24.8 

la 

03 

ld 

w 

(-1 2.9 

8.0 

(-1 l.1 

(4 5.2 

(4 03 

285 

19.1 

6.8 

8.2 

233 

(4 0.8 

32.6 

34s 

17.1 

263 

6U 

8.8 

83 

4.9 

239 

(4 23A 

2U 

428 

91.1 

273 

543 

3l.6 

188 

33.7 

27.1 

1980.1990 

14.6 

(-)2L7 

155 

5.1 

03 

393 

783 

lL5 

(-)ll3 

(-123 

3.6 

0.2 

(41s 

(4 1.6 

3.0 

22.7 

161 

33.1 

17.1 

11s 

63 

180 

4.0 

2.0 

13.7 

27.7 

6 1.4 

14.0 

14.7 

111 

17.4 

493 

0.9 

7.7 

19.2 

10.1 

19.9 

1 

I 

a 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Cmgkrtond Colintr 

D.pphin County 

Franklin County 

York County 

CmU County 



cowllies 

32.l 

1lA 

141 

17.6 

175 

l!U 

15.6 

IZ2 

247 

l.6 

14.4 

14.4 

30.7 

iai 

13.8 

14.1 

l29 

3.8 

lz7 

118 

39.6 

353 

8.9 

14.7 

9.4 

u 

46 

85 

28.0 

30.9 

73 

10.9 

Pennsylvania 

7.8 

323 

4.2 

26.5 

0.6 

7.5 

0.1 

UA 

Soorca 

US. Bureau of the Census, lkrrnnti Censuses of Population 

Nonnan Day Associates 

2-7-12

Figure 2.7.2 

Adams County 

Township Population 

Change, 1980-1 990 

Reading 

DrlOd 

Persons 

0 100 200 300 409 soa 600 700 800 wo loo0 1100 

1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 

Conewago 

Latimom 

Cumberland 


Franklin 

Huntington 

Butler 

Menallen 

Benvick 

Straban 

Germany 

ryrone 

Mount Joy 

Union 

Liberty 

Highland 

Haniilton 

Freedom 

Haniiltonban 

pi 

I 

I 

I 

1 I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

Figure 2.73 

Adams County Percent 

Change in Township 

Population, 1980-1 990 


LfltimOrr 

0 10 24) 30 49 50 60 

I I I I I I I 

Oxford 

Reading 

Conewago 

Huntington 

Bemick 

Tyrone 

Germany 


Cumberland 

Butler 

Menallen 

Librriy 

Highland 

Franklin 

Mount Joy 

Union 

Sirabrn 

Frerduni 

Haniilton 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I I 

I I 

I I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

Figure 2.7.4 

Adams County 

Borough Population 

Change, 1980-1 990 

Persons 

400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Mo 300 400 500 601) 700 


Bonneauville 

East Berlin 

Littlestown 

Arendtsville 

Bendersville 

MeShenystown 

Biglerville 

York Springs 

Faidield 

Abboltstown 

Gettyrburg 

New Oxford 

I I I I I I I I 

I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 

z%%B@ I I I I I I I I I I I 

I 

,

Figure 2.7.5 

Adams County 

Percent Change in 

Borough Population, 

1980-1 990 

Percent Change 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 so 

I 


I 

Uonneauville 1 I , ,, , . 1 I I I I I I 

D 

I 

brendtsville 

I I I I 

I I I 

East Berlin 

I I 

t I I I I 

Uendersville 

I I I I I I I 

1 

I 

I I I 

Littlestown 

I 

I 

I I I 

I I 

McSherrystown 

I 

1 I I 

I I 

I 

I I I I I I I 

Uiglerville 

I 

I 

I I I I 

York Springs 

I I I I 

I I I 

I I 

I I I I 

Gettysburg 

I 

I 

I 

I I I I 

F&firld -1 //,4 ” 

I I I I I 

I I 

I I I 1 I I I I I 

New Oxford 

I I ‘ I I I I I I I I 

4bbuttstowa 72%B%zq I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 I

Table 2.7.3 

Population Density in 

Adams County and Selected 

Jurisdictions, 1950-1 990 

Adams County 

Cumberland County 

Dauphin County 

RMklin County 

York County 

Carroll County 



Pennsyivania 

Maryland 

Pooulation Densitv lwrsons oer sauare milel 

- 1960 - 1970 _. 1980 1990 

84 99 108 l30 149 

I70 225 2s 322 352 

382 425 432 448 459 

101 117 w 151 161 

223 262 300 344 374 

98 116 151 211 271 

94 108 us 173 226 

172 199 226 246 264 

233 2.52 262 264 264 

237 3x3 397 426 483 

Land Area 

&ware Miles1 

526 

555 

518 

7s 

909 

456 

665 

459 

*= 

949891 

Sopms U S Bureau of the Census, Decennial Censuses of Population 

Nonnnn Day Associates 

2-7- 17

I 

I 

Table 2.7.4 

BorouPh 

Popuiation Density9 

Adams County 

Municipalities9 

I980 and I990 

Abbottstown 

Arendtsville 

Bendede 

Biglede 

Bonneauville 


East Berlin 

Fairfield 

Gettysburg 

Littlestown 

McSherrystown 

New Oxford 

York Springs 

05 

0.7 

05 

0.6 

1.0 

5.4 

0.7 

0.6 

1.6 

1.4 

05 

0.6 

0.2 

- 

1,378 

857 

1,066 

1,652 

920 

151 

1505 

985 

4,496 

2,050 

5328 

3,201 

a 

1,078 

990 

/m 

1,655 

1,282 

270 

1,679 

873 

4,391 

5124 

5,538 

2,695 

Borough Totals 

143 

1,503 1,549 

Township 

Benvick 

Butler 

Conewago 

Cumberland 

Frankiin 

Freedom 

Germany 

Hamilton 

Hamiltonban 

Highland 

Huntington 

Latimore 

Liberty 

Men all en 

Mount Joy 

Mount PIeasant 

Oxford 

Reading 

Straban 

Tyrone 

Union 

Township Totals 

Adams County 

8.1 

23.6 

10.6 

34.0 

70.2 

14.2 

10.8 

14.0 

40.0 

11.9 

25.0 

22.0 

15.8 

43.0 

25.8 

31.5 

10.0 

27.4 

34.4 

21.6 

17.8 

511.7 

526.0 

184 

92 

321 

136 

53 

46 

153 

121 

46 

60 

62 

62 

52 

55 

99 

110 

230 

97 

123 

71 

111 

- 

91 

130 

226 

107 

428 

160 

59 

49 

180 

126 

47 

68 

80 

100 

59 

63 

110 

129 

344 

140 

133 

85 

122 

- 

110 

149 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

2-7- 18

L 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

B 

Table 2.7.5 

Population by Five-Year Age 

Groups in Adams County, 

1 950- I980 

Aec G~UDS 

0-4 

5-9 

10-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

3539 

4040 

4549 

50-41 

55-59 

60.64 

65-69 

70-74 

t 8081 75-79 

85+ 

Totals 

Sourcez 

1950 

Number 

4489 

4089 

3375 

39545 

3,704 

39347 

3,042 

2,920 

2,721 

230 

Lul 

1394 

1,703 

w 9 

1,159 

1,307 

212 

- 

- Pemnt 

If1 

93 

ai 

a0 

8A 

7.6 

69 

66 

6b2 

5.4 

5.0 

43 

39 

3.4 

26 

3.0 

0.5 

- 

100.0 

US. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Censuses of Population 

1960 

- Percent 

1W 

2-7-19 

ia7 

9.7 

85 

6.9 

58 

62 

63 

59 

5.5 

I1 

4.4 

38 

33 

28 

1.9 

1.1 

0.7 

- 

100.0 

1970 1980 

Perrent - Number - Percent 

88 

10.1 

4491 

5@4 

6.9 

7.4 

10A 

10.2 

82 

6.1 

5.4 

5.2 

5.6 

5.7 

53 

4.8 

41 

33 

26 

19 

13 

1.0 

100.0 

5,771 

6941 

699 

5,611 

49jS 

4103 

3,478 

3,301 

39501 

3497 

3,109 

-19 

1,422 

897 

I75 

- 

-92 

8.5 

10.2 

9.5 

a2 

7.2 

6.0 

5.1 

4.8 

5.1 

5.1 

4.6 

3s 

3.0 

11 

13 

1.1 

100.0

~ 

~ 

~~ 

Table 2.7.6 

Percent Distribution of 

Population By Selected Age 

Groups in Adam County 

and Selected Jiukdictiom, 

1970-2010 

4dh!E 

Adam Cwq 

w 

514 

15-24 

2544 

4544 

65+ 

1970 

88 

246 

18.4 

223 

19.8 

mi 

1980 

6s 

15.9 

19.7 

26.6 

19.6 

1W 

- 1998 

7s 

us 

155 

32.4 

18.4 

Itr 

- 1995 

- 2000 

68 

14.8 

u3 

30.6 

22Jl 

l2.4 

Pelulrylvpnis 

04 

5-14 

u-24 

2544 

4544 

65+ 

73 

l9.l 

163 

221 

23.2 

10.8 

63 

14.6 

18.0 

259 

223 

129 

7.0 

123 

us 

3W 

19s 

15.2 

6.0 

us 

l2.2 

29.1 

233 

15.7 

Maryland 

04 

5-14 

15-24 

2544 

45-64 

65+ 

88 

63.6 

20.0 

7.6 

65 

15.4 

189 

29.7 

20.1 

9A 

7.7 

13.1 

143 

34.0 

195 

113 

7.1 

11.4 

12.6 

322 

21.1 

11s 

63 

14.6 

l2.6 

23s 

l2.2 

30s 

Sources US Bunmu of the Census, Deeennial Censuses of Population. 

Maryland Office of Plannins Population Projections. 

Pennsylvania W e 

2-7-20 

Data Center, Population Projections 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

I 

I 

a 

b 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

m 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

B 

e 

m 

I 

Table 2.7.7 

Asshed Housing 


OPERATOR/FACILITIm 

INTERFAITH HOUSING 

Gettysbmg Interfaith Gardens (elderly) 

New Oxford Interfkith Gardens (family) 

BonnenuviUa Interfaith Gardens (family) 

McSherrystown Interfaith Village (elderly) 

other (f*) 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Harold Court, elderly, Stratton street, Gettysburg 

McIntosh Court, Aspers, farmworker, family 

Certirkates, mixed, scattered 

Vouchers, mixed, scatted 

ModcnateRehab 

a amburg 

h McS henystown 

G Bonneaudk 

d. Littiestown 

Lor Income Rehab (mixed) 

a York springs 

h LittlcSrCm 

G Hampton V i 

d. Cettyhrs 

Fahacstock Buildii (elderly), Gettysburg 

OTHER LOW INCOME HOUSING 

Total: 

Total: 

40 

7 

4 

S 

10 

2 

2 

3 

36 

20 

20 

47 

36 

l2 

271 

157 

56 

Breckenridge Village, Gettysburg Farmers Home Administration 

"Rental Assistance" Subsidy, no( Section 8 56 

Gettysburg Place, Boyd's School Road, Cumberland Township 

Littlestown Village 

New Oxford Manor 32. 

Easte Berlin Manor 19. 

17 

27 

57s 

56' 

w 

- 

Total: 203 

*These four projects were finanred through "1% Interest," Farmers Home Loan Funds. As a result rents are 

arlilkiaUy low. e+ SZSO per month for 1 or 2 bedroom units Also, about 2.5 of these units are occupied by 

certifwate or voucher holders 

2-7-21

Mama 

Table 2.7.8 

Alternative Population Projectiom 

for Adams County, 1990-2010 

peloclu 

I. 

SWMP Pm)ealona 

(adjusted) for Adam 

county 

78.274 

13,125 

16.8 m>27 

US 

Iu 

I 

+ 

I 

k3 

L 

3. 

Popuhtlon Gmwb b tc 

for Adam County. 

1980-1990 

Housing Conrtruamn b e 

lor Adam County, 

L980-19(19 

78,274 

78.274 

10999 

13375 

14.1 95,000 

I71 PIS60 

3a2 

33 .6 

8. 

Average Popuhtlon 

Gmwb &le for AdJOuunp 

Countrer, 19801990 

70374 

12,181 

15.6 95.607 

313 

I. 

6 

MOP Pmjcalonr lor 

CarmUand Frcdcrrlr 

Countccs 

Average Population 

Gmwb Rate for AdJOlDq 

PA Countvs, 1980-1990 

78.274 

1-4 

la7131 

SPY 

24.1 104,021 

7.6 wsz 

422 

u.0 

1. 

County Population .E 10 

Increasing Pcrcsntagc of 

Stale Popuhtion 

78374 

15,432 

19.8 98,gM 

33.7 

5. 

PSDC Pqcalonr lor 

Adam County (19S7) 

72- 

4,498 

6.2 

Legend: SWMP ~ 

MOP - 

PSDC - 

County Solid Waste M~M~CDUDI Plan 

Maryland OIfia of Planning 

Pennryhania State Data Center

Figure 2.7.6 

Alternative Population 

Projections for Adanas Cow, 

(1990), 1995,2000,2005,2010 

Persons 

110,000 

105,OOO 

100,000 

95,000 

1 2 3 4 5 

6 7 

ALTERNATIVE 

2-7-23

Table 2.7.9 

Projected Population 

Housing Units to be 

Constructed in 

Population in Households (97%) 

Adam County, 

1990-2010 Persons per Household 

Occupied Housing Units 

Vacant Rate 

Total Housing Units Required 

Existing Housing Stock, 1990 

Existing Year-round 1990 Housing Units 

(98%) 

Net Additions to 1990 Housing Stock 

Replacement of Existing 1990 Stock 

(O.lS% per year) 

Conversions (0.05% per year) 

Total Housing Units to be 

Constructed (cumulative) 

m m 

2005m 

91,OOo 98,000 104,ooO 

81,M 88,270 95,060 100,m 

255 25 2.45 2.4 

31,953 35333 38,800 42,033 

4% 4% 4% 4% 

3334 36,779 40,417 43,784 

29,990 29,990 29,990 29,990 

29,390 29,390 29,390 29,390 

3,894 7,389 11,027 14,394 

220 440 660 880 

73 147 220 294 

4,041 7,682 11,467 14,980 

I 

4 

a 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Source: 

Norman Day Assoaates. 

Table 2.7.10 

Housing Units to be 

Comtucted by Structural 

Type, Adam County, 

1990-201 0 

1990-1Wq 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 1990-2020 

Single-Family Detached 2,910 2,622 2,725 2,529 10,786 

Single-Family Attached 323 291 303 281 1,198 

Multi-Family 323 291 303 281 1,198 

Mobile Home Parks 485 437 454 422 1,798 

(Units) 

Total Units 4,041 3,641 3,785 333 14,980 

2-7-24

I 

1 

Table 2.7.11 

Indushy 

Employment by Major 

Industy in Adams County, 

1970-1988 Td Employment 

Number of Employees 

- 1970 

1988 

23,614 

- 

35,l36 

Percent Distribution 

1 9 . r o y g g g 

100.0 100.0 100.0 

F- 

%7M 

ZJW 

llA 93 68 

Noa-fanu 

20%34 

3&749 

882 90.7 93.2 

260 

.b 

11 

1.4 

z 

24 

0.1 

0.1 

946 

w3 

29559 

p-- 

4.0 

34.0 

4.8 

26.8 

73 

243 

766 

1,498 

3.2 

3.6 

43 

688 

.b 

2.9 

4.3 

3,146 

5,717 

l33 

15.1 

163 

747 

1,329 

3.2 

3.7 

38 

3,778 

7,186 

16.0 

187 

205 

231 

620 

LO 

1.4 

1.8 

322 

370 

1.4 

0.9 

1.1 

vu 

3.073 

81 

- 

100.0 

10.0 

- 

100.0 

a7 

- 

100.0 

Souma 

US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 

sInrlmlss fomhg, Ilshing, and jobs held by US residents employed by international organizations and 

foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. 

bNot shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information 

Tewer than 10 jobs 

2-7-25

Table 2.7.12 

A b Nearby Countiesa States 

Industry Countq Pennsvlvania Manland Pennsvlvania L%lanland 

Percent Dktn'bution of 

Employment by Major Total Employment 100 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Industy in Adam County Fans 

68 L7 3.7 1.5 1.0 

and Selected Jurisdictiom, 

Non-tam 932 983 963 985 99.0 

1988. 

Agricultural Sewices & 

othd .c 

Minine 

ai 

0.7 

03 

13 0.6 

0.0 0.6 

09 

ai 

Coastmetinn 13 

5s 

11.0 53 

75 

Manufacturing 24.3 

2ai 

123 179 

83 

Transportation & Public 

Utilities 43 

5.3 

4.2 4.8 

4.4 

WhoksPkTrade -= 

4.8 

4.6 47 

45 

Retail Trade 163 

16.9 

18.6 17.1 

18.0 

Flnnncc, Insurance & 

Real Estate 38 

Services 203 

Federal Government - 

Civilian 1% 

Federpl Government - 

Military 11 

state & Local 

Government 

Sourn: 

a7 

6.0 

22.3 

1.1 

11.4 

53 as 

2-43 282 

2.4 23 

2.5 l.2 

9.6 9.0 

US Bureau of fionomics Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 

The counties nearby to Adams County include Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, and York Counties in 

Pennsylvania and Carroll, Frederick, and Washington Counties in IMaryland 

bIncludcs forestry, fishing, and jobs held by U S residents employed by international organizations and 

foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. 

Tot shawn to avoid disclosure of confidential information. 

7.5 

29.1 

6.0 

2.5 

102 

0 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

4 

e 

2-7-26 

I 

D 

I

Table 2.7.13 

Alternative Employment 

Projections for Adams County, 

1988-201 0. 

- Basis 

1. SWMPPopulnlionGmwh 3S.136 42,237 

Rote (ndjuslcd) lor Adam 

Counly 

2. Adam County Job Gmvlh 35,136 47.442 

Rots 1980-88 

19BsMoo 

- Number 

7,101 m2 48242 

12,306 35.0 61B5 

13.106 373 11922 32s 

26,158 74 A 21,108 64.8 

3. B W York Mctm Area 

lYBsM00 1m to 

Populnlion Gmwh Role 

Rat10 

35.136 46,625 

I1 AD 32.7 n3S9 

4. 

Blend of Rclnil & Scrnor 

Gmwh as pcr I 2 and aU 

olhcr SMorr u pcr I1 

35,136 44,313 

9,in 26.1 S&41 18,711 a3 17,182 469 

Lcgcnd. SWMP - Adam County Solid Wnrlc Mnnngcmcnl Plan 

B W . US. Bureau 01 Economic A~lpis, Regio~l Emnomic labmulion Sptem

Figure 2.7.7 

Alternative Employment 

Projections for Adam County, 

(I988), 2000,20IO 

Jobs 

65,000 

~,W 

55,000 

50,000 

45,000 

35,000 

3 4 

2-7-28

0 

m 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

1 

1 

i 

1 

I 

I 

I 

e 

L 

1 

SECTION 8: CIRCULATION 

Since the period in the early 1970s when Adams County's first Comprehensive Plan was 

completed, traffic in the county has increased substantially; yet except for the "dualization" 

of US Route 15; little has changed in the transportation system. Steady residential growth, 

particularly development serving commuters to York, Harrisburg, and Washington, D.C., 

means that a rethinking of current and future transportation needs is due. 

The Existing Roadway Network 

Aside from US Route 15, a four-lane expressway-type road traversing the center of the 

county on a north-south axis, the transportation network of Adams County is configured in 

a classic "hub and spoke" pattern, with as many as 10 different roadways branching out from 

the Borough of Gettysburg. Lincoln Square, at the center of Gettysburg and the hub of the 

county, is frequently the location of a great deal of traffic congestion, especially during peak 

traffic hours and during the tourist season. In addition, congestion is experienced in many 

of the "crossroad villages and boroughs, particularly McSherrystown and Littlestown. 

Figure 2.8.1 illustrates the key roadway corridors and Comprehensive Plan study area 

intersections in Adam County. The key corridors are described below: 

US Route 30 - This east-west route passes through the heart of Adams County and 

provides access to a wide variety of land uses. For the most part, the roadway is 

one lane in each direction, with shoulders and a center, two-way left-turn lane. 

There is a major interchange with US Route 15, where US Route 30 provides two 

lanes in each direction. East of Gettysburg, the road passes through New Oxford 

and Abbottstown, where the main intersections in the center of the boroughs are 

historic town squares. The intersection of US Route 30 and PA Route 94 in Cross 

Keys is a major one, characterized by large traffic volumes and some congestion, 

especially during the evening peak hour. 

-6 e 1 - This is another east-west roadway passing through Gettysburg, 

connecting Fairfield to the west with McSherrystown and Hanover to the east. The 

road provides one traffic lane per direction and generally follows a straight course. 

PA Route 116 is characterized by a rolling vertical alignment presenting some 

sight distance limitations, especially at offset intersections. McShenystown Borough 

is located adjacent to Hanover Borough in York County. Traffic congestion occurs 

along Main Street in McSherrystown during the evening peak hour. 

Littlestown Borough Area, - Littlestown Borough lies at the intersection of PA 

Route 97 and PA Route 194. Both routes are major corridors between developing 

areas of Adams County and Carroll County, Maryland, and are characterized by 

2-8- 1

esidences built close to the roadways. Some peak-hour traffic congestion exists, and 

local and through trucks are significant components of the traffic stream. 

I 

I 

0 PA Route 9 7. includinp its interchange with US Ro ute 15 - The interchange area has 

had to accommodate a large increase in traffic with the development of the Lake 

Heritage residential area. More than 500 houses are located on the site, with several 

hundred more proposed. PA Route 97 is generally one lane per direction throughout 

its length. 

0 PA Route 234 - This east-west roadway connects US Route 30 west of Cashtown with 

East Berlin Borough and York County to the east. The road connects to US Route 

30 just west of York, and travels through the boroughs of Arendtsville and Biglerville. 

One lane per direction, with shoulders of various widths, the route’s western portion 

travels through the mountains near the Buchanan Valley, while the eastern portion 

passes through rolling hills near US Route 15. Some sight distance problems for 

cross streets occur along this route. 

0 Mummasburp Ro a4 - This roadway generally runs north-south between Arendtsville 

and Gettysburg. The road provides one lane per direction and services adjacent 

residential land uses and the Gettysburg National Military Park. There are a number 

of offset intersections along the corridor. 

0 PA Route 94 - This roadway rum north-south and provides access between York 

Springs and US Route 15 in the north and Cross Keys (US Route 30) and Hanover 

Borough (York County) in the south. The highway is characterized by one lane for 

travel in each direction, various shoulder widths, and high travel speeds due to the 

straight horizontal alignment. PA Route 94 generally is bordered by residential land 

uses. The largest community along its length is the village of Hampton, which 

contains a large town square. Some traffic congestion occurs at the PA Route 94/US 

Route 15 interchange and in the vicinity of York Springs. As noted earlier, traffic 

congestion also takes place at the Cross Keys intersection and in the vicinity of 

Hanover Borough. 

0 PA Route 34 Corridor - Extending from the Borough of Gettysburg northward to 

Cumberland County, this roadway is generally two lanes wide with variable-width 

shoulders. 

In addition to the above corridors, the following key intersections were identified €or 

concentrated analysis and are shown in Figure 2.8.1: 

btersection 

1. US Route 30 and 

PA Route 194 (Abbottstown) 

PA Route 94 (Cross Keys) 

US Route Is interchange 

2-8-2 

Intersection Number 

12 

11 

25 

8 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I

Lincoln Square/DoMltm Gettysburg 

1 

2. 

Herr's Ridge Road 

Scaler Rod 

CBFhtOrwn Road 

PA Route 116 and 

Mt. Plcasant Road 

mild Stlut 

Centennial Road 

Miller Sheet (Fairfield) 

PA Route 116 - Old Mill Road 

PA Route 16 

'36 

26 

34 

9 

10 

8 

38 

37 

40 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

a. 

9. 

Littlestom Community 

- PA Route 194 (King Street) and PA Route 97 

(Qucen Street) 

PA Route 97 and Old Littlestown Road 

Route 97 and 

The US Route U diamond interchange on- and off-ramps 

Entrance driveway to Lake Heritage and 

PA Route 97 


us Route 30 

Arendtnrille Barnugh 

Biglerville Borough 

Old Harrisburg Pike 

us Route Is 

Mummasbum Road (State Route 30ln and 

National Park Service Loop Road 

Herr's Ridge Road 

Belmont Road 

Goldemrille/Hilltm Road (Mummasburg Village) 

PA Route 1% (East &din) 

Ridgewood Drive 


US Route 15 interchange 

PA Route 394 (Hampton) 

Idaville Road 

Lake Meade Road 

Goodyear/Latimore Road 

Pine Run Road 


Pine Grove Road 

Hamey Road 

Mt. Pleasant Road 

US Route IS and 

Emmitsburg Road interchange 

Latimore Valley Road 

PA Route 394 interchange 

6 

5 

2 

3 

35 

33 

32 

22 

21 

27 

29 

30 

31 

14 

28 

18 

1s 

19 

16 

m 

13 

7 

4 

24 

39 

17 

23 

2-8-3

Current Trafltic Volumes 

Current turning movements and average daily traffic volumes on the study area road 

network were determined by conducting turning movement traffic counts and automatic 

traffic recorder (Am) counts. The manual turning movements counts were collected at the 

locations shown in Figure 2.8.1 during the week of August 13, 1990, between the hours of 

3:30 pm and 530 pm. The automatic recorder counts were collected during the same week 

at the following locations: 

PA Route 97 - Mt. Joy Township 

- 

PA Route 116 - Mt. Pleasant Township 

US Route 30 - Straban Township 

PA Route 116 - Highland Township 

US Route 30 - Franklin Township 

PA Route 234 - Tyrone Township 

These traffic count data indicate that the evening peak hour typically occurs between 4:30 

pm and 530 pm Two-directional evening peak hour traffic volumes were collected as 

follows: 

US Route 3Q 

High 1319 west of the US Route 15 interchange 

LOW 692 at PA Route 234 

2uuu&i 

High 

LOW 

1258 west of McShenystown 

726 Fairfield area 

PA Route 97 

High 886 east of US Route 15 

LOW 663 west of US Route 15 

PA Route 234 . d# 

High 407 east of PA Route 34 

LOW 110 at US Route 30 

b :! 

Mummasbur Road 

High 287 north of Ridgewood Drive 

LOW 134 south of Goldenville Road 

PA Route 94 

High 653 east of Berlin Road 

LOW 233 east of Latimore Road 

2-8-4

PA Route 194 

High 

LOW 

946 north of Pine Grove Road 

321 south of Harney Road 

Peak hour turning movements on a corridor basis are illustrated in Appendix 1. 

Daily traffic volumes at the automatic traffic count recorder stations were as follows: 

Location 



US Route 30 - Straban Township 


US Route 30 - Franklin Township 


Dailv Volume 

6,728 

6,326 

12,308 

5,213 

5,370 

3,082 

Traffic Volume Trends 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

Daily traffic volumes for key roadway links in Ad- County were plotted for the period 

of Adam County's original Comprehensive Plan preparation and compared to recent 

counts. Table 2.8.1 and Figure 2.8.2 illustrate traffic volumes on these roadways in 1972 and 

today. As shown, US Route 30 volumes have grown between 21% and 173% over the 18- 

year period and US Route 15 volumes between 5% and 123%. Each of the noted roadways 

have sections of high traffk growth. Overall, of the monitored roadwavs, an average growth 

in traffic volume of 65% over 18 years has been experienced, or an average annual growth 

rate of about 3.6% per year (2.8% compounded annually). 

Volume/Capacity and Level of Service 

While traffic volumes provide a measure of activity on the county road system, it is also 

important to gauge how well that system can accommodate those volumes (k., what is the 

capacity of the highway or intersection). By definition, the capacity of a highway or 

intersection is the maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated given the 

constraints of roadway geometry, environment, traffic characteristics, and controls. 

An unsignalized intersection along a major route is seldom critical from an overall 

capacity standpoint. However, it may be of great significance to the capacity of a minor 

cross route and it may influence the level of service on both the through route and the 

minor cross route. It is assumed that the through movement on the major street has the 

right of way over all side street traffic and left-turns from the major street. A descriptive 

2-8-5

mechanism has been developed by the Transportation Research Board, based upon a scale 

from 'A' to 'F, relating capacity (based upon the number of gaps) to the expected traffic 

delay (described as Levels of Senrice) for side street traffic and for left-turns from the major 

street. The relationships are described in Table 2.8.2. 

8 

1 

At signalized intersections, other factors affect the various approach capacities, including 

width of approach, number of lanes, signal "green time", turning percentages, truck volumes, 

etc. However, operation at capacity is far from satisfactory since substantial delays or 

reduced operating speeds are likely. Therefore, a comparable descriptive mechanism has 

been developed (see Table 2.83, Level of Service for Signalized Intersections), indicating 

average delays at intersections on a scale from 'A' (indicating little or no delay) to 'F' 

(indicating average delay of more than 60 seconds). 

Delays cannot be related to capacity in a simple one-to-one fashion. It is possible to have 

delays in the Level of Service 'F range, without exceeding roadway capacity. High delays 

can exist without exceeding roadway capacity if one or more of the following conditions 

exist: 

a 

a 

a 

long signal cycle lengths; 

a particular traffic movement experiences a long "red time"; or, 

progressive movement for a particular lane group is poor. 

W e the previous discussion describes the level of service concept in general, it is 

important to relate the concept to Adam County in particular. Levels of Service A and B 

indicate typically congestion-free operation and are clearly acceptable in Adam County. 

Levels of Service C and D, on the other hand, represent the start of congestion and, while 

still acceptable, indicate that further increases in traffic could result in congestion. 

Consequently, conditions should be continually monitored. Levels of Service E and F are 

usually considered not acceptable and indicate short-term improvements must be considered. 

A detailed volume/capacity analysis was completed for existing conditions at the study area 

intersections during the evening peak hour, and is presented in Figure 2.8.3. Most 

intersections operate at Levels of Service A or B. No intersections were found to operate 

at Level of Service F conditions. Of the remaining intersections, the following two operate 

at Level of Service E: 

a 

a 

US Route 30 and the US Route 15 interchange ramps 

US Route 30 and Shealer Road. 

Finally, the following intersections operate at Levels of Services C and D: 

0 US Route 30 and Hem Ridge Road 

2-8-6 

1 

1 

1 

I 

8 

1 

1

I 

1 

L 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

a 

0 

a 

0 

a 

a 

0 

a 

PA Route 116 and Hem Ridge Road 

PA Route 97 and the US Route 15 interchange ramps 


PA Route 97 and Hanover Pike (PA Route 194) 

PA Route 194 and Mt. Pleasant Road 

PA Route 116 and Mt. Pleasant Road 

PA Route 116 and Centennial Road 

PA Route 116 and Third Avenue 

Functional Classification of Major Highways 

Roadways perform two very distinct and sometimes contradictory functions - moving 

traffic and providing access to adjacent land uses. Limited access highways (expressways) 

provide no access to adjacent land uses and, of course, are best at moving traffic. Since 

providing access to adjacent land uses detracts from the ability of a highway to move traffic, 

it is important for planning purposes to classify roadways by function. The following 

functional categories are typically used and were employed in the 1972 Adams County 

Comprehensive Plan preparation (Figure 2.8.4): 

1. Maior Arterial - A street or road that is used primarily for fast or heavy volumes 

of through traffic - freeways, expressways, and high-volume through roadways carrying 

regional traffic. 

2. Minor Arterial - A street or road that is used primarily for through traffic. Minor 

Arterials carry generally lower volumes of traffic than Major Arterials. 

3. Collector - A street or road that carries traffic from minor borough streets and 

township roads to the arterial system. 

4. Minor - All other borough streets or township roads, providing access to abutting 

properties in residential, commercial, industrial, and rural areas. (These are not 

shown in Figure 2.8.4.) 

In Adams County, the 1972 Comprehensive Plan also established a "Scenic Road Network" 

and developed a special Scenic Route classification, as follows: 

5. Scenic Route - A locally-designated route selected to give tourists an opportunity to 

view (in Adams County) Gettysburg National Military Park, the rural countryside, the 

fruitbelt, boroughs and villages, and various historic landmarks, in a self-conducted 

tour of the area. 

2-8-7

Figure 2.8.4 shows the 1972 Functional Classification of Adam County roadways. The 

classification of key roadways is summarized as follows: 

&f&r Arten& 

US Route 15 (noted separately as an expressway) 

US Route 30 

Minor Arterials 

PA Route 194 

PA Route 34 

PA Route 116 

PA Route 97 (then known as US Route 140) 

PA Route 94 

PA Route 16 

Collector Roadwaq 

PA Route 233 

PA Route 234 

PA Route 394 

PA Route 194 

Business Route 15 

LR 01010 -- 

LR 01047 -- 

LR 01043 - 

LR 01008 -- 

LR 01004 -- 

LR %lo -- 

__ 

LR 01005 

LR 01003 -- 

LR 01010 -- 

LR 01001 -- 

SR4008 Wenksviile Road 

SR1020 York Springs Road 

SR1012 Lake Meade Road 

SR1008 Quaker Church Road 

SR10l5 Oxford Road 

SR2009 Edgegrove Road 

SR2006 Centennial Road 

SR2001 Two Taverns Road 

SR3011 Carrolls Tract Road 

T304 Knightstown Road 

I 

I 

In 1980, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PaDOT) classified the roadways 

of Adams County based upon national criteria as established by the Federal Highway 

Administration. This system classified roadways by function and by eligibility for federal 

highway funds for improvements. 

Correspondence between the 1972 Adam County Comprehensive Plan functional 

classification system and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation system is as 

follows: 

2-8-8

1972 ComD rehensive Pla Pennsvlvania DeDartment of TransDortation 

Major Arterial 

Minor Arterial 

Collector 

Minor . 

Principal Arterial 

Minor .Arterial 

Major CoIlector 

Minor Collector 

For Adams County, the 1980 PaDOT reclassification had the following effects: 

0 PA Route 233 became upgraded to a Minor Arterial. 

0 Business Route 15 was upgraded to a Minor Arterial. 

Current Status of Proposed Roadway Improvements 

1 

I 

1 

I 

8 

1 

I 

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation maintains an administrative document 

called a 12-Year Plan of Roadwav Improvements for state highways across Pennsylvania. 

PaDOTs "12-Year Program" is divided into three four-year segments, with the first four 

years already funded by the legislature and the remaining two four-year segments awaiting 

funding. As of mid-1991, the Adams County portion of the 12-Year Program contained 14 

projects, all relating to bridges. There were no projects designed to increase the capacity 

of the county roadway network on the Program. (As noted previously, the only significant 

recent improvement to the county road network was the "dualization" of US Route 15 into 

a full-fledged, four-lane expressway.) 

Of the $7.2 million program scheduled for Adam County, the first four years contained 

seven projects, as follows: 

US Route 30 - Replacement of the Marsh Creek Bridge $496,000 

PA Route 94 -- Replacement of the Conewago Creek Bridge $807,000 

PA Route 134 -- Replacement of the Rock Creek Bridge $619,000 

PA Route 394 -- Replacement of the Rock Creek Bridge $487,000 

Marsh Run Bridge Replacement -- Hilltown Village $454,000 

Jacks Mountain Road -- Replacement of Bridge over Toms Creek $552,000 

Mill Road -- Replacement of Bridge over Pine Run 

2-8-9 

$lOS.OOQ 

To tal $3,523,000

In the second four-year portion, there were five projects, the most significant of which was 

the replacement of the Marsh Creek Bridge on Business Route 15. In the third four-year 

period the most sigmficant project was the replacement of the PA Route 234 bridge over 

Conewago Creek. 

It should also be noted that in 1987 traffic flows within the Borough of Gettysburg were 

studied as part of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's ECONS program. 

(ECONS, an acronym for Energy =sewation and Safety, has recently been replaced by 

the Department's Safety &d Mobility Initiative (SAMI) program.) The study recommended 

a $712,000 program of traffic signal modernization and coordination on Business Route 15, 

PA Route 34, US Route 30, and PA Route 116, at eleven traffic signals within the borough. 

The project has not been placed on the 12-Year Program for implementation. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation recently announced that it will undertake 

major planning studies for the US Route 30 corridor between Chambersburg in Franklin 

County and Thomasville, just west of York in York County, during 1992. 

Public Transportation System 

Within the county, scheduled bus service is provided by Capitol Trailways, Greyhound, 

Lincoln Bus Lines, and Wolfs Bus Lines. According to the Pennsylvania Public Utilities 

Commission, service is provided as follows: 

Carrier 

Capitol Trailways 

Service Area 

York Springs, Gettysburg, McSherrystown 

Lincoln Bus Lines Gettysburg, Abbottstown, Littlestown, New 

Oxford, Cross Keys, McShenystown, Irishtown, 

East Berlin 

Greyhound Lines 

Wolf's Bus Lines 

Ge ttys burg, Li ttles town 

Greenstone, Fountain Dale, Fairfield, Orrtanna 

In addition, Hanover has recently instituted public bus service, reaching as far west as the 

York-Adams county line. 

Scheduled airline and passenger rail service is available in Harrisburg and in Washington, 

D.C. 

2-8-10

Accident Analysis 

L 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

Accident histories for key study area roadways were provided by the Pennsyvlania 

Department of Transportation for analysis as part of the Adams County comprehensive 

planning process. The accident histones provided cover a five-year period from January 1, 

1985 to December 14, 1990. 

Accidents are clasifed by type, severity, timesf-day, day-of-week, number of 

injuries/fatalities, vehicle type, and cause. Figure 2.8.5, illustrates, for each of the 40 study 

area intersections, the number of accidents and number of injuries or fatalities recorded. 

Intersections are ranked by total number of accidents in Table 2.8.4 and illustrated in Figure 

2.8.5. The five highest total accident intersections are: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

PA Route 234 and Old Harrisburg Pike, with 26 accidents; 

PA Route 116 and North Third Street, with 19 accidents; 

US Route 30 and PA Route 94, with 18 accidents; 

US Route 30 and Herr's Ridge Road, with 18 accidents; and, 

US Route 30 and PA Route 194, with 15 accidents. 

A total of 247 accidents occurred at study area intersections, including 262 injuries and five 

fatalities. Of special concern are the five intersections where fatal accidents occurred: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

US Route 30 and PA Route 194; 

PA Route 194 and Mount Pleasant Road; 

PA Route 116 and South Third Street; 

Mummasburg Road and Herr's Ridge Road; and, 

PA Route 94 and Pine Run Road. 

Other locations that exhibited a high incidence of accidents are: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

PA Route 234 and PA Route 194, with 14 accidents; 

US Route 30 and Lincoln Square, with 13 accidents; 

PA Route 194 and Mount Pleasant Road, with ten accidents; 

PA Route 234 and U. S. Route 15, with ten accidents, and; 

PA Route 116 and South Third Street, with nine accidents. 

Each roadway corridor was examined for overall acccident trends, with the following 

conclusions: 

0 Route 116 - Six intersections were included in this corridor analysis. Most 

accidents occurred at the intersection with Third Street/Oxford and were 

right-angle accidents. The only intersection fatality involved a pedestrian at 

South Third Street. Including the midblock segments, a total of 544 

accidents have occurred along PA Route 116, with 14 fatalities - four 

2-8-1 1

involving pedestrians, four collisions with fixed objects, three head-on 

accidents, and three right-angle accidents. "Drinking" or "drugs" were 

noted in four fatalities, with "speeding" as the leading cause of all accidents 

occurring along the corridor. 

0 US Route 3Q - Seven intersections were analyzed along this corridor. 

Eighteen accidents occurred at the intersection of US Route 30 and Herr's 

Ridge Road and also at the intersection of US Route 30 and PA Route 94. 

At PA Route 94, there was generally an even distribution of accident types. 

At Herr's Ridge Road, 80 percent of all accidents were rear-end accidents, 

with "tailgating" or "driving too fast" being the primary causes. The only 

intersection fatality involved a large truck at PA Route 94 that overturned 

due to ''brake failure". A total of 859 accidents occurred along the corridor, 

with sixteen fatal accidents. Of the fatal accidents, six involved collisions with 

fixed objects and four accidents each qualified as head-on and right-angle 

ones. "Drugs" or "alcohol" were cited in six fatal accidents and were the 

leading cause of all fatal accidents. 

0 PA Route 234 - Six intersections were studied on this corridor. The 

intersection of PA Route 234 and Old Harrisburg Pike experienced the 

greatest number of accidents of any study intersection, with 26. Twenty-five 

accidents were right-angle accidents and only one accident involved "drinking" 

as a cause factor. A total of 388 accidents were recorded within the 

corridor. No fatal accidents occurred at any study intersections, however, six 

fatal accidents did occur within the corridor - two right-angle accidents, two 

collision-with-fixed-object accidents, one head-on accident, and one 

pedestrian accident. "Drinking" was involved in two fatalities and in a total 

of eight percent of all accidents. "Crossing over the centerline" was the 

leading cause of all accidents within the corridor. 

0 PA Route 97 - Nine accidents occurred at the four study intersections. Five 

accidents (three right-angle and two pedestrian) occurred at King Street. A 

total of 146 corridor accidents were recorded, with two fatalities (one a 

pedestrian accident and one a head-on accident that was alcohol-related). 

"Drinking" was a factor in 13 percent of all corridor accidents. 

a 

(SR3017) - Five intersections were studied on this 

route, with a total of 103 accidents occurring along its length. Seven 

intersection accidents were recorded, including the only corridor fatal 

accident (at Herr's Ridge Road). Intersection accidents included four 

right-angle accidents, one fixed-object accident, one head-on accident, and 

one rear-end accident. "Speeding" was the leading cause of all accidents. 

0 US Route 15 - Three intersections accounted for seven accidents along US 

2-8-12 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

8 

4 

I

L 

0 

L 

1 

Route 15, including three right-angle accidents, one head-on accident and one 

rear-end accident. Two accidents were caused by "deer running onto the 

road". A total of 77 corridor accidents were recorded, with no fatalities. 

0 PA Rou te 194 - Fourteen intersection accidents at three locations occurred 

along this corridor. Ten accidents, including a fatal one, occurred at Mount 

Pleasant Road. Accident types included five right-angle accidents, two 

head-on accidents, two rear-end accidents, and one hit-fixed-object accident. 

"Drinking" was the leading cause of all accidents and involved in several of 

the 349 total corridor accidents and nine fatalities in the corridor. 

0 PA Route 9 4 - Six intersections were studied along this corridor. The 

intersection with PA Route 394 experienced eight accidents, including five 

right-angle accidents, two rear-end accidents, and one head-on accident. A 

total of 326 accidents were recorded within the corridor. "Drinking" was the 

leading cause of all accidents and involved in half of the fatal accidents. 

2-8- 13

Table 2.8.1 

I 

4 

Average DaiZy Trafic Volumes 

Ad- County Roadwiys, 1972 and 1990 

Roadwav 

U. S. Route 30 - Franklin Township 

U. S. Route 30 - Cumberland Township 

jsnm 

4,440 5370 

4,6U 12,5!V 

!iuhai% 

21% 

173% 

U. S. Route 30 - Gettysburg 

U. S. Route 30 - Straban Township 

U. S. Route 15 - Freedom Township 

U. S. Route 15 - Straban Township 

U. S. Route 15 - Latimore Township 

PA Route 34 - Biglerville 

PA Route 34 - Menallen Township 




PA Route 94 - Berwick Township 

PA Route 94 - Lahore Township 

PA Route 234 - Biglerville 


PA Route 394 - Schrivers Comers 

PA Route 194 - Union Township 

PA Route 194 - Hamilton Township 

l2,300 18,652 

8,100 W 

4,360 4,589 

2,300 5,124 

5,660 5,839 

3,200 5,947 

z800 3,096 

3,300 5,213 

5300 6,3245 

2,800 6,728 

4,800 6,326 

1,400 5401 

5OOo 2,829 

900 3,082 

3,000 3,274 

5203 3,455 

Mrn 

71,936 118,892 

52% 

52% 

5% 

123% 

3% 

86% 

11% 

58% 

175% 

140% 

32% 

72% 

41% 

242% 

9% , 

57% 

293% 

2-8-14

I 

e 

-e 

L 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

a 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

L 

I 

Table 2.83 

Level of Service and Expected Delay 

for Unsignalized Intersections' 

LEVEL 0 F SERVICE 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

RESERVE CAP ACITY! vehicles) 

400 or more 

300 to 399 

200 to 299 

100 to 199 

0 to 99 

Less than 0 

1) Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, Hiehamv Cauacitv Manual. 198S, published by the Transportation 

Rcsearch Board, Washington, D. C, 1985. 

2-8-15

Table 2.86 

Level of Service 

For Signalized Intersections' 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Very low delay, good progression; 

most vehicles do not stop at 

intersection. 

Generally good signal progression 

and/or short cycle length; more 

vehicles stop at intersection than 

level of semce A 

Fair progression and/or longer 

cycle length; signifcant number 

of vehicles stop at intersection. 

Congestion becomes noticeable; 

individual cycle failures; longer 

delays from unfavorable progression, 

long cycle length, or high volume/ 

capaaty ratios; most vehicles stop 

at intersection. 

AVERAGE 

STOPPED DELAY PER 

VEHICLE (SECONDS) 

e 5.0 

5.1 to 15.0 

15.1 to 25.0 

25.1 to 40.0 

1 

I I 

I 

a 

I 

.I 

i 

1 

I 

I 

I 

E 

E: 

Usually considered limit of acceDt- 

&le dela indicative of poor progression, 

long cycle length, or high 

voIume/capaaty ratio; frequent 

individual cycle failures. 

Could be considered excessive delay 

in some areas, frequently an indication 

of oversaturation (ie. arrival flow exceeds 

capacity), or very long cycle 

lengths with minimal side street green 

time. Capauty is not necessarily exceeded 

under this level of service. 

40.1 to 60.0 

> 60.0 

2-8-16

I 

I 

Table 28.4 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Study Intersections Accident Tabulation 

Adams County, Pennsylvania 

Januruy 1,1985 to December 14, 1990 

Intersection 

Number 

22 

10 

36 

11 

12 

14 

1 

24 

21 

9 

40 

15 

29 

34 

17 

32 

19 

l3 

31 

6 

35 

26 

30 

16 

7 

25 

3 

33 

2 

4 

39 

38 

37 

27 

18 

u) 

5 

28 

23 

8 

Intersectioq 

PA Route 234 and Old Harrisburg Pike 

PA Route 116 and North Third Street 

U. S. Route 30 and Herr's Ridge Road 

U. S. Route 30 and PA Route 94 

U. S. Route 30 and PA Route 194 

PA Route 234 and PA Route 194 

Route 30 and Lincoln Square 

PA Route 194 and Mount Pleasant Road 

PA Route 234 and U. S. Route 15 Interchange 

PA Route 116 and South Third Street 



Mummasburg Road and Herr's Ridge Road 

U. S. Route 30 and Cashtown Road 

U. S. Route 15 and Latimore Valley Road 

PA Route 234 and Biglerville Road 

PA Route 94 add Idade Road 

PA Route 94 and Pine Run Road 

Mummasburg Road and Goldendle/Hdtown Road 


PA Route 234 and U. S. Route 30 

U. S. Route 30 and Shealer Road 

Mummasburg Road and Belmont Road 

PA Route 94 and Lake Meade Road 

PA Route 194 and Pine Grove Road 

U. S. Route 30 & U. S. Route 15 Interchange 

PA Route 97 and Lake Heritage Driveway 

PA Route 234 and Arendtsdle Borough 


PA Route 194 and Harney Road 

U. S. Route 15 & Emmitsburg Road Interchange 

PA Route 116 and Miller Street 

PA Route 116 and Old Mill Road 

Mummasburg Road and Buford Road 


PA Route 94 and Goodyear/Latimore Road 


Mummasburg Road and Ridgewd Drive 

U. S. Route 15 and PA Route 394 Interchange 

PA Route 116 and Centennial Road 

247 262 5 

Total Total Total 

Accidents Injured Fatalities 

26 

19 

la 

18 

15 

14 

13 

10 

10 

9 

9 

8 

7 

7 

6 

6 

6 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

31 

10 

19 

12 

14 

9 

10 

11 

9 

6 

4 

10 

12 

25 

12 

a 

3 

12 

7 

5 

7 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

2-8-17

I 

I 

I 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

b 

I 

I 

e 

b 

L 

SECTION 9: COMMUNITY FACXLITIES 

Schools 

Adams County is divided into six school districts: Bermudian Springs, Conewago Valley, 

Fairfield Area, Gettysburg Area, Littlestown Area, and Upper Adams. The number is one 

fewer than existed at the time of the original Adams County Comprehensive Plan 

preparation, with the former New Oxford Area and Conewago Township districts having 

combined in the interim. 

Districts are comprised of adjoining boroughs and townships, with six municipalities divided 

between school districts (Figure 2.9.1): Tyrone Township is mostly in the Upper Adams 

district and partly in the Conewago valley district; the northeast comer of Straban Township 

is in the Conewago Valley district, while the majority of the municipality falls within the 

Gettysburg Area district; Mount Joy Township is about half in the Gettysburg Area district 

and half in the Littlestown Area district; the southern half of Bonneauville and southern tier 

of Mount Pleasant Township are in the Littlestown Area district, with the remainder of the 

respective municipalities in the Conewago Valley district; and a small northerly comer of 

Union Township is outside the Littlestown Area district and within the Conewago Valley 

district. The remaining 28 townships and boroughs fall wholly into one district or another. 

Geographically, the Gettysburg Area district is the largest. 

Generally, facilities are not distributed widely in each district and tend to be concentrated 

either in a centrally-located borough or, as in the case of the Bermudian Springs district, in 

a centrally-located "campus" in a rural setting. This trend toward centralization has been 

underway over the period since the original Comprehensive Plan was prepared and the 

process in the Bermudian Springs district is still underway: As of January 1, 1991, East 

Berlin Elementary and York Springs Elementary were closed and the new Bermudian 

Springs Elementary, adjacent to the existing middle and high schools, was opened. In 

contrast, the Upper Adams district, despite some centralization of facilities in Biglerville, 

maintains elementary schools in Arendtsville and Bendersville. 

In the past, efforts have been made to establish a county Vocational-Technical school, but 

these plans did not come to fruition. In 1989 Harrisburg Area Community College and the 

Gettysburg Area School District reached in agreement to operate day and evening postsecondary-level 

classes in the county. Wilson College of Chambersburg operates evening 

dasses at Biglerville High School, and York College of Pennsylvania runs courses at 

Hanover. 

Gettysburg College and Lutheran Theological Seminary are two prominent Adams County 

institutions of higher education, but county residents are also close to: Penn State and York 

College of Pennsylvania, at York; Penn State at Harrisburg; Penn State at Mont Alto; 

2-9-1

Wilson College, in Chambersburg; Mount Saint Marj’s College, in Emmitsburg, Maqland; 

Western Maryland College, in Westminster, Maryland; Dickinson College, in Carlisle; and 

Hood College, in Frederick, Maryland. 

School Enrollments 

The Gettysburg Area district has the largest enrollment, totalling about 3,400 students. 

Conewago Valley has about 2,800; Bermudian SpMgs over 2,400; Upper Adam about 

1,750; Littlestown Area nearly 1,600; and Fairfield Area close to 900 students. Fairfield 

Area, Gettysburg Area, Littlestown Area, and Upper Adams all possess total enrollments 

which are approximately the same as in 1968-69, the period of the original Adams County 

Comprehensive Plan preparation (see Table 2.9.1). Bermudian Springs has experienced a 

22 percent increase over the =-year period and the Conewago Valley district has gone up 

about 45 percent over the same period. Total county public school enrollments rose 8.8 

percent in the interval under study. 

In contrast to the relatively-constant or growing public school enrollments over the period, 

parochial school enrollments are about one-half of the levels from the late 1960s (Table 

2.9.2). 

A review of the capacities of the various public school facilities outlined in Table 2.9.1 

suggests that new building additions will be needed, at the very least, in the Bermudian 

Springs and Conewago Valley districts over the next few years. Much more floor area per 

student is required in today’s pedagogy when compared to the late 1960s, in consideration 

of the emergence of the computer as a tool in business and student life, and in view of other 

curriculum changes. The Upper Adams facilities at Arendtsville and Bendersville were 

expanded in 1990, and Littlestown Area’s buildings are currently being enlarged. 

d 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Special Education 

Lincoln Intermediate Unit # 12, encompassing Adams, York, and Franklin Counties, serves 

special-education needs in the area through an administrative office in New Oxford. Lincoln 

Intermediate Unit does not operate any independent educational facilities, but utilizes those 

of the public and parochial school systems in the three counties. 

Police 

Police services in Adams County are provided by the State Police and by local police 

departments where (and when) they are in existence. Table 2.9.3 outlines the service 

characteristics of local police forces. 

2-9-2

State Police provide coverage for municipalities lacking any local police force and for areas 

with part-time local forces at times when these are not operating. There are 29 full-time 

State Police officers working out of barracks on Route 116, west of Gettysburg, operating 

on a staggered three-shift schedule. Information on numbers of.personne1 staffing each shift 

is not made available to the public. 

State Police will assist local police forces if specifically requested. 

municipalities are served full-time by State Police: 

The following 

Butler Township 

Franklin Township 

Freedom Township 

Germany Township 

Highland Township 

Huntington Township 

Menallen Township 

Mt Joy Township 

Mt Pleasant Township 

Straban Township 

Fire Protection 

Fire protection in Adams County is provided by 27 volunteer fire companies, each with its 

own station at locations arrayed across the county (Figure 2.9.2). Company service areas, 

or fire districts, have been delineated by fire company agreement, and are intended to 

provide adequate fire protection for all areas. The fire district boundaries describe general 

areas of service for each company, but there is mutual aid among companies in fighting 

fires. Fire company stations also are used frequently for district and neighborhood 

community center functions. 

Table 2.9.4 lists the various fire companies, the municipalities each serves, and whether 

ambulance services are provided in addition to fire fighting (also see Figure 2.9.3). 

Ambulance Corps 

In addition to the ambulance corps associated with 11 of the fire companies, the Gettysburg 

Hospital Medic Unit provides ambulance services. 

Adams County Emergency Management Agency 

The Adams County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) is responsible for direction and 

control of all emergency situations that occur in Adams County. The agency is also 

2-9-3

esponsible for the overall operation of the Adams County Communications Center, the 

county’s emergency dispatch center, which processes the dispatch of all police, fire, and 

ambulance calls for the county. 

Recreation (Figure 29.4) 

Adams County does not own or operate any parks or recreation areas; other units of 

government, however, provide open space and recreation facilities in the county. The 

federal government operates Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National 

Historic Site; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania manages Michaux State Forest and 

Caledonia State Park (in Franklin County) on South Mountain, and several small pieces of 

game land in the northeast quadrant of the county; and a few of the local municipalities 

operate facilities. (For a discussion of the emerging conflicts between the Gettysburg 

National Military Park’s federal mandate and local recreational needs, see Section 5 of this 

chapter and Chapter 3). 

Adams County residents make use of a variety of State-operated recreational facilities 

outside but within ten miles of the county limits. The aforementioned Caledonia State Park 

borders on the county’s western edge, and features a swimming pool, picnic groves, 

campground, the Totem Pole Playhouse, and opportunities for hiking and nature study. An 

18-hole golf course is located adjacent to the park. Pine Grove Furnace State Park, just 

across the line in Cumberland County, has two lakes with swimming beaches and boat 

rentals. Codorus State Park, in York County, has a lake for fishing and boating, a swimming 

pool, and hiking trails. Gifford Pinchot State Park, also in York County, provides facilities 

for picnicking, hiking, swimming, fishing, boating, and winter sports such as skating and 

tobogganing. The Appalachian Trail skirts the western boundary of Adam County. 

In Maryland, Catoctin Mountain Park and Cunningham Falls State Park are within a few 

miles of the Pennsylvania line and readily accessible to Adam County residents. 

Municipal parks in Adam County are provided by Gettysburg, Littlestown, Carroll Valley, 

Abbottstown, and McSherrystown. The Gettysburg Recreational Park has several ball 

diamonds and court-game facilities. Littlestown’s community park features an outdoor 

swimming pool, ballfields, and pavilions. Butler Township operates a ballfield. 

While there is not a strong tradition of municipally-administered open spaces in the county, 

community-based, quasi-public entities have filled some of the need for local parks. The 

South Mountain Fairgrounds, near Arendtsville in Menallen Township, is a 38-acre tract 

which is home to the annual South Mountain Fair and the Apple Blossom and Apple 

Harvest festivals. The Oakside Community Park, near Biglerville in Butler Township, is 

operated by the Upper Adams Jaycees. The Cashtown Lions Club runs the Cashtown Lion 

Park along US Route 30. The York Springs Firemen’s Association owns a 26-acre tract 

partly in the borough and partly in Latimore Township. 

2-9-4

1 

I 

e 

I 

I 

I 

a 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Local recreational needs are also filled by the Gettysburg YWCA, which has a gym and 

indoor swimming pool, and by the schools, all of which have outdoor recreational facilities. 

East Berlin Borough has recently purchased the former East Berlin Elementary School (see 

“Schools”, above). Plans are underway to provide services to an area consisting of seven 

muncipalities in eastern Adams and western York Counties. 

Publicly-accessible golf courses include: Carroll Valley Golf and Country Club; Cedar Ridge 

Golf Course, in Mount Joy Township; Flatbush Golf Course, north of Littlestown in Union 

Township; Mountainview Country Club, north of Fairfield in Hamiltonban Township; Piney 

Apple Golf Course, near Wenksville in Menallen Township; the South Hills Golf Club, on 

the Adams-York border in Conewago Township; and Caledonia Golf Club, on the 

Menallen-Franklin County line. Private golf clubs include Gettysburg Country Club, west 

of Gettysburg; and Hanover Country Club, on the Abbottstown-York County border. 

Carroll VaIley is home to the county’s only major winter-sports attraction, Ski Liberty ski 

resort. To the west, on South Mountain, is the foundation-run, publicly-accessible 

Strawberry Hill Nature Center. 

Many Adams County residents, in addition to tourists to the area, frequent the privatelyoperated 

local campgrounds. Granite Hill Campground, on Route 116 in Highland 

Township, has a water slide attraction. Gettysburg-area campgrounds also include Drummer 

Boy, in Straban Township; Always Welcome, Round Top, Heritage Resorts, and Artillery 

Ridge in Cumberland Township; and Gettysburg and KOA in Highland Township. 

Conewago Campground is adjacent to the Narrows, in the Buchanan Valley, and Hershey’s 

Campground is southeast of York Springs, in Huntington Township. 

Public Institutions (Figure 2.9.5) 

The federal government operates a variety of institutions in the county, ranging from the 

nationally-prominent, such as Gettysburg National Military Park, Gettysburg National 

Cemetery, and Eisenhower National Historic Site, through the less-well-known, such as the 

GWYN communications tower off US Route 30, east of US Route 15. Distributed through 

the county are numerous post offices, and Gettysburg also has county offices for the Soil 

Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and Farmers 

Home Administration. The Federal Communications Commission operates a national 

license-issuing office on Fairfield Road, just west of Gettysburg, and the borough is also 

home to a National Guard Armory and Armed Forces Recruiting Center. Southwest of 

Carroll Valley Borough, in Liberty Township, is a Defense Department military installation. 

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owns and administers the state forests and game lands 

in the county, as well as Caledonia State Park (just over the Adam County line in Franklin 

County). The State Police barracks are on Route 116, just west of Gettysburg, and 

i 

I. 

2-9-5

PennDOT has a road maintenance depot adjacent. There is an Office of Public Assistance 

and a State Health Center in Gettysburg. 

Adams County has its offices in the Courthouse and Annex in central Gettysburg, and also 

operates the Green Acres nursing home and County Prison on Route 34, just north of the 

borough. The Agricultural and Home Economics Extension Services facilities are on US 

Route 30, west of Gettysburg. 

The regional library system includes the Adam County Library in Gettysburg, a branch in 

New Oxford, a bookmobile, and an independent affiliated library in East Berlin. 

Municipal facilities include the various township and borough halls, and fire stations. 

Private Institutions 

Gettysburg College, the liberal-arts college on 175 acres in the north part of the borough, 

and the Lutheran Theological Seminary, on 52 acres west of Gettysburg, are two of the 

county's most prominent private institutions. 

Adams County is also the location of a number of nursing home/life-care establishments. 

The Brethren Home, at the Cross Keys intersection in Oxford Township, has a full-range 

of independent living and nursing home facilities. The Lutheran Home, on Old Route 15 

northeast of Gettysburg in Straban Township, offers a similar wide-range of living and 

special-care accommodations. Other nursing homes include Gettysburg Village Green, off 

US Route 30, in Straban Township; Michael Manor, west of Gettysburg on US Route 30; 

and the Piney Mountain Home, on US Route 30, west of Cashtown. 

Other sigdicant institutions include Gettysburg Hospital; the Children's Developmental 

Center, a residential facility for children with special needs near Abbottstown in Berwick 

Township; the Hoffman Home, a church-operated residential-care facility for children in 

Mt. Joy Township; the HART sheltered workshop, just east of New Oxford; the Adams 

County Office for the Aging, in Gettysburg; and the Apple Line paratransit service, with 

offices in Gettysburg. 

2-9-6

Table 2.9.la 

Adams County Public Schools 

Bermudian Springs District 

Enrollments 

Year Built scJlmJ trades Camcity 196869 19%89 4989-90 1990-91 1995-96Iproiected) 

opened 

1990 Berniudian Springs Elementary K4 lo00 1991 1013 

1977 Bermudian Springs Middle 75 5-8 500 489 536 515 857. 

1960 Bemiudian Springs High 9-12 600 600 470 457 481 587 

(in78 East Berlin Elenientary 9 K4 450 440 366 397 435 closed 1991) 

11930 York Springs Elementary 13 K4 450 445 359 383 393 closed 1991) 

---- 

Total District Public Enrollment 1,495 1,684 1,773 2,457 

*Building addition planned 

Conewago Valley District 

Year Built 

- School 

Enrollments 

Acreage Grades Capacity 1968-69 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1995-96 (proiectedl 

1954,69,06 New Oxford Elementary 18 K-6 900 801* 891 893 969 1,084 

1958,72,86 Conewago Twp. Elementary 12 K-6 600 408 601 665 674 755 

1976 New Oxford Junior High 89 7 -9 800 619 632 609 944 

1960 New Oxford Senior High 42 10-12 700 750 576 558 586 681 

---- 

Total District Public Enrollment 1,962 2,687 2,~s 2SJS 3,466 

*Berlin Ave. Elementary & Peters St. Elementary Combined

Table 2.9.lb 


Fairfield Area District 

Enrollments 

Year Built - School &reaee GrPdes Capacity JW8-69 4988-89 1989-90 1990-91 J995-%~nroiectedl 

1971 Fairfield Intermediate 44 1z 44 a50 241 255 266 332 

---- 

1928 FaifleM Elementor). & Secondary 38 1-39 7-12 714 848 487 578 (93 628 

Total District Public Enrollment 848 728 833 871 950 

Gettysburg Area District 

Year Built - 

Enrollments 

School Acreage Cradeo Capacity 3968-69 j988-69 1989-90 1990-91 1995-96 fproiected~ 

I959 Eisenhower Elementary 10 K-6 350. 650. 378 366 368 371 

1988 Franklin Township Elementary 14 K-6 500 3110 403 411 3% 399 , 

1969 James Cettys Elementary 60 K-6 525 a8 535 527 530 

1954 Kwfauver Elementary I2 K-6 3sob 615” 393 397 427 430 

18% Meade Elementary 1.5 K-3 200 206 169 174 184 187 

1975 Gettysburg Junior High 25 7-9 653 m9v 731 760 775 m77 

1963 Gettysbus Senior High 20 10-12 749 (U16d 714 713 723 770 

---- 

‘Tutal District Public Enrollment 3,627 3,336 3,356 3Poo 3364 

.Capacity was 660, aeording to the 1970 Adanis Co. Coniprehensive Plan; 

Wider school structure; 

bCapacity was 600, according to the 1970 Adanis Co. Coniprehensive Plan; 

“Capacity was 950, according to the 1970 Adanis Co. Coniprehensive Plan

Table 2.9.1~ 


Littlestown Area District 

year Built 

1954 Rolling Acres Elementary 4 K4 1020 Sea 718 699 718 717 

1932 Maple Avenue Middle 4 5-11 727 301 497 488 493 55Q 

---- 

1961 Littlestown High 22 9-12 814 732 482 423 384 387 

Total Distrlct Public Enrollment 1.577 lhn 1410 1,595 1m 

Upper Adams District 

Year Built 

- School 

Enrollments 

Acreage Capacity 1968-69 Iy8s-s9 1989-90 1990-91 1995-96 (proiected) 

1954 Arendtsville Elementary 16 1-6 300 250 186 255 280 300 

1950 Bendersville Elementary s 14 350 250 199 284 309 300 

I 

1954 Biglerville Elementary I2 Kd 450 386 553 424 443 470 

1916 Biglenille Junior & Senior High I2 7-12 750. 890. 705 694 719 802 

---- 

Total District Public Enrollment 1,776 19645 1,657 1,751 1,872 

*Capacity was 99@, according to the 1970 Adam Ca Comprehensive Plan 

Total County Public Enrollment llJU 11,777 11,977 12,279 13,967

Table 2.9.2 

Enrollments 

I 

I 

a 

Adams County 

Parochial Schools 

Iuml8nllate Comptioa School, 

New Oxford 

1.8 

561 299 

246 186 

I 

Sacred Heart of Jesus School, 

Concrpgo Township 

1-8 

307 175 

Table 293 

Adam County 

Municipalities with 

Police Depmtments 

Saint Francis Xavkr School, 

ce(tyJbpn3 

Iklom Catholic High School, 

McSherrystmm 

TotslppmchsplsrhodEardbnclst 

BderviUe Borough 

1.8 

9-12 

344 229 

1 Ofi'ker, varied schedule. Also patrols Hamilton Township. 

1 otrim, cumntly on mspcnsion. Worked 15-20 hrs./weelr. 

1 part-time 0-r but due to end by Jan. 1,1991 owing to new 

trpinistandnmls. 

2 OtYkers, each works 45 honm/week 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Bonneauville Borough 

2 O(llrcrs, odyworkweekand evenings. 

Carroll Valley Borough 

EastBeriinBonwgh 

FairAcM Borough 

McShenystown Borough 

New Oxford Borough 

York Springs Borough and 

Latimore Township (combid) 

Conewag0 Township 

Cumbarland Township 

Hamilton Township 

Hamiltonban Township 

Liberty Township 

Sometimes 24 hours a day. 

1 bll-time and 1 part-time ofnfcrs. 

1 full-time Officer works shifts in p(pcsmant with C mll Valley, 

Liberty and Hamiltoh to mpximizc coverage. 

24 houn a day. U OtYkers including Chief. 

24 hours a day. 5 full-time OCTKers including Chief, and 2 parttime 

OMcers 

4 full-time OMcers, almost 24-haur-a-day coverap Shift changes 

somctimescausea breakincoverage. 

2 Lll-time Officers. State Police taka calls if they are of! duty. 

2 full-time and 2 part-time Officers. 

24 hours a day. 5 Officers. 

24 hours a day. 5 Officers. 

[see Abbdtstown Borough1 

1 full-time ChieZ 1 part-time ofzlm, 1 reserve Officer. Haw 

operational agreemen4 with Fairficld, Carroll Valley and Liberty. 

1 part-time OMcer. Have operational agreement with Fairfield, 

Carroll Valley and Liberty. 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

.I 

Oxford Township 

2 full-time Officers. Work 100 hours a week. 

Reading Township 

2-9-10 

[information unavailabk] 

II 

I

I 

I 

a 

b 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

a 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

m 

Table 29.4a 

Adams County 

Fire Services 

Municioalitics Served 


Cumberland Township 

~WurgBorOugh 

Hind Township 



StrabanTolllsbip 

CarrollVPLlcJ~ 

Fairfiild Borough 



Hamiitonben Township 

H i n d Township 

LibertyTownship 

3. FocmtplnQk Volunteer Fh C m Carroll valky Borough 

Hamiltonhen Township 

Liberty Township 

A Cprbtm Community FIrc Company 


Highland Township 

5. ~ ~ c ~ * F i r a c o n r p s n y Arcndtsvilk Bomagh 




6. Bigitdl8 Hose &Truck Company No. 1 Baervih Borough 




7. Bendersville Connaunity Fm Company Bendemilk Borough 


Mennlkn Tomship 

TyronoTomship 




Tyrone Township 

9. York Spriqp Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 Huntington Township 

Latimore Township 


York Springs Borough 

10. Hamptocl Volunteer Fire Company 

11. LibertyFmComPpny 

12 Abbottstown Fin Company 

l3. New Oxford Fire Company 

2-9-1 1 





East Berlin Borough 



Abbottstovn Borough 

&wick Township 


Bemick Township 



New Oxford Borough 


Ambulance Services 

YeS 

YOS 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes

Table 2.9.4b 

Adam County 

Fire Services 

ComDanv Number/Name 

14. IriShtownFhCompany 

15. Conewago Fi Company 

16 Centennial Fire Company 

Oxford Township 

Conewago Township 

ComwpgoTownship 


Ambulance Services 

No 

No 

No 

17. McSherrystown Steam Fire 

Engine Company No. 1 

Concrsgo Township 

McSherrystow~~ Borough 

YeS 

l8. Broshtanr Fi Company 

CowrpooTounship 

Mt Pleasant Tomship 

Union Tomship 

No 

l9. Bonneauvilk Community Fi 

Company, Inc. 

BoMeaUvilk Borop% 



StrabPnTomship 

Yes 

20. Alpha Fire Company No. 1, Inc. 

Gennany Township 

Littlestown Borough 



Union Township 

YeS 

21. Kingsdak Volunteer Fi Company 

Germnny Township 


No 

22 Barlow Volunteer Ti Company 



Mt Joy Tormship 

Yes 

23. Greenmount Community Fire Company 

24. Midway Volunteer Fi Company 

No. 1 of Adanas County 

25. Heidlersburg Area Volunteer Fire Company 

26. Lake Meade Fire and Rescue, Inc 

27. khanan Valley Fi Company 



&wick Tomship 

Cornwag0 Township 

OxfordTownship 








No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

2-9- 12

1 

1 

SECTION 10: 1NFRASTRUC"URE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 

Adams County as a public entity provides no utility or other infrastructure or environmental 

services. Ordinary utilities, including electric power, telephone, gas, radio, and television 

services are provided by private utility companies regulated by the Pennsylvania Public 

Utility Commission (PUC). Water supply and sewage collection and disposal services are 

provided only in a number of boroughs by borough or municipal authority public systems, 

as well as by a few private systems outside of the boroughs. In general, water supply and 

sewage system service areas are coincident with the boroughs. Outside of the boroughs, 

most residences, commercial firms,institutions, and industries rely upon on-site weils for 

water supply and on-site septic systems for sewage disposal. 

Water A vailabilitv 

Water of adequate quality for drinking is widely available throughout Adams County, 

primarily from groundwater sources. The amount of water that can be withdrawn by wells 

is generally sufficient for most uses. However, many wells in Adams County do not produce 

an adequate supply of water, particularly considering the increased demands of modern 

household appliances and fixtures. During the drought years of the late 1980s, farm and 

orchard yields were significantly reduced by the lack of rainfall, and marginal wells went dry 

or produced insufficient yields. In some areas, surface water is available in substantial 

quantities, but use is made of surface water by only five community water supply systems. 

As of 1990 it was estimated that the population of roughly 80,000 residents plus commercial 

firms, institutions, and industries used approximately 10 million gallons of water per day 

(rngd). As shown in Figure 2.10.1, normal annual precipitation averages 39 inches at 

Gettysburg, which is probably typical in the county. Precipitation is slightly more, about 44 

inches, in the South Mountain area. Of this typical precipitation, 24 inches or 61 percent 

is lost to evapotranspiration (& returns to the atmosphere). The remainder of about 15 

inches runs into the creeks and streams or soaks into the ground as groundwater recharge 

and is available for withdrawal and use. It is estimated that in an average year about 8 

inches runs directly into the creeks and streams as surface runoff, eventually reaching the 

Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers. About 7 inches in an average year infiltrates into the 

ground. The quantity of groundwater that is not consumed later discharges into the creeks 

and streams ("baseflow") or flows out of the county underground. 

Baseflow to streams in the area underlain by Triassic age rocks averages about 200 gallons 

per minute per square mile (gpm/mi2), while in the area underlain by carbonate rocks the 

baseflow discharge averages about 400 gpm/mi'. These amounts are equivalent to a 

groundwater resource of about 98 mgd from the Triassic areas and 12 mgd from the 

carbonate areas, for a total of about 110 mgd for the entire county. Therefore, current use 

of water in Adams County of about 10 mgd represents less than 10 percent of the ground- 

2-10-1

Figure 2.10.1 

Average Annual Water Resomes 

for Adam County Water Supplies 

I 

39 inches 

\OUTFLOW 

15 inches 

2-10-2

water resources normally available. 

Community Water Suppiy Systems 

Community public water supply systems are defined by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act 

as "systems that have at least 15 service connections or regularly serve at least 25 people". 

There are eighteen municipal community water supply systems currently operating in Adams 

County (Figure 2.102). In addition, there are eleven non-municipal community water supply 

systems providing water to various residential communities, mobile home parks, 

campgrounds, and other residential establishments. There are also commercial and 

industrial firms with their own wells for water supplies. The community systems are listed 

in Table 2.10.1. Thirteen of the municipal systems rely solely on groundwater sources, either 

spMgs or wells. Five of the municipal systems rely, in part, on surface water sources: 

Fairfield (Maple Spring Run); Gettysburg (Marsh Creek); Hanover, senring McSherrystown 

and other areas in Adams County (with two reservoirs, one of which is in Conewago 

Township); Littlestown Borough (with a local quarry used as a reserve); and New Oxford 

(South Branch of the Conewago Creek). The Hanover system recently received an 

allocation for quarry pumping from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources (PaDER) for one mgd surface water withdrawal. Fairfield is responding to 

PaDER directives and, with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance 

administered by the County, is providing a groundwater supply. 

The two largest of these municipal water supply systems are the Gettysburg system, serving 

a population of about 8,000, and the Hanover system in York County, serving a population 

of about 4,600 in Adam County in and around McSherrystown Borough and the Midway 

area of Conewago Township. The Gettysburg system provides about 1.5 million gallons per 

day (mgd), and the Hanover system provides about 35 mgd overall, roughly twelve percent 

of which is used in Adams County (about 440,000 gpd). The Littlestown Borough system 

pumps about 286,000 gpd, of which approximately 185,000 gpd is delivered (metered) to the 

population of 3,025. The New Oxford Municipal Authority provides about 550,000 gpd to 

residential, commercial, and industrial customers, of which approximately 177,000 gpd is 

delivered (metered) to the population of 2,940. The difference between the amounts of 

water pumped in Littlestown and New Oxford and the amounts delivered to residential 

customers can be accounted for by use by commercial and industrial firms, institutions, 

municipal government, fire fighting, and leaks. 

Overall, the eighteen municipal community water supply systems serve approximately 39,200 

persons out of a county population of about 80,000, providing almost 4 million gallons of 

wat.er per day, or an average of roughly 100 gallons per person per day (including nonresidential 

uses and leaks). 

Table 2.10.1 provides information on the population served, number of service connections, 

and daily use for each of the municipal and non-municipal community water supply systems. 

2-10-3

Table 2.10.1 

Municipal tuui Community Water Supply Systems 

SERVICE AREA 

1 ABBOTTSTOWN 670 192 39,800 

2 ARENDTSVILLE 658 323 110,500 

3 ASPERS 

# 

88 

168 

1 

I 

B 

I 

I 

1 

28 

29 

TOTAL - MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS 

(INCLUDING GETIYSBURG) 39,205 

TOTAL - MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS 

(NOT INCLUDING GEITYSBURG) 28,325 

NON-MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS 

~~ ~ 

/MOBILE HOME PARK 

12.124 3,962,800 

9,015 2,414,800 

- I01 

- 85 

375 I 125 I 24,000 I 64 

MOBILE HOME PARK 330 110 17,000 52 

ROUND TOP CAMPGROUND 200 67 10,000 45 

STOCHAMS VILLAGE 

I MOBILE HOME PARK 252 I 84 1 11,000 I 44 

OVERALL TOTAL - INCLUDING 

GElTYSBURG 

OVERALL TOTAL - NOT INCLUDING 

GFITYSBURG 

42,353 

31,473 

2- 10-4 

13,173 4,148,800 

10,064 2,600,800 

- 98 

- 83 

1 

I' 

I 

I

Table 2.10.2 

Water yield and Storage Cape 

Municipal and Community Water Supply System 

SERVICE AREA 

1 ABBOTTSTOWN 3 SPRINGS 234,000 pH ADJUST 93.000 COV’D.RES. 

2 WELLS 

(1 MAINWELL) 

+CHLORINATOR 500,OOO OPEN RES. 

593.000 

2 ARENDTSWLLE 3wELLs 136,500 CHLORINATION 300,000 

pH ADJUSTMENT 

(TANK) 

3 ASPERS 3 WELLS - CHLORINATION 

1 o(3,ooo 

(MENALLEN WP) 

10 SPRINGS 

(RESERVOIR) 

4 BENDERSVILLE 3 SPRINGS 108,000 CHLORINATION 380,m 

3 WEUS 

(2 RESERVOIRS) 

5 BIGLERVILLE 5 WELLS 184,300 CHLORINATION 

1,500,ooo 

(EARTH RESERVOIR) 

6 BONNEAUVILLE 6 WELLS 84,000 CHLORINATION loo,o0O 

7 CARROLLVALLEY 2 WEUS - (STANDPIPE 

8 CASHTOWN 1 SPRING 25.000 CHLORINATION 8.600 

1 WELL (TANK) 

9 EASTBERUN 4 WEUS 400,OOO CHLORINATION 650,000 

(TANK & EARTH 

RESERVOIR) 

10 FAIRFIELD MAPLE SPRING RUN 86,ooO CHLORINATION None 

I I 2 WELLS I I 1 (250,000 Planned) 

11 IGEnvSBURG MARSHCREEK I 2,270,900 I RAPID FLOW I 

12 I LAKE HERITAGE 

13 LAKE MEADE 

14 L!lTLESTOWN 

2.1 00.000 

& DEEP WELLS FILTRATION (2 TANKS) 

2 WELLS - CHLORINATION ELEV. TANK 

WELLS - CHLORINATION ELEV. TANK 

7 WELLS 343.000 CHLORINATION 9CQ,OOO 

QUARRY (RESERVE) [+144,000/’91] (TANK, STANDPIPE) 

15 McSHERRYSTOWN 

16 MIDWAY 

HANOVER BORO 

HANOVER 80RO 

280,000 

280,000 

CHLORINATION 

CHLORINATION 

HANOVER BOA0 

HANOVER BORO 

(CONNVAGO WP) 

17 NEWOXFORD CONEWAGO CREEK 570,000 CLARIFIER (ELEVATED TANK) 

1 WELL 25,000 FLOCCUIATOR 1,700.000 

18 YORK SPRINGS 3 SPRINGS 15.000 CHLORINATION 200,000 

4 WELLS 236,000 (UNDERGRND. RES.) 

NON-MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS 

1 

e 

I 

I 

27 

28 

29 

LINCOLN ESTATE 

MOBILE HOME PARK - WELL I 

ROUND TOP CAMPGROUND WELL - - 9,000 

STOCHAMS VILLAGE 

WELL 

MOBILE HOME PARK WELL - 

- 3,000 

- 4,000

Table 2.10.2 provides data on the sources of water supply, yields in gallons per day (gpd), 

types of treatment, and storage capacities of the system to meet peak demand, as well as 

fire fighting and other emergency needs. The quality of community water supply systems 

is monitored by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER), based 

on regular chemical and biological samples that are required to be taken, analyzed, and 

reported under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prompt notification must be given by the 

system operators to the persons served by the system if and when any one of (currently) 83 

contaminants exceeds allowable levels. 

Non-Community Water Supply Systems 

Non-community public water supply systems are defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act 

as "systems that regularly serve at least 25 of the same people over six months of the year". 

Such systems serve schools and other facilities not operating year-round. Schools and other 

facilities not served by the community water supply systems listed in Table 2.10.1 have their 

own on-site wells for water supply. Such systems must also comply with the Safe Drinking 

Water Act with regard to sampling and reporting to ensure that water quality meets 

regulatory limits. 

Private Water Supplies - Groundwater 

About one-half of the residential dwellings, farms, commercial firms, institutions, and 

industries in Adam county utilize on-site wells for their water supply. This reliance on 

groundwater places a significant limitation on the number and location new housing units 

and new commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings since, as noted above, the yield 

of wells drilled in most geologic formations throughout the county can vary widely and many 

wells have disappointing yields. 

The report "Summary Groundwater Resources of Adam County, Pennsylvania" (by Larry 

E. Taylor and Denise W. Royer, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Fourth Series, Water 

Resource Report 52, Harrisburg, PA, 1981) with accompanying map, is an excellent source 

of basic information on well yields and water quality with respect to each geologic formation 

throughout the county. In bried the following generalizations can be made: 

Latimore. Huntinvton. Readine and Tvrone Townshin 

The oldest rock outcrops in these townships are of the preCambaian volcanic type that occur on South Mountain 

in the northern part of the county. It is only in recent years that many W ed wells were placed in these rocks 

because in earlier years springs and dug wells adequately supplied the needs of the inhabitants. 

A long belt of limestone is exposed in the vi&ty of York Springs, and while most drilled wells in limestone are 

successful, failures to obtain water or sufficient water will occur. The water is usually hard, but if one wishes 

2- 10-6

to avoid the use of hard water, point-of-use treatment (& 

or commercial building. 

a water softener) can be installed in the residence 

The Triassic shales and sandstones are at the surfaa throughout mod of these towaships. The well-known York 

Sulfru Spring, one mile southeast of York Springs a d once the site of a summer resort, is on the south bank 

of Bermudian Creek. This spring is a small one, $elding about 2 galloas per minute. The water has a distinct 

odor of hydrogen sultide, but is quite clear. 

The water-bearing propcrties of the Triassic rock in this area vary greatly, with recorded yields of 10 to 110 

gallons per minute. Drilled wells in this area arc as shallow as 60 feet. The borough of East Berlin uses this 

formation as a source of municipal water. The borough has 2 wells, 910 and 225 feet in depth, yielding 50 and 

110 gallons per minute respectively. 

{ 

C W Umon To- 

The oldest rock outcrops in these townships are Harpers phyllite, Antietam sandstone, and pre-Cambrian 

volcanics that are exposed in the Pigeon Hils. These rocks yield small supplies to drilled we&. 

The Antietam sandstone in this area is overlain by limestone. Considerable amounts of limestone have been 

quarried in the vicinity of Bittinger, requiring Iarge quantities of water to be pumped out of the quarry work 

areas every day. When one considers the size of the quarries, however, the percolation per unit area is actually 

small. Practically all of the water enters the quarries through solution channels. It is improbable that much 

water will be encountered at depths greater than w) or 300 feet below the surface. The largest and deepest well 

in this area supplies 75 gallons of water per minute. DriiIing into a solution channel is the key to success when 

drilling for large quantities of water in limestone regions. However, domestic sewage from on-site septic tanks 

in these same regions will often leach effluent into these same channels and contamination can result. 

The Triassic sediments associated with this area can usually be depended upon to yield small supplies to drilled 

wells. The wells generally require screening to provide sediment-free water. 

These townships are all underlain by Triassic sediments intruded by dikes and sills of diabase. Very few wells 

in the Triassic sediments fail, however, large yields have not been reported from this area. Yields range from 

2-112 to 7 gallons per minute, but the depth of the wells range from 40 to 155 feet - deeper drilling would 

probably result in a higher water yield. 

Menallen. But ler. Cumbe rland. and F reedom Towns hi= 

The oldest rock outcrops in these townships are pre-Cambrian volcanic rocks exposed in South Mountain. These 

rocks outcrop in a rugged, sparsely inhabited area where springs, drilled web, and some dug wells supply present 

needs. Drilled wells not exceeding 250 feet in depth should yield enough water to supply the average residence. 

However, some wek in this area may be failures. 

Gettysburg and its surrounding residential development are located in this geologic zone. One commercial well 

in Gettysburg yields 200 gpm with only a slight drawdown. The water is fairly hard; the hardness consisting 

primarily of calaum carbonate dissolved from the limestone formation. 

Sedimentary rocks in the area can be depended upon to yield small supplies. In some piaces, small springs issue 

from the rock formations, as revealed by the spring at Devil's Run on the Gettysburg Battlefield that became 

famous because of use by both sides during the famous battle. 

2- 10-7

Most of the wells in this area are shallow, 40 feet to 125 feet deep, and produce yields from 2 to 7 gallons per 

minute. Deeper drilling usually results in improved yields. 

-and.r a Llk rtv T o e 

The pre-Cambriaa volcanic rocks are the oldest ones outcropping in these townships and contain numerous 

quartz veins. Small springs are numerous in this area, with several located around Cashtown and Orrtanna 

yielding 2 to 5 gallons a minute. The volcanic rocks yield water low in dissolved mineral matter. Springs and 

shallow wells are used by the majority of residents for water supply. 

Overlying the volcanic rocks are the Cambrian formations, Wevcrton sandstone, Harpers phyllite, and Antietam 

sandstone. These are the same formations that outcrop in South Mountain. Springs, the main source of water 

supply in these formations, are usually low in dissolved mineral matter, causing them to be very soft. 

Cambrian and Ordovician limestones, which overlie the Antietam sandstone, outcrop along the eastern side of 

South Mountain. These limestones supply small yields, except where large supplies are made possible by waterbearing 

solution channels. 

Once out of the South Mountain area, the largest part of these four townships is underlain by Triassic sediments 

that furnish water yields of 2-1/2 to 7 gallons a minute at well depths of 40 to 150 feet. 

Groundwater Pollution 

Groundwater can become polluted through failed sewage treatment systems, improper 

agricultural practices, and improper industrial waste disposal. Housing densities, high water 

tables, and drought can also affect the location and degree of pollution. In Adams County, 

failed on-site domestic wastewater septic treatment systems are the primary cause of 

pollution of shallow potable water wells. High nitrate levels can be caused in domestic 

water supply wells through the over-application of fertilizers and manure on nearby 

agricultural fields or the overconcentration of farm animals in barnyards or on feed lots. 

Pesticides, herbicides, and rodenticides can reach groundwater from improper use on 

agricultural fields and in buildings. 

In the Bonneauville-Littlestown-New Oxford area there is a history of groundwater pollution 

from failed septic systems. Other areas of the county are also experiencing problems from 

both failed septic systems and from high nitrate levels. No reports are known that would 

indicate significant groundwater pollution in Adams County from other agricultural, 

commercial, or industrial chemicals, unlike a number of other counties in Pennsylvania (but 

see "Hazardous Wastes", following). 

Groundwater pollution problems may increase in areas of the county experiencing 

residential and commercial growth. To combat this trend, Sewage Enforcement Officers 

(SEOs) have been appointed in each township to ensure that new on-site septic systems are 

properly sited and built and that existing systems that fail are promptly identified and 

repaired or replaced. Also, federal, state, and county agencies assisting the agricultural 

community are working to get farmers to adopt "best management practices" (BMP) for the 

2-10-8

I 

c 

use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in order to limit or prevent pollution of creeks, 

streams, and groundwater. 

In any case, regular testing of every potable water supply for bacteriological and chemical 

pollutants is a prudent precaution against contamination and possible future health 

problems. 

Surface Water 

As noted earlier, only five communities obtain portions of their water supplies from surface 

water sources. No private water supplies are obtained from surface water; however, the 

county has several hundred farm ponds that range from one-tenth of an acre to 9 acres in 

surface area. Large ponds of 9 acres have a storage capacity of more than 100 acre-feet, 

or more than 35,000,000 gallons of water. Ponds are used for irrigation and for fire 

protection, watering livestock, raising fish, and recreation. The average farm pond is about 

one-half acre in size and is too small to irrigate any area except a very small one. A pond 

large enough to irrigate a substantial area is generally impractical, because it is expensive 

to build, and during dry periods when water is needed most, the rate of recharge is slowest. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

In the Adams County Comprehensive Plan prepared in the early 1970s an extensive section 

was devoted to "potential for impounding areas" for new surface water reservoirs in Adams 

County. Reservoirs at one or more of the recommended locations were to be used for flood 

control, domestic and industrial water supply, fire protection, irrigation, and recreation. The 

locations were identified based on a comprehensive study of the Potomac and Susquehanna 

River basins conducted during the 1960s by federal agencies. The Soil Conservation Service 

of the U. S. Department of Agriculture identified 81 potential water storage sites in Adams 

County, ranging from 20 to 370 surface acres, capable of storing from 80 to 5,760 acre-feet 

of water. From this list, 10 locations were recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for 

more detailed investigation. The reasons for considering reservoirs included: (1) the failure 

of many wells to deliver the required yields; (2) increasing pollution of groundwater detected 

in many areas; (3) the need for increased quantities of irrigation water during periods of 

drought; (4) the need to augment stream flows during periods of drought; (5) lack of 

adequate fire protection in many communities and rural areas; (6) growing demands for 

water-borne recreation; and (7) the opportunity to plan ahead for water supply sources to 

meet growing needs in areas where groundwater resources were likely to become 

overutilized. 

The ten locations described in the earlier Plan can be divided into two groups; one of six 

sites, and one of four sites. 

Six sites that seemed to offer full potential as multiple-purpose impounding areas for flood 

control, domestic and industrial water supply, fire protection, irrigation, and recreation were: 

2-10-9

Site 22 - Pine Run, in Hamilton Township; 

Site 42 - Conewago Creek, in the Buchanan Valley; 

Site 48 - Alloway Creek, in Germany and Mount Joy Townships; 

Site 67 - Little Marsh Creek, in Highland Township; 

Site 73 - Middle Creek, in Liberty Township; and 

Site 74 - Middle Creek, in Freedom Township. 

Four sites intended for flood control, limited recreation, and irrigation for farm crops were: 

Site 14 - Bermudian Creek, in Huntingdon Township; 

Site 14 - Bermudian Creek, in Tyrone Township; 

Be 79 - Plum Run, in Reading Township; and 

Site 59 - Rock Creek, in Cumberland and Straban Townships. 

Although planning for the future implementation of one or more of these impoundments 

could be considered advisable from a water resource standpoint, consideration must also be 

given to the ecological and ,socioeconomic impact of dams and reservoirs. Despite the 

advantages enumerated above, impoundments also flood wetlands, farms, forests and, in 

some cases, residences, thereby displacing ecological habitats, agricultural and timber 

resources, and perhaps people. The recreational values created by the impoundment can 

cause increased traffic on limited-capacity roads, and the improved availability of water can 

stimulate residential and commercial growth. 

1 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

i 

"rea tmen t 

Municipal Sewage Collection and Treatment 

There are twenty-one municipal centralized sewage collection and treatment system 

currently operating in Adam County (Figure 2.103). These systems are listed in Table 

2.10.3, including information concerning types of plants, dates of construction, populations 

served, and numbers of senrice connections. Table 2.10.4 lists the design capacity and 

reserve capacity for each system and its average daily flow. 

There are several items to note from Tables 2.10.3 and 2.10.4. First, only about half of the 

county population is served by all of these municipal systems. The rest of the county 

population uses on-site septic tank and drain field systems, with a few cesspools and privies 

probably still in use. Second, there is reserve capacity available in several of the systems, 

but Gettysburg is effectively at its current design capacity, and Cumberland Township #1 

and #2, Fairfield, Lake Meade, Reading Township, and York Springs Borough each have 

little or no reserve capacity. Third, the average daily flows through each system generally 

exceed the normal average per capita daily water use. Part of this excess load may come 

from commercial and industrial firms served by the systems, but a larger part of the excess 

is probably infiltration and idow (I & I) from leaking sewer pipes. I & I occurs when 

2-10-10 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I

I 

L 

b 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

rainwater (and groundwater where the water table is above the level of the sewer pipes) 

leaks into the pipes and flows to the sewage treatment system, placing additional loads on 

the system. The municipal system operators, in general, appreciate the I & I problem and 

have undertaken programs to detect leaks and repair them one at a time. As the leaks are 

repaired, additional system reserve capacity becomes available. 

All of these municipal systems discharge their treated effluent water into a creek or stream, 

except Orrtanna, which uses spray irrigation. At times of low rainfall, creek or stream flows 

consist largely or even completely of the wastewater treatment system effluent. Each of 

these municipal wastewater treatment systems discharging effluent to a creek or stream must 

meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit, which PaDER monitors closely. However, since even well-designed and welloperated 

wastewater treatment plants remove only 85%. or less of the sewage (with many 

plants operating at 60% or less effectiveness), and since treatment plant failures happen 

occasionally if not frequently, the water quality in creeks and streams can vary widely (and 

rapidly) from acceptable to below State standards. 

Land application of treated effluent as used, for example, by Orrtanna, is an alternative to 

stream discharge, either by spray or drip irrigation, by settling pond, or by underground 

drainage field. Local opposition to these types of disposal has frequently prevented their 

adoption. In the past, odors from land application were common occurrences. The design 

of more recent systems have paid particular attention to these problems, and proponents 

claim that odors are absent from well-designed and well-operated land application systems. 

In Adams County and other areas of the country, land developers have installed "package" 

sewage treatment plants and sewers to serve small communities of, say, 10 to 300 homes, 

or a commercial office development or institution. The proliferation of such small package 

plants has been slowed by PaDER regulations and local opposition. However, where soil 

conditions are unfavorable for on-site septic tank installations, package plants remain an 

option for developers. In many recent cases, developers have proposed "clusters" of homes 

at moderate residential densities next to or surrounding an expanse of land to remain 

undeveloped in perpetuity, with a package plant to treat the residential sewage. Part of the 

open area could then be used for spray irrigation or a large drain field for the effluent from 

the package plant, where discharge to a creek or stream is not possible or unwarranted. 

On-Si t e Wastewater "rea t ment S ys tems 

As noted above, about half of the population of Adams County is served by on-site sewage 

treatment systems; generally septic tanks with tile drain fields, although septic tanks without 

drain fields, cesspools, and privies are probably still in use. A septic tank, in effect, treats 

the domestic sewage through bacteriological action within the tank, and the treated 

wastewater effluent flows out of the tank into a set of underground porous pipes (the "drain 

field"). Obviously, the successful operation of the system depends on the ability of the 

2-10-11 

L 

I

Table 2.103 

Munikipal Sewer Systems - Description 

SERVICE AREA 

TYPE OF YEAR POPULATION SERVICE 

PLANT - BUILT SERVED CONNECTIONS 

- 

I 

I 

0 

d 

I 

:a 

10 EASTBERUN Activated Sludge 1957 1,172 

Upgraded 1988 

560 

11 FAIRFIELD Extended Aeration 1967 500 196 

12 GHTYSBURG (incl.portions Activated Sludge 1986 9,450 2319 

of Straban Township) 

Extended Aeration 

13 LAKE HERITAGE ** Extended Aeration 1987 1,500 500 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

LAKE MEADE Rotating Biological I 987 1,800 600 

Contactor 

UTTCESTOWN Activated Sludge 1988 3,025 1,450 

McSHERRYSTOWN Complete 1937 2,800 825 

MIDWAY (CONEWAGO TWP) Hanover Plant 3,000 1,466 

(by Hanover Borough) 

Complete 

NEWOXFORD Counter-Current 1989 2,940 1,170 

Low Load Aeration 

ORTANNA Spray Irrigation -* -_ - 

READING TOWNSHIP Activated Sludge 1975 1,000 339 

1 Extended Aeration I I 

YORK SPRINGS I Extended Aeration I 1974 600 I 286 

TOTALS 39,962 11,595 

* Current plans to upgrade to 0.331 mgd by 1993 to serve a population of 3,311. 

** Expansion of capacity to 0.33 mgd approved by DER in 1990. 

2-10-12 

I 

I 

I 

I

L 

Table 2.10.4 

Municipal Sewer Systems - Operating Charactektics 

SERVICE AREA 

DESIGN 

CAPACITY 

RESERVE 

CAPACITY 

I I 

I(0.525 Proposed) 

2 ARENDTSVIU 0.140 0.063 

I 

100,000 

76,700 

40 

117 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

3 ASPERS,BENDERSVILLE 0.1 20 0.048 

72,000 

86 

(POSSUM VALLEY) 

4 BENDERSVIU BOROUGH Sam0 aS hp8B 

5 BIGLERVILLE (incl.portions 0.370 0.0171353,000 

of BUTLER TOWNSHIP) 

(0.80 peak) 

6 BONNEAUVlLLE* 0.176 

* 

0.054 

117,000 

100 

7 CARROLLVALLEY 0.086 0.062 24,000 (seasonal) 

8 CUMBERLAND lWP #1& 2 0.1 67 0.000 100,000 83 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

CUMBERLAND TWP #3 0.240 0.130 

EAST BERUN 0.150 0.075 

I 

FAIRFIELD 0.175 0.000 

GETIYSBURG (incl.portions 1.630 0.040 

of Straban Township) 

LAKE HERITAGE ** 0.165 

** 

0.013 

LAKE MEADE 0.080 0.005 

UTTLESTOWN 0.880 0.515 

McSHERRYSTOWN 0.420 0.170 

MIDWAY (CONEWAGO lWP) 0.400 0.272 

NEW OXFORD 1.01 6 0.441 

ORTANNA -- -- 

READING TOWNSHIP 0.13 0 

I I I 

21 IYORK SPRINGS I 0.080 I At Capacity 

TOTALS 

- 6.555 

- 2.010 

Current plans to upgrade to 0.331 mgd by 1993 to serve a population of 3,311. 

** Expansion of capactty to 0.33 mgd approved by DER in 1990. 

2-10-13 

1 10,000 

85,000 

I 

55 

73 

175,000 I 350 

1,590,000 

1+seasonal) 

75,000 

362,000 

250,000 

128,000 

1 168 I 

42 

1 20 

89 

43 

575,000 196 

Below Capactty 

76,000 

-- 

76 

80,000 I 133 

4,513,700 - 113

wastewater to flow from the drain field out into the ground. Thus, the siting and installation 

of septic tank systems is dependent on the "percolation rate" of water into the soil; that is, 

the rate at which water will flow into the soil surrounding the drain field. The system is also 

dependent upon the depth to the water table and other variables. 

The installation and operation of these on-site systems is overseen by the Sewage 

Enforcement Officer (SEO) of the municipality. SEOs, trained and licensed by PaDER, 

conduct or witness the "perc" tests, on the basis of which, in part, SEOs determine whether 

a given septic tank and drain field installation is appropriate for its site and, if so, how far 

away the nearest .drinking water well and the next nearest septic tank installation may be. 

In other words, housing density in Adams County is critically dependent on "perc" tests, and 

thus on the various soil types. 

A brief indication of the ability-of the various soil types found in Adams County to 'perc" 

successfully is given in the following paragraphs. It should be noted, however, that wide 

variations in "perc-ability" occur from place-to-place within each soil type and even from one 

particular spot on a site to another. Early discussions with a SEO are extremely prudent 

for anyone contemplating a building development in Adams County. 

A complete soil survey has been conducted for Adam County and reported in the soil 

Survey. Adams Countv _. Pew Iva& (Reginald Speir, United States Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State University 

College of Agriculture and .Agricultural Experiment Station and the Pennsylvania 

Department of Agriculture State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Issued May 

1967). The report contains a "General Soil Map" showing the major soil associations in 

color and also contains 65 highly-detailed individual maps at a scale of 1 inch = 1/4 mile. 

A digest of the results of this sumey is provided below. It should be noted that even the 

detailed study is a generalization and conditions within any of the soil associations shown 

may vary in degree of intensity. The limitations presented are typical conditions found over 

a majority of the soil associations. For more specific information as to suitability of soils 

for residential or commercial development, the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service and the Adams County Soil Conservation District in Gettysburg should 

be contacted. 

In view of the purpose of this report, limitations imposed by soils when used for sewage 

disposal is the main focus; primarily the ability of the soil to absorb, disperse, and renovate 

effluent given off by a septic tank system of the type used by a single-family residential unit. 

In the descriptions below, these soil characteristics are presented. Also presented are 

limitations for other residential uses, as well as public and semi-public and agricultural uses. 

Each soil association presented in the following text has been given a limitation rating of 

slight, moderate, or severe. (Also see Figure 2.10.4.) 

2-10-14 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I

1 

L .. 

-moot - Hiaeld Assoaaoon - Ea 

L 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

E 

I 

I 

I 

This soil association area occupies about 7% of Adams County, covering the entire extreme northwest corner 

of the county, with small areas in the west and southwest and in the Pigeon Hills. The areas are rather steep 

with respect to topography, and are characterized by a number of ridges and valleys. Most of the areas are in 

woodlazIds, primarily hardwoods. The soh in this assoaab . 'on have moderate limitations for on-site sewage 

disposal because of bedrock close to the surface and btcause of the steepness of the topography. 

.. 

Hi&eld - M vede - Cat- -n - HMC 

This d ation comprises about 11% of the county. Covering most of the South Mountain area of the Blue 

Ridge section, from the h4aryland state line north and east to the Cumberland County line, the rather high, 

discontinuous ridges are cut by deep lateral valleyti, forming steep, rugged, picturesque wooded slopes. A small 

areaofthisassocm 'on OCCUTS in the Pigeon Hills in the extreme eastern section of the county. The Pigeon Hils 

area stands over LOO0 feet above the Gettysburg Plain. 

Most of the soils in the association have good natural fertility and moisture relationships and are excellent for 

tree growth. About one-half of the major area is too steep and stony for f&& with the remaining portion, 

located on the long southeastern slopes, cleared of native hardwoods and planted to orchards producing high 

yields of fruit. This association offers moderate limitations for the proper functioning of septic tanks because 

of shallowness to bedrock. 

Arendtsville - Hiehfield Association - A@ 

This soil association occupies about 6% of the county. Covering the southeast slopes of South Mountain and 

extending from the west-central portion of the county near Cashtown northeast through the county, the 

assodation's topography is rolling and characterized by irregular or complex slopes ranging from gently sloping 

to steep. Soils are deep and well-drained, with deep rooting potential and high water-holding capacity for plants. 

High yields of chemes, apples, and peaches are common. Hay crop yields are high in this area, but management 

is handicapped because of irregular slopes and stones or gravel on the surface. The steeper dopes are in 

woodiand, whereas hay and pasture are generally grclpwn in the small narrow valleys or dong streams. As in most 

areas of good agricultural sod, on-site sewage treatment plants work well, with only slight limitations in some 

areas caused by shallow depth to bedrock. 

Penn - Readinnton - Croton Association - PRC 

This is the largest soil assdon in Adams County and covers approximately 26% of its laud area. Part of a 

long lowland about 600 feet above sea level and approximately 20 miles wide (with the Borough of Gettysburg 

located near the center), this association is one of the county% most important agricultural regions. 

Penn soils dominate the area - moderately deep, well drained, and medium textured, they have an inherent red 

color. Yields are generally moderate-to-low because of a lack of nutrients in the parent material, shallowness 

to shale, and limited amounts of moisture available to plants. However, farmers using heavy fertilization and 

good management produce fairly high yields of alfalfa, corn, small grain, hay, and pasture. On-site sewage 

disposal limitations are severe in this area because of shallow bedrock and a seasonal high water table in some 

areas. 

.. 

Klinesville - Penn - Abbottsto wn - Croton Assoaat ion - KPA 

This association covers approximately 7% of Adams County. mending northeastward in a narrow belt through 

the county just west of Gettysburg, as in other areas of the Gettysburg Plain this association exhibits low hills 

2-10-15 

Ilr 

I

and broad gentle dopes broken by short steep slopes adjacent to streams. In this area of shallow and wet soils, 

there is frequent and heavy surface water run-off, causing severe erosion evcn on gentle dopes. Over 90% of 

the area has been cleared and farmed. General farming with dairy and poultry is common, with a few livestock 

farms. In recent years some areas have been left idle because of poor yields and difficult management problems. 

Most of the soils are best-suited to the production of adapted grasses and legumes. On-site sewage is limited 

severely in this area because of shallow bedrock and in some areas, a high water table. 

.. 

Mont Alto - Mount cI1J;as - W atcw Assouahon - 

Occupying about 9% of Adams County, the prinapal area of this association is a low ridge running from the 

Maryland state line northeastward through the county, passing through the Civil War battlefield just southeast 

of Gettysburg. There is a relatively large area of the assoCiation &om Zora to Knoxlyn, south and west of 

Gettysburg, and a smaller area to the north of Heidlersburg. Some smaller areas occur throughout the red shale 

sections of the county. 

Although some of the soils in this group are capable of high yields, many areas are too stony for farming and 

are best used for pasture, woodland, or wildlife. Some of the more rugged sections of these diabase ridges have 

rounded hobs or hills that rise abruptly out of the surrounding Gettysburg Plain. One of the best-known is 

“Round Top” in the Gettysburg National Military Park, standing 785 feet above sea leveL This association has 

poor characteristics pertaining to sewage disposal, in that percolation tests show a high water table and slow 

permeability. 

.. 

Lehieb - Brecknocb Assoaat ion - LB 

Comprising about 10% of Adams County, this soil association occurs adjacent to ridges and in many small 

irregular bands within red shale areas. These soils are sometimes called “blue slate” soils because of an inherited 

dark bluish-gray color. Lehigh soils have a silt pan below the plow layer that retards drainage and root 

penetration. Most of the area is devoted to dairy and general farm*, crop yields are usually only fair, and the 

soil is poorly suited to on-site sewage treatment in that shallow bedrock is present, as well as a seasonal high 

water table. 

Penn - Lansdale - Abbottstown &.~JCI 

‘ation - P m 

This soil dation occupies about 14% of Adams County. Extending northeastward through the county in a 

belt approximately 5 miles wide, with New Oxford near its center, the association’s topography is gently to 

moderately rolling, but east of BOMeaUde there is a broad nearly-level area. Corn, small grain, hay, and 

pasture dominate the soil use, yields are mostly only fair, and erosion is common. The soils over most of this 

association allow septic tank systems to fuuction with moderate limitations; conditions become severe in some 

areas of the association in that shallow bedrock and a seasonal high water table are present. 

Conest- 

- Wiltshire - Lawrence Assm ‘ation - CWI, 

Occupying about 5% of the county, this association is in the southeastern part of the county, extending from 

Littlestown northeastward to McSherrystown and the York County line. This is a fairly-level limestone valley 

with elevations ranging from 500 to 600 feet. The general area is devoted to cropland and pasture, with dairying 

the major enterprise, and some commercial vegetable farming. Many farms north of McSherrystown have been 

purchased for the removal of underlying limestone, with the former owners retain living and farming privileges 

until a quarry is ready to be opened. 

South of McSherrystown much of the soil is utilized for specialized pasture. Horse racing stables located here 

2-10-16 

I 

I 

0 

1 

1 

D 

I 

I 

I 

I 

a 

I 

I 

I 

E 

I 

I 

I 

0 

.I 

I

I 

L 

b 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

L 

are famous throughout the country, and near Hanover and McSherrystown increasing amounts of land are being 

used for residential and industrial development. There is very little woodland or idle land, with soils producing 

high yields of general farm crops grown in rotation The limestone soils cause on-site sewage treatment systems 

to function under moderate-to-quite-severe limitations, since ground water contamination can result from the 

rapid effluent flow into limestone solution channels found in the underlying strata. Seasonal high water tables 

are also present in some parts of the association 

.. 

Gleneln - Manor - Glenville Assqtion - GMG 

This assoCiation occupies about 3% of Adams County and is found in the exireme southeast corner. Soils here 

are quite susceptible to erosion and have been subjected to accelerated losses. Available moisture-holding 

capacity is moderate-to-high and crop yields are fair-to-good. Dairy,poultry, and vegetable farms are common 

in the area and, in general, sewage systems work well with only slight-to-moderate limitations. The most difficult 

problem is posed by shallow bedrock in some areas and occasional high water table in some areas in the spring 

of the year. 

.. 

Athol - Wiltshire - ReadinPton Assmation - A M 

This assodatioIl comprises about 2% of the county, with the largest area being a nearly-level lowland in the valley 

around Fairfieid and some smaller areas found north of York Springs. Most of the soils are gently sloping and 

intensely farmed. 

Dairying is the principal farming enterprise, with pasture, hay, and general farm aops being the main soil uses, 

and some fruit growing occurring on the higher slopes. These soils generally afford high yields of adapted crops. 

The soil in this association is quite permeable and, dong with a seasonal high water table in some areas, 

moderate-to-severe limitations for on-site sewage systems result. 

Soil Suitability 

Soils found within the county are generally good, with the major limiting factors being a 

seasonal high water table and shallow bedrock in some areas. Agricultural crops can be 

grown on soils throughout the county, except in some parts of South Mountain where steep 

slopes limit use. The best soils are the limestone soils found on the Gettysburg Plain 

between McSherrystown and Gettysburg. Soils of lesser quality, but still having good depth 

and high fertility, are found on the southeastern slopes of South Mountain where the 

"orchard belt" is located. 

From a development standpoint, soils on South Mountain have only slight limitations for onsite 

sewage disposal systems, and the southeastern comer of the county south of Littlestown 

and McSherrystown also has slight limitations for on-site systems. The remaining area, 

approximately 70% of the county, is of moderate-to-severe limitations, causing on-site septic 

systems frequently to malfunction due to the seasonal high water table and shallow bedrock. 

Soils of moderate limitations occupy the area with good agricultural soils around Littlestown, 

McSherrystown, New Oxford, and Abbottstown; as far north as East Berlin; and as far west 

as Bonneauville. The Fairfield area to the west has the same moderate limitations. 

2-10-17

The area of severe limitation occupies the entire central portion of the county from the base 

of South Mountain east to the village of Two Taverns, Bonneauville, and East Berlin; south 

to the Maryland line; and north as far as York Springs (Figure 2.10.4). 

I 

I 

Sewage Sludge and Septage 

Under Pennsylvania Act 97 of 1980, sewage sludge and septage are considered as a part of 

municipal solid wastes and within the management responsibility of each municipality. 

Under the recently-enacted Pennsylvania Act 101 of 1988, however, sewage sludge and 

septage fall within the municipal solid waste planning responsibility of counties; thus 

counties must plan for future disposal of area sludge. 

Sewage is collected from homes and businesses in all of the boroughs and several other 

municipalities in Adam County by sewer systems, and sewage sludge is produced by 

municipal sewage treatment facilities. The sludge varies in form from a liquid to a wet or 

dry solid, having a solids content from 2% to 7% in liquid form and from 12% to 88% in 

dry form. Septage is produced in on-site residential and commercial septic tank systems 

when the tank becomes filled with solid material and must be pumped out by a septage 

hauler. Septage is primarily in liquid or semi-liquid form, with a solids content varying from 

2% to 7%. The production and disposition of sewage sludge by each municipal system is 

as follows: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

2-10-18

L 

e 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

a 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

0 

L 

I 

Table 2.105 

Sludge Production porn Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities in Adams County 

Facility 

1. ABBO'ITSTOWN/PARADISE 

JOINT MUNICIPALAUTH. 

2 ARENDTSVILLE BOROUGH 

3. ASPERS/BENDERSVILLE/ 

POSSUM VALLEY 

4. BENDERSVILLE BOROUGH 

5. BIGLERVIUE BOROUGH 

6. BONNEAUVLLE BOROUGH/ 

h4T. PLEASANT 

7. CARROLL VALLEY BORO 

8. CUMBERLAND TOWNSHIP 

DISTRICTS 1 AND 2 

9. CUMBERLAND TOWNSHIP 

DISTRICTS 3 AND 4 

lO..EAST BERLIN BOROUGH 

113- BOROUGH 

l2.GETl'YSBURG BOROUGH 

l3.LAKE HERlTAGE MUNICIPAL 

AUTHORITY 

14- h4EADE MUNICIPAL 

AUTHORITY 

1S.LlTIU3TOWN BOROUGH 

16.McSHERRYSTOWN BORO 

17. MIDWAY (CONEWAGO 

TOWNSHIP) 

18- OXFORD MUNICIPAL 

AUTHORITY 

19.ORRTANNA SEWER AUTH. 

20.READING TOWNSHIP 

21.YORK SPRINGS BOROUGH 

-9 Production and So li ds Co n tent 

[No information available] 

80 tpy dried filter cake (sand fdter), 7040% solids; 




Sludge pumped into lagoon, no information on amounts; 

l2,000 gaL liquid sludge/yr, 70% solids, land appl'n, 

projected to increase to 20,000 gal/yr in 10 years; 

225,000 gal./yr, 2% solids, projected to 275,000 gal/yr in 10 years; 


24 dry tpy, 3% solids, projected to 32 tpy in 10 years; 

20 dry tpy, solids % unknown, proj. to 40 tpy in 10 yrs; 

Dewatered using a centrifuge, amounts not yet known; 

520,000 gpy projected to 780,000 gpy in 10 yrs; 

208,000 gpy, proj. to 450,000 in 10 yrs, 3% solids, 

[No information at this time] 

Connected to the Hanover Regional Sewage Treatment 

Plant, Hanover Borough, York County, Pa. 

[Connected to Hanover Borough Facility, York County]. 

1825 tpy 12% solids, projected to 365 tpy in 10 yrs. 

[New fdter press proposed to achieve 17-20% solids]; 

5,000 gpy projected to 50,000 in 10 yrs., 50 solids, 


240,000 gpy proj. to 276,000 gpy in 10 yrs., 3% solids, 

2-10-19

The above facilities, as well as on-site septic tank wastewater treatment systems, serve the 

following numbers of persons and produce the following amounts of sewage sludge and 

septage: 

Table 2.10.6 

Sewage and Septage Generation in Adams County 

23s 

l3axE 

Population Served by Sewers nYO00 45000 

Population Served by On-Site Systems 47,000 58,000 

Daily Sludge Generated (0.2 Ibs/capita) 5,400 8,400 lbs. 

Daily Septage Generated (0.15 Ibs/cap) 7,050 8,700 lbs. 

Annual Sludge Production (365 days/yr) 985 1,533 tons 

Annual Septage Production (365 days/yr) lzs7 l$88 tons 

Source: Adams Countv Act 10 1 Solid Waste Manane ment Plan, November 28, 1989. The 

estimates for the year 2005 are based on municipal projections and are roughly equivalent to 

the population to be served by sewers and by on-site systems under the Growth Management 

Plan outlined in Chapter 3. 

As of 1987, 206 tons of dry sludge and 1,210,000 gallons of liquid sludge were being 

generated annually in Adam County. This was projected to increase within 10 years to 541 

tons of dry material and 1,851,000 gallons of liquid material. There are no plans by any of 

the facilities listed to change their methods of sewage handling and sludge disposal, except 

one facility is proposing to update its vacuum filtration to increase the solids content of the 

sludge, and one other facility is purchasing equipment to improve sludge compaction. Also, 

in a recent announcement, the old Conewago sewage treatment plant will accept Hanover 

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant sewage sludge. 

The sewage sludge from Arendtsville and Fairfield Boroughs was formerly transported to 

the Harrisburg Municipal Incinerator for co-incineration with municipal trash. The 

Harrisburg Incinerator is no longer accepting sewage sludge nor any trash from Adam 

county municipalities. Currently, most of the sewage sludge is spread on unused or 

agricultural land for beneficial purposes. The nitrogen content can range from 1% to 8% 

and the phosphorous content from 1% to lo%, making the material very useful for its 

fertilizing power. Also, the dry or semi-dry material assists as a soil conditioner. 

Three York County municipalities are known to send their sewage sludge into Adam 

County for land application, including Penn Township (which uses lands in Conewago, 

Germany, Huntington, Mt. Joy, Mt. Pleasant, and Union Townships), Dillsburg Borough 

(which uses two sites in Latimore Township), and Hanover Borough (which uses lands in 

Conewago Township). Other out-of county municipalities may also use lands within Adams 

county for disposal. 

2-10-20 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

Sewage sludge may be spread on agricultural land under State regulations under the 

following circumstances: 

Table 2.10.7 

Conditions for Land Application of Sewage Sludge mtd Septage 

Metals Content: 

Cadmium less than 50 parts per million (ppm); 

chromium less than lo00 ppm; 

Copper less than 1,OOO ppm; 

Lead less than 1,W ppm; 

Mercury less than 10 ppm; 

Nickel less than 2fM ppm; 

Zinc less than 2,o00 ppm. 

Location: Minimum Distance to the Nehest Stream = 100 feet; 

Mkum Distance to the Nearest Well = 

300 feet; 

Minimum Distance to the Nearest Home = 300 feet; 

Miaimurn Distance to the Nearest Sinkhole = 100 feet; 

Minimum Distance to the Property Line = 50 feet. 

Sludge and septage must be plowed-under or injected within 24 hours. Sludge and soil 

samples must be taken whenever a new source of sludge is accepted by the landowner or 

farmer. 

Septage is pumped from septic tanks and disposed by one of seven haulers: 

1. Dillsburg Septic Service, 516 U.S. Route 15, Dillsburg, Pa. 

2. Hamm's Excavating, 5201 Carlisle Pike, New Oxford, Pa. 

3. Roto-Rooter, 32 Center Square, New Oxford, Pa. 

4. Sanitary Septic Service, 605 Range End Road, Dillsburg, Pa. 

5. Smith's Sanitary Septic Service, 1234 Baltimore Street, Hanover, Pa. 

6. Williams Brothers, 455 South High Street, Hanover, Pa. 

7. Leonard Shealer, 1339 Baltimore Pike, Gettysburg, PA. 

Disposal sites used by these haulers are as follows: 

1. Chambersburg Sewage Treatment Plant; 

2. Pew Township Sewage Treatment Plant; 

3. King's Farm, Latimore Township, Adam County; 

4. Lands in Washington Township, York County; 

5. Cumberland County Landfill. 

2-10-21

Solid Waste 

I 

1 

A wide variety of solid wastes are generated within the boundaries of Adams County, 

including primarily residential, commercial, and other types of municipal solid wastes; 

industrial and agricultural residues; and sewage sludge and septage. Small amounts of 

hazardous, infectious, or other types of toxic materials may also be generated by particular 

industries or institutions. 

The municipalities in the county are responsible under the Solid Waste Management Act 

of 1980 (Act 97) only for ensuring the proper collection, storage, processing, transportation, 

and disposal of household, commercial, and other types of municipal wastes. Passage of 

Pennsylvania Act 101 of 1988 did not change this situation: Industrial and agricultural 

residues, and all forms of toxic wastes are regulated by state and federal government 

agencies. In this section, the primary emphasis will be placed on municipal solid wastes, but 

mention will be made of the amounts of other wastes generated within the county, since 

county and municipal officials should be aware of potential problems from the storage, 

handling, and disposal of these other wastes. 

Municipal Solid Waste 

Each person in a household generates an average of two-to-three pounds of ordinary trash 

per day - up to half-a-ton per year. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources (PaDER) has published a formula for calculating the amount of trash generated 

per household based on median household income, assuming that the amounts generated 

increase somewhat with increasing affluence. In addition, persons in commercial and 

industrial office employment, students, and persons in hospitals and nursing homes generate 

quantities of solid waste. Municipal street sweeping, public trash bins, demolition and 

construction debris, and tree and landscape clearance provide additional amounts of solid 

waste. On this basis, Adams County generates roughly the following amounts of municipal 

solid waste: 

Table 2.108 

Estimated Amounts of Munic@al Solid Warte Generated in Adams County 

HOUSEHOLD COMMERW “OTHER‘ TOTAL MSW 

TONSNR TPD. TONS/YR. TONSPTR. TONSNR nD. 

1980 a,i6i si6,sg am 6 ~ 8 9377 6.484 38.781 129 

1985 74,116 $21,517 32S10 89.1 9,636 6,n8 48,865 157 

1990 80,no $27,462 44,086 121 9,896 6,953 60,935 190 

1995 %,no S33,412 58,132 U9 10,391 7 m 75,900 233 

2ooo 93355 S40,650 76,352 209 10,899 7 m 95,122 287 

[NOTES: “POP”” from Adams County Planning and Development Office, 1989. 

* MHI = Median Household Income, from 1980 U. S. Census (Escalated at S%/yr from 1980 to 1990 

and 4%/y from 1990.2000). 

a 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

2-10-22 

8 

rl 

I

[Notes: For Table 2.10.8 Continued] 

* TPD = Tons per Day @ 365 days per year for "Household"; @ 240 days per year for "Commercial" 

and "Other". 

HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTES = [(MHI/lOO0)~.054) + 0.94J pounds per capita per day (PaDER 

formula) = p/c/d = (p/c/d) x (POP")/2,OOO Ibs per ton in 

TONS PER YEAR (TPY): TONS PER DAY (TPD) = TPY/365. 

COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTES.: 8 pounds/employee/day (retail + manufacturing) = 8 x 

employment (from Chamber of Commerce)/2,OOO 

= tons/day x 250 working days per year = tons/yr. 

"OTHER" MSW CATEGORIES = Institutional at 

10 Ibs/patient/day in hapitais; 

8 Ibs/patient/day in nursing homes; 

1 Ib/student/day in schools; 

+ Office at 15 Ibs/employee/day, 

+ Demolition/Coction at 0.1 lb/capita/dax 

+ Park at 0.01 Ib/cap/day, 

+ Street at 0.04 Ib/cap/day, 

+ Tree/Landscape at 0.04 Ib/cap/day; 

(as per PaDER Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guide #l). 

TOTAL MSW = HOUSEHOLD + COMMERCIAL + "OTHER". 

It should be noted that considerable amounts of Adam County residential trash are most 

likely not collected because of the rural nature of certain areas - perhaps up to one-third 

of the trash originally generated in county homes and farms. 

In a telephone survey of solid waste haulers in March 1989, five haulers responded as 

follows: 

Table 2.10.9 

Survey of Hmtkn in March 1989 

EIAYLEZ ) 

N 

RESIDEN"L4L 

m - 

KEYSTONE 170 10 

COMMUNITY 3 10 

WASTE MGT. 10 55 

BENDER 5 0 

BARMLART A M 

TOTAL 188 76 

COMMERCIAL, 

TPD 

TONS PER YEAR (5 D AYSF) = 47,000 + 19,OOO = 66,ooO TPY TOTAL MSW 

2- 10-23

The 66,000 tons-per-year figure given above for residential trash collection is somewhat 

higher than the calculated value of 44,086 for 1990 given in Table 2.10.8, and the total value 

above is 8% higher than the Table 2.10.3 total value of 60,935 tons for 1990. There are 

additional haulers serving Adams County who did not respond in March 1989, so the above 

figures may under-represent the true picture. The higher values reported by the haulers 

may represent additional solid wastes in the "other categories" of municipal solid waste being 

collected and hauled from Adams County. 

I 

4 

For the purposes of having a consistent set of values for municipal solid waste generation, 

the estimates given in Table 2.10.8 will be assumed for this Plan. It is recognized that these 

estimates probably represent the trash which is fineratea some of which may not be 

collected by the haulers for disposal in approved facilities. The uncollected solid waste may 

be disposed by householders, commercial firms, and institutions by burial, composting, 

burning, operating a private dump, hauling out-of-county, feed for animals, recycling, or 

other unknown methods. In attempting to develop a plan for proper disposal of a of the 

municipal solid waste generated within the county, the figures given in Table 2.10.8 are 

probably accurate within plus or minus 15% (90% confidence level), based on the difference 

between the total from the two surveys of haulers and the 1989 calculation. 

Adams County Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan 

Pennsylvania Act 101 of 1988 requires each county in the Commonwealth 

.. 

to prepare a plan 

for municipal solid waste management. The Adams County Mumcl~al So lid Waste 

Manayement Plan was developed by the Adams County Solid Waste Authority, Adams 

County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and the Adams County Office of Planning and 

Development in 1989, was approved by a majority of municipalities and the Adam County 

Commissioners, and was forwarded to PaDER on November-28, 1989. The Plan indicates 

that storage, collection, and transportation of municipal solid waste (MSW) will remain a 

private function throughout the county. Furthermore, the Plan states that municipal solid 

waste will be disposed of at private, out-of-county disposal facilities and at the York County 

Solid Waste & Refuse Authority's waste-to-energy facility and ash landfill. 

The Adam County Solid Waste Authority, under Act 101, is initiating the consideration of 

disposal of MSW in the long range, after the 10-year period covered by the current Solid 

Waste Management Plan. The question of whether it is more advantageous to continue to 

use private, out-of-county landfills and the York County Solid Waste & Refuse Authority 

for MSW disposal versus in-county private or public facilities will be taken up by the 

Authority during forthcoming deliberations. 

Recycling 

Recycling is the separation, collection, and recovery for sale or reuse of materials that 

2- 10-24 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I

m 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

otherwise would become municipal waste. Recycling accomplishes at least five vital 

functions: (1) provides revenues from the sale of the materials; (2) avoids the costs of 

disposal; (3) saves critical landfill space; (4) protects the environment; and (5) saves the raw 

materials and fuel used in making the items to replace those otherwise discarded. Almost 

everything in ordinary residential and commercial trash is recyclable, including paper, 

cardboard, glass metals, wood, rags, and plastics. Food and yard wastes and other organic 

matter can be composted to produce a useful humus. 

Recycling has long been practiced and is a normal activity in most industries with regard to 

metal, wood, and other scraps and rejects from industrial processes, as well as solvents and 

whatever other materials can be economically reused or refurbished. Recycling was an 

essential part of the civilian effort during World Wars I and II, and since the energy crisis 

and environmental re-awakening of the late 1970s and early 1980s has again become an 

essential activity. The high and increasing cost of trash disposal has made recycling a very 

economic pursuit. 

Act 101, which became effective on September 26, 1988, establishes a goal of recycling at 

least 25% of all municipal waste and source-separated recyclable materials by 1997, and 

requires all municipalities above 5,OOO population to develop a source separation and 

collection program for recyclable materials by September 26, 1991. Grants are available 

from PaDER to municipalities for development and implementation of recycling programs 

and for demonstrated performance of such programs, and to counties for hiring of recycling 

coordinators. The grants are supported by a recycling fee levied per ton on the municipal 

solid waste delivered to processing and disposal facilities. Recycling of at least three 

materials must be incorporated into local programs, selected from the following list: 

Table 2.10.10 

Types of Materid for Recycltzg Under Act 101 

* dearglass 

* high-grade ofice paper 

* colored glass * newsprint 

* aluminum * cormgated paper 

* steel and bimetallic cans * plastics 

Leaf waste must be separated from other MSW for composting. Commercial firms, 

municipal offices, and ktitutions are to separate high-grade ofiice paper, aluminum, 

corrugated paper, and leaf waste for recycling or composting, as appropriate. 

Recycling Activities in Adams County 

The primary recycling activity in Adams County has been conducted by the Adam Rescue 

Mission since 1977, although newspaper collection and other volunteer efforts have long 

been conducted by the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, firehouses, and church groups. In 1977, the 

Adams Rescue Mission (which was established in 1972 as a shelter for homeless men with 

2-10-25 

& 

I

some ancillary services such as family aid) arranged to pick up cardboard from a few 

commercial finns. House calls were also made in the Gettysburg area for newspapers, 

clothing, used furniture, etc., for re-sale. In 1984, these efforts were expanded, and by 1985, 

670 tons of recyclable materials were collected and marketed by the Mission. In 1986, 874 

tons were handled. In 1987, the first curbside pick-up by the Mission was inaugurated in 

Fairfield Borough, and glass was added to the list of recyclables. A total of 1,440 tons of 

materials was recycled in 1987. Also during 1987, 16 more boroughs and towns were 

included in the curbside pick-up schedule. In 1988, 2,300 tons of materials were recycled. 

During the latter part of 1988, the weekly volume averaged 15 tons per week of newspaper, 

13 tons of cardboard, 8 tons of clothing, 7 tons of glass bottles and jars, 1/2 ton of steel and 

tin cans, and 1/7th ton of aluminum. Recyciing of some plastic items was also initiated. 

I 

1 

The current schedule is as follows: 

Table 2.10.11 

Month& Curbside Recyclables Pick- Up Schedule 

Fairfield 

0- 

Bonneauae 

Cashtown 

McKnightstown 

Twin Oaks 

Biglemille 

ArendtsviUe 

Mummasburg 

York Springs Ge ttysburg 

Littlestown 

East Berlin 

Lake Heritage 

Bendersville 

McSherrystown 

He& Ridge Road 

Country Club Area, Ridgewood 

Toddasville 

Monthly curbside collection was initiated throughout Gettysburg Borough in January 1989. 

In addition, the following locations have collection facilities for the Mission: 

Carroll Valley Maintenance Building 

Lutheran Home, Old Harrisburg Road, Gettysburg 

W. L. Sterner Co., 516 Frederick Street, Hanover, PA. (York County). 

The Adam Rescue Mission truck is parked at the following locations each month on the 

day assigned: 

Cumberland Township Building, 1st Saturday 

Barlow Fire Hall,2nd Saturday 

Superthrift store parking lot, Littlestown, 3rd Saturday 

Gettysburg Presbyterian Church parking lot, 4th Saturday. 

2-10-26 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I

I 1 

L 

Future Impact of Recycling Activities in Adams County 

A set of calculations has been made to determine how much recycling is possible to 

accomplish under various future conditions, and what the impact of that degree of recycling 

would be on MSW generation and disposal in Adams County. The calculations are based 

on the following percentages of recyclable materials in MSW 

Table 210.12 

Percentages of Recyclable Maten'& in MSW 

(by weight) 

Newspaper 

Glass 

Aluminum 

Bimetal Cans 

Rags and Cloth 

Plastic mn 

Total 

Compostable 

30% 

10% 

2% 

4% 

15% 

0.5% 

48.0%. 

25% (Food and Yard Wastes) 

These percentages are similar to those given by PaDER in Guide #I based on the work of 

W. E. Franklin in 1979. The actual percentages wil vary from place to place and from time 

to time, but the above values are considered to be representative of today's trash in most 

suburban communities. Urban and rural trash may differ somewhat, but the above values 

may still be appropriate for certain kinds of analyses. If onequarter of these materials 

were removed from the trash stream by 1995, the total removed would be 14,730 tons. If 

these amounts were removed by the year 2000, the total removed would be 18,760 tons. 

The net amount of MSW to be disposed in the future under these assumptions for the 

Adam County recycling program would be as follows: 

Table 2.1O.W 

Estimated Total Municipal Solid Waste (Tons Per Day) 

Generated Removed bv Recvcling R-g 

AREA 19ePl!B22MM19901995mm1995m 

-tern Wasteshed Area !22 117 150 6 22 40 86 95 110 

Western Wasteshed Area ~ U ~ 2 ~ 

Total County 190 233 287 15 48 72 175 185 215 

[Percent Recycled 8% 21% U%] 

These savings are significant amounts, both in terms of avoided tipping fees at processing 

or disposal facilities and a reduction in the need for additional processing or disposal 

2- 10-27

capacity. 

Household Hazardous Wastes 

Considerable concern has been raised about many ordinary products commonly used around 

the house, or by commercial firms and offices, that represent hazardous wastes when poured 

down the household drain or into the storm drain in the street, dumped on the soil in the 

backyard, or thrown out in residential or commercial trash. These types of materials 

include: 

Table 2.10.14 

Types of Howeizold Harardous Wmtes ("W) 

1. Cleaners 

2. cosmetics 

3. Deodorizers 

4. Disinfectants 

5. House & Garden Pesticides 

6. Laundry Products 

7. Ointments 

8. Dead Batteries 

9. Paint and Paint Products 

10. Photographic and Dark Room products 

11. Metal and Other Polishes 

12 Wood and Other Preservatives 

U. Bath and Kitchen Soaps and Detergents 

14. Medicines 

15. Used Auto Oils and Fluids 

16. Other Household, Shop, Garage, etc, Materials. 

Farms are likely to have left-over or unusable pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, fertilizers, 

and other chemicals in amounts smaller than are regulated under the current federal and 

state small- or very-smallquantity generator categories. 

Several communities have organized household hazardous waste education and collection 

programs, including neighboring York County. These ""W Collection Days" are arranged 

so as to have householders bring household hazardous wastes to a central location where 

a fully-licensed hazardous waste-handling firm collects the materials, identifies them, sorts 

and repackages them, prepares a hazardous waste manifest, and transports the repackaged 

materials to a location licensed for storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal. The wastes 

are generally treated or incinerated, if possible, to obtain a non-hazardous residue, or 

landfilled in a licensed hazardous waste landfill. The costs per pound of HHW for the 

collection, repackaging, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal typically mn around 

$20 per gallon or $100 per household carload. Typically, these ""w Collection Days" 

collect 1% or less of the HKW present in the homes in the area, but they do serve to notify 

and educate the public as to the dangers of these products if carelessly used and disposed. 

Until regular collections of HHW can be implemented at reasonable cost, householders 

should be urged to restrict purchases of such items, to use them up completely in 

accordance with the manufacturer's label or instructions, and to dispose of the empty 

containers double-wrapped in the ordhaIy household trash. 

2- 10-28

Industrial Residual Solid Wastes 

Neither the County nor its municipalities are responsible for the collection and disposal of 

industrial residual waste (wastes resulting from industrial processes). Adams County has a 

considerable number and a wide diversity of industrial firms, with an estimated total 

employment of about 7,600 in 1985. Firms manufacture products from electronics to kitchen 

cabinets, pipe fittings, footwear, clothing, food, lumber, and many other types. An estimate 

based on a survey made in early 1987 gave a value of 400 tons of industrial residues per 

week for Adams County - 80 tons per day for a 5-day week, or 20,800 tons per year. This 

is about 21 pounds of residues per employee per day. Given the wide variation in the 

nature of the industrial firms in the county, these residual wastes very likely include a wide 

variety of materials, ranging from metal turnings and foundry wastes to sawdust and wood 

wastes, clothing scraps and rags, leather scraps, food wastes, industrial solvents, etc. 

Hazardous Wastes 

Neither the County nor its municipalities are responsible for hazardous wastes. These are 

regulated by the federal government under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

of 1976 (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

of 1986 (SARA); and by the State of Pennsylvania under Acts 97 and 106. Some hazardous 

wastes may be generated by industrial firms in Adams County, and any amounts over 220 

pounds per month'(100 kilograms) must be reported to PaDER and handled within the 

federal and state regulations. No authorized hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal 

facilities or sites are presentIy located within Adam County. However, some industrial 

firms within the county may legally treat or recycle their hazardous wastes on site. 

Abandoned or "orphan" sites containing hazardous wastes are identified and cleaned up or 

"remediated either under the federal CERCLA/SARA or State Act 106 "Superfund 

statutes. Sites are investigated and placed on the "National Priority List'' (NPL) in 

accordance with their ranking under the Hazardous Ranking System developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Four "Superfund" sites have been identified to date within Adams County (Figure 2.10.3). 

These sites are as follows (NPL # as of November 1990): 

1. Westinghouse Elevator Manufacturing Plant, Route 34 and Boyd School Road 

(north of Gettysburg); NPL # 453; 

2. Hunterstown Road Site, Shealer Road, Straban Township; NPL # 237; 

3. Shriver's Comer, Route 394 and Goidenville Road, Straban Township; NPL # 288 

(two properties, the Shealer Property and the Culp Property); 

4. Keystone Landfill, Union Township; NPL # 794. 

2- 10-29

Agricultural Residues 

Similar to industrial residual solid wastes and hazardous wastes, neither the County nor its 

municipalities are responsible for management of agricultural solid wastes. However, any 

water pollution or other environmental problems arkkg from agricultural practices may 

become an issue for municipal or county governments to handle. 

Agriculture is a major activity and economic resource in Adams County. The estimated 

number of animal farms in the county in 1986 was as follows: 

Table 2.10.15 

Number of Animal Fanns in Adams County in 1986 

Cattle Farms 820 

Commeraal Dairies 

Hog Farms 

130 

260 

Sheep Farms 95 

Chicken Farms 23 

Total 

L535 

Land in Farms 1%,644 Aaes 

Average Ske 

128 Aaes 

Harvested Crop Land l25,218 Aaes 

Value per Aae S 1,671 

In addition, there are about 20,000 acres in Adam County devoted to orchard cultivation; 

primarily apples, with some peaches and cherries. This orchard belt comprises about 5.9 

percent of the total land area of the county, bordering South Mountain and extending from 

the north-central part to the southwestern comer of the county. 

The total economic value of agriculture may be summarized as follows: 

Table 2.10.16 

Summruy of Agricultural Cash Receipts in. I986 

Fruit $ 35,266,000 

Meat and Misc. Products $ 20,920,000 

Poultry Products $ 17,810,000 

Dairy Products $ 17,332,000 . 

Field Crops $ 7,272,000 

Horticultural Specialties $ 1,426,000 

2-10-30

i 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Vegetables and Potatoes $ 1,l~OOo 

Forest Products $ 137,000 

Other Produ- 

fLAnsum 

Total 

$1O1,944,OOo 

An estimate of the wastes produced by animals is as follows: 

Table 2.10.17 

Estimated Animal Wastes Produced in A d a County in 1986 

TYPE 

ANIMAL 

CATIZE 

SWINE 

SHEEP 

FOWL 

TURKEYS 

HORSES 

TOTAIS 

FARM ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR LAND APPLICATION = 125,218 

It would appear, therefore, that there is more than enough land for application of all of the 

farm wastes generated by farm animals in Adams County. 

On the other hand, there does appear to be a problem with the disposal of fruit processing 

wastes, particularly apple wastes known as "pomace". A total of 320,665,000 pounds of 

apples and 20,424,000 pounds of peaches were grown in Adam County in 1986. Processing 

of apples produces roughly 25,OOO tons of pomace (including a small percentage of rice hulls 

used to facilitate separation of the juice in the pressing process) and 5,000 tons of peach and 

cheny wastes annually. Five thousand tons of pomace are burned each year in an 

incinerator constructed in 1980-81 by Knouse Foods, Inc. in Orrtanna, assisted by two 

$300,000 grants from PaDER. The pomace is dried from about 65% moisture to 56% 

moisture, using the hot exhaust gases from a small gas turbine-generator. The dried pomace 

is then burned to create steam and the steam is used for drying and as process steam 

throughout the plant. The gas turbine-generator also produces electricity for in-plant use. 

Disposal of the remaining 20,000 tons of pomace and 5,000 tons of peach and cherry wastes 

is accomplished by land-spreading, dumping in landfills, and feeding to cattle. 

The land-spreading process is becoming a concern, since roughly 132 tons per day are 

required to be disposed (at 65% moisture) during the five-month peak processing period of 

September through January. By way of contrast, 33 tons per day are produced from 

2- 10-3 1

February through June, and none in July and August. Pomace is too high in moisture and 

has other characteristics which make it inadvisable to co-fire with municipal solid waste in 

a conventional incinerator. A dedicated incinerator would have to handle the widely-varying 

amount of pomace produced seasonally and would likely be uneconomical for that reason. 

It has been suggested that a municipal waste incinerator be combined in one facility with 

a fluidized bed boiler dedicated to pomace, with savings coming from the combined use of 

various facilities at one location. Currently a private solution to the problem of pomace 

disposal is being sought. 

Composting 

The Adams County Solid Waste Authority has considered the possibility of having a 

composting facility constructed within the county. Such a facility could either compost the 

organic materials in municipal solid waste, or co-compost solid waste with sewage sludge and 

septage- Several composting and co-composting facilities have recently been built in the 

United States to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of the process. The 

Adams County Solid Waste Authority is continuing to study and evaluate composting and 

co-composting for possible implementation in the next update of the Adams County Act 101 

Solid Waste Management Plan. 

Public Utilities 

Electric Power Service 

The Adams Electric Cooperative Inc. of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania serves the extensive lowdensity 

rural areas of Adams and neighboring counties. The Adams Electric Cooperative 

also provides leadership and technical assistance for economic development, but does not 

generate electricity. Electric power is purchased wholesale from generating companies such 

as Pexnsylvania Electric Company and Metropolitan Edison Company. 

Metropolitan Edison Electric Company provides service to the urban areas and the more 

densely populated rural areas of Adams County. Potomac Edison Electric Company serves 

a portion of Liberty Township along the Maryland border. A major 230,000-volt electric 

transmission line on steel towers, with five lines in a 200-foot right-of-way forming part of 

a network serving Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, enters Adams County from the 

west and follows north of US Route 30 to Gettysburg and then south towards Littlestown 

and into Mqland (Figure 2.10.5). Buildings may not be located in this right-of-way, but 

the land may be farmed or used for orchards. 

The electric companies have established policies to provide local sexvice in.new residential 

and commercial areas by means of underground service lines. 

1 

i 

2- 10-32 

0 

II 

I

8 

r! 

-sr 

1 

I 

1 

i 

I 

1 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

1 

L 

Telephone 

Telephone service for Adams County and the immediate surrounding area is supplied by 

United Telephone System (UTS). The majority of the county lies in the Gettysburg 

Telephone District of UTS, with a portion of southeastern Adams County receiving service 

from United System’s Hanover UTS District. The Gettysburg District includes exchanges 

at Biglenrille, Fairfield, Gettysburg, York Springs, Littlestown, and New Oxford. 

The East Berlin and Abbottstown areas are served by York Telephone and Telegraph 

Company. Substantial increases in the number of telephone customers have occurred in 

proportion to the overall growth of the county. 

Gas Service 

Two companies supply gas in Adam County. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania (CGP) serves 

the major portion of the county; the series of communities between Caledonia in Franklin 

County eastward to New Oxford along US Route 30. The service area also extends north 

to Aspen. CGP provides service to 8,000 customers, 35 of which include large commercial 

and major industrial users. 

York County Gas Company (YCGC) serves the area suburban to Hanover, including about 

1,100 customers. Both CGP and YCGS report continuous growth over recent years. 

Radio Stations 

b 

There are two local radio stations servicing Adams County. Station WGET AM 1320 and 

WGTY FM 107.7 in Gettysburg broadcasts 1,OOO watts during the day and 500 watts at 

night. The service area covers all of Adams County and parts of York, Franklin, 

Cunberlaad, Frederick, and Carroll Counties. The station provides news, weather, sports, 

and public service programs. Special services of the station include Mutuai News Services, 

AP News, and Weatherwire Service from the Washington U.S. Weather Station. 

Station WHVR-AM and WYCR-FM Hanover provides service to an area from Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania to Leesburg, Virginia and from York to Shippensburg, Chambersburg, 

Waynesboro, and Hagerstown, including Frederick and Carroll Counties in Maryland. 

Programming includes news, weather, sports, music, and public services. The news service 

includes United Press Audio Service, and coverage is also provided for professional football 

and basketball. 

2-10-33

Television 

In addition to individual antenna reception from Harrisburg, Laneaster, Washington, and 

Baltimore, Adams County residents can subscribe to one of two cable television companies 

operating locally. Sammons TV Cable Company provides 30 basic channels arrd 4 pay-TV 

channels to about 3,OOO customers in Gettysburg and Biglerville Boroughs, and in parts of 

Butler, Cumberland, and Straban Townships. Pennsylvania Classic Cable TV Company is 

headquartered in East Berlin, and provides 36 channels to about 11,000 customers 

throughout Adams County except in the Borough of Gettysburg. 

2- 10-34

Chapter 3: 

Growth Management 

Plan 

__ 


I 

I 

L 

I 

* 

A EME - 

SECTION 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION 

The Growth Management Plan is intended as a guide for future growth and land 

development in Adams County. Several months of background research and analysis, 

coupled with monthly meetings with the various Steering Committees described in Chapter 

One, form the basis for the Plan. It reflects not only a comprehensive set of goals and 

policies for development, but also attempts to embody shared community wants and 

aspirations. 

The Growth Management Plan is composed of several elements pertaining to land use, 

circulation, housing, community facilities, utilities, conservation, and environmental 

protection. Prior to discussion of the elements, Section 2 presents a summary of goals and 

objectives on which the Plan has been structured. The remainder of the chapter develops 

the components of the recommended development pattern for Adams County. 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

The Growth Management Plan represents a guide to be followed by the County and by local 

municipalities, school districts, other public and quasi-public organizations, and by private 

developers in order to address important issues and problems related to the county's overall 

development. Many of these problems and issues are interrelated, so that effective 

resolution of one cannot take place without simultaneous efforts to resolve others. 

An especially significant aspect of the Growth Management Plan is the close coordination 

and mutual-reliance between the Land Use Plan (Section 3) and Circulation Plan (Section 

4). The character of the land use concepts outlined in Section 3 are closely tied to the 

circumstances and potentials of the existing transportation network, and the recommended 

circulation improvements respond to and advance the framework for development embodied 

in the Land Use Plan. 

Other mandatory planning processes, such as requirements for municipalities to complete 

Act 537 sewage facilities plans, are fundamental in the presentation of the various elements 

of the Growth Management Plan. 

The Growth Management Plan is focused on the location, character, and timing of future 

development. In particular, the Plan proposes that future development be directed to 

locations and in a manner that allows the phasing-in of specific transportation and water and 

sewer senrice systems improvements. The emphasis on the incremental processes of 

development are also primary concerns of the Plan with reference to resource conservation 

and park and open space creation. 

The Growth Management Plan provides opportunities for all 34 of the county's 

3-1-1

municipalities to grow. Under Pennsylvania statutory law, the right of approval for 

subdivision and land development is (with limited exceptions) exercised by municipalities, 

and not by counties. Under Pennsylvania case law, all municipalities must provide land 

development opportunities for all reasonable uses. The only alternative to providing growth 

opportunities to all municipalities would be through joint municipal planning and zoning 

provisions of the Municipalities Planning Code, where several municipalities could band 

together, produce joint ordinances, and limit growth to a few locations within the joint-area. 

In general, the Growth Management Plan supports this concept, and recommends that the 

school districting system be employed to initiate joint municipal planning in Adam County 

(see Section 3 of this chapter). Until such time as joint planning and zoning are in place 

in Adams County, the Growth Management Plan must be mindful of the central role of 

municipalities in approving and providing for growth. 

3-1-2

I 

L 

m 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

c 

SECTION 2: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

DeveioDment Pattern 

GOAL: 

Achieve a future overall development pattern that is responsive to the 

economic, social, and cultural needs of county residents, and that considers 

the realities of regional trends. 

GOAL: Preserve and enhance the physical and environmental characteristics that 

make Adam County a distinc&e and identifiable place, while at the same 

time provide for the needs of existing and prospective residents. 

sxhu 

Ensure that development occurs in ways that minimize degradation of natural 

and cultural environments. 

GOAL: 

Ensure that development occurs in an efficient and logical manner, and in 

ways that minimizd short- and long-term costs to the public and private 

Sectors. 

Objective: 

Direct residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development to 

designated growth areas, where sewer, water, and transportation 

improvements can be phased in concert with new development. 

Objective: 

Designate growth areas that can be readily-served by existing or expanded 

infrastructure systems, transportation networks, and public services. 

Objective: 

Identify areas for future growth and development, even if not presently served 

by infrastructure, where such future development would be appropriate for the 

protection of community character or to maximize the use of major 

transportation facilities. 

Objective: 

Allocate sufficient land to accommodate most of the county's projected 

population and employment within designated growth areas, allowing for 

flexibility in real estate markets. 

3-2-1

Objective: 

Identify incentives and strategies to promote continued or enhanced 

investment in established communities. 

GOAL: 

Encourage the preparation of local sewer and water facility plans that are 

- - 

consistent with county and municipal plans, and established growth-area 

boundaries. 

Objective: 

Develop local water service area plans that are consistent with official sewage 

facilities plans. 

Objective: 

Direct development to areas deemed appropriate for centralized water service 

so as to avoid overdrawing or contaminating groundwater. 

Economic Base 

GOAL: 

-and and diversify the county's economic base and offer a broad range of 

job opportunities f& county residents. 

Objective: 

Enhance and assist the agricultural industry by encouraging the development 

of new and improved crop varieties and the establishment of agribusinesses. 

Objective: 

Enhance the tourism industry by identifying, protecting, and promoting 

cultural and historic resources, by maintaining an attractive visual and 

aesthetic environment, promoting a longer tourism season, and encouraging 

more locally-based, compatible tourism opportunities. 

Objective: 

Locate new employment centers close to major transportation corridors and 

interchanges in order to maximize accessibility for potential employees and 

clients. 

3-2-2 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

I 

II 

0 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

m 

I 

Objective: 

Attract new businesses and industries that will tap the skills of county 

residents who currently commute to jobs outside of the county. 

Objective: 

Attract recession-resistant, environmentally-benign businesses that will provide 

additional full-time job opportunities. 

GOAL: 

Identify appropriate locations for industry, research and development, offices, 

retail sales, and services that may be available in the short- and long-term. 

Objective.- 

Discourage random or scattered industrial development patterns, which can 

produce environmental, traffic, aesthetic, and other problems. 

Objective: 

Coordinate the provision of new or improved transportation facilities with the 

establishment of centers of economic development. 

Objective: 

Reserve large, appropriately-located business development sites to preclude 

potentially incompatible uses from foreclosing an eventual use for business. 

Objective: 

Provide appropriate locations for both "light", environmentally-benign 

industries and businesses, and for heavy industries, which should be developed 

only in accordance with specific performance standards. 

Objective: 

Discourage strip development of business uses along major roadways. 

GOAL: 

Maintain the economic viability of existing urban communities. 

Objective: 

Encourage investment in existing business districts, compatible with the 

historic/architectural character of the particular community. 

3-2-3

Objective: 

Maintain residential neighborhoods and expand housing opportunities close 

to existing urban business districts. 

Housing 

GOAL: Provide a diversity of housing opportunities, in harmony with existing 

development and the historical and natural environments. 

Objective: 

Facilitate a range of housing types, sizes, and price levels, to respond to 

changing housing needs and to provide housing for various stages of the life 

cycle, household configurations, and income levels. 

Objective: 

Identify policies that will provide for the housing needs of elderly and 

handicapped residents. 

I 

I 

e 

ai 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

Objective: 

Encourage the enactment of uniform building and housing codes by municipal 

governments. 

Objective: 

Encourage an expanded role for private developers, local authorities, and nonprofit 

housing development corporations to meet local housing needs. 

GOAL: 

Achieve a safe, efficient, mostly congestion-free circulation system that will 

best serve business, agricultureirelated, institutional, and personal trips. 

Objective: 

Improve safety and efficiency for all intra-county, intercounty, and regional 

through-county vehicular trips. 

3-2-4

1 

I 

0 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

b 

1 

Objective: 

Encourage regionally-oriented traffk to utilize regional arterial highways and 

discourage this traffic from using locally-oriented collector roads. 

Objective: 

Identify existing and potential future deficiencies in the county’s major 

roadway network, along with methods of eliminating these deficiencies. 

Objective: 

Encourage traffic flow improvements and the implementation of design 

standards that are based on a functional classification of roadways. 

Objective: 

Identify and generally set priorities for projects which are appropriate for 

inclusion on PennDOTs Twelve-Year Highway Program. 

Objective: 

Identify Transportation Systems Management (TSM) activities which can be 

implemented to improve efficiency and safety. 

Objective: 

Reduce truck traffk through the center of Gettysburg and other boroughs and 

villages. 

GOAL: 

Provide a circulation system that makes special provision for tourists. 

Objective: 

Identify scenic excursion routes and other roadways with particularly strong 

visual characteristics as well as outstanding scenic vistas that are worthy of 

special preservation efforts. 

Objective: 

Identify the long-range implications of extensive development in the 

Gettysburg area on National Park Service avenues. 

Objective: 

Locate areas appropriate for tourist-oriented development and identify 

circulation improvements needed to serve these areas. 

Objective: 

Discourage development of potentially-intrusive, large-scale tourist-oriented 

3-2-5

enterprises in areas where the roadway network (and other infrastructure) 

cannot support such uses. 

GOGL: Minimize costs (construction, maintenance, social, and environmental) 

associated with the development of new and improved highway segments. 

Objective: 

Identify the potential growth-inducement effects of proposed transportation 

improvements. 

GOAL: 

Consider the long-range potential for reducing reliance on the automobile. 

Objective: 

Encourage ride-sharing among local residents and identify areas that might 

be used for long distance and commuter parking areas. 

Objective: 

Establish criteria upon which the need to establish future mass transit 

opportunities might be based. 

Objective:. 

Encourage mixed-use development, especially near the interchanges of major 

arterial roadways. 

Objective: 

Consider low-cosf physical improvements to new roads and roads undergoing 

upgrading to accommodate bicyclists. 

Communitv Services 

GOAL: Provide public services, facilities, and utilities in the most efficient, costeffective 

manner, taking into account community needs and environmental 

factors. 

3-26

1 

L 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

Objective: 

Support efforts of water supply and wastewater treatment authorities to plan 

ahead for expansion of capacities and extensions of the areas of senrice in 

accordance with growth projections and the Growth Management Plan of the 

County Comprehensive Plan. 

Objective: 

Provide an adequate supply and mix of parks, playgrounds, and other 

recreation facilities, both active and passive, to serve the existing and 

projected populations of Adam County. 

&source Protect ioq 

a& 

Protect environmentally-sensitive areas of the county. 

W& 

Protect culturally-significant areas of the county. 

Objective: 

Protect groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, mature woodlands, steep slopes, 

prime farmland, orchards, habitats of rare and endangered species, and other 

environmental features. 

Objective: 

Preserve the abundant and widespread historic resources of the county. 

Objective: 

Reinforce the character and ambience of historic settlements. 

Objective: 

Maintain nationally-significant historic resources in appropriate settings. 

rn! 

Maintain agriculture and businesses that support agriculture as primary 

components of Adam County’s economic base. 

3-2-7

Objective: 

Minimize costs to farmers caused by excessively restrictive regulations that 

could interfere with normal farming practices. 

Objective: 

Provide a tax climate favorable to production agriculture. 

Ubjecfjve: 

Enhance the potential profitability of fanning by facilitating appropriate 

accessory activities on farms. 

Objective: 

Maintain and enhance local sources of supply for food processing businesses. 

Objective: 

Provide opportunities for agriculturally-related businesses to locate and 

expand in the county. 

Objective: 

Ensure that county roadways continue to accommodate agriculturally-related 

traffic. 

GOAL: 

Preserve highly-productive farmland for agricultural use. 

Objective: 

Minimize scattered urbanization which causes conflicts with farming, such as 

additional vehicular traffic and land use incompatibilities. 

Objective: 

Discourage the conversion of highly-productive farmland to non-farm uses. 

Objective: 

Protect fanning operations in Agricultural Security Areas (ASAs) from 

incompatible, non-farming-related uses. 

Objective: 

Identify areas within Adams County that are appropriate for ASA designation, 

but which are not currently designated as such. 

Objective: 

Encourage locally-generated policies consistent with the "Clean and Green" 

3-2-8

Act (preferential tax assessment), the Adams County Agricultural Land 

Preservation Program (purchase of development rights), and private land 

preservation programs. 

Objective: 

Encourage the enactment by municipalities of effective agricultural zoning in 

highly-productive agricultural areas of Adam County. 

Planning 

GOAL: Put in place a variety of approaches, mechanism, and tools appropriate for 

dealing with the challenges posed by growth. 

Objective: 

Coordinate planning and development efforts with adjacent counties, local 

governments and institutions, school districts, and State and Federal agencies. 

Objective: 

Encourage and assist local communities in the preparation of new and 

updated comprehensive plans through technical and financial assistance. 

Objective: 

Encourage and assist local communities in the preparation and enactment of 

new and improved development regulations. 

3-2-9

I 

I SECTION 3: LAND USE PLAN 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

The Land Use Plan (Figure 3.1.1) ties together all the elements that make up the 

Comprehensive Plan Update. It thus becomes the primary reference against which land-use 

decisions, as well as decisions on major public expenditures, can be measured for the next 

ten to twenty years. The Land Use Plan is concerned with the proposed location, intensity, 

and amount of different uses. It strives to be in harmony with trends affecting economic 

development in the county and its region, while minoring the values, needs, and 

expectations of county residents. 

The Land Use Plan, as well as the other specific elements of the Growth Management Plan, 

is oriented toward planned development of Adams County through 2010, and reflects 

continuing steady growth, a balanced land-use mix, conservation of natural and cultural 

resources, and efficient utilization of existing systems. The Growth Management Plan is 

based upon a 2010 Adams County population of between 100,000 and 110,000 persons and 

an increase of about 14,000 to 18,000 housing units above the present inventory. 

General Description 

The Land Use Plan incorporates a growth-area concept to provide for the orderly extension 

of development. Growth is directed primarily to areas already served by central water and 

sewer systems, community facilities and services, and having a high level of accessibility. 

The growth-area concept provides an efficient and economical way to allow new growth to 

occur while limiting the consumption of agricultural land. The majority of the residential, 

commercial, industrial, and institutional development is planned to take place within 

designated growth areas. Areas outside the growth area are intended primarily for 

ap'dtural, recreational, and open space protection uses. 

Growth areas are focused on existing boroughs - with their residential neighborhoods, 

shopping cores, community service facilities, and public utilities - and on a limited number 

of other discrete locations in the county, such as selected crossroads villages. Growth 

opportunities for all 34 of the county's municipalities are included. 

The growth-area concept of the Land Use Plan should be integrated within policies set forth 

in :municipal Act 537 sewage plans. If County and local land use plans and municipal 

sewage facilities plans are properly coordinated, more-intensive development in rural and 

agricultural ("non-growth") areas can be severely curtailed. 

Care should be taken in relating the picture of future development in Figure 3.3.1 to 

expected development through the planning horizon of about twenty years. The Land Use 

Plan has built-in slack; rather than being a strict representation of the twenty-year "buildout", 

it illustrates those areas in which particular land uses can be supported by the policies 

3-3- 1

of the Growth Management Plan. 

Growth Areas 

The Land Use Plan recognizes current and expected development trends in Adams County, 

indicating that its eastern tier will continue to be the primary growth quadrant of the county. 

Growth areas in the east are focused on the existing boroughs of Littlestown, 

McSherrystown, New Oxford, Abbottstown, Bonneaudle, and East Berlin, and include 

portions of Conewago, Mount Pleasant, Oxford, Union, Germany, Berwick, Hamilton, and 

Reading Townships. Other, smaller centers for future development in the east are 

designated for the Hampton area, at Routes 94 and 394; in the Green Springs area, east of 

Route 94 near the county line at Hanover; and at Lake Meade. These latter centers include 

parts of Reading, Latimore, Berwick, and Oxford Townships. 

This area is expected to continue to be the primary growth sub-region of the county. 

Growing employment centers near Hanover, west of York, and close to Westminster and 

Owing Mills in Maryland are predicted to be determining factors, as are planned road 

improvements in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the emergence of major shopping malls, 

service businesses, and an industrial park near the boundary of Hanover and Penn 

Township, just across the county line. 

Growth in the central part of the county is planned to be focused primarily on the 

Gettysburg area; with additional development associated with York Springs and several of 

the interchanges along US Route 15. Development in the vicinity of Gettysburg includes 

the US Route 15-US Route 30 interchange and Lake Heritage areas, with smaller growth 

centers at the Fairplay area at US Route 15 and Business Route 15 south of Gettysburg; at 

the Black Horse area, west of the borough and north of Route 116; near Mummasburg, 

northwest of Gettysburg; and in the Hunterstown area, at the Route 394 interchange with 

US Route 15. Gettysburg-area projected growth areas include portions of Cumberland, 

Straban, Mount Pleasant, Mount Joy, Franklin, Highland, and Freedom Townships. The 

York Springs- and Route 234-interchange-vicinity growth areas include parts of Latimorb, 

Huntington, and Tyrone Townships. 

Growth in the central part of the county is predicted to be more oriented to US Route 15 

comdor commuter activity, in contrast to the eastward and southeastward orientation of 

development in the eastern part of the county. The need to protect the visual character of 

the Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site translates into 

a general requirement for careful placement and design of new development, often at some 

distance from the built-up portions of Gettysburg Borough. 

Development in the western part of the county is planned to occur in association with 

several boroughs, primarily with Carroll Valley, with less growth in the Biglerville, 

Arendtsville, Bendersville, and Fairfield areas. A small growth area is also indicated for 

3-3-2 

I 

1 

e 

d 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

-1 

a 

I 1: 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

rl 

I

I 

B 

0 

m 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

e 

.I 

I 

0rrt;lnna These projected centers include portions of Franklin, Butler, Menallen, 

Hamiltonban, Liberty, and Highland Townships. 

Parks, Permanent Open Space, and Preservation Areas 

The Land Use Plan designates important natural and cultural resource areas as permanent 

open space and resource-protection lands. These include federal and state parks, forests 

and game lands; the county's extensive system of floodplains and significant wetlands; and 

pronninent woodlands (Figures 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.43, 2.4.4, 2.45, 2.4.6, 25.1, 2.5.4, 2.6.1, 

2.9.4,). Permitted uses for these areas under the Land Use Plan would include low-intensity 

recreation and open space uses (subject to on-site environmental conditions and statutory 

regulations), limited agriculture, and forest management. Prohibited uses would include any 

commercial or industrial facilities and, except in rare circumstances, any new residential 

dwellings. 

In addition to the resource areas already mentioned, permanent open space may also 

include perimeter buffer zones around designated growth areas (Figure 3.3.1). In all 

instances, potential buffer zones would include existing sensitive natural-resource lands, but 

these have been extended in places in Figure 33.1 to complete perimeter rings of open 

space around the growth areas. The buffer zones are intended to be a permanent open 

space and recreational resource for growth-area communities, to become part of a larger 

county-wide permanent open-space connector system, to provide an effective transition from 

urban uses within the ring to agricultural ones beyond, and to limit uncontrolled expansion 

of growth areas. (While the physical limits to growth areas represented by the perimeter 

buflfer zones are considered generous for the twenty-year planning horizon, it is conceivable 

that growth area expansion in periods beyond will entail leapfrogging the perimeter buffer. 

This action would not, however, negate the value of the ring for local and county-wide open 

space and recreation. To resist urban sprawl and rapid consumption of agricultural land, 

leapfrogging the ring should be strongly resisted over the current planning period.) 

Implementation of the buffer concept would come about principally through the land 

development process (see "Creating the Permanent Open Space System"), following. 

Agricultural, Resource Conservation, and Very Low Density Residential Areas 

Thle broad extent of the county that qualifies neither for growth nor for strictest preservation 

is intended primarily for agricultural use. A major goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to 

conserve agricultural land, but also areas of steep slopes, woodlands, acquifer recharge 

areas, and cultural resources. The Land Use Plan formally apportions the county into 

growth and "non-growth" areas, with the intent of limiting development outside the growth 

zones and encouraging continuing agricultural production, as well as the protection of the 

3-3-3

county's historic and rural landscape. This area outside designated growth boundaries 

additionally pennits low-intensity recreational and residential uses, but only to the extent 

that new development does not diminish or conflict with agricultural lands or degrade areas 

of scenic beauty or environmental sensitivity. Except for agricultural-related enterprises, 

new commercial and industrial uses should be prohibited in rural areas of the county. 

(Home occupations should, however, be permitted - see page 3-3-11.) 

E 

I 

The Land Use Plan implies a general discouragement of development within rural and 

agricultural areas, coupled with incentives to develop within designated growth areas. 

Various Plan implementation techniques are intended to be applied across the county to 

bring about the desired result. Discouragement of development in rural areas may be 

achieved through the promotion and enactment of agricultural conservation easements and 

the adoption of agricultural zoning (see Section 8 of this chapter). At the same time, the 

expansion of existing central water and sewer systems and creation of a limited number of 

new ones can serve to encourage development within designated growth areas. 

The Land Use Plan does recognize that some residential development wil occur beyond 

designated growth areas. Given that prospect, it is important that various types of land 

development controls be adopted which wil ensure that when development does take place 

outside growth areas, it is of high quality, and that the process of development actually 

contributes to long-term conservation of land. Examples of this are shown in Figures 3.3.2, 

333, and 33.4, where the exercise of development rights to build houses in an agricultural 

area is coupled with regulations limiting the area for houses to only a small piece of the 

farm and presexving most of the acreage for agriculture in perpetuity. Another example is 

the implementation of transfer-of-development-rights (TDRs) opportunities. Here a 

landowner's right to develop homes on his property may be separated from the property in 

question and exercised on another, more-appropriately-located, property. As part of this 

process, the original landowner gains monetary benefit from exercising a right to develop, 

in return for which he agrees to use the original property in question for agriculture or 

specified open space/recreation uses only, in perpetuity. 

In general, the Land Use Plan can support a variety of land development concepts in rural 

and agricultural areas, but only if these approaches support the basic principles of 

conserving land for non-urban purposes. Very low overall densities only should be 

permitted, such as in legitimate agricultural zoning. wering of permitted units on a small 

portion of a tract, while the rest is left open in perpetuity for agricultural or other, 

legitimate resource conservation purposes, is fundamental. Clustering might be done in 

small assemblages, such as illustrated in Figure 3.3.2 or Figure 3.3.3, or in larger ones, such 

as a "village cluster" of about one hundred units that might be put together through a TDR 

process in a particular municipality (see Figure 33.4). Innovative approaches to sewage 

treatment should also be part of any development outside designated growth areas (see 

Section 9 of this chapter). 

Generally, however, proposals to construct central sewer and water service in very low 

3-3-4

I 

I 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

density residential areas should be discouraged. Exceptions should be made only in cases 

where specific development proposals, when implemented, would result in the preservation 

of agricultural lands. 

Open Space Uses 

The widespread pattern of parks, permanent open space, and areas to be preserved 

delineated in the Land Use Plan forms the backbone of a county-wide open space system. 

The open space system, based as it is on existing natural features such as the extensive 

county-wide web of floodplains associated with creeks and stream courses, can be said to 

be already established. In many instances, even where municipal zoning does not exist, 

floodplain and wetlands regulations, administered by municipalities and/or state and federal 

agencies, already prohibit or restrain most development. The overall objectives should be 

to tie the system together, give it permanent protection, and facilitate improved public 

access. 

In the context of a largely-rural county facing increased development pressures, however, 

the long-term protection of these sensitive resources will depend on concerted efforts by 

public and private agencies. At the same time, the increasing resident population wil 

require greater provisions for designated recreational open spaces. Natural-feature corridors 

are proposed to be combined with existing protected areas, such as parks, state forests, and 

game lands, and with projected linear buffers to form a permanent interconnected open 

space system. This permanent open space system is a critical component of the Land Use 

Plan, and is seen the primary mechanism to simultaneously protect county resources and to 

offer long-term opportunities to meet open space and recreational needs. 

The continuous, interconnected, permanent open space network is intended, then, to serve 

several purposes: 1) to conserve areas of environmentally-sensitive and culturally-valuable 

resources; 2) to provide appropriate buffers, where possible, between areas of differing land 

use, such as between urban uses and agricultural ones; 3) to provide a framework for a trail 

system, eventually to stretch throughout the county, for walking, hiking, and cycling; 4) to 

permit pedestrian and bicycle access to a variety of destinations, including adjacent and 

nearby communities, other residential developments, schools, special natural features, 

shopping, and specific sites for recreational facilities; 5) to create sites where public 

recreational facilities may be developed; 6) to provide for some of the private open space 

and recreational space needs of the residents of each new housing development; 7) to 

provide appropriate buffers between high-volume traffic arteries and residential areas; and 

8) to maintain and enhance wildlife habitat. 

Creating the Permanent Open Space System 

The Land Use Plan, the first identification and forma, recognition of a county-wide 

3-3-5

permanent open space system, should lead directly towards programs for its protection and, 

in places, for its further development. The County needs to act as advocate and promoter 

for the network and, through Plan implementation, as a facilitator for appropriate protective 

and developmental efforts by public and private agencies. These actions include lobbying 

state and federal governments to make additional acquisitions of land that border existing 

state forests and game lands; to fund further open space planning efforts, such as a 

Countywide Comprehensive Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Study; to assist in the 

purchase of conservation easements; and to provide financial assistance for local parks and 

open space development. Within its own borders, the County needs to urge its 

municipalities to recognize the permanent open space network and to undertake local efforts 

in support of it, particularly through the adoption of appropriate planning documents and 

the enactment and enforcement of new development regulations. Local comprehensive 

plans should formally recognize the parts of the system relevant to each township or 

borough, and municipalities should promote residential clustering, which concentrates a 

tract’s potential development on a small portion of the overall tract, leaving the remaining 

area as permanent open space, by adopting suitable zoning regulations. The County should 

advocate formation of watershed associations and other voluntary groups that would take 

an active role in promoting stream valley and other corridor preservation. 

Provisions within the framework of regulations governing land development are extremely 

important in helping to create the permanent open space network. A primary method by 

which the system would be achieved is the utilization of residential cluster development 

zoning provisions by landowners, in combination with existing and potential new regulations 

limiting development of environmentally-sensitive lands. -With local comprehensive plans 

in place cognizant of the county-wide network, the County and municipality can evaluate a 

prospective development’s potential open space lands in terms of the permanent open space 

system and its various parts. Under certain conditions (such as under optional clusterdevelopment 

provisions) local regulations many mandate the offering of any subdivision’s 

required open space to the township or borough, and the municipality may, depending on 

a tract’s specific location, accept a developer‘s offer of dedication. Otherwise, a public 

access easement may be required, or lands may simply be left to the exclusive use and 

responsibility of the respective homeowners’ association. Depending on the value of a 

particular piece of ground to the county permanent open space network, the land may 

become part of the overall system in various ways, or may not be included. 

Through various means, including outright purchase by different levels of government or by 

private not-for-profit conservation organizations, through the granting of conservation 

easements on relevant properties, and through the residential land development process the 

County may become the beneficiary of lands to be permanently preserved as open space, 

potentially developed as new parkland, or to be held as part of a long-term land bank for 

future park development and open space needs. In the latter cases, the dedicated or 

otherwise conserved land can still function as part of a continuous trail system in the interim 

since, for most of the proposed permanent open-space network, the emphasis should be on 

-lowmaintenance, natural-growth, passive-recreation paths, with minimal upkeep needs. 

3-3-6 

E 

I 

a 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

i 

I

I 

II 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

When the time comes for more capital-intensive park development of portions of open 

space lands, State programs for parkland acquisition and development may assist in facility 

construction of recreational sites. 

The permanent open space system offers an opportunity to expand open space and 

recreational opportunities in Adams County, and is intended to be complementary to 

existing federal parks, state forests and game lands and local recreational facilities. As part 

of the interconnecting network themselves, these other facilities have major roles to play in 

the system's development, and as the sponsor of the overall system, the County should 

ensure that the agencies that operate them are full participants in the process. Cooperation 

among the various levels of government can produce tangible open-space benefits for county 

residents, as well as visitors to the area. (See "Institutional Uses", following, and Section 7 

of this chapter.) 

Other benefits of the permanent open space network may include: 

0 

8 

0 

Reduction of stormwater flood drainage; 

Maintenance of stable groundwater levels; 

An attractive amenity that can be a strong selling point in gaining business 

investment; 

0 

Enhancement of property values for bordering and neighboring residences. 

I 

I 

I 

D 

I 

1 

I 

Residential Uses 

The housing element of the Adams County Growth Management Plan (see Section 5 of this 

chapter) explains in detail the intended locations for residential use, incorporating a 

gradation of densities from very low to moderately high. Distinctions among residential 

categories are made according to gross density limits rather than by specific housing types 

to increase flexibility in responding to natural site conditions, public recreational needs, and 

market demands for a range of housing types and site sizes. On newly-developing tracts, it 

is intended that this flexibility should lead towards open space conservation, as well as the 

opportunity for development of a range of housing types to meet the needs and desires of 

the present and future residents of the county. 

In general, very low-density residential development is proposed for most of the county, 

reflecting the primary agricultural, recreational, and resource-protection uses intended. 

Higher densities are proposed, ranging from medium-low through to medium-high densities, 

in designated growth areas. 

3-3-7

Industrial Uses 

The Land Use Plan indicates eight primary locations as the most appropriate for future 

industrial and business-park uses. Five of these locations are along US Route 15, 

emphasizing the importance of the four-lane, limited-access highway to Adams County for 

access to and from its region. The other three locations are where newly-created industrial 

parks are emerging. 

US Route 15 is a relatively-underutilized highway through the center of the county, with 

connections to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstate system less than twenty miles to 

the north and to 1-70 at Frederick, Maryland, about 25 miles south. Adams County’s main 

north-south artery runs generally through areas of low development intensity, and offers 

regularly-spaced interchanges, generally flat topography, and relatively-unrestricted choices 

for light-industrial and business-park sites. While sites with good access and few land-use 

conflicts are plentiful, central water and sewer senrice is not Nonetheless, sites along this 

highway corridor are probably the best-suited for future new county industrial and businesspark 

locations. 

Of the eight interchanges along US Route 15, five are recommended as locations for 

industrial and business-park uses. These include the eastern side of the interchange at 

Route 94, as the eastern end of the York Springs growth area; the Route 234 interchange 

near Heidlersburg; the Route 394 interchange, west of Hunterstown; the US Route 30 

interchange, east of Gettysburg; and the Route 97 interchange, near Lake Heritage. The 

York Springs-area, Gettysburg-US Route 30 and Lake Heritage-area sites are presumed 

capable of being senriced in the future by central water and sewer facilities already in the 

respective locales. The Route 394 interchange area is proposed as an adjunct to the small 

designated growth area around Hunterstown, and both the western industrial and businesspark 

and eastern residential and small-scale commercial nodes are recommended as part 

of a combined new central water and sewer service district. The Route 234 area is 

presumed to be served by on-site facilities through the planning period. 

The significance of the interchange locations for industrial and business-park use goes 

beyond the simple availability of convenient access for trucks and employees via US Route 

15. The objective is to faditate travel to and from establishments in the county from 

beyond its borders via regional roadways which have the capacity for this traffic, as opposed 

to the two-lane state highways, many of which are already frequently congested, or the rural 

road network. Traffic volumes forecast for these interchanges in the future have suggested 

that certain physical improvements, notably improved ramps, will become necessary (see 

Section 4 of this chapter). Implementation of these improvements is especially important 

for the continuing suitability of these locations as attractive sites for industrial and businesspark 

investment, for the convenience of the county labor force, and for the maintenance of 

the county quality-of-life. 

The three other primary locations recommended for future industrial and business-park uses 

3-3-8

' B 

L 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

are the Littlestown and Conewago Valley industrial parks, which are currently being 

developed, and the existing Conewago Township industrial park south of McSherrystown. 

Selection of future industrial and business-park locations needs to take into account a 

number of factors. Beyond the transportation issues, the type of uses projected for these 

locations must be emphasized. Within the region as a whole, traditional heavy or 

"smokestack" industry has generally given way to enclosed manufacturing, assembly, and 

warehousing facilities which are not noxious and present similar appearances to office or 

commercial structures. Suitable enterprises for the sites selected include the "target thrust 

poups" identified in ,4 T ted Eco nom 'c Devebnment Prom for Adams County, 

Pennsvlva prepared forye Gettysburg Industrial Development Corporation and the 

Economic Development Office for Adam County in 1988. Top target industries for Adams 

County include manufacturing activities such as: Communication equipment, electronic 

components, medical instruments and equipment, measuring devices, furniture and fixtures, 

printing and publishing, electric lighting and wiring equipment, and fabricated metal 

products; ice cream and frozen desserts, food preparations, ceramic wall and floor tile, and 

cookies and crackers. Nonmanufacturing activities include: Computer and data processing 

semices; "back office" activities of finance and insurance firms; and administrative activities 

related to membership organizations. 

Another factor to be considered is the tax-base consequences of industrial and business-park 

development. These uses are valued highly by local governments since they have the 

potential simultaneously to add substantial revenue to the tax coffers and to relieve the 

property-tax burden on residents. There are 34 municipalities in Adams County, each of 

them, in effect, competing for industrial and business-park uses so as to be able to reap tax 

benefits for its individual township or borough. 

Since the likelihood of all 34 municipalities attracting significant industrial and business-park 

uses over the planning period is not high (and undesirable from an efficiency and 

environmental-protection perspective in any case), a mechanism needs to be found to 

facilitate the distribution of potential tax benefits accruing from the development of a 

limited number of industrial- and business-parks in the county over the next twenty years. 

One possible instrument is the school districting system, which entails inter-municipal 

cooperation in the administration and funding of schools. The locations for industrial and 

business-park uses shown in the Land Use Plan take this procedure into account - all school 

districts except Fairfield have a proposed or existing industrial or business-park location. 

(It is presumed that the US Route 15-Route 234 location can be shared between the Upper 

Adams and Bermudian Springs districts). Fairfield does not appear as a favorable location 

for industrial and business-park uses based on accessibility factors but, depending on a 

prospective development's characteristics, this district could achieve suitable new industrial 

or business-park uses. 

The Growth Management Plan strongly recommends that most new industrial development 

be located in planned, visually attractive, settings. For some types of industries, however, 

3-3-9

traditional locations such as the industrial districts at Biglerville, Aspers, or along the active 

CSX railroad (particularly in the eastern half of the county) may be appropriate. Part of 

one of the primary locations for industrial and business-park uses or one of these secondary 

areas could be developed as a planned agricultural business location, functioning as a 

marketing center for locally-produced agricultural products and a supply center for farmrelated 

equipment and materials. 

Commercial Uses 

The Growth Management Plan directs nearly all new commercial development to designated 

growth areas. ("Commercial" refers p-y to consumer-oriented retail activity, but also 

most office uses as well.) A major goal of the Plan is to reinforce borough business districts 

while simultaneously conserving rural landscapes and reducing transportation demands - an 

emphasis on the core areas of existing boroughs and selected new centers for both retail and 

office activities supports these goals. Additional commercial uses in boroughs and other 

centers ensures their long-term economic viability, which is the critical component towards 

maintaining community functions and character. If carefully planned and designed, new uses 

in older communities can enhance their aesthetic harmony and ambience. The combination 

of new and existing residential areas focused on traditional core functions of boroughs and 

other centers allows for home-work and home-shopping connections that are physically 

close, and that present the opportunity for shortdistance and -duration trips by automobile 

or alternate means, such as bicycle or on foot. 

P 

e 

a 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

The Land Use Plan implies a commitment on the part of boroughs and townships to 

recognize the inherent economic, social, and aesthetic value of their existing settlements, and 

to follow through on community economic revitalization efforts, new and updated local 

comprehensive plans (with strong emphases on circulation and parking questions), and the 

preparation and adoption of design guidelines and controls for new development in historic 

places. (Also see Section 7 of this chapter.) 

The Plan recognizes that not all projected commercial uses are well-suited to be inserted 

into traditional business districts. A limited number of locations for highway-oriented 

commercial activities are indicated, all within designated growth areas, and all recommended 

to be constructed in shopping-center-like clusters. Highway-oriented strip commercial use 

is extensive along US Route 30 east from Gettysburg to the York County line. While 

established highway strip commercial uses are firmly entrenched, the Growth Management 

Plan proposes that their extent be limited to the land area that they already occupy. Future 

commercial development beyond the core areas of boroughs and selected new centers 

should be undertaken in a manner that limits the number of access driveways to frontage 

roads. It is also recommended that, in the context of undertaking certain highway 

improvements (such as the New Roadways, Local Collector Roadways, Improved County 

Collector Roadways, and Capacity Improvements to the Arterial System detailed in Section 

4 of this chapter), the County promote the preparation of access management plans. Access 

3-3-10

for new development should be based on the principle of minimizing the number of 

driveways along all roads of arterial status. New development may be required to have 

shared access, or marginal or rear access if practical. New access driveways should be 

permitted conditioned on the property owner's consent to share access with future adjacent 

development where such access can be shown as feasible. 

Remedial action plans should focus on the issues of shared vehicular access, but also address 

parcel development standards (such as those pertaining to impervious coverage and 

stormwater management) in order to improve the image and environment of existing 

commercial areas. Once these standards have been determined, they may be incorporated 

into land development regulations and municipalities can limit issuance of building permits 

for any alterations to existing establishments based on compliance with the new standards. 

Until now, highwaydented strip commercial use has been generally limited to US Route 

30 and parts of certain other highways, mostly as they emanate from Gettysburg. A major 

objective of the Plan is to ensure that the process of commercial stripping does not gain 

additional footholds, since commercial stripping undercuts traffic safety, contributes greatly 

to traffic congestion, and has pronounced visual effects. Except for an extremely small 

number of enterprises whose limited functions are directly related to the primary 

agricultural, recreational, and resource-protection uses within non-growth portions of the 

county, all commercial development should be confined to designated growth areas, and be 

located in coordinated groupings with shared access. 

The County should encourage the development of office-commercial uses in the center of 

Gettysburg. Since multi-tenant office-commercial uses tend to prefer a mix of 

complementing services and uses, the existing concentration of functions at the county seat 

would seem to represent the best-suited location for this market. As the county seat, 

Gettysburg is a center of law, medicine, and banking services. Expansion of the downtown 

work force will probably be the strongest contributing factor for a lively business and 

cultural life in the borough. Office-commercial development here may also hold out an 

opportunity to offer additional support to specialty retailing associated with tourism (such 

as eating and drinking establishments) as well as hotel/motel establishments and proposed 

parking garages. The encouragement of an integrated pedestrian-oriented shopping and 

working environment in downtown Gettysburg is seen as having multiple benefits: A 

reduced rate of auto-trip generation for work-shopping trips, compatible and mutuallysupporting 

roles with tourism and borough retail commerce, and more efficient use of future 

public parking facilities. / 

Other boroughs may evolve specialized county sub-region service center roles. Littlestown, 

East Berlin, Fairfield, McSherrystown, and Biglerville are potential candidates. Still other 

boroughs, such as New Oxford, Abbottstown, and Arendtsville may be more tourist-oriented. 

Home occupations are increasingly a fact of life for all regions of the country and types of 

communities. Home occupations should be permitted in all Adam County townships and 

3-3- 1 1

oroughs, but regulated by new, performance-based ordinances. The County should assist 

its municipalities through the drafting of model home occupation ordinance(s) and their 

promotion to local governments. 

Figure 3.1.1 indicates two major classificatiom of commercial use - mixed-use 

Borough/Village/Crossroad Center and high intensity Commercial. The former category 

encompasses a wide variety of settings for small-, moderate-, and medium-sized retail, office, 

and combined retail-office, retail-residential, and office-residential facilities. Included in 

these areas are residences that are not necessarily combined with commercial uses in the 

same structure, but are found interspersed with commercial uses or close to them. These 

mixed-use areas follow the precedent of historic Adam County boroughs and villages by 

keeping a variety of different, reasonably-compatible uses together in a closely-knit setting. 

Within this broad category, certain distinctions may be made. Borough Centers are based 

on existing boroughs, with their historic and current mixed-use character and, in the case of 

many of them, significant commercial activity. Their character and economic significance 

should be recognized and reinforced through the adoption of appropriate zoning regulations 

and design standards. 

Village Centers denote small existing or evolving nodes of activity, primarily residential in 

character, with limited-scale commercial uses. Particularly when historic structures are 

present, the retention of existing buildings and other notable features should be promoted 

through carefully-crafted development regulations that also provide for home occupations, 

mixed-use structures, and incentives for architecturally-compatible rehabilitations and new 

small-scale "infill" development. A Crossroads Center is closely related to a Village Center, 

but implies mostly new development and a mix of convenience goods and services at a scale 

significantly less than for a community shopping center. 

Institutional Uses 

Institutional uses are significant in Adams County, ranging from the prominent National 

Park Service facilities to Gettysburg College, to a number of nursing home and life-care 

facilities, to a wide variety of public, quasi-public, and private establishments (see Chapter 

2, Section 9). 

The Land Use Plan explicitly recognizes the uniqueness of Gettysburg National Military 

Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site and their environs by carefully locating growth 

areas away from the park boundaries, particularly along the northwest, west, southwest, 

south, and southeast borders. In addition, the concern of National Park Service officials that 

the scenic character of several road approaches to the park be preserved was a central issue 

in the allocation of new industrial, business-park, and commercial uses along the east and 

3-3-12 

I 

a 

e 

el 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

Q 

1 

1 

8 

I 

I 

I 

II 

e 

u 

II

I 

1 

southeast boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park to selected interchanges, but not 

to others. Protection of the park context from widespread, intensive new urban 

development is a key ingredient of the Land Use Plan, especially since the park is such a 

significant component of the county's economy. Views of the park are an essential part of 

its image, particularly approach vistas, such as along Route 116 and Taneytown Road. 

Gettysburg National Military Park, having been expanded by about 2,000 acres in the last 

year, is now entering a phase of consolidating its recent acquisitions. Although plans exist 

to rehabilitate the Visitor Center in middecade, measures such as land acquisition, 

easements purchase, and other efforts toward protection of new park territory are currently 

being pursued. At the same time, the National Park Senrice (NPS) is beginning to explore 

a variety of concepts that would expand the park context, but not necessarily its property 

holdings. The Gettysburg Historic Pathways Plan is one such effort that has already seen 

considerable progress. Other ideas, still in the earliest conceptual stages, include NPSs 

"greenway" strategy, including trail linkages to historic resources elsewhere in the county, to 

the Monocacy Battlefield and C&O canal Park along the Potomac (via the Marsh Creek 

Valley), and to the Appalachian Trail. While these notions are still in the embryonic state, 

their potential implications for the countywide permanent open system (see "Open Space 

Uses", above) are enormous. Close cooperation among the County, its 'constituent 

municipalities, and NPS is essential over the coming months and years. 

NPS is embarking on a Land Protection Study, slated to be concerned with land within the 

new park boundary, but also the larger National Historic District. Land use questions are 

at the heart of this study, and NPS needs to elicit participation by the County and 

Cumberland, Mount Joy, Straban, and Freedom Townships and Gettysburg Borough in the 

earliest stages. 

Adams County has been the location for several new nursing home and life-care facilities 

over the last two decades. The combination of demographic trends in the northeast and 

mid-Atlantic regions of the country, the attractive ambience of Adams County, its relative 

proximity to the urban centers of the East, and its relatively inexpensive real estate are 

likely to perpetuate this trend over the planning period. Literature on the subject 

emphasizes that increasingly the residents of these facilities exhibit life-styles closely parallel 

to other adults in the broader community, including a high rate of mobility (one- and twocar 

households) and full or part-time employment. Thus the traffic-generating consequences 

of these land uses, as well as their water and sewer implications, are similar to those for 

conventional medium to medium-high density residential uses. For these reasons, nursing 

home and life-care facilities are recommended to be included within growth areas in the 

Plan, and to be integrated with the infrastructure systems as well as the mix of residential 

and commercial uses envisioned for each growth-area community. 

3-3-13

A 

0 

nd Use Policieg 

1. Promote the basik Grvwth Management P h concepts of growth areas, resowce 

consewatzon areas, and pennanent open space and presewatibn areas, and their 

confi.on in the Land Use Plan Askt municipalities in the prepamtion and 

adoption of local comprehenrive plans and land use controls consistent with the Land 

Use Plan. 

2 Asskt municipalities and lrmd devebpers in the planning and design of additions to 

4;rirting built-up areas and new residential, employment, and mixed-use areas, consistent 

with the Land Use P h 

3. Encourage the establishment of empbyment centem in designated areas. 

4. Promote the establishment of a pennanent, designated, interconnected open space 

network throughout the county and the development of recreational fmilities at selected 

lOCii!iOns. 

5. Direct new commercial activity to existing bomugh cores and new mired-use centen, in 

confomance with the Land Use Plan. 

3-3- 14

Figure 33.2 

”Mini Cluster” 

5 Single-Family Units 

(detached or attached) 

’ . 

4 

0 

4” 

4 

-** *.,*! 

a 

3-3- 17

Figure 333 

“Country Cluster“ 

10-20 Single-Family Units 


PUBLIC ROAD 

-1 

1 

1 

R 

I 

I 

I 

4

Figure 33.4 

'Village Cluster" 

60 Single-Familj Units 


.. .. . . . 

6O 

4 

0 

L P -O

I 

1 

SECTION 4: CIRCULATION PLAN 

Introduction 

It is clear that the road network serving Adam County will be subject to increasing traffic 

loads over the planning period. Even without any of the anticipated county development, 

traffic would probably increase at about a rate of one percent (1%) per year due to growth 

in the region as a whole. In order to prepare for both county and regional growth and to 

maintain and improve roadway safety, the Circulation Plan makes a series of 

recommendations, consistent with the Growth Management Plan’s goals and objectives and 

the framework for development provided by the Land Use Plan (see Section 3). 

Regional through traffic, intercounty, and local circulation issues are addressed by the 

Circulation Plan, all in the context of the Land Use Plan’s growth area concept, which 

directs future development primarily to existing boroughs and their vicinities, as well as to 

a few other locations. Regional through traffic is proposed to be accommodated on roads 

with the capacity for these types of trips and without disruption of existing settlements. 

Intercounty and intracounty links are proposed to be improved to allow greater ease of 

travel among designated growth areas, while controlling traffic effects on the rural landscape 

that distinguishes most of Adams County. Local trips in and around each population center 

are proposed to be made more convenient, as well as safer. 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

Circulation Plan recommendations are based as well on traffic projections through the 

twenty-year planning horizon, with a focus on five-year intervals of traffic growth (1991-95, 

1995-2000,2000-2005). Thus, the Circulation Plan may provide reasonable lead times for 

governments to act as development occurs in accordance with the Growth Management 

Plan, Even if certain anticipated developments do not occur as planned or occur beyond 

the target dates, nonetheless it is evident that sooner or later the existing roadway system 

in Adams County will have to a ny additional traffic. The Comprehensive Plan must be 

flexible enough to accommodate these increased demands and at the rate and pattern in 

which they actually occur. 

Transportation Needs 

The transportation-related goals and objectives of Section 2 have been distilled into ten 

basic transportation needs: 

1. Restrain growth in traffk passing through Adams County‘s historic boroughs 

and villages; 

2. Establish an alterative route for trucks around Gettysburg, New Oxford, and 

Abbottstown; 

341

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

Alleviate growing congestion at the center of Gettysburg; 

Increase the capacity of the county's arterial road system; 

Eliminate hazardous conditions and improve public safety where accident 

histories demonstrate unacceptable risks; 

Improve traffic flow within boroughs and villages, while retaining community 

character; 

Provide safe and convenient local circulation options around and through 

communities, while retaining local historic and aesthetic qualities; 

Preserve and enhance the scenic qualities of county roadways; 

Respect the integrity of contiguous historic structures and settings in the 

course of planning and implementing roadway improvements; 

Ensure appropriate access to agricultural districts and agriculturally-related 

commercial operations. 

Types of Improvements 

These transportation needs, in turn, have been translated into seven categories of 

recommended roadway improvements for Adam County: 

New Arterial and Collector Roadways 

Local Collector Roadways 

Improved County Collector Roadways 

Interchange Improvements to U.S. Route 15 

- Capacity Improvements to the Arterial System 

SAMI-type Improvements 

- Safety Improvements 

Figure 3.4.1 illustrates the Circulation Plan's recommended roadway improvements. 

1. New Arterial and Collector Roadwavs 

New roadways, both arterials and collectors, are needed to serve travel demand that is not 

accommodated by the current roadway network and would not be accommodated in the 

future even if improvements are made to existing roads. New roadways would be on new 

rights-of-way, creating travel paths that do not exist today. 

342

Implementation of a new roadway link is a difficult undertaking and requires substantial 

lead time. Detailed traffic, environmental and location studies are required, rights-of-way 

must be purchased and funding secured. The design of the new roadways depends upon 

their function in the roadway network. Arterial roadways can be either limited access, 

controlled access or free access. They can be two lanes, two lanes with the initial purchase 

of right-of-way for four or more lanes, or initially constructed at the ultimate cross-section. 

Figure 3.42 shows the typical cross-section of arterial roadways on new location rights-ofway 

and Figure 3.43 illustrates the definitions of limited, controlled and free'access. 

County Collector roadways, perhaps at least partly on new rights-of-way (see below), are 

designed to seme local, intra-county trips at a slower speed than arterials. A special design 

has been developed for this class of roadway and is illustrated in Figure 3.4.4. This design 

features grass shoulders, grass or wildflower slopes and gentle edge-of-road swales for 

improved safety. (Of course, where terrain does not permit, guiderail, as illustrated on the 

figure, or steeper cut slopes may be required.) Regardless, the goal in the development of 

the nual collector road cross section is to provide safety while retaining the attractive, scenic 

character of Adams County roadways. 

County Collectors are also intended to serve local industry and its associated trucks. Care 

should be taken to design the County Collector system so as to discourage through-thecounty 

truck trips, yet retain ease of access for local industry. This is a particularly 

important factor for existing industrial areas in the Conewago Township and McSherrystown 

area, and in the Fruitbelt. 

2. J oca1 Collecto r Road ways 

As indicated in the Land Use Plan, some large developments are anticipated and planned 

in the vicinity of current built-up areas and around historic boroughs and villages. Since 

many of the streets in the boroughs and villages cannot be improved to accommodate large 

increases in traff!ic, a system of new "local collector" roadways and extensions of existing 

streets should be designed to create alternative "pathways" to the County Collector and 

arterial roadway system. For each community, at least one pathway should be designed to 

enable local trips to avoid the village center. It is anticipated that most of these roadways 

would be built by developers, although some may need to be constructed by municipal 

governments. Figure 3.4.5 illustrates an example of a local collector system. 

3. Imuroved County Collecton 

While there are no County-owned roadways, the State highway system contains a series of 

roadways that serve primarily intra-county trips. These roadways are designated as County 

Collectors. In the Circulation Plan, the main function of these roadways is to provide 

pathways for these intra-county trips around congested boroughs, as illustrated in Figure 

3.4.6, and to provide connections to the arterial highway system. 

343

4. Interchange Immo vements - US Route 15 

Many of the interchanges on US Route 15 are substandard by current norms, having been 

constructed in the 1960s as part of the original highway. As traffic grows, safety problems 

and congestion can be expected. Design elements that will contribute to the anticipated 

degradation in the quality of operation are the closely-spaced diamond interchange ramp 

intersections at the cross streets, the short, narrow ramps and narrow cross streets, and the 

narrow structures overpassing US Route 15. Figure 3.4.7 illustrates the current situation and 

suggests improvements of varying levels of capacity. Each interchange should be analyzed 

independently, taking into account the specific traffic patterns and physical and 

environmental constraints at each interchange. 

5. C a w Iqroveglents to the Arterial System 

Despite anticipated new roadways and careful planning for traffic increases, improvements 

to some arterial roadways will be required. Changes to these roadways will need to be in 

accordance with standards of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Typical 

improvement are illustrated in Figure 3.4.8, which shows major widening to achieve a fivelane 

section, and Figure 3.4.9, which shows an improved two-lane section with turning lanes. 

It is anticipated that such improvements would cover long stretches of Adams County 

arterials. 

In the vicinity of the Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic 

Site truck restrictions may be necessary and special amenities, such as overlooks, should be 

considered. Planning should be coordinated with the National Park Sexvice for these roads. 

5. SAMI Improvemen& 

SAMI is an acronym for a transportation improvement program managed by the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, standing for Safety and Mobility Initiative. 

(This program was formerly known as ECONS.) On an first-come, first-served basis, the 

Department funds low-cost improvements designed to improve traffic flow and safety. The 

types of improvements funded by the program include: 

new traffic signals 

- intersection widening (e.g., turning lanes) 

- traffic signal coordination systems 

- modernized traffic signals 

Each improvement is judged on its own merits, with its benefit/cost ratio compared to the 

other candidates. SAMI is a tool to address location-specific congestion and safety 

problems, especially within boroughs and at major crossroads. 

3-4-4

1 

1 7. Safety Improvements 

m 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

i 

I 

I 

1 

I 

m 

As a result of the analysis of accidents undertaken as part of the comprehensive planning 

process, additional locatioins have been identified that are not covered by other 

recommended improvements, especially SAMI, because of low traffic volumes. 

Recommended improvements are specifically directed at the observed accident patterns and 

could include: 

. straightening and widening curves 

improving sight distances 

- improving traffic controls, such as new or improved traffic signals, curve 

warning signs, or "intersection-ahead" warning signs 

- adding turning lanes 

relocating roadside obstacles farther from the pavement 

- 

Future Tramc Volumes 

Traffic volumes for the year 2010 were projected based on an analysis of existing traffic 

volumes for pattern and directional distribution, projected development patterns, and 

employment projections for surrounding counties. Historical traffic volume trends for major 

Adams County roadways were also used in the analysis. 

Past trends reveal that traffic in the county has been increasing at a rate of 2 to 3% per 

year, compounded annually. If continued over the next 20 years, a 50 to 80% increase in 

traffic might be expected, with many roads experiencing rapid traffic growth and others 

much less. 

To arrive at more precise prlojections of future traffic volumes on critical links and estimates 

of the effects of traffic growth, a more fine-grained analysis was undertaken. The Land Use 

Plan was analyzed on a development-by-development basis, assuming that one peak hour 

trip is added to the roadway network for each new residence and one peak hour trip for 

each new job. The analysis concentrated on the evening peak hour and assumed that each 

residential trip travels to the residence and from the job site. Each employment center trip 

travels from the job site and. to the residence. Since as many Adams County residents work 

outside the county as non-county residents work inside the county, new trips were placed on 

the roadway without regard to their county of origin (in the case of employment center 

trips) or destination (in the case of residential trips). Also, since the Land Use Plan does 

not identify whether all major employment centers also contain shopping facilities, it was 

assumed that during peak hours, the majority of shopping-based trips are already on the 

road and are diverted to or passing by the shopping center. In fact, recent studies show that 

about 25% of shopping center traffic in the peak hours is new to the roadway network (Le., 

the trip is from home to the retail facility and then home again). All other trips stop at the 

retail facility along the way. Employee trips are counted, however, as in all other job 

3-4-5 

D 

I

centers. Finally, to account for regional trips and other growth not anticipated by the Land 

Use Plan, a background growth factor of 1% per year (20% over the 20 years) was added. 

Figure 3.4.10 illustrates the projected future evening peak hour traffic volumes on selected 

links of the existing roadway network. Table 3.4.1 illustrates a comparison of selected link 

volumes. As shown, traffic volume increases range from 23% to 638%, depending on the 

route examined. 

In Gettysburg Borough, while some 800 new jobs are projected, development surrounding 

Gettysburg will cause a 170% average increase in traffic on the roadways entering the 

borough. It should be noted that much of the existing traf€ic has neither an origin nor a 

destination within the borough, yet due to its critical location many county residents are 

affected by traffic conditions in this important central place. 

Future “rafKc Conditions 

The projections of Table 3.4.1 and Figure 3.4.10 indicate a substantial increase in traffic on 

many roadways as development continues. In order to gauge just how well these projected 

traffic volumes will flow, a volume/capaCity analysis was prepared for each two-lane arterial. 

This analysis was based upon the operational characteristics of the roadways and the 

corresponding traffic volumes that would produce those characteristics. A scale of Level of 

Service ‘A’ to ‘F, a description of which is found in Table 3.4.2, is used. 

In Chapter 2, w n p Con it was suggested that Levels of Service ‘A’ and ‘E 

represented acceptable traffic conditions and Levels of Senrice ‘C‘ and ‘D’9 while still 

acceptable, indicated concern. Levels of Service ‘E’ and ‘F were considered unacceptable. 

Based on predicted growth over twenty years, as represented by the Land Use Plan, 

volume/capacity analyses of each corridor were made, with the following findings: 

at PA Route 234 - Level ‘D 

at Cashtown Road - Level ‘E 

- at Herr‘s Ridge Road - Level ‘E‘ 

0 US Route 30 west of Gettysburg 

0 US Route 30 east of Gettysburg 

- Level ‘F at all locations 

0 PA Route 116 west of Gettysburg 

Level ‘F east of Fairfield 

- Level ‘E‘ west of Fairfield 

0 PA Route 116 east of Gettysburg 

- Level ‘F east of Bonneaudle 

3-46

1 

L - Level ‘E west of Bonneauville 

0 PA Route 97 

Level ‘E’ near US Route 15 

- Level ‘F near Littlestown 

0 PA Route 234 between ArendtsVille and US Route 15 

- Level ‘C at all locations 

0 MummasburgRoad 

- Level ‘C at all locations 

0 PA Route 94 

- north of US Route 30 - Level ‘E‘ 

-. 

- 

- at Mt. Pleasant Road - Level ‘F 

at US Route 30 - Level ‘E’ 

at East Berlin - Level ‘E 

0 PA Route 194 - Hanover Pike and Abbottstown Pike 

I 

I 

1 

I 

i 

I 

k 

Figure 3.4.11 illustrates these Levels of Service for Adam County roadways for the future 

evening peak hour, assuming the existing roadway network remains as at present. (Note 

that these analyses concern Levels of Service for mrridors, not specific intersections within 

each corridor. Many intersections along corridors with poor Levels of Service will 

themselves exhibit poor Levels of Service for Intersections (see Chapter 2, Section 8 and 

Tables 2.8.2 and 2.8.3).) 

Recommended Circulation Improvements 

To apply the seven categories of recommended improvements (see ‘Types of Improvements”, 

above) and address the levels of service deficiencies apparent above, the following 

circulation improvements are recommended and are illustrated in Figure 3.4.1: 

New Roadwavs 

Four new roadways are recommended: 

US Route 30 Relief Route, Cashtown to Abbottstown 

PA Route 194 Bypass of Littlestown 

Littlestown-Hanover Road Extension west of Littlestown 

- McSherrystown Relief Corridor 

347

A. US Route 30 Relief Route 

II 

a 

A US Route 30 Relief Route is essential for several major reasons. First, the streets of 

Gettysburg Borough, and in particular, Lincoln Square, cannot accommodate increased 

traffic generated by new development along the arteries connecting to Gettysburg. Second, 

the level of truck traffic in the borough is intolerable today and can only grow worse; and 

third, much of the growth in traffic passing through Gettysburg has neither an origin nor a 

destination in the borough. The fourth reason is more regional in nature and is based upon 

projected development along US Route 30 east of Gettysburg. The traffic increases 

associated with this projected development cannot be accommodated in Abbottstown and 

New Oxford while retaining their historic, small-settlement ambience. Finally, there is some 

evidence locally in Gettysburg, New Oxford, and Abbottstown that steadily increasing truck 

traffic has contributed to the structural deterioration of historic buildings. 

Conceivably, a relief route could be created, in part, within the corporate limits of 

Gettysburg. However, in view of the projected traffic volumes and the borough's closelyspaced 

intersections, it appears that routes through the Borough of Gettysburg, even along 

the railroad, would not provide the relief to local streets that a route to the north could 

provide. An east-west relief route "in town" would provide limited benefits - trucks would 

still find it necessary to travel through Lincoln Square, if only in the north-south direction. 

Consequently, the search for a corridor focused to the north, centered along Goldenville 

Road. This is not meant to imply'a route in the bed of Goldenville Road; rather, further 

study is required to find alternative routings for this new arterial highway. (In 1971, an 

alignment for a similar relief route just to the north of Gettysburg was studied. Due to 

subsequent land development and environmental conditions, that alternate should no longer 

be considered feasible.) Regardless of the alignment ultimately selected, the corridor should 

begin west of Gettysburg in the vicinity of Cashtown Road and extend north of New Oxford 

and Abbottstown to York County. 

The construction of any new road is a complex and expensive undertaking, but the type of 

road envisioned is a major factor in determining costs. As well, the type of road to be 

constructed as a US Route 30 Relief Route is crucial to the Land Use Plan's prospects. 

New roadways will have an influence on where growth takes place, how much growth occurs, 

and what kind of development results. The key questions have to do with the kinds of 

access permitted along the prospective road (see Figure 3.4.3). 

A limited access highway (expressway) restricts access to grade-separated interchanges, is 

the most expensive type of road to construct, and may be justified only where travel 

demands are sufficiently great. Funding this type of US Route 30 Relief Route would 

require the greatest capital outlay by the State, and therefore might be the most difficult 

type to implement. A limited access US Route 30 Relief Route could alter travel times 

from west of Gettysburg to the York area substantially, and thereby induce strong growth 

pressures on the central and western parts of Adams County. 

348

1 

1 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

-1 

A free access road permits virtually unlimited access all along its length via cross streets and 

driveways. The implementation of such a road as the Route 30 Relief Route might be 

followed closely by its steady loss of effectiveness as a through route owing to the 

interference of traffic from a growing number of driveways-and cross streets along its length. 

In effect, the new road would lay the groundwork for becoming the kind of road (existing 

US Route 30) from which relief is needed. The Land Use Plan is clear in recommending 

that stripping of arterial and collector roadways by commercial or residential uses be 

discouraged. 

A controlled access road permits access only at a limited number of at-grade intersections. 

No driveways or local (small cross street) access is permitted. Although the costs of 

constructing a controlled access road are substantially less than for a limited access 

(expressway) road, the controlled access road allows a much freer flow of vehicles than the 

free access alternative. The growth inducement effects of a controlled access road should 

generally be much less than for an expressway, and in terms of direct impacts, capable of 

being limited to the few locations where the new controlled access road intersects (at grade) 

with selected existing highways. 

From a variety of perspectives, including projected future traffic volumes, construction costs, 

and land use effects, a two-lane, controlled access road is recommended as the Route 30 

Relief Route. It is anticipated to be a 45 mile-per-hour arterial road, located in its own 

right-of-way approximating (but not duplicating) the route of Goldenville Road for much 

of the Relief Route’s length from Cashtown to Abbottstown, with at-grade intersections at 

Mummasburg Road, PA Route 34 (Biglerville Road), Business US Route 15 (Old 

Harrisburg Road), Coleman Road, Oxford Road, PA Route 94 (Carlisle Pike), and PA 

Route 194. (The planned US Route 30 Relief Route is not analogous to a US Route 15- 

type road, which is a limited-access highway with grade-separated interchanges.) 

No direct driveway or minor road access to the Relief Route would be allowed between its 

at-grade intersections. Since the Relief Route would be a new road on a new right-of-way, 

these driveway restrictions should not impose any hardship on current landowners in the 

vicinity of any Relief Route corridor, since they get access to their properties via other roads 

at the present time, and such access would be maintained following construction of the 

Relief Route. On the other hand, the controlled access US Route 30 Relief Route may 

include frontage roads at selected locations for local driveways (see Figure 3.4.3). 

A two-lane US Route 30 Relief Route is projected to have adequate capacity for expected 

traffic volumes through the planning period. Beyond this interval, increased capacity may 

be required. For this reason, it is recommended that a right-of-way width capable of 

eventually accommodating a four-lane road be acquired for the Relief Route. 

The only location where a grade-separated interchange would be required along the Relief 

Route is where it would cross US Route 15, either making use of the existing interchange 

at PA Route 394 (Shriven Comer Road) and US Route 15 or a new interchange roughly 

349

a mile north or a mile south of that point. The selection of the optimal location for the 

Relief Route’s crossing of US Route 15 is an important aspect of the more detailed studies 

required to evaluate alternative alignments for the US Route 30 Relief Route. 

The h d Use Plan (see Section 3 and Figure 33.1) responds to the prospects of a US 

Route 30 Relief Route by identifying small nodes of mixed-use development at projected 

intersections of the new road and existing highways. These designations are indications of 

typical land development responses that may occur around these at-grade intersections, but 

since the actual alignment for the US Route 30 Relief Route has not been determined, the 

indicated locations for the mixed-use nodes are very speculative. Nonetheless, these 

designations may act as stand-ins for the real intersection locations until they are 

determined. 

The major employment center designated by the Land Use Plan at Shrivers Comers is a 

response, in part, to an anticipated US Route 30 Relief Route and US Route 15 gradeseparated 

interchange at that location. Again, the actual location for this interchange is yet 

to be determined, but the indicated land use response is appropriate for the US Route 30 

Relief Route and US Route 15 interchange, wherever it may be. 

As noted in Chapter 2, Section 8, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is slated 

to begin a major planning study of the US Route 30 corridor from Chambersburg in 

Franklin County to Thomasville in York County. The Adams County Comprehensive Plan’s 

analysis of US Route 30 represents an important foundation for any subsequent 

transportation studies in this area, including the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

US Route 30 corridor study. Adams County should remain an active participant in all 

transportation planning relevant to county residents and businesses. 

B. PA Route 194 Bypass of Littlestown 

The Littlestown area is experiencing and will continue to experience substantial growth. 

This growth will bring traffic volumes in excess of the capacity of borough streets to 

accommodate them, and PA Routes 97 and 194 wil be overburdened as well. Already 

congestion is occurring at the intersection of King and Queen Streets in the center of 

Littlestown. 

For some time, the Borough of Littlestown has been progressing on a “ring road” in the 

spirit of local collector systems described in the Circulation Plan. Like all local collector 

systems, this ring road is designed to serve local trips as it passes through principally 

residential neighborhoods. However, additional relief is still needed to accommodate 

regional traffic demands. Therefore, the Circulation Plan recommends that PA Route 194 

be rerouted on a new alignment to the south of Littlestown and be constructed as a two-lane 

arterial. 

3-4-10 

I 

i 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

a 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

* 

I 

I

C Littlestown-Hmover Road Extension 

As part of the expanded County Collector road system and as an extension of the Cross 

Keys-Littlestown Connector, an extension of Littlestown-Hanover Road is recommended 

between PA Route 97 and PA Route 194. This extension is not part of the ring road being 

implemented by the Borough of Littlestown. 

D. McShenystown Relief Corridor 

Regardless of whether a Hanover bypass is built, because of expected regional growth 

(including a major regional mall along PA Route 94), it is still important that traffic from 

the Hanover area not destined for McSherrystown be routed around McShenystown. A new 

alignment to the north is recommended to serve the industrial/commercial developments 

along PA Route 94 north of Hanover. It should also be noted that Conewago Township has 

been considering such a relief comdor for some time and has developed a series of 

alternate routings between PA Route 94 and the Black Lane/Chapel Road area, including 

one alternate that connects to Sunday Drive and to Racehorse Road. Decisions concerning 

the ultimate alignment of this east-west roadway should take into account the north-south 

Cross Keys-Littlestown Connector discussed in the County Collector section of the 

Circulation Plan. 

Cal co llector Svst em 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

L 

I 

Local collector systems, represented on Figure 3.4.5 as circles, are a recommended policy 

action for municipalities. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide several 

"pathways" for local trips, such as trips between neighborhoods or trips to local supermarkets 

or convenience stores, so that these trips do not need to be routed through the center of 

villages or boroughs. An example of this type of system is that being implemented by the 

Borough of Littlestown, which is creating a ring road by connecting developments one to the 

other. 

Expanded local collector road networks are recommended for the following communities: 

Littlestown 

Bonneauville 

New Oxford 

Abbottstown 

East Berlin 

Hampton 

York Springs 

Bendersville 

Biglerville 

3-4-11

- Arendtsville 

Immoved Countv CollectoG 

Four improved County Collector roadways are recommended. The first extends from PA 

Route 116 to Cashtown, the second from the US Route 30 Relief Route to Old US Route 

30, the third from PA Route 94 to PA Route 97, and the fourth from PA Route 116 to PA 

Route 194. These roadways would be improved to the County Collector road design 

standard. 

A. Fruit Belt Connector -0 PA 

Route I16 to Cashtown 

This roadway is intended primarily to serve local county traffic. Drivers using PA Route 116 

west of Gettysburg today must travel through Gettysburg to join the regional roadway system 

and travel to commercial areas. An improved collector road would accommodate this 

demand and eliminate the need for travel through the center of Gettysburg. The 

Circulation Plan recommends that Orrtanna Road and Carrolls Tract Road be upgraded to 

collector road status. 

In the context of creating the Fruit Belt Connector, a study should be undertaken to 

determine the best connection between Orrtanna Road, south of Cashtown, and US Route 

30. This study should determine a routing that would be compatible with the historic 

character of Cashtown. 

Over the planning period, traffic volumes on Bullfrog Road are likely to increase and 

modest improvements to that roadway may become necessary. Due to the many historic 

features lining Bullfrog Road, however, this route is not slated for substantial improvements 

in order to accommodate regional traffic patterns. 

B. Connector from the US Route 30 Relief Route to Old US Route 30 

In view of the recommended US Route 30 Relief Route, it is important to reduce the length 

of future trips on old US Route 30 if these could be better served by the Relief Route. 

Therefore, it is important to connect the two roadways at the eastern end of the business 

area along old US Route 30 in Straban Township - Coleman Road has been recommended 

to fulfill this role. The intersection of Coleman Road, Centennial Road and existing US 

Route 30 should be realigned to a standard four-way intersection. Signalization may be 

required in the future. 

3-4-12

C. Cross Xeys-Littlestown Connector 

L 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

C 

Currently, there is no direct route for traffk travelling from the PA Route 94, New Oxford 

and Abbottstown area to the Littlestown area, except through Hanover. Since substantial 

development continues and is further projected in this area, a new collector roadway is 

recommended. To fulfillthis need, Red Hill Road, Black Lane, Chapel Road, Bender Road 

and Littlestown-Hanover Road are proposed for this purpose. 

An evaluation of the proposed County Collector reveals that the following improvements 

will be required: 

Littlestown-Hanover Road - improve the shoulders to County Collector road 

standards 

Intersection of Littlestown-Hanover Road and PA Route 116 - improve the 

intersection as part of the PA Route 116 improvement; Le., widen each approach for 

left turn lanes and signalize 

Bender Road - improve to County Collector road standards and realign the first 

horizontal curve north of PA Route 116 to provide a smoother alignment in the area 

Chapel/Bender Roads - realign at Center Road to one intersection 

Centennial Road - improve to County Collector road standards from Chapel Road 

to Sunday Drive to connect to the McSherrystown Relief Corridor as planned by 

Conewago Township 

Sunday Drive - improve to County Collector road standards 

Black Lane area -- two alternates are proposed: 

- improve Black Lane to County Collector road standards between Red Hill 

Road and Chapel Road; or 

- 

build a new County Collector road to connect Chapel Road to Red Hill Road 

Red Hill Road - improve to County Collector standards and realign horizontal 

curves 

Intersection of Red Hill Road and PA Route 94 - increase sight distance by 

improving the vertical alignment of PA Route 94. Widen the intersection to provide 

turning lanes and signalize when warranted. 

3-4-13

D. Racehorse Road 

At present there is no direct connection between PA Route 116 west of McSherrystown and 

PA-Route 194 south of Hanover; today this movement must be made by travelling through 

both McShenystown and Hanover. Racehorse Road should be improved to serve this 

demand. Specific improvements include a realignment of the curve south of PA Route 116 

and realignment of the intersection at PA Route 194 and Lovers Drive. Turning lanes are 

also needed on all approaches to the PA Route 116/Sunday Drive/Racehorse Road 

intersection. 

hmoved Interchw on US Route fi 

Growth in the area around selected US Route 15 interchanges is indicated in Section 3, the 

d Use Plan, The interchanges now in place were not designed, however, to 

accommodate substantial increases in traffic, and improvements ranging from the installation 

of traffic signals to the construction of turning lanes to reconstruction and realignment of 

the interchange ramps, as previously noted, may be needed. The US Route 15 interchanges 

in Straban and Mount Joy Townships that will need improvements are at: 

0 PA Route 97 

0 PA Route 116 

0 US Route 30 

0 Goldenville Road 

Mount Joy Township recently commissioned a study of improvement needs at the PA Route 

97 interchange with US Route 15. Included in the study was the nearby intersection of PA 

Route 97 and Lake Heritage Drive. The study recommended retention of the existing 

diamond interchange configuration, with signalization of the two ramp intersections with PA 

Route 97 and signalization of the Lake Heritage Drive intersection. In addition, it was 

noted that PA Route 97 requires significant widening for an additional through lane and 

turning lanes. These study recommendations are consistent with the findings and 

recommendations of the County Comprehensive Plan and this Circulation Plan element. 

Traffic projections in the York Springs area indicate substantial increases on PA Route 94 

east of US Route 15. The substandard ramp geometry at the PA Route 94/US Route 15 

interchange should be improved. 

wtv Improvements to the Arte rial s vn 

As previously noted, capacity improvements are recommended for the arterial highway 

system to accommodate projected traffic increases over the planning period. To maximize 

the value and efficiency of improvements to the arterial system, the County and townships 

3414 

e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

'i 

I

I 

I 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I_ 

should adopt access management standards. These standards, intended to limit the 

proliferation of new access points along arterial roads and consolidate existing access points 

in order to minimize the "friction" caused by too many curb cuts, should be applied 

whenever new development is being reviewed for approval. 

Specific improvements to the arterial system include: 

A. US Route 30 - Gettysburg line east to Coleman Road/Centennial Road. 

While the proposed US Route 30 Relief Route can be expected to reduce traffic 

volumes substantially on old US Route 30, nevertheless, due to the intensive 

concentration of land uses in this section of the existing road and pending 

development, it is recommended that the cartway be widened to a five-Iane cross- 

section. 

Traffic signals and improved or widened cross street approaches are 

recommend at: 

- Shealer Road 

- Coleman Road/Centennial Road (see previous discussion) 

With respect to the remaining sections of old US Route 30, both east of Coleman 

Road and west of Gettysburg, the construction of the US Route 30 Relief Route 

should reduce traffic volumes sufficiently to eliminate the need for capacity-directed 

improvements, except as noted in the SAMI and Safety Improvements sections to 

follow. 

In addition, the improvements along old US Route 30 should be accompanied by 

upgrades to the Shealer Road and Boyds School Road corridor in Cumberland and 

Straban Townships. 

B. PA Route 116 - Gettysburg line east to Littlestown-Hanover Road 

This roadway is projected to operate in the Level of Service E-F range if no 

improvements are undertaken over the planning period. Although this is not 

acceptable traffic service, owing to extreme congestion, neither would widening this 

roadway to four lanes be an agreeable action, due to existing development in and 

around Bonneauville along PA Route 116. The Circulation Plan recommends 

retention of the two-lane operation (one lane per direction), and development of a 

series of intersection improvements, including turning lanes and traffic signals. In 

addition, full-width shoulders are recommended for the entire length, except for a 

section east of Bonneauville which already has wide shoulders. This will allow 

through traffic to bypass a left-turning vehicle. 

In Bonneauville, the following improvements are recommended: 

3415 

m 

1

ealignment of the "S" curve 

- construction of a 40-foot-wide curbed section to provide sufficient width for 

turning lanes and some mid-block on-street parking 

C. PA Route 116 - Gettysburg line to PA Route 16 

As with PA Route 116 east of Gettysburg, substantial increases in traffic volume are 

projected, but major widening is also not recommended. Instead, widened shoulders 

are recommended for the entire length of the route, with traffic signals and turning 

lanes recommended at: 

- PA Route 16 

- Carrolltown Road 

- Bullfrog Road 

D. PA Route 97 - Gettysburg line to Maryland line 

The County Collector roadway system in the Littlestown area should substantially 

improve the operation of PA Route 97; however, it is still recommended that 

shoulders be paved to their full 10-foot width, and that turning lanes, traffic signals 

and widened cross street approaches be installed. 

recommended turning lanes and traffic signals are: 

- Lake Heritage Drive 

- Littlestown-Hanover Road 

Specific locations for 

E. PA Route 194 - York County line to Maryland line (southern section) and the 

section north of US Route 30 

Similar to the other arterial highways, shoulder improvements, traffic signals (when 

warranted) and turning lanes are recommended. Specific locations for turning lanes 

and traffic signals are: 

- Racehorse Road 

- Harney Road 

- Pine Grove Road 

- Mt. Pleasant Road 

F. PA Route 94 - Entire length 

Projected traffic volumes indicate that, absent improvements, PA Route 94 will 

operate at Level of Service E conditions by the later part of the planning period. To 

avoid this result full-width shoulders are recommended for the entire length of the 

road. Turning lanes and/or traffic signals (when warranted) are recommended for: 

3416 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

I 

I 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

Eisenhower Road (York County) 

Red Hill Road 

PA Route 394 

Lake Meade Road 

Town Hill/York Springs Road 

Latimore/Goodyear Road 

Gun Club Road (sight distance improvements also required) 

Hanover Street 

PA Route 234 

Berlin/Pine Roads 

Recently, Pennsylvania and Maryland and the Pennsylvania counties of York and Adam 

have joined together to study transportation improvements in the PA Route 94 corridor 

between US Route 30 and the Maryland line. Among the options to be considered is a 

bypass of Hanover. Adams County should remain an active participant in this endeavor: 

The Adams County Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the McSherrystown- 

Conewago Township area represent an important foundation for any transportation planning 

this corridor. 

Should a bypass of Hanover be implemented, PA Route 94 should be restudied in response 

to new traffic conditions. It is expected that additional improvements would be required. 

As indicated previously, SAMI (formerly ECONS) is an annual program managed by the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PaDOT) that is directed at improving the delay 

and safety picture at intersections, along corridors and in roadway networks within the state. 

Projects are selected for implementation based upon their benefit-cost ratio and how well 

the goals of the program are achieved. PaDOT funding for SAMI projects may be gained 

only through a highly competitive process. 

In recent years, PaDOT has targeted the Borough of Gettysburg for SAMI/ECONS 

improvements consisting of traffic signal modernization and interconnection. In addition, 

the tight curb radii at selected intersections were to be increased, making it easier to make 

right turns. This SAMI/ECONS study was completed, but the project was never 

implemented. It represents a-priority for the Circulation Plan, and it is recommended that 

the improvements be implemented as soon as possible to “buy time” until other 

improvements in the US Route 30 corridor are undertaken. While the SAMI improvements 

are not a substitute for US Route 30 corridor improvements, in light of continuing traffic 

growth in the borough and little additional available capacity, the SAMI improvements will 

help local traffic flow. 

The Borough of Gettysburg is not alone, however, in needing short-term, low-capital- 

3-4-17

intensive improvements. The Circulation Plan recommends that the following areas be 

candidates for SAMI studies, and for implementation if the benefits sufficiently exceed the 

costs: 

Candidate Communities for SAMI-type Improvements 

Littlestown - Traffic signal update, turning lanes at key intersections 

New Oxford - Traffic signals at the square 

Abbottstown - Signalize, possibly removing circle, and channelize intersection 

of PA Route 194 and US Route 30 

McSherrystown - Coordinate and modernize traffic signals 

East Berlin - Provide left turn lanes at PA Routes 234/194 

Biglede - Modernize traffic signals, and provide left turn lanes on the PA 

Route 34 approaches. 

Some areas where SAMI studies have been recommended overlap areas proposed for safety 

improvements to be discussed in the next section, and arterial improvements previously 

discussed. 

&few ImDrovemenG 

PaDOTs main safety improvement program is the safety component of the SAMI program. 

As well, there are dedicated safety funds from the Federal Highway Administration that are 

used solely for safety projects, including hazard elimination and railroad crossing 

improvements. Safety, in general, is a major concern of PaDOT Each PaDOTadministered 

project, regardless of funding, is evaluated for its effect upon any existing or 

potential accident-prone situation. Furthermore, accident histories are evaluated when 

selecting projects for inclusion in the Department's Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP). 

The Adams County Comprehensive Plan study analyzed 2,792 accidents on eight study 

corridors, including: 

PA Route 116 

US Route 30 

PA Route 234 

PA Route 97 

544 accidents 

859 accidents 

388 accidents 

146 accidents 

3-4-18 

I 

I 

e 

w 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

e 

I 

1 

E 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

i

I 

I 

L 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

Mummasburg Road 

US Route 15 

PARoute 194 

PA Route 94 

103 accidents 

77 accidents 

349 accidents 

a accidents 

2,792 TOTAL 

As well, the study concentrated on the selected 40 study-area intersections .and identified 

247 accidents. 

Analysis of the 40 study-area intersections reveals that 16 key intersections of the total 

intersections account for almost 80% of all accidents, 77% of all injuries and 80% of all 

fatalities. Accordingly, it is recommended that detailed analyses and specific improvements 

be developed at the following intersections: 

ersechog 

PA Route 234 & Old Harrisburg Pike, 


PA Route 116 & North Third Street, 

McSherrystown 

US Route 30 & Herr's Ridge Road, 


US Route 30 & PA Route 194, 

Abbottstown 

PA Route 234 & PA Route 194, 

East Berlin 

US Route 30 & Lincoln Square, 

Gettysburg 

Initial Recommendation 

signalization 

(SAMI) traffic signal modernization 

realign Herr's Ridge Road to a cross-street with 

US Route 30 and signalize 

(SAMI) signalize and possibly remove traffic 

circle 

(SAMI) provide left-turn lanes on all four legs 

(SAMI) coordinate signals to meter traffic into 

circle 

PA Route 194 & Mount Pleasant Road, signalize and stripe left-turn lanes on 

Conewago Township PA Route 194 

PA Route 234 & US Route 15 

interchange, Tyrone Township 

PA Route 116 and South Third Street, 

McSherrystown 

[see interchange improvements] 

signalize 

3-4-19

Intersection 

.. 

id Recommend& 

PA Route 116 and PA Route 16, 


PA Route 94 and PA Route 394, 


Mummasburg Road & Herr's Ridge 

Road, Cumberland Township 

US Route 30 and Cashtown Road, 


US Route 15 & Latimore Valley Road, 


PA Route 234 & Biglerville Road, 

Biglerville 

widen for turning lanes and signalize 

signalize 

multi-way stop control, with possible future 

measures to improve sight distances 

signalize 

rechannelize to eliminate cross traffic on 

Latimore Road 

(SAMI) modernize signals and provide left-turn 

lanes on the PA Route 34 approaches 

Future Tramc Conditions with Recommended Improvements 

Figure 3.4.12 illustrates the projected future evening peak hour traffic volumes and Levels 

of Service for the Adams County roadway network, including the improvements described 

above. 

Certain corridors exhibit Level of Service E conditions, generally considered unacceptable. 

Nonetheless, in consideration of the variety of alternative strategies for circulation system 

upgrading, the combination of previously-described improvements is recommended as the 

most realistic and best-balanced for Adams County. These corridors should continue to be 

monitored, however, especially with a view towards establishing demand management 

opportunities (see "Transportation Demand Management", following) as growth proceeds. 

Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements 

Preliminary cost estimates have been made on a project-by-project basis for the 

recommended circulation improvements. Estimates are exclusive of right-of-way acquisition 

costs and are stated in current (1991) dollars. Design and construction inspection costs 

(combined, typically ten percent of the construction costs) are also excluded. Table 3.4.3 

shows the various projects recommended and their estimated construction costs; as 

3420

1 

8 

5 

i 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

presented in Table 3.43, the program totals $102,700,000.00. 

Funding for Recommended Improvements 

The traditional public funding mechanisms for transportation improvements include federal, 

state, and local gasoline tax-supported programs. In Pennsylvania, these are administered 

by the State Transportation Commission and Department of Transportation (PaDOT), 

through its 'Twelve-Year Program" (see Chapter 2, Section 8). This program categorizes 

and sets priorities for each county's transportation improvement projects in the context of 

statewide needs and available funds. 

The "Twelve-Year Program" is updated every two years and projects under consideration 

continually must compete for funding on both a regional and a statewide basis. Funding 

limitations also restrict project programming (timing), and lead times of 10 to 12 years for 

project implementation are typical for most major transportation improvements. 

This lack of funding for new transportation infrastructure has been a growing concern of 

local officials throughout the state, as continuing residential, office, and commercial 

development have placed strains on existing road systems. To address this emerging 

problem, the State Legislature has permitted municipal governments to use private-sectorgenerated 

funding in conjunction with public revenues under two distinct programs. 

The first program, under the terms of Act 209 of 1990, allows the imposition of "impact" fees 

by municipalities on new development within a specified study area, in order to help fund 

road improvements needed to mitigate levelsf-senrice deficiencies created by new 

development in that specific study area. Under Act 209, municipalities must complete 

detailed traffic studies prior to the imposition of the fees. 

The second funding mechanism may be used through creation of a "transportation 

partnership", in which two or more local governments, or a local government combined with 

private sector interests share in the planning and/or financing of transportation 

improvements. In Pennsylvania, partnerships are referred to as either "formal" or "informal". 

Formal partnerships are those developed pursuant to Act 47 of 1985, as amended by Act 

75 of 1986, known as the mportat ion Partnersh ip Acf. The three primary characteristics 

of formal partnerships are: (1) they involve the creation of 'Transportation Development 

Districts"(or TDDs); (2) they involve municipal and private sector participation, and usually 

PaDOT as well; and (3) they likely include some type of special property assessments within 

a TDD. Informal partnerships are those falling outside of Act 47. Essentially, these 

partnerships are characterized by negotiated cost-sharing arrangements without any specific 

rules as to how these arrangements should be formed. 

Implementation of the set of recommended circulation improvements for Adams County will 

entail a mix of traditional and nontraditional funding sources. 

3421

Functional Classification Map 

Figure 3.4.13 illustrates the recommended functional classification of Adams County 

roadways. Notable in the updated classification are the following: 

mior Arteriab 

- Addition of the US Route 30 Relief Route. Note: The alignment in the 

figure is for illustrative purposes only. Further study will be required to set 

the find alignment. 

Several minor arterials have been upgraded to major arterial status: 

PA Route 116 

PA Route 97 

PA Route 94 

- PARoute 194 

- Business Route US 15 has been upgraded to a minor arterial. 

Countv Co llectors 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

Collector roadways have been renamed as County Collectors to distinguish them 

from local collectors as noted on municipal circulation plans and in the 

Comprehensive Plan. New collector roads are: 

- Fruitbelt 

- oss Kevs-J dttlestown Co nnecto r 

Littlestown-Hanover Road 

Bender Road 

Red Hill Road 

Littlestown-Hanover Road Extension 

Racehorse Road 

- Littlestown Relief Route 

3422

e 

D 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

8 

r 

0 

I 

1 

Public Transportation 

As growth continues, demand for improved public transportation service could follow. 

Service between Gettysburg and Harrisburg and between Gettysburg and the 

Washington/Baltimore area may need to be initiated, and service along US Route 30 may 

need to be upgraded. At the same time, the demand-responsive system currently in 

operation (Apple Line) may need to be expanded. 

Non-Vehicular Circulation 

The provision for safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and bicyclists is an 

important element of the Plan. It is recommended that within boroughs and villages 

sidewalks or other forms of all-weather pedestrian paths be provided in locations where 

pedestrian travel may reasonably be expected to occur or where it is to be encouraged (see 

"Commercial Uses" in Section 3 of this chapter). Between growth areas, on selected 

highways and rural roads, shoulders should be installed wide enough to provide for 

pedestrians and bicycles. Bicycle and pedestrian paths should be considered integral with 

major new residential developments and as part of the interconnected county-wide open 

space system (see "Open Space Uses" in Section 3 of this chapter). 

Transportation Demand Management 

Transportation Demand Management is a significant tool to assist vehicle flow where the 

traffic-carrying capacity of a roadway cannot be improved to meet demand. Specific 

elements of demand management include: 

- shifting the starting/ending times of the work day by staggering shifts or 

through flexiile work hours; 

- encouraging car pooling through a matching program either within one job 

center or managed by the County on a county-wide or area-wide basis. 

The employment centers envisioned at certain US Route 15 interchanges (see "Industrial 

Uses" in Section 3 of this chapter) are both potential peak-hour destinations for large 

numbers of employees and possible park-and-ride depots. The concentration of jobs at 

selected interchanges may provide convenient opportunities for car pooling among workers 

and locations for Harrisburg- or Maryland-bound commuters to park all day while riding 

vans or buses to their job locations. 

3423 

c

Subdivision Streets 

Residential streets providing access to houses should be designed to standards appropriate 

for these types of neighborhoods. The prirnary circulation objective in these areas is not to 

move high volumes of traffic, but to allow local residents to get to and from their houses. 

In view of the different set of transportation priorities for residential neighborhoods, the 

generous road widths usually specified for safe, free-flowing travel on collector and arterial 

roads are inappropriate for most residential streets. Narrow residential streets can 

discourage through traffic from choosing these routes and, at the same time, lower travel 

speeds. These kinds of streets are more pedestrian-oriented, cause less stormwater runoff, 

and are less expensive to build than wider ones. 

Circulat ion Policies 

1. Plan for and constmct a US Route 30 Relief Route north of Gettysburg between 

Cashtown and Abbottstown. 

2. Plan for and construct new roadways as follows: 

- PA Route 194 bypass of Littlestown 

- Littlestown-Haver Road Extension 

- McShenystown Relief Conidor 

3. Encourage municipalities to adopt local collector road systems to reduce congestion in 

villages and boroughs. 

4. Improve key roadways to operate as County Collector roadways, including: 

Fruitbelt Connector 

Coleman Road 

Cross Keys-Littlestown Connector 

- Racehorse Road 

5. Improve US Route I5 interchanges to accommodate inuemed trafic at: 

PA Route 97 

PA Route 116 

US Route 30 

Goldenville Road 

- PA Route 94 

6. Improve the merial roadway system to inueme its capacity. 

3424

7. Adopt Access Management Standardr to increase the @ciency of the arterial system 

8. 

’ 

Encourage SAMI studies by the Pennrylvania Department of Transportation of key 

crch~sroads and in key communities 

9. Implement the ECONS’WI recommendatons for Gettysbwg. 

IO. 

Implement a Safetv Improvement Program in Adams County to address problems at 

locations where acciients have occLvred and where potential safetv problems may 

emerge. 

3-4-25 

R 

I

Table 3.4.1 

Two-Directz'on Evening 

Peak-Hour Tr@c Volumes, 1990 and 201 0 

LocaSion 

Existing 

Volume 

Future 

JJLQhwE 

Percent 

Increase 

US Route 30 

West of US Route 15 

- West of PA Route 234 

13 19 

692 

3586 

1600 

172% 

131% 

PA Route 116 

West of McSherrystown 

- Fairfield Area 

1258 

726 

2690 

2600 

114% 

258% 

PA Route 97 

East of US Route 15 

- West of US Route 15 

886 

663 

2150 

1900 

232% 

187% 

PA Route 234 

East of PA Route 34 

- North of US Route 30 

407 

110 

870 

135 

114% 

23% 


- South of Goldemrille Road 

134 

720 

437% 

PA Route 94 

South of Berlin Road 

- South of Lathore Road 

653 

233 

1922 

1720 

194% 

638% 

PA Route 194 

South of Harney Road 

- North of Pine Grove Road 

321 

946 

2025 

2800 

531% 

195% 

3426

~ ~~ _____ 

Table 3.46 

Levels of Service for Roadways‘ 

0 

0 

Level of Service ‘A’ 

- Represents free flow. Individual motorists are unaffected by the presence of 

other vehicles on the roadway. The individual can select speed and maneuver 

@ass a slower vehicle or turn) without interference from other vehicles. The 

maximum two-way directional peak hour traffic volume is 200 vehicles. 

Level of Service ‘B’ 

c Represents slightly less freedom to maneuver. The presence of other 

motorists in the traffic stream is now noticeable but desired speeds can still 

be selected freely and maneuverability is now impeded occasionally. The 


0 

0 

0 

0 

Level of Service ‘C 

- Represents stable flow. Motorists now become significantly affected by 

interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is 

influenced by others and maneuverability is achieved through careful 

decisions. However, overall traffic flow is still relatively smooth. The 


Level of Service ‘D 

- . Represents occasional unstable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are 

restricted. Any additional traffk causes operational problems at this level. 

The maximum two-way directional peak hour traffic volume is 1,350 vehicles. 

Level of Service ‘E’ 

- Represents unstable flow. Breakdowns occur with increasing frequency. 

Operating conditions are at or near full capacity level. Speeds are typically 

reduced. Passing opportunities and gaps in traffic are infrequent. The 

maximum two-way directional peak hour traffic volume is 2,290 vehicles. 

Level of Service ‘F 

- Also represents unstable flow. Traffic flow is normally forced or broken 

down. This condition exists when the amount of traffic approaching a section 

hmwportation Research Bond, Special Rcport 209, Hinhwav Ca~acitv Manual. 1985, published by the Transportation a r c h 

Board, Washington, DC, 1w15 

_- 

I 

I 

3421

along the roadway exceeds the amount which can pass through it. Long 

queues form at such locations. Stop and go waves also form within the queue. 

NOTE: In many cases the traffic downstream from the point of congestion 

operates adequately, but backups or delays occur for other upstream vehicles. 

3428

Table 3.4.3 

Recommended Circulation Improvements Cost Estimate (in thousands of dollars) (1991) 

(exclusive of right-of-wq acquisition, design, and consbuction inspeclion costs) 

New Roadwavs 

1. US Route 30 Relief Route $33,700 

2. PA Route 194 - Littlestown Bypass $ 6,700 

3. Littlestown-Hanover Road Connector $ 1,OOO 

4. McSheriystown Relief Corridor ua!!l 

Total 

W,W 

ImDroved countv co llecton 

1. Fruitbelt Connector $5050 

2. Coleman Road $ 300 

3. Cross Keys-Littlestown Connector $ 3,100 

4. Racehorse Road LA.3 

Total $ 6,080 

US Route 15 Inte rchanee ImDr ovemena 

Four Locations 

$20,000 

0 PA Route 97 

0 PA Route 116 

0 US Route 30 

0 Goldenville Road - 

Total $20,000 

3429

I Table 3.43 


(Continued) 

1. US Route 30 $10,400 

2. PA Route 116 East $ 1,600 

3. PA Route 116 West $ 3,000 

4. PARoute 97 $ 3,000 

5. PARoute 194 $ 5,200 

6. PA Route 94 XluQ 

Total 

$30,300 

SAMI (ECONS) Promu 

1. Gettysbwg 

2. Littlestown 

3. New Oxford 

4. Abbottstown 

5. McSherrystown 

$ 700 

$ 100 

$ 200 

$ 250 

$ 300 

6. East Berlin 

7. Biglerville 

$ 200 

u 

Total $ 1,850 

3430

1 

m 

Table 3.43 

- 


(Continued) 

1. PA Route 194 & Mt. Pleasant Road $ 100 

2. PA Route 116 & South Third Street $ 50 

3. PA Route 116 & PA Route 16 $ 100 

4. PA Route 94 & PA Route 394 $ 50 

5. US Route 30 & Cashtown Road $ 50 

6. US Route 15 & Latimore Valley Road $ 100 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

II 

.- 

i 

1 

7. Sight Distance & Stop Control Improvements 

along Mummasburg Road 

Summary (in dollars) 

New Roadways 

u 

Total $ 500 

$44,oO0,oO0 

Improved County Collectors $ 6,080,000 

US Route 15 Interchange Improvements 

$20,000,000 

Capacity Improvements to the Arterial 

System $ 30,300,000 

SAMI Program $ 1,850,000 

Safety Program 

L3L” 

Total $102,730,000 

3-4-3 1

Flgure 94.9 

EXISTING 

WIDENING FOR TURNING 

MOVEMENTS 8 SHOULDERS 

ON A TWO-LANE ROADWAY 

i 

PROPOSED 

WFIC SIGNALS MAY BE NEESD 

AT A MINOR STMET OR DRlWbMV 

- 

SHOULDER 

c 

SHOULDER 

c 

4- 

f 

* 4 

SHOULDER 

P 

SHOULDER 

-1 I 6 DWVEHUY OR >k 

MINOR STREET 1 

J 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comixehensive 

Plah Update 

NOTE: 

SHOULOER ALLOWS mouon TRAFFIC 

TO BYPASS A LEFl-TURNING VEHICLE 

AT A MINOR STREET OR DRIVEWAY.

WIDENING FROM TWO 

TO FIVE LANES 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comprehensive 

Plan Update

EXISTING DIAMOND INTERCHANGES 

Fkmue 34.7 

RECOMMENDED 

IMPROVEMENTS TO SELECTED 

US ROUTE 15 INTERCHANGES 

-. 

MAJOR INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT EXAMPLES 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Plan Update 

CONVERT 70 lWRTML OR FULL 

CLoyERLMF r0 ELIMIUATTLEFT 

NRNS FROM CROSS STREET

F44ue 3.4.61 

CONCEPT- 

COUNTY COLLECTORS 

LEGENC): 

. 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comwehensive 

Plah Update

BEFORE 

DEVELOPMENT 

LOCAL COLLECTORS 

Fbwe 34.5 

.. 

li It i! WRRENT 

..- 

_. J I.. 

-1 I” 

VILLAGE 

I! STREETS 

AFTER 

DEVELOPMENT 

Plan Netwafk oC new l0C.l 

collectors and street extenaim 

to cramto altwnaio pathways 

io avdd villago centor 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comxxehensive 

Plan Update 

..

TYPICAL SECTION, 

RURAL-STYLE 

COUNTY COLLECTOR 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comtxehensive 

Plan Update

FREE ACCESS 

I I 

ARTERIAL ROADS- 

TYPE OF ACCESS 

Figure 94.3 

CONTROLLED ACCESS 

FRONTAGE RMDS ARE WTIOML. LYPE"O 

LAND USES AND SPECIFIC ACCESS REOUIREMENTS. 

LIMITED ACCESS 

I 

GO88 

Str..) 

AAUCENt 

I L. 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comprehensive 

Plan Update

1 

flgwet4.2 

RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVE 

FOR FUTURE WIDENING 

/- 

Initial Construction Future 

cOn.truction 

/' 

ADAMS 

COUNTY 

Pennsylvania 

Comwehensive 

P/an Update 

/ ,'#

SECTION 5: HOUSING PLAN 

Introduction 

The goal of the housing element of the Growth Management Plan is to provide the 

opportunity for a range of housing types and sizes within the county to meet diverse housing 

needs while at the same time supporting the other major goals of the Plan. 

The housing element of the Plan explicitly recognizes the division of the county into growth 

and “non-growth” areas. Non-growth areas include most of the land area of the county, and 

are proposed primarily for agriculture, resource conservation, environmental protection, and 

recreation, with housing in a relatively minor role. Growth areas are designated as the 

primary locations for housing development. The Growth Management Plan recommends 

that the implementation tools of local comprehensive plans, zoning, water and sewer system 

extensions and improvements, road improvements, and community facilities development 

be employed in concert to promote residential development within growth areas as opposed 

to rural areas. 

. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I 

I 

The housing element recognizes the goal of the Plan to conserve agricultural land by 

recommending residential clustering as a technique to achieve a more efficient use of land. 

Clustering reduces the amount of land consumed for residences when compared with 

conventional development methods, while at the same time preserving a portion of 

development tracts for agricultural or permanent open space uses. The Plan recognizes that 

cluster development is a significant method for growth areas as well as rural ones, since 

farmland covers extensive portions of the county, including land within the proposed growth 

areas. 

The Plan permits realistic opportunities for land development, to be implemented through 

local plans and zoning regulations. Potential new residential development is recognized for 

all 34 municipalities, and townships and boroughs should enact zoning regulations that are 

appropriate for each community. 

The housing element recognizes the Growth Management Plan’s goals and objectives with 

respect to community services and resource protection. The Plan’s interconnecting 

permanent open space system, intended to permit pedestrian and bicycle connections to 

recreation, education, shopping, and employment locations, as well as to preserve natural 

resources, is projected to be implemented largely through the ongoing process of land 

development. It is recommended that residential clustering be promoted in order to help 

realize the county permanent open space system. “Clustering“ can refer to any development 

design technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on a site to allow the 

remaining land to be used for permanent agricultural and/or recreational uses, and the 

preservation of environmentally-sensitive areas. Clustering can involve only modest setasides 

of land for these uses, or can involve set-asides of 90 percent or more of the whole 

3-5-1

tract considered for development. From the point of view of the Land Use Plan, the latter 

kind of clustering is essential in agricultural and rural areas, and still preferable in growth 

areas. The former modest-set-aside version of clustering is only appropriate in designated 

growth areas. .(Also see the discussion of agricultural zoning and TDRs in "Agricultural, 

Resource Conservation, and Very Low Density Residential Areas" in Section 3, and further 

details on agricultural zoning in Section 8.) 

To achieve increased set-aside of environmentally-sensitive areas, residential clustering 

provisions may be combined With ordinance regulations (zoning) permitting flexibility in the 

construction of housing types. By implementing regulations based on gross density 

classifications, rather than specific housing types and individual lot-size requirements, 

developers will be more likely to set aside environmentally-sensitive areas of tracts 

undergoing development. Greater development flexibility may result in increased creation 

of permanent open space lands and a housing-type mix that is better tuned to the needs of 

residents as they pass through the various stages of the life cycle. 

The Plan proposes to increase opportunities for affordable housing principally by providing 

new settings for housing construction at medium and medium-high densities within 

designated growth areas. At the same time, housing opportunities may be expanded through 

more efficient use of the current housing stock. Provisions for residential conversions, 

accessory apartments, and shared housing should be addressed through plan implementation. 

Efforts should continue, utilizing state and federal funding, to rehabilitate substandard 

homes. Design standards for residential subdivisions should be established, appropriate to 

each community, addressing such issues as street widths, lot sizes, frontage widths, and 

setbacks - all within the context of creating high-quality and affordable residential areas. 

Residential Classifications - Very Low Density 

Residential development for most of the extent of Adams County, excepting designated 

growth areas, should reflect very low densities. This is in keeping with the need to 

encourage continuing agricultural production, as well as the protection of the county's 

historic and rural landscape, and the preservation of environmentally-sensitive resources (see 

"Agricultural, Resource Conservation, and Very Low Density Residential Areas" in Section 

3, Lad Use Plan, of this chapter). 

The chief tools towards achieving very low density residential development outside 

designated growth areas are development regulations such as zoning. The County and its 

municipalities need to work cooperatively to achieve suitable regulations which will permit 

some degree of residential development in non-growth areas, but not at the expense of the 

primary functions indicated for these areas in the Plan. Regulatory flexibility is 

recommended; giving property owners a variety of choices if they choose to develop their 

land and containing various economic inducements to build compactly and to support the 

long-term goals and objectives of the Plan for these areas. 

3-5-2 

0 

I 

I 

I 

B 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I 

I

‘I 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

e 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

r 

Development regulations for very low density residential areas should be based on the 

principles of agricultural zoning (outlined in Section 8 of this chapter). For conventional 

residential development an overall density limit of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres might be 

widely adopted in Adams County. Density gains could be achieved, however, by landowners 

who consent to develop compact arrangements of dwelling units, rather than widely-spread 

homes. Eligibility to pursue alternative ways of developing, such as clustering of units, 

should be conditioned upon the owner‘s agreement to construct a street off of the existing 

frontage road to serve the new lots, with access to the frontage road restricted in order to 

minimize traffic conflict points and the use of the county road network as subdivision streets. 

Availability of central water and Sewer service would affect lot size and density 

requirements, with commensurate amounts of the development tract remaining undeveloped 

and preserved for agricultural or open space use. 

The economic incentives built into land use controls and the tradeoffs possible among the 

provisions for central sewer, minimum lot sizes, and required permanent open space would 

be designed to encourage developers to build in a concentrated portion of a tract, leaving 

the rest preserved in perpetuity for agricultural or other open space uses. 

Other land development controls should be employed to help maintain the agricultural 

character of non-urbanized areas. For example, even where conventional lot-by-lot 

development is pursued, ample rear-yard building setbacks may be required on each lot, to 

effect a transition space between the developed lots and the agricultural uses that frequently 

abut residential development (see Section 8 of this chapter). 

Residential Classifications - Medium-Low Density 

Residential development within designated growth areas should occur at significantly higher 

densities when compared to rural and agricultural areas. The enactment of zoning 

ordinances supporting this idea, along with the extension of public roads and water and 

sewer service to growth areas, are the principal measures by which the County and its 

municipalities can promote development within designated areas as opposed to rural areas. 

Medium-density development in A da County should be at densities between one and four 

dwelling units per acre, with an average of 25 dwelling units per acre. 

Medium-low residential densities are usually associated with single-family detached housing 

types on generous lots, but the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends 

that cluster development be promoted in these areas in addition to the very low density 

residential portions of the county. Cluster development remains an important prospect for 

development within growth areas. First, farmland covers most of the undeveloped acreage 

of the county, including land within proposed growth areas. Concentration of a tract’s 

maximum potential housing units on a small portion of the overall tract allows the 

preservation of the remaining area for agricultural use. Second, residential clustering 

3-5-3

encourages developers to set aside the most environmentally-sensitive areas of tracts 

undergoing development. Third, this type of residential development creates permanent 

open space lands usable for recreation. Fourth, clustering may produce construction 

economies in the form of reduced lengths of roads and sewer mains, and operational 

economies in service systems. Finally, a recent study of clustered housing in Loudoun 

County, Virginia, suggests that clustering does not undercut housing values; land values for 

clustered housing were as high as for conventional suburban tract housing on three-acre lots. 

Cluster development, then, is essential for environmental protection and land conservation, 

has the potential to make housing more affordable, and does not undercut property values. 

As with very low density areas, regulatory fleniility and zoning incentives in medium-low 

density areas are recommended. Municipalities may offer landowners conventional zoning 

for traditional medium- and large-lot residential construction, and a variety of options, 

including special conditions and associated benefits, for development that is supportive of 

County and local plans. 

Residential Classifications - Medium and Medium-High Density 

Areas close-in to the center of boroughs and designated new centers (see Section 3 of this 

chapter and Figure 33.1), with their existing or anticipated public services, accessibility, 

community facilities, employment, and shopping areas, are recommended for medium and 

medium-high density residential use. For development at the medium density end of this 

range, conventional single-family and lot-line detached dwelling units are likely structural 

types. Cluster development is proposed as an available option, incorporating density 

bonuses in return for open space preservation, and making available the opportunity to 

construct 'other housing types. 

Medium and medium-high density areas in Adams County should be at densities between 

three and seven dwelling units per acre, with an average of five dwelling units per acre. 

Medium-high density residential development, found principally at the center of several 

existing boroughs and villages, is expected to occur in conjunction with these urban places, 

and to include a wide variety of structural types, including small-lot single-family detached 

dwellings, single-family attached (townhouse), and multi-family (garden apartment, mid-rise 

apartment) Units. Provisions for on-site or neighborhood permanent open space must be 

made. A diversified housing mix, attractive to various household types and income levels, 

should be pursued for boroughs and villages. 

As outlined under "Commercial Uses" in Section 3, a major goal of the Plan is to reinforce 

borough business districts. New residential development in and around these districts is a 

Critical component in support of this goal, but this development must be undertaken in a 

manner that is sympathetic to the character of historic borough and village centers (see 

Section 7, d a n G of this chapter). 

35-4 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

B 

I 

0 

L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

B) 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1. 

e 

b 

I 

In a few instances, such as at the Shriver's Comers interchange of US Route 15 and Route 

394, a major new employment center is planned in proximity to a designated area for new 

housing. In many instances, smaller-scale borough and village hubs are also proposed with 

close associations of residential areas and employment opportunities. In both cases, 

convenient home-work linkages are a principal objective. In the case of the borough and 

village centers, strong economic support by residential uses of traditional centers of 

commerce is also a major objective. (See "Commercial Uses" in Section 3 of this chapter.) 

Affordable Housing 

As outlined in Chapter 2, Section 7, housing affordability in Adam County is formally 

assisted through a combination of privately- and publicly-operated facilities and publiclyadministered 

programs for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. The number 

of units of assisted housing compares favorably with neighboring counties, but is still only 

about 3% of the total housing units in the county. For most county residents, housing 

affordability questions must be addressed without the availability of formal subsidies. 

Traditionally, affordability in Adam County has been assisted by relatively low land costs 

in rural areas combined with good accessibility to jobs and services via the county road 

system, the traditional ease of obtaining septic tank permits, and the availability of the 

mobile home housing type. The increase over the last twenty years in the popularity of 

single mobile home units on individual lots and of mobile home parks in Adams County is 

a strong indicator of the demand for affordable housing and the lack of alternative housing 

opportunities. 

With the.elimination of most federally-assisted programs for new construction (such as 

Section 8 New Construction), the traditional source for funding of affordable housing has 

been sharply limited. Other sources have recently become available - the Pennsylvania 

Housing Finance Agency has recently announced the speeding up of a $105 million building 

program for low- and moderate-income families - but the state-wide competition for these 

limited funds translates into a small opportunity at best for Adams County. More populous 

counties such as Fairfax, in Virginia,have passed ordinances requiring developers to reserve 

certain percentages of units in new developments for moderate-income families. 

The County should continue to pursue state and federal funding where it is available for 

new construction, rehabilitation, low-interest mortgages, and rental-assistance programs. As 

an "entitlement" county under Pennsylvania's Small Communities Development Block Grant 

Program, Adams County has a critical role to play for all its municipalities, except 

Gettysburg, in obtaining state and federal funds. In this central role, the County can act as 

a catalyst for county- and municipally-based actions to aid housing affordability, including 

review and amendments to zoning and land development regulations to reduce up-front 

development costs that contribute to high housing costs, special provisions to developers for 

the construction of low- and moderate-income housing, and encouraging more efficient use 

3-53

of the current housing stock. Increased economic opportunities in Adams County would 

aIso assist residents to afford suitable housing. 

HousinP Policies 

I. Assist municipalities in the preparation and adoption of local comprehensive plans and 

lmtd use controls co&ent with the County Cornprehenrie Plan. 

2 

Facilitate water and sewer system impmements, including extensions of existing systems 

and creataon of new ones, consistent with the Land Use and Housing Plans. 

3. Promote residential clustering through the prepmation of model zoning ordinances and 

their adoption by rnunicip&es. 

4. Advocate consmction of new medium and medium-high density housing at appropriate 

locations within designaed pwth area 

5. Encourage the enactment of uniform housing codes by municipalities. 

6 Generate and publicize model land use controls and other meam which would create 

additional Modable houshg opportunities and accommodate dents with special 

housing nee&. 

3-56 

I 

1 

e 

II 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

I

1 

I 

0 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

a 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

II 

e 

L 

I 

SECTION 6: COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN 

The goal of the community facilities element of the Growth Management Plan is to provide 

the full complement of facilities needed to serve the projected population of Adam County 

through the planning period. To meet this goal the following general policies are 

recommended: 

2. 

. i 

1. Public facilities improvements, where needed, shall be made in an orderly and 

reasonable fashion consistent with the Growth Management Plan and County and 

local capital improvements programs. 

New school, fire, and police facilities and other required public facilities shall be 

located convenient to the maximum number of residents. 

3. Wherever possible, public facilities used for different purposes shall be combined to 

minimize public expenditures and maximize convenience to county residents. 

Education 

School facilities and recent enrollment statistics are described in detail in Chapter 2, Section 

9. The county subdivision into six school districts is outlined, and district public school and 

countywide parochial and special-education facilities and enrollments are compared (Tables 

2.9.1 and 2.9.2 and Figure 2.9.1). 

Information on public school facilities shows a trend towards centralization for each of the 

county's six school districts. Elementary, junior high or middle, and high schools frequently 

are found together on one "campus". The public school campus concept means that the 

effects of increased school enrollments brought about by county population increases should 

not translate into a need for completely new sites for schools. Assuming each campus site 

has some amount of available land for new construction or some possibility of site 

expansion, increased enrollments will be accommodated through expansion of existing 

campus plants. 

Based on information supplied by the school districts and presented in Chapter 2, the 

Bermudian Springs, Conewago Valley, Fairfield Area, Gettysburg Area, and Upper Adam 

Districts are all experiencing enrollment pressures on current facilities, especially on middle 

and junior high facilities as the %aby-boorn echo" student population rolls into their teenage 

years during the mid-1990s. Population increases over the last ten to twenty years in the 

eastern and northeastern parts of the county have meant strong enrollment increases in the 

Conewago Valley and Bermudian Springs Districts, and these demographic trends are 

expected to continue, following the growth pattern projected by the Growth Management 

Plan. The Bermudian Springs District has an extensive facilities-expansion plan underway - 

3-6- 1

Conewago Valley and, to a lesser extent, Gettysburg Area, Fairfield Area, and Upper 

Adams, will need to follow suit. The Littlestown Area District appears to have enough 

capacity to accommodate the ten-to-twenty year projected growth in student population. 

The County and the school districts should make every effort to coordinate planning in 

order to ensure that school facilities are true community resources, with opportunities for 

use by student and general resident populations (see "Parks and Recreation", following). 

Police 

Police services in Adams County are provided by municipal police forces for about 50-60 

percent of the county's 34 townships and boroughs, with State Police covering local 

jurisdictions lacking their own law enforcement agencies. Table 2.93 of Chapter 2, Section 

9, reveals that maintaining a local force is frequently difficult for many communities - 

municipal costs are rising rapidly and a local police presence may be something that may 

appear convenient to eliminate, since the State Police, it may be felt, will always be there 

to fill in the gap. 

Unfortunately, rising populations, real and perceived increases in the crime rate, and an 

incoming resident population with expectations of a high level of police sexvices aU combine 

to act against the temptation for local government to eliminate or curtail police services. 

Over the next ten to twenty years, many local Adam County police forces will need to be 

expanded to serve a growing and increasingly afauent population. This will frequently mean 

increased staf-& new facilities, and new equipment. For some townships currently lacking 

their own forces, new ones will need to be established. 

I 

I 

0 

I) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

Fire Protection and Ambulance Services 

The twenty-seven volunteer fire companies spread across Adam County are extremely welllocated 

to serve the expanded county population projected in the Growth Management Plan 

(see Figures 2.9.2 and 2.93 and Table 2.9.4, Chapter 2, Section 9). Over the planning 

period many of these companies will need to increase their personnel and to upgrade or 

expand their stations, their squads of vehicles, and associated apparatus. The Gettysburg 

company, with a large service area and one station in the center of the borough, may find 

itself increasingly vulnerable to traffic congestion over the planning period, and a second 

station on the west side of the borough may become necessary. 

Ambulance corps are currently associated with some of the fire companies. In future, either 

additional companies will need to add this service or the hospital medic units will need to 

be enhanced. 

The all-volunteer status of the fire company and ambulance corps could begin to produce 

3-6-2

I 

I 

b 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

increased staffing problems into the future. These community-based emergency service 

providers must compete with a variety of other agencies, activities, and programs for 

residents’ time and interest. Volunteers must submit to greater time demands due to more 

sophisticated training procedures, and widely dispersed work locations coupled with 

increasing traffic congestion make it difficult for adequate numbers of volunteers to reach 

emergency scenes quickly during regular business hours. As Adam County urbanizes, it 

may find that the trends of more populous counties towards at least some paid firefighters 

and paramedics may begin to be seen here too. 

Geographic Distribution of Community Facilities 

Figure 2.95 of Chapter 2, Section 9, shows the concentration of countywidesriented 

community services in the Gettysburg area. As the county seat, and in view of its central 

location and excellent accessibility, Gettysburg is a logical place for locating the variety of 

health and human service agencies, as well as the main liirary, for the county. Operational 

efficiency for each agency is probably maximized through this concentration. Nonetheless, 

the increases in county population achieved over the last two decades and projected into the 

future, the distribution of this population within the county, and the growing importance of 

specialized groups in the total population (such as retirees) has strained some of these 

senrice agencies’ capabilities and called into question their Gettysburg-focused operations. 

The Adams County library is poised to move into the old post office on Baltimore Street, 

a larger and better facility than the current headquarters library. However, population 

increases in eastern, northeastern, and southwestern parts of the county have produced 

library needs that should be taken into account over the planning period. The bookmobile 

service may need to be augmented, the New Oxford branch expanded, and additional 

branches may be required through the next ten to twenty years. Obviously, gaining funding 

for library operations is a difficult task, but the County should be particularly aware of the 

need to coordinate service locations with population concentrations. 

A similar geographical distribution-of-services problem may exist for many of the health and 

human service agencies operational in Adams County. Rather than tqing to establish costly 

branch operations for many of then, a more efficient use of resources may be to improve 

the Apple Line county bus service. 

Con ference/Conven t ion Center 

A desire for a county conference/convention center, perhaps including other facilities, has 

been expressed by some business leaders. An opportunity to pursue such a facility might 

best come about through the land development process, as part of a commercial complex. 

Generally, it would be preferable to have such a facility located in the Gettysburg area for 

easy accessibility, with the possibility of tapping the marketability of Gettysburg as a 

3-6-3 

b 

I

nationally-significant historic setting. The conference/convention center site should be 

accessible to pedestrian-oriented tourists and office-commercial functions planned for the 

center of the borough (see "Commercial Uses" in Section 3 of this chapter), while at the 

same time being coordinated tvith planned circulation improvements (see Section 4) and 

parking, to control traffic congestion in the borough. A site at the eastern end of the 

borough downtown should be considered if this project is pursued. 

County Courthouse/Administration 

Expansion of the County's administrative facilities is not pressing; nonetheless, over the 

planning period, increases in the resident population of the county, together with 

accompanying residential, commercial, and industrial development, will translate into 

increased demand for county administrative services. Expansion of offices at or near the 

Courthouse is recommended, and is viewed as a significant component of the officecommercial 

hub proposed for the borough center (see "Commercial Uses" in Section 3 of 

this chapter). 

Parks and Recreation 

Currently, units of government other than Adam County provide open space and 

recreational facilities in the county. Chapter 2, Section 9 details the various federal, state, 

and local government facilities available in the county and its environs, as well as the 

number of community-based, quasi-public entities that provide local parks, and information 

on other, publicly-accessible recreational facilities (Figure 2.9.4). 

A key role for the County in future parks and recreation development will be in promoting 

the establishment, protection, and selective development of the countywide permanent open 

space system. As described in Section 3 of this chapter, the County needs to facilitate 

appropriate park and recreational use of parts of the system through a variety of lobbying, 

planning, and funding functions. These will be efforts undertaken in cooperation with other 

levels of government, with public and private interest groups, and with property owners. 

The projected interconnecting permanent open space network will include lands under the 

direct administrative control of several entities, possibly including the County itself, but the 

chief County goal will be the realization of the linked system of protected open spaces 

outlined in Section 3. 

The County needs to undertake a Countywide Comprehensive Recreation, Parks, and Open 

Space Study, and to assist in its implementation. County resident recreational preferences 

should be identified in the study and, through intergovernmental cooperation, these needs 

should be met. Planning information from the study should be made available to all current 

and prospective recreational facility operators, and recreational planning expertise should 

be extended to local communities. Local governments should be encouraged to pursue state 

3-6-4 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I

Recreational Improvement and Rehabilitation Act Program (RIRA) grants and, where 

appropriate, County seed money should be made available for municipal park development. 

When projecting future demands for recreational facilities and programs, it is necessary to 

consider not only existing circumstances but also evolving demographic changes, land use 

forecasts, and broad cultural trends as well. While population growth and new residential 

development suggest increased demands for recreational facilities, commercial and industrial 

growth might also call for corresponding development of recreation sites for corporate sports 

teams and fitness programs. A population shift towards age groups over 55 suggests the 

need for a greater variety of indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities, and the 

increased number of women's sports teams, in response to a general societal shift, is placing 

additional demands on community and school facilities. 

A joint County school-districts recreation committee should be established to address issues 

of shared use of school facilities (see "Education", above). 

Community Facilities Policies 

I. Review ail development proposuls to deternine theuprobable effects on public services, 

includikg schools, emergency services, recreation, and adminirtrative services. 

2 Cootdinate county land use planning and school plant development so as to enwe the 

most ejjicieni use of ament and projected space and ewpment, and accommodate 

geneml resident ne& for community fhcii~a. 

3. Evaluate the range of exirting and potential community services, and deternine the best 

locations for semke provkien to meet ament and. projected nee& 

4. Undertake a Countywide Comprehensive Recreation, Parkr, and Open Space Study, 

publicize itsjidings, and facilitate its implementatzon by, among other actions, providing 

technical and financial rrrsisance to local commmlies. 

3-6-5

SECTION 7: HISTORIC AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCES CONSERVATION PLAN 

Imdications of the Land Use Plan for Historic and Landscane Resources 

A purpose of the Land Use Plan described in Section 3 is to maximize the preservation of 

the rural landscape of Adam County by encouraging growth and new development in the 

vicinity of existing boroughs and historic villages. In order to preserve the rural landscape 

to the maximum extent, this growth and new development is proposed to occur in more 

compact form than that normally associated with conventional rural and suburban 

development. In addition to the proposed growth and new development in the vicinity of 

boroughs and villages, the Plan calls for a limited amount of new development to be 

encouraged in other selected locations. This additional development would also be clustered \ 

to achieve higher densities and to preserve land. A certain amount of scattered 

development in more traditional forms would also take place. 

The implication of the proposed Land Use Plan on Adam County’s rural landscape is, by 

and large, the preservation of its existing character and resources. However, this 

preservation will occur only if the Plan can be implemented. A clear and effective historic 

and landscape resources conservation plan will be an important part of the implementation 

process. The process must guide development to, and promote development in, the 

locations and forms outlined in the Land Use Plan. It must also provide specific types of 

regulations in order to protect rural areas from scattered and breakaway development and 

to ensure that such development occurs in a manner sympathetic to the landscape being 

conserved. 

For existing boroughs, certain historic villages, and adjacent areas, the Land Use Plan 

implies some growth and change. In boroughs already experiencing development pressure, 

for instance Littlestown and McShenystown, such change is already underway. The result 

frequently has been the undermining of their historic village landscape character. With the 

degree of change implied by the Land Use Plan, there exists the risk that the historic 

character and integrity still evident in many of the county’s other villages could also be lost. 

However, if growth in and around the villages is properly planned and managed, it will be 

possible to use that growth as a mechanism for preserving and restoring much of the 

character of the village centers while building upon and reinforcing that character with the 

new development. The goal will be the creation of new, larger villages which incorporate 

and reflect their historic character in their new designs. 

An important aspect of the Growth Management Plan is the Circulation Plan outlined in 

Section 4 of this chapter. The primary elements of the Circulation Plan are consistent with 

many of the goals of historic and landscape conservation, such as the reduction of through- 

3-7-1

traffic in and around village centers. The Circulation Plan will, however, have a potentially 

important impact upon the county's rural landscape. Proposed new roadways must be 

located to minimize their impact on natural and historic resources as well as on the scenic 

landscape. Proposed new local collectors and County Collectors must be designed to reduce 

potential adverse effects on historic buildings located close to the existing roads which are 

to be improved. The tendency for road improvements to induce new traffic and to produce 

new development pressures must be carefully gauged. During the implementation of the 

Comprehensive Plan, potential adverse impacts must be assessed, mitigated, and managed. 

The success of the county's Comprehensive Plan, and of any conservation elements within 

it, will depend upon the effectiveness of future planning, the processes of local government, 

and the attitude of the local population. Implementation of the Land Use Plan described 

herein will require a high degree of intergovernmental cooperation as well as types of 

sophisticated land development controls not previously made use of within the county. 

Concentrated development without intergovernmental cooperation and land development 

controls will result in increased threats to historic resources, natural resources, the character 

of the landscape, and the quality of life in Adams County. In order to be successful, 

therefore, strong leadership and an ambitious program will be required to foster the 

cooperation and to implement the controls necessary. Perhaps most important, however, 

will be the challenge of developing a consensus amongst the general population that the 

Plan, its goals, and its methods are in the best interest of the county's future and of engaging 

the population in the Plan's implementation through participation in, and the monitoring 

of, local decision-making. 

Conservat ion Strategy 

Conservation in Adams County is not it matter of protecting isolated historic buildings or 

specific natural features. It is a matter of protecting the overall fabric of the rural landscape 

of which the buildings and features are a part. The county's landscape is already pastoral, 

rich, diverse, and appealing. Its scenic qualities are far more evident than its "non-scenic" 

qualities. It does not need to be created, but managed and preserved. A reasonable 

amount of growth and development can occur in this landscape without destroying its 

character provided that the development is sympathetically integrated into the landscape. 

Such integration is accomplished by identifying the elements that give the landscape its 

character and quality, and by preserving and reinforcing those elements. A wide range of 

planning and preservation tools are available to accomplish this goal. Because the elements 

which give a landscape its character are interrelated, and because each of the planning and 

preservation tools is, in one way or another, limited, all of the planning and preservation 

tools are important. Consequently, individuals interested in historic preservation must work 

3-7-2

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

closely with individuals interested in other diverse but related areas, such as tourism, 

agricultural preservation, and water quality. 

Natural Resources Protection 

The core of any conservation plan is the protection of environmentally-sensitive natural 

resources. Historic preservation is closely tied to the preservation of sensitive natural 

resources because many historic resources were originally located where they were, in part, 

specifically because of the proximity of some desirable natural resource, often water or 

fertile lowland soil. In an agricultural landscape, the natural resources comprise the 

framework which gives the landscape its structure. Preservation of that structure is critical 

to preservation of the landscape. 

The protection of natural resources is discussed in Section 3 of this chapter, the Land Use 

Plan, and in Section 10, the Environmental Protection Plan. Many aspects of natural 

resource protection are based upon state and federal laws and programs, such as the 

National Flood Insurance Program and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources wetlands regulations. While these laws and programs provide the basis for 

resource protection., they will not achieve it at a local level. The protection of natural 

resources at a local level requires step-by-step, site-by-site identification, inventory, analysis, 

and protection. It must be achieved by County and municipal design and review procedures 

because of the level of detail, analysis, and judgment that is necessary. In order for such 

procedures to be successful, as much broad-based advance work as possible must be in 

place. This advance work includes the collection of basic inventory information, the 

statement of specific policies and procedures, the enactment of the necessary ordinances and 

guidelines, and the education of those individuals who will implement the ordinances and 

guidelines. It is recommended that among the basic governmental natural resource 

protection measures at the County and local levels should be the following: 

e 

Protection of Stream Com*dors and Hydrc Soils: The County should prepare a model ordinance for the 

protection of stream comdors and hydric soils and should promote the inclusion of such an ordinance 

in local zoning and subdivision and land development codes. The ordinance should require the on-site 

identification of hydric soils as a part of any subdivision and land development plan. The ordinance 

should prohibit buitding and development and should limit disturbance within the area of hydric soils 

as well as within a specific distance (fdty feet is common) of intermittent and perennial streams. These 

areas should also be netted-out of lot density calculations. Additionally, setbacks for new construction 

should be established from the boundaries of these wet soils areas. In municipal zoning codes such 

protection of streams and hydric soils is often combined with the National Flood Insurance Program 

requirements outlined in Section 10 of this chapter in a "Flood Hazard and Wet Soils Overlay District". 

They provide a more detailed, comprehensive, and site-specific protection of wetlands and wet soil areas 

than do state regulations. Samples of such ordinances are available from other local jurisdictions. 

Stonnwuter Management: The County should prepare and promote the adoption of model ordinances 

3-7-3 

b 

I

and design guiL,Aes for the retention of stormwater from new development and for temporary and 

permanent sedimentation and erosion controL Stormwater management areas should be located and 

designed to be extensions of permanent natural open space areas, rather than conventional retention 

basins, with appropriate native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Because of the problems with ground 

water and septic systems in the Gettysburg Plain, customized methods of groundwater recharge should 

be developed and required wherever feasible. 

0 Septic System Regulations: As discussed in the Land Use Plan, Utilities Plan, and Environmental 

Protection Plan, the regulation of community water supply and sewage disposal systems will be an 

important element in controlling the location and density of new development. As discussed in Chapter 

2, the Gettysburg Plain, comprising a large portion of the county, is severely limited with regard to its 

capacity to accommodate on-site septic systems. Recent changes in DER'S regulations give 

municipalities an increased responsibility in the review and approval of on-site septic systems. In part, 

this increased responsibility is important because when on-site systems fail, it becomes the legal and 

financial responsibility of the municipality to provide corrective measures. Like the regulation of 

community systems, the regulation of individual on-site septic systems is an important tool for 

municipalities in controlling the location, density, and form of new development. The County should 

prepare a model 537 Plan for areas not planned to receive community services. The model Plan should 

include regulations and design guidelines particularly tailored to the problems associated with local soils 

to ensure that on-site systems will be viable over the long term and that, should failures occur, adequate 

space and conditions will be available to provide for alternate on-site systems. 

0 Pmtection of Steep Slopes: The County should prepare and promote the adoption of measures for the 

protection of steep slopes (slopes over 15%) in municipal zoning and subdivision and land development 

ordinances. 

0 Pmtection of Areas with Limestone and Diabase Geology: Areas of Adams County underlaid with 

limestone and diabase geological formations have environmentally-sensitive conditions which warrant 

specific controls and review procedures. Limestone geological areas, for instance, are susceptible to the 

formation of sinkholes and noted for the unpredictable movement of groundwater. Sinkholes can be 

created by piping systems and the concentration of stormwater in retention areas. Pollution can spread 

through the movement of groundwater. The County should prepare and promote the adoption of 

measures for the protection of areas with specialized geological conditions in municipal ordinances. 

Such measures should include overlay zoning districts, specialized testing, and design guidelines. Major 

areas of limestone geology within Adams County are located in the Fairfield Valley and the 

LittlestownlMcSherrystown Valley. 

0 Consenanon Ordinances: The County should prepare a comprehensive model Natural Features and 

Resources Conservation Ordinance and should promote its adoption by the municipalities. This 

ordinance should compile all zoning and subdivision and land development provisions related to the 

conservation of natural features and resources. It would include provisions regulating land disturbance 

and the removal and management of vegetation. 

Agricultural Conservation 

The subject of agricultural conservation is fully discussed in Section 8 of this chapter, the 

Agricultural Resources Conservation Plan. The implementation of this Plan will be 

3-7-4

‘I instrumental in the conservation of the rural landscape, including its historic resources. In 

Chapter 2, the map entitled Landscape Character and Scenic Resources (Figure 2.5.1) 

delineates several agricultural areas which were identified as possessing distinctive scenic 

character. In addition to the Fruitbelt, these areas include the limestone regions of the 

Fairfield and the Littlestown/McSherrystown Valleys as well as lowlands adjacent to Marsh 

and Conewago Creeks. Other similar agricultural areas of distinctive character may exist 

within the county. It is recommended that such areas receive special consideration in the 

implementation of an Agricultural Resources Conservation Plan. 

Historic Preservation 

Adams County is rich in historic resources. As was noted in Chapter 2, Section 5, and is 

evident in Figure 2.5.4, the county’s resources are rather evenly distributed and widely 

scattered. The Gettysburg Battlefield is a principal county historic resource and, because 

of its local and national significance, the battlefield requires special County protection to 

supplement its national park status. Aside from the battlefield, the county’s rich historic 

fabric is often taken for granted. This fabric is comprised of many elements in addition to 

its historic buildings, including roads, site features such as stone walls and mill raceways, 

boundary lines, archeological resources, and the agricultural tradition itself. Many of these 

elements are integral to the rural landscape, and this is in part why the preservation of 

Adams County‘s rural landscape is a central feature of the Land Use Plan. 

The County‘s primary role in the preservation of historic resources is to promote and assist 

preservation and awareness of the need for preservation at the local level. Key to this effort 

will be encouragement by the County of municipal historical commissions, the detailed 

inventory and assessment of historic resources at the local level, and the adoption of 

municipal ordinances and review procedures requiring preservation and mitigation. The 

protection of historic buildings and structures should include protection of the historic 

contexts in which the buildings are situated. This is accomplished through the identification 

and protection of the historically significant landscape areas and features directly associated 

with the buildings under consideration. Among the recommended County actions with 

regard to historic preservation are the following: 

0 County HistoncaiAdvisoy Board/Commission: The County should create, initidy, a Historical Advisory 

Board (perhaps later becoming a County Historical Commission) as an advisory organization to the 

County Commissioners. The Historical Advisory Board/Commission would coordinate County policy 

established by the County Commissioners and have responsibility for overseeing county programs related 

to historic preservation. The Historical Advisory Board/Commission should have representation on the 

County Planning Commission and the proposed Environmental and Open Space Commission 

recommended elsewhere in this section. 

0 County Planner/Historic Preservation Oficer: Instrumental to the implementation of County historic 

3-7-5

preservation policy and programs is the establishment of a professional planner position on the Office 

of Planning and Development staff with historic preservation qualifications to work with the Historical 

Advisory Board/Commission. Initially, this individual could have planning duties in addition to those 

related to preservation. As the county grows and planning staff increases, however, the professional 

historic preservation planner would increasingly be devoted to preservation-related activities. It is 

possible that matching funding for creation of such a position could be obtained from the Pennsylvania 

Historic and Museum Commission (PHMC), with which the county planner in question would work 

closely. Among the duties of this planner would be: 

‘ I 

1 ’ 

a.) 

b.) 

c.) 

d.) 

e.) 

f.) 

g.) 

h.) 

i.) 

j.) 

To coordinate and implement County policy with regard to historic preservation in conjunction 

with the Historical Advisory Board/Commission. 

To promote public awareness of historic preservation within the county. 

To assist municipalities in the creation and establishment of historical commissions, the 

inventory of historic resources, and the preparation of historic preservation ordinances and 

policies. 

To advise municipal offiaals and their representatives on issues of historic preservation in 

instances where a historic commission does not exist. 

To assist county residents with issues related to historic preservation. 

To act as a liaison on behalf of the County with the National Park Service on issues and joint 

endeavors related to the Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic 

Site. 

To act as a liaison on behalf of the County with PHMC regarding issues of historic 

preservation, and specifcally with regard to PHMC review of the impact on historic resources 

during the DER Sewage Facilities Planning Module application process. 

To assist in Section 106 reviews on behalf of the County in determining the effects of federal, 

federally-assisted, or federally-licensed undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966. 

To act as a liaison on behalf of the County with other governmental agencies and programs 

related to historic preservation (Le., PennDOT, DCA, PA Heritage Affairs Commission, etc.). 

To establish a County Historic Certification Program. 

I; 

1 

0 Historic Oveday Zoning The County should prepare a model historic overlay zoning ordinance and 

promote its incorporation into municipal zoning codes. Historic overlay zoning should be the principal 

historic preservation ordinance at work within the muniapalities, as opposed to historic districts, which 

should be the principal historic preservation tool at work in historic villages (see Certified Local 

Governments, below). Historic overlay zoning involves the identification and mapping of scattered 

historic resources throughout a municipality. It is the establishment of a historic district and does 

not require the creation of a historic architectural review board. Historic overlay zoning protects the 

3-7-6 

I

I 

character of historic resources by regulating the subdivision and land development review process. It 

clearly communicates to developers the desire of the municipality to preserve historic resources and 

contexts, and it identifies those resources and contexts. Historic overlay zoning requires a developer to 

assess the impact of a proposed subdivision or land development plan upon the historic resources on 

the tract being developed as well as upon adjacent affected tracts. Mitigation of the impact is required 

and/or negotiated through the exploration of design alternatives, buffering, landscaping, design 

standards, and other appropriate measures. Lot sizes and configurations as well as the design and 

location of improvements are controlled to preserve the integrity of the historic resource and its related 

landscape. Demolition of historic resources can be delayed or denied by the ordinance to allow for 

acceptable alternatives to demolition to be negotiated Adaptive reuse of historic resources is 

encouraged through the provision of special “use alternatives” not normally permitted in the underlying 

zoning district. Historic overlay zoning has been successfully applied in a number of municipalities in 

Chester County. 

Histoiic Resource Inventories and Assessments: Through the County Historical Advisory 

Board/Commission and the County Office of Planning and Development, and making use of matching 

grant programs provided by PHMC, the County should coordinate and assist local municipalities and 

historical commissions with the inventory and assessment of historic resources within their jurisdictions. 

The inventories should use the 1978 PHMC inventory as a point of departure. The new, more 

comprehensive municipal inventories should include an overview of municipal history, a review of 

common themes which tie the historic resources together; an assessment of individual resources and of 

the resources as a whole; the preparation and filing of PHMC Historic Resource Survey Forms; the 

mapping of historic resources and correlation of resources with lot numbers; an outline of municipal 

historic preservation goals, programs, and tools; and a bibliography. Inventories should be bound and 

available for use by muniapal officials and for purchase by the public The County should coordinate 

the inventory and assessments to ensure consistency. Survey information should be entered into the 

National Park Service’s standardized National Register computer program when it is made available for 

general use. This program should at some point become the general database for use by the county 

planning office in preservation planning work. Attention should also be given to places such as 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania, which has produced municipal inventories that could serve as models 

for local efforts. 

County Historic Cemj7catzon Progmm: Through the County Historical Advisory Board/Commission and 

the County Office of Planning and Development, the County should initiate a County Historic 

Certification Program. With the support of PHMC, the Certification Program would provide 

documented official recognition that individual historic resources are significant with respect to local and 

county history, and that the resources have retained their historic integrity. Certification would be 

undertaken upon the request of land owners, realtors, developers, municipalities, and others. A fee 

would be charged by the County to cover the cost of the required research, documentation, and 

procesSing. The research could be undertaken by the County historic preservation planner or by a 

qualified professional. The level of research would be coordinated with PHMC, but would be 

significantly less than that required for listing on the National Register. Because of PHMC workload, 

it is at present, and will be for the foreseeable future, difficult to obtain review for a determination of 

eligibility for listing on the National Register for individual historic resources unless the resources are 

threatened with imminent destruction. The County Certification Program is an alternative to National 

Register listing and also provides a level of official protection for resources which may have local historic 

significance, but which do not necessarily meet National Register criteria. 

3-7-7

e 

e 

e 

Nutional Regisrer Nominutiom: The County Historical Advisory Board/Commission and the County 

Office of Planning and Development, in conjunction with the National Park Service, Historic Gettysburg- 

Adams County, and the Adams County Historical Society, should coordinate the preparation of new 

nominations for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The work should concentrate on 

thematic nominations of groups of significant historic resources and cultural themes singular to Adams 

County. Possible themes could include industrial complexes and industrial archeological sites, carriagemaking, 

orchards and canninp. lime and brick kilns, rail stations and settlements, prehistoric 

archeological sites, architectural building types, Civil War hospitals, other Civil War sites outside of the 

battlefield park (for instance, the sites of the engagement at Hunterstown, the engagement at Fairfield, 

camp and supply sites, and roadways used during the battle); the Lincoln Highway west of 

McKnightstown; mills; schools; churches; original settlements of the Manor of Maske, etc. National 

Register Nominations are also discussed in Chapter 2 Matching grants could be obtained for such 

nominations from PHMC. Grants and technical assistance could be provided for appropriate projects 

by the National Park Service under the legislation creating the new Park boundaries. 

National Park Preservation: The Boundary Study for the Gettysburg National Military Park was 

completed in 1988 and legislation authorizing the Study's recommendations was passed by Congress in 

1990. The Park is currently engaged in the process of determining the procedures by which the 

additional lands authorized by Congress will be acquired or otherwise protected. Where necessary, the 

County should assist the Park in these endeavors. The Land Use Plan attempts to protect the 

Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site by presenring the adjacent 

rural landscape and by concentrating development away from the park. Because of the importance of 

the park to the county as both a historic and an economic resource, the County should look beyond the 

park boundaries to the further protection of the landscape in adjacent buffering areas and along 

roadways leading to the park. The principal mechanism for studying preservation options should be the 

participation of the proposed County Historical Advisory Board/Comrnission in the preparation of a 

County Open Space and Recreation Plan. Also important would be County assistance in the creation 

of a county-wide, non-profit conservancy. Both of these recommendations are discussed further later 

in this section. The Open Space Plan could make specific recommendations for protecting landscape 

character and scenic vistas. The conservancy should be created to serve'as an advocate, organizer, and 

manager of land stewardship methods of preservation. The recent legislation passed by Congress 

authorizes the Park Service to provide grants, reimbursement for planning costs, and technical assistance 

in endeavors such as those proposed. The success of the Pathways project (1991) in the Borough of 

Gettysburg is an example of the type of collaboration that could be undertaken on a larger multimunicipal 

or even county-wide scale. 

Other issues related to National Park preservation and use need to be addressed by the County. These 

include the incompatible uses of the park by county residents for active recreation, the use of park roads 

for through traffic, and the use by others of parking areas intended for park visitors. The County and 

adjacent municipalities should formally, by ordinance, incorporate Park Service participation in the early 

stages of the review process for subdivision and land development plan submissions. Finally, the County 

should, in conjunction with the Park Service, consider methods of protecting Civil War sites and 

memorial period sites, and those agricultural and other sites related to the activities of President Dwight 

D. Eisenhower, which are located outside of the park boundaries. As mentioned above, National 

Register thematic nominations would provide one level of protection. Other methods could be studied 

and recommended in the proposed Open Space Plan. 

CemFed Local Governments: The County, through the Historical Advisory Board/Commission and 

I 

3-7-8

I 

1 

0 

Ir 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 

e 

e 

County Office of Planning and Development, should promote and assist in the creation of historic 

districts and Certified Local Governments (CLG) in historic villages that will experience significant 

growth and new development under the Land Use Plan. Such a program will be crucial to the 

protection of the historic character of village centers. The CLG program is admiitered by PHMC 

under federal guidelines and in association with Pennsylvania Act 167 authorizing the creation of historic 

districts in municipalities. CLG status enables a municipality to participate in special PHMC grant 

programs. Currently, the Borough of Gettysburg is the only CLG in Adams County. Because there 

appears to be resistance to the concept of historic districts and CLGs in other county boroughs and 

villages, the importance of the CLG process as a preservation tool must be clearly communicated to 

local residents if the historic character of village centers is to be preserved in view of potential 

development pressures on certain boroughs and villages. 

Adcuns County Historical Society: The County should frnd ways of providing additional assistance to the 

Adams County Historical Society to enable the Society to increase the basic historical data it has on file, 

to further organize and modernize its existing collection of data, and to undertake new historical 

research programs. Assistance could be in the form of additional funding, coordination of grant 

programs, and support in fund raising events such as yearly county-wide house and garden tours. A goal 

should be to enable the Society to support a full-time staff. Certification of the Historical Society by 

the American Association of Museums would increase the number of grant programs in which the 

Society could participate. Assistance should also be provided to other locally-based historical societies. 

County Conservancy and Advocacy Group: The County should support the creation of an independent, 

non-profit, county-wide conservancy to privately promote historic preservation and to undertake private 

land stewardship programs not possible for, or appropriate to, governmental agencies. Such programs 

should include various types of land donations ranging from outright gifts or bargain sales of land; to 

gifts of land with retained life estates; to conservation easement donations. The incentives to donors 

engaged in such programs are federal income, gift, and estate tax reductions. The conservancy would 

not only organize and promote the programs, but would become the legal entity acting as steward for 

property donations. Additionally, the conservancy could coordinate limited development planning 

options for landowners who wish to develop their land, but wish to do so in a manner that preserves 

landscape character and open space. The conservancy could also serve as a advocacy group of high 

integrity for preservation issues within the county. A number of such conservancies which could serve 

as models exist in other Pennsylvania jurisdictions. It is possible that an existing organization such as 

Historic Gettysburg-Adas County could redirect its efforts to create such a county-wide conservancy. 

Landscape Preservation 

In addition to the Agricultural Conservation Plan and to the zoning, and subdivision and 

land development recommendations discussed elsewhere in this chapter, other measures 

should be undertaken within the county to protect the character of the rural landscape. 

These could include: 

e 

Environmenral and Open Space Commission: The County should create an Environmental and Open 

Space Commission as an advisory organization to the County Commissioners. The Environmental and 

Open Space Commission would coordinate County policy established by the County Commissioners and 

have responsibility for County programs related to the protection of natural resources, open space, and 

3-7-9

ural landscape preservation. The Environmental and Open Space Commission would work closely with 

the County planning staff, and should have representation on both the County Planning Commission and 

the Historical Advisory Board/Commission. 

0 Open Space and Recreation Plan: A primary responsibility of the Environmental and Open Space 

Commission should be to oversee the creation and implementation of a County Open Space and 

Recreation Plan (see Section 3 and Section 6 of this chapter). The purpose of the Open Space and 

Recreation Plan should be, in part, to establish a long-term open space and recreation program for the 

county as well as for local municipalities. The Plan would analyze the existing rural landscape, identify 

critical landscape elements, and make specific recommendations for preservation of those elements both 

by the County and by municipalities. The County Plan should be followed by subsequent, more detailed 

municipal plans which would fill in the overall framework established by the County. It may be 

presumed that such a program would involve the long-term protection of environmentally-sensitive areas 

such as stream corridors, which could serve as open space links between various portions of the county. 

In conjunction with the proposed County Historical Advisory Board/Commission, the Open Space Plan 

should include policies and provisions for the additional protection of historic resources, most notably 

the ~tional parks. The Plan should make recommendations for the protection of lands adjacent to the 

Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site as outlined elsewhere in this 

section. The National Park Semce could be instrumental in participating in the process through funding 

grants, reimbursement of planning costs, and the provision of technical assistance as authorized in the 

1990 park boundary legislation. The Open Space Plan should be viewed as a large-scale cooperative 

effort similar in nature to the Pathways program in the Borough of Gettysburg. 

0 Comprehenrive Plans for Growth has: In addition to the creation of Certified Local Governments, a 

critical tool in the control of new development in projected growth areas in and adjacent to boroughs 

and historic villages is the adoption of detailed comprehensive plans for these areas. The County should 

promote and assist municipalities in the production of these Plans, as well as in the adoption of 

ordinances and land development controls necessary for implementation. The Plans should incorporate 

many of the open space, natural resource, and historic preservation recommendations noted elsewhere 

in this chapter. These detailed Comprehensive Plans will be essential to the preservation and restoration 

of the historic character of existing village centers, and should lead to the adoption of detailed review 

procedures and design guidelines to help ensure that new development is compatible with existing 

historic and landscape character. 

0 Corn9 Conservancy andAdvocaq Group: As recommended and described in the Historic Preservation 

portion of this section, the County should support the creation of a non-profit, county-wide conservancy 

to promote and implement private land stewardship programs for historic and landscape preservation. 

Historic and LandscaDe Resources Policies 

1. Promote the preservation of hirtoric resources through creation of county preservation 

programs and by encouraging participation of municipalities and other local groups in 

such programs. 

2. Encourage the preservation of natural resources associated with historic and cultural 

3-7-10

esources by creating model ordinances and promoting their adoption and enforcement 

throughout the county. 

L 

3. Promote the preservation of rural larubcape character and scenic resources through 

agriculturaIpreservation programs, adoption of model ordinances, implementation of an 

open space plan, and comprehensive planning and land development controk in growth 

area 

3-7-1 1 

I

‘ L 

0 

L 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

B 

1 

1 

8 

e 

b 

SECTION 8: AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION PLAN 

The general goal for agricultural resources has two interrelated parts: to maintain a strong 

agricultural industry and to protect farmland for agricultural use. This goal is articulated in 

Table 3.8.1, which identifies a number of specific objectives and the policies that would 

achieve them. 

The two parts of the general goal are equally important and are interrelated. If the farming 

industry is to continue, it is necessary that its land resource base be maintained. But the 

protection of the land base will not assure that the agricultural industry will remain 

profitable. And if farming is not profitable, there will not be.an economic reason to protect 

the land resource. Many of the policies advocated to advance one objective will also advance 

the other. 

If the general goal for agriculture can be achieved, county residents and visitors will enjoy 

numerous additional benefits in addition to the maintenance of the agricultural economy 

and the agricultural land resource. They will avoid the social, economic, and environmental 

disadvantages of sprawl and the possibility will be enhanced of achieving a development 

pattern that is more convenient and less expensive. They will also benefit from the 

continuation of the county’s traditional culture and landscape. 

The Plan to Maintain a Stm np. Agicultural Industry 

The first set of objectives relates to maintaining a strong agricultural industry. Many factors 

that affect the agricultural industry are beyond the control of the County or its 

municipalities (for example, foreign competition, federal farm policies and programs). The 

Adams County Comprehensive Plan addresses such factors only through the 

recommendation that an agricultural advisory committee be established that could advise 

the County Commissioners on state and federal policies and legislation. 

The Plan concentrates on more local factors. It addresses the facts that nearby urbanization 

often results in additional financial costs to farmers and in conflicts between farmers and 

non-farm neighbors. 

Minimize Financial Costs to Farmers Resulting from Nearby Urbanization. 

As an area develops, owners of farmland and other undeveloped land typically face higher 

tax bills. Land prices rise and assessments follow. Non-farm residents who move into the 

formerly rural area demand and get urban-level services and public expenditures rise. When 

utility lines are extended through rural land, owners of land they pass through are typically 

assessed on a front-foot basis to pay for the “improvement” that the utility line represents. 

3-8- 1

The Plan advocates a number of programs and measures that offset these monetary costs. 

The County is now participating in the differential assessment program (Act 319 of 1974, 

commonly known as the Clean and Green Act) and encourages owners of farmland to enroll 

their property in it. Enrollment in Act 319 assures the property owner that his land will be 

assessed at its farm use value instead of at its development value. To qualify for agricultural 

use, a property must have produced an agricultural commodity for three years prior to 

application and must be at least 10 acres or have a demonstrable annual agricultural income 

of $2,000. Lands qualifying as forest or agricultural reserve are also eligible for differential 

assessment. If the use of land enrolled under Act 319 is changed to an ineligible use, the 

owner must pay roll-back taxes for the seven most recent years and interest on the roll-back 

taxes of 6 percent. Roll-back taxes are the taxes saved under differential assessment. 

To the extent that non-farm development is limited in areas planned for farm use, the 

demands for urban-level services are also likely to be limited. The limitation of development 

in agricultural areas is discussed in The Plan to Protect Farmland, following. Utility lines 

should not be extended through farmland areas, because they will greatly increase the 

pressure for development. But if they are, owners of farmland in areas planned for 

agriculture should be exempted from front-foot assessments. 

Often when non-farmers move into a farming area, they are annoyed by noisy, dusty, or 

smelly farm operations and bring pressure on the municipality to enact ordinances that will 

restrict farming operations, and thus cause farmers to use more costly operating techniques. 

The Pennsylvania Agricultural Security Areas Law prevents municipal governments from 

passing ordinances that restrict normal fdng practices or structures in Agricultural 

Security Areas. The County Comprehensive Plan encourages owners of farmland within 

areas planned for agriculture to petition their local governing bodies to establish 

Agricultural Security Areas so that their land will be afforded these and other protections. 

Security Areas covering 62,000 acres had already been established in the county as of 

December 199 1. 

Another approach to limiting conflicts is to give notice that agriculture is the primary 

industry in the area and that landowners may be subject to inconvenience or discomfort arising 

from accepted agricultural practices. Such notices should be entered in agreements of 

sale and deeds of all land in areas planned for continuation in agriculture. As a result, 

potential buyers who are not prepared to live in the environment of commercial agriculture 

are not likely to buy in the area, but those who find agricultural activities compatible will 

not be deterred and are likely to be good neighbors when they move in. 

Minimize Conflicts with Farming Caused by Nearby Urbanization 

Conflicts occur between farmers and non-farm neighbors for a number of reasons. The Plan 

has both physical and non-physical remedies to prevent such conflicts. Additional traffic 

3-8-2

I 

L 

@ 

L 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

i 

I 

D 

I 

I 

1 

through the farm area is a basic problem. It can be remedied by locating new non-farm 

development where it will cause the least increase in traffic. The growth-area concept 

outlined in the Land Use Plan (Section 3) and the local collector and County Collector 

roadway links recommended in the Circulation Plan (Section 4) are systems intended to 

direct non-farm development to selected areas and to limit traffic effects on farm areas. 

Non-farm neighbors must be protected against pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals 

that farmers find it economically necessary to use. Therefore, a buffer of 100 feet should be 

required on parcels to be developed that are adjacent to any parcel in an area planned for 

continuation of agricultural use. Such a setbacks are common in a number of jurisdictions 

around the country. The state of Maine requires a 100-foot setback on any land adjacent to 

a registered farmland tract. A larger setback should be required from an existing intensive 

agricultural use, such as a feedlot. 

One of the best ways to minimize conflicts between farmers and non-farm neighbors is to 

discourage people from moving into the area who are likely to find living within an 

agricultural area to be incompatible. The notification procedure discussed above serves this 

end. 

Increase the Profitability of Farming by Allowing Accessory Activities on Farms 

Although farming near built-up areas is burdened by costs and annoyances, it has one clear 

advantage: it is close to customers. Farmers should be allowed to benefit from this 

advantage. They should be allowed, through zoning provisions, to operate farm stands on 

their properties , and thus capture the retail mark-up. It is, however, important to ensure 

against small farm stands growing into supermarkets that bring excessive traffic into the farm 

area. Therefore, farm stands should be limited in size (say to 600 square feet of floor area) 

and their operation should be limited to seven months of the year. 

In order to supplement farm incomes, zoning ordinances should allow farmers to operate 

small home industries or bed-and-breakfasts in their farmhouses. These activities should be 

limited in size so that traffic generated is not excessive and sewage and other wastes can be 

disposed of adequately. The County should develop a model ordinance for farm-based 

businesses. Municipalities could use the model ordinance as a guide in drafting ordinances 

tailored to their specific conditions and needs. 

Strengthen Business Serving the Agricultural Industry 

The continuation of the extensive system of infrastructure serving agriculture in Adams 

County is vital for the continuation of the agricultural industry itself. As has been documented 

in Chapter 2, agricultural infrastructure includes businesses that support farm 

operation and businesses that provide marketing and food processing opportunities. Conve- 

3-8-3 

b 

I

dent locations must be provided for such businesses that serve the agricultural industry. 

These locations may be in the farming area itself or just outside it. Agricultural infrastructure 

activities should, however, be located where they cause the least disruption to 

farming operations. The County, in consultation with the Adam County Farmland 

Protection Bureau and the Adams County Farmers Association, should develop a model 

ordinance for the regulation of agricultural support businesses. 

Reduce Obstacles that Make It Dimcult for Young People to Enter Farming 

Extremely high capital costs - for land and for equipment - make it difficult for young 

people to enter the farming business. In areas experiencing growth pressures the cost of land 

is generally much higher than what would be justified based on agricultural income from the 

land. The cost of land under an agricultural conservation easement is an exception. When 

it comes on the market, land under easement should sell at a. price comparable to farm use 

value, because such an easement prevents the development or improvement of the land for 

other than agricultural purposes. Experience elsewhere indicates that the availability of 

farmland under easement makes it possible for beginning farmers to acquire land. A study 

of 279 participants in farmland purchase of development rights programs in Massachusetts 

and Connecticut found that all persons who bought land already under easement said they 

bought it for agricultural use; 84 percent said they were able to purchase it only because the 

easement had reduced the value; and 44 percent said they had never owned farmland 

before. 

Because agricultural conservation easements make farmland affordable for farming, in 

addition to protecting the land from development, the Comprehensive Plan favors their 

acquisition, both through the Pennsylvania Agricultural Conservation Easement program and 

through donation of easements to conservancies. 

The County or a private conservancy could help young farmers to enter farming by 

maintaining a registry of young farmers wishing to buy farms and farmers considering selling 

their farms immediately or bringing a young farmer into their operation and transferring 

ownership over an extended period of time. The Lancaster Farmland Trust now operates 

such a matching service for farmers in Lancaster County. 

Reduce Obstacles to the Economic Expansion of the Agricultural Industry in the County 

The county's agricultural industry would benefit from having an organization that would 

keep track of trends, problems, and opportunities that face farmers in the county. Such an 

organization would be comparable to industrial development organizations that seek the 

economic improvement of non-farm sectors. It could, for example, develop marketing 

campaigns for Adam County farm products, keep abreast of development and zoning issues 

3-8-4 

I 

I 

II 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

D 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

‘I 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

m 

I 

that affect farming, and develop coherent policies to be carried out cooperatively by the 

farm sector, municipal governments, and the county government. Such an organization could 

provide mechanisms for matching farm labor needs with local labor pools, and farmers 

wishing to buy farmland with those wishing to sell it. The organization could also conduct 

programs to explain the importance of farming in the county and the problems it faces to 

school children and citizen groups. As a final example, the organization could foster the 

offering of college-level agricultural and business courses within the county or at nearby 

locations. 

This function of an agricultural development council might be most efficiently and effectively 

carried out by enlargement of the scope of the Adams County Agricultural Land 

Preservation Board, which now confines its interest to the Pennsylvania Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program, and by continuing cooperation with the Adams County 

Farmers Association, a private-membership organization. 

The Plan To Protect Farmland 

Minimize Development Pressure on Farmland 

Areas with good highway access and available sewers are well known to attract development. 

Therefore, the Plan stipulates that highway improvements in agricultural areas should be 

kept to a minimum and that sewers should not be extended into agricultural areas. 

Prevention of such growth-generating infrastructure will require firm and consistent action 

by the County and its municipalities. 

A number of highway improvements in farm areas, however, are necessary (such as the 

Route 30 Relief Route). They should be designed with controlled access and development 

in the vicinity of crossroads should be curtailed through strong zoning. But, even with such 

precautions in the immediate vicinity, highway improvements can lead to development over 

large areas because of the decreases in commuting times they make possible. Therefore, if 

farming and farmland are to be protected, it is especially important to be sure that extensive 

agricultural zoning is in place in a broad band surrounding any proposed highway 

improvement before the improvement is carried out. 

The County has an important role to play in approving requests for sewer extensions or 

other projects that would require an amendment to a Sewage Facilities Plan. The County 

should argue before the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER) 

against any proposal to extend a sanitary sewer into an area shown as agricultural in the 

County Comprehensive Plan. The PaDER is bound to make a finding of consistency between 

any sewage plan or plan revision and local, county, and state plans before granting 

a permit. 

3-8-5

The County should also oppose utility extensions into areas planned for agriculture that are 

sought by local utility companies or authorities when proposals come before the Pennsylvania 

Public Utilities Commission (PaF'UC). In a 1989 administrative ruling (No. 

A-210540 F002, concerning an application of the Columbia Water Company opposed by the 

County of Lancaster), the PaPUC has made it clear that the PaPUC must take local and 

county planning into consideration in making a decision on a utility extension. 

Prevent the Division of Farmland into Small Tracts 

Land in stable agricultural areas is typically in large tracts. As land is divided into smaller 

tracts, its price per acre generally rises, and as a result, it becomes less affordable by farmers 

who have to derive their income from the land. Because smaller tracts are available, the 

total cost of a piece of land may decrease, even though the price per acre increases. Thus, 

the smaller tracts may be more attractive to non-farm buyers, and they will push farmers out 

of the market. 

In order to maintain a land market in which farmers can compete, the division of land 

should be limited so that parcels created will not be smaller than is appropriate for continuation 

of the existing types of commercial farming in the area. Limitations on land 

division in agricultural areas can be set by local municipalities. For example, the zoning 

ordinance of Hopewell Township, York County, allows division of agricultural land into two 

or more parcels only if each resulting parcel contains at least 100 acres. If the original parcel 

is less than 100 acres, land from it may be transferred to another parcel so long as the 

second parcel, after transfer, is at least as large as the original parcel was before transfer. 

The standard of 100 acres was based on the fact that typically farm cores in the township 

were 100 acres or larger. The farm core is the area of a farm excluding outlying tracts. It 

is the part of a farm that is most efficient to operate, has the most permanence, and thus 

forms the economic basis of the farm. 

I 

I 

Q 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

Note that the limitation on division of land into tracts of less than 100 acres does not 

preclude the creation of one-acre lots under sliding scale agricultural zoning (which is 

discussed below). 

Prevent the Conversion of Farmland to Non-Farm Uses 

The measures outlined so far provide incentives to keep land in agriculture, but they do not 

prevent it from being developed. They are not enough to ensure that areas planned for 

agriculture will remain as viable agricultural areas. A small amount of scattered 

development within an agricultural area can lead to land use conflicts that make the 

continuation of farming difficult if not impossible. It is necessary to adopt measures that will 

prevent the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses. 

3-8-6 

II 

I

‘I 

a 

L 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

a 

b 

Agricultural Conservation Easements 

The most effective measure for preventing the development of farmland is the acquisition 

of agricultural conservation easements. These afe legally binding instruments, which go with 

the deed, that prevent development forever. 

The Pennsylvania Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) program is the best-known 

program for easements. The program is well underway in the county; as of December, 1991, 

the County Commissioners had already approved the acquisition of ten easements covering 

1,505 acres. The Comprehensive Plan strongly endorses the continuation of the PACE 

program, but recommends some changes in the rating system used for choosing properties 

on which easement offers are to be accepted. 

The selection system now used by Adams County for the PACE program specifies a number 

of conditions that a property must meet in order to be considered eligible. These conditions 

include that it be 25 acres or more, be located in an Agricultural Security Area, be primarily 

in cropland, pasture, or grazing, and be primarily of Agricultural Capability Class I - IV 

soils. The Plan recommends that the eligibility requirements be expanded to require that 

the property be in an area indicated for agricultural use in the Land Use Plan (Figure 3.3.1). 

Thus, properties planned for other than agricultural uses (such as properties in future 

growth areas) would not be eligible for the PACE program. 

The Adams County selection system rates eligible properties on a number of factors. These 

factors can be classified under five headings: size and agricultural quality of the site, 

assurance that the site is part of a block of farmland that is likely to be protected, lack of 

development pressure on the site, and non-agricultural qualities of the site (such as historic, 

scenic, ad environmental qualities) that make its protection important. The preceding 

paragraphs of this chapter have emphasized the importance of protecting large blocks of 

farmland in order to reduce land use conflicts and enhance the probability that farming will 

remain practical. Later in the chapter, the crucial role of agricultural zoning in protecting 

large blocks of farmland will be pointed out. The Plan recommends that the PACE rating 

system be revised to give significantly more weight to the existence of strong agricultural 

zoning covering the site in question. The result would be that few sites would be chosen for 

easement purchase that were not under strong agricultural zoning. This change in the rating 

system would provide some incentive for municipalities to adopt strong agricultural zoning 

ordinances. 

A second method for acquiring easements is through donation to non-profit conservancies. 

Landowners who donate easements can count the value of the easement as a charitable 

donation that can be deducted from income for federal income tax purposes, thus lowering 

their tax liability. Landowners may also make partial donations through “bargain sales” of 

easements to conservancies. Throughout the state, owners of farmland have donated easements 

on some 11,000 acres to conservancies. A number of conservancies active in the state, 

including the American Farmland Trust, are available for donation of easements, but the 

3-8-7

establishment of a conservancy or land trust specifically for Adams County would greatly increase 

the area that could be maintained for farming in the county. The Lancaster Farmland 

Trust is well established; the York County Farmland Trust was begun in 1990. The 

Comprehensive Plan encourages the establishment of an Adams County conservancy or 

farmland trust. 

Acquisition of easements through the PACE program and through conservancy action, 

however, will account for only a small fraction of the county's farmland. It is anticipated that 

the entire PACE program will have a budget of $7,500,000 for Adams County, including an 

estimated $750,000 in County funds. If the average cost of all easements turns out to be the 

same as the average for the first four easements - $1,500 per acre - then, the entire program 

will result in easements on about 5,000 acres. This area protected by the PACE program will 

account for less than 3 percent of the land in farms in the county. Conservancy action might 

account for another 3 percent. Other techniques must be used if the vast bulk of farmland 

in the county is to be protected from development. 

Agricultural Zoning 

The most promising, and well-tested, technique is strong agricultural zoning. Strong 

agricultural zoning strictly limits land uses to agriculture and related uses and limits residential 

development to no more than one dwelling per 20 acres on average. Such zoning is 

common in York and Lancaster Counties and has been adopted by Latimore and Tyrone 

Townships in Adams County. In Lancaster County, 35 townships have adopted strong 

agricultural zones, covering 268,000 acres. In York County, strong agricultural zoning 

covering 159,000 acres is in effect in 17 municipalities. In Lancaster and York counties, 

respected members of the farm community have taken the lead in promoting the adoption 

of agridtural zoning. They realized that it would protect their agricultural investment and 

their way of life. No municipality in these two counties has subsequently rescinded its 

agricultural zone after instituting it. Rezonings from agriculture to other uses have been 

relatively rare, amounting to net losses of only about 1,500 acres in Lancaster County (about 

one-half of one percent of all land with strong agricultural zoning) and only a few hundred 

in York County. A least a half-dozen townships have added to their agricultural zones after 

establishing them. Several have strengthened their zones by further restricting the non-farm 

uses permitted. 

Adoption of agricultural zoning is ultimately the responsibility of each municipality. The 

County, however, can help by developing model ordinances and providing technical assistance 

to municipalities that are exploring zoning alternatives. 

Agricultural zoning will greatly strengthen the Pennsylvania Agricultural Easement Program 

that the County is participating in. It will prove to be difficult to continue to farm farms protected 

by conservation easements if they are surrounded by land zoned, and someday 

developed, at suburban densities. Therefore, the considerable County and State funds spent 

for easements in such locations may ultimately be wasted if agricultural zoning is not 

3-8-8 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1

I 

1 

adopted. For that reason, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the existence of agricultural 

zoning be given greater weight in the process for selecting sites on which to purchase 

easements. 

If it is to prove effective, agricultural zoning should have the following characteristics: 

1. Overall, it should permit no more than 5 and preferably no more than 3 

non-farm dwelling units per 100 acres. 

2. It should be the area-based allocation variety of agricultural zoning. 

Area-based allocation limits the number of houses that can be built on a property 

given its area, instead of simply setting a large minimum lot size. It establishes an 

overall permissible density, such as one dwelling unit per 20 acres, but requires each 

house to be built on a small lot, for example, one acre, and located in a place that 

will interfere as little as possible with agricultural activities on the remainder of the 

tract. The area-based allocation form makes possible much more flexibility in siting 

and leaves much more extended and uninterrupted areas in one ownership and available 

for farming. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

3. Desirably, it should be the sliding scale form of area-based allocation 

zoning. The sliding scale form, which has been upheld by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth 

Court (Boundary Drive Assocl ‘ates v. Shrewsbury Township, 1984), allows 

somewhat higher densities of development for smaller parcels than for larger ones. 

This is justified because smaller parcels are less suitable for farming and often their 

owners have investment-backed expectations for developing them. Usually they 

account for a relatively small total area and so their development at somewhat higher 

densities does not add an excessive number of dwelling units to the agricultural zone. 

The sliding scale schedule of Latimore Township is almost identical to the 

schedule upheld by the Commonwealth Court in the Boundary Drive case. The 

Latimore schedule follows: 

Size of Parcel 

Less than 2 acres 

2 - James 

6 - 10 aaes 

11 - Nacres 

31 - 60 acres 

61 - 90 acres 

91 - 120 acres 

121 -150acres 

151 -180aaes 

181 - 210 aaes 

211 acres & over 

No. of Dwellinn Units Permitted 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

3-8-9 

L 

I

4. The allowable units should be grouped together instead of stretching along 

the road frontage of the tract. Figure 3.8.2 shows how allowable development might 

be sited under large lot agricultural zoning and under sliding scale agricultural 

zoning, either along the road or grouped. All diagrams reflect the densities allowed 

under Latimore Township’s agricultural zoning district. 

5. The sizes of individual parcels are the sizes as of a given date, preferably 

a date well before the adoption of the ordinance. 

6. The uses allowed in the zone should be strictly limited to uses that are 

supportive of agriculture or at least highly compatible with it. 

7. Farm stands should be allowed in agricultural zones so that farmers can 

capture some of the retail markup on their produce. The farm stands, however, 

should be limited to seven months operation per year and to about 600 square feet 

in floor area. Otherwise, they may become intense year-round markets that bring 

excessive activity into the agricultural zone that conflicts with farming activities. 

8. A simple and foolproof system should be instituted to keep track of the 

number of dwelling rights initially assigned to each parcel, the number of building 

permits granted, and the resulting number of rights remaining for dwellings to be 

built in the future. 

Figure 2.63 shows the land in the county covered by agricultural land protection devices as 

of 1991. Very large areas are enrolled in Agricultural Security Areas, which provide some 

protection to farmers but do not prevent them from developing their land. Two townships, 

Latimore-and Tyrone, have instituted strong agricultural zoning. The first ten easements 

have been approved under the PACE program. They represent approximately 25 percent 

of the total number anticipated under the program. Land under easement has the strongest 

and most long-lasting protection from development. 

Agrricultural Resources Policiea 

1. Reduce development pressure on fannland by controlling the location of new infrcrstructure. 

2 Encourage municipalities to enact flective agricultural zoning. 

3. Prevent the division of famland into small tracts. 

4. Continue the acquisition of conservation easements on famland and focus their location. 

5. Strengthen the agricultural economy. 

3-8-10 

I 

I 

0 

J 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

e 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

0 

a 

I

6. Reduce potential con.icts between farmers and non-fm residents in areas planned for 

agriculture. 

3-8-1 1

Table 3.8.1 

Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Agricultural Resources 

GOALS: AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 

It is the goal of Adams County to maintain a strong agricultural 

industry and to protcct farmland for agricultural use. 

OBJECTIVES RELATED TO MAINTAINING A STRONG 

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY: 

POLICIES THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES: 

Minimize fmcial costs to farmers caused by nearby 

urbanization. such as: 

higher taxes caused by: 

increases in assessment; 

increases in local government expenditures; 

assessments for utility 1- that are installed 

through or along the edge of farms. 

higher operating costs caused by: 

local ordinances that restrict normal farming 

practicts. 

Apply for differential assessment (Act 319). 

Limit non-farm development (which is likely to demand higher, 

non-rural levels of government service). 

Forbid extension of utility lines through farming areas. 

Exempt farmland owners from assessment for lines that must 

traverse area. 

Establish Ag Security Areas. where right-to-farm is assured. 

Notify land buyers (in their agreements of sale) that 

agriculture is the primary industry in the area. 

Minimize conflicts with farming caused by nearby 

urbanization, such as. contXcts caused by: 

additional traffic through farming areas; 

Locate non-farm development so as to minimize traffic in 

farm areas. 

non-farm development next to areas where pesticides or 

herbicides must be used; 

lack of understanding by non-farm neighbors of the 

economic necessity of farm practices, 

hours of operation. etc. 

Increase the profitability of farming by allowing 

accessory activities on farms, such as: 

home industries; 

3-8- 12 

Require buffer on parcels to be developed for non-farm uses. 

Notify land buyers (in agreement of sale) that agriculture 

is the primary industry in the area and that they may be 

subject to inconvenience and discomfort arising from 

accepted agricultural practices. 

Allow small home industries, subj to limitations on sewage, 

traffic generated, etc. 

I 

1 

I 

1

I 

m 

b 

OBJECTIVES RELATED TO MAINTAINING A STRONG 

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY: 

farm stands: 

bed and breakfast operations. 

POLICIES THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES: 

Allow seasohal farm stands, limited in size. 

Allow B & B subj to no. rooms, sewage cap'y. etc. 

Strengthen busincss serving the agricultural industry. 

Reduce some of the obstacles that make it difficult for 

young people to enter farming, such as: 

the high price of farmland; 

the large investment necursary for farm equipment. 

Mow agric infrastrudure businesses in farming area, in least 

dhptive 1 d 0 ~ . 

Reduce land pricea by compensating owners to limit the use 

of their land to agriculture. 

I 

I 

Reduce obstacles to the economic expansion of the agricultural 

industry in the county. 

Expand the scope of the Agricultural Preservation 

Board to include the functions of an Agricultural 

Development Council. 

Develop a marketing campaign for Adams County farm products. 

Encourage introduction of new crops, etc. 

OBJECTIVES RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF FARMLAND 

POLICIES THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES 

Minimize development pressure on farmland, caused by such 

things as: 

availability of public water and sewer; 

fast, high-volume highway access. 

Prevent the division of farmland into tracts too small 

for farms. 

Prevent the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses. 

Forbid extension of public water and sewer into farmland areas. 

Do not build new highways in or near farmland areas. 

Do not allow divisions that result in tracts smaller than the 

average farm core. 

Maximize participation in Pa. Agricultural Easement program. 

Encourage farmland owners to donate easements to conservancies 

and enjoy tax benefits. 

Encourage municipalities to adopt effective agricultural 

zoning. 

3-8- 13

Figure 3.8.1 

Municipalities in York 

and Lancaster Counties 

with Strong Agrinrltural 

Zoning 

.. 

Source: e 

Pennsylvania Environmental Council, 1991. 

3-8- 14 

Our Cauntrvside.

1 

L 

'e 

L Figure 3.8.2 

I 

E 

I 

I 

1 

I 

Development Alternatives 

in Agricultural Areas 

Fa-& 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I ! 

20A 

I ! 

' I 

I- --- 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

' I 

I-' --- i-- --I 

3-8-15

SECTION 9: UTILITIES PLAN 

Introduction 

Providing adequate water supplies and wastewater treatment for the planned population 

growth (approximately 15,000 dwelling units and associated commercial and industrial 

facilities) throughout Adams County over the next twenty years should not be an 

insurmountable job. However, the job will not be easy nor automatically accomplished 

without a detailed planning effort and the dedication, patience, and participation by 

municipal officials and residents as well as County officials. Although Adams County enjoys 

plentiful rain on the average with generally adequate recharge of surface and underground 

water supplies, most municipal water supply systems and many residents on individual wells 

report difficulty in meeting water supply demands during periods of drought. With regard 

to wastewater treatment, a number of the municipal systems are at or nearing their capacity. 

Many portions of the county have moderate to severe limitations with regard to septic tank 

installation and a number of malfunctioning units have been reported. 

The Land Use Plan (see Section 3 of this chapter and Figure 3.3.1) envisions new 

development primarily in and around existing boroughs and selected new centers (about 

67% of new dwelling units), with about 16% of new residences in "cluster" housing 

development in the countryside plus about 7% already proposed in conventional rural 

subdivisions and about 10% scattered as new individual residences. Central municipal water 

supply systems, currently having a capacity to provide about 5.7 million gallons of water per 

day (mgd) to roughly 13,000 homes and businesses, will have to be increased in capacity by 

an additional 2.1 mgd to serve the increased population in and around existing boroughs of 

about 7,000 homes and associated businesses. Corresponding increases in wastewater 

treatment capacity will also be needed. New central water supply and wastewater treatment 

facilities with a capacity totalling about 0.9 mgd will have to be constructed to serve roughly 

3,000 additional service connections in the selected new centers. The total centralized water 

supply capacity in the county would then be roughly 8.7 mgd with a corresponding amount 

of wastewater treatment capacity (Figure 3.9.4a). Residential and commercial areas 

adjacent to or near existing boroughs and new centers where water supplies lack adequate 

yield or quality may need to have water supply service extended to them, adding to the 

requirements for increased centralized capacity. Similarly, nearby areas where individual 

on-site septic tank wastewater treatment systems are inadequate may need to be connected 

to the central sewer systems. Perhaps several hundred to a thousand homes and businesses 

may be in these areas. 

Cluster housing developments in the countryside will need about 0.7 mgd new capacity from 

well fields developed near the clusters to serve about 2,400 homes, with "package" plants or 

other types of wastewater treatment. Approximately 1,500 scattered new individual 

residences will each need a well producing at least one gallon per minute (gpm) together 

with an on-lot septic tank. Eight industrial and business parks are projected in the Land 

3-9- 1

I 

Use Plan; five along US Route 15, one in the Littlestown area, and two in the Conewago 

Valley area. (The latter three are currently being developed.) These industrial parks will 

need to have their own water supplies and wastewater treatment systems designed and 

installed as part of their project planning, development, and construction. 

The Land Use Plan would make maximum use of existing and planned increases in water 

supply and wastewater treatment capacity. Furthermore, expansion of capacities beyond 

those currently planned would make use of the "Act 537" sewer and water supply planning 

process that is familiar to municipal planning officials and firmly established through the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) review and approval process. 

As noted above, many of the existing municipal water/wastewater systems are at or 

approaching their design capacity, particularly the Borough of Gettysburg. Also, some 

municipal wastewater treatment systems may not be able to be developed or expanded 

without installing expensive advanced treatment to preserve water quality in effluentreceiving 

waters downstream. The proposed selected new centers will have to develop 

centralized water supply treatment/distribution and wastewater treatment/sewerage systems, 

likewise using advanced technology in some cases. Restrictions on wastewater treatment 

plant effluent are likely to become more severe as DER tightens its regulations to protect 

stream water quality. 

In areas designated for non-urban development, whether residential construction is in the 

form of individual, widely-spaced single-family detached units or in clusters of homes, 

developers may have difficulty in finding satisfactory water supply wells and soils suitable 

for percolation of sewage. Alternative sewage treatment systems such as mound systems 

have had problems in this area. Small, developer-installed "package plants" for residential 

clusters may present similar downstream water quality problems to the centralized municipal 

systems, unless underground or spray irrigation land application systems are used for effluent 

from the package plants. 

In any case, consideration should be given to zoning, land development regulations, and 

other approaches for protecting groundwater and surface water sources of potable water 

supplies, particularly for growing boroughs and planned new centers. "Well-head protection 

zones should be established around each major water supply well (see Figure 3.9.1), 

extending at least 1/4 mile from the well. The area should include the "zone of influence" 

noted in Figure 3.9.1, and the siting within that zone of commercial, industrial, or other 

facilities which might pollute the well should generally be prohibited. (While existing 

industrial or commercial facilities within 1/4 mile of existing wells cannot be forced to move, 

nor all commercial or industrial activities within 1/4 mile of existing wells be prohibited, 

consideration can be given to measures such as double-wall tanks, dikes and catch basins 

to prevent the potential of leaking tanks polluting wells.) Furthermore, protection of the 

entire aquifer from which the wells draw their groundwater should be considered: 

Limitations on development of potentially polluting facilities or activities throughout the 

"zone of contribution" or "recharge" area for the well (the area on which rainwater falls and 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

3-9-2

percolates through the earth to supply water to the aquifer, as illustrated in Figure 3.9.1) 

should be enacted by all municipalities. Although the need for reservoirs for additional 

surface water supplies may be relatively far in the future (beyond the horizon of this Plan), 

consideration should be given to protecting such reservoir sites from future development in 

selected areas. 

The utilities element includes provisions for municipal solid waste disposal in accordance 

with the recently-enacted Act 101 of 1990, requiring the County to prepare a solid waste 

management plan to ensure disposal capacity for at least the next ten years. The Adam 

County Solid Waste Management Plan, which provides for out-of-county disposal at several 

existing facilities, has been approved by the county's municipalities and is being reviewed 

by PaDER. Collection and transportation of municipal solid waste to disposal facilities will 

remain the responsibility of private haulers. 

Water Sew 'ce Plan Element 

Current and Projected Water Use 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

It is estimated that the current population of roughly 80,000 residents plus commercial firms, 

institutions, and industries uses approximately 10 million gallons of water per day (mgd). 

During the next twenty years water use is expected to increase to about 13.5 mgd. There 

are currently 18 municipal water supply systems operating in the county, serving a 

population of about 39,200, and at least 11 small community systems serving mobile home 

parks, campgrounds, etc., serving an additional population of about 3,100, for a total 

populadon on central water supply systems of about 42,300. There is very little excess 

capacity in these central systems to handle population and comercial/industrial growth. 

The balance of county residences, offices, stores, industries, and institutions are served by 

individual on-site wells. 

The primary resource for water supply in Adam County is groundwater. In general, overall 

supply is more than adequate: As illustrated in Figure 3.9.2, out of a total average annual 

rainfall of 977 million gallons per day (mgd), approximately 200 mgd runs off in creeks, 

streams, and rivers, and about 175 mgd infiltrates into the ground. Eventually, all of this 

groundwater not withdrawn and consumed returns to the surface as stream discharge or 

"baseflow", or leaves the county underground to other adjacent counties. Average stream 

flow in years of average rainfall is about 376 mgd. Of the 175 rngd groundwater flow, 

roughly 110 mgd is available in areas underlain by triassic or carbonate rocks that can yield 

well water with adequate quantity and quality. 

It should be realized that the above amounts are values for years with average rainfall. In 

an average dry year, the surface runoff can drop to less than 10% of the average, and in a 

year with a seven-day, fifty-year dry weather period, the surface runoff can drop to roughly 

2% of the average. Groundwater availability will drop during dry spells and droughts, 

3-9-3

Figure 3.9.1 

Wellhead Protection Areas 

- 

+ zoc- 

ZOI -I 

I 

I 

I PUMPING I 

' 

GROUNO-WATER 

+ ONlDE 

I 

a 

I I I 

, I 1 1- 

1 

I 

I 

ZOI 

ZOC 

I 

1 /BEDROCK 

Zone or Influence 

Zone or Cornbutton 

or Recnarge Area 

Ground water can become contaminated by 

many hazardous materials, suc!! s pesticides, 

ferufizcrs, organic chemicals, and human wastes. 

The deqee of concaminatiun depends on soil 

characteristics, contaminant characteristics, groundwater 

flow, and other factors. Porous sods. such 

as sand, located over shallow aquifers generally are 

quite susceptible to contamination, while deep 

aquiiers located in heavy clay soil areas are less 

susceptible. Once contaminated, aquiiers are 

difficuit and expensive to dean up. For example, 

localities or responsible parties may have to pay for 

site studies, remediation, and property damage. 

The most cost-effective approach is to prevent 

contamination before it occus, rather than attempring 

to remedy existing contamination. 

3-94 

Ground-water wells affect the flow of ground 

water by loweriq water levels in an sea around 

the we4 known as the zone of intluence or cone 

of depression, as depicred in Exhibit 1. The full 

recharge area to the well is often -Aed the zone 

of contribution. The zone of iafluencz and the 

zone of convibution may consticute a fraction of 

an aquifer's area, or go beyond individual aquifers 

to inter-connected aqufers. The wellhead prorection 

area may constiruce all or part oi the zone of 

intluence or zone of contribution. Wellhead 

protection areas range in size, usually from tens oi 

aces to several square miles, and, in some cases, 

to tens of square miles. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1

depending on the duration of the drought. 

b 

1 

I 

8 

I 

I 

I 

Current total use of water in Adams County from community, non-community, and 

individual wells and springs is estimated to be about 10 mgd, roughly 9% of the average flow 

of groundwater in triassic and carbonate rock areas. Use is anticipated to increase to at 

least 13 mgd over the next twenty years. Current use of groundwater in Adams County is 

estimated to be approximately 6.5 mgd, and is expected to increase to 8.7 mgd by the year 

2010. Current use by centralized municipal and non-municipal community water systems 

is estimated to be 4.15 mgd. These centralized systems have a current capacity of 5.66 mgd. 

Surface water use is estimated to be about 3.5 mgd currently, and is projected to increase 

to at least 4.5 mgd by the year 2010. 

Therefore, although the basic water supply resource is large relative to consumption, given 

the potential for periods of drought, the siting of new wells and surface water intakes 

yielding adequate water quantity and quality and the development of increased water supply 

system capacity for the growing population of the county will be a continuing problem. 

Furthermore, given that this groundwater resource is unevenly distributed throughout the 

county in both quantity and quality and has become contaminated in several areas from 

failing septic tanks, the siting of new wells will require the expertise of hydrologists, 

hydrogeologists, and experienced well drillers. 

Local Area Water Availability 

GettysbwgArea: In the Gettysburg area, which currently gets about 54% of its water from 

groundwater sources (the other 46% from Marsh Creek), the Municipal Authority will 

probably attempt to exploit groundwater for future growth in water supply needs. The area 

is underlain by Triassic rocks which are typically low-to-moderate in yield. However, 

through careful and persistent exploration, it is believed that adequate additional water 

supplies can be obtained from wells. A number of areas should be avoided, however, 

including those within the Gettysburg Borough limits, because of contamination and the 

likelihood of future contamination. Also, the area north of the borough should be avoided 

because industrial contamination of the groundwater has already occurred. South of the 

borough much of the land is owned by the Federal Government as Gettysburg Military 

National Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site, neither of which can be used for 

drilling wells. Areas east of the borough are considered unsuitable for well locations 

because the underlying formation is primarily "diabase", which typically has very poor water 

yields. Also, the potential for contamination exists from traffic on US Routes 15 and 30. 

As a result, the area to the west and southwest of the borough should be the primary 

location for new wells. The recharge area for these wells would be in the high ground to 

the northwest that is currently in farms, fields, forests, and residential uses, and unlikely to 

be sources of future contamination. However, appropriate zoning and subdivision and land 

3-9-5

1 

Figure 39.2 

Adams County Water Resources 

TOTAL RAINFALL = 977 MGD 

GROUNDWATER 

SURFACE RUNOFF 

601) 

1 977 

2 601 

3 200 

4 175 

5 #3+#4 376 

6 63%0f#4 110 

7 9.1% of #5 34.2 

8 2.2% of #5 8.4 

9 9%0f#6 10 

10 6% of #6 6.5 

11 10% of #7 3.5 

12 50%0f#8 4.15 

13 5.66 

ADAMS COUNTY WATER RESOURCES 

MGD' RAINFALL OVER THE ENTIRE ADAMS COUNTY IN AN AVERAGE RAINFALL YEAR 

MGD EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (RETURNS TO ATMOSPHERE) 

MGD DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF IN AN AVERAGE RAINFALL YEAR 

MGD GROUNDWATER REFURN FLOWS (BASEFLOWS) IN AN AVERAGE RAINFALL YEAR 

MGD TOTAL STREAM OUTFLOW IN AN AVERAGE RAINFAU YEAR 

MGD BASEFLOWS IN TRIASSIC + CARBONATE AREAS 

MGD SURFACE RUNOFF (AVERAGE DRY YEAR BASIS) 

MGD SURFACE RUNOFF q-DAY !%YEAR DRY WEATHER PERIOD) 

MOD TOTAL WATER USE IN ADAMS COUNW IN 1990 

MOD CURRENT USE FROM GROUNDWATER SOURCES 

MGD CURRENT USE FROM SURFACE WATER SOURCES 

MOD CURRENT USE FROM MUNICIPAL AND NON-MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS 

MGD CURRENT CAPACITY OF MUNICIPAL AND NON-MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS 

MGD = MILLIONS OF GAUONS PER DAY 

3-9-6 

8

I 

I 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

i 

i 

I 

I 

Figure 393 

Potential Well Sites for Getiysburg Borough Water Supply 

--- Exist i n 3 Water Lines 

4 PW Potential We11 Site 

i 

* Taken from Reference 1 

3-9-7 

i 

, 

I

use regulations should be enacted by Cumberland Township to protect the aquifer recharge 

area. (Portions of Cumberland Township are currently served by the Gettysburg Municipal 

Authority water supply and additional areas of the township may be served in the future.) 

Although the area is underlain by the "Gettysburg" Triassic sediment formation, good well 

locations should be found where rock fractures are indicated. In a recent study, five specific 

well locations were identified with the potential for supplying up to 0.5 mgd or more.' 

These well locations are illustrated in Figure 3.93. 

I 

1 

Other sources of information on water supplies in Adam County may be found in State 

p~blications.~~~ 

Mid-County West and North - Gettysburg Plain: This broad area extends southwest to 

northeast across most of the county, including portions of Liberty and Freedom Townships 

to the southwest; Highland, Cumberland, and Franklin Townships to the west; and Butler, 

Tyrone, and Huntington Townships to the north of Gettysburg. The potential for obtaining 

adequate supplies of acceptable quality water throughout this "Gettysburg Plain" area 

underlain by the Gettysburg Triassic Formation should be similar to the potential near 

Gettysburg itself, as illustrated in Figure 3.9.3. The water yields from current wells range 

from 1 to 630 gallons per minute (gpm) with a median for residential wells of 12 gpm and 

for commercial wells of 69 gpm. The water is generally hard and may have iron and other 

constituents above recommended values 

Mid-County South and East - Bonneauville and the Route 15 Comcior area.- This extensive 

area LUIS from Mount Joy Township in the south, northeast through portions of Mt. 

Pleasant, Strabaa, Hamilton, and Reading Townships east of Gettysburg. Most of this area 

is underlain by Triassic sedimentaq rock, but a narrow Diabase formation with poor water 

yields runs diagonally across the county from southwest to northeast between Bonneauville 

and Gettysburg. The Borough of Bonneauville is served by 6 wells and is at or over its 

currently-available water supply capacity of about 0.1 mgd. Future growth in this area will 

require the search for fractures in the Triassic formation for additional wells with adequate 

yields and acceptable water quality. 

Eastern A dm County - Abbottstown, Easr Berlin, and New word area.- Abbottstown and 

East Berlin Municipal Water Authorities both appear to have adequate water supply 

capacity from their wells for substantial future growth. New Oxford, which obtains most of 

its water from the Conewago Creek (an average of about 0.57 mgd), is currently near its 

approved capacity, but has obtained a permit from DER to double withdrawals from the 

creek, from .65 mgd to 1.3 mgd. The "safe yield from the creek (Le., the amount of water 

that flows in the creek even during periods of drought) is 7.45 mgd, so even further 

withdrawals of water could be permitted. The growing areas around Cross Keys, Dicks 

Dam, and other contiguous or nearby locations in Oxford, Mt. Pleasant, Berwick, and 

Hamilton Townships could be served by extensions to the New Oxford Municipal Authority 

water supply lines. 

3-9-8

The groundwater resources lie in the Triassic "New Oxford Formation", which is 

characterized by generally hard water, with some iron and other constituents above 

recommended limits. A number of examples of contamination by fecal coliform, presumably 

from failing septic tanks, have occurred in this area recently. Well yields range from 1 to 

100 gpm, with a median for domestic wells of 6 gpm and 30 gpm for commercial wells2. 

Northeastern Adams County - Reading Huntington, and Latimore Townships: There is a large 

Diabase intrusion underlying this area, intersecting the Gettysburg Triassic formation. If the 

Diabase is avoided, adequate water yields and acceptable quality can be obtained. York 

Springs Borough appears to have adequate future capacity from its three springs and four 

wells with a total capacity of about 0.25 mgd and a current daily usage of only 0.035 rngd. 

Lower Southeastern County - Littlestown and McShenystown area The Conestoga limestone 

formation is in this area, extending diagonally between Littlestown and McSherrystown, with 

well yields averaging 26 gpm for domestic wells and 28 gpm for commercial wells 

However, the water is generally even harder than for Triassic formations and frequently 

exceeds the recommended limits for iron and manganese. Future water needs in parts of 

Conewago, Union, and Germany Townships could be accommodated with regard to the 

quantity of water available from new wells, but the water might need treatment to remove 

hardness, iron, and manganese. 

Littlestown Borough has seven wells plus a quarry that the borough uses as a reserve, but 

the municipality is nearing its capacity of 0.34 mgd with an average usage of 0.286 mgd. 

Littlestown is therefore adding two wells with an additional 0.141 mgd capacity. 

McShenystown Borough obtains all of its municipal water supply water from Hanover 

Borough .in York County, which relies on both groundwater wells and two surface water 

reservoirs, one of which is in Conewago Township. 

Lower Southwestern County - Fai$ehi and Cmll Vdley: Both Fairfield and Carroll Valley 

municipal water supplies are approaching their capacities, and new groundwater sources are 

being sought. Also, Fairfield may give up or decrease its reliance on Maple Spring Run 

because of the expense of providing water treatment and filtration to this surface water 

supply (see "Community Water Supply Systems" in Chapter 2, Section 10). The 

"Beekmantown" limestone near Fairfield is said to be a high-yield aquifer although the water 

may be very hard. The "Metarhyolite" and "Metabasalt", in parts of Liberty and 

Hamiltonban Townships, may have lower yields but the water is likely to be soft. There is 

also some Triassic formation in the area which may prove to provide adequate yields and 

acceptable water quality. A circle of Diabase underlies parts of Liberty and Freedom 

Townships - a formation that should be avoided when seeking new well locations. 

Western and Northwestern Areas - Aspen, Arendtsville, Bendemille and Biglerville: A very 

complex geology underlies the hilly and mountainous areas along the western and 

northwestern portions of the county. The "fruit belt" is underlain primarily by Metarhyolite 

with some Triassic formations. Well yields can be adequate to plentiful with acceptable 

3-9-9

water quality. Even so, well locations must be carefully selected in Hamiltonban, Franklin, 

Menallen, Butler, and Tyrone Townships. The municipal water supplies in this area depend 

on groundwater wells and springs, and are approaching their capacities except for 

Bendersville, which appears to have sufficient capacity for future growth. 

Water Supply Development Plan 

&sting BorouPhs and Vicinities: A total of about 7,000 new housing units are projected 

in and around existing boroughs in the Land Use Plan (Figure 3.3.1). This implies the need 

for an additional 2.1 mgd of water supply capacity at 100 gallons per person per day and 3 

persons per housing unit. There may be a need for additional storage and fire fighting 

capacity in some of the boroughs. The need for additional water supply capacity is 

illustrated in Figure 3.9.4. 

Significant development is anticipated to be centered primarily around Gettysburg, 

Littlestown, Bonneauville, McSherrystown, New Oxford, and York Springs Boroughs. 

McSherrystown would have to negotiate with Hanover Borough in York County to obtain 

additional water supply allocations, while New Oxford should have adequate surface water 

capacity when its expansion to 1.3 mgd from Conewago Creek is completed. York Springs 

appears to have adequate reserve capacity at this time. Gettysburg and Bonneauville 

Boroughs should be experienced in facing the need for planning new or expanded 

centralized water supply and wastewater treatment systems through the Act 537 planning 

process, and should be able to cope with the development pressure. As noted above, there 

should generally be sufficient groundwater resources near these two boroughs to meet the 

anticipated increase in housing units. However, there may be problems with systems 

expansion in terms of finding specific well locations with adequate yields and acceptable 

water quality. 

In addition, Arendtmille, Bendersville, Biglerville, Carroll Valley, East Berlin, and Fairfield 

would also need to plan for expansion of their municipal facilities to meet planned 

development needs. Carroll Valley might have the most difficulty in meeting these needs. 

As noted above and in Chapter 2, Section 10, Fairfield may come to rely more heavily or 

completely on additional groundwater sources, rather than on its Maple Spring Run surface 

water supply - the Beekmantown limestone formation may be the best area in which to seek 

new wells. Bendersville and East Berlin currently appear to have adequate reserve capacity. 

In Straban Township, east of the intersection of US Routes 15 and 30, an overall plan is 

needed for water supply and sewage treatment for the Hunterstown-Shrivers Comer area. 

The water supply might be available from an expanded Gettysburg system. 

New Center-Asso ciated U nits: In addition to the borough-focused growth areas, the Land 

Use Plan indicates selected other centers as designated new locations for growth. The idea 

of creating these new "mini-boroughs" is very attractive from a variety of perspectives; 

however, it will take a major effort to find water supplies for all of them. About 3,000 

3-9- 10

Figure 3.9.4a 

Countywide Centralized 

Water Supply & 

Watewater Treatment, 

1990 and 2010 

(Millions of GaUons per Day) 

MGD 

9. 

8. 

7. 

6 

. 

5. 

4 

3 

2- 

1- 

Current Central 

Systems 

New Central 

U Systems 

1990 2010 

Figure 3.9.4b 

New Housing Units Needing Water Supply 

a 

w 

m 

f 

z 

WPE OF HOUSING UNITS 

3-9- 11

housing units are projected for such areas, requiring a total of approximately 0.9 mgd of new 

water supply. Except possibly in the New Oxford area, where extensions to the surface 

water supply system might be possible, most of this new water supply capacity is likely to 

come from new municipal or cornunity wells tapping groundwater sources. This will take 

a major effort in searching for fracture traces in the Triassic formations and for exploiting 

the information in available documents' on existing acceptable-yield, acceptable-quality wells 

in other formations near the intended new-center developments. If ten new centers are 

planned, each of roughly equal size, well fields producing about 90,OOO gallons per day (gpd) 

or 65 gallons per minute (gprn) would be required. 

1 

I 

Villaee and Count Clusten: For the "non-growth" portions of the county, the Land Use 

and Housing Plans envision low-intensity residential uses. "Village Clusters" of around 130 

residential housing units each, and "Country Clusters" of about 15 residential housing units 

each are planned, for a total of around 2,400 units. This implies the need for an additional 

0.7 mgd of groundwater resources senring some 100 new well fields. Where these housing 

unit clusters could tie into existing water supply systems, it generally would be economical 

to do so, but this action would add to the need for additional capacity for the present urban 

centers. Otherwise, the normal practice is for a developer to connect the housing units to 

a community well for water supply. Each Village Cluster would require a well field 

producing an average of 39,000 gpd or 27 gpm. Two to three average wells in the Triassic 

formation or one well in the Conestoga formation should be sufficient to produce this yield. 

The Country Clusters would require only about 4,500 gpd or 3 gpm, which should be 

available from an average well almost anywhere in the county outside of Diabase 

formations. 

s h& 

i i 1 ni : The Land Use and Housing Plans include about 

1,500 additional residential housing units that are envisioned for primarily single-family 

detached residential units spread throughout the county. Presumably, each of these would 

be sited on roughly at least an acre of land and would have an independent water supply 

well and on-lot septic tank and drain field wastewater treatment system. 

Dispersing these residential units at an average density of roughly one dwelling unit per acre 

would appear to present few problems within the 336,000 acres of Adams County. However, 

given the existing problems with rural water quality and the many areas with soils having 

moderate-to-severe on-site sewage percolation problems, siting each new unit may require 

experienced well drillers and possibly experts in hydrology, hydrogeology, soils, and septic 

tank siting. Developers and residents of these units will face the problems already 

encountered by anyone planning to build a home in the rural or suburban areas of the 

county to find a reliable, uncontaminated groundwater source with a yield of 0.2 to 1 gprn 

and not containing too high a level of hardness. 

The most favorable areas, from the standpoint of potential well yields of adequate water 

quantity and quality and good septic tank drain field "percability" for a single-family 

residence, are in Conewago, Union, and parts of Germany Townships in the southeastern 

3-9-12

1 

L 

L 

I 

1 

I 

II 

I 

I 

part of the county, and in the fruit-belt areas in the northeastern part of the county, 

including much of Menallen and Franklin Townships. These areas have satisfactory-tomoderate 

sewage percolation rates and water wells with adequate yields. The groundwater 

in the northeast is generally soft, but is generally hard in the southeast and may require 

water softening units. Although the fruit-belt is favorable for residential development from 

a water supply/wastewater treatment standpoint and the area may come under increased 

pressure for development, the Plan envisions strong land use controls for preservation of 

orchard areas. 

Surface Water Resources 

Only five communities in Adams County obtain portions of their water supplies from surface 

water sources (Gettysburg, New Word, Fairfield, Littlestown, and McShenystown/Midway - 

Hanover Borough). Federal and State regulations require treatment and filtration of surface 

water supplies to prevent bacterial, amoebic, chemical, and suspended solid contamination 

from entering any public water supply distribution system. These treatment steps may add 

to the cost of surface water supply, relative to groundwater supply, but the large volume of 

water potentially available from the creeks, streams, and rivers of Adams County represents 

an extremely valuable future resource. The 7.45 mgd "safe yield of the Conewago Creek 

potentially available to the New Oxford Municipal Authority, over twice the current daily 

usage of all municipal water supplies in the county, is a case in point. 

The reasons for considering surface water reservoirs for additional water supplies include: 

(1) the failure of many wells to deliver the required yields; (2) increasing pollution of 

groundwater detected in many areas; (3) a need for increased quantities of irrigation water 

during periods of drought; (4) a need to augment stream flow during periods of drought; 

(5) the lack of adequate fire protection in many communities and rural areas; (6) growing 

demand for water-borne recreation; and (7) the opportunity to plan ahead for water supply 

sources to meet growing needs in areas where the groundwater resource is likely to become 

over-utilized (see Section 10 of Chapter 2). 

However, new surface water supplies from potential multi-purpose reservoirs are not 

recommended for inclusion in the Plan at this time. Given the wide availability of 

groundwater resources and their relatively low percentage of utilization (even though wells 

occasionally run dry and new wells occasionally fail to provide sufficient water for their 

intended use), it is recommended that the creation of additional surface water 

impoundments and their use by municipal water supply systems be deferred. 

Further reasons for this decision are as follows: Although creation of one or more 

reservoirs could be considered prudent from a water resource standpoint, consideration must 

also be given to the ecological and socioeconomic impact of dams and reservoirs. Since the 

196Os, dams proposed in Adams County as well as other parts of the country have become 

the focal point of strong opposition from local residents who would be most affected by 

3-9-13

eservoirs. Despite the advantages enumerated above, reservoir impoundments flood 

wetlands, farms, forests and, in some cases, residences, thereby displacing ecological habitats, 

agricultural and timber resources, and perhaps people. The recreational values created by 

the impoundment can cause increased traffic on limited-capacity roads, and the improved 

availability of water can stimulate residential and commercial growth. 

This recommendation to forego additional reservoirs at this time could potentially adversely 

affect opportunities for future growth in many areas of the county beyond the twenty-year 

horizon of this Plan. Therefore, this Plan is recommending that selected areas, which have 

been identified as prime locations for reservoirs, be protected from residential, commercial, 

and industrial encroachment for the next ten years, and that this recommendation be 

reviewed at that time as part of the regular county comprehensive plan updating process. 

These areas are intended not to conflict with potential areas identified for expanded 

boroughs or new centers. 

These potential locations for reservoirs could be protected from development by municipal 

zoning ordinances that create zones specifically for future water supply, or that create zones 

for scenic easements, zones for environmentally-sensitive areas, or zones for agriculture with 

a proviso that water supply reservoirs are a future possibility. Alternatively, design controls 

could be enacted by each municipality that would preserve the key elements of the area 

intended as a reservoir, including limits on commercial and industrial facilities and multifamily 

housing developments. These design controls would require that future development 

take into account the potential for future reservoir creation, with the possibility of flooding 

in a specific area. As an option, a municipality could arrange to "trade" development rights 

between an area in the municipality to be reserved for water supply reservoir and an area 

more suited for development. In other cases, water supply easements could be sought along 

stream channels to provide for modest storage capacity rather than for a major reservoir. 

As noted in Chapter 2, Section 10, ten locations were identified in the original Adams 

County Comprehensive Plan that might become useful for surface water supplies. Six sites 

were identified that might offer potential as multi-purpose impounding areas for flood 

control, domestic and industrial water supply, fire protection, irrigation, and recreation: 

Site 22 - Pine Run in Hamilton Township; 

Site 42 - Conewago Creek in Buchanan Valley; 

Site 48 - Alloway Creek in Germany and Mount Joy Townships; 

Site 67 - Little Marsh Creek in Highland Township; 

Site 73 - Middle Creek in Liberty Township; 

Site 74 - Middle Creek in Freedom Township. 

Four sites were identified for potential flood control, limited recreation, and irrigation for 

farm crops: 

Site 14 - Bermudian Creek in Huntingdon Township; 

3-9- 14

1 

I 

Site 16 - Bermudian Creek in Tyrone Township; 

Site 29 - Plum Run in Reading Township; 

Site 59 - Rock Creek in Cumberland and Straban Townships. 

It is recommended that the above-named townships make a determination, as part of the 

implementation of the Plan, as to whether industrial, commercial, or residential 

development should be restricted in the area of these sites that would be flooded by the 

construction of a reservoir impoundment for the uses mentioned. The townships should 

further determine whether steps need to be taken now to protect those sites from 

development, or whether action in the nature of zoning or other development restrictions 

could safely be deferred. 

Protection of Well-Head and Aquifer Rech&ge Areas 

Contamination of water supplies is a major problem throughout Pennsylvania and the entire 

country. Frequently, the problem can be traced to leaking underground storage tanks (most 

often old tanks under gasoline stations), former dumps, or spills of industrial chemicals. 

This problem exists in Adams County near the "Superfund" sites north of Gettysburg and 

in Union Township. An even greater problem in Adams County is contamination of 

groundwater supplies from malfunctioning septic tank systems. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a document 

providing guidelines to local communities to address some of these contamination 

problems Tools outlined include specific zoning regulations, environmental-protection or 

sensitive-area easements, and design controls on commercial, industrial, and multi-family 

residential development (Table 3.9.1). One specific approach to protecting a well-head 

using "overlay zoning" is illustrated in Figure 3.9.5. 

These tools are primarily useful for protecting the immediate area around a well-head. The 

problem of protecting a broad area contributing to the recharge of an entire aquifer is more 

difficult, since many square miles of land are often involved. However, Adams County is 

particularly well-suited for instituting such controls since large areas are currently in 

agriculture or forest, open space, wetlands and flood plains, or have scenic vistas. In the 

process of protecting such areas, aquifer protection can be either a by-product or a direct 

result of protective zoning, easements, or other types of controls. The use of an agricultural 

preservation area as an aquifer recharge protection area is illustrated in Figure 3.9.5. 

Protection of aquifers from malfunctioning septic tanks may be accomplished through design 

controls for on-lot systems and ongoing efforts by Sewage Enforcement Officers (SEOs). 

Of particular concern will be ensuring that effluent from any sewage "package plant" does 

not contribute to groundwater contamination. 

3-9-15

Table 39.1 

Choosing Appropriate Took for Well-Head Protection 

Overview 

A number oE commonly used land-use conuol, 

source controls, and other cools have been found 

to be useful for protecting wellhead areas. A- 

though most of these took have been used craditionaily 

for other purposes, many are now beq 

used to protea ground water. 

This section describes briefly some took used 

successfully by lod governments throughou the 

country for ground-water protection. The purpose 

here is to introduce these took, explain how they 

have been used in the past, how communities un 

fud innovarive ways to apply them to wellhead 

protecrion arcas, and what considerations 

communities should be aware oi in adapting and 

implcmcnring them. This ducussion is not an 

exhaustive review, bur simply M introduction to 

what is available and what to look for. For more 

informauon, check the written sources hted in 

Section 5 or contact EP.4 or State ground-water 

prorxcion agenaes. 

The management took described here are: 

Zoning Ordinances 

Zouing ordinances 

rypidy are comprehensive land-use 

requirements desiped to dxea the development 

of an area. Many local governments have used 

zomq to restrict or repiate certain land uses 

within weUhead proteaion arcas.. 

Subdivision Ordinances Subdivision 

ordinances are applied to land that is divided into 

wo or more subumts cor sale or dcve: 90 p ment. 

Local governments use this tool to protect wellhead 

areas in which ongoing development is causing 

contamination or there is inadequate well recharge. 

Site Plan Review 

Site plan reviews 

YC rcqlations requiring developers to submit for 

approval plans for development occurring within a 

given area. This tool ensuns compliance with 

reguhtionr or ocher requirements made within a 

wellhead protection area. 

Dcsip Shndards Design standards 

rypicaUy are regulations that apply to the des@ 

and construction of buildings or structures. This 

tool un be used to ensure that new building or 

structures placed within a wellhead protection area 

are desiped so a not to pose 3 threat to the 

water supply. 

Openting Stnndards 

Operating 

standards are reflations that apply to ongoing 

land-use activities to promote saiety or environmental 

protection. Such standards can miairnu: 

the threat to the wellhead htea from ongoin3 

activiries, such as the application of agidturd 

pesticides or the storage and use of hazardous 

substances. 

SOW Prohibitions Source 

prohibitions are regulations that prohibit the 

presence or use of chemicals or hazardous activities 

within a given yea. Local governments have used 

restrictions on the storage or handline of large 

quantities of hazardous materids within a wellhead 

protection area to eliminate the threat of 

contamination. 

Purchase of Property or Development Rights 

The purchase of property or deve!opment 

rights is a tool used by some localities to 

ensure complete convoi of land uses in or surroundiaq 

a wellhead area. This tool may be 

preferable if regulatory restrictions on land use are 

not politicaily feasible and the land purchase is 

affordable. 

Public Education 

Public eduution 

often consists of brochures, pamphkts, or seminars 

designed to present wellhead area problems and 

protection efforts to the public in an 

understandable fashion. This tool promotes the 

use ot' voluntary protection efforts and builds public 

support for a community's protection proyam. 

Ground-Water Monitorinq Groundwater 

monitoring generally consists of sinking a 

series of tesr wells and developing an ongoing 

water quality resting program. This tool provides 

for monitoring the quality of the ground-water 

supply or the movement ot a contaminant plume. 

Household Hazardous Waste Collection 

Residential hazardous waste 

management programs can be designed to reduce 

the quantitv of household hazardous 'GISCC being 

disposed of improperly. This program has been 

used in localities where municipal landfills 

potentially threaten ground water due to improper 

household waste diposal in the wellhead area. 

Water Conservation 

Water conservation 

can encourage individual or commercial/ 

industrial users to limit their water use. 

3-9-16

Figure 3.9.5 

Well-Head Protection Using "Overlay Zoning" 

- 

Municipat 

Scale: 1" = 1 mile 

Legend: 

Water SUPPIY Well 

Overlay District 

3-9-17

Stormwater Management 

The EPA has recently published regulations regarding stormwater discharges, in order to 

prevent problems from erosion, sedimentation, flooding, pollution, and other results of 

improper consideration of stormwater control and management! 

Although the federal regulations do not require any formal action on the part of Adam 

County: they do raise the issue as to whether adequate consideration of stormwater has 

taken place throughout the county and its municipalities. 

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has recently enacted Act 167, the Stormwater 

Management Act, which requires the preparation of stormwater management plans for all 

watersheds - the Monocacy and the Conewago in the case of Adam County. Grant funds 

from PaDER may be forthcoming upon the completion and adoption of this Plan. In 

consideration of the Land Use Plan put forward in this Plan, the Conewago watershed 

should be the first priority for development of a comprehensive stormwater management 

plan (also see Section 10 of this chapter). 

Several other counties in Pennsylvania are taking action to study the adequacy of stormwater 

control and management measures and structures on specific creeks streams and rivers. The 

consequences of severe flooding from major storms can be so devastating that regular 

evaluation of the adequacy of stormwater management and control is a prudent step in 

implementing any comprehensive plan. As development continues, stomwater runoff 

patterns and amounts can change so that previously adequate structures may no longer 

handle the flow volume and rate of discharge. Also, the structures themselves may erode, 

corrode, and wear out over the course of time. 

It is recommended that ah municipalities identify stormwater management and control 

structures that may need repair or replacement, as well as stream segments that may need 

clearing, riprap, bank improvements or other measures to handle anticipated stormwater 

flows that may occur over the course of the next ten to twenty years. 

Water Conservation 

A value of 100 gallons per person per day is a rough estimate of the amount of water used 

in Adam County. This value is not unlike average values for other parts of Pennsylvania 

and the country - however, lower amounts of water consumption could be achieved through 

various water conservation measures. Each gallon per day saved is one less gpm that must 

be provided by the local water authority or on-site well. This saving also means that one 

less gpm is required for wastewater treatment in central municipal systems. Furthermore, 

if less hot water is used in the home, office, or industrial facility, significant energy savings 

can be achieved. All of these savings can add up to appreciable cost savings to individual 

residents as well as to municipalities. 

3-9-18

I 

L 

a 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

h 

I 

A number of water conservation measures are widely-advertised and widely-available, from 

low-flow shower heads to low-flush toilets. Numerous municipalities throughout the country 

have enacted ordinances or local plumbing codes requiring such devices or measures in new 

construction. It is a recommendation of this Plan that each municipality in Adams County 

consider enacting such ordinances, codes, or other measures to achieve further reductions 

in water use. 

Sewerage - Se rvice Plan Element 

Wastewater Treatment Development Plan 

There are twenty-one municipal centralized sewage collection and treatment systems 

currently operating in Adams County. These are discussed in Chapter 2, Section 10 and 

illustrated in Figure 2.10.3. All of these municipal systems, except Orrtanna, discharge their 

treated effluent into a creek or stream. 

Land application of treated effluent, as undertaken by Orrtanna, is an alternative to stream 

discharge, either by spray or drip irrigation, by settling pond, or by underground drainage 

field. For Adams County, land application may merit additional consideration into the 

future, since the assimilative capacity of the county's creeks and streams is limited (see 

Chapter 2, Section 10). Land application has the added benefit of supporting conservation 

of agricultural lands, by encouraging the retention of agricultural areas adjacent to new 

housing clusters or newly-developing centers. 

As was noted in Chapter 2, Section 10, about half of the current population of Adams 

County is served by on-site sewage treatment systems. A brief indication of the ability of 

the various soil types found in Adams County to "perc" successfully was given in Chapter 2, 

Section 10. It should be noted, however, that wide variations in "perc-ability" occur from 

place-to-place within each soil type and even from one particular spot on a site to another. 

Municipalities in areas of moderate-to-severe limitations on percolation may wish to enact 

ordinances requiring more than one "perc" test on a potential housing lot to ensure that the 

possibility of early malfunction of the septic tank drain field is minimized. Early discussions 

with the Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO) are extremely important for anyone 

contemplating building in Adams County. 

ExistinP BorouPhs a nd Vicinities: A total of about 7,000 new housing units are projected 

in and around existing boroughs in the Land Use Plan (Figure 3.3.1). This implies the need 

for an additional 2.1 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity at 100 gallons per person per 

day and 3 persons per housing unit. Actually, somewhat additional wastewater treatment 

capacity would be needed because of infiltration and inflow (MI) into the sewer lines. The 

need for additional sewage treatment capacity is illustrated in Figure 3.9.6. 

Significant development is anticipated to be centered primarily in and around Gettysburg, 

3-9-19

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1 om 

/- 

/- 

/- 

/- 

/- 

/ 

Figure 3.9.6 

Wmtewater Treatment Systems for Nay Housing Units, 1990-2010 

I 

1 

i% 

A5 CLUSTER (PACKAGE PUNTS) 1 

4 

5 

., 4 

I 

s 

jg 

.7 

3 

ts 

,* s._- 

NDlVlDUAL ONSITE 

-+ 

. 

I 

I 

e 

rl 

I 

D 

I 

I 

I 

I 

TYPE OF HOUSING UNITS 

3-9-20

I 

I 

h 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Littlestown, Bonneauville, McSherrystown, New Oxford, and York Springs Boroughs. There 

may be problems with expansion of the sewage treatment plants in terms of meeting effluent 

standards of receiving streams and maintaining water quality goals. Tertiary treatment, if 

required, could be expensive. Extension of sewer lines and the addition of pumping stations 

and interceptor lines, if needed, can add appreciably to the cost of providing centralized 

wastewater service to areas outside of existing service areas in the boroughs. 

If on-lot septic tank systems are preferred for development in outlying areas, these systems 

may run into problems with suitability of soils for individual or multiple septic systems in 

the areas described in Chapter 2, Section 10 as having "moderate-to-severe" limitations. 

In addition, Arendtsville, Bendersville, Biglerville, Carroll Valley, East Berlin, and Fairfield 

would also need to plan for expansion of their municipal facilities to meet planned 

development needs. Carroll Valley might have the most difficulty in meeting these needs. 

As noted previously, in East Berlin one sewage treatment plant is currently discharging into 

Conewago Creek; the nearby Pine Run Mobile Home Park has received a permit for a 

second wastewater treatment plant; and a third plant has been proposed by Appalachian 

Realty - all to discharge into Conewago Creek within 100 yards of one another. 

In Straban Township, east of the intersection of US Routes 15 and 30, an overall plan is 

needed for water supply and sewage treatment that would include the Hunterstown-Shriven 

Comer area, where several residential and commercial septic tank/drain field systems are 

malfunctioning because the soil has poor percolation capabilities. In Berwick Township, on 

the south side of US Route 30 east of Cross Keys and in the Green Springs area, there are 

serious malfunctions of on-lot septic tank systems. This is also true in Huntington Township 

along Route 234 and along Gun Club Road southwest of Carlisle Pike. Similar known 

problems exist in Mt. Pleasant Township, about 1/4 to 1/2 mile north of Bonneauville along 

Bon-Ox Road; in Reading Township, in Germany Court and along Rife Road, about 1-1/2 

miles northwest of East Berlin, and in Tyrone Township, along Upper Bermudian Road 

about 1/2 mile north of its intersection with Lime Rock Road. 

New Center-Associated Units: As with providing water supplies, the idea of creating new 

"mini-boroughs" is very attractive from the point of view of sewage treatment; however, it 

will take a major effort to provide adequate wastewater treatment capacity for all of them. 

A total of about 3,000 housing units are projected for such areas, requiring a total of 

approximately 0.9 mgd of additional wastewater treatment capacity (plus provision for I & 

I). Where these housing units could tie into existing water supply and wastewater treatment 

systems, it would generally be economical to do so, adding to the need for additional 

capacity (noted above) for the present urban centers. However, in specific cases, the costs 

of the additional sewer lines, pumps, and interceptors might be prohibitive. 

Given the current water quality of most streams in Adams County, and the State water 

quality standards for those streams', many developers may have difficulty in obtaining the 

necessary "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES) permit from DER. 

3-9-21 

b 

I

Three other options are available: (1) Underground drainage and dispersal of treated 

sewage effluent; (2) Spray irrigation of treated sewage effluent; and (3) Creation of wetlands 

for nutrient absorption and removal. Option (1) is limited in many areas, as noted 

previously, by the percolation capabilities of the soil and the depth to groundwater to allow 

drainage and dispersal of the treated sewage. Option (2) is finding more and more favor, 

but requires the acceptance and agreement of nearby landowners to ailow spraying on their 

land and crops. Spray irrigation also requires a lagoon or other holding area for the treated 

effluent during freezing conditions in winter and at other times when spraying is not feasible. 

The land area needed for spray irrigation systems has been estimated to be as follows: 

TYPE OF SOIL 

"PERCABILITY" m m s 

Slight Limitations 

Moderate Limitations 

Severe Limitations 

Hazardous Locations 

5 Acres 

9 Acres 

18 Acres 

(Not Feasible) 

Option (3) requires dedicating an area to wetlands use or creation, and exhibits similar 

constraints to Option (2) with respect to discharge during various times of the year when 

vegetation dozs not take up nitrate and phosphate nutrients. The area of wetlands needed 

would depend on the type of vegetation present in the wetlands, the slope or rate of flow 

of the water through the wetlands, the degree of nutrient removal required to meet water 

quality standards in the receiving stream, and other variables. Option (3) would be 

considered to be an innovative and experimental wastewater treatment system in Adams 

County, since its applicability and overall efficiency have not been established for such an 

upland area. 

V-s u r : The "Village Clusters" of around 130 residential housing units 

each and "Country Clusters" of about 15 residential housing units each envisioned by the 

Land Use Plan for %on-growth" portions of the county imply the need for approximately an 

additional 0.7 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity. Again, where these housing unit 

clusters could tie into existing wastewater treatment systems, it would be economical to do 

so, adding to the need for additional capacity noted above for the present urban centers. 

Otherwise, the normal practice is for a developer to connect the housing units to a 

community well for water supply and to a "package plant" for wastewater treatment. (The 

package plant is a small sewage treatment plant which ordinarily discharges treated sewage 

into a nearby stream.) As noted above, other options for handling the treated effluent 

include underground drainage, spray irrigation, or use of wetlands. 

Scattered Single-Familv Residential Units: About 1,500 new housing units are envisioned 

for primarily single-family detached residential units spread throughout the county. 

3-9-22 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

el 

w

I 

I 

h 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

Presumably, each of these would be sited on roughly at least two acres of land and would 

have its own water supply well and on-lot septic tank and drain field wastewater treatment 

system. "Sand mound systems, in which the septic tank effluent is piped and/or pumped 

into a mound of sand somewhere on the residential lot for evaporation and transpiration 

of the water, have been widely used in Adams County where the normal soil is unsuitable 

for percolation or where there is a high seasonal water table interfering with septic tank 

drainage. 

Dispersing these residential units at an average density of less than one unit per two acres 

would appear to be no problem within the 336,000 acres of Adam County. However, given 

the existing problems in many areas with soils having moderate-to-severe on-site sewage 

percolation problems, siting each new unit may require experts in soils, hydrology, 

hydrogeology, soils, and septic tank siting. Guidance from SEOs will also be necessary. 

Residential developers will face the same problems already encountered by anyone planning 

to build a home in the rural or suburban areas of the county to find a site that "percs" 

adequately or on which a sand mound or other type of wastewater treatment and drainage 

system can be installed. 

The most favorable areas from the standpoint of percolation for individual on-lot septic tank 

drain field systems are in Conewago, Union, and parts of Germany Townships in the 

southeastern part of the county, and in the fruit-belt areas in the northeastern part of the 

county, including much of Menallen and Franklin Townships. These areas have satisfactoryto-moderate 

sewage percolation rates and water wells with adequate yields. As noted above 

("Water Supply Development Plan"), increased residential development in the agricultural 

and fruit-belt areas is not encouraged in the Land Use Plan. 

Sewage Sludge and Septage 

Chapter 2, Section 10 described the current status of the generation and disposal of sewage 

sludge and septage. As noted there, as of 1987,206 tons of dry sludge and 1,210,000 gallons 

of liquid sludge were being generated annually in Adam County. These amounts are 

projected to increase within 10 years to 540 tons of dry material and 1,850,000 gallons of 

liquid wastes. Three York County municipalities send their sewage sludge to Adam County 

for land application, and a number of other out-of-county municipalities may do likewise. 

Although there are a number of facilities in or near the county that dispose of sewage 

sludge by landfilling or incineration, and considerable amounts of septage are accepted by 

in-county sewage treatment plants, the increased use of agricultural lands for spreading both 

sewage sludge and septage is encouraged by this Plan. To a certain extent the sludge or 

septage can replace inorganic fertilizers, thus saving the farmer expenses for commercial 

fertilizers. The nitrogen content can range from 1% to 8% and the phosphorous content 

from 1% to lo%, making the material very useful for its fertilizing power. Also, the dry or 

semi-dry material assists as a soil conditioner. 

3-9-23 

b 

I

Solid Waste 

The Adams County Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan, developed by the Adams 

County Solid Waste Authority, Adams County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and the 

Adams County Office of Planning and Development in 1989 and approved by a majority of 

the municipalities and the Adams County Commissioners, forms the basis for future 

municipal trash disposal. Agreements with operators of disposal facilities to ensure 

adequate disposal capacity in the future are critical to the success of the Adam County 

Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan Estimates of the amounts of solid wastes 

generated in Adams County, and other aspects of solid waste, are discussed at length in 

Chapter 2, Section 10. 

The quantity of refuse to be disposed can be greatly reduced through recycling (see Chapter 

2, Section 10). Under Pennsylvania Act 101, which became effective on September 26,1988, 

at least 25% of all municipal waste and source-separated recyclable materials are to be 

recycled by 1997, and all municipalities above 5,000 population are to develop a source 

separation and collection program for recyclable materials by September 26, 1991. 

The County should vigorously promote recycling. As a measure of the kinds of waste stream 

reductions that may be achieved, a set of calculations has been made to determine how 

much recycling is possible to accomplish under various future conditions, and what the 

impact of that degree of recycling would be on municipal solid waste generation and 

disposal in Adams County. The State goal of reducing the amounts of solid waste by 25% 

through recycling by 1997 is a feasible goal for Adam County to meet. 

Clearly also, there are important economies possible through recycling. Savings are 

significant, both in tern of avoided tipping fees at processing or disposal facilities and a 

reduction in the need for additional processing or disposal capacity. 

Utilities Policies 

I. Assirit municipalities in the review an update of water supply and wastewater treatment 

fwi1itie.s plans, consiritent with the Growth Management Plan and its projected 

distribution of population, sentices, and industry. 

2 Assist municipalities in the preparation and adoption of regulations for well-head 

protection. 

3. Evaluate '>echatge" areas and encourage land use policies to ensure protection of water 

3-9-24 

I 

I 

e 

II 

1 

I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

a 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

e 

0 

I

supply wells. 

4. 

Promote water conservation regulations. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

'I 

I 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Monitor the need for future surface water reservoirs and determine measures to preserve 

potential reservoir sites. 

Review and evaluate stormwater management facilities and procedures. 

Enact regulations and adopt programs for increased recycling of residential and 

CornmerCial solid waste. 

Water Supply Study of Adam County Pennsylvania", Robert Herbstritt, Center for Local and State Government, April 27, 1990. 

"Water Redounxs Report 52" with accompanying map 'Geologic Map of Adam County, Pennsylvania, Showing Locations of Springs 

and Wells", by Lawrrnce E. Taylor and Denise, W. Royer, Commonwealth of Penwyivania, Department of Environmental Resources, 

Bureau of Topogmphic and Geologic Survey, 1981. 

3* 'State Water Plan - Sub-Basin T, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Depamnent of Environmental Resources, June 1979. 

"State Water Ptan - Sub-Basin 13'. Commonwealth of Pennsyivania. Department of Environmental Resources, February 1980. 

' 'Local Tools for Well-Head Protection", U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Groundwater Protection, Washington, D. 

c 20460,1990. 

' 'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges; Final Rule", U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 122, U3, and 124, Federal Register Vol 55, No. 222, Friday, November 16,1990, pp 47990 - 

48075. 

'. The regulations apply to specific municipalities in Pennsylvania and to industrial activity. Adam County should be aware of any 

applications for NPDES Storm Water Dsfharge Permits by major industries located within the county. 

a Pennsylvania Bulletin Volume 21, Number U, Saturday, April 13,1991, Environmental Quality Board Reformatting of Stream Drainage 

Lis& pages 1649-1788. 

3-9-25

I 

I 

a 

L 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

SECTION 10: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN 

Introduction 

The environmental protection element of the Growth Management Plan identifies specific 

areas in the county which are environmentally sensitive, including floodplains, wetlands, 

aquifer recharge and wellhead areas, and other critical natural features. It also addresses 

wildlife and plants, and stormwater management. Information presented on these subjects 

is based on several sources: The US Army Corps of Engineers’ 100-Year Floodplain 

designation prepared for the National Flood Insurance Program; the National Wetlands 

Inventory undertaken by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Resources; the Adams County Soil Survey prepared by the US Department 

of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service; United States Geological Survey quadrangle series 

maps; Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Species of Concern maps; and 1987 

aerial photography. Areas that have been mapped include floodplains, wetlands, hydric 

soils, steep slopes, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. (See Figures 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 

2.4.4, and 2.4.5.) 

These classes of environmentally-sensitive features are not uniform in their impact on 

development potential nor in what they represent as hazards to human life and property. 

There are levels of sensitivity, suggesting corresponding levels of response. 

Floodplains 

The first and most specific level is represented by the 100-year floodplain designated by the 

federal government (Figure 2.4.2). There is clear authority for a complete prohibition of 

development within designated floodplains, and a set of standards for regulating design and 

construction within floodplains so as to prevent exacerbation of the flood hazard. Floodprone 

soils, identified by the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey, at times do not 

correspond precisely with the federal floodplain designations. The flood-prone soils, so 

classified because of their alluvial nature, indicating that they were deposited by floodwaters, 

reflect not only 100-year floods but also floods of lesser frequency. Where flood-prone soils 

lie outside the federally-designated areas, the burden of proof should be on land developers 

to demonstrate by specific on-site tests, engineering analysis, and analysis of effects of 

impervious cover percentages of upstream development that could increase flow levels, that 

the generalized soil classification is in error for the specific site or that any construction will 

be designed to avoid any possibility of creating a hazard to human life and property or 

exacerbating local flooding. Thus as a matter of policy the flood-prone soils initially should 

be subject to all of the development restrictions of the land within the 100-year floodplain. 

The Hydrology map for Adams County (Figure 2.4.2) is an extremely important resource 

for the County. The information represented, particularly with respect to floodplains, was 

3-10-1

not available at the time of the original Adams County Comprehensive Plan preparation, 

and could not be used as a determinant for land use planning. By contrast, the extent and 

pattern of floodplains has been strongly influential in shaping the current Land Use Plan 

for the county. Implementation of the Land Use Plan (Figure 3.3.1), as well as the 

preservation of environmentally-sensitive resources, will rely to a considerable degree on the 

protection of the widespread network of floodplains across the county. The County should 

be vigdant in preserving floodplains and in encouraging townships and boroughs to do the 

same. 

Stormwater Management 

Stormwater management and flood and erosion control along Adams County’s creek and 

stream corridors are linked to upstream land development practices. Future development 

of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses may result in increased discharge 

rates into these creeks during and following major storms. The County, with funding 

assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, should initiate 

watershed studies with the participation of relevant municipalities. These studies should 

focus on potential effects of land development upon discharge rates into creeks and streams, 

and should lead to model subdivision and land development regulations to assure that 

developments use the best available technology to minimize off-site stormwater runoff, 

increase on-site infiltration, minimize off-site discharge of pollutants, and encourage natural 

filtration functions. Best available technology may include measures such as detention and 

retention basins, recharge trenches, porous paving and piping, contour terraces, and swales. 

It is essential that local land development regulations be based on watershed-wide 

considerations. 

I 

d 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Wetlands 

Another important level of environmental sensitivity is represented by wetlands; generally 

areas within forested lands with a high water table and poor drainage, and having some 

degree of surface ponding during the year (Figure 2.4.2). Under the jurisdiction of the US 

Army Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Environmental Resources, there is 

at the present time a steadily evolving regulatory framework concerning wetlands in 

Pennsylvania; mandating wetland surveys by developers of land and controlling the degree 

and type of wetland disturbance permitted. Counties and municipalities can provide longterm 

wetlands protection by directing development away from these areas, by encouraging 

clustered construction on higher ground surrounding wetlands, and by purchasing wetlands 

important to protecting local floodplains or ecological systems. 

The Growth Management Plan permanent open space system incorporates a variety of 

natural resource areas, including floodplains and significant wetlands, where known. 

3- 10-2

Aquifer Recharge and Well Head Areas 

As outlined in Chapter 2, Section 10, and Section 9 of this chapter, groundwater is the 

source of most residents' drinking water in Adams County, and is projected to remain so 

through the planning period. It is therefore essential that zoning and other land 

development regulations be employed to protect well heads and aquifer recharge areas. 

Well head protection zones should extend at least 1/4 mile from each major water supply 

well, prohibiting within the zone commercial, industrial, or other facilities that might pollute 

the well. Protection of each well's aquifer should be ensured by limiting the type of 

development permitted throughout the recharge area (also see Section 9 of this chapter). 

Potential future locations for surface water reservoirs may also be preserved by enacting 

local zoning regulations that prohibit new development in designated areas (see Section 9 

of this chapter). 

Wildlife and Plants 

According to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, except 

for occasional transient species, no federally-listed or -proposed threatened or endangered 

species are known to exist in the copty. Several animal and plant species on state 

threatened or endangered lists have been observed in the county at dates varying from the 

1920s through 1990. More recent sightings have been mapped in an extremely general way 

by the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (Figure 2.4.4), and this information should 

be consulted by the County when reviewing proposed development. Where there is a 

suspicion that threatened or endangered habitats or species may be present, more detailed 

field studies should be undertaken by the developer. 

Other Natural Features 

A further level of environmental sensitivity includes the following resources: Mature 

woodlands; areas of steep slope or erodible soils; and areas having a seasonal high water 

table within six inches of the soil surface. These features, especially where occurring in 

combination, suggest that little or no development should take place or that development 

should be severely curtailed and closely regulated. The policy of the County toward these 

environmentally-sensitive areas should be one of discouraging development wherever 

possible to prevent destruction of important resources or to protect residents of the county 

from future problems. 

The chief instrument that the County and its townships and boroughs will have at their 

disposal to protect these areas will be the encouragement or requirement of cluster 

development and the flexible gross density development approach in residential areas. By 

3-10-3

equiring developers to base the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on the gross 

developable acreage of their development parcels, areas designated by the County and its 

municipalities as being environmentally-sensitive are more likely to end up being set aside. 

It must be recognized that maps of environmentally-sensitive areas are accurate to a general 

level only. Developers should be required as a matter of County and local policy to 

undertake more detailed field studies of specific parcels proposed for development that will 

verify or modify the precise location of the sensitive features on the county-wide or 

municipal-wide maps. If such studies are required, especially where there is a strong 

suspicion or known presence of environmentally-sensitive features, developers will be more 

aware of the need to protect scarce resources and to avoid future problems at an early point 

in the development process, leading to better land planning and design solutions in the long 

run. 

Environmental Protection Policiea 

1. Monitor and update, as needed maps and other inventories of environmentally-sensitive 

resources in the county, and make this information known to local municipalities, 

authorities, and other public and private organizations. 

2 Prepare and promote model regulations for the protection of environmentally-sensitive 

resources and asskt municipalities in the adoption of such controls. 

3. Review each development proposal to determine its possible effects on environmentallysensitive 

resources and promote ways to minimize their impairment. 

4. In conjunction with the State and local munic@alities, conduct watershed studies focused 

on land development’s effects on stormwater dkchqe. 

3-10-4

Chapter 4: 

lmplem en fafion Strategy 


I 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

c- R FOUR : IMPLEMENTATION STRA TEGY 

The Need for Action 

Adams County has experienced a significant increase in the level of development activity 

in recent years. A county that was considered rural, and beyond the urbanizing reach of 

metropolitan areas along the eastern seaboard and cities in neighboring counties, now finds 

itself increasingly in the path of development. Population and employment projections 

(made in Chapter 2) show that recent trends are likely to continue, bringing increased 

growth pressures over the next ten to twenty years. 

The Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint for the future for Adams County, showing how 

growth can be managed - to preserve farmland, to conserve historic and rural landscapes, 

and to provide new economic opportunities. 

The benefits of managed growth are many, but may be realized only through concerted 

efforts on the part of residents of Adams County. County government may take the lead, 

but it must be joined, quickly and vigorously, by local municipalities and by other public 

agencies and private organizations. Deliberate, cooperative steps to bring this Plan into 

effect can make managed growth a reality for Adam County. Delay or disjointed planning 

efforts are likely to mean that the current opportunity - to direct growth .to specific areas, 

and to ensure that development occurs in suitable ways - will be missed, and the special 

qualities of Adams County will become overwhelmed by sprawling, uncontrolled growth, and 

lost forever. 

The Year 2020 Panel report to the Chesapeake Executive Council, Population Growth and 

Development in the C hesaDeake Bav Watershed to the Yea r 2020, concludes that 

"procedures currently being used throughout the Bay region [which explicitly includes Adams 

and over 30 other Pennsylvania counties, as well as Maryland, Washington DC, and 

Virginia] for managing and providing for growth and development are inadequate, and must 

quickly be changed if current trends are to be reversed. . . Growth requires effective land 

use planning and education of the public in proper land management and stewardship. The 

longer solutions are put off, the greater the problems become. Better stewardship and 

management of the land and better direction and incentives for appropriate growth are 

needed". 

The report goes on to point out that "it is much easier (and cheaper) to prevent a problem 

than to correct one, which is why action is needed soon''. This observation is particularly 

relevant to Adam County - up until today the costs of uncontrolled growth have been at 

least partially hidden by the relatively low density of population across the county and the 

relatively low costs of undeveloped land and development servicing. It is a sad truth that 

often communities do not begin to recognize the problems associated with shortsighted, 

haphazard growth until it is too late to be of much influence. 

4- 1

The Year 2020 Panel recommends that Comprehensive Development and Infrastructure 

Plans be put in place which guide policies to ensure that: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Development is concentrated in suitable areas; 

Sensitive areas are protected; and 

Growth is directed to existing population centers in rural areas and resource 

areas are protected. 

The Adams County Comprehensive Plan is also a call to action. The Implementation 

Strategy chapter provides specific sequences of steps for the County, its municipalities, local 

agencies, the State and others to make the vision-of-the-future embodied in the Growth 

Management Plan a reality. 

The County Role 

In taking the lead towards managing growth, the County needs to mobilize its own resources 

and to bring them to bear on the issues raised by the Comprehensive Plan. The 

Implementation Strategy outlined in this chapter calls for a higher-profile county planning 

role over the coming years. In order to fulfill that role, the Office of Planning and 

Development needs additional personnel. The Implementation Strategy also calls for a 

higher-profile local planning role, and Adam County municipalities will be looking to 

county government to help them get started on a path of more and better planning. 

The County needs to increase its own ability to plan. Adams County is on an urbanizing 

course; over the coming years the planning challenges facing Adams will increasingly 

resemble those presented to more populous neighboring counties such as York or Lancaster. 

Adjacent York County currently has a population a little more than four times that of 

Adams County, but York County‘s planning staff is five to six times the size of Adam 

County‘s planning staff. The Comprehensive Plan’s mandate to manage growth in the 

county over the coming years needs to be backed up by the necessary work force. 

Adams County municipalities will be looking to County leadership in addressing planning 

problems, including preparation of model zoning ordinances and continuing planning 

assistance. The County should promote the signing of Planning Assistance Contracts with 

local governments, encompassing the delivery of specialized professional planning services 

from the Office of Planning and Development to local governments under contractual terms 

favorable to local governments and/or the distribution of small grants to municipalities to 

assist them in engaging their own professional planning expertise. 

As the diagrams following illustrate, there is plenty of work to be done to implement the 

Plan. Actions are required by all the ‘actors’ influencing the future direction of Adarm 

County, but it is up to the County Commissioners and the Office of Planning and 

Development to get things launched. 

4-2

County Administration 

The County also needs to revise some of its in-house practices to be better able to serve its 

constituents. 

The County system for processing, storing and retrieving information filed as part of 

applications for subdivision and land development approvals and rezonings should be 

computerized. Applications should be coded by number, with corresponding paper and 

computer-based files, including standardized forms for recording basic information such as 

the location and dimensions of the tract, the characteristics of the proposed development, 

and the application and review status. Submitted plans and other pertinent documents 

should be microfilmed and/or scanned and stored on computer files. 

County staff should prepare an annual report to the County Commissioners and the 

Planning Commission summarizing development activities in the county. The compilation 

and publication of the following data would be useful in documenting the character and 

amount of change in each municipality in the county over time and would be extremely 

useful in the day-to-day administration of planning and zoning activities in the county. The 

items recommended for inclusion in the report are: 

0 Population estimates 

0 School population 

0 Employment estimates 

0 Development activity summary (new development & redevelopment) 

Residential development 

New housing units, by type 

Acres of residential development 

- Acres of private and dedicated open space 

New nonresidential construction 

Acres of new development by land use 

- Gross floor area by use 

Changes of zoning 

Initially, all these items should be specified by municipality. Eventually, a more-detailed 

geographic system should be developed. 

The Planning Commission should, as an annual agenda item, formally review the annual 

long-range capital improvements program for the county to ensure that physical 

improvements which are being programmed are in accordance with the overall intent of the 

Comprehensive Plan. The review should also include consideration of items that are called 

for by the Comprehensive Plan. A formal review and recommendation concerning the longrange 

capital improvements program should be forwarded to the County Commissioners 

prior to its adoption. 

4-3

A second annual agenda item should be the Planning Commission Annual Plan, which 

should: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Required Actions 

Review the degree of accomplishment of the previous year's objectives; 

Summarize studies or projects finished or underway; 

Identify Comprehensive Plan recommendations which are planned to be 

addressed in the next year; 

Plan €or future projects or studies, including issues which the Planning 

Commission intends to review or initiate. 

I 

4 

e 

1 

I 

I 

In the diagrams that follow, the policy stateme n t s that conclude and summarize each section 

of the Growth Management Plan (Chapter 3) are followed by Sequences of action3 required 

by various bodies and groups to implement each policy statement. 

The most critical actions include the preparation and adoption of local comprehensive plans 

and development regulations consistent with the new County Comprehensive Plan by all 34 

of Adam County's municipalities. Since, under Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning 

Code, the right of approval for subdivision and land development is (with limited 

exceptions) exercised by municipalities and not by counties, it follows that successful 

implementation of the County Comprehensive Plan relies to a very great extent on 

municipal follow-through on the ideas presented in the Plan. As has been explained, the 

County role in promotion of the Plan, in education, in preparing planning "tools" and 

demonstration studies - in general, assisting local municipalities to the maximum extent 

feasible - is an essential part of the overall implementation process. 

Other important studies recommended in the Plan include: 

- A Countywide Comprehensive Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Study (see 

Chapter 3, Sections 3 and 6); 

- Watershed studies (see Chapter 3, Section 10); and 

- Follow-up transportation studies.

LAND USE 

Policy Statement 

Promote the basic Develop 

ment Plan concepts of growth 

areas, resource conservation 

areas and permanent open 

space and preservation areas. 

and their configuration in the 

Land Use Plan. Assist 

municipalities in the preparation 

and adoption of local 

comprehensive plans and land 

use controls consinent with 

the Land Use Plan. 

Assist municipalities and land 

developers in the planning and 

design of additions to existing 

built-up areas and new 

residential, employment and 

mixed-use areas, consistent 

with the Land Use Plan. 

Actors 

Adams County 

Municipalities 

Adams County 

I) 

lncrease stathng orpbmtng 

office to be able to provide 

higher levels ofassistance to 

municipalities 

Make presentations. municipality 

by municipality, offering followup 

technical assistance. 

Encourage muncipalities to adopt 

comprehensive plans that are 

consistent with the County Plan. 

Review local plan and land 

development controls update 

needs in light of recent development 

activity and County 

Comprehensive Plan. 

Encourage municipalities to 

promote infill development, 

orderly borough expansions, 

selective 'New Starts' and 

various forms of residential 

clustering. 

2) 

and other land development 

cootrols. present to each municipality. 

Invite municipal participation in 

technical assistance programs, 

consider W ing incentives. 

Enter into planning assistance 

program of county. 

Reparc model plans for recommended 

types of development; 

present to municipalities and 

developers. 

Develop design guidelines. 

-' 

3) 

Commence detailed technical 

work with participating muoicipalities. 

, 

Updare local comprehensive 

plans wilb participating communities. 

Tailor model ordinances to 

specific municipalities' needs. 

Update local plan and land 

development controls. 

Enter into planning assistance 

programs with municipalities 

entailing design assistance for 

newly-emerging types of 

development. 

4) 

Assist municipalities in adoptio 

of updated land development 

conlrols. 

Monitor land development 

controls success; assist in 

revisions if needed. 

Mooitor updated plans and 

controls; revise as needed. 

Monitor development implemer 

tatim and gauge degrees of 

success. Revise process and 

technical aspects as needed. 


Communicate County and local 

planning and design directions to 

prospective developers. 

Monitor model plans, design 

guidelines; recommend revisions. 

Coordinate and review developerand 

County-initiated plans. 

Enter into fomral agreements 

with developers prior to approv 

ing plans. Supervise implemeatation. 

Developers 

Prepare plans consistent with 

new directionsemhodied in 

County Comprehensive Plan and 

relevant local plans. 

Enter into process of early 

coordination of any proposed 

plans and designs with County 

and local municipality. 

Worlc towards consensus with 

local and county planners. 

Implement proposed develop 

menl. 

__- 

1

~ 

LAND USE 

Pulicy Statement 

bcturr 

3) 

4) 

Encourage the establishment 

of employment centers in 

designated areas. 

Adams County 

Coordinate activities of municipalities, 

sewer authonties. 

PennmT. Industrial Develop 

ment Corporarion. to work 

towards establishing serviced 

sites in designated areas. 

Prepare model plans and designs 

for employment centers. 

Conduct site-specific planning 

and design technical wo& with 

prospective investors, municipalities, 

local aulhorities, etc. 

Monitor development implemei 

tation. Coordinate 

intergovernmental and 

interagency cooperation. 

Promote joint municipal planning 

for designated employment 

cenkrs. 


Enter into joint-planning 

agreements with relevant 

municipalities towards establishing 

employment centers. 

Review model plans and designs. 

Coordinate specific employment 

center promotion, plannin& 

design and development with 

County, other relevant agencies. 

and prospective developers. 

Enter into formal agreements 

wilh developers. Supervix 

implementation. 

Industrial Development 

Corporation 

Promote Adams County selected 

employment sites to prospective 

developers. 

Review model plans and designs. 

Assist local joint-planning 

agencies, municipalities and 

County in site-specific development 

promotion and implementation. 

Provide technical expertise in 

formal agreement execution. 

Monitor process. 

Promote the establishment of a 

permanent. designated. 

interconnected open space 

network throughout the county 

and the development of 

recreational facilities at 

selected locations. 

Adams County 

Assist municipalities to create/ 

update local comprehensive 

plans consistent with the County 


Coordinate open space protection 

efforts with other levels of 

government. land protection 

advocacy groups. 

Review land development plans 

and make recommendations to 

ensure compatibility with the 

Comprehensive Plan's open 

space system. 

Assist municipalities in the 

preparation and adoption of local 

land usc controls eogoizant of 

the Comprehensive Plan's open 

space element. 

suppod private efforts to 

establish and maintain the open 

space system. 

Coordiiiate with federal andor 

state governments so that their 

open space protection and 

development plans are integrated 

with county and local plans. 

Prepare a Countywide Comptehensive 

Recreation. Parks & 

Open Space Study. 

Consider a direct County role in 

open space propramming. 

Consider approving a County 

bond issue for the acquisition of 

park and recreation land. 

Direct watershed studies, with 

funding from DER and panicipalion 

of affected municipalities. 

Assist municipalities in tbe 

planning and development of 

parts of tbe open space system. 

Monitor the open space and 

recreation development efforts I 

other levels of government and 

private groups; coordinate 

planning and programming. 

2

LAND USE - 


Promote the establishment of 

B permanent, designated. 

interconnected open space 

network throughout the county 

and the development of 

recreational facilities at 

selected locations. (continued) 

Actors 

Federal and Stare Governments 


Prepare open space and recreation 

plan updates compatible 

with the County Comprehensive 

Plan. Coordinate efforts with 

county. 

Createhpdate local comprehensive 

plans consistent with the 

County Comprehensive Plan. 

Coordinate open space prolection 

efforts wilh adjacent 

municipalities. 

Adopt new land use controls to 

protect open space; a.. prohibition 

of development in floodplains. 

3) 14) 

I 

Provide technical and financial 

assistance rowards local open 

space and recreation facility 

implementation. 

plan for local recreation fxilities 

development needs. 

Monitor County open space 

planning. 

Participate in watershed studies. 

Implement local facility improvements. 

Direct new commercial 

activity to existing borough 

cores and new mixed-use 

centers, in conformance wilh 

he Land Use Plan. 

Adams County 


creatiodupdating of local 

comprehensive plans. 

Prepare model zoning ordinances 

and other land development 

controls for borough cores. 

mixed-use (‘village’) centers and 

limited major commercial 

centers; present to local municipalities; 

enwurage adqion. 

In consultation with municipal 

officials and land developers, 

prepare model plans fw borough 

Monitor development implemen 

mion; assist local mwcipalitie 

BS required. 

Lobby local municipalities and 

PennDOT to support access 

controls on arterial roads. 


Update local comprehensive 

plans consistent with County 


Survey and inventory local 

commercial areas. with emphasis 

on land use, traffic, parking and 

community character. 

Adopt updated zoning and other 

land development controls to 

promote commerce while 

protecting community values. 

Enforce new regulations. 

b o t e commercial district 

concepts in community and to 

prospective developers. 

Implement development consistent 

with new controls and 

design guidelines. 

3

~ ~~ 

+ 

CIRCULATION 


Qctorr 

Plan for and construct an 

alternative alignment of US 

Route 30 north of Genysburg 

between Cashtown and 

Abbottstown. 

PennDOT 

Perform detailed needs assessment. 

Enter recommended action on 

12-Year Program. 

Prepare Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

Development project consmetion 

schedule. 

3) 

Prepare construction and rightof-way 

plans. 

Acquire right-of-way. 

4) 

Conshuct project. 

Adams County 

Monitor trafmc on existing 

Route 30. especially through 

boroughs. 

Act as liaison between 

PennWT and municipalilies; 

coordinate County and local 

responses to PennDOT recommendalions. 

Monitor. evaluate EIS; coordinate 

County and local response. 

Assid municipalities in revisions 

to local plans and develop 

ment regulations in response to 

pendiig road improvements. 

Monitor highway construction 

plans; co-ordinate County and 

local response. 

Monitor implementation. 


Consider local land use implications 

of potential alignments. 

Consider right-of-way dedication 

issues when reviewing 

development. 

Monitor. evaluate EIS. 

Revise local comprehensive 

plans and development regulations 

in anticipation of new road 

improvements. 

Assis in right-of-way acquisition 

through land development 

approvals process. 


Conshuct MW roadways. . . 

PA Route 19U 

Linlestown Bypass 

PennDoT. Adams county & 

Relevant Municipalities 

Identify needs. 

Secure finding. 

Perform envisonmenlal studies. 

Prepare design and right-of-way 

plans. 


ConnNct project. 

. 

Construct new roadways. . . 

Linlestown-Hanover Road 

Extension 

PennDOT. Adams County i 

Relevant Municipalities 

Form needs assessment commiltee 

with local municipalities. 


Secure hnding. 

Perform environmental studies. 



in anticipation of uew road 

improvements. 


plans. 


Construct project. 

4

CIRCULATION 

Policy Statement 1) 

Construct new roadways. . . 

McSherrystown Relief 

Corridor 

~MDOT. Adams County & 

lelevant Municipalities 


Secure funding. 

2) 

Perform environmental studies. 



in anticipation of new road 

improvements. 

3) 


plans. 


COIIS~NC~ project. 


adopt local collector road 

systems to reduce congestion 

in villages and boroughs. 

Adams County 

Assist municipalities in updating 

local comprehensive plans, 

which should include local 

collector road systems. 

Repare model plans for local 

collector road systems, present 

to municipalities and develop 

ers. 

Monitor local collector road 

sysiem implementation. 


Update local comprehensive Begin road construction impleplans, 

incorporating local mentation actioos, including 

collector road systems. local initiatives and municipal- 

Iity-developer initiatives. 

Coortruct or monitor conskuction 

of roadways as part of 

development. 

Improve key roadways to 

opera& as County Collectors. 

Adams County 

Establish County program to 

fund County Collector road 

improvements through grants to 

local govemmenls. 

Coordinate general County 

Collector system implementation 

with State and municipalities; 

establish priority road links. 

Coordinate scheduling of 

PennWT road improvements 

with State and affected municipalities. 

Secure Wing for assisiance to 

municipalities for portions of 

County Collector system under 

local jurisdiction. 

Provide technical assistance to 

municipal and joint-municipal 

bodies in identification of 

possible new road alignments 

and funding for new links, 

environmental studies and 

preliminary design. 

Distribute funds for road 

improvements by municipalities. 

Monitor implementation of 

new links, cwptructioa and 

impmvements to existing 

roads. 

PennDoT 

Schcdule road improvements 

(pa of County Collector 

network) in maintenance 

program. 

Cooperate with County and local 

municipalities in general County 

Collector system implementation 

Prepare construction drawings 

for State-implemented improvements. 

Rovide technical and bding 

assistance. to County and 

municipalities for locallyimplemented 

improvements. 

Construct improvements for 

State-controlled roads. 

donitor implementation. sysiei 

rerformance. 

5

CIRCULATION 

Pulicy Statement 

Lcturs 

Encourage ECONS studies by 

the Pennsylvania Department 

of Transpohtion at key 

crossroads and in key communities. 

Adams County 

Determine priorities for ECONS 

study locations. 

Conduct traffic studies to 

delermine priorities for safety 

improvements studies locations. 

Review ECONS studies. 

Review safety improvement 

raffic studies. 

Lobby PennDOT for implemenlation 

fiulding commitments. 

Monitor implementation action 

Lobby PennDOT for funding 

and study commitments. 

PennDOT 

Coordinate State ECONS study 

scheduling with County and 

local municipalities. 

Coordinate safety improvement 

program scheduling with Counly 

and local municipalities. 

Prepare ECONS studies. 

%nduct safety improvement 

program traffic studies. 

Repare consbuction documentation 

and right-of-way plans. 


Consl~ct ECONS and safety 

improvement program improve 

ments. 


Monilor local Iraffic sitwioa; 

coordinate ECONS and safety 

improvement plans with County. 

Review relevant PennDoT. 

County, developer and local 

government traffic studies. 

Assist in right-of-way acquisition. 


Consider right-of-way dedicalion 

issues. 

7

Qclors 


preparation and adoption of 

local comprehensive plans and 

land use controls consistenl 

with the county comprehensive 

plan. 

Promote residential clustering 

through the preparation of 

model zoning ordinances and 

their adoption by municipalities. 

Advocate construction of new 

medium and medium-high 

density housing at appropriate 

locations within designated 

growth areas. 

Encourage tbe enactment of 

uniform housing codes by 


Adams County 

Assist municipalities to create/ 

update local comprehensive 

plans coasisceat with Ibe housing 

element of the Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Devise model zoning provisions 

consistent with the housing 

element of he Comprebensiw 

Plan; present to each municipality. 

Promote innovative techniques 

to reduce housing sprawl, 

including agricultural zoning. 

cluster development; and smalllot 

single family detached and 

mixed structural types construction 

in growtb areas. 

Promote innovative approaches' 

to reducing housing costs. 

including performance subdivision 

regulations, streamlined 

approvals process and provisions 

for residential conversions. 

accessory apartments and shared 

housing. 


preparation and adoption of 

local land use controls. 

donitor local regulations 

mplementation. 

Generate and publicize model 

land usc controls and other 

means which would create 

additional affordable housing 

oppomnities and accomme 

date residents with special 

housing needs. 


Creatdupdate local comprehensive 

plans in consulcation with 

county. 

Analyze local W ing needs, 

coordinate findings with County 

studies. 

Adopt appropriate land use 

mtrols to meet local housing 

Reeds. 

&vise and update regulations 2 

mmunity grows d o r 

hges. 

8

IIOUSING 

Qciurs 

4) 

Facilitate water and sewer 

system improvements, 

including extensions of 

existing systems and creation 

of new ones, consistent with 

the Land Use and Housing 

Plans. 

Adams County 

Review current 537 plans and 

water service. facilities plans in 

light of new County Comprehensive 

Plan; prepare County 

recommendations for updates 

and revisions to selected plans. 

Recommend to local municipalities 

and DER 537 plans and 

water service plans that are 

consistent with County Comprehensive 

Plan and County's 537 

Review 537 plan and water 

iervice plans amendments. 

Encourage local municipalities 

and authorities, other public and 

wivate agencies, and developers 

o steer growlh to areas consis 

ent with 537 plans and water 

iervice plans. 

Provide technical assistance 

for implementation of 537 

plans and water service plans. 

MunicipalitiedAuthorities 

Review local 537 and water 

service facilities plans for 

consistency with County 

Comprehensive Plan and any 

evolving local comprehensive 

plans. Coordinate research with 

County effons. communicate 

findings wilh County and State; 

coordinate recommendations 

with County. SIaIe and neighboring 


Update local 537 and water 

service plans as to be consistent 

with County Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Zoordinate iocal planning and 

levelopment approvals with 

iewly-updated 537 and water 

iervice plans. 

lmplement new 537 and water 

service plans througb development 

approvals process. 

including developer agreements 

and municipal capital 

unprovements programs. 

DER 

Monitor review process for 537 

and water service facilities. 

Suppoct County and local efforts 

IO Steer growth to areas desigmated 

in County Comprehensive 

Plan. 

ipprove local 537 and water 

ervice plans consistent with 

:ounty Comprehensive Plan. 

Provide technical. administraive 

and funding support to 

mplement approved 537 and 

water service plans. 

9

~ 

kOMMUNlTY FACILITIES 

Policy Statemcnt 

Lctorr 

1) 

3) 4) 

Review all development 

proposals to determine their 

probable effects on public 

services. including schools, 

emergency services, recreation 

and administrative services. 

Adams County 

Determine consislency of 

proposals to Comprehensive 

Plan goals, objectives and 

policies. 

Advise developers, I& 

municipalities and service 

providers as to implications of 

development proposals for 

community facilities. 

Reeommeod alternative strategies 

to maaimize public benefits, 

minimize public costs. 

Provide technical assistance an 

in some cascs. Wing assistance 

b implement community 

facilities improvements. 


Review development proposals 

to determine local impacts. 

Coordinate County and local 

impact determinations, advise 

developers and local service 

providers. 

Monitor developer respon~es; 

~ d i i tCounty. e local 

provider strategies. 

MAIM implementation of 

community facilities improvements. 

Service Providers 

Review propods to determine 

agency/organiAon impacts. 

Develop agency/organization 

strategies to address impacts. 

Develop improvements implemenmion 

program. 

Implement community facilitie 

improvements. 

I 

Coordinate county land use 

planning and school plant 

development so as to ensure 

the most efficient use of 

current and projected space 

and equipment, and accommodate 

general resident needs for 

communiy facilities. 

I 

Evaluate the range of existing 

and potential community 

services, and determine the 

best locations for service 

providers to meet current and 

projected needs. 

Adams County 

School Dhcts 

Adams County 

Service Providers 

Monitor demogmphic changes, 

land development patterns. 

resident recreational preferences. 

Conduct long-range facilities 

planning consistent with 

population and development 

trends. 

Review providers' programs, 

facility types and locations. 

Coordinate short-. medium- and 

long-range planning with 

County. 

Provide technical assiaance IO 

school districts in capital 

improvements programming. 

facility planning and programming. 

Updare capital improvements 

program. 

Advise local municipalities and 

service providers as to sbortrange 

improvements d longrange 

projected facility needs. 

Condua preliminary capital 

improvements programming. 

Conduct detailed facility 

planning and programming with 

County input. 

Coordinate facility planning and 

Drmming witb service 

bro&en. 

Conduct detailed facility 

planning and programming. 

Implement fpcilities impmvemeats. 

Monitor improvements. reevaluate 

community needs and 

services' programs and locotion 

I 

I 

Implement improvements. 

I10

30MMUNlTY FACLLIT 


kturr 

1) 

3) 

1) 

Undertake a Countywide 

Comprehensive Recreation. 

Parks and Open Space Study. 

publicize its findings, and 

facilitate its implementation 

by, among oiher actions. 

providing technical and 

financial assistance to local 

communities. 

Adams County 

Form a study task force with 

participation from municipalities, 

federal and state govemments, 

interest groups. 

Conduct a w ey of resident 

recreational preferences. 

Assemble detailed current 

facility use information. 

Prepare a full Countywide 

Zomprehensive Recreation, 

Parks & Open Space Sntdy, 

rocusing on future needs, a 

hcilities plan, programming and 

hding. 

Assis local cOmmunilkS in the 

planning and development of 

facilities. 

Assist lo& COlnm~tkS in 

updating local comprehensive 

plans ordinances to effect 

the dy's recommendations. 

Consider a county role in 

facility creaionand programming. 

mplement the Countywide 

Zomprehensive Recreation, 

'ads & Open Space Plan 

hrough coordinated actions wit 

kderal and state governments, 

nunicipalities, school districts, 

fiber service providen and 

nteresl groups. 

Tederal and Stale Governments 

Coordinate with County, 

participate in and wpply data for 

surveys. 

Integrate agency long-range 

planning with study's goals and 

recommendations to ensure 

:omplementaiy facilities and 

hctions. 

Support Countyand local effwts 

through technical and financial 

assistance. 

:ontinually monitor study 

mplementation stressing 

:oaceptual and physical integra 

ion of open space areas and 

unctions. 


Coordinate with County and 

each ocher. participate in and 

supply data for surveys. 

Monitor County study process 

ud findings. 

Review local planning relevant 

IO County study. 

Integrate local planrung with 

study recommeodariw. 

Prepace detailed facility planning, 

pmgrmmiog and funding 

strategies. 

mplement local facility im- 

Kovements and update recrertiooal 

programming.

APE RESOURCES 

4cturs 

Adams County 

Create County Historical 

Advisory BoadCommission. 

Establish County Planner/ 

Historic Preservation Officer. 

Define roles, procedures and 

guidelines. 

Initiate program of community 

education. 

Initiate process of obtaining NPS 

review of relevant subdivision 

and land development applications 

as part of County review 

process. 

Continue and reinforce ~sstssment 

of impacts on historic 

resources as part of County 

subdivision and land develop 

ment review process. 

Promote creation of municipal 

historical commissions. 

lnvestiage potential grant 

programs. 

Research and create model 

resource inventory program for 



historic overlay zoning ordinance. 

Initiate study for County and 

municipal protection of 

banlefield-related and adjacent 

landscapes. 

Investigate potential for 

emablisbing Certified Local 

Governments in villages - 

initiate community education 

program. 

Establish priorities for new 

National Register nominations. 

Investigate priorities for 

establishing County Certification 

Program. 

Promote and create incentives 

for participation by municipalities 

in County inventory of 

historic resources. 

Promote adoption of historic 

overlay zoning model ordinance 

by municipalities. 

Initiate program for protection 

of land adjacent to battlefield. 


for esfablishment of Certified 

Local Government in villages. 

Undenake or support program 

for new National Register 

nomioations. 

RomoIe. monitor and assist in 

programs undertaken by 


Create County Certification 

hogram. 

Create joint preservation 

progrems with National Park 

Service. 

Promote, monitor and assist i 

programs undertaken by 


Continue support of program 


Nominations. 

Continue implementation of 

County Certification Prow 

Coninue implementation of 

joint preservation programs 

with National Park Service. 

Continue program of m mu 

nity education. 

Continue support of Adams 

County Historical Society 

programs. 

Investigate potential joint 

programs with National Park 

Service. 

Coordinate with programs of, 

and increase support of, Adams 

County Historical Society. 

12

~~~~ 

IllSTORlC AND LAND; 

I Pulicv Statement 

'APE RESOURCES 

Actors 

3) 

Create historic preservation 

programs and encourage 

participation of municipalities 

and other local groups in such 

programs (continued). 


Monitor and participale in 

County actions. 

Create municipal historical 

commissions. 

Define role and processes for 

historical commissions. 


education. 

Initiate historic resource 

inventory program. 

Adopt historic overlay zoning 

OldiiCeS. 

Adopt Certified Local Government 

programs in villages. 

Continue implementation anc 

refinement of historic overla) 

zoning in municipal review 

process. 

Continue implementation anc 

refinement of Certified Local 

Government programs. 

Monitor and participate in 


Pmicipate in County Certific 

tion program. 

Initiate processes for obtaining 

NPS review as pard of municipal 

review process adjacent to 

battlefield. 

Advocacy Groups 

Monitor and participale in 



education. 

Lobby municipalities for 

creation of historical commissions. 

Provide information and 

expertise to hinorical commissions. 

Pmicipate ia program of 

community education. 


participation in inventory 

program and adoption of 

historic overlay zoning. 

Undertake or support program 


nominatiens. 

Continue and expand actions 

previous\y listed. 



Continue program of community 

education. 

13

iiisroRic AND LAND! 


APE RESOURCES 

ktorr 

Encourage the preservation of 

environmentally-sensitive 

resources by creating model 

ordinances and promoting 

their adoption and enforcment 

throughout the county. 

Adams County 


ordinances and regulations. 

initiate program of community 

education. 

Initiate dialogue with municipalities. 

Promote adoption of model 

ordinances. 

Create incentive programs for 

adoption. 

Assist municipalities in 

adoption and implementation. 


experrise to municipalities and 

advocacy groups. 

Monitor implementarion. 

Refine model ordinances. 


Create environmental task force 

to study local issues and cqitions. 

interact witb County. and 

make recommendations to 

municipal government. 

Panicipate in dialogue and 

community education program. 

Review, customize and adopt 

model ordinances and regulations. 

Educate municipal bodies and 

public in implementation 

process. 

Implement ordinaoces and 

regulations. 

Monitor results and refine 

ordinances and process. 


Participate in dialogue and 

community education program. 


adoption and implementation. 



expertise to municipalities. 

14

HISTORIC AND LAND 

:APE RESOURCES 

Actors 

Promote the preservation of 

rural landscape character and 

scenic resources through 

agricultural preservation 

programs, adoption of model 

ordinances, implementation of 

an open space plan, and 

comprehensive planning and 

land development controls in 

growth areas. 

Adams County 

Create County Environmental 

and Open Space Commission. 

Define role, procedures and 

guidelines for Commission. 

Research and outline guidelines 

for comprehensive plans for 

growth areas. 

Initiate agricultural preservation 

PrVS. 

Coordinate policies and programs 

with National Pak 

Service activities. 

Repare County Open Space 

and Recreation Plan. 


for municipal participation in 

creating comprehensive plans 

for growth areas. 


ordinances and design guidelines 


Continue and reinforce 

implementation of agricultural 

preservation programs. 

Phase implementation of 

County Open Space and 

Recreatioo Plan. 

Promote and create incentivies 

for municipal open space and 

recreation plans. 


for municipal adoption of 

ordinances and design guidelines 

in growth areas. 

Continue phased implementation 

of County Open 

Space and Recreation Plan. 


for implementation of 

municipal open space and 


Initiate program for community 

educaIion. 




Initiate agricultural zoning 

programs. 

:reate comprehensive plans for 

powh mas. 

mplement agricultural zoning 

XOplllS. 

Adopt and implement ordinances 

and design guidelines 

for growtb areas. 

Prepare municipal open space 

and recreation plans. 

Implement and refine ordinances 

and design guidelines 


Phase implementation of 

municipal open space and 


Continue implementation of 

agricultural zoning programs. 




Lobby and provide technical 

expertise to municipalities. 

Continue and expand actions 

previously listed. 

Initiate progam for community 

education. 

Initiate land stewardship 

programs. 

Research methods and funding 

sources for land stewardship 

programs and conservation 

activities. 

15

AGRICULTURAL RES( 

Policy Statenimt 

RCES 

Actors 

2) 


update their comprehensive 

plans taking into consideration 

the County Plan. 

Adams County 

Increase Co. Planning Commission 

staff as necessary to provide 

technical assistance to municipalities. 

Provide small grants (about 

S10,OOO - S20.000) to municipalities 

t h undertake plan 

updating. 


Direct municipal planning 

commission or a special comprehensive 

plan committee to begin 

planning process. 

Reduce development pressure o 

farmland. 

Oppose extensions of sewer lines 

before PaDER in areas planned 

for agriculture. 

Oppose extensions of water 

mains before PUC in areas 

planned for agriculture. 

Require that municpalities adop 

appropriate zoning regulations 

before the County gives approval 

or commits funds for 

highways or utility lines that 

necessarily traverse areas 

planned for agriculture. 

Oppose extensions of highways 

before PaDOT in areas planned 

for agriculture. 


Revise comprehensive plans to 

conform with County Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Delineate agricultural zoning 

disaicts and adopt agricultural 

zoning provisions. 


enact effective agricultural 

zoning. 

Adams County 

Develop model agricultural 

zoning ordinances and provide 

technical assitance to municipalities. 

Conduct workshops on agricultural 

lands protection. 

County Agricultural F’reservalion 

Board revises rating system 

to give much more weight to 

existence of agricultural zoning. 

16

AGRICULTURAL RE 

Pulicy Stalcmcnt 

RCES 

Lcturs 

Encourage municipalities tc 

enact effective agricultural 

zoning (continued). 


Revise comprehensive plans to 


Plan. 

Delineate agricultural zoning 

districts and a dq agricullural 

zoning provisions. 

Prevent division of farmlanc 

into small tracts. 

Adams County 

Conduct snrdy of fann core size 

by subregion of county. 

Develop model ordinances and 

provide technical assistance to 



Revise comprehensive plans lo 


Plan. 

Continue acquisition of 

conservalion easements and 

focus their location. 

Adams County 

County Ag~i~~ltural Land 

Preservation Board adopts policy 

to consider only sites in County 

Plan designaled for continuation 

in agriculture. 

Encourage formation of a 

private conservancy dedicated to 

preserving farmland and 

environmentally-valuable land 

in Le county. 

County Agricultural Land 

Preservation Board revises rating 

system to give much more 

weight to existence of strong 

agricultural zoning. 

Appropriate additional funds 

necessary to match the maximum 

available from the Commonwealth. 


Adopc strong agricultural 

zoning. and thus encourage 

farmland owners lo offer to sell 

easements and protect public 

investments in easements. 

Encourage owners of fannland 

in areas designated for continuation 

in agriculture to enlist their 

land in an Agriculture Security 

Area. 

Strengthen the agricultural 

economy. 

Adams Cowily 

Expand the functions of the 

County Agricultural Land 

Preservation Board to include 

functions of an agricultural 

advisory council. 

17

RCES 

kctors 


Permit farm stands. bed-andbreakfasts. 

and other mall h e 

industries in their agricultural 

zoning districts. 

Provide appropriate zoning for 

agricultural support indushies. 

Adams County 

Provide technical assistance to 



Require notices to be entered in 

agreements of sale for all parcels 

located in areas planned for in 

agriculture: agriculture is he 

primary industry in the area and 

landowners may be subject to 

inconvenience or discomfort 

arising fiom accepted agricultural 

practices. 

Requim setbacks of I00 feet on 

111 parcels adjacent to any parcel 

in an area planned for continualion 

in agricultural usc. 

18

UTIIJTIES PLAN 

Policy Statenlent 

4cturs 

1) 

2) 

3) 

Review and update water 

supply and wastewater 

treatment facilities plans. 

Adams County 

Provide municipalities with 

guidelines for growth in accordance 

with the Land Use. Plan. 

Assist municipalities with 

facilities capacity projections. 


facilities plans preparation. 

Review facilities plans; obtain 

revisions as required; approve 

plans. 

Assist municipalities in obtaining 

PaDER approval. 

Provide technical assistance lo 

municipalities during construction. 

Assist municipalities in monitoi 

ing capacity versus actual 

growth patterns. 

Assist municipalities in review, 

evaluation and update of 



Make growth projections by area 

and time. 

Estimate future water supply and 

wastewater treatment capacities 

required. 

Prepare updated ACI 537 

facilities plans and applications 

for added water supply allocation. 

Obcain County approval in 

accordance with County Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Obtain PaDER approval. 

implement plan - C omct new 

facilities. 

Evaluate actual growth and 

capacity requirements versus 

Pb. 

Review and revise water and 

wastewater facilities plan as 

appropriate. 

PaDER 

Provide technical assistance as 

requested. 


requested. 

Review and approve facilities 

plans. 


requested. 

Monitor construction progress. 

Review and approve updated 


Enact zoning and/or subdivision 

and land use ordinances 

for well-head protection. 

Adams County 


guidelines for growth and assist 

in identifying wells needing 

protection. 

Assist municipalities wilh 

dekxmining methods for wellhead 

protection. 


evaluation of potential impacts 

of regulations. 

Coordinate well-head proteaion 

methods among he municipalities. 

Assist municipalities, as requested, 

in adoptinglenacting 

regulations. 


ing compliance. 

Assist municipalities in reviewing 

success of their well-head 

protection programs. 


Determine wells and well-head 

areas to be protected. 

Determine method to be used for 

protection - regulations. design 

standards. or other. 

Develop well-head protection 

regulations - evaluate potential 

impacts. 

Coordinate with other municipalities 

and the County. 

Enact or adopt regulations. 

Monitor compliance. 

Review, evaluale and revise 

regulations as necessary.

~ -~ 

~ 

~ 

UTII,ITI ES PLAN 


Lclorr 

Enact zoning~andor subdivision 

and hid use ordinances 

for well-head protection 

(cont.). 

-. 

PaDER 


requested. 


requesled. 


requested. 

Assist County and municipalities 

in monitoring compliance. 


requested. 

Evaluate recharge areas for 

water supply wells. 

Adam County 


guidelines for growh and assist 

in ideiitifyiiig areas needing 

protect ion. 

Assist municipalities to determine 

methods for recharge area 

protection. 


evaluation of potential impacts 


Coordinate recharge area 

protection methods among 


Assist municipalities. as requested, 

in adopting/eilacting 

regulations. 


ing compliance. 

Assist municipalities in reviewing 

success of their recharge 

area protection programs. 


Lktemiine wells and recharge 


Determine method to be used for 

protection - regulations. design 

standards. or other. 

Develop recharge area protective 

regulations, etc. - evaluate 

potential impacts. 

Coordinate with other munici- Monitor compliance. 

palities and the County. 

Review, evaluate and revise 

Enact or adopt regulations or protective measure(s) as necesother 

protective measures. w. 

PaDER 

provide technical assistance as 

requested. 


requested. 


requested. 

Assist County and municipalities 

in monitohg compliance. 

Provide technical assislance as 

requested. 

Enact water conservation 

programs. 

Ad'ams County 

Assist municipalities in determining 

appropriate water 

conservation methods. 

Assist municipalities in coordinatieg 

their water conservation 

programs. 

Assist municipalities in enacting 

or initatiiig their water conservation 

programs. 


monitoring the success of their 

water conservation programs. 

' Assist municipalities. as 

requested. in revising their 

progms. 

I- 

20

~~ 

UTILITIES PLAN 

Pulicy Statcnicnt Actors 4) 

Enact water conservation 

programs (cont.). 

Municipalities Determine appropriate methods - 

regulations, design standards, 

codes, or other measures. 

Evaluate likely impacts of 

proposed measures - coordinate 

with other municipalities. 

Enact or initiate water conscrvation 

program. 

Monitor success of lhe water 

conscrvation program. 

Review, evaluate and revise the 

program as appropriate. 

PaDER 


requested. 

Provide technical assistance ai 

requested. 


requested. 


requested. 

Evaluate need for future 

surface water reservoirs. 

Adams County 





estimates of future groundwater 

quality and availability. 

Assist municipalities in determining 

whether a reservoir is 

needed and when in the future. 

Assist muncipalities in determil 

ing the feasibility and necessity 

of one or more reservoirs. 

Assist municipalities with future 

water use projections. 


area-wide estimates of potential 

water shortages. 

Assist municipalities in identifying 

potential sites for one or 

more reservoirs. 

Assist municipalities in identifj 

ing and enacting measures for 

reserving the site(s) until 

needed. 

I 


Detennine impacts of growth 

projections. 

Evaluate the future need for 

water - residential. commercial, 

industrial, irrigation. 

iiretighting. 

Estimate the likely future 

availability of adequate quality 

water supplies. 

Determine potential for water 

shortages - wordmate with 

County and other municipalities. 

Determine whether a surface 

water reservoir would be needed 

and if 60 during what time 

period. 

Identify potential sites for a 

reservoir - coordinate with 

County and other municipalities. 

Detennine the feasibility and 

necessity of a reservoir within 

Uw municipality. 

ldenlify and enact measures to 

protect and preserve the 

potential site(s) until needed. 

PaDER 


requested. 


requested. 


requested. 

Provide requested. technical assistance as 

21


Policy Stvtcmcnt 

Lct~rs 

3) 

Review and evaluate 

stormwater management 

facilities and procedures. 

Adams County 




Assist municipalities in preparing 

estimates of stormwater 

lunOff. 

Assist municipalities in evaluating 

the capacities of stormwater 

facilities. 

Assist municipalities in develop 

ing stormwater management 

programs - coordinate the 

programs. 

Assist the municipalities in 

preparing Act 167 stormwater 

management plans by watershed. 

Review. have revised as 

necessary, and approve the 

stormwater management plans 

wr Act 167. 


Determine growlh projections by 

area atid time. 

Prepare estimates of stmiwater 

rusofT in each area for the next 

ten to twenty years. 

Evaluate the capacity of the 

stormwater channels and 

facilities to handle the flow. 

Develop a program for improving 

the stormwater managemenl 

in the future; coordinate with 

county. 

Prepare stormwater manrgement 

plan(s) as per Act 167 for 

each waershed. 

Obtain approval of the 

stormwater management 

plan(s) by the County and 

PaDER 

PaDER 


requested. 

Provide technical assismice as 

requested. 


requested. 


requested. 

Review. have revised as 

necessary, and approve the 

stomwater management plans 

as per Act 167. 

Enact regulations and adopt 

programs for increased 

recycling. 

Adams County 

Assin municipalities in 

determining appropriate methods 

for increased recycling of solid 

waste. 

Assist municipalities in enacting 

or initiating their recycling 

programs. 

Assist municipalities in evaluating 

their recycling programs. 


monitoring recycling programs. 

Assist municipalities. as 

requested, in revising their 

programs. 


Determine appropriate methods 

for increased recycling of solid 

waste; ordinances, regulations. 

Evaluate likely impacts of 

proposed measures - coordinate 

with County and other municipali 

t ies. 

Enact or initiate program for 

increased recycling of residential 

and commercial solid waste. 

Monitor success of the recycling 

program. 

Review, evaluate mid revise the 

program as appropriate. 

22



4) 

Enact regulations and adopt 

programs for increased 

recycling (coni.). 

-_ 

PaDER 


requested. 


requested. 

Review and approve the recycling 

programs in accordance 

with Act 101, 

Provide perfonnance grants in 

accordance with Act 101. 

Review and approve the 

revised recycling programs in 

accordance with Act 101, 

23

ENVIRONMENTAL PR 

Policy Statmien1 

rECTlON PLAN 

iclorr 

3) 

Monitor and update invent* 

ries of environmentallysensitive 

resources. 

Prepare model regulations for 

their protection. 

Coiiduct wa~ershed studies 

focused on land development's 

effects on stormwater discharge. 

Adams County 



guidelines for growth a d assist 

in identifying areas needing 

protection. 

Determine extent of sensitive 



determiaing methats for 

resource protection. 


evaluation of potential impaccs 


Determine method to be used 

for protection - regulations. 

design standards. or other. 

Develop resource proteaio0 

regulations. evaluate potential 

impacts. 

Coordinate resource protection 

methods among the municipalities. 

Assist municipalities, as 

requested, in adoptinglenacting 

regulations. 

Coordinate with other municipalities 

and the County. 

EMCI or adopt regulations. 


monitoring compliance. 


reviewing success of their 

protection programs. 

Monitor compliance. 

bview, evaluate and revise the 

rgulations as necessary. 

PaDER 


requested. 


requested. 


requested. 

Assist County and municipali. 

ties in monitoring compliance 

Provide technical assistance a 

requested. 

24

APPENDIX 1 

I 

1 

Peak Hour Turning Movements - Selected Adam Cou nty Road Corridors 

August 1990 

I 

I 

I

I 

n 

1 

-ZE8 

t 

0 

W 

0 

61 3lMtlw 

ul 

1 

+zz - 

t 

2 

ul 

. 

v) 

3 

i < 

Itf 

mor -h - 

m 

eE- 

6mnw eoi 

1 

Wv: 

ma 

ora 

-2s1 J1 

eed 

m N 

1 

t 

li, 

N m 

1 

* 

he4 

NmQ 

i 

N 

ha 

U I. 

a 

1 

7tf 

hi& 

t- m 

t 

8

0 

E ,# .,,C . 2.. S % % L 

Pa Route 116 

Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

I t Orlh.Ro@er &A I ,k 

LEGEND: 

- EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

0 - EXISTING TRAFFIC CIRCLE 

Figure A-2

Littlestown Community 

Evenlng Peak Hour Trafflc Volumes 

C 207 

ROUTE 97 

BALTIMORE PIKE 447 + 34 44' 

1033 

bf9 

fS 

613- 382 * 

$317 

3f 

87 

c 

425 4 

LEGEND: 

- EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

4 

(Y 

1 

fuure A-3 

W

Pa Route 97 

Evening Peak Hour Traffic WlUmOS 

,4 

LA, E) 

114 mile 

* 

Ot f- t 34 

f g31 t 365 

t 

Figure A-4

W 

0 

1 

0 r12miles * 3 miles 5 314 miles 

Pa Route 234 


t 16 

c 4 

t13 -33 

'rtr 77- 

Wtl- 

" 

Ql 

N 

m 

1 

t 

5 

9 

(Y 

st 

1% 

m 

LEOEND: 

I)[ - EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

W 

1 

t 

6 e 

Y 

3 

P 

Figure A-5


Evenlng Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Figure A-8

clll G t c 

Orlh Rodger$& Associales. Inc 

wcwlv 

Pa Route 94 

. sir imwmw 


t 

a 

LEGEND: 

II[ - EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL

F 

6 

ma 

(D 

N 

1 

3 miles 

Il 

Pa Route 194 


LEGEND: 

)[ - EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

0 - EXISTING TRAFFIC CIRCLE 

t 46 

150 

c 39 

ltf 

-(Dmzm 

c235 

221- 

r 

r 

N 

1 

Figure A-8

U.S. Route Route 15 


158 SL 

1604 844 

0 ° 7 

c148 

fl -149 

t 3 

e 6 3 

C 00 

OLDROUTE 15 

EMMETSBURG ROAD 

82 I+ 

Ffgure A-9

Other Locat ions 

Evenlng Peak Hour 

c 31 

t 2 

t 26 

4-1 c 28 LATIMORE VALLEY 

66 + ROAD 

9tf 

NCIZ 

I. 

1 

Figure A- 10

1 - E-Library

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?