Home   41 Valley  Board of Directors    Educational Events  Donate  Farm Tours

Superior Growers  *** Superior Growers has filed an appeal!!!   Follow the appeal chronology here
In 2008, a conditional use application was submitted by Superior Grower LP (Wayne DiFrancesco, Manager) for a 150 acre substrate production operation at 184 W. London Grove Road in London Grove Township.  The operation proposed the following:

• 40 paved acres of the prime agricultural soils
  

• Re-grading of most of the site to accommodate the buildings and wharfs
  

• Acres of septic fields, storm water basins, and spray area to absorb the sewage and runoff required for the operation  
  

• 98 mushroom growing houses
  

• Twelve and a half acres of substrate production wharf
  

• Employee housing
  

• Truck repair terminal
  

• Parking for 153 cars
  

• Spray field 
  

• One hundred-seventy large trucks per day will be clogging West London Grove Road’s 18 foot-wide cart way
  

• Air quality issues (at least a 2 mile radius around the composting site)
  

• Noise and vibrations from the trucks, loaders, and turners at all hours  
  

• Adjacent to planned new community park
  

Summary of the TWP Hearings

October 31, 2008: Superior Growers, LP of 184 West London Grove Road, West Grove, Pa submitted a Conditional Use Application to London Grove Township. Superior Growers listed White Horse Realty Investments, LLC as the General Partner and Wayne DiFrancesco as the manager.  The application proposed a mushroom growing and substrate preparation facility on 116 acres of land (parcels 59-4-18 & 59-5-3.5-35.1) located on the west side of Chatham road, the south side of West London Grove Road, and the east side of North Guernsey Road south of Route 41. The application included a schematic plan sheet and a cover sheet plus feasibility statements for water, sewage and storm water, and a traffic report.  The proposed use was intensive agriculture, which was a use by right for the mushroom growing facilities, but required conditional use because the substrate wharf was more than 1.25 acres. The plan includes 98 mushroom growing houses, 12.5 acres of substrate production wharf, an office building, employee housing, a truck repair terminal, parking for 153 and a spray field.

November 10, 2008: London Grove Township passed amendments to the zoning ordinance that created a Groundwater Protection District (GPD) where Intensive agriculture is no longer permitted.  In general the GPD consists of area underlain by the Cockeysville Marble Formation. Beyond the GPD, intensive agriculture is now a conditional use in the agricultural preservation zone.

January 12, 2009: the first hearing for Wayne DiFrancesco’s Conditional Use submission occurred at the London Grove Township Building at 7 PM.  Daniel Williams, Don D’Amico, Lou Kaplan, Denis Newbold, Harold Woodward, and Peter Scholbach (representing CFACE) were entered as parties to the hearings. Ben Webber, a licensed professional engineer for Lake Roeder Hillard & Associates testified as to the feasibility of the proposed use for the site. He said there was enough water and land for adequate storm water and sewage facilities though working out specifics would be determined during Land Development.  Mr. Webber presented area and bulk percentages that were within the ordinance limits, and spoke to the ordinance’s requirements for Conditional Uses and to the Township engineer’s letter dated January 6. The Supervisors and people in the audience questioned Mr. Webber.  After the meeting was adjourned, Wayne DiFrancesco’s lawyer indicated that in the next hearing, they would have a traffic expert speak and a person explaining the operations of the mushroom development.

January 14, 2009: The Board of Supervisors voted to hire a lawyer to represent the township manager in the Conditional Use hearings for DiFrancesco’s proposal. 

January 29, 2009: The second hearing was continued because Wayne DiFrancesco’s lawyer issued concerns about conflicts of interest for George Cook and two of the supervisors.  Apparently the concerns arose late in the afternoon and could not be resolved before the beginning of the hearing.  The hearing was rescheduled February 10, at 7PM at the Township Building.

February 10, 2009: The second hearing for Wayne DiFrancesco’s Conditional Use submission, held at the London Grove Township building, was called to order shortly after 7 p.m.  In addition to the applicant’s lawyer, two other lawyers were present and introduced themselves:  Dwight Yoder - representing CFACE, and Steven Haan, representing the Township.   The potential conflicts of interest that caused the continuation of January 29th’s hearing were addressed and resulted in no Board members being recused from the proceedings.  The evening’s testimony was given by John Seitz, the traffic engineer for Wayne DiFrancesco’s proposed facility.  His testimony related to a Traffic Assessment that was performed.  He stated that there would be 2 entrances to the proposed facility, one off of N. Guernsey Rd., and one off of W. London Grove Rd.  He further testified to peak hour and trip generation figures, that no left or right turn lanes would be required and that at this point a Traffic Assessment and not a Traffic Impact Study had been performed. 

Dwight Yoder, CFACE lawyer, was the first to question Mr. Seitz and did so extensively.  He ask many questions concerning the data used to compute site trips, the other operations that were observed, and presented photographs depicting 2 vehicles passing in opposite directions on W. London Grove Rd (one vehicle a dump truck typical of those used in the proposed operation).  Steven Haan, lawyer for the Township, followed up with questions including the ideal road width for typical trucks used in the proposed facility, turning distances, truck weights, and if surrounding intersections had been studied.  The Board members then questioned Mr. Seitz and were also interested in the other operations that were used as reference for the Assessment, given the scale of the proposed facility.  Mr. Yoder had a few more questions regarding pedestrian safety around such a facility.  A few citizens’ questions were then addressed and the next hearing date was scheduled. 

March 19, 2009: About 100 people attended the fourth conditional-use hearing for the Superior Grower LLP plan to develop a mushroom growing and substrate production operation at White Horse Farm off West London Grove Road.

Project engineer Benton Webber answered questions from attorneys for the township, CFACE and from residents including those with party status. Mr. DiFrancesco said he would testify during the next conditional-use hearing.

Under questioning, Mr. Webber said many facts about the Superior Growers proposal had been culled from two previous mushroom farm proposals, at Dubosq Farm and Needham Farms. Neither project has been built.  There appeared to be a minimum of site-specific design with most standards drawn from these other projects that were not fully engineered or built.

Under the township's ordinance, Mr. Hann, the township lawyer said that the applicant must show by a fair preponderance of evidence that the proposal will not be contrary to the public's safety, health and welfare.  Essentially Mr. Webber argued that by guaranteeing that they would adhere to all regulations, they would be meeting all the requirements for health safety and welfare.

At the end of the hearing, Mr. DiFrancesco asked if the township engineer and zoning officer could meet with them to go over any "gray areas." But Mr. Hann and Mr. Yoder said that would be inappropriate. "We're in the middle of hearing the applicant, who is trying to demonstrate compliance with the ordinance. I'm not sure this is an appropriate time that township people should be doing the applicant's homework," Mr. Hann said.  He went on to state that the homework should have been done before the application was submitted.  If the applicants need more information, they should withdraw their application, get that information, and resubmit their application.

The next hearing was slated to continue April 16 with Mr. DiFrancesco testifying on the operations in the development.

April 16, 2009: The meeting began with the applicant’s engineer being further questioned about the Superior Growers’ site plan. The engineer’s firm created the previously submitted 41 Valley Associates plan and much of the data used for this Superior Growers plan was derived from that plan.  The Township’s lawyer, Board members, and the CFACE lawyer asked the engineer questions in an effort to determine how much work has been done specifically related to the proposed site and how much was taken directly from the original 41 Valley Associates plan. Mr. Dwight Yoder, lawyer for CFACE, questioned the proposed water usage amounts included in the submitted plan for Superior Growers.  An excerpt of testimony from the 41 Valley Associates application was read that quantified water usage for such a facility approximating 1 million gallons per week.  Mr. Yoder asked, considering the proposed plan was derived from the 41 Valley Associates plan and given the size of the proposed facility, if 52 million gallons of water per year would be a reasonable estimate of water usage.  The engineer who had estimated 4 million gallons per year replied that he could not answer.

The applicant, Wayne DeFrancesco, was next to testify regarding Superior Growers operations.  He began by stating his background information, which included various real estate endeavors.  He also characterized himself as a farmer and stated that his farming operations, which include raising cattle and growing hay and wheat, have never been profitable.  The applicant referenced changes made in the township zoning ordinances that he felt has negatively impacted the value of his land. He offered an opinion that 10-acre residential lots are too small for farms and too big for lawns.  Regarding the mushroom business, he admitted to having little experience and stated that it was his intention to either have a partner or otherwise work with someone who had more experience in the business. The proposed mushroom and substrate production development is an effort to “unlock” the value of his land.

The applicant’s lawyer posed operational questions related to the proposed facility to Mr. DiFrancesco. He replied that it would be a 24 hour, 7 day a week operation. Lights would be operated at all times. Tractor trailer trucks would be coming and going at all times.  At many times during the course of operational questioning, Mr. DiFrancesco read his answers directly from papers he held.  Both the Township lawyer and the CFACE lawyer objected to this.  The applicant was required to put the papers aside.  He stated that he looked forward to producing record quantities of succulent mushrooms.  When asked by his lawyer if the proposed facility would detract from the surrounding neighborhood, he replied that the area has undergone changes - suggesting these changes were contributing to a downturn in the area, and mentioned the proposed recreation park for West London Grove Road.  He also replied that his proposed mushroom and compost facility would be an asset to the community. 

The conditional-use hearing was then continued until April 30th at 7 pm.  At that time, attorneys for the township, CFACE and interested parties will be able to further question DiFrancesco.

April 30, 2009:  As with previous hearings on this issue the room was filled with interested township citizens.  This hearing consisted of cross-examination of Wayne DiFrancesco by CFACE lawyer, Dwight Yoder, and township special lawyer for this case, Steven Hahn.  The questions reviewed Mr. DiFrancesco’s previous testimony and that of his engineer, Benton Webber, as well as details of the mushroom operation proposed in the application for conditional use of his land along West London Grove Road.  Although both engineers previously testifying had deferred questions on the operations to be answered by Mr. DiFrancesco, to answer many questions during the course of this hearing Mr. DiFrancesco said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember.

When re-questioned on the nature of his business and experience, Mr. DiFrancesco called himself a farmer and investor, not a real estate developer, although he previously proposed to build cluster housing on this same 116 acres (this proposal was denied due to it not meeting the township ten acre zoning on agricultural preservation).  As to whether he has ever run a mushroom operation the answer was “no”, but in the last ten years he has worked half a dozen times at friends’ operations helping to prepare substrate, watering materials and occasionally picking mushrooms.  He said in the last five years he had also attended seminars on substrate preparation in West Chester.  He stated he will follow the recommendations in “The Manual for Best Practices for Mushroom Farms”, the Penn State manual on odor control. He presently has no plans to amend the plan, cover the composting portion of the property or add high tech methods to the proposal.  

Exhibits in evidence were re-examined, in particular the 2008 documents dating the creation of Superior Growers on Oct. 30th one day before submission of the conditional use application, which also fell a week and a half before the township reviewed the zoning ordinance change on Nov. 10th.   The actual lease for Superior Growers, in which DiFrancesco is principal, and himself as owner of the property is dated January 2009.  When asked if he felt the zoning didn’t apply to him, his lawyer, Don D’Amico advised him “not to say”.  Asked when the operation was planned to be built and running the answer was “soon after approval”.

The 41 Valley mushroom composing operation proposed on 150 acres on North Guernsey Road in 2003 had water usage estimated at one million gallons per week.  In previous testimony the estimated water usage given by engineer Webber was 100,000 gallons per week for Superior Growers, yet Mr. DiFrancesco did not question the discrepancy nor ask the engineer to check this.  The number of wells required for this proposed use is not known.  Runoff is supposed to go into two tanks and water would be recycled; there are no lagoons proposed.  On recharging of ground water by runoff Mr. DiFrancecso was vague.  The geology and effect on ground water has not been studied.  There was no discussion of nitrates with the engineer.

Mr. DiFrancesco again confirmed that the operation will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Difrancesco did not know how many employees would be employed.  The number of employees in the application were developed by the engineer based on other mushroom operations.  Some employees will be working on site at night.  Employee housing, along with 134 parking spaces, and septic and water facilities would be built according to Department of Agriculture regulations. 

At this time Mr. DiFrancesco has had no research done on traffic, nor does he know how many trucks or heavy equipment there will be.  There are 19 truck parking spaces and a truck repair terminal also operating at night.  But regarding traffic on the roads, Mr. DiFrancesco stated that due to town regulation High Tech will no longer be running their trucks on Guernsey Road, so there will be less traffic.  Mr. Difranceso stated that it takes three to five truckloads per double house per fill for the 98 double houses, plus trucks bringing in hay and substrate materials and taking out spent soil, possibly at night as well as in the daytime. 

The next hearing continues on May 21st at 7 pm.  The attorneys for CFACE and the township will continue to cross-examine Mr. DiFrancesco.

May 21, 2009: This hearing continued with cross-examination of Wayne DiFrancesco by CFACE attorney, Dwight Yoder, and township attorney, Steven Hahn, as well as questions from members of the township Board of Supervisors and a couple registered interested parties, with a rebuttal by Mr. DiFrancesco’s  lawyer Mr. D’Amico.  The focus of most questioning was on water use, truck traffic, management of runoff of leachable material and covering of chicken manure, and time of day and extent of operations. 

At this meeting supporters of CFACE quietly held protest signs that were objected to by Mr. DiFrancesco’s lawyer although the Board spokesman stated that the Board was “mature enough to handle a few signs” and the township counsel said it was a Second Amendment issue.  Signs were later put away but had been noted by a reporter for the Avon Grove Sun who attended the meeting.

Figures for water usage were reviewed.  Mr. Yoder referred to a document submitted by the applicant referencing 300-250 gal/day water use per mushroom house.  Another figure submitted indicated 9000 gal/day for residence and mushroom house use; this was said to be a clerical error.  This figure should read to include water for substrate preparation.  Mr. DiFrancesco said part of the water would be from rain collection and part from recycling and the numbers were based on experience, although he again answered that he had never run a mushroom operation, and it was a reasonable estimate.  He said the water usage figure of 1,000,000 gal/week from the 41 Valley Associates application in 2003 is too much.  Finally he came up with an estimate of approximately 100,000 gal/week for substrate preparation. 

Township Board member Mr. Bordas asked about delivery trucks also removing spent soil receiving an answer there may be separate trucks for these jobs. Being told that hay storage would not be paved, he inquired how storm water would be addressed on compacted ground and was referred to the two water storage tanks.  Supervisor Nelson asked if chicken fecal matter would be used for substrate and if Mr. DiFrancesco was aware that it contains E. Coli and other hazardous bacteria; Mr. Difrancesco referred to the use of methods described in “Best Practices” manual regarding chicken manure.  Production of methane was raised but Mr. DiFrancesco said the operation was not large enough and the material was turned over too quickly for this to be an issue.  Supervisor Eckard revisited the number of employees unsuccessfully, but then found out that the substrate produced might also be sold.  Supervisor Vanella asked if DiFrancesco had considered the impact of the operation on the area. The answer was that the township has determined that it is appropriate by zoning for it.  Areas of buffer on the map of the proposed operation were reviewed as needing to be extended across from all residences and DiFrancesco said he would comply with ordinances.

Supervisor Kaplan also questioned temporary storage of spent soil and controlling odors.  After referring again to following the “Best Practices” manual on odors, Mr. DiFrancesco testified that the odors come from the substrate preparation and mushroom houses, but that the township has a hotline for odor complaints and other mushroom growers have not had complaints. Interested party Wick Williams asked if all leachable materials would be covered.  Mr. DiFrancesco said it was not feasible to cover all substrate operation and only chicken litter would be covered.  How materials would be covered was not known. 

Mr. D’Amico revisited the dates of documents raised at the last hearing, notably that Superior Growers was formed prior to the application and that DiFrancesco is the sole owner, giving permission to himself to use his own property. 

Dwight Yoder further pursued the type of equipment that would be used in the operation, including showing photocopies from the mushroom operation manuals.  All attempts received “I don’t know” answers, and when asked if he was testifying that he didn’t know how the operation would be run, Mr. DiFrancesco said he answered to the best of his ability. Mr. Yoder asked if there was room for two compost trucks to pass at posted speed on North Guernsey and West London Grove Road.  DiFrancesco said the roads were already so used and adequate but not ideal.  Responding to whether material would be moved by trucks or heavy equipment between substrate areas and mushroom houses at night, he said it might happen.  At first he said substrate movement would not occur between 6pm and 6am and not on Sunday, but then changed to say contractors might need to work at 5am or even 3am.   

The next hearing date is June 11th at 7pm at which time the CFACE and town attorneys will call witnesses for testimony.

July 16, 2009: This hearing was devoted to questions posed to London Grove Township civil engineer, Tony Severino, by township attorney Steven Haan.  Mr. Severino’s background is in municipal engineering, including review of local ordinances, construction and field installations review, and in particular review of storm water maintenance and recharging of aquifers.    It is his job as a neutral party to review applications for conditional use for London Grove Township and attend all township planning committee meetings.  He has attended most of the Superior Growers hearings and reviewed all the transcripts.  As part of his review he normally visits the sites of the proposed operation but in this case, access  to the property was denied twice by the owner.

The township ordinances relevant to this application were reviewed in detail:  all parts of ordinances 2107, 2209, 301, 302, and article 23.  These ordinances specify what should be included with the application, requirements for mushroom substrate preparation, impact on neighboring community, various pollution control defined, water usage and maintenance, and traffic impact.  It was noted that the plan does not provide adequate buffering all around the property, and in particular the water usage and maintenance is unclear.   Mr. Severino concluded that the application is less complete than normal applications. He went on to say that the burden of proof is on the applicant and this application does not provide adequate proof of compliance and promise of future compliance does not meet the burden of proof.   He stated that the plan did not meet the “spirit, purpose and intent “of the ordinances protecting the health, safety, welfare and quality of the community.  He stated that this large operation proposed is not in character with the area.

September 17, 2009: The hearing was continued because Mr. DiFrancesco and his lawyer argued that they did not get the transcript from the last hearing soon enough to prepare adequately. The hearing will be continued to October 8, 2009.

October 8, 2009:  This hearing continued with cross-examination of the Township traffic engineer, Mr. _____, by township attorney, Steven Hahn and Mr. Difrancesco’s attorney, Mr. D’Amico.  Mr. ____ stated that the width of a roadway posted as 50 mph should be 10 ft wide with a 2 ft shoulder, for a total of 24 ft wide. The actual width of West London Grove Rd. is 16 ft wide. The road would require improvements to accommodate increased truck traffic. The traffic engineer testified that since the speed limit is not posted on West London Grove Rd., the PennDOT manual was used to determine the speed limit. The applicant should have assumed a speed limit of 55 mph, not 25 mph. Mr. ____ stated that since the applicant proposed not to use West London Grove Rd., an alternate route study should have been conducted. If a restriction on West London Grove Rd. was to be put into place, it would be up to the State Police to enforce that restriction.  The township traffic engineer admitted that he was not confident that West London Grove Rd. would not be used by truck drivers anyway and that a restriction on use of the road would likely not be enforced by the police.

The township called Mr. _____, a civil engineer from URS Corporation, with background in municipal waste for water and sewer. Testimony indicated that the application did not include a description of how sewage would be treated on the property; the application only states that “on-site disposal” would be used. Requirements for the application ask that the proposed sewage treatment be “safe, efficient and permanent”; the application does not address this requirement. The township’s Act 537 Plan indicates that for this property, the preferred sewage treatment method would be lagoon and spray irrigation, which for this proposed use would require between 2-4 acres, according to Mr. _____. The application alluded to the use of holding tanks, but this would not adhere to the township’s Act 537 plan or PA Dept. of Environmental Protection guidance. The applicant is required to show that the preferred method (lagoon and spray irrigation) is not feasible. If demonstrated, holding tanks could be used, but a demonstration of feasibility would also be required. The township civil engineer indicated that none of these requirements have been fulfilled by the applicant.

Public comments were then welcomed from the audience.  Only two members from the audience chose to stand up: Mr. Wick Williams and Mr. Tom Houghton.

Mr. Wick Williams read the following statement on behalf of all CFACE supporters, “We would like to applaud the patience and seriousness that the board of supervisors has exercised in giving this applicant his right to submit this application. The hearings have been long; you have listened; and you have been consistent with the requirements of the law.  That said the members of CFACE are unified in believing that this application has been a dangerous abuse of the conditional use process outlined in our ordinance.  A great deal of our time, money, and effort in addition to the townships time and the taxpayers dollars have been spent to hear this lame,  half baked attempt at a development  that makes little sense.  We have been convinced by the testimony that the applicant has little interest in growing mushrooms. Yet he persists, and that appears to be his right. After this is over we hope to work with the township to reduce the possibility of such waste ever occurring again.  Thank you for your attention and your diligence.”

Mr. Tom Houghton gave the Board of Supervisors and hearing attendees as briefing on the Right to Farm Law and how it could be used to control composting. Mr. Houghton indicated that the Right to Farm Law would not likely be opened up to restrict substrate preparation and/or composting. Mr. Houghton did say that the township could restrict these activities by passing an ordinance requiring state of the art technology to be used. If the application was to be approved, the township could then include these technology requirements in the conditions set forth in the approval.

Superior Growers Verdict